ICE Fellow Jonathan Spruce assesses the Transport Select Committee’s proposals to end “boom and bust” cycles in UK rail investment.
The outlook in the rail industry is “the worst it has been for several years”, according to evidence gathered by the UK Parliament’s Transport Select Committee.
Despite major projects like High Speed 2 (HS2), the Transpennine Route Upgrade (TRU), and Northern Powerhouse Rail, the supply chain faces an uncertain future of investment “cliff edges”.
So, what needs to change?
When I spoke to the committee last year, I emphasised three things: certainty, stability, and the wider outcomes from rail investment than just transport alone.
The committee has now published its final report and it’s encouraging that its recommendations reflect these themes.
First and foremost, we need genuine long-term planning.
The committee acknowledges that a detailed, fixed pipeline lasting decades is unrealistic.
But more stability is possible. This will boost confidence in the supply chain, giving companies more certainty to invest in skills, capacity, and innovation.
Spending needs to be “steady, carefully sequenced and clearly communicated” to reduce delivery costs and achieve the best outcomes for passengers and the economy.
More certainty will also boost private sector investment in the railways.
Indeed, the committee wants more clarity from the government on where the private sector and devolved authorities could best contribute funding to rail improvements.
In my evidence, I used the TRU to highlight what this can mean for local communities.
The programme aims to provide 8,000 jobs, with 80% recruited within 40 miles of the route. The figure at the time was already at 85%.
It also aims to spend at least 25% of its budget with local businesses, boosting local economies along the route.
And the project wants a third of its supply chain to be via SMEs, micro businesses, and voluntary sector organisations.
The way to address many of these issues will be through the Long Term Rail Strategy (LTRS), promised in the government’s Railways Bill.
The committee rightly says that a consistent strategic vision of what the railway is for and how it will contribute to the government’s priorities is “essential”.
To that end, it wants the LTRS to provide “stable scaffolding” by setting out:
Projects in the next rail network enhancements pipeline (RNEP) should clearly and closely align with the strategic objectives set out in the LTRS.
As I said in my evidence, the RNEP hasn’t been updated for several years.
The committee wants it to be revamped with annual updates and a five-year period of certainty over projects.
The Department for Transport should also clarify how the RNEP relates to the revamped UK Infrastructure Pipeline and where industry should look for the latest and most detailed information.
More broadly, the government will publish an Integrated National Transport Strategy for England (INTS) this year – something the ICE has long called for.
We believe the INTS should define the government’s overall vision for transport, so that the LTRS, RNEP, and other transport plans align with each other and with the overarching 10 Year Infrastructure Strategy.
None of this will be possible unless we can achieve more “long-term consensus” across political parties and successive governments about which investments to prioritise – and follow through on those decisions.
To help, the committee says the LTRS should have a timescale of at least 30 years and mechanisms to protect it from unnecessary or radical changes of direction.
That means any significant amendments to the LTRS should require formal consultation with industry and Parliament.
The secretary of state for transport should present the strategy to Parliament when it’s first published and again when it undergoes any important changes.
The committee also wants the government to protect Great British Railways (GBR) – which will be responsible from delivering the LTRS – from micromanagement.
The government should be clear about how much autonomy GBR will have to plan rail enhancements.
And current and future politicians who oversee GBR should exercise “self-restraint” to resist tinkering with pipelines to satisfy short-term goals.
Speaking to the committee, I was keen to stress that there are wider outcomes to a realistic and deliverable rail investment programme than just transport alone.
For me, it’s about the future.
If we can attract young people into engineering and leave a sustainable, low-carbon footprint from the infrastructure they deliver, I think that’s a good outcome.
By setting out its strategic vision and a clear pipeline of investment, the government can help make that happen.
The Scottish Borders Railway shows that you can meet user needs without having to build new every time – and lower carbon emissions in the process.
With a stronger focus on people, the UK’s new transport strategy is off to a good start, writes John Pelton MBE.
There’s much to welcome in the long-awaited third road investment strategy, writes former National Highways CEO Graham Dalton – but plenty to worry about, too.
