(Article from Journal 2022/04 Vol140 Pt2)

2022 started with a flurry of activity as the PWI prepared its response to the Great British Railways Transition Team’s (GBRTT’s) call for evidence to inform an intended Whole Industry Strategic Plan, also known as the WISP or Strategic Plan. With a submission deadline of 4 February, the timescale for assembling responses to GBRTT’s questions was undoubtedly tight. Fortunately, a ‘shout out’ to Institution Fellows brought a wealth of experience and knowledge to bear on the task. After what felt like (but wasn’t!) a near continuous run of online discussions and meetings from late December to late January, and a decision to focus on those questions with direct application to infrastructure and engineering, comprehensive responses were made on the PWI’s behalf to three of GBRTT’s six questions.

I can’t thank enough the 30+ Fellows who volunteered and participated in this exercise, and particularly the three Fellows who each took on the role of principal editor for one of the questions; Michelle Nolan-McSweeney, Richard H Brown, and Joan Heery. The Fellows’ highly active participation enabled the PWI to draw on engineering, organisational, logistical, commercial, and business management experience stretching from the 1960s to the present day, and from a wide range of perspectives. I confess that at the outset I was a little worried that this range of experience might make consensus difficult to achieve and that individual Fellows’ conclusions might differ, perhaps even violently! In the event my fears were groundless and, whilst a variety of opinions were offered and some serious discussions ensued, differences turned out to be more apparent than real, and largely related to tone rather than substantive content.

THE QUESTIONS WE ANSWERED

GBRTT framed its questions with reference to the UK government’s five 30-year strategic objectives for the rail industry. These industry objectives are:

1. meeting customers’ needs;
2. delivering financial sustainability;
3. contributing to long-term economic growth;
4. levelling up and connectivity, and;
5. delivering environmental sustainability.

The 3 questions answered by the PWI were set around:

• application and delivery of the five strategic objectives in the context of likely societal, economic, and environmental trends, in a way that both better integrates rail transport into the UK’s overall transport system, and is resilient to key uncertainties (question 1);

• delivery of financial sustainability (question 3), and;
  
• delivery of environmental sustainability (question 6).

The form and nature of the PWI’s responses meant that, while each answer looked at the requested 5, 10, and 30 year time horizons, specific answers were not made against each horizon.

WHAT WE SAID

You can read the extensive PWI responses to the GBRTT call on our website at www.thepwi.org/gbrtt/ However, a number of common themes related to railway transport and GBR itself permeated all three answers and I thought it would be helpful to summarise here some of the themes that I thought particularly important.

ROLE OF RAILWAY TRANSPORT

The stable environmental and social assumptions that have underpinned Britain’s approach to railway transport over the last 60 to 70 years are changing rapidly (as they must if the human race is to avoid global catastrophe). Much of the current UK railway network provides excellent connectivity and is in good physical condition but it is largely the result of the judicious pruning of the jumble of competing 19th century lines, carried out in the 1960s and 70s to suit the economic and social circumstances then prevailing. The nation’s infrastructure, industry, social fabric, and transport requirements have changed dramatically since that time, but the shape of our railway network remains now largely as it was then. Whilst acknowledging capital funding constraints, it would be unwise to presume that the network and its current patterns of service are best-tailored to future transport demands.

With regard to integrating transport, GBR should look at the provision of network-wide journey opportunities, including time-efficient connections and easy transfers between rail and other public transport modes, rather than primarily focussing on ‘in-franchise’ origin-destination journeys. GBR should engage with efforts to develop integrated timetabling and ticketing between bus, tram, and train networks, so modes collaborate to offer attractive, seamless journey opportunities.

VALUE OF RAILWAY TRANSPORT

The financial sustainability of Britain’s national railway network is a function of:

• industry revenues arising directly from providing transport services;

• social and environmental value of the industry’s activities, funded by various arms of national, regional, and local government, and;

• industry costs.

Some social value models exist however the overall economic and social value of Britain’s railway transport industry remains an under-explored area. A recent Railway Industry Association estimate suggests that rail transport accounts for around £12 bn of national economic production. However, that figure does not include evaluations of the social, economic, and environmental value delivered outside the railway industry. GBR must understand its direct revenues and costs, but it is imperative that it also develops its own understanding of the broader social and economic value which rail transport brings to the nation.

GBR must also employ a consistent methodology to assess and prioritise expenditure and investment on a “whole industry, whole life” basis, including placing financial value on sustainability and the reduction of CO2e emissions. Parallels with the highly successful 1988-94 industry work on the prioritisation of investment in safety initiatives could be helpful.

SUSTAINABILITY AND NET ZERO

The Network Rail Environment Strategy 2020-2050 provides a sound basis from which to develop an equivalent whole industry strategy. Adaptation to improve resilience to climate change will be an important ongoing priority workstream, including the early development of ‘interim adaptation pathways’ to guide remedial work and investment in the period to 2029, when longer term strategies and investment plans are forecast to be available.

In-career education and development of personal competence are critical to delivering a sustainable railway system. Complementing this, areas of technology which have significant potential to reduce the rail sector’s impact on the environment and enhance biodiversity are:

• whole life carbon evaluation, influencing asset design, materials, and construction;

• asset life extension and reuse of materials;

• application of ‘big data’ techniques to predictive maintenance;

• green energy supply and sustainable local power generation;

• water re-use;

• intelligent vegetation management, and;

• traction electrification.

MODAL SHIFT

Potentially the railway industry’s biggest medium term contribution to decarbonisation, GBR
must develop agility in the development and implementation of projects facilitating modal shift. Facilities for intermodal freight are an obvious priority from both modal shift and industry revenue perspectives. GBR should also work with National Highways and academia to develop an analytical tool set to understand the true modal shift effects of options for passenger travel service design and provision. This should also be capable of assessing and quantifying the social and environmental value of the railway network and services, including valuing reductions (or increases) in carbon emissions.

THE BUSINESS OF RAILWAYS – CHALLENGE AND COST MANAGEMENT

If GBR is to be successful it must foster a comprehensive “value for money” culture and establish a clear line of sight between industry revenue streams and their associated costs. Recognising that the evolution to ever greater efficiency is a “whole business – long-term project”, it must build organisational arrangements that facilitate and legitimise internal informed challenge, streamline business processes, and eliminate activities that don’t add real value.

Suggested areas where efficiencies might be gained include:

• work programmes, which wherever possible should be set up on a rolling basis with stable work volumes;

• utilisation of the on track machine fleet, particularly in the integration of delivery of renewals-related and maintenance-related work;

• increasing the recovery of materials for cascade and reuse by revising the associated controls, incentives, and capacity;

• reviewing the engineering access regime (possession strategy) to ensure it is delivering whole-industry best value, rather than lowest engineering cost;

• incentivising the identification of low risk/high benefit opportunities for standards change and developing these independently of specific projects, and;

• devising slicker arrangements for pulling fundamental scientific research up through technological readiness levels and into practical solutions to drive further cost and carbon efficiencies.

GBR CAPABILITIES AND PEOPLE

GBR faces the challenge of managing Britain’s railway network through a period of change almost unprecedented in modern history. It will integrate the major components of the whole railway, and this will inevitably create tensions where available funding constrains costs and thus affordable work. GBR can create a unified “railway industry” ethos and team culture which pursues cost effectiveness and optimises revenue and social value added. It can incentivise the industry to develop the flexibility necessary to adapt service provision more rapidly to post-covid and Net Zero transport demand patterns.

From a project management perspective, the objectives and targets for GBR set out by government and the industry itself appear stretching and ambitious. Their delivery will depend critically on the prioritised application of funding and other resources, and their integration into the detail of general business processes and activities.

GBR has an opportunity (as an integrated railway operator) to fully understand and manage project and network risk, and to assess the value of holding more contractual and project risks itself. In this regard it should prioritise the development, support, and retention of competent experienced people to maintain “informed client” capability in strength and depth. Resource sharing with staff crossing from one team to another as workloads fluctuate can be used to broaden staff experience and capability in the totality of railway management, and close engagement with professional bodies can be used to enhance workforce competence and capability.

GBR must understand the factors likely to drive changes in government policy, have the capability to work collaboratively with government in policy development, and be able to respond rapidly and knowledgeably to policy changes as they emerge. Its plans for financial sustainability should dovetail with national and devolved governments’ strategies intended to deliver the UK’s 2030 and 2050 decarbonisation objectives – and GBR should be able to demonstrate how its plans deliver reduced transport emissions at national and regional level.

WHAT NEXT?

The PWI will continue to support the establishment of GBR; a process dependent on the passing of parliamentary (primary) legislation. Realistically it is unlikely that GBR will come into being before 2024, but we’ll keep Members updated on progress. In the meantime, I’d be interested in your thoughts on GBR and the PWI’s contribution so far.