New year, new decade, same uncertainties
As we stand at the gate of the year thought it would be appropriate to review, and preview, the key issues which believe will preoccupy the railway industry over the coming 12 months. A year ago in this column noted that 2018 had been a turbulent year on pretty well every front and that 2019 seemed set to be even bumpier. Much the same applies to 2020, but there are some positives and opportunities to be grasped if, in between the frantic bailing, the leaders of the industry can look to windward.
DECARBONISATION – CARPE DIEM
Modern Railways was covering the implications of climate change long before Rail Minister Jo Johnson launched his aspiration to ‘remove all diesel-only trains’ by 2040.
Jo-Jo’s end was to reduce emissions. But other than a gross figure, neither he, nor the Department for Transport apparatchiks who presumably provided the statistics, connected the aspiration to the impact of rail emissions on climate change.
As a result everyone, and the Department in particular, rushed off in all directions proposing and promoting ‘green’ traction for a two-car diesel multiple-unit running an hourly service on the outer sections of the network. This played to DfT’s (not to mention the Treasury’s) long-standing obsession with batteries and bionic duckweed as a means of avoiding electrification.
No one, it seemed, bothered to work-out where the emissions were generated. This was rectified in last month’s column.
CARBON VALUE
When electrification was mentioned, the industry itself accepted a Grade A weasel, the cut-and-paste phrase being that it was suitable for ‘intensively used lines’ This, of course, should have read ‘intensive CO2 generation lines’ The two are not necessarily synonymous.
Thus, one of the issues for 2020 will be changing the approach to prioritising and evaluating electrification schemes based on each project’s contribution to the Government’s legally binding commitment to zero net carbon by 2050. In theory, this should require putting a value on CO2 reduction.
I tried to do this last month by backwards engineering the £3,500 grant to buyers of electric cars. That analysis, when applied to Voyagers, looked promising. Sadly, however, electric car buyers get a much better deal than industrial producers of CO2 in the UK.
COAL
There are many emissions trading systems in use around the world. The Carbon Price Floor (CPF) is a UK Government policy implemented to support the EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS). It was introduced in 2013, with the aim of setting the price of carbon at a level that encouraged investment in low carbon electricity generation.
When it was introduced, the CPF was expected to rise annually, reaching £30/tonne CO2 by 2020. However, the Government lost its nerve: in the 2014 budget the CPF was capped at £18/tonne CO2 from 2016 to 2020 to limit the competitive disadvantage to UK industry and reduce energy bills for consumers. The cap was subsequently extended to 2021 in the 2016 Budget.
Rates for similar schemes range from £12/tonne CO2 for the European ETS to £55 for France, £77 for the Swiss and £107 in Sweden. Diesel traction in the UK generates around 1.3 million tonnes of CO2 a year. At CPF prices the financial value of electrification’s contribution to decarbonisation is quite small. must apologise for raising hopes last month.
PIVOT
However, this does not mean that we can’t weaponise the climate emergency to support a pivot to electrification. Modal transfer will be the key and freight should be the big opportunity.
Matching the range and performance of a 540hp diesel in a 20-tonne Heavy Goods Vehicle (HGV) tractor unit using battery or hydrogen fuel cell power will continue to challenge the laws of physics and chemistry. As last month’s table showed, not much additional electrified mileage would disproportionately increase the volume of freight hauled under the wires. And as GB Railfreight Managing Director John Smith points out, one of his trains equals 47 lorries.
I am indebted to reader Greg Tingey for adding two candidate schemes to that table (‘Forum’ this month). Both under a mile long, they would fill gaps currently requiring diesel haulage. They are the ex-Midland Railway link between Carlton Road Junction and Junction Road Junction and the ex-Great Western Railway link between Acton Wells Junction and Acton Main Line. As Mr Tingey comments, both ends of both these sections are already electrified at 25kV.
TRACTION
For freight the issue is not electrification but the traction to exploit it. At the Rail Delivery Group conference at the end of October, John Smith outlined the requirement.
While you can get electric freight locomotives with a last-mile diesel capability, such as the Stadler Eurodual Class 88, the four-axle configuration limits the diesel power to 700kW (940hp). What GB Railfreight wants is a bi-mode AC electric locomotive with the performance off the wires of, say, a Class 66. John Smith reckons that a 2,000hp diesel engine would provide sufficient power to avoid pathing problems.
With a couple more axles to spread the load, a Co-Co could meet the specification – at a price. Mr Smith quoted €6 million apiece for a 100-locomotive order with a €30 million down payment. Scope here for Government support. Meanwhile, GB Railfreight has already invested £2 million per loco on returning seven Brush Class 92 AC locomotives to running order.
SUMMARY
Looking ahead, the focus in 2020 is likely to be on changing the course of the electrification super-tanker to a rolling programme based on prioritising decarbonisation, but also taking into account air quality and the potential for modal shift. Easily said, but organising the various industry players to pursue electrification will not be easy, since, unlike Scotland, we lack a coherent transport policy-setting arm of Government.
We should keep an eye on what is happening in other transport modes. For example, EasyJet is spending up to £100 million over the next three years offsetting the carbon emissions from the fuel used on all its flights. The share price rose after this was announced. When it comes to decarbonisation rail should be promoted as part of the solution, rather than the problem implied by Jo Johnson.
Meanwhile there is an urgent requirement to keep electrification skills in being south of the border. As a delegate at the Rail Delivery Group conference pointed out, he will be out of a job next year. The first task of the incoming Transport Secretary should be to authorise the continuation northwards of the Midland main line electrification.
ACCESSIBILITY – HOPE DEFERRED
When 1 January dawns, the railway industry will have invested multiple billions on new accessible passenger vehicles, plus well north of £100 million on making ex-British Rail rolling stock compliant with the Persons with Reduced Mobility – Technical Specification for Interoperability (PRM-TSI). In parallel, the Department for Transport has spent over £500 million on its Access for All station programmes. Another £300 million of Access for All spending was authorised in 2018 covering a further 74 stations, including locations carried over from Control Period 5 (2014-19).
True, the 1 January 2020 deadline for all passenger rail vehicles to be accessible was not met, but this was due to the late delivery of new fully accessible trains. That is, of course, a reason not an excuse.
But after all this expenditure, is the disabled community appreciative of the railway’s efforts? To judge by social media, no. What an ungrateful lot! Trouble is that over the last 15 years the aspirations of disabled travellers have grown.
TURN UP
When the Disability Discrimination Act 2005 set the 2020 deadline, Mk 1 slam door stock, which was totally inaccessible, had only just been replaced. Wheelchair users had been expected to travel in the guard’s van in Mk 1s.
That wheelchair users would be able to board a rail vehicle, have a dedicated space to sit during the journey and have the use of a universal access toilet seemed a reasonable aspiration. But since then, the talk of ‘step-free access’ at stations has encouraged the desire to be able to ‘turn-up-and-go’
Faced with this latest aspiration, the railway is, to quote the late Sir Peter Parker, ‘tripping up on its interface’ yet again. The interface is the height difference between train floor and platform height.
ON THE LEVEL
Level access is not purely a disability issue. When the Docklands Light Railway was built, step-free access was part of the specification. This included level access from platform to light rail vehicle. It soon emerged that this was attracting young mothers with buggies to the new transport system.
Greater Anglia is introducing its low-floor Stadler Flirts, which provide level access with an extending plate between doorway and platform edge.
We shall soon find out the value of universal step-free access when Merseyrail introduces its new Class 777 Stadler EMUs. Around £30 million has been spent on station platforms to ensure level access.
But elsewhere on the network, the mismatch between conventional train floor heights and variations in platform height mean that wheelchair access requires a ramp. And this is challenging the ability to turn up and go, reflected in rising militancy.
HAVE YOU BOOKED?
Of course, there is the industry system where disabled travellers can book in advance for assistance at the stations to be used during their journey. The website promises:
‘If the train you want to travel on is cancelled or delayed, you will never be left stranded; train companies will do everything possible to get you to the station you wanted to get to. If you can’t access a rail replacement bus, the train company will provide an accessible alternative, such as a free taxi to the station you wanted to go to’
This simply is not true. One example during November saw a young woman marooned at a station when the booked accessible taxi was not waiting. A replacement eventually arrived in the small hours.
I have been following a number of wheelchair users on social media and their real-time reports show that booked assistance regularly fails to be in place. However, the new aspiration for turn-up-and-go is really stressing the interface.
It assumes that there will be someone at the station or on the train to put the ramp in place. In such cases, or where pre-booked assistance has not materialised, the way not to open the conversation with the passenger is ‘have you booked?’
SCOOTING AROUND
A further challenge to the interface has been the rise of the mobility scooter – that scourge of the supermarket aisles (wait ’till you need one – Ed). The Rail Vehicle Accessibility Regulations, which were superseded by the PRM-TSI, assumed a wheelchair or powered wheelchair for which there is a ‘reference design’
Mobility scooters come in a range of sizes from small folding versions, which can fit in a car boot, to road going vehicles with lights. Once on the train, scooter users may choose to use a seat, which raises the question of where to put the scooter.
According to an RSSB report, train operating companies (TOCs) have independently developed their policies on mobility scooters ‘which are a by-product of the different station/platform environments, folding ramps, station staffing protocols, and rolling stock they operate’ ISO standard reference wheelchair dimensions have been used by 17 of the 25 TOCs as the basis of their policy.
Some TOCs specify additional criteria such as laden weight, height, ramp-climbing ability, wheel configuration, and turning circle. At the time of the report (December 2017) there were 11 distinct scooter carriage policies and six scooter permit schemes across the GB rail network.
While most TOCs ‘attempt to reduce passenger disappointment’ by guaranteeing boarding and alighting assistance at stations only when scooter users pre-book, only 53% of those surveyed routinely pre-book and ‘20% never do.’
Turn-up-and-go also has implications for driver-only operation and station manning.
SUMMARY
Clearly, when set in 2005, the fixed date for the 2020 deadline overlooked interface issues, potential developments in mobility technology and changing aspirations. And, as was noted when the topic came up at the RDG conference, ‘PRM is a minimum’
Improving access is going to require further funding. Such additional expenditure will have to be justified. A suggestion from Professor Roger Kemp of Lancaster is to copy Value per Fatality Averted applied to safety investment. Professor Kemp suggests Value per Access Facilitated.
We know how much level access is costing at Merseyrail. When the Class 777s are in service, will there be an increase in travel by all disabilities? There could be a PhD thesis in there somewhere.
Meanwhile, according to DfT’s Access for All scheme, there is a new ‘deadline’ ‘By 2030, we envisage equal access for disabled people using the transport system, with assistance if physical infrastructure remains a barrier’ I’m not sure that this is going far enough. More on this subject in future columns suspect.
ENHANCEMENTS AND RENEWALS – RADIO SILENCE
Count-downs, or count-ups, can be a lot of fun, especially when they involve potential political embarrassment. While the 1,064 days without a new train order has now become part of railway lore, a subsequent rolling stock hiatus has largely been forgotten.
This ran during the early years of the last decade. As 2011 came to end was looking forward to proclaiming 1,000 days since the last order. But on 28 December, just as celebrated the 1,000th day with a tweet, press releases arrived confirming an order from Southern for 26 five-car Bombardier Electrostars.
So the count-up stopped at 999. was left wondering if the unprecedented timing of an order announcement, between Christmas and the New Year, had anything to do with pre-empting my glee.
AND COUNTING
On 15 October 2019 the Railway Industry Association (RIA) launched its ‘Rail Enhancements Clock’ showing the number of days since the Government said it would publish its list of proposed rail upgrade projects. For the new Control Period 6 (CP6), which started on 1 April 2019, enhancements will be specified and funded by the Department for Transport, rather than being part of the Regulatory determination.
Knowing what schemes might be coming their way during the five years of CP6 is fundamental for RIA’s members. It will influence business decisions ranging from investment in plant to taking on apprentices.
Meanwhile, DfT had introduced a new approach to enhancements known as the Rail Network Enhancements Pipeline (RNEP). The Pipeline has five alliterative stages: Determine, Develop, Design, Deliver and Deploy – clever, eh? At the start of each stage is a ‘Gateway’ – ‘Decision to Initiate’ then there is ‘Decision to Develop’ through to ‘Acceptance’
DfT was supposed, under Government rules, to make the RNEP available to contractors to ‘provide visibility’ of future prospects. But despite strong pressure from RIA, and Chief Executive Darren Caplan is a real bruiser when it comes to lobbying, DfT kept shtumm.
After a year of radio silence, RIA’s initial reaction was to launch the SURE campaign, as in ‘Show Us the Rail Enhancements’ Then, on 15 October, it increased the pressure with a real-time ‘Rail Enhancements Clock’ This showed the days since the Government said it would publish its list of upgrade projects.
SURE and the Rail Enhancements Clock had an almost immediate impact. Because the day after the clock appeared, DfT published the RNEP
CHOCOLATE
As you can see from Tables 1 and 2, when it finally appeared the RNEP was about as much use as a milk chocolate brake disc. Note the bathetic conjunction of a new bridge at St Albans station, which would have been a minor item on a British Rail Regional civil engineer’s budget, alongside the trans-Pennine route upgrade.
RIA formally ‘welcomed’ publication, saying ‘this comprehensive list of enhancements will now give rail businesses some more confidence to plan, hire and invest in preparation for upcoming work. We and our members will now examine the list further, and work with the DfT and wider rail supply community to deliver these upgrade projects’
Darren Caplan was being uncharacteristically emollient. In more realistic mood, he cautioned his members that the RNEP ‘does not include shovel-ready schemes and it may be several years before these progress to delivery and addressable work for the wider supply chain’
SURVEY
This absence of any commitment to major enhancements was reflected in an independent RIA survey of 174 business leaders published in November. This showed that 53% did not expect the rail industry to grow in 2020, while 28% expected it to contract. When it came to the prospects for their own businesses, 39% were not expecting growth and 18% thought it likely that the volume of work would fall.
According to Mr Caplan, ‘the combination of a lack of visibility and consistency in upcoming rail work, delayed decision-making on major projects like HS2, trans-Pennine route upgrade and Crossrail 2, the major industry restructuring with the Williams Rail Review and Network Rail’s reorganisation, plus Brexit uncertainty, are all combining to dampen expectations for the year ahead’
SUMMARY
I get the feeling that Network Rail Chief Executive Andrew Haines has written-off CP6 in terms of enhancements and is focusing on getting devolution in place and delivering improved performance. Accountability for the delivery of capital projects was transferred to the Regions in November 2019. It will take time to recreate the equivalent of the old Regional engineering functions.
Historians talk of the ‘long 19th century’ which began with the French Revolution and ended with the outbreak of World War 1. Similarly, we are still in the ‘long CP5’ in terms of enhancements.
For industry to break out of the current ‘bust’ phase of the boom and bust cycle, early decisions on enhancements will need to be made by the new Government. But even then, the glacial pace of the RNEP and GRIP processes suggest that we won’t see many shovels in the ground before CP7.
DIGITAL RAILWAY – SEEKING A NATIONAL STRATEGY
It is now 14 years since the decision was taken to install the European Train Control System (ETCS) on the Cambrian line under what was called the ‘Early Deployment Scheme’ Since then the only other deployment has been on Thameslink.
Currently Network Rail is embroiled in legal action over the next ETCS application – the Moorgate branch followed by the East Coast main line south of Peterborough. Siemens has been chosen as the ‘partner’ but Alstom is challenging the contract award in the courts.
ECML South was the obvious choice for the first main line ETCS rollout, after Great Western slipped, not so much to the right as off the edge of the programme spreadsheet. The main passenger fleets – suburban and inter-city – on the East Coast are new trains with ETCS fitted or ready for retro-fitment. It may also help improve traffic flows through the Welwyn viaduct bottleneck.
AND THEN?
But ECML South is not the problem. The real issue is what happens next.
Logically, once ECML South was commissioned in 2024-25, ETCS would continue to roll out northward. As expertise and confidence was gained, and costs came down, the trans-Pennine route upgrade would then be the next candidate, with installation running in parallel with the ECML.
However, in the absence of a national ETCS strategy, ECML South risks being a one-off – assuming it can make a business case on the basis of the prices quoted by Siemens. This is a nonsense and the aim must be for ETCS to be ‘business as usual’ when it comes to major signalling renewals from CP7 onwards.
TOOL
As for Traffic Management (TM), this has been covered in detail in recent columns. Experience to date suggests that it may not be the game-changer that Digital Railway proponents claimed. Nor, as some seem to believe, does it ‘run the railway’ replacing the signallers’ skills.
Rather, Integrated TM is a tool for signallers and controllers. Its utility depends on the ability, and willingness, of signallers to use it. The technology exists and is working successfully: what happens next is a cultural issue and it would be prudent to gain more experience before ordering more systems.
As I write, the award of the Traffic Management Partner for York and Manchester Rail Operating Centres, being procured as part of the ECML South Resignalling, has been deferred to the new year. The fact that the list of qualified bidders did not include the only firm in the world with a working Integrated TM in service on Network Rail is disturbing.
SUMMARY
Network Rail needs to get a grip on its signalling and control programme. Like-for-like resignalling is claimed to be unaffordable – shades of Railtrack’s Project Destiny in 1998. ETCS has yet to make a business case. Meanwhile the signalling contractors are still waiting to hear who has won the framework contracts for major signalling schemes. The ‘long CP5’ runs on.
WILLIAMS – GREAT EXPECTATIONS
I attended a plethora of conferences in October and November. When the subject of the Williams Review came up, senior figures in the industry seemed to have a much more positive view of the likely outcomes than me.
In truth, that would not be difficult. From the announcement of the Review have expected Williams to have much the same impact as the 30 previous rail reviews since 2006. The working papers issued during the current Review have only served to dampen any residual expectations.
More in hope than expectation, submitted evidence to the Review. It focused on my long-standing mantra ‘structure not ownership’
Meanwhile, old-school operator Andrew Haines can’t wait for Williams and is getting on with restructuring Network Rail and devolving power to the newly named Regions. When, five decades or more ago, Michael Bonavia headlined an article in Modern Railways ‘British Rail’s immortal Regions’ the famed historian was spot on.
COMING HOME
That Andrew Haines has got it right is demonstrated by Network Rail finally becoming an attractive place for experienced railway managers to work. At privatisation, the brightest and best went into franchising and Railtrack got the B-team. After the collapse of Railtrack and the takeover by Network Rail it became a bitter joke that having British Rail on your CV was not exactly career enhancing.
But now, with the train operating companies reduced to managing contracts, job satisfaction is to be found on the other side of the wheel rail interface. Those who can do ‘total railway’ are valued.
FRANCHISING
DfT’s defiant last hurrah, letting the West Coast Partnership, illustrated the bankruptcy of franchising. This seems only to have changed the seats and livery on the Pendolini and replaced the Voyagers.
Meanwhile, the DfT is left with South Eastern in suspended animation, the Operator of Last Resort’s Quick Reaction Alert teams ready to scramble, plus a mish-mash of management contracts, Direct Awards and old fashioned franchises needing renewal in the next two years. What Williams will have to say on what should replace franchising will be interesting.
KINDLY LIGHT
However, the Williams deus ex machina will be the recommendation for a ‘guiding mind’ to free the industry from day-to-day Government control, with a single over-arching body to set and implement railway policy. This is, of course, a revival of the Labour Party’s short-lived Strategic Rail Authority (SRA).
Having lived through the SRA era, can’t see how Williams’ guiding mind can avoid the inevitable conflict between the tune it wants the railway pipe band to play and the Treasury which is calling the tune. And before that you have to find people to lead and staff it. Richard Bowker, the only person to have tried to square this circle, assures me that he is not going to do a Cincinnatus and return from the plough – or Criterium Cycles – in the railway’s hour of need.
SUMMARY
I suspect it will be a case of ‘contain your enthusiasm’ at least in 2020, while the railway gets on with the job.
