Priorities for the future of Welsh Rail Infrastructure

More documents

Recommendations

Info

The DfT also highlighted how Welsh interests are currently included in the periodic review process, emphasising that it and the Welsh Government work closely on the development of each Rail Investment Strategy for England and Wales to ensure that relevant Welsh priorities are reflected. DfT told us that: “No decision on any major investment in Wales is made without taking into account the views of the Welsh Government, and they will be consulted on any in England that has implications for the Welsh franchise.” 26 We are clear that, in order for the Welsh Government to be in a position to develop an effective integrated transport network, the process of developing infrastructure priorities needs to do more than take its views “into account”. However, we welcome the ORRs commitment to ensure the Welsh Government is more closely involved in the periodic review process. The rail infrastructure planning horizon We heard some evidence suggesting that the current approach to infrastructure planning in five year control periods is an improvement on previous arrangements. DB Schenker told us that the periodic review process has brought clarity and transparency to Network Rail’s funding and output obligations, allowing freight and train operators to plan their businesses with a reasonable degree of certainty. It also noted that the five-year funding settlements ensure that rail is not affected by the uncertainty that shorter term funding arrangements can entail. However, the RFG suggested that the timescale is too short in a sector where investments in infrastructure often have a 20-50 year lifespan. Others agreed. The RTFSWW said that the periodic review process can make it very difficult to react quickly to changes in demand. CWCC also stated that the periodic review process needs more flexibility, whilst NWEAB believed that the process should be shorter, less complex and less costly. We are concerned that overly rigid adherence to five year plans risks locking out essential investment. We believe the risks for Wales 26 Written evidence, Department for Transport. 28
are most clearly illustrated by the NWEAB in relation to north Wales electrification. As noted above, NWEAB referred to the fact that the Hendy Review has reduced the scope of electrification schemes in CP 5, and suggested that the failure to include north Wales electrification in CP 6 might mean the scheme is not ready in time to be ready for HS2. We were pleased and reassured to hear that this issue is being considered. John Larkinson from the ORR told us: “But one of the questions that’s been put to us is: ‘When you say industry plan and a specification, does it have to be absolutely fixed at those points in time; is there any more flexibility that can be built into the process?’, because otherwise people perceive it as a bit ‘all or nothing’. If all my options aren’t in the plan, then I’ve got a problem and it becomes a bit of a scrabble to get it in to make sure you’re in the plan, in that sense. I think that is a fair challenge, and it’s one of the things we’re looking at to see whether it can be seen as more of an options development process, with refinement options over time, rather than absolute lines in the sand.” 27 Since this issue is already under consideration by the ORR we make no recommendation in this area. However, we welcome and support the ORR’s commitment to consider this and urge it to find a solution in consultation with the Welsh Government to ensure that any outcome reflects the position in Wales. The Welsh rail network requires significant investment which should not be delayed by the approach to planning. The business case approach and its application to Wales Some respondents questioned the decision-making process for major rail infrastructure projects, particularly whether the current business case approach applied by DfT / Network Rail is suitable for Wales. Greengauge 21 referred to the relatively weak business case for electrification between Crewe and Holyhead when considered in terms of rail/route outputs only, largely due to the length of the route and modest service levels. However, it stated that the estimated wider social and economic benefits could mean that there is a positive 27 Enterprise and Business Committee, Transcript, 11 February, Para 270. 29
Page 1 and 2: National Assembly for Wales Enterpr
Page 3 and 4: National Assembly for Wales Enterpr
Page 5 and 6: Contents Chair’s foreword .......
Page 7 and 8: Chair’s foreword As summer approa
Page 9 and 10: Recommendation 7. Network rail shou
Page 11 and 12: Recommendation 17. The Welsh Govern
Page 13 and 14: make life easier for passengers, bu
Page 15 and 16: We have scheduled this inquiry so t
Page 17 and 18: 2. High level priorities This chapt
Page 19 and 20: order to accommodate the growing nu
Page 21 and 22: Professor Cole suggested that a dec
Page 23 and 24: NWEAB suggested that delaying NWML
Page 25 and 26: Mid and West Wales A number of stak
Page 27 and 28: also a key theme that emerged in ou
Page 29: 3. Infrastructure planning and Deli
Page 33 and 34: element. We look at the strategic c
Page 35 and 36: However, fundamentally we are uncle
Page 37 and 38: Responding to Welsh Government conc
Page 39 and 40: Network Rail The Minister was forth
Page 41 and 42: projects team to understand options
Page 43 and 44: we discuss below it is also clear t
Page 45 and 46: Differing approaches to devolution
Page 47 and 48: For example, the RTFSWW suggested:
Page 49 and 50: In discussing this risk, the Deputy
Page 51 and 52: £3.3bn debt limit with the DfT up
Page 53 and 54: 4. Cross-border issues Interdepende
Page 55 and 56: Wolverhampton on the Cambrian Line,
Page 57 and 58: We welcome the signing of the Memor
Page 59 and 60: Shrewsbury were also reflected in S
Page 61 and 62: Witnesses The following witnesses p

Priorities for the future of Welsh Rail Infrastructure

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?