• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Independent Newspaper reporting Network Rail faces huge cuts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
5 Aug 2011
Messages
791
The Independent is reporting that Network rail has run out of money for CP5 and is facing huge cuts to the renewal programme.

UK rail passengers 'endangered' by biggest spending cuts since 2008 financial crash
Exclusive: Unions have warned of another rail*'disaster' after document leaked to The Independent exposes cuts

Railway track renewals will be cancelled under a cost saving plan PA
Britain’s railways are about to be hit by the biggest spending cutbacks since the 2008 financial crash amid warnings that it could “endanger passengers lives”, The Independent can reveal.

An explosive leaked document exposes how a national lack of funding has forced rail bosses to cancel a vast array of track upgrades in a bid to save millions of pounds.

The scale of axed projects has led to serious concerns over track safety and also threatens devastating consequences for the rail industry with contractors “hardest hit”.

Unions reacted with outrage, warning of a rail “disaster”, up to 1,000 job losses and claiming ministers are trying to bury the news amid the furore around Brexit. Labour accused the Government of more “broken promises”.
But it is only the latest blow in a broader darkening picture for Britain’s public services – with the NHS effectively ditching operation waiting time targets, defence chiefs considering downsizing the Royal Marines and schools facing the deepest cuts since the 1980s.

The Independent was passed a letter penned by senior Network Rail official Ben Brooks in which he soberly sets out the “testing times” up to 2019, the remainder of the organisation’s “control period 5”.

Mr Brooks wrote: “Because of significant overspends in some areas, including some enhancement schemes and the fact that the routes are more expensive to run than predicted, there is simply not enough money left in CP5 to continue as we have been.
“So the whole of Network Rail has to cut costs.”

He adds: “The last time the track renewals industry had a cost challenge of this magnitude, 7-8 years ago, the supply chain suffered massively (we lost a principal contractor and many second tier suppliers)…this is going to be a tough couple of years for the whole industry.”

His letter then sets out the impact of tightening public finances on Network Rail’s existing “high output” track renewal programme, including the cancellation of:

  • All remaining renewal schemes on the London North Western route, running from the Euston Station through Cumbria to Scotland.
  • All work on the Wessex route, taking in the major commuter area of South West London, plus routes from Waterloo to the South and South West of England.
  • All work planned for 2019 in Wales.

There are reduced renewal programmes on the South East route, covering the network from London across Kent, Surrey and Sussex, and on the Western route from London Paddington to Bristol and Penzance.

The letter reveals that officials planning work on the London North Eastern & East Midlands route, covering lines from the Scottish border to London King's Cross and from Sheffield to London St Pancras, have already deferred £139m of spending.

It meant the end of all programmes on the routes to renew vital ballast, the thick gravel that covers track helping to constrain it under heavy traffic and drain water.

The letter insists that schemes cancelled would be the ones that “don't bring an immediate safety or performance benefit”.

But General Secretary of the TSSA union Manuel Cortes, representing white-collar rail staff, said: “There is simply no need to play austerity politics with rail safety – it will endanger passengers lives.
“If the cuts go through, it is hard to conceive how another rail disaster cannot happen.”

Shadow transport secretary Andy McDonald said: “This is further evidence of the Government’s mishandling of Network Rail. The bottom line is that promised maintenance, investment and upgrades have been poorly planned and managed, meaning that the performance and safety of our railways is undermined.

“It’s not just passengers who will pay the price for these broken promises, but scores of businesses in the supply chain and those employed in the industry are faced with uncertainty. The Government must urgently clarify how they will get the programme back on track.”

The letter from Mr Brooks expressly states that there are currently no plans for voluntary or compulsory redundancies.

But it accepts there could be a heavy cost for those employed by firms carrying out work for Network Rail, adding: “Our sub-contract team members and our supply chain will be hit hardest, as this is the area of the business where we have potential to reduce our workforce quickly and relatively easily.”
A spokesperson for organisation told The Independent: “Network Rail has no plans to cut any safety-critical jobs or any safety critical work. Any such suggestion is ridiculous scaremongering. Network Rail is investing billions of pounds to improve our railway and will continue this investment through to 2019.

“But the rail network has faced a number of cost pressures and changing priorities, and like all businesses we have to live within our means. This sometimes means making hard choices

“We are making savings in non-essential areas to ensure we’re delivering value to the taxpayer, while at the same time continuing to deliver a safe, reliable and expanding railway. The safe running of the rail network will never be compromised and the adjustment in the activity of our high output track renewals work represents just 0.3% of our spend in the running of the railway network.

“Britain has the safest railway in Europe, thanks to the efforts of many thousands of hard working men and women, and they are ill-served by such baseless scaremongering by trade unions.”

A spokesman from the Department for Transport said the Government is delivering the “biggest rail modernisation programme” for more than a century.*

He added: “Network Rail has been set stretching targets by the independent regulator, the Office of Rail and Road, to deliver work at a lower cost while maintaining a safe and reliable network.

“This is essential to ensure that maximum value is derived for passengers, freight users and taxpayers.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-crash-passenger-lives-endanger-a7660501.html
 
Last edited:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

The Planner

Veteran Member
Joined
15 Apr 2008
Messages
19,715
I thought this was pretty obvious? We will be certainly getting a lot less for CP6 so I expect a lot of "life extension" works.
 

HowardGWR

Established Member
Joined
30 Jan 2013
Messages
4,981
The safe running of the rail network will never be compromised and the adjustment in the activity of our high output track renewals work represents just 0.3% of our spend in the running of the railway network.

I suppose this could still cover a significant amount of renewals - does it? Does this mean more TSRs, such as we had after the Hatfield RailTrack debacle?
 

Ships

Member
Joined
25 Apr 2013
Messages
338
I see this doesn't mention the £900 million that the dft has asked us to hand back. The renewals program has been squeezed but it's really this funding cut that's causing the bulk of the deferrals.
 

CyrusWuff

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2013
Messages
5,464
Location
London
Didn't the last round of major funding cuts culminate in Hatfield and the end of Railtrack? Just saying...
 

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
21,929
Location
Mold, Clwyd
Didn't the last round of major funding cuts culminate in Hatfield and the end of Railtrack? Just saying...

That was bad organisation and subcontractor management, rather than funding cuts.
It looks like renewals are being cut, not regular maintenance.
Major projects will continue anyway.
 

DerekC

Established Member
Joined
26 Oct 2015
Messages
2,442
Location
Hampshire (nearly a Hog)
There is something very unbalanced about what is happening now. We see very large sums invested in modern rolling stock, some of which is replacing trains with years of life left, yet investment in the infrastructure is cut and cut. I would hate to think that it's all because new trains make an excellent photo-op for a transport minister, particularly if they are built in a UK plant (even if it's just assembling kits), whereas infrastructure just isn't sexy unless it is a new high speed line.
 

455driver

Veteran Member
Joined
10 May 2010
Messages
11,329
There is something very unbalanced about what is happening now. We see very large sums invested in modern rolling stock, some of which is replacing trains with years of life left, yet investment in the infrastructure is cut and cut. I would hate to think that it's all because new trains make an excellent photo-op for a transport minister, particularly if they are built in a UK plant (even if it's just assembling kits), whereas infrastructure just isn't sexy unless it is a new high speed line.

That is a very cynical outlook!
Are we related? :lol:
 

Bodiddly

Member
Joined
7 Feb 2013
Messages
648
After Health, Defence and Education, it was inevitable that Transport was to get hammered by the Tories. All they really care about are the big flashy stories about brand new 'British Built' trains and the humongous waste of money that is HS2. The usual idiotic decisions from the DfT to slash essential budgets will be to the detriment of UK railways for years to come. Throw in the absolute farce the government are making of Brexit, the UK will experience very challenging times in the next few years. Transport will be very far down the list for taxpayer funding.
This is an enormous industry that maintains hundreds of thousands of jobs through direct employment and the supply chains. Unless the government want another steel workers situation they need to keep the funding in place and let Network Rail continue with the contracts. Yet again though, the paying public will suffer in all of this.
 

absolutelymilk

Established Member
Joined
18 Jul 2015
Messages
1,605
There is something very unbalanced about what is happening now. We see very large sums invested in modern rolling stock, some of which is replacing trains with years of life left, yet investment in the infrastructure is cut and cut. I would hate to think that it's all because new trains make an excellent photo-op for a transport minister, particularly if they are built in a UK plant (even if it's just assembling kits), whereas infrastructure just isn't sexy unless it is a new high speed line.

Network Rail spend £3 billion a year on enhancements and £3 billion on renewals. The biggest rolling stock expenditures are the IEP order (total £5.7 billion), Thameslink (£1.6 billion) Crossrail (£1 billion). Averaging these over the building/testing period, then they don't come close to what is being spent on the infrastructure.
 

HowardGWR

Established Member
Joined
30 Jan 2013
Messages
4,981
It might be a storm in a teacup but let's remind ourselves, (to save turning back).
His letter then sets out the impact of tightening public finances on Network Rail’s existing “high output” track renewal programme, including the cancellation of:
All remaining renewal schemes on the London North Western route, running from the Euston Station through Cumbria to Scotland.
All work on the Wessex route, taking in the major commuter area of South West London, plus routes from Waterloo to the South and South West of England.
All work planned for 2019 in Wales.

There are reduced renewal programmes on the South East route, covering the network from London across Kent, Surrey and Sussex, and on the Western route from London Paddington to Bristol and Penzance.

The letter reveals that officials planning work on the London North Eastern & East Midlands route, covering lines from the Scottish border to London King's Cross and from Sheffield to London St Pancras, have already deferred £139m of spending.

That does not sound like a very modest reduction to me. I wonder why it was a 'signed letter' from Mr Brooks, that was leaked? Don't NR officials use email?
 

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
21,929
Location
Mold, Clwyd
There is something very unbalanced about what is happening now. We see very large sums invested in modern rolling stock, some of which is replacing trains with years of life left, yet investment in the infrastructure is cut and cut. I would hate to think that it's all because new trains make an excellent photo-op for a transport minister, particularly if they are built in a UK plant (even if it's just assembling kits), whereas infrastructure just isn't sexy unless it is a new high speed line.

After Health, Defence and Education, it was inevitable that Transport was to get hammered by the Tories. All they really care about are the big flashy stories about brand new 'British Built' trains and the humongous waste of money that is HS2. The usual idiotic decisions from the DfT to slash essential budgets will be to the detriment of UK railways for years to come. Throw in the absolute farce the government are making of Brexit, the UK will experience very challenging times in the next few years. Transport will be very far down the list for taxpayer funding.
This is an enormous industry that maintains hundreds of thousands of jobs through direct employment and the supply chains. Unless the government want another steel workers situation they need to keep the funding in place and let Network Rail continue with the contracts. Yet again though, the paying public will suffer in all of this.

Network Rail is burning through a paltry £38 billion in CP5.
All the government is asking is that they stay within that spend.
Somebody has to pay for the massive project overruns (GW electrification and elsewhere).
The government also cut up NR's credit card so they could not add to the black hole with more borrowing.
It's a direct result of "renationalising" NR and putting the debt into the public sector.
NR has also promised to secure external financing and sell off assets to close the gap, but seems not to be succeeding.
 

Elecman

Established Member
Joined
31 Dec 2013
Messages
3,578
Location
Lancashire
The cancellations of the remainder of LNW renewals spells the end of Virgins 135 aspirations.
 

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
21,929
Location
Mold, Clwyd
The cancellations of the remainder of LNW renewals spells the end of Virgins 135 aspirations.

135mph south of Crewe is a dead duck anyway because of HS2, surely?
Might be different north of Crewe, but there's not much scope for that anyway.
A stretch in the Scottish borders was mooted at one time, which is not LNW.

The cut-backs will only apply until April 2019 anyway, when a new Control Period starts.
 

Bertie the bus

Established Member
Joined
15 Aug 2014
Messages
3,216
Wouldn’t have happened but Virgin said they wanted it, but as usual weren’t going to pay for it, so now we can all blame the government for something that wasn’t going to happen anyway not happening, despite the fact this current fuss has been caused by Network Rail’s mismanagement.
 

Ships

Member
Joined
25 Apr 2013
Messages
338
Network Rail is burning through a paltry £38 billion in CP5.
All the government is asking is that they stay within that spend.
Somebody has to pay for the massive project overruns (GW electrification and elsewhere).
The government also cut up NR's credit card so they could not add to the black hole with more borrowing.
It's a direct result of "renationalising" NR and putting the debt into the public sector.
NR has also promised to secure external financing and sell off assets to close the gap, but seems not to be succeeding.

Well it's less than that as NR have been asked to return nearly a billion. Doesn't be sound like much but it makes a big difference..

It's not a case all renewals have been cancelled on LNW. Just all high output renewals.
 

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
21,929
Location
Mold, Clwyd
Well it's less than that as NR have been asked to return nearly a billion. Doesn't be sound like much but it makes a big difference..
It's not a case all renewals have been cancelled on LNW. Just all high output renewals.

What exactly is a "return"?
Is it a budget reduction, or is it money NR said it would find to solve the problem (and haven't)?
ie is it something DfT/ORR have imposed, or is it Peter Hendy trying to balance the CP5 books?
 

gareth950

Member
Joined
3 Nov 2013
Messages
1,009
As an observer, I find it astonishing that NR isn't allowed to borrow to make up budget shortfalls for absolute essentials like maintenance and renewals when borrowing is at an historic all time low. (The same goes for other govt departments like the NHS.)

I also find it astonishing that govt thinks it's acceptable to play with passengers lives by reducing money for maintenance and renewals, whilst it's being reported today that the govt intends to award a £500 million contract to give us a f****** navy blue passport.

There's an awful lot wrong with this govt's 'priorities' right now.
 
Last edited:

HowardGWR

Established Member
Joined
30 Jan 2013
Messages
4,981
Hang on, for me, renewals are really maintenance (replacing that which is worn out). Renewing for 135 mph is not renewal, it must be at least in part, improvement.

It would thus be very interesting to know what is 'putting pax lives at risk' and what isn't and what is in the improvement category. All very confusing and Mr Brooks would have been better-advised to make all concerned aware of those differences (assuming he wanted his letter to be leaked :) ).
 

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
21,929
Location
Mold, Clwyd
Hang on, for me, renewals are really maintenance (replacing that which is worn out). Renewing for 135 mph is not renewal, it must be at least in part, improvement.

The railway has always had trouble with "renewals", because of the blurred boundary with "enhancements".
It also pretends sometimes that renewal like-for-like is "investment", whereas in reality it is just keeping the status quo railway.

How do you classify the S&C repair?
It's a (forced) renewal, but to a higher standard than what was there before.

The funder's view, is that if you are spending £x million you might as well get the best value for it, which ought to mean line speed increases or cost reductions or both.
The WCML is supposed to be already capable of 140mph (track, OHLE), it's only prevented by the rules about signalling (cab signalling over 125mph), and the route has TASS, a form of cab signalling, anyway.
If not, tell me what the £8 billion WCRM was for?
 

HowardGWR

Established Member
Joined
30 Jan 2013
Messages
4,981
All very good points. I just don't think the NR spokesman did very well. Instead of his 0.3% point, he would have done better to explain, point for point, why the various savings headings were not detrimental to safety and why they were planned originally for CP5, if they were not needed.
 

Olaf

Member
Joined
29 Mar 2014
Messages
1,054
Location
UK
Impact on maintenance, renewals, and project schedules is as anticipated from the point that NR's failings became apparent - as are the claims of funding cuts being implemented by the Government and the grandstanding by the political activists.

However, this is just the small fry; the real impact of the failure to execute will start to become apparent towards the end of this year as the process around negotiations over CP6 funding get under way in earnest. The other problem is how all the non-NR rail projects get funded as well, which at the moment is looking unlikely.
 

Ships

Member
Joined
25 Apr 2013
Messages
338
What exactly is a "return"?
Is it a budget reduction, or is it money NR said it would find to solve the problem (and haven't)?
ie is it something DfT/ORR have imposed, or is it Peter Hendy trying to balance the CP5 books?

It's a budgetary reduction from the cp5 determination.

West coast isn't 140mph capable that was dropped early on, if nothing else the track alignment isnt suitable for running at that speed.

Arguably a large amount of the route mod budget was to bring it up to more web standards and renew and asset that had been well sweated. However I'm sure there are folks on here that we're actually involved that can give a better answer.
 

snowball

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2013
Messages
8,144
Location
Leeds
When was NR asked to return the £900M? I don't remember reading about it before.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top