Bowe Report on NR's planning of enhancements

[plcd1]

Seems it's a day for issuing reports. The DfT have published Dame Colette Bowe's review of the planning of railway enhancements. It's primarily directed at Network Rail but ORR and DfT are also caught by the recommendations.

Bowe Review Report

I've only skimmed the recommendations but it looks to me as if ORR has been placed in the firing line for abolition / significant reform.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I'm sure you are right. It reads very well, actually, some good analysis I think.
The mismatch between DfT and ORR about the deliverability of CP5 is telling.
The response from the DfT is on their web site. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...ent_data/file/479773/bowe-response-letter.pdf
A couple of extracts:

As a result of your report, the role and responsibilities of ORR will be fundamentally reviewed. It is important that the regulatory regime is supportive of, and responsive to, the challenges of planning and managing complex infrastructure projects that, by their very nature evolve and change over time and often span more than one control period.

I am also making changes within my Department. The planning and delivery of enhancements will be brought together under a single Director of Network Services, who will be responsible for approving the scope of all current and future enhancements and be the single point through which any change of scope is authorised. This will mirror similar arrangements being introduced in Network Rail

 

[CdBrux]

I read through quickly last night, there were several points made and one that caught my eye was that, for the most complex projects (including the major electrification schemes) an enhanced project governance system was suggested with Crossrail highlighted as a good example.

Much of the reports suggestions seemed to be common sense, however that is always easy with hindsight once burned! I found the comparison between CP4 and CP5 projects preparedness and their incorporation into the budgets instructive.

 

[HowardGWR]

I've only read the summary so far, but what a model of clarity and purpose, compared with the appalling financial mumbo jumbo produced by the other lady's one (Shaw report, http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?p=2365565#post2365565 ). Colette Bowe's report actually has a better summary of the financial aspects than Nicola Shaw's effort.

 

[DarloRich]

I've only read the summary so far, but what a model of clarity and purpose, compared with the appalling financial mumbo jumbo produced by the other lady's one (Shaw report, http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?p=2365565#post2365565 ). Colette Bowe's report actually has a better summary of the financial aspects than Nicola Shaw's effort.

Whilst i am sure you are right it is worth pointing out that the document issued by the Shaw review was not the report itself but merely the scoping document.

 

[HowardGWR]

Whilst i am sure you are right it is worth pointing out that the document issued by the Shaw review was not the report itself but merely the scoping document.

Yes I should have mentioned that, but actually, that makes it worse in a way. She is asking people to respond, but seems to be trying to ensure that we won't because we can't understand her jargon. I lost the will to read on very early. The issue is actually very simple and should not be so obfuscated.

Congratulations to Colette Bowe - I see all her recommendations have been accepted by the SoS.

 

[Senex]

It's not part of the "meat" of the report but I particularly liked paragraph 2.17:

"A word about the use of language in this report

2.17 The process around this industry is, like that around many other industries, full of jargon and acronyms. The key word in this report is ‘enhancements’, which in plain English means upgrades to the infrastructure. I did consider whether to try to use plain English instead of regulatory and other terminology throughout. On reflection, this would have imposed a cost in terms of translation, with the risk that some points would be lost in that translation. I have therefore stuck with the recognised jargon, but have sought to make it as clear as possible at the first time it occurs in the text. I hope that those who pay for the investment in the railways either as taxpayers or users of the rail system, will be able to see clearly what I am saying in this report."

 

[Dr Hoo]

Yes I should have mentioned that, but actually, that makes it worse in a way. She is asking people to respond, but seems to be trying to ensure that we won't because we can't understand her jargon. I lost the will to read on very early. The issue is actually very simple and should not be so obfuscated.

If only it were true that sorting out the entire financial structure of Network Rail (and the wider rail industry) would be "very simple".

The Shaw and Bowe tasks can hardly be compared. Shaw is asking for input, which is surely a good thing, whereas Bowe (and Hendy for that matter) have worked within small groups from existing organisations at the centre and then come up with recommendations in a short space of time that the Secretary of State has now accepted without further debate.

Whilst the specification, estimating and oversight of major projects are important matters they have more limited scope than the whole of Network Rail's activities.

It is of some interest that if you can be bothered to work through the organisation charts deeply embedded within the ORR website you can discover that only about a tenth of the posts appear to be focussed on Network Rail project, engineering and operational outputs. The majority are to do with safety, access, competition and, of course, even roads these days.