CPA Bulletin

www.cpa.uk.net CPA Bulletin > November 2024 45 RAIL PLANT ASSOCIATION: 2 generate significant savings in the order of 10% of total costs. Hopefully these savings will be retained by the railway and can be invested into additional maintenance and renewals activities, to improve the reliability and performance of the railway, which should in turn increase passenger numbers as customer confidence returns. Additional maintenance and renewals activities of course means additional requirements for plant to support the extra work. Importantly, the new government does not want to renationalise the rolling stock companies as the country would have to buy the assets. The current lease model is seen as the way forward for rolling stock. I think that this will also apply for railway plant as it would cost circa £1billion to buy the plant assets which the government is unlikely to want to do. In her initial assessment of the economy and immediate actions, the new Chancellor decided to close down the £500m Restoring Your Railways Fund. In reality this was always a political fund, rather than a railway fund, designed to enthuse rural communities in the hope that they could restore a railway, closed under Beeching. The reality is that for many schemes it was never likely that they would ultimately pass an economic test so, in my view, it was lots of money wasted producing feasibility studies which would never ultimately lead to a restored railway. The serious projects, which are often used as a measure of success of the fund, were always part of the long term railway strategic development plan and they will remain so in future. From a railway plant perspective, the schemes which made economic sense will still happen and therefore the plant shifts will also still happen. The losers in this area will be the consultants who were used to produce feasibility reports which were never likely to lead to any new infrastructure investment. The new government has indicated that it wants to devolve more decision making and budget responsibility to the Metro Mayors. I think that this will be good for the railway as history shows that Metro Mayors, in touch with local community requirements, tend to invest more in railways than central government. In the medium term, this should mean more railway work and more shifts for plant companies. So far the new government has not given any indication on what its plans are for HS2. The cancellation of Phase 2A was another politically motivated decision which did not involve knowledgeable senior railway people anywhere near enough to fully understand the consequences. The bottleneck at Handsacre junction, and the loss of capacity between Handsacre and Crewe, will mean that benefits of HS2 phase 1 will be significantly reduced. Hopefully common sense will prevail and a Midlands to North West capacity expansion project can be introduced with infrastructure designed at 300kph, rather than the 400kph of HS2. The significance of 300kph is that it is the common standard for high speed design and construction used around the world, so the design codes, construction standards and unit costs are very well understood, with around 50 years of worldwide experience including HS1. Constructing HS2 infrastructure for 400kph meant that much of the infrastructure was first of type, significantly increasing the timescales and costs associated with both the design and construction. If we learn one lesson from HS2 so far, it is that we should build future infrastructure for 300kph rather than 400kph. The difference in journey time, in such a small country as Britain, is fairly small but the difference in time and costs of construction are significant. If the Midlands to North West capacity expansion project goes ahead then in the medium term it will be good for general construction plant and in the long term it will be good for railway specific plant. The next part of HS2 which the government has yet to make a decision on is the link between Old Oak Common and Euston. If we could wind the clock back then, in my view, Old Oak Common should always have been the London terminal station for HS2. Unfortunately it was designed and built as a through station in the expectation that trains would turn around at Euston. Most people get onto the tube to continue their journey when they get to London. It doesn’t make too much difference if that is at Old Oak Common or Euston. I do have a fairly radical alternative which is to save the money on the Old Oak Common to Euston leg and alternatively connect Old Oak Common with HS1, allowing through trains to continue on to Europe. This creates an additional London international terminal at Old Oak Common relieving some of the constraints at St Pancras. It also allows residents of the West Midlands to get a direct train to Brussels, Paris or Amsterdam. As a resident of the West Midlands, I would like to be able to do this. Not continuing to Euston would also create the opportunity for a significant urban regeneration scheme using the acquired HS2 land. This would create a new Euston station, new retail outlets, new offices and new housing. From a plant perspective, a Euston regeneration project would be great for general construction plant and the rebuilding of Euston station would generate lots of work for railway specific plant. In summary, I think that the new government have made a good start in setting a new direction for railways which should be overall positive for railway plant companies in the medium to long term.