Minutes Planning Oversight Group 13 th September 2017

Transcription

1 Minutes Planning Oversight Group 13 th September 2017 Network Rail Offices, 1 Eversholt Street, London NW1 2DN 1 Introductions and apologies for absence POG attendees Jo Kaye Mark Havenhand Gary Cooper Lindsay Durham Mark Gaynor Mike Hoptroff Chris Lawrence Calvin Lloyd Peter Loosley Hannah Moxon (items 1-4 only) Jonathan Pugh Additional attendees Juliet Brilliant Jonathan Cooper Jon Fenn Matthew Tattersall Stuart White Apologies Richard Clarke Andy Course James Drury (represented by Juliet Brilliant) Russell Evans Graeme Hampshire Mary Hewitt (represented by Jonathan Cooper) Chris Kimberley Colin Lea Jeremy Long Chantal Mofthah Alan Pilbeam (represented by Jon Fenn) David Simpson Organisation Network Rail (Chair of POG) RDG (Secretariat) RDG Freightliner RDG Virgin Trains RSSB Network Rail Railway Industry Association RDG Network Rail Organisation Digital Railway Arriva Abellio Network Rail Department for Transport Organisation DB Cargo Eversholt Rail Digital Railway FirstGroup Stagecoach Arriva HS2 Keolis MTR Go-Ahead Abellio Serco

2 2 DfT update Stuart White provided an update from the DfT on progress since the HLOS and initial SoFA publication in late July, which was Government s response to the IIA provided by the industry earlier in the year. A final SoFA is still on course to be produced by October 13 th. There is now broad agreement with HM Treasury on renewals volumes (although the corresponding unit rates are still under discussion), but not on operations and maintenance volumes or costs. This has necessitated further review, which has focused primarily on the maintenance profile. This has provided a better understanding of the drivers underlying the costs and has driven some further efficiency, but a gap relative to Treasury expectations remains. The DfT recognises the support provided by Network Rail and ORR colleagues in undertaking the review. Senior level discussions will follow between government and industry to determine the shape of the final SoFA. Notwithstanding the focus in recent months on Operations, Maintenance and Renewals (OMR); the DfT remains committed to implementing a separate process for enhancements. The first Rail Upgrade Plan and an accompanying consultation are expected around the time of the autumn budget, due on Wednesday 22 nd November. This is expected primarily to confirm the requirements for CP6 from the Hendy tail, subject to the MoU project development process. The consultation is expected to be focused on determining the high level investment criteria for future enhancement schemes. There will be a need to demonstrate clear user need and benefit, and the non-infrastructure alternatives which have been considered, and whether third party funding and/or other deliverables have been considered. It is expected that the Government will use annual fiscal events such as the autumn budget to announce additional enhancement funding. Reflecting the IIA, the DfT has requested a significant development fund from Treasury to be drawn down when CP6 begins, but this is not yet confirmed. The need for CP5 development funding is also recognised but is still under discussion. Technology funding was included in the IIA as a core part of the Network Rail OMR plan, reflecting the view that research, development and technology funding should be considered a business as usual activity. However, in response to a question from Chris Lawrence on its current status, Stuart White responded that this was not yet known. There was a chapter on technology included in the DfT s transport strategy, which suggests some recognition of the issues. It was highlighted that ORR was hosting a renewals efficiency seminar next week, and it was asked what DfT hopes to get out of the session. DfT does not yet have a view on this. The exchange of correspondence between Network Rail and government on

3 bringing forward renewals expenditure from CP6 to CP5 was also highlighted. This has been accepted by DfT in principle, but Network Rail then has to produce a list of schemes which can be accelerated by the end of September. However, Network Rail is running out of time to deliver these within CP5 given the need to provide sufficient notice to operators. RIA is also undertaking a sense check with suppliers to confirm their ability to deliver. It is expected that a number of government documents in the autumn will reflect on the industry s approach to third party financing and funding. It is important that these announcements recognise that financing needs to be backed by a funding commitment, and that the whole-system view is not lost. Focusing solely on infrastructure will not lead to effective outcomes consideration needs to be given to how franchises will deliver the expected increases in services. The significant difference between the industry view on future demand and the numbers used in the HLOS was also highlighted, with the HLOS numbers being much lower. The System Operator will share a technical note with POG members setting out the differences and requesting a view on next steps, which may include Network Rail writing formally to DfT to raise this issue. DfT would welcome this conversation to understand why there are differences, and whether these are acceptable based on the assumptions used. There then needs to be agreement on how clarity will be provided to the associated planning processes. Stuart White is moving to an East West Rail sponsor role in DfT for a short period, and will be replaced by James Conway in the interim. 3 Scotland update Jonathan Pugh provided an update on developments in Scotland following the publication of the Scottish HLOS. The Transport Scotland position was more detailed than the DfT s, and consequently more challenging for the industry to address. Some of the key issues included: Gauging requirements Network Rail is working with ORR and Transport Scotland to confirm the requirements in detail the text as it is written is very wide ranging. Journey time targets this will require a collaborative approach with train operators, as Network Rail cannot deliver these targets in isolation. Renewals this is the most challenging issue, conversations are ongoing to agree Transport Scotland s requirements. Reflecting England and Wales, the Scottish HLOS did not produce a list of enhancements, but further detail is also expected in the autumn, similarly adopting a development pipeline approach, and ideally taking a whole-system

4 view including operational factors. A Transport Scotland-Network Rail MoU was due to be published imminently but is still under review. There is agreement with Transport Scotland s aspiration to set a freight growth target, but this should exclude ESI coal. The specified increases in average freight train speeds are also being considered, but these need to reflect the often small proportions of the end-to-end flows which are within Scotland. Passenger journey time aspirations are aligned with the Abellio ScotRail franchise targets. There is a desire to address historic extensions to journey times which have occurred often for performance reasons. The implementation of robust SRTs should minimise the need for additional performance allowances. Also reflecting England and Wales, a similar process is underway in Scotland on smoothing costs at the CP5/CP6 boundary. No new enhancement activity is expected in Scotland before 2019 unless new funding comes forward. The Scottish HLOS also references the availability of cross-border routes, which has an impact on planning for Network Rail s LNW/LNE Routes. There is an inaugural meeting of SSPG next week to explore some of these issues further. 4 Reputation campaign update Hannah Moxon provided an update on the Oxera research produced to inform the RDG reputation campaign. The key publication will be Partnership for Britain s Prosperity, which is due to be released by RDG at the end of October. After approval by RDG Board the publication will go to all RDG groups and boards for review, and to provide the visibility requested by some POG members of how the numbers are being used. RDG is not currently planning on delaying publication to accommodate the SoFA but this will be kept under review. RDG is still awaiting data from Transport Scotland to provide a balanced national view. Hannah agreed to clarify with Jonathan Pugh who the RDG has been in contact with. The plan should avoid referring to itself as national, to make it clear that all GB nations are being covered. The RDG is working on extrapolating the GB-wide plan to produce locallytargeted materials, initially for the south west and then Wales. RIA is also producing research on the value of the railway which the RDG work should align with. Gary Cooper questioned why this was necessary when RDG has done if for the industry and offered to chat with Anna Delvecchio, from RSG, Peter Loosley said he was meeting her later in the

5 day and would discuss. 5 Hansford Review Matthew Tattersall explained the key recommendations emerging from the Hansford Review, and how Network Rail was responding to them. The recommendations can be summarised as follows: Making it easier for external parties to work with Network Rail Create a contestable market for project delivery Publish a pipeline of opportunities Appoint personnel to improve the capacity to engage with third party funders Try to ensure a more balanced risk profile Review and simplify standards DfT to give due consideration to contestability, and establish an early development fund to support proposals. Seven workstreams are underway to take forward Network Rail s responses to the recommendations. The group discussed some of the practical difficulties in implementing the recommendations. For example, the decision of whether a scheme should be contested might not be an easy one to make if several funders are involved. Although there has been significant interest from potential third party financers, the challenge to secure funders remains. Financers expect a return from their investment. The need to coordinate with the expected DfT publications on third party funding was also highlighted. A helpful approach might be for the DfT to publish its criteria, and then for Network Rail to define appropriate schemes which meet these requirements. This is a further reason why aligned demand forecasts are so important. The importance of taking a whole system view was also stressed. Although a third party might be willing to fund even the entire infrastructure cost of a scheme, this alone would not be sufficient for it to successfully enter into service. Owning group representatives have not seen evidence of the level of consultation which might be expected if a whole system view was being adopted. POG members expressed support for the concept of a single point of Network Rail contact. The scope of wider industry engagement at this stage is not known, although RSSB is involved in the workstream to revise and allow challenge to Network

6 Rail standards. 6 Sustainability strategy Mark Gaynor alerted POG members to the proposal made in Planning and Production Board (PPB) that POG would be the oversight body for an industry sustainable development strategy. The strategy would aim to focus on specific issues rather than being too wide ranging in its scope and PPB would be the group ultimately accountable. Anthony Perret from RSSB, who was leading the work, had asked to attend the October POG to provide details. Mark was reminded of POG s concerns regarding the sustainability narrative produced for IIA it was not clear that these had been adequately consulted on. However, there was agreement with the proposal to discuss this, but there may be insufficient time to do so in October as that meeting is likely to focus on the SoFA. Although the issues are important they are not urgent. Mark agreed to respond to Anthony to this effect. The group also expressed an interest in understanding how the RSSB could provide support. 7 TLG update Chris Lawrence updated POG on the work of the Technical Leadership Group (TLG). TLG was created in autumn 2016 to implement policy from government and strategy from RDG and RSG. Chris provided details of its Terms of Reference, membership and the links it has created with a number of external groups. Several work packages have been identified, although securing the required resource to deliver these has been challenging. The group observed some overlap with the work of POG, and it was agreed that there would be some value in separating TLG-specific accountabilities from those which could be mixed. This may require a further discussion. The concept of initiatives being in delivery was also discussed strictly speaking delivery is solely the role of Network Rail and the franchises. 8 POG response to TfL consultation on Mayor's Transport Strategy Mark Havenhand alerted the group to the TfL consultation currently underway on the Mayor s Transport Strategy, and invited reflections from POG members on some of the issues it raises. All agreed on the value in responding to the consultation, which closes on October 2 nd. In response to the statement on the future scope of electrification on the

7 network in London it was suggested that the response should highlight that electrification is a means to achieve an output, and not an end in itself. The strategy sets out some proposals for addressing noise from the rail network, including trains running at night. The response will highlight the importance of these services running to provide the capacity needed by passengers and freight customers. The response will not address the mayor s statements regarding the perceived better standards of the TfL concessions. Although the presence of freight trains may be viewed as a barrier to increasing London Overground services, it is important to highlight that freight delivers wider economic benefits and provides a means of reducing freight traffic on the road network, another of the mayor s policy objectives. The strategy s support for the upgrading of the Felixstowe to Nuneaton route was welcomed. Lindsay Durham offered to provide further detail to support the freight sector s response. The importance of ensuring coordination between transport and development was recognised it is vital to avoid placing undue strain on existing networks. Transport is not a free good, and Section 106 agreements have an important role to play. The contribution made by Network Rail in terms of releasing land for development could also be highlighted. The response to the mayor s proposed priority capacity upgrades should be consistent with the IIA, although Juliet Brilliant highlighted that the text explaining the contribution of the Digital Railway programme should be updated, and offered to provide this. Similarly the list of station upgrades should reflect the IIA, and the omission of Euston from the mayor s priority list should be highlighted. Crowding at Euston could be particularly severe if Crossrail 2 is not funded. Mark agreed to circulate a draft for further comment within the coming fortnight PR18 update RDG response to ORR s consultation on improving Network Rail s renewals efficiency An update on PR18 activity and the draft RDG response to the ORR consultation on improving Network Rail s renewals efficiency were provided in correspondence. Any comments should be directed to Mark Havenhand or directly to Bill Davidson.

8 Next meeting: 18 th October 2017 (note change of date to follow SoFA publication)