“I very firmly believe in a devolved railway”

Read the peer reviews for this feature

Brunel’s Great Western Railway has consistently shown itself to be a fertile testbed for the most modern techniques of their day in railway construction and operation. 

Sonning Cutting, the elliptical bridge at Maidenhead and Severn Tunnel are among the Victorian engineering marvels to grace the route, while Broad Gauge, Automatic Train Control and the world’s fastest diesel locomotive all subsequently made their debuts there.

Commencing in 2010, Network Rail’s planned modernisation of the route looked destined to enhance this reputation, by setting new standards in programme delivery and efficiency. But poor cost control and much-criticised project management has since blown full electrification considerably off-course, while necessitating the extensive re-engineering of a new fleet of Intercity Express Programme bi-mode trains that will begin entering traffic with Great Western Railway later this year. 

Slammed by the Public Accounts Committee as a “stark example of how not to run a major project”, the protracted Great Western Main Line upgrade will remain a noisy and unwanted distraction for Network Rail well into Control Period 6 (2019-24), under a revised delivery schedule. 

Meanwhile, it has also served to bolster the Western Route’s suitability for putting yet another new development through its paces. This is a new joint Supervisory Board, on which both track and train operators will sit, in a pilot lasting until the end of 2017.  

Allowing NR’s route businesses to integrate and work more closely with train and freight operating companies is hardly a new idea. Supervisory Boards are just the latest stop in a devolutionary journey that has already resulted in NR entering into formal operational alliances, and aligning objectives through new route scorecards, in order to improve the lot of passengers. 

NR’s Route MDs have also reported a significant empowerment of their authority over operational matters and expenditure, as both Sir Peter Hendy (Chairman) and Mark Carne (Chief Executive) have energetically led the assault on over-centralisation and a commonly perceived disconnection with the railway’s customers.  

Full integration is likely to be trialled by the independent organisation East West Rail, once a scoping report compiled earlier this year by its chairman Rob Brighouse has finally been published (RailReview Q1-2017). However, this is a targeted venture intended for a single piece of infrastructure, leaving Supervisory Boards as the chosen and more widely deployable method to increase operational integration and joined up decision-making on a network-wide basis. 

Spearheading this ambition, the Western Route Supervisory Board pushes NR’s Western Route together with the line’s principal train operators Great Western Railway and Heathrow Express, in order to help improve long-term planning and to align strategic priorities. Passenger representation has also been secured via the involvement of Transport Focus, as a fixed reminder of the overarching objective to improve the end-user experience, and minimise further passenger disruption throughout the ongoing route upgrade. 

The Board met for the first time in April, and will continue to meet every four weeks under the chairmanship of career railwayman Dick Fearn.

Fearn is assuredly well-qualified for the task of uniting its membership, given his past experience of sitting on all sides of the table. His previous roles include divisional director at British Rail, zone director at Railtrack and TOC MD, while his final senior position prior to retirement in 2013 was to run Irish Rail. This handed him an unrivalled insight into individual decision-making by track and train operators, with an added perspective of life within the fully integrated and nationalised environments of BR and Irish Rail. 

Recalibrating the balance of power held between those in central authority and in management at route level has long been Fearn’s ambition, and he welcomes the prospect of playing a key part in bringing that goal a step closer to reality. 

“I don’t want to sound cynical here as an old railwayman, but this is not new. We’ve been here before. When I was one of the zone directors at Railtrack, the chief executive at the time very firmly believed in the emphasis being on the routes, or the zones as we called them in those days. 

“But I think the accidents that affected Railtrack at the turn of the century led to a real centralisation. Maybe at that time it was necessary, but I very firmly believe in a devolved railway. One of the first things I did when I went to Ireland was create route-based general managers, as I found a very centralised affair with people having limited responsibility in the field. 

“At NR, Mark Carne also thinks that if you over-centralise things then you constrain innovations and people’s ideas in the field, to the point where they just follow the centre. That’s what is now changing on Britain’s railways. 

“It worked for me over there, so when Mark Carne asked me to get involved in this board as an independent chairman, I said yes straightaway. I think it follows on from the agenda he is, and I was then, trying to promote.” 

Fearn’s independence from NR was also a crucial factor in his appointment, as he vitally needed to uphold cross-party confidence in the fair-handedness of his chairmanship.

He also stresses that although championed by NR, the board is very much a joint enterprise - co-sponsored and co-funded by all partners, in a coalition of the willing. 

He adds: “Mark Carne is 100% behind it, and it has executive support from the Secretary of State and by extension the DfT. But I think more important than that is the TOCs, and in particular those on the Western Route, are fully behind it. 

“There are particular benefits to smaller TOCs such as Heathrow Express, because the beauty of having an independent board is that the small TOCs get a shout, in a way that without this opportunity they might not. They operate for just a few miles at the London end of the GWML, and the whole route is dominated by GWR, but to them the whole operation of Paddington is critically important. So the answer is a route board, which gives an equal voice at the table to all players.

“I’ve got to bring my experience to the party, because I’ve had experience managing railways in the UK and Ireland in times of great change. All the players bring something different, and the big thing for me is getting to know the individual MDs well and then steering the ship. The biggest thing of all for me is that I’m completely independent, and I’ve seen things from an operational view and vice-versa. Everyone around the table is equal to me - I’m not putting anyone above anyone else, and they all fully understand that.”

With no formal decision-making power or ability to mandate change in the way that the Western Route is run or how major improvements are being delivered, Fearn will be relying on his powers of persuasion to achieve unanimity and mutual understanding. 

Ultimately successful outcomes can only be achieved with continued stakeholder engagement, and a continued faith that the value of collective decision-making is greater than the sum total of the board’s parts. 

In the absence of executive clout, Fearn’s tools will be in the promotion of constructive discussion, and in his ability to guide all participants into ‘speaking each other’s language’. 

He explains: “I’m an independent, non-executive chairman, so I can’t summon anybody to anything. But what I can do is encourage them that this is a useful avenue for them. This is not just a board with token representatives, this is about MDs and their influence being discussed under an independent chair. 

“If I’m getting lots of apologies, then I’m not winning. On the other hand, if the MDs are routinely coming then there’s obviously value in it. So attendance is a key measure.

“People may ask  ‘how can you do anything when you don’t have any executive powers?’ I certainly don’t have that power, but the other people around the table have a huge amount of executive power, so winning on this board is also to channel their efforts through their executive power in a co-ordinated way. 

“It is a mechanism by which we can co-ordinate the efforts of those who do have power to make things happen. Most people come to work to do a good job and make a difference, but sometimes their efforts are not co-ordinated with the next person who is trying to do the same thing. If you asked Mark Hopwood or Mark Langman what we are trying to do, they would both probably say  ‘trying to deliver a better railway’, but sometimes while railway organisations share that objective their actions don’t always co-ordinate to achieve that. Through this board and other route boards we can aspire to co-ordinate everyone’s efforts to that end result. 

“How can we do that? One way is to look at the same numbers, as one of the problems with looking at performance reviews and objectives is that we’re all looking at different numbers. On this board, everyone will have a shared route scorecard and everybody’s committed to having an open agenda.”  

Should the board’s members deem the pilot a success, then Network Rail is likely to call for rollout across each of its routes from early next year. The Western Route Supervisory Board will also welcome two new members in the run-up to the first phase of the Western Section of the Elizabeth Line opening between Paddington main line station and Heathrow Airport in May 2018. Crossrail Operations Director Howard Smith and MTR Crossrail MD Steve Murphy will then attend meetings as and when discussions require their presence. 

The board will also be joined from time to time by operators without full membership status, but which run across route boundaries - for example, freight carriers and CrossCountry. 

Fearn is acutely aware of the diplomatic role he must play in balancing the needs of these secondary operators with those of other board members, while at the same time finding a way to effectively address other operational issues that may affect not only his route, but also neighbouring routes that lie outside of his jurisdiction. 

“We will meet every four weeks at Paddington, and out and about on the route, and everyone’s agreed that we’ve got to give ourselves the rest of the year to demonstrate how this will work. What we’ll almost certainly do when we visit a location is take the opportunity to bring someone in from that area. 

“I have a few things to think about, as in the same way that the GWML runs into the Wales route , there are operators who run over the Western route but who are not the primary operators - like CrossCountry or freight, for example. One of the things we’ve already said is that from time to time we will want to hear from those operators who are not the primary ones, but who have a very important interest. 

“If CrossCountry represented themselves on every route board then they’d never do anything else, because their trains go across all the routes. What we’ll do with those players where Western is only part of their business is periodically encourage them to come. I’ve already said there’s an open door if they want to.”

Speaking to RailReview shortly before the board’s first meeting in April, Fearn outlines what he feels will be the key talking points in his first months at the helm, while at the same time deliberately not trying to pre-empt the outcome of those discussions.  

He concludes with an interesting insight into his progressive and forward-thinking style of leadership, while offering a glimpse of what can be expected from his chairmanship as the faults of the past are given no room to cloud the board’s collective decisions on future matters.  

“Current performance is probably top priority, and asking ourselves if there are any things we can do jointly now to get it on an upward trajectory. The number two item is, of course, the implementation phases of the various investment programmes. Yes, that means electrification, but it’s not the only one - there’s lots of other work going on the infrastructure side, but there’s also brand new IEP trains. And Crossrail is coming.

“There’s no point crying all night about the fact that electrification is not going as far as we thought it would. What we should be saying is  ‘hang on, we have electrification in the first stage , and we have new trains coming, so let’s get on with that’. 

“I’m not a whinger who says ‘we should’ve done that’ - let’s just get the best for the passenger. I don’t want the board to get too hung up about very long-term aims that they may or may not be able to affect when there’s loads of things we can do on the work that is being done. 

“Don’t lose sleep over something we might not be able to do because it’s not in our gift, focus on the things we can influence. We can’t afford to let fighting fires affect our strategic thinking.” 

This article reminds us of Brunel’s legacy in innovation, design and engineering, which continues to inspire today’s railway leaders. The elegant stone used in his bridges and tunnels also reminds us that infrastructure development needs quality raw materials, today as then. No surprise then that construction stone remains one of the main rail freight flows on the Great Western, feeding the demands of the building sector in London and the South East.

Brunel’s great steam ships knew a thing or two about international trade, and I am sure he would have been proud to see his railway playing such a vital role in moving imported and exported goods from Southampton and Bristol ports. Given the importance of these services, it is perhaps surprising that the Route Supervisory Board is so light on freight content.

It is worth saying from the outset that conceptually the Board clearly has merit. I have not yet met with Dick Fearn, but those who have are impressed with his approach and his engagement, and a sensible and open approach to the freight ‘question’. That it is a question, however, emphasises the lack of clarity on how Network Rail intends its various devolved parts to work together to deliver for national operators as well as for those aligned with specific routes.

It is clearly impossible for the MDs of national operators to attend eight or more different Boards. In time, if the concept is rolled out, Paul McMahon (who leads Network Rail’s Freight and National Passenger Operators route, FNPO) may well seek to establish his own Supervisory Board. Indeed, there would be support for one.  Whether the National System Operator will also follow suit remains to be seen, but given its key role there is probably a case for so doing.  

Yet unless FNPO has any authority with the geographic routes, such a framework will have its limitations. The Western Route is likely to have a freight performance metric on its scorecard, but no other freight measures. There is good alignment between the Strategic Business Plans, which may also help. For day-to-day operations, however, or where there are new developments outside of the plan, the ability of freight operators to influence route actions really could be very limited.

On the Western, the scale of programme for the passenger railway remains immense, but there are freight consequences as well. Capacity is getting tighter for any new services, the programme of gauge clearance remains incomplete, and the work to enable longer trains from Southampton (which should be finished by the end of CP5) will also have impacts. The planning of construction trains at the London end remains a priority in new timetables, post-electrification and post-Crossrail. And there could be further changes, with the new runway at Heathrow possibly requiring closure of the Colnbrook branch and the relocation of the terminals it serves.

This all means that freight cannot be an afterthought for the Supervisory Board. There must be a proactive and informed approach, instead of one where operators are asked to attend like naughty schoolchildren if performance is bad! Dick Fearn can get this right, and we look forward to seeing his approach in action.

I am a strong supporter of the Joint Supervisory Board concept. It feels like the right idea at the right time, and one that is not trying to impose yet another reorganisation on an over-stretched industry. The idea is just to make the existing structure work better. 

When I was MD at Virgin Trains, I remember wishing we had just this sort of problem-sharing group to get us through the chaos of the West Coast Upgrade - but the new rail industry was still too immature and unstable for this at the time.

We are now 20 years into privatisation, and the Great Western Board is showing us that the industry players have finally achieved the maturity and confidence to share their problems and aspirations in open discussion with each other. Instead of sitting in their corners muttering about other players, the GW route users can now table their concerns for discussion and resolution at their new joint Supervisory Board. 

They will not be short of issues to discuss: Heathrow Express wants an ultra-reliable airport shuttle on the main lines; GWR wants an expanded IEP timetable on the same tracks; and freight and Crossrail are seeking a modus operandi on the congested Relief Lines. These conflicting needs are clearly more likely to be solved if the principals understand and acknowledge each other’s needs.

Network Rail has had the challenging task of meeting these disparate customer needs, while also trying to upgrade the Great Western Main Line around them. Had the Joint Supervisory Board existed five years ago, I suspect we might have seen a far smoother upgrade - particularly if the Project Director had been included on the Board. As it is, the new Board still has a major role to play in finding less intrusive ways of completing the GW Upgrade, with its endless demand for line closures and possessions. The Board’s first big win could well be to find acceptable ways of reducing proposals for yet another six days of disruption in the Paddington area this Christmas. 

Dick Fearn is the ideal choice to lead the pilot Supervisory Board. He blends railway knowledge and experience with the personal skills to enthuse and persuade people to sensible solutions. As he says, he does not need executive power - his role is to persuade those with the authority to find better solutions together. 

If I have a concern, it would be that the Engineering Standards and Major Projects side of Network Rail still seem to be left as centralised silos at Milton Keynes. The new Boards should be pushing to have routine project work delegated back to the Route Directors - including the authority to issue derogations from over-draconian central standards. Future Major Project Directors should also be represented at senior level on the new Supervisory Boards. 

I for one would hope that the GW pilot Board will be rolled out across the industry in 2018, as evidence that a mature rail industry is getting its act together.