RISK, ASSET & DOCUMENT MANAGEMENT
A RTM speaks to Chris MacRae, manager of rail freight policy at the Freight Transport Association, about asset
management in the rail industry and the impact Network Rail’s devolution is having.
sset management and monitoring has long been a concern of freight opera-
tors, due to the structure of rail freight ac- cess charges and the need to pay to offset the costs of freight’s use of the track.
Poor asset management can lead to these costs and thus charges being miscalcu- lated.
But Network Rail is really getting its act together on this issue, according to Chris MacRae, rail freight policy manager at the Freight Transport Association.
He said: “It has been a concern for rail freight operating companies. Tradition- ally, there certainly were issues about the extent to which Railtrack and latterly Net- work Rail had a proper grip on their as- sets’ conditions, and how that related to expenditure on those assets, and how that related to the cost to maintain those assets, through into rail freight access charges.
“I think it’s fair to say that Network Rail has been much better at that than Rail- track ever was.
“Although Network Rail has got better, one of the things that came out of the McNulty review and the ORR’s determination on Network Rail’s expenditure for what is now the current control period was that the cost of UK rail infrastructure is above compara- ble European benchmarks. This is a point that has been disputed by Network Rail, because it says it’s comparing apples with oranges, because of different structures and the like, but there are issues there.
“Indeed, one of the proposed benefits of Network Rail’s devolution has been the alignment of asset management much more closely with basic route require- ments. That means that rather than being centrally planned, everything can be much more locally planned and locally delivered. That’s the theory – that things become more targeted in terms of spending and work prioritisation.”
Network Rail, throughout most areas of its operation, has been trying to make itself more open and accommodating to external suppliers, contractors, and partners – and loosening some of its more centralising and secretive instincts from its early years, dealing as it was with then with under-in-
MacRae said: “Obviously, where the net- work provider is effectively being region- alised and there is talk about ‘alliancing’ and closer alignment between Network Rail in a region and the predominant, usually DfT-franchised, passenger train operating company, that’s something that makes secondary users feel some concern. Freight is only one type of ‘secondary user’, alongside some passenger operators like CrossCountry, for example. But even the term ‘secondary user’ is emotive and can be taken in a negative way, even though it is generally just a statement of the facts.
Network Rail
vestment and the aftermath of a series of disastrous safety failures.
This more relaxed and inclusive attitude has spread to its relationship with compa- nies in the freight industry.
MacRae explained: “Network Rail is des- perately trying to make itself easier to do business with. That’s not just in terms of rail freight operators, but also in terms of people who develop terminals, and on ac- cess agreements for connections from the main line into a new rail freight terminal, for example.
“Traditionally, that was an area of criticism – that they weren’t particularly easy to do busi- ness with in that respect. They’ve been mak- ing strides to become more closely accessible to the end customer and developers.”
MacRae is cautiously optimistic about the future for freight and its relationship with Network Rail, especially in light of some good news in Chancellor George Osborne’s Autumn Statement.
He said: “The announcements about cer- tain freight projects all bode very well for a continuation of the Strategic Freight Net- work expenditure fund from the current control period into the next one.”
But more broadly, concerns remain in the light of the McNulty review, and in terms of the priority that devolved route managing directors will give freight.
“We have had a number of reassurances that freight will be protected. It’s good that Network Rail have appointed a freight director, which they didn’t have before – Tim Robinson is a very good chap who we’ve worked with already. There have also been more changes to Network Rail’s freight managers. Whereas before they had been a centralised team, pre-McNulty they were ‘decentralised’ out to the routes and regions – but they are now being brought back into the central freight team headed up by Tim Robinson.
“Their whole remit is to take a completely cross-network view of what freight needs, what’s going wrong, and what needs to be done to develop it. It’s early days, but we’ve seen positive moves so far.
“The proof will be in how engineering pos- sessions are handled between different Net- work Rail routes. Most freight movements are long-distance, often crossing Network Rail’s borders; a good example is Freight- liner’s Southampton to Coatbridge service.
“If one region took an engineering pos- session on one line, how does that tie up with the diversion and routing capability for other regions? It’s easy for Virgin West Coast trains on one Network Rail route, but for Freightliner, for example, there are now a lot of different Net- work Rail routes to deal with. That’s the sort of thing freight has concerns about, and everyone knows that those concerns are there.”
Chris MacRae
FOR MORE INFORMATION Visit
www.fta.co.uk
rail technology magazine Dec/Jan 12 | 49
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92