Network Rail monitor

The Network Rail monitor is an important tool we use to hold Network Rail to account. We publish the monitor quarterly. It sets out how we think Network Rail is doing in delivering its obligations to its customers and funders and highlights any areas of concern.

Network Rail monitor publication dates are also available.

The latest monitor is for Q4 2009-10.

• Network Rail monitor Q4 2009-10 (PDF)

A summary for Great Britain follows below. Click on the headings to navigate to the main sections of the publication.

Great Britain summary

A safe railway

Passenger safety generally was good, with lagging safety indicators moving in the right direction. Network Rail’s management of level crossing risk was also good: progress was made closing some 400 user worked crossings and towards reducing risk at automatic open level crossings after the Halkirk triple fatality. We noted some encouraging use of technology at level crossings. Network Rail  has started to measure its safety culture using the RSSB toolkit and we welcome this also.

Regrettably, however, there were three fatal accidents to Network Rail’s workers and contractors in the year. Our inspection program found significant failings in structures management and we issued an improvement notice requiring deficiencies to be addressed by March 2011. Inspection findings continued to expose weaknesses in track worker safety and we issued several enforcement notices for that.  In total we issued five prohibition notices and twelve improvement notices - zero notices should be the aim of all duty-holders.

Customer service

Responding well to its immediate customers (the passenger and freight train operators) is as important to Network Rail’s long term success as delivering ‘hard’ regulated outputs. We welcome inclusion of customer and passenger satisfaction in its management incentive arrangements and the inclusion of a service culture stream in the company’s transformation programme.

Network Rail’s survey of passenger and freight train operator satisfaction showed a welcome improvement driven by better passenger train operator responses. Freight operators remain generally less satisfied, the score only slightly up on the previous year.

Operators scored Network Rail higher for the way it manages relationships including valuing the relationship, honesty, timeliness, being easy to work with and business understanding. As last year they were least satisfied with involvement in decisions and considered Network Rail to be poorly integrated and inflexible. Network Rail is rightly looking for substantial further improvements in all scores as the benefits of its transformation programme feed through.

Network Rail included passenger satisfaction in its management incentive arrangements for the first time. This uses satisfaction as measured by Passenger Focus surveys; 2009 scores were 1-2% up on the previous year which is encouraging. Of course overall satisfaction is influenced by many factors outside Network Rail’s control. One area where it does have a significant impact is punctuality and reliability, where passenger satisfaction increased from 81% to 83%.

The company responded well to crises at times during the year. When floods cut off much road access to Workington in November it built and opened a temporary station within 10 days. There was much good work to keep services running during exceptionally severe winter weather. More recently the company postponed track works so that extra trains could run for passengers unable to fly during the disruption caused by the volcanic ash cloud.

Network Rail is also working well with funders in responding to changes to requirements for its enhancement projects. And it has been the driving force with its industry partners on long-term planning issues through the new ‘planning ahead’ initiative.

Timetable development is a core role for Network Rail. While it handles most routine changes well we have concerns about its ability to take a strategic view of the optimal use of network capacity, based most recently on the time it has taken the industry to agree a new East Coast timetable. At the end of the year, introduction of Network Rail’s new integrated train planning system caused significant timetabling problems for train operators and their customers. We are investigating the circumstances which led to these problems and the company’s plans to ensure that similar problems do not arise again.

Passenger research shows that the industry is poor at providing useful information when services are disrupted. The industry recognises the urgent need for improvement, highlighted particularly during last winter’s severe weather. Network Rail is playing a major part in the industry’s plans to make significant improvement in this area. With the Department for Transport, we are holding the industry to account to deliver on this programme.

During the year we pressed Network Rail to resolve difficulties reported by stakeholders in accessing accurate gauge information, for example to enable the design of new trains. It developed a comprehensive response and a new strategy for handling gauge information which we endorsed, but we have asked for a clear statement of expected turn-around times for typical information requests, with subsequent monitoring of service levels. We now require Network Rail to apply a similar approach to other areas of capability where similar problems remain, starting with power supply capability.

Train service performance

For much of 2009-10, the industry’s overall performance in terms of punctuality (the public performance measure PPM), cancellations and significant lateness (CaSL) and delay was very good. After nine periods it seemed possible that the industry would end 2009-10 two years ahead of the improvement trajectories we set for CP4. But the severe weather in December and January caused performance to slump. In Scotland severe weather returned in period 12 and this caused particular problems in late February. As a result, Network Rail missed five of its ten sector level regulated performance requirements for 2009-10.

We called on Network Rail to account for why it had fallen short of these requirements. We have now accepted  its evidence that the severity of conditions at times during the winter was genuinely exceptional, that it could not reasonably have been expected to meet all minimum performance requirements taking this into account, and that but for this factor it may well have delivered all the sector performance requirements. Our investigations did, however, raise concerns about how focused Network Rail is on meeting its aggregate freight obligations and we will be monitoring this closely.

Network Rail performance on the West Coast main line has been a serious concern throughout this year. After initially appearing insufficiently responsive to the needs of its customers for rapid improvements, and facing strong regulatory intervention from us and DfT, Network Rail has worked more closely with the operators. Special rapid response teams were established to mitigate the impact of asset failures while longer-term solutions were sought. Problems included continuing unreliability of axle counters, some types of new pointwork and power supplies. After an encouraging autumn, performance fell back but recent performance has been more encouraging and there are indications that the main asset reliability issues are beginning to come under control. We will continue to monitor this route closely until we are satisfied that sustainable good performance has been achieved.

Towards the end of the year performance on the East Coast main line began to cause us all concern. Both First Capital Connect and East Coast Trains asked us to intervene to apply pressure for early improvement. We held a meeting with Network Rail and three operators using the route and were pleased to see evidence of increased cooperation in understanding the problems and agreeing credible plans to deliver early improvements on all sides. We will continue to monitor progress.

We placed a new requirement on Network Rail in CP4 to reduce disruption to passengers from planned engineering work by 37% by March 2014 and to ensure that disruption to freight services should get no worse. Disruption fell during the year and at the end of 2009-10 the disruption indices were already better than the regulatory requirements for 2013-14. Network Rail has introduced some less disruptive working methods on the network but to some extent this very good result also reflects the deferral of engineering work and a relatively low level of enhancement activity. Network Rail therefore still faces a challenge to deliver its obligations in the later years of CP4.

Developing the network

Although overall Network Rail is slightly behind its internal schedule for the enhancements programme, taken as a whole we believe it has made reasonable progress. In December the Glasgow to Kilmarnock project was finished on time and additional services were introduced.
Development work on some projects is behind schedule; in some cases this has been caused by Network Rail but in others it reflects dependence on third party funding or on Government rolling stock decisions.

Where projects overlap it is essential that these are properly integrated. On the western route projects include Reading station area, Crossrail surface works, electrification, new ‘super express’ trains and resignalling with ERTMS. Network Rail has brought in new internal management arrangements and has introduced a high-level cross-industry management group to coordinate the planning and operation of these major projects. These are critically important initiatives and have our full support.

Physical work on Thameslink progressed reasonably well in 2009-10, notably installation of a new bridge deck at Blackfriars. An independent reporter review of progress on key output 1 concluded that Network Rail is unlikely to achieve the Blackfriars station ‘substantially complete’ milestone by March 2012 but this should not affect planned changes to train services. However, for the final stage Key Output 2 projected costs currently exceed the budget. Network Rail is working on revised plans for London Bridge to reduce costs.

Network Rail’s work planning power supply upgrades on Anglia routes was very weak and we had to intervene to demand better progress; even then the company struggled to make the necessary improvements quickly. Work on West Anglia and Thameside has reached single option selection, important to remain on course to deliver by December 2011, but work on Great Eastern is more challenging and is taking longer.

2009-10 was a significant year for the GSM-R project. Network Rail faced technical challenges in the Strathclyde pilot scheme but GSM R is now in operation across Strathclyde. It was successfully introduced onto Virgin Trains south of Crewe, rapidly producing evidence of reduced train delays. However concerns about the rollout timescale are growing, especially for routes south of the Severn-Wash line where existing radio systems cannot continue beyond 2012. Infrastructure works are progressing well, but Network Rail has found reaching commercial agreements with train operators for cab fitment to be difficult and much less progress has been made with this. It is now seeking bilateral agreements to allow work to begin while there is still scope to do so efficiently by making use of periods when the units are out of service for maintenance or refurbishment.

More detail on the full programme of enhancement projects is included in the body of this monitor.

Network Rail has worked well with passenger and freight train operators through the planning oversight group on long-term planning for the industry, and to coordinate industry input to governments' development of output specifications for the next control period. We strongly support this work and look forward to publication in June of the group’s position on longer term strategy and the priorities for rail users and funders in CP5.

Asset management

Asset reliability improved in 2009-10 despite the exceptionally severe winter. This has been a major contributor to the overall reduction in delays caused by Network Rail.

However, as we have continued to learn more about the state of Network Rail’s asset management capabilities, including through its work to revise its asset policies and plans, we have concluded that it has more to do to achieve asset management excellence than we had previously believed. Key areas of weakness are continuing inability to optimise maintenance and renewals to achieve minimum whole-life costs, slow progress in addressing deficiencies in asset knowledge management and particular failings in the planning and delivery of sustainable structures management. We will work with Network Rail in the coming months to establish and articulate a clear, challenging but deliverable trajectory towards best practice asset management by the company, meeting the priority requirements of the industry and its customers.

Network Rail found it hard to demonstrate that its revised asset policies are robust and sustainable and we had to press repeatedly for clear supporting rationales. However we have finally been convinced that all the policies except that for its structures (e.g. bridges) meet both tests. Network Rail has itself acknowledged that it cannot demonstrate sustainability for its structures policy. We are jointly commissioning the independent reporter to review this area in depth.

We have had concerns about the quality of its structures examinations, which has potential consequences for asset stewardship and safety. This led us to issue an improvement notice for its south eastern region in March. We believe Network Rail is learning the lessons from these failures and we shall continue to monitor progress jointly with them.

We particularly commend Network Rail’s continued work to reduce the number of temporary speed restrictions, which ended the year at 170, less than half the figure of four years ago. This has made a significant contribution to better train performance. Last year we were critical of points reliability. Whilst this remains the largest single cause of infrastructure delay, this was down 11.8% compared to 2008-09. The high performance switch system equipment has seen considerable attention and the results suggest that many of the causes of failure have been resolved. Whilst overall axle counter reliability is still not as good as anticipated, the number of occasions when it leads to major disruption is falling. There are signs that Network Rail’s sustained attention to identifying and resolving the technical problems, working closely with the manufacturer Thales, is making progress.

Progress on the cab based signalling system trial on the Cambrian route has again been slower than planned, with further delays in commissioning and completion expected on 31 October 2010. We have called Network Rail to a joint meeting with DfT to explain how it will resolve the ongoing problems with this trial and we will monitor progress on this closely.

Expenditure and efficiency

Accurate calculation of Network Rail’s efficiency is an important part of our assessment of the company’s performance. Our determination for the control period assumes a 21% improvement in efficiency by March 2014. We will report on these issues in more detail in our annual efficiency and finance assessment in September.

The main expenditure issues are that Network Rail spent £149m (17.7%) more on controllable opex than assumed in our determination, and £649m (21.4%) less on renewals, largely due to deferral of renewals work to later in CP4.

The main efficiency issues are that for the same output requirements expenditure on controllable opex and maintenance combined was higher than our determination assumption. We had assumed an efficiency improvement of 3.0% whereas actual efficiency deteriorated by 2.5%. In its CP4 delivery plan Network Rail established a phasing of expenditure different from our determination. In particular, it budgeted for higher operations/support functions expenditure in 2009-10 but greater efficiency savings over the remainder of CP4. Network Rail has the flexibility to re-phase expenditure in this way if it considers that this is the best way to meet delivery requirements, and it did meet its budget in 2009-10. We cannot yet judge the efficiency of renewals expenditure in that year, but we expect that the position will become clearer by the time we complete our annual efficiency assessment in September.

Note: we use colour flags to show at a glance our level of concern with an issue:

	Network Rail delivery is satisfactory or good.
	Network Rail delivery is currently unsatisfactory and/or we have some concerns about future delivery. We have raised the issue with Network Rail at a working level.
	The issue is subject to special scrutiny, with intensive investigation and enhanced monitoring. We may have discussed potential licence concerns with Network Rail Directors.
	We have major concerns about current and/or future delivery. We are considering, or have already decided to take formal enforcement action.

Network Rail monitor library

• 2005-2010

Related documents