With rail getting all the funding it needs, the local LibDem MP has used the derailment of a passenger train in Cumbria to highlight the risk of landslips on the rail network as climate change increases the risks.
A high-speed Avanti West Coast train said to be travelling at around 80mph partly derailed after hitting a landslide in Cumbria early this morning.
The operator said all 86 people plus its train crew were evacuated to a nearby hotel and were were assessed by paramedics, with four treated for minor injuries but none requiring hospital treatment.
Former LibDem leader Tim Farron called for an investigation into whether enough resources were being spent on the line.
National Highways has declined to confirm that it will meet a pledge to mitigate by 2030 all outfalls that pose a “high-risk” of polluting the environment with toxic road runoff.
The company has published a document that its director of environmental sustainability, Stephen Elderkin, described on LinkedIn, as “detailing 182 confirmed high priority locations where outfalls or soakaways present a high-risk of pollution”.
But, while the locations are confirmed, the pledge to mitigate them appears far less certain.
The detailed document and map represent the next stage of the government-owned company’s 2030 Water Quality Plan, which:
sets out a high-level programme of work that achieves the plan to mitigate all high risk outfalls by 2030
However, that document also emphasizes that:
Delivery in RP3 will be subject to funding being agreed through RIS3.
Elderkin’s statement National Highways has “committed to mitigate the risk at high-risk locations by 2030 with the installation of new or upgraded treatment facilities” conspicuously lacks the word “all”.
The new document states that it:
contains details of sites confirmed through these processes as having an confirmed risk of pollution at the end of August 2025. These high priority locations include a total of 182 assets.
It adds:
We expect that, in all, approximately 250 outfalls and soakaways will be confirmed as requiring new or upgraded treatment systems by 2030.
While Elderkin stated that:
In total, we expect to deliver improvements to around 250 locations
this is a statement of expectation without a date.
Similarly, the new document conspicuously avoids making firm commitments. It lists for each location:
A transport minister has confirmed that we will be kept in the dark about the costs of individual “enhancement” schemes when the next road investment strategy (RIS 3) is published in March, underlining just how little transparency there is about roads spending.
It follows the Department for Transport (DfT) still refusing to say how much the Structures Fund that it announced in June will actually be worth and how much the four-year budget for local road enhancements will be, even after clarifying that there will be a total of £1bn for both.
The third Road Investment Strategy (RIS3) will be published in March 2026 and will include a total funding line for all enhancements to the strategic road network to be delivered during the period 2026-2031.
This does mean that we will be able to judge whether the DfT has put its money where its mouth is over pledges in the draft RIS of “a greater focus than ever before on the maintenance and renewal of the network”.
Without even a headline figure so far for the cost of enhancements, or even the capital/resource split in the £25bn five-year budget, it is impossible to judge this pledge.
A minister’s answer to a parliamentary question this week includes a claim that appears to be untrue but would be just as controversial if it were true.
I wrote yesterday about Simon Lightwood’s response to a parliamentary question from shadow transport secretary Richard Holden, about the Ely Area Capacity Enhancements scheme, making the point that Lightwood contradicted rail minister Peter Hendy’s claim that the government is “backing rail with the funding needed”.
The Ely Area Capacity scheme was closed by the previous government and it has not been possible to reprioritise it at the most recent Spending Review.
Firstly note that Lightwood’s claim that is has not been possible to fund the scheme, which again gives the lie to Hendy’s claim.
But Lightwood also claimed that the Tories had “closed” the scheme.
Although it is true that neither Labour nor the Tories have provided funding for the scheme, this claim is not matched by information in the public domain.
Transport minister Simon Lightwood has contradicted fellow minister Lord (Peter) Hendy’s patently untrue claim that the government is “backing rail with the funding needed”.
In reply to a parliamentary question, once again from Tory Richard Holden, about the Ely Area Capacity Enhancements scheme, Lightwood said:
Secretary of State set out the schemes that have been prioritised for the Spending Review period in her 8 July announcement and made clear that other schemes would be kept under review as part of our pipeline for potential progression in future as funding becomes available.
Network Rail, which Hendy used to run before becoming the rail minister, says:
The railway through Ely is a vital part of the rail network. It includes a busy junction where five railway lines converge and is currently operating at full capacity. This is limiting the opportunity for growth of important routes for passenger and cross-country freight services.
Now, it may be a sensible approach to acknowledge that you don’t currently have the money do everything that needs doing. But, as I noted earlier this week, Hendy claimed that:
The Government … is backing rail with the funding needed.
How can you have schemes waiting for funding to become available at the same time as providing all the funding needed?
Funding for local road enhancements and repairing thousands of “run-down bridges, decaying flyovers and worn-out tunnels” over the next four years will be equivalent to the cost of one major project on the strategic road network.
The Department for Transport (DFT) has clarified its botched press release in June about cash for England’s road network, explaining that while the £1bn in the headline will not be used for the Lower Thames Crossing (LTC), it will have to cover both “local highway enhancement projects” and a new Structures Fund.
The department will still not say how much of the £1bn is for enhancements to local roads under the Major Road Network (MRN) and Large Local Majors (LLM) funding streams and how much is for repairing dodgy structures, but it’s unlikely to do much on either front.
The original announcement referred to “major investments to improve vital road structures”, with approximately 3,000 bridges currently unable to support the heaviest vehicles, with the package also including £590m to take forward the LTC.
It made no reference to enhancement schemes on local roads, but was very much focused on making “vital road structures…both more resilient to extreme weather events and to the demands of modern transport”.
In a further announcement in July, the DfT claimed in July to have “green-lit” 28 local road enhancement schemes, referring to:
£1 billion to enhance the local road network and create a new structures fund
As I wrote last week, roads minister Simon Lightwood told shadow transport secretary Richard Holden in a parliamentary written answer that £24bn capital funding for roads over the next four years:
includes £1 billion for key local highway enhancement projects and a new Structures Fund for repairing run-down bridges, decaying flyovers and worn-out tunnels.
The DfT has now confirmed that the £1bn covers the Structures Fund and enhancement schemes on local roads, with an additional £590m specifically for developing the LTC.
It’s not clear why Lightwood thought the £1bn was something to boast about as it is the same as the estimated cost of just one of National Highways enhancement schemes – the A428 Black Cat to Caxton Gibbet.
what assessment they have made of the benefits of expanding local rail services to local economies, and of increasing rail services into cities to reduce road congestion, improve air quality and reduce carbon emissions.
The reply from transport minister Lord Hendy was basically that the question only arises if civil servants have a specific proposal in front of them, rather than taking a strategic approach, or for example when they have already decided that a major road scheme is the answer:
Assessments of the benefits of expanding local rail services to local economies, and of increasing rail services into cities, are assessed on a case-by-case basis to reflect local economic conditions, using Transport Analysis Guidance (TAG).
Expanded local rail services can help drive local economic growth by opening up new development opportunities, unlocking housing, reducing costs for businesses and supporting people into work.
Hendy’s answer then descended into something between wishful thinking and lying:
The Government recognises the crucial role rail plays in delivering these benefits and is backing rail with the funding needed. The 2025 spending review committed £10.2 billion provided for rail enhancements in the period over the next four years.
So let’s take the proposed upgrade at Ely Junction, a rail enhancement that everyone thinks would make a difference to freight and passengers services.
It’s still unclear what budget, if any, the Department for Transport (DfT) has for the local road enhancement schemes that it “green lit” in July and the roads minister’s reply to a parliamentary question has muddied the waters.
By way of a reminder, in August I asked the DfT under FOI what the combined or individual budgets are for Major Road Network (MRN) and Large Local Major (LLM) schemes over the period of the spending review.
It implicitly admitted that “this information” exists, but refused to disclose it, claiming that:
Ministers are actively considering matters that directly relate to this information, and further decisions are expected to be made in due course.
As I have observed, the absence of a clear budget for MRN/LLM schemes leaves Labour looking like it is guilty of what it criticised the Tories for – making unfunded transport spending announcements.
That same month, the 10-year infrastructure strategy said the government was “investing £1 billion to enhance the road network and create a new Structures Fund that will repair major structures like bridges, flyovers and collapsed roads”.
That billion could include the £590m for the LTC, which is part of the overall road network, although that would involve an element of double counting as that sum is promised elsewhere in the strategy.
But this is where it gets murky. In its July press release, the DfT said it was “providing £1 billion to enhance the local road network and create a new structures fund”.
Work has begun on upgrading a motorway junction despite a £70m funding gap.
Preliminary ecological works for the £363m junction 10 near Cheltenham and Gloucester revamp – which would allow motorists to drive on and off both northbound and southbound – has already begun.
Councillor Julian Tooke, Gloucestershire County Council’s cabinet member for infrastructure, admitted they were taking a “financial risk” by starting work before having all the funds in place.
It might not be wise, but it isn’t that unusual for preliminary works to take place before a scheme gets a full green light.
In this case, there remains a £70m gap between the funding and the projected cost of the scheme, which the council is hoping to fill with more cash from the Housing Infrastructure Fund.
The BBC helps out a bit with some wishful thinking:
The scheme is expected to unlock further development including up to 15,000 homes, 12,000 high-skilled jobs, and support for the £1bn Golden Valley development.
The Treasury has confirmed that chancellor Rachel Reeves secretly awarded the Lower Thames Crossing a quarter of a billion pounds in last year’s Autumn Budget, as the cost of the scheme are set to hit £2bn, before construction begins.
The preparation costs for the planned £10bn+ tunnel between Kent and Essex are now likely to reach two-thirds of the scheme’s projected benefits.
Labour has said it will examine using a form of private finance for the project, which it appears to consider unaffordable and which will be funded outside the usual road investment strategy machinery.
But public funding includes £250m that was allocated to the project in Labour’s first Budget, last October, but not publicly announced until the National Infrastructure Strategy was published in June.
This said the government was:
providing £590 million of capital funding to progress work on the Lower Thames Crossing, in addition to the £250 million which was provided at Phase 1 of the Spending Review.
The Treasury has acknowledged that the £250m was allocated at the 2024 Autumn Budget on a “provisional” basis as the project’s development consent order (DCO) was pending, with the infrastructure strategy being the first time the funding was revealed publicly.
The Department for Transport has confirmed that the cash was part of the capital spending total of £21.8bn announced in the Budget.
Following the Budget, the then transport secretary, Louise Haigh was forced to resign, following a leak about a criminal conviction that appeared to have come from No 10.
Her successor, Heidi Alexander, then approved the DCO in March of this year, in time for the cash to be included in confirmed spending plans for 2025-26.
Transport Insights 
Leave a comment