The Transport Committee has published a comprehensive report examining investment patterns in UK rail infrastructure, identifying widespread concerns about “boom and bust” cycles that threaten supply chain stability.
The inquiry received evidence from over 50 stakeholders including Network Rail, the Railway Industry Association, rolling stock manufacturers, trade unions and devolved authorities. Industry representatives described current conditions as the worst in several years, with a November 2025 poll finding 64% of rail business leaders expecting sector contraction and 85% anticipating work hiatuses.
The Railway Industry Association reported years of fluctuating investment creating inefficiencies, job losses and weak investment incentives. Particular concerns were raised about peaks and troughs in rolling stock procurement, stuttering electrification programmes and variable spending through Network Rail’s Control Periods.
The report notes the rail sector supported £42.9 billion of economic production, 710,000 jobs and £14.1 billion in tax revenues in 2019. Network Rail’s asset base was valued at £490.4 billion as of March 2025.
Evidence highlighted that uneven investment increases costs. The National Skills Academy for Rail estimated current workforce planning methods could increase project costs by 7.25%. Rail electrification costs were found to be around a third lower when steady investment is maintained, with Germany’s consistent annual electrification of 200 kilometres cited as a model compared to Britain’s highly variable approach.
The committee examined three main funding routes. Control Periods provide five-year settlements for renewals of approximately £3.5 billion annually. Whilst offering reasonable certainty, the committee found spending profiles for particular work categories can be uneven, with significant disruption reported at the start of Control Period 7.
The Rail Network Enhancements Pipeline (RNEP) was launched in 2018 but has not been updated since October 2019. The committee described it as “a sound idea, undermined by a chronic lack of updates and by poor decisions to add immature or unfunded projects”. Major programmes such as HS2 operate outside these frameworks, with spending at around £7 billion annually in recent years.
The Great Western Electrification Programme was highlighted as demonstrating the consequences of inadequate planning. After significant cost and time overruns, the broader National Electrification Programme was cancelled, leaving suppliers with unrecovered losses and reduced willingness to invest. Only 39% of Britain’s rail network is electrified, compared to 61% in Germany as of 2019.
The committee found the “boom and bust” characterisation particularly valid for rolling stock. More than 8,000 vehicles—half the current national fleet—were ordered between 2010 and 2018, followed by a significant downturn. Examples of procurement delays and scope changes were detailed for TransPennine Express, Southeastern, East West Rail and Northern Trains.
The committee made 27 recommendations across four main areas. On Control Periods, it called for an independent review of the start of Control Period 7 compared to previous periods, examining spend volatility and whether smoother work flow is achievable.
For the RNEP, the committee recommended it be revamped and updated annually, providing five years’ certainty on a rolling basis with indicative pipelines up to 15 years. The pipeline should clearly state funding commitments and sources, with high bars for both project inclusion and removal. It should also identify opportunities for private sector and regional authority investment.
On rolling stock, the committee welcomed the Government’s commitment to publish a strategy in 2026 but emphasised this must be aligned with infrastructure pipelines and developed collaboratively with industry to avoid unnecessary peaks and troughs. It recommended that within two years, the Department and Great British Railways should define standard train families to limit rolling stock type proliferation.
The committee welcomed provisions in the Railways Bill for a Long Term Rail Strategy, recommending it should cover at least 30 years and set firm objectives on electrification, rolling stock, accessibility and capacity. The strategy should include commitments to major programmes like Northern Powerhouse Rail and require parliamentary scrutiny for significant amendments, with protection from unnecessary changes of direction.
The establishment of Great British Railways was widely supported by contributors as addressing fragmentation. The committee emphasised GBR must have sufficient autonomy in enhancements planning, with clear parameters around ministerial oversight to avoid micromanagement that could jeopardise investment pipelines.
The report concluded that whilst detailed decade-long pipelines may be unrealistic, a consistent strategic vision is essential to inform shorter-term planning and provide reliable guidance for both government and industry investment decisions.
Transport Committee Chair Ruth Cadbury said: “The Railways Bill should usher in much-needed structural change for our railways, but we still need to know more about the route it will take and when its component parts will be coming down the track. In our scrutiny of the Railways Bill, the Transport Committee has identified a host of key documents that are yet to be published, and we don’t yet know when they will emerge. On top of this, we found a lack of clarity over how Great British Railways will operate as an arm’s-length body that is free from political interference and micromanagement by future secretaries of state.
“The Committee was also surprised to see that the Bill does not have a target for increasing passenger journeys, which is surely fundamental to the purpose of Great British Railways. The Government should take steps to reassure both Parliament and the industry of movement on all these fronts. What is clear is that we must get past the damaging ‘boom and bust’ cycles outlined in our report about the pipeline of rail investment, with a radical new approach to certainty of spending on the railways. The advent of Great British Railways is a golden opportunity to get this moving, and the Committee looks forward to hearing more about the Government’s plans to reach its destination.”
ICE Director of Policy and External Affairs, Sam Gould, said: “The emphasis on the importance of a long-term pipeline in the Transport Committee’s report is welcome. Clarity about what’s going to happen and when is essential to guide the industry. Without a clear picture to work with, it’s difficult to do effective workforce planning, which impacts delivery.
For the benefit of the public, and the wider economy, the government must define its overall vision for transport in England in the Integrated National Transport Strategy.”
Railway Industry Association Chief Executive Darren Caplan said: “The new reports are an important contribution from a cross-party group of MPs on the need for more clarity around both the future of rail investment pipelines and more details around how Great British Railways (GBR) will work.
“The Railway Industry Association (RIA) has been arguing for a clear and visible pipeline of work to be published ever since the Rail Network Enhancements Pipeline (RNEP) was launched in 2019 so we welcome the Select Committee’s recognition of the ‘damaging uncertainty’ this has caused to the UK rail supply chain and the need for ‘clarity to plan and invest’.
“The MPs also acknowledge that many of GBR’s key policies, processes and decisions have yet to be determined, which adds to the current sense of uncertainty among companies across the railway industry. The report is right to say that the ‘advent of GBR is an opportunity for a new approach to investing in the railways’, and we look forward to seeing more details of the Government’s detailed plans for rail reform and future investment models which will allow rail suppliers to plan and invest for the future.”
