Show lessGovernment Rejects ‘Boom and Bust’ Claims in Rail Investment

The government has rejected claims that rail investment in England and Wales is characterised by “boom and bust” cycles, despite concerns raised by MPs and industry stakeholders about funding volatility and its impact on the supply chain.

In its response to a February report from the Transport Select Committee, the government acknowledged that parts of the industry perceive uneven funding and procurement cycles. However, it said it “does not accept” that overall rail investment has been defined by systemic instability.

The Committee had warned that inconsistent funding creates uncertainty for suppliers, putting jobs at risk and delaying improvements to the network. It described the issue as a recurring challenge for the sector.

Rolling stock a key exception

While rejecting the broader claim, the government did concede that rolling stock procurement has experienced stop-start cycles.

It said this has been driven by the complexities of commercial and policy environments, leading to inefficiencies in manufacturing and refurbishment pipelines.

A new Rolling Stock and Infrastructure Strategy is expected to address this by creating a more consistent and predictable pipeline of work.

The response comes shortly after Alstom announced it would pause refurbishment work at its Widnes facility due to a lack of orders, resulting in job losses.

Electrification approach under review

The Committee also called for clearer long-term targets for rail electrification. In response, the government emphasised the importance of decarbonisation but rejected the idea of fixed route kilometre targets.

Instead, it said a more flexible, whole-system approach is needed—aligning electrification with rolling stock decisions and emerging technologies. It acknowledged that past stop-start approaches have contributed to higher costs and reduced capability, strengthening the case for a more continuous programme in future.

Managing funding stability

The government pointed to five-year funding settlements for maintenance and renewals as evidence of a stable baseline. However, it admitted that transitions between funding periods can create workload volatility for parts of the supply chain.

It also recognised concerns about a slow start to Control Period 7, stating that it is reviewing how work is phased and whether spending patterns could be better managed to reduce disruption.

Long-term strategy and reform

Looking ahead, the government said its approach will focus on stable baseline funding, improved governance of enhancement projects and greater transparency through the National Infrastructure Pipeline and Enhancements Delivery Plan.

The creation of Great British Railways (GBR) is also expected to play a central role in improving coordination between strategy and delivery, with the aim of reducing volatility while maintaining flexibility.

Committee response

Transport Select Committee Chair Ruth Cadbury said she was disappointed the government had not fully accepted the findings of the inquiry.

“While it’s encouraging that there is recognition of the need for long-term clarity, more detail is needed on how this will be delivered,” she said.

Cadbury also warned against relying too heavily on structural reform alone, adding that inconsistent investment—particularly in electrification—has historically undermined both industry stability and passenger outcomes.

The debate highlights ongoing tensions between government policy and industry concerns, as the sector seeks greater certainty to support long-term planning and delivery.