Rail line capacity constraints
Anticipated capacity challenges on specific rail lines (e.g., West Coast Main Line) hindering infrastructure development.
135 items
5 sources
2 inquiries
Source spread
Where this theme appears
Rail line capacity constraints has been flagged across 5 independent accountability sources:
42 inquiry recs
1 PFD report
62 committee recs
2 NAO recs
28 LGO/SPSO decisions
When the same issue appears across inquiries, coroner reports, and regulators independently, it indicates a recurring issue across the public record.
Browse by source
Source-grouped records are useful for tracing where a concern came from. Large sections show the 50 strongest matches for that source; counts still show the full theme total.
Inquiry Recommendations (42)
LADB-10 — Prohibit changes to line 3 operations until risk assessment proves safety
Recommendation: No change should be made in the direction of running on line 3 or in the current speed limits on any of the lines out to two miles six chains from Paddington Station unless and until the following have been …
Unknown
FENN-142 — London Underground to build King's Cross subway link or relieve congestion
Recommendation: London Underground shall build a direct subway link between the tube lines and the Metropolitan and Circle Lines at King's Cross or provide alternative satisfactory means of relieving the serious congestion.
Unknown
LADB-81 — Research removable windows and window adequacy for emergency egress and spacing.
Recommendation: There should be research into the feasibility of, and risks associated with, removable windows, the adequacy of windows as a means of emergency egress, the number of dedicated windows which are necessary and the provision as to the maximum distance …
Unknown
LADB-80 — Review emergency hammer adequacy, signage, and illuminated location with backup power.
Recommendation: There should be a thorough review of the adequacy of the number of, and signage relating to, emergency hammers. This should include the provision of means of illuminating the location of hammers in an emergency, with a back-up power supply …
Unknown
LADB-79 — Ensure emergency ladders are readily usable and quickly releasable on trains.
Recommendation: The daily routine check of every train should include confirming that all ladders can readily be used. A mechanism to enable ladders to be released quickly should be devised and fitted (para 14.35).
Unknown
LADB-78 — Develop illuminated pictogram signage for emergency door mechanisms, conforming to standards.
Recommendation: Signage primarily in the form of pictograms similar to those used on aircraft, and depicting the correct operation of emergency door mechanisms, should be developed. The signage should conform to current human factors standards on signage and be displayed prominently …
Unknown
LADB-77 — Install override devices on staff-only doors for passenger emergency use.
Recommendation: The staff-only doors on all trains should have an override device to enable them to be used by passengers in an emergency (para 14.29).
Unknown
LADB-76 — Modify internal coach doors to facilitate emergency egress by December 2003.
Recommendation: In the case of every coach (on any train) which has internal doors which slide in the same direction one of the following should be carried out by 31 December 2003: (i) the coach should be fitted instead with opposite- …
Unknown
LADB-75 — Consider providing "snap wands" as supplementary emergency lighting on trains.
Recommendation: The provision of “snap wands” should be considered as a supplementary means of providing lighting in an emergency (para 14.22).
Unknown
LADB-74 — Research methods to safeguard emergency lighting systems from sudden deceleration forces.
Recommendation: Research should be carried out into the means of safeguarding emergency lighting systems from disablement by the forces involved in sudden deceleration (para 14.21).
Unknown
LADB-73 — Research and implement a common emergency signage system across all Great British trains.
Recommendation: There should be research with the aim of arriving at a system of signage which is common to all trains in Great Britain (para 14.20).
Unknown
LADB-72 — Develop universally understandable emergency signs for all trains, without text.
Recommendation: So far as is feasible, emergency signs on all trains should be capable of being understood by passengers without the necessity to read text (para 14.19).
Unknown
LADB-71 — Make luminous emergency sign requirement retrospective for all trains
Recommendation: The requirement for emergency signs to be luminous should be made retrospective (para 14.18).
Unknown
LADB-70 — Endorse using onboard announcements to highlight passenger safety information
Recommendation: The use of on-board announcements to draw attention to safety information is endorsed (para 14.16).
Unknown
LADB-69 — Endorse providing onboard explanatory information about individual train emergency facilities
Recommendation: The provision on board of explanatory information about the emergency facilities of individual trains is endorsed (para 14.14).
Unknown
LADB-68 — Obtain expert advice on passenger actions during known serious onboard dangers
Recommendation: Expert assistance should be obtained on the advice which should be given to passengers as to what to do in the event of there being a known threat of serious danger to them in remaining on board (para 14.14).
Unknown
LADB-67 — Provide general safety advice to passengers before and after boarding trains
Recommendation: Passengers should be given general safety advice both before and after they have boarded their train (para 14.14).
Unknown
LADB-66 — Establish system to collect human factors data on passenger safety after rail accidents
Recommendation: A system should be established for the collection of human factors information pertinent to issues of passenger safety following rail accidents (para 14.8).
Unknown
LADB-65 — Standardise passenger safety information and train evacuation and escape procedures
Recommendation: So far as is feasible, the safety information issued to passengers and the means by which they can be evacuated or escape from a train should be standardised (para 14.8).
Unknown
LADB-64 — Keep public information code of practice on train safety and emergencies updated
Recommendation: The code of practice on public information on train safety and emergencies should be kept up to date (para 14.6).
Unknown
LADB-63 — Ensure HSE provides adequate guidance for evacuation and escape provisions
Recommendation: The provisions in the schedule as to evacuation and escape should be supported by adequate guidance from the HSE (para 14.3).
Unknown
LADB-62 — Extend Railway Safety Case Regulations to include emergency escape arrangements explicitly
Recommendation: The scope of Schedule 1 to the Railway (Safety Case) Regulations 2000 should be extended so as to include explicitly the arrangements which the duty holder has established in regard to facilities, instructions and signs for the escape of persons …
Unknown
LADB-61 — Enhance fire protection by reviewing fuel tank standards and repositioning vulnerable tanks
Recommendation: The following measures should be considered with a view to enhancing protection against fire: (i) a review of Group Standards in respect of improved crash resistance of fuel tanks; (ii) consideration of the feasibility of reducing fuel inventories and of …
Unknown
LADB-60 — Conduct market research on safety measures to include informed passenger views
Recommendation: Comprehensive market research in regard to safety related measures should be carried out in order to take account of the views of informed passengers (para 13.20).
Unknown
LADB-59 — Consider retrofitting enhanced security for seating in Turbos and tables in HSTs
Recommendation: The enhancement of the security of seating in Turbos and of tables in HSTs should be considered, subject to an assessment of feasibility, costs and benefits, with a view to possible retro-fitting (para 13.19).
Unknown
LADB-58 — Revise crashworthiness Group Standard for realistic scenarios and high-speed testing
Recommendation: The revision of the Group Standard for crashworthiness should be pursued with particular reference to: (i) the design requirements for more realistic scenarios; (ii) high speed accidents; and (iii) dynamic verification testing (para 13.17).
Unknown
LADB-57 — Consider improved welding and aluminium grades for new aluminium vehicles
Recommendation: In the case of new vehicles constructed of aluminium, consideration should be given to: (i) the use of alternatives to fusion welding; (ii) the use of improved grades of aluminium which are less susceptible to fusion weld weakening; and (iii) …
Unknown
LADB-56 — Review crashworthiness standard to safeguard survival space after Ladbroke Grove crash
Recommendation: The current standard for crashworthiness should be reviewed, in the light of the crash at Ladbroke Grove, in order to ensure that there are adequate measures for safeguarding survival space (para 13.5).
Unknown
LADB-55 — Consider retrofitting Turbos with enhanced welds, couplers, and anti-overriding devices
Recommendation: In the case of Turbos, the enhancement of end pillar weld connections, the possible enhancement of crashworthiness by weakening the ends and strengthening the saloon of the cars, and the fitting of shear-out couplers and anti-overriding devices should be considered, …
Unknown
LADB-54 — Review crashworthiness standard for new vehicles after Ladbroke Grove crash
Recommendation: The current standard for crashworthiness in respect of new vehicles should be reviewed in the light of the crash at Ladbroke Grove with respect to the objectives referred to in Recommendation 53 (para 13.4).
Unknown
LADB-53 — Consider HST cab and bogie enhancements for improved driver protection and safety
Recommendation: The enhancement of the cabs on HSTs to improve driver protection along with energy absorption and compatibility with other vehicles, and the enhancement of measures for the retention of bogies on the coaches of HSTs, should be considered, subject to …
Unknown
LADB-52 — Instruct IECC staff to preserve CSR data disks following SPAD incidents
Recommendation: Signallers, managers and maintenance staff working at IECCs should be instructed as to the need to preserve CSR data disks in the event of a SPAD taking place (para 12.30).
Unknown
LADB-51 — Establish national direct radio communication system between trains and signallers
Recommendation: There should be a national system of direct radio communication between trains and signallers (para 12.29).
Unknown
LADB-50 — Introduce automatic audible cab warning for CSR trains passing danger signals
Recommendation: Subject to satisfactory risk assessment, an arrangement should be made whereby, when a train which is fitted with the CSR passes a signal at Danger, an audible warning automatically sounds in the cab (para 12.28).
Unknown
LADB-49 — Investigate automatic signal replacement to Danger after SPADs to prevent collisions
Recommendation: There should be a study of the possibility of the automatic replacement of a signal to Danger where a SPAD has occurred and the layout is such that there is a significant danger of collision (para 12.27).
Unknown
LADB-48 — Enhance signaller speed for emergency point movement actions
Recommendation: The speed with which signallers can take action to move points in an emergency should be improved (para 12.22).
Unknown
LADB-47 — Implement unique, persistent alarm for all SPAD occurrences
Recommendation: There should be a unique alarm for SPADs, which should sound until it is turned off (para 12.21).
Unknown
LADB-8 — Railtrack to complete signal risk assessments for the Paddington area promptly.
Recommendation: Railtrack should ensure that the risk assessments and any consequent actions required under Group Standard GK/RT 0078 in respect of the signals in the Paddington area are carried out as soon as possible (para 7.125).
Unknown
LADB-7 — Extend recommendation implementation monitoring to include Train Operating Companies
Recommendation: Consideration should be given to extending sub-para (ix) of Recommendation 6 to recommendations which are directed to one or more of the TOCs and others (para 7.106).
Unknown
LADB-6 — Improve Railtrack procedures for implementing and monitoring accepted recommendations with clear accountability
Recommendation: Railtrack procedures, and the actions of management to enforce them, should be directed to ensuring that: (i) a recommendation which is accepted is implemented according to a defined timescale; (ii) the person to whom a recommendation is allocated for implementation …
Unknown
LADB-5 — Require holistic safety and risk assessment for all track or signalling changes
Recommendation: Where a material change to track or signalling or both is proposed, there should be an express consideration of all relevant safety issues by an analysis of the material factors, if necessary by means of a risk assessment. This should …
Unknown
FENN-16 — Research air movement and provide criteria for safe train operation during fire
Recommendation: London Underground shall undertake further research into the effect of trains on air movement in the Underground. London Underground should provide criteria by which line controllers, who have received a report of fire, can judge whether it is safe to …
Unknown
Committee Recommendations (62) — showing 50 strongest matches
#44 — West Coast Main Line capacity challenge expected by late 2030s due to HS2 changes
Recommendation: The Department acknowledged the capacity challenge on the West Coast Main Line as a consequence of not building Phase 2, estimating that it will reach capacity by the late 2030s. These capacity concerns were also raised with us in evidence …
Gov response: The government agrees with the Committee’s recommendation. Target implementation date: Summer 2025 Preparatory work on a disposal programme for Phase 2 is already underway. As part of these preparations, the department is undertaking a review …
Not Addressed
#43 — Phase 2 cancellation limits HS2 capacity benefits to London-Birmingham route
Recommendation: The HS2 programme was originally intended to improve capacity on the West Coast Main Line. However, with the cancellation of Phase 2, the revised programme will only address capacity between London and Birmingham. The Department is exploring options to run …
Gov response: The government agrees with the Committee’s recommendation. Target implementation date: Summer 2025 Preparatory work on a disposal programme for Phase 2 is already underway. As part of these preparations, the department is undertaking a review …
Not Addressed
#1 —
Recommendation: There is a strong environmental and economic case for substantially enhancing the rail infrastructure that serves Wales, and the passenger experience of slow services and inadequate stations only underlines the need for an upgraded network. The South East Wales Transport …
Gov response: The UK Government notes this recommendation. The intervention in the South Wales Relief Lines is currently being worked upon by Network Rail at Outline Business Case stage. The remit has been developed to ensure alignment …
Not Addressed
#4 —
Recommendation: We are concerned that TfL and the Department do not have a plan to maximise the long-term, wider economic benefits of Crossrail. When open, the Elizabeth line should increase capacity in central London by around 10%, reduce journey times, improve …
Gov response: agree with the Committee’s conclusion. The department has a track record of delivering savings; the underlying cost of the Defence Equipment & Support (DE&S) managed element of the Equipment Plan has reduced by £5.4 billion …
Under Consideration
#3 —
Recommendation: It is not clear to passengers and businesses when the Elizabeth line will open or what services will be available. The Elizabeth line services will open in stages. Services have been running on the eastern and western ends of the …
Gov response: agree with the Committee’s conclusion. The department recognises the importance of managing supplier performance including the apportionment of financial and programme risk. CAAS (Cost Assurance & Analysis Service) Approvals Team help define specific estimating and …
Under Consideration
#23 —
Recommendation: The Department for Transport should commission a full independent assessment of the seat and track capacity offered by the IRP, compared to the previous plans for HS2 and other options for NPR. This assessment must take into account the future …
Gov response: The Government partially accepts these recommendations. It has already published work by Mott MacDonald into the Strategic Alternatives to High Speed 2 Phase 2b, which includes an independent assessment of outputs for different alternatives on …
Partially Accepted
#22 —
Recommendation: The Government’s fixation on journey times as a benefit of the IRP must not overshadow the issue of capacity. It seems highly unlikely that an upgraded Victorian line can replicate the capacity increases achievable by building new track.
Gov response: The Government partially accepts these recommendations. It has already published work by Mott MacDonald into the Strategic Alternatives to High Speed 2 Phase 2b, which includes an independent assessment of outputs for different alternatives on …
Partially Accepted
#7 —
Recommendation: The Government’s levelling up agenda commits it to ending geographical inequality in the UK. However, by underserving the rail needs of the North of England it is letting down those who require change the most. Upgrading lines will undoubtedly bring …
Gov response: The Government accepts this recommendation, subject to the future conclusions of the HS2 to Leeds Study. Previous development work at Leeds as part of NPR, as well as work by Network Rail, has identified the …
Accepted
#3 —
Recommendation: Whilst we recognise that the Golborne link was not perfect, and faced substantial local opposition, given its importance in terms of unlocking capacity for passengers and freight, and reducing journey times to Scotland, we are concerned that it has been …
Gov response: The £96 billion investment set out in the IRP is the largest ever Government investment in the rail network and will bring transformational change for rail passengers and businesses. Alongside investment in new lines, the …
Not Accepted
#15 —
Recommendation: Once the central section opens, commuters must still change to other Elizabeth line services to continue their journeys on the eastern and western ends. The opening of full east-west services must align with national rail timetable changes which take place …
Gov response: 3.3 All external communication is clear that the opening window for the Elizabeth line continues to be the first half of 2022. This marks the point at which the central tunnel opens to passengers from …
Not Addressed
#14 —
Recommendation: The Elizabeth line services will open in stages as different part of the line are completed. Services have been running on the eastern and western ends of the line (under the brand name ‘TfL Rail’) since June 2017 and May …
Gov response: 3.3 All external communication is clear that the opening window for the Elizabeth line continues to be the first half of 2022. This marks the point at which the central tunnel opens to passengers from …
Not Addressed
#28 —
Recommendation: The Government has put together a strong case for the Integrated Rail Plan, but it is based on a best-case scenario which may not come to pass. Cost and time overruns for major infrastructure projects are commonplace, and disruption can …
Gov response: The Government accepts the recommendation, which is in line with its approach to, for example, cost and schedule forecasts for HS2. The IRP in fact already contains information about cost and date ranges. However, through …
Accepted
#25 —
Recommendation: The Department for Transport should publish a rail freight strategy for the country setting out key plans, targets and milestones over a 30-year period. This should include a detailed assessment of how the IRP will achieve greater capacity for and …
Gov response: The Government partially accepts this recommendation. As referenced in the Plan for Rail, the Department is working with the Great British Railways Transition Team to develop the Long-Term Strategy for Rail which will include a …
Partially Accepted
#16 —
Recommendation: Local stakeholders and the Government have very different views on the likely merit and cost of the underground station option at Manchester Piccadilly. There are considerable cost and practical challenges to delivering this solution, though we recognise the benefits of …
Gov response: The Government notes this recommendation and has continued to engage with Transport for Greater Manchester (TfGM) and Manchester City Council (MCC). An underground station would significantly add to the cost of the Crewe to Manchester …
Not Addressed
#15 —
Recommendation: The Government should reconsider the case for the development of a new station in Bradford. The development of the St James’s Market station would not only enhance rail connectivity in the North, allowing further investment in the city, but also …
Gov response: The Government accepts the rationale for this recommendation. Given the different stages of development work and timing of construction for individual schemes, this will be done on a project-by-project basis. Work on detailed mitigation is …
Accepted
#14 —
Recommendation: We ask the Government to commit to supporting redevelopment of Leeds station by 2035 so that it has sufficient capacity to accommodate services planned under the IRP, including HS2 trains arriving in Leeds.
Gov response: The Government partially accepts this recommendation. As referenced in the Plan for Rail, the Department is working with the Great British Railways Transition Team to develop the Long-Term Strategy for Rail which will include a …
Partially Accepted
#13 —
Recommendation: The redevelopment of Leeds station is key to fully realising the benefits of the Integrated Rail Plan on the economy and connectivity in Leeds and West Yorkshire, and more widely. Already over capacity in its current configuration, Leeds station will …
Gov response: The Government partially accepts these recommendations. It has already published work by Mott MacDonald into the Strategic Alternatives to High Speed 2 Phase 2b, which includes an independent assessment of outputs for different alternatives on …
Partially Accepted
#9 —
Recommendation: The potential of Bradford as an engine room of the Northern Powerhouse may be squandered if it is not given opportunities to thrive through better connectivity. Direct high speed connections would give the city access to a much broader pool …
Gov response: The Government notes this recommendation and has continued to engage with Transport for Greater Manchester (TfGM) and Manchester City Council (MCC). An underground station would significantly add to the cost of the Crewe to Manchester …
Under Consideration
#8 —
Recommendation: The Government must remain open to the possibility that this thorough reassessment of the evidence base, taking full account of the impact on levelling up communities in the North and Midlands, may show that Options 2 or 3 for Northern …
Gov response: The Government accepts this recommendation. The Government recognises the impact that rail improvements could have on helping Bradford to level up. The IRP committed to improving journey times to as low as 12 minutes between …
Accepted
#1 —
Recommendation: We welcome the scale of the Government’s promised spending on improving rail in the North and the Midlands. £96 billion is a very substantial sum; it has the potential to transform rail travel for future generations and make a significant …
Gov response: The Government accepts the rationale for this recommendation, although the work required will take longer than the suggested timeframe. The then government set out its rationale for removing the Golborne Link from the High Speed …
Accepted
#16 —
Recommendation: Freight transport and high-speed rail are the most significant decarbonisation challenges in the rail sector. To meet its objective to phase out all diesel-powered trains by 2040, the Government must increase the current pace of electrification set out in Network …
Gov response: Fuelling the future: motive power and connectivity 15 Concluding remark The Government thanks the Committee for their ongoing scrutiny and recommendations. The Government looks forward to continuing efforts across departments and working with industry and …
Under Consideration
#14 — Inconsistent staff availability and inadequate rail infrastructure negatively impact diverse passenger groups.
Recommendation: We highlighted our concerns about the impact of the Department’s lack of progress in improving rail services and station infrastructure on various groups of people. For example, disabled passengers, as well as parents with young children, and even the many …
Gov response: 3. PAC conclusion: It is unacceptable that so much of the rail network remains so difficult to access for so many people. 3. PAC recommendation: The Department should fulfil its commitment to improve access to …
Accepted
#11 — Risk of cutting passenger services due to cost focus, reducing revenue and customer experience.
Recommendation: Rail Partners highlighted to us the risk that the Department may look to cut passenger services to save costs which would make the railway less attractive for passengers, mean lower revenues flowing into HM Treasury, and add to cost pressures. …
Gov response: 2.4 The government agrees with the Committee’s recommendation. Target implementation date: Spring 2025 2.5 The government is committed to delivering a unified and simplified governance structure for the railways, alongside passenger train services under public …
Accepted
#10 — Pandemic exposed rail cost challenges and created conflicting priorities for financial framework.
Recommendation: The Department told us that the pandemic presented a fundamental challenge to sustainably funding the railways and that the financial pressures have driven a stronger focus to look at the whole system and improve performance, both financially and for passengers.21 …
Gov response: 2.4 The government agrees with the Committee’s recommendation. Target implementation date: Spring 2025 2.5 The government is committed to delivering a unified and simplified governance structure for the railways, alongside passenger train services under public …
Not Addressed
#8 — Rail sector performance remains inadequate, with unacceptable levels of train cancellations and delays.
Recommendation: The rail sector’s performance for passengers and the taxpayer is not good enough and has not been for some time.13 The Office of Rail and Road reported 3.8% of trains were classified as cancelled in 2022–23, along with 86.3% of …
Gov response: 2.2 Under current arrangements, train operators’ performance is monitored across a range of operational and service quality measures (including punctuality and reliability). For example, the department’s service quality regime measures operator performance against a set …
Accepted
#2 — Develop a passenger-focused plan and resolve disincentives for sustainable rail subsidies.
Recommendation: There has been too little focus on passengers and taxpayers and how to get them a better deal. The Department claims that improving passenger experience is at the heart of its reform plans, but poor performance persists across the rail …
Gov response: The government agrees with the Committee’s recommendation. structure for the railways, alongside passenger train services under public ownership, with the objective of providing improved services for passengers and better value for money for taxpayers. This …
Accepted
#16 —
Recommendation: The development of the HS2 programme in England could yield direct benefits to Welsh rail passengers if it is accompanied by enhancements to the North Wales mainline, including the upgrades at Chester and Crewe stations which will be required for …
Gov response: The UK Government notes this recommendation. DfT are working with Network Rail on developing an Outline Business Case for a scheme of journey time improvement on the North Wales Coast Main Line. This intervention proposes …
Not Addressed
#15 —
Recommendation: HS2 is one of the largest infrastructure projects ever undertaken in the UK. It is a project of unprecedented size and complexity and has already created several thousand jobs as part of a supply chain that spans the country, including …
Gov response: The UK Government notes this recommendation. We have responsibility for heavy rail infrastructure policy across England and Wales, and therefore spend money on heavy rail infrastructure in Wales rather than providing Barnett-based funding to the …
Not Addressed
#8 —
Recommendation: A number of witnesses to our inquiry suggested that a more joined-up and clearer approach to Wales’s infrastructure needs was required in order to unlock investment. We therefore recommend that the UK Government should establish a Wales Rail Board, consisting …
Gov response: The UK Government agrees with these recommendations in part. Together with their industry partners in Wales, DfT has undertaken a review of the governance arrangements applicable to the development and delivery of railway enhancements. The …
Not Addressed
#7 —
Recommendation: Bringing forward new proposals for greater connectivity between Swansea-Cardiff- Bristol, which would include completing electrification on the mainline between Cardiff and Swansea and a Swansea Bay Metro to integrate the public transport network westwards to Pembrokeshire and Carmarthenshire and feed …
Gov response: The UK Government notes these recommendations, although agrees that electrification will play an important role in our programme to achieve our net zero 2050 target (see the response to Recommendation 5). Future decisions on electrification …
Not Addressed
#6 —
Recommendation: Both the South East Wales Transport Commission and the Williams-Shapps White Paper make a powerful case for the role rail, and in particular electrification, can play in the decarbonisation agenda. It underlines how short-sighted and regrettable Railway Infrastructure in Wales …
Gov response: The UK Government notes these recommendations, although agrees that electrification will play an important role in our programme to achieve our net zero 2050 target (see the response to Recommendation 5). Future decisions on electrification …
Not Addressed
#4 —
Recommendation: The Union Connectivity Review represents a significant opportunity to establish priorities for rail infrastructure which will not only support economic development and decarbonisation in Wales, but improve the experience of those passengers for whom cross-border travel is simply local commuting. …
Gov response: In response to the UCR’s interim report, the UK Government made available £20m for a new Union Connectivity Development Fund so that development work could be started on some of the most promising union connectivity …
Under Consideration
#3 —
Recommendation: A number of potential infrastructure upgrades suggested by witnesses to our inquiry are cross-border in nature, reflecting the relatively short distance between key urban areas such as Cardiff and Bristol in South Wales and Wrexham and Merseyside in the North …
Gov response: The UK Government notes these recommendations. The interim report of Sir Peter Hendy’s independent Union Connectivity Review (UCR) was published in March 2021. From the work undertaken to that point, some of the key concerns …
Not Addressed
#2 —
Recommendation: Improving transport infrastructure within Wales must be a priority and should focus on how infrastructure initiatives can remedy deprivation, boost the Welsh economy and contribute to meeting decarbonisation targets. Enhancements should include a focus on improving connectivity within Wales, such …
Gov response: The UK Government notes these recommendations. The interim report of Sir Peter Hendy’s independent Union Connectivity Review (UCR) was published in March 2021. From the work undertaken to that point, some of the key concerns …
Not Addressed
#12 —
Recommendation: Effective collaboration and co-operation between the UK and Welsh governments will be essential if Wales is to achieve net zero by 2050. Significant issues such as grid capacity and port infrastructure, in particular, require cross-government working if they are to …
Gov response: We recognise the important role for the Devolved Administrations in contributing to the expansion of renewable power in the UK. My officials will continue to work closely with officials in the Devolved Administration and those …
Under Consideration
#18 —
Recommendation: The Department and TfL told us that, when the Elizabeth line opens, they expect it to increase rail capacity in central London by around 10%, reduce journey times, and be fully accessible.50 These were the transport benefits set out in …
Gov response: 3.2 Crossrail Ltd and TfL have a clear and comprehensive communications strategy in place to ensure that the public who will benefit from the new railway are aware of when and what Elizabeth line services …
Not Addressed
#7 —
Recommendation: Crossrail Ltd is constructing stations along the central section which are then handed over to the eventual infrastructure maintainer - Rail for London Infrastructure (RfLi) or London Underground. TfL told us that completing the stations is on the critical path …
Not Addressed
#23 —
Recommendation: We welcome the steps the Government have taken to get more freight off our roads and on to our railways. We hope this is a process the establishment of Great British Railways will accelerate. The current model which sees freight …
Gov response: The Government agrees that more freight should be taken from the road and on to rail and water. The Government is supportive of modal shift of freight from road to rail wherever possible and is …
Under Consideration
#26 —
Recommendation: Rail upgrades disrupt commuters, rail freight and timetabling. Disruption to existing services caused by upgrades to key rail lines may drive a modal shift from rail to car, which would work against the Government’s decarbonisation goals.
Gov response: The Government accepts the rationale for this recommendation. Given the different stages of development work and timing of construction for individual schemes, this will be done on a project-by-project basis. Work on detailed mitigation is …
Accepted
#12 —
Recommendation: The Government must conduct its study on how best to take HS2 to Leeds urgently. We ask that a timetable for this work, including a firm date for the final report, be published by September 2022. This is essential for …
Gov response: The Government accepts this recommendation and will publish the terms of reference for this work before the summer recess. The Government anticipates that work on the study will take around 18 months. Preparatory work has …
Accepted
#11 —
Recommendation: We welcome the Government’s pledge to look at how the Eastern leg of HS2 might be constructed in full to Leeds as originally planned; the city is a key focal point not only of existing rail networks, but of economic …
Gov response: The Government accepts the recommendation, which is in line with its approach to, for example, cost and schedule forecasts for HS2. The IRP in fact already contains information about cost and date ranges. However, through …
Accepted
#17 — Department's focus on minor improvements overlooks passengers' primary concerns about reliability and punctuality.
Recommendation: We asked the Department what we can expect to see within the next six months that will make a difference and improve the passenger experience. The Department provided examples such as the Great British Rail sales, roll out and trialling …
Gov response: 4. PAC conclusion: We are not convinced that the Department has paid sufficient attention, in advance of the delayed creation of Great British Railways, to the changes it can make now to improve the situation …
Accepted
#3 — Accelerate improvements to rail network accessibility for all passengers, including station facilities and train services.
Recommendation: It is unacceptable that so much of the rail network remains so difficult to access for so many people. The Department committed to improving access to the rail 6 Rail reform: The rail transformation programme network and other modes of …
Gov response: The government agrees with the Committee’s recommendation. performance against. The department will set out next steps as soon as possible. The department will continue to make improvements to the accessibility of the rail network. This …
Accepted
#9 —
Recommendation: Successive administrations have chronically underinvested in the electricity grid. As a result, grid capacity has not kept pace with the expansion of renewables across the UK system. This causes the perverse outcome 51 of Scottish windfarms being switched off—sometimes more …
Response Pending
#21 —
Recommendation: The National Audit Office was concerned that greater competition in the broadband infrastructure market would not necessarily lead to a greater choice of internet providers for consumers. In its report, it explained that in areas that needed subsidy, smaller alternative …
Gov response: 6.1 The government agrees with the Committee’s recommendation. Target implementation date: Spring 2021 6.2 The department’s proposed contracts include an annual wholesale access price benchmarking requirement. Pricing is compared to the Ofcom regulated price and …
Under Consideration
#18 —
Recommendation: The Future Telecoms Infrastructure Review sets out government’s intention to take an ‘outside-in’ approach to rolling out gigabit-capable broadband, where areas that are currently unable to access superfast speeds are prioritised so they are not left further behind.48 The Department …
Gov response: 5.2 Through existing programmes, the department is already delivering gigabit coverage to rural and remote premises and those currently without superfast broadband. For example, it has pivoted the Superfast Broadband Programme to invest in gigabit …
Under Consideration
#19 —
Recommendation: We are concerned that Covid-19 should not be used as a pretext for halting investment which, in the long term, would only further cement the car as the transport mode of choice in Wales. Instead this should be an opportunity …
Gov response: the Department for Transport, Welsh Government, Transport for Wales and Network Rail to take stock and consider the role of rail Wales’s future transport network. Using the Wales Rail Board we have recommended, this process …
Under Consideration
#18 —
Recommendation: COVID-19 has posed an unprecedented challenge to the rail network and rail operators across the UK. Significant investment has been required from governments to keep services operational at a time when many workers have had to work from home as …
Gov response: DfT has developed and implemented a new business planning process for all train operating companies (TOCs) which aims to improve outcomes for passengers, financial performance and industry efficiency. To help develop capability to analyse future …
Under Consideration
#5 —
Recommendation: The Williams-Shapps White Paper sets out comprehensive reform of the British rail network and makes a strong case for electrification as the main mechanism for decarbonising rail travel. The Government’s analysis and commitment to technological upgrades is welcome and the …
Gov response: The UK Government agrees with this recommendation in part. In ‘Decarbonising transport: a better, greener Britain’,1 we committed to deliver a net zero rail network by 2050, with sustained carbon reductions in rail along the …
Not Addressed
#13 —
Recommendation: TfL told us that it is over-reliant on income through the farebox which accounts for 72% of TfL income. TfL compared this to New York City Transit which received 38% of its income from fares.37 It told us that COVID …
Gov response: 2.2 Elizabeth line passenger forecasts have been updated and considered against the COVID-19 pandemic recovery scenarios which were generated for Transport for London (TfL) as a whole and outlined in TfL’s Financial Sustainability Plan of …
Not Addressed
NAO Audit Recommendations (2)
The Transpennine Route Upgrade Programme
The Department and Network Rail should include in their next business case update in December 2022: ? their rolling stock strategy for the Programme, including the level of funding required to achieve planned benefits, the expected funding commitment from the …
Partially accepted
HS2: update following cancellation of Phase 2
Outside of the programme, DfT should continue to assess HS2?s role in supporting the wider rail network to realise benefits and consider other options for improving capacity on the West Coast Main Line.
Accepted
LGO / SPSO Decisions (28)
22-003-601 — Transport for London
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a bus stop. This is because there is not significant enough injustice to justify our involvement.
LGO (Local Government & …
Transport And Highways
Jul 2022
21-010-919 — Transport for London
Summary: Mr X complained the Authority refused to pay him a scrappage scheme grant it had offered him under its Light Van Scrappage Scheme. We have discontinued this investigation. This is because the Authority agreed to pay the grant and further investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.
LGO (Local Government & …
Transport And Highways
Not Upheld
Aug 2022
23-021-444 — Transport for London
Summary: Mr X complained Transport for London has not refunded him for overcharges on his account when using the London Underground. Mr X said this meant he paid for journeys he either did not make or paid more than he should have for journeys he did make. We found Transport …
LGO (Local Government & …
Transport And Highways
Upheld
Sep 2024
24-007-060 — Transport for London
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Fare for a bus journey. This is because the case has already been considered by the Independent Appeal Body.
LGO (Local Government & …
Transport And Highways
Sep 2024
24-022-816 — Transport for London
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about travel disruption claims because any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.
LGO (Local Government & …
Transport And Highways
Jun 2025
25-013-594 — London Travelwatch
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about London Travelwatch’s handling of Miss X’s complaint about a rail provider. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant an investigation and London Travelwatch’s actions have not caused Miss X significant injustice.
LGO (Local Government & …
Transport And Highways
Nov 2025
25-014-693 — Transport for London
LGO (Local Government & …
Transport And Highways
21-015-070 — Transport for London
Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the handling of her claim for compensation for damage to her vehicle. This is because it would be reasonable for Miss X to take the matter to court.
LGO (Local Government & …
Transport And Highways
Feb 2022
21-015-049 — Transport for London
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Transport for London’s failure to deal with faulty bus blinds. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate.
LGO (Local Government & …
Transport And Highways
Feb 2022
22-009-003 — Transport for London
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about an assault by a Transport for London employee. This is because the police are better placed to investigate the matter.
LGO (Local Government & …
Transport And Highways
Oct 2022
22-010-450 — Transport for London
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about public transport. This is because it is late with no good reasons to exercise discretion to investigate it now.
LGO (Local Government & …
Transport And Highways
Nov 2022
23-020-162 — Transport for London
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an incident Mr X experienced whilst using Transport for London. This is because an investigation would be unlikely to lead to a different outcome.
LGO (Local Government & …
Transport And Highways
Apr 2024
23-018-610 — Transport for London
Summary: We will not investigate Miss B’s complaint about Transport for London’s failure to refund her for delayed journeys. This is because there is not enough evidence of significant injustice to warrant investigation.
LGO (Local Government & …
Transport And Highways
May 2024
23-016-231 — Transport for London
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about TfL’s alleged failure to properly heat its buses. This is because an investigation would be unlikely to result in a finding of fault or a worthwhile outcome.
LGO (Local Government & …
Transport And Highways
May 2024
24-021-036 — Transport for London
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about problems hiring a bike and the Authority’s decision not to make a refund. This is because there is insufficient evidence fault causing injustice.
LGO (Local Government & …
Transport And Highways
Apr 2025
25-002-209 — Transport for London
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Authority’s decision not to refund £14.90 to the complainant. This is because there is insufficient evidence of injustice.
LGO (Local Government & …
Transport And Highways
Jun 2025
25-003-598 — Transport for London
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Authority has blocked a device used for paying for transport on the network. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing injustice.
LGO (Local Government & …
Transport And Highways
Jul 2025
25-003-221 — London Borough of Lewisham
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an application for a Freedom Pass. There is no evidence of fault in how the Council made its decision, so we cannot question if the decision was right or wrong.
LGO (Local Government & …
Transport And Highways
Jul 2025
25-007-521 — London Borough of Redbridge
Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council decision that cycle storage where she lives does not breach planning control. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the way the Council came to its decision.
LGO (Local Government & …
Planning
Oct 2025
25-000-287 — Transport for London
Summary: Mr X complained about Transport for London’s (TfL) failure to recognise his car as Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) compliant and resulting charges. He said this caused significant frustration and financial loss. We found TfL to be at fault. To remedy the injustice to Mr X, TfL has agreed …
LGO (Local Government & …
Transport And Highways
Upheld
Oct 2025
25-013-084 — Transport for London
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Transport for London sign, which Mr X considers misleading. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.
LGO (Local Government & …
Transport And Highways
Nov 2025
23-015-657 — Transport for London
Summary: Mr X complained Transport for London (TfL) repeatedly rejected his applications for a grant under a scrappage scheme to replace his vehicle with an Ultra Low Emission Zone compliant one, without providing an explanation or requesting further evidence. TfL was at fault for failing to provide an explanation to …
LGO (Local Government & …
Transport And Highways
Upheld
Oct 2024
24-007-720 — Transport for London
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way Transport for London responded to a complaint about an advert on the underground. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by Transport for London and because the complainant could complain to the Advertising Standards Authority.
LGO (Local Government & …
Transport And Highways
Nov 2024
24-010-680 — Transport for London
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the underground network because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
LGO (Local Government & …
Transport And Highways
Nov 2024
24-012-530 — Transport for London
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about public transport because the courts and insurers are better placed to consider the complaint.
LGO (Local Government & …
Transport And Highways
Dec 2024
25-006-147 — Transport for London
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about charges for the Ultra Low Emission Zone because we are satisfied with the actions the Authority has taken, and any remaining injustice is not significant enough to warrant investigation.
LGO (Local Government & …
Transport And Highways
Sep 2025
24-012-323 — Transport for London
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adverts on the transport network because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigation.
LGO (Local Government & …
Transport And Highways
Nov 2024
20-013-897 — Transport for London
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the removal of a loading bay. The complaint is late and the change has not caused a significant enough injustice for us to investigate.
LGO (Local Government & …
Transport And Highways
Jan 2022