Rail Delivery Group
2 nd Industry Forum
nd
8 November 2012

Rail Delivery Group
2 nd Industry Forum
8 November 2012
Tim O’Toole
Chairman, Rail Delivery Group
Chief Executive, First Group

Rail Delivery Group
Opening remarks
• The rail industry continues to experience significant growth but unwittingly finds itself on the front pages
• Despite commercial and financial uncertainties the Rail Delivery
Group continues to bring together the train operators, freight operators and Network Rail
• The Group is evolving into the leadership body for the industry but recognises that this role comes from actions and deeds not words and structures
• The RDG continues to pursue a range of initiatives – some arising from the Rail Value for Money Study but an increasing number emerging from recent events
• The RDG’s 2 nd Industry Forum will provide an update on the work being undertaken on franchising, focus on the industry’s plans for the future, reflect on the initiatives being pursued by the RDG and conclude with a briefing on the formalisation of the Group

Rail Delivery Group
2 nd Industry Forum
8 November 2012
Rt. Hon Patrick McLoughlin MP

Rail Delivery Group
Timetable for the morning
• Franchising – the independent review – Richard Brown
• Franchising – the RDG’s emerging views – Martin Griffiths
• Franchising – Taking the views of the Industry Forum
• Industry Strategic Business Plan – Paul Plummer
• Break
• The work of the Rail Delivery Group
• Case Study: Asset, Programme and Supply Chain
Management working group
• Formalising the Rail Delivery Group – Graham Smith
• Concluding remarks – David Higgins

Rail Delivery Group
2 nd Industry Forum
8 November 2012
Richard Brown
Chairman, Independent review of franchising
Chairman, Eurostar

Rail Delivery Group
2 nd Industry Forum
8 November 2012
Martin Griffiths
Member, Rail Delivery Group
Finance Director, Stagecoach Group

Rail Delivery Group
RDG’s response to the review of franchising
• Passenger franchising has been at the heart of the growth of the railway
• Recent developments on passenger franchising have created uncertainty
• The Members of RDG involved in passenger franchising have come together to inform a unified input to Richard Brown’s review in the name of the
Rail Delivery Group
• The group has met twice a week since the review was announced

Rail Delivery Group
Passenger franchising – RDG’s emerging views
• The Rail Delivery Group is looking at franchising issues under four headings
 Franchising authority and process
 Risk allocation, risk sharing and financial footprint
 Flexibility of specification
 Franchise length and investment
• The Rail Delivery Group is confident of producing a balanced submission that should be seen as a package of measures

Rail Delivery Group
2 nd Industry Forum
8 November 2012

Rail Delivery Group
2 nd Industry Forum
8 November 2012
Paul Plummer
Member, Rail Delivery Group
Group Strategy Director, Network Rail

Rail Delivery Group
Why does the Strategic Business Plan matter?
• It is the industry response to:
 Government output specifications
 Challenges to improve value for money
• It builds on extensive cross-industry work including:
 Route Utilisation Strategies
 Planning Oversight Group
 Technical Strategy Leadership Group
 National Task Force
 Rolling stock plans
 RDG priority workstreams
• It leads to the establishment of:
 Network Rail’s funding and outputs for 2014-19
 As part of a longer term strategy for the railway and for Network Rail
 Providing a baseline for further innovation for example through franchising
• This is therefore a key workstream for RDG

Rail Delivery Group
Periodic Review Milestones
2011 2012 2013 2014
ORR
Mar 2012 – advice to Ministers
Jun 2013 -
Draft
Determination
Oct 2013 –
Final
Determination
Governments
Network
Rail
Industry
Sep 2011 – Initial
Industry Plan
Jul 2012 –
HLOSs/SOFAs
7 Jan 2013 – Strategic
Business Plan
Jan 2014 – Decision on acceptance of FDs
Mar 2014 – CP5
Delivery Plan
7 Jan 2013 – Industry
Strategic Business Plan
13

Rail Delivery Group
The Strategic Business Plan
• The Industry Strategic Business Plan will set out:
 Long term vision for rail
 How industry proposes to deliver the HLOS outputs
 Market sector strategies
 Industry affordability analysis
• The Network Rail Strategic Business Plan will set out:
 Vision, role & purpose for Network Rail
 Network Rail’s contribution to the achievement of the HLOS
 Detailed forecasts of activity, expenditure and efficiency
 Network Rail’s funding requirement
 Underpinning Route Plans

Rail Delivery Group
A long term vision for rail
• Passenger satisfaction levels of at least 90 per cent
• Capacity for approx twice as many passengers, with reduced journey times, as well as better connectivity
• Improved product offer for freight resulting in higher satisfaction and rail modal share
• Levels of reliability and safety are among the best in
Europe
• A financially sustainable railway through improved efficiency and revenue generation
• Reduced carbon dioxide emissions in support of national targets

Rail Delivery Group
Outputs
• Safety
• Performance
• Capacity
• Availability
• Sustainable development
• Ring-fenced funds

Rail Delivery Group
Funding
• The Initial Industry Plan (IIP) assumed savings for Network Rail and operators
• Network Rail savings were consistent with previous ORR assumptions and McNulty low savings
• ORR advice to Ministers took this as the low end of the range of savings
• Governments appear to have taken the mid-point in the range
• TOC savings in the IIP were stated to be dependent upon franchise reform

Rail Delivery Group
SBP Expenditure Predictions
• Network Rail’s current expenditure plans and efficiency assumptions will generally be consistent with the Initial Industry
Plan
• Network Rail will make the case for additional expenditure in relation to:
 Earthworks and structures
 Investment to drive further efficiencies
 Delivery of higher outputs including once in a lifetime opportunities and outputs funded by others
• There are risks in meeting the efficiency challenge and Network
Rail is dependent on RDG and government to help it succeed
• Network Rail will continue to challenge itself to find further opportunities to reduce costs

Rail Delivery Group
Passenger Traffic & Demand
Passenger Traffic & Demand Passenger Train KM Index
Passenger KM Index
1.70
1.60
1.50
1.40
1.30
1.20
1.10
1.00
0.90
CP3 CP4 CP5
0.80
2004/5 2005/6 2006/7 2007/8 2008/9 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19
Financial Year

1.40
Rail Delivery Group
Freight Traffic & Demand
Freight Traffic
1.30
1.20
Freight Train KM Index
Freight Moved Index
1.10
1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
CP3 CP4 CP5
0.60
2004/5 2005/6 2006/7 2007/8 2008/9 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19
Financial Year

Rail Delivery Group
Punctuality
100% 8,000
7,500
95%
7,000
90%
6,500
85%
80%
PPM - actual
PPM - f orecast
Trains wit hin PPM (1000s) - actual
Trains wit hin PPM (1000s) - f orecast
6,000
5,500
75%
2003/ 042004/ 052005/ 06 2006/ 072007/ 08 2008/ 092009/ 10 2010/ 11 2011/ 12 2012/ 13 2013/ 14 2014/ 15 2015/ 16 2016/ 17 2017/ 18 2018/ 19
CP3 CP4 CP5
5,000

Rail Delivery Group
Network Rail efficiency
70
60
%
50
40
100
90
80
27%
23%
16%
30
20
Actual
IIP
10
0
2003/ 04 2004/ 05 2005/ 06 2006/ 07 2007/ 08 2008/ 09 2009/ 10 2010/ 11 2011/ 12 2012/ 13 2013/ 14 2014/ 15 2015/ 16 2016/ 17 2017/ 18 2018/ 19
CP3 CP4 CP5

Rail Delivery Group
Network Rail opex and maintenance spend
3,500
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
O&M - actual
O&M - IIP
O&M per t rain km - actual
O&M per t rain km - IIP
2
500
1
0
2003/ 04 2004/ 05 2005/ 06 2006/ 07 2007/ 08 2008/ 09 2009/ 10 2010/ 11 2011/ 12 2012/ 13 2013/ 14 2014/ 15 2015/ 16 2016/ 17 2017/ 18 2018/ 19
0
CP3 CP4 CP5
4
3
7
6
5

Rail Delivery Group
Network Rail renewals and enhancements spend
4,500
4,000
3,500
3,000
2,500
2,000 tbc
1,500
1,000
Renewals - actual
Renewals - IIP
Enhancement s - actual
Enhancement s - IIP
500
0
2003/ 04 2004/ 05 2005/ 06 2006/ 07 2007/ 08 2008/ 09 2009/ 10 2010/ 11 2011/ 12 2012/ 13 2013/ 14 2014/ 15 2015/ 16 2016/ 17 2017/ 18 2018/ 19
CP3 CP4 CP5

Rail Delivery Group
Industry subsidy
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
Figures f or CP3, sourced f rom ORR's " Nat ional Rail Trends " , show t ot al support including payment s made t o London and Cont inent al Railways
Total Government Support for the Railway
(England, Wales & Scotland)
CP3
Figures f or CP4 & 5 sourced f rom t he Init ial Industry Plans (" Pref erred Plan " , assuming Rail Vf M " low" ef f iciencies" )
CP4 CP5
8,000
7,000
Year

Rail Delivery Group
Periodic Review Milestones
2011 2012 2013 2014
ORR
Mar 2012 – advice to Ministers
Jun 2013 -
Draft
Determination
Oct 2013 –
Final
Determination
Governments
Network
Rail
Industry
Sep 2011 – Initial
Industry Plan
Jul 2012 –
HLOSs/SOFAs
7 Jan 2013 – Strategic
Business Plan
Jan 2014 – Decision on acceptance of FDs
Mar 2014 – CP5
Delivery Plan
7 Jan 2013 – Industry
Strategic Business Plan
26

Rail Delivery Group
Longer term planning milestones
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Market Studies commence - May 2012
Publication of Draft Market Studies for Consultation - by April 2013
Publication of final Market Studies – by October 2013
ORR Establishment – December 2013
Cross boundary analysis – ongoing from Q1, 2013
Route Studies (Tranche 1) commence - 18 month duration
Route Studies (Tranche 2) commence - 18 month duration
ORR has agreed that LTPP outputs should be completed in time to inform September 2016 Initial
Industry Plan (IIP) for Control Period 6
27

Rail Delivery Group
2 nd Industry Forum
nd
8 November 2012

Rail Delivery Group
2 nd Industry Forum
8 November 2012

Rail Delivery Group
2 nd Industry Forum
8 November 2012

Rail Delivery Group
RDG’s initiatives
• The RDG is pursuing a range of initiatives through its subjectspecific working groups
 Asset, programme and supply chain management
 Contractual and regulatory reform
 Train utilisation
 Technology, innovation and working practices
 Franchising
 Formalisation
• The RDG is giving guidance to existing cross-industry groups
 Planning oversight group
 Technical strategy leadership group
 National task force
• RDG is also involved in other industry initiatives
 Rolling stock planning, procurement and deployment
 Strategic Review of the RSSB

Rail Delivery Group
2 nd Industry Forum
8 November 2012
The Asset, Programme and Supply
Chain Management working group

Rail Delivery Group
Asset, programme and supply chain management
• The management of assets, the management of investment programmes and the role of the supply-chain are all critical to the success of the GB rail industry
• Identifying efficiencies in these areas is a core role for Network
Rail but the RDG identified that bringing together train and freight operators, the supply chain and Network Rail should allow cross-industry efficiencies to be realised
• The Rail Delivery Group set up the asset, programme and supply chain management (APSCM for short) to bring the industry together to identify new ways of working together that would create a more efficient industry
• The APSCM working group includes TOCs (Arriva and First), a
FOC (DB Schenker), Network Rail, a supplier (Amey), the
Railway Industry Association and the DfT

Rail Delivery Group
APSCM workstream presentations
• Access planning – Steve Murphy
• Workbank planning – Simon Bunn
• Cost of contingency survey – Jeremy Candfield
• Network optimisation – Nigel Jones
• Major projects and conclusions – Tim O’Toole

Rail Delivery Group
2 nd Industry Forum
8 November 2012
Steve Murphy
Team Leader, Industry Access Planning Improvement
Programme
Managing Director, LOROL

Rail Delivery Group
Objectives
• Optimising access planning. Put simply, when is the most efficient time to maintain the network?
• Reducing costs across the industry
• Increasing revenues
• Improving performance and customer satisfaction
• Developing case studies to provide evidence for industry wide benefits

Rail Delivery Group
Method
Cross Industry
• Steering Group
Paul Hebditch – Programme Manager, NR
Richard Stuart – Director of Rail Policy, Go-Ahead
Steve Murphy – MD London Overground, Arriva
• Supporting Project Team established in Network
Rail led by Fiona Dolman, Interim Director,
Operational Services
• All case studies are managed by a project board including the steering group, the Route MD &
Directors representing each Passenger or Freight
Company operating on the route
• Project updates at each RDG working group meeting

Rail Delivery Group
The Product
Total industry cost of maintenance North of Bedford – Midland
Mainline
Total industry cost of maintenance South of Bedford – MML / 4 nights/week

Rail Delivery Group
Midland Mainline Case Study
Key Findings
• Existing approach of variable length mid-week night possessions along with significant weekend possessions was not the industry optimum
• Moving to a recurring pattern of consistent 6.5 hour possessions at the north end of the route and 7 hour possessions at the south end of the route delivered the following benefits:
 Approximately 5% reduction in Network Rail costs for maintenance/renewals on the route
 Reduction in overall maintenance possession hours of 52%
 A 38% reduction in disruptive possessions at weekends
 A more reliable railway, that will attract more passengers

Rail Delivery Group
Next Steps
Activity Date
Implementation of savings identified by MML Case Study Underway
Completion of Kent Case Study Dec 2012
Phased delivery on a national basis Jan 2013 onwards

Rail Delivery Group
2 nd Industry Forum
8 November 2012
Simon Bunn
Leader, Route Based Work Bank
Planning
Business Director Track Renewals-Amey

Rail Delivery Group
Route based workbank planning – scope and objectives
• The Rail Delivery Group set up this workstream to examine how industry costs could be used by encouraging Network Rail, TOCs, FOCs and the supply chain to work more closely together in order to achieve
 Clear visibility of planning process, providing smoothing of resource, through intelligent grouping of works – not just as a one off exercise
 An understanding of planned work and the appropriate time for the work
 Recognise the costs / risks of very peaked demand
(smoother and predictable workbank)
 Identify the blockers and subsequently the levers for improvement
 Recognise the impact of the control periods and prevent this being a blocker to more efficient working

Rail Delivery Group
Route based workbank planning – scope and objectives
• Further benefits from the workbank planning workstream are expected to be
 Ensuring that work delivered is fit for purpose, with pragmatic specifications
 Reducing overall access time (and costs) by delivering some of the maintenance and inspection work when appropriate – e.g. maintenance tamping and CEFA inspections
 Recognise the railway as a “system”
 Reducing industry costs and keeping the railway open
 Producing a model that can be used nationally to optimise the workbank in terms of cost and resource demand

Rail Delivery Group
Route based workbank planning
– model project
North and West Route Improvements (Shrewsbury to Chester)
•
Track renewals for track condition (remove jointed track / old fastenings) +
S&C + S&T
•
Cefn Viaduct waterproofing
•
Currently developing “piggyback” and scope optimisation options:
•
Additional civils
•
Examinations (e.g. CEFA could use the time to carry out inspection limiting access demand)
•
Maintenance (could use the time to deliver some of their work e.g. maintenance tamping)
•
Earthworks
•
Changing complete rail lengths / optimising performance

Rail Delivery Group
Route Based workbank planning – next steps
• Sample is from a narrow baseline, but still has useful data
• Findings have been extended to reflect
 Territory
 Work Group
 Route category (Primary, secondary etc)
 Ramp up of savings impact
• Next steps are to extend the sample base by reviewing
 Combined study with access planning workstream
 Sample study of two- track section of northern WCML
 Project – GN / GE possible
 Track resource review – potentially Switches and Crossings

Rail Delivery Group
2 nd Industry Forum
8 November 2012
Jeremy Candfield
APSCM workstream
Director General, RIA

Rail Delivery Group
The Issue
• Much anecdotal evidence, plus Network Rail’s benchmarking work, suggests that contingency allowances are greater in rail than in other industries
• And that this is substantially to minimise the risk of “possession over-run” – when engineering works take longer than scheduled
• Most such works are undertaken by contractors, members of the Railway Industry Association (RIA)
• The RDG’s APSCM working group set up a workstream to identify how the industry could work together to reduce the cost of contingency
• The APSCM working group asked RIA to conduct a survey on the Cost of Contingency

Rail Delivery Group
The survey
• The survey was undertaken in August 2012 to seek to quantify the excess cost that could be involved
• 25 responses were received, spread across all main asset groups and turnover bands
• RIA analysed and anonymised the data

Rail Delivery Group
Key Findings
• Rail-specific contingency measures absorb additional people, plant, possessions and materials
• Contractual reasons predominate, but reputational risk is also a major issue
• Rail-specific contingency measures are applied to
63% of railway projects, and used in 49%
• Accounting for 11% of GRIP6 costs on those projects
• Allowing one-hour overruns would avoid 15% of the cost, two hours 23%

Rail Delivery Group
Comments Raised
• “Possession work is over-resourced because the possibility of overrun is too great a risk to take.”
• “The current possession regime requires significant lost time.”
• “Need to factor-in client change or poor project definition planning.”
• “The explosive and bitter recrimination many of us have had when a possession does overrun for whatever reason!”
• “Where scope definition or programme information is limited we would add up to 20%.”
• “Contingency is usually factored in to cover for poor planning in either the specification or the tender.”

Rail Delivery Group
Next Steps
• Further analysis
 There may be scope to capture differences between rail and non-rail contingency more fully
 The survey undertaken was of contractors only, so excludes contingency taken by the infrastructure manager – contingency on contingency
 Although analysis costed impacts on labour, plant and materials, we have not yet properly quantified or costed the impact on possessions. Each of these would be expected to increase the cost estimate
 RIA is considering another survey on behalf of RDG
 We have yet to address how to balance overruns against service interruptions
• The Cost of Contingency workstream is bringing together operators, suppliers and Network Rail to identify further opportunities

Rail Delivery Group
2 nd Industry Forum
8 November 2012
Nigel Jones
Leader, Network Optimisation workstream
Planning & Strategy Director, DB Schenker

Rail Delivery Group
Background
• Even in an expanding railway there are points and connections that are rarely or never used. These are expensive to maintain and renew
• However, relatively little network rationalisation has occurred in recent years other than as part of a renewal or enhancement scheme
• On average 77 Switch & Crossing (S&C) units have been abandoned each year over Control Period 4 (CP4) – initial CP5 work suggested an abandonment rate of 64-69 S&C units pa
• Reasons for this include:
 Difficulty in making a positive business case for stand-alone schemes
 Perceived difficulty of securing operator agreement via the Network
Change process
 Perceived impact of standards on “What is possible”
53

Rail Delivery Group
What is Network Optimisation?
A RDG initiative where TOCs, FOCs and Network Rail are working together to eliminate a significant proportion of the unused, underused and problematic S&C units from the 23,276 point ends on the rail network, and replace them with plain line.
Why?
• Avoid future capital expenditure and renewal costs
• Reduce maintenance costs
• Improve performance and reliability
• Improve staff safety
Issues
• Up-front capital costs
• Savings generally realised in later Control Periods
• Would there be a reduction in operational flexibility – or would this be perception rather than reality?

Rail Delivery Group
Method and Progress
• Work has focused on Wessex and Sussex routes
• A combination of:
 High level analysis
 Cross-industry workshops focusing on discrete network segments to review current & future use and identify redundancy
• Development of a national business case based on averages, sampling and overseas experiences
• Using
 ORBIS criticality data to inform workshops.
 A revised Network Rail standard, known as ERORA, is currently on trial, allowing a risk-based and cost effective approach to removal
55

Rail Delivery Group
Benefits from the initiative
• The long-life nature of S&C assets makes the initiative worthwhile
• Without ERORA, “Do nothing” is more attractive until after year 16
• With ERORA, the proposal becomes positive after year 7
• A midpoint between these would see a break even after year 11
150
100
50
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
-50
-100
-150
ERORA
Without ERORA
Midpoint

Rail Delivery Group
2 nd Industry Forum
8 November 2012
Tim O’Toole
Chairman, APSCM Working Group
Chief Executive, First Group

Rail Delivery Group
Major projects
• The APSCM working group believes that there could be significant benefits from a cross-industry approach to major projects
• The group needs to understand the incentives that will encourage earlier and closer engagement between operators, suppliers and infrastructure provider. This could lead to more efficient scoping, specification and implementation
• The working group will look at past, present and future major projects to identify how the outputs from these projects could be delivered for a lower cost

Rail Delivery Group
2 nd Industry Forum
8 November 2012
Tim O’Toole
Chairman, APSCM Working Group
Chief Executive, First Group

Rail Delivery Group
APSCM conclusions
• The APSCM working group has been a truly cross-industry effort to identify efficiencies from new ways of working together. The group has been putting values to the potential efficiencies by assessing the impact nationwide of a range of case studies
• There needs to be care to avoid double-counting savings between workstreams or between the working group and
Network Rail’s own work for the Strategic Business Plan
• Work to date, excluding major projects where work is just beginning, suggests a range of savings of
 Between £100m and £300m in 2018/19
 Between £430m and £1130m across CP5

Rail Delivery Group
2 nd Industry Forum
8 November 2012

Rail Delivery Group
2 nd Industry Forum
8 November 2012
Graham Smith
Secretary, Rail Delivery Group

Rail Delivery Group
Formalisation
• The Rail Delivery Group has operated on a voluntary basis for 18 months. To enable the RDG to fulfil its leadership role and to maintain involvement at a time of commercial and political change the RDG, with support from Government, decided to
 Formalise the Group as a company limited by guarantee
 Support the introduction of a licence condition requiring participation in the RDG
 Establish a better defined relationship with, and give guidance to, cross-industry groups such as Planning Oversight Group, National
Task Force and Technical Strategy Leadership Group
 Develop relationships with other industry bodies such as RSSB
 Enhance its communications with the industry, funders and other stakeholders
• The ORR consulted on the proposal to formalise RDG during the summer

Rail Delivery Group
ORR consultation and conclusions
• The ORR made a number of points in its conclusions document regarding structure and membership of the leadership group, communication and transparency of RDG and the rights of those who would fall into the licensed and associate membership groups
• The ORR stated that
 The leadership group is likely to be more effective as a relatively small body (comprising those who have the biggest influence to drive change across the industry)
 There are sufficient safeguards in place to ensure that the interests of operators, funders, suppliers, employees and others not directly represented on the board will be protected
 RDG Members will actively seek the views and involvement of those bodies to whom the specific matter being considered is directly relevant
 ORR is content to support the formalisation of RDG through the incorporation of a new membership condition into the licences of Network
Rail and passenger and freight train operators that operate over the mainline network

Rail Delivery Group
Membership
• There will be three membership categories
 Leadership Group Members
 Licensed members
 Associate members
• Leadership Group Members are
 Network Rail and
 Owning groups involved in passenger or rail freight operations and whose membership will be determined by the level of UK rail turnover and leadership of their group
• Licensed members are all passenger and freight train operators operating on Network Rail’s infrastructure
• Associate members will be bodies that are likely to be able to make a material contribution to the achievement of the RDG’s objects

Rail Delivery Group
Communication
• The RDG recognises that it can only be fully effective with the support and engagement of its customers, employees, suppliers and other stakeholders
• The RDG has to be transparent about its activities and to communicate with licensed members, associate members, funders and other industry stakeholders whilst recognising that that there are some issues of commercial confidentiality
• Formal communications activity will include
 continuing to produce a summary of its proceedings to post on the RDG’s website
 producing an electronic written report on progress every six months that will be posted on its website
 publishing an annual report describing its achievements in the previous year and laying out its plans for the coming year and continuing to hold an annual forum
• But this only part of the RDG’s communications activity

Rail Delivery Group
Communication
• RDG will build on the existing involvement of the wider industry in the initiatives being pursued by the subject-specific working groups
• RDG will seek the views of licensed and associate members on particular topics. This may involve asking members for information and evidence to help RDG understand a particular issue or testing potential solutions in discussion with individual members or their representative bodies
• RDG will meet licensed and associate members either directly or through their trade associations or representative bodies
• This will allow the RDG to understand members’ views on the various initiatives being pursued by the RDG and will be an opportunity to brief members on progress

Rail Delivery Group
2 nd Industry Forum
8 November 2012
Graham Smith
Secretary, Rail Delivery Group

Rail Delivery Group
Industry Forum
8 December 2012
David Higgins
Deputy Chairman, Rail Delivery Group
Chief Executive, Network Rail