The Railway Industry Association has urged government and the emerging leadership of Great British Railways to treat rail electrification as a central part of the sector’s cost reduction and growth agenda, arguing that a new programme-based model could cut delivery costs by around a third while protecting skilled jobs and improving network performance.
RIA’s report, Electrification Cost Challenge 2.0, published this month, sets out the case for moving away from the stop-start approach that has characterised electrification in England and towards a long-term rolling programme aligned with rolling stock, infrastructure, power supply and decarbonisation strategy.
The report argues that electrification should not be viewed solely through the lens of carbon reduction. Instead, RIA says electric railways offer a lower whole-life cost, better performance, increased capacity, improved reliability, stronger energy security and a clearer path to reducing the net subsidy required to operate the network.
Its central finding is that, if the right strategic enablers are put in place, a Great British Railways-led rolling programme could reduce infrastructure delivery costs by around 30% compared with a well-delivered project today. Workshop analysis undertaken with industry practitioners suggested potential savings ranging from 16% under low adoption of the proposed model to 37% under high adoption.
RIA says the affordability challenge facing electrification is largely structural, rather than technical. The report points to repeated mobilisation and demobilisation of teams, loss of experienced staff, fragmented project authorisation, limited continuity of workload and weak incentives to invest in people, plant and process as key drivers of unnecessary cost.
That message will resonate strongly across the supply chain. Electrification capability has been repeatedly built up and then allowed to fall away, most notably after the Great Western Electrification Programme and, more recently, following the pause in further Midland Main Line electrification work. RIA highlights National Skills Academy for Rail data showing a 68% reduction in Electrification & Plant staff with recorded competencies between 2018 and 2025, including more than 300 redundancies after the Midland Main Line pause.
For RIA, this is both a warning and an opportunity. Without a credible pipeline, skilled workers will continue to leave the sector. With continuity, the industry can rebuild capability, improve productivity and create high-value jobs across infrastructure delivery, advanced manufacturing and the wider railway economy.
David Clarke, RIA Senior Technical Advisor, said rail has a key role to play in supporting economic growth and connecting the millions of homes expected to be built across the UK in the coming years.
He said there is now a “generational opportunity” to shape the future of rail electrification, particularly with the establishment of GBR next year, the development of CP8/FP1 over the next 12 months and the forthcoming rolling stock and infrastructure strategy.
The report makes clear that the arrival of GBR is a pivotal moment. RIA argues that a single guiding mind for track and train decisions should be able to take a whole-system view, balancing infrastructure investment, rolling stock deployment, access planning, signalling, power supply and long-term operating costs.
That whole-system approach matters because electrification is not simply a matter of installing overhead line equipment. It affects fleet procurement, timetable planning, maintenance costs, freight capability, passenger journey times, energy supply and network resilience. Done piecemeal, these benefits can be diluted. Done as a programme, RIA argues, they can compound.
One of the report’s immediate recommendations is that government should authorise the procurement, through private finance, of a significant tranche of Battery Electric Multiple Units. RIA says this would allow older diesel multiple units to be replaced, bring early passenger and air quality benefits, support UK advanced manufacturing and help sustain jobs without requiring direct government capital investment.
The association also calls for the pause in Midland Main Line electrification to be reversed. That recommendation is presented not only as a route-specific intervention, but as a practical way to protect industry capability ahead of a more substantial rolling programme from 2029.
RIA proposes that GBR should develop a flexible decade-by-decade delivery programme. This would allow the railway to adapt to changing funding, technology and operational requirements, while maintaining enough activity to sustain core specialist resources. The key point, it says, is continuity: the programme may flex, but it must not keep stopping.
The report also recommends a maximum funding envelope for the delivery of the rolling stock and infrastructure strategy. RIA draws attention to a Swiss-style approach, where government defines the long-term outcomes it wants from the railway and provides a stable funding framework, leaving the railway to deliver as efficiently as possible within that envelope.
Under this model, savings would be retained within the programme, giving industry an incentive to outperform while providing government with greater budget certainty. RIA also recommends a separate development fund for electrification schemes, allowing early design, power, consents and route clearance work to be progressed in a more orderly and cost-efficient way.
Commercial reform is another major theme. RIA suggests that future arrangements should support a production line approach, with delivery teams working across multiple sites over time rather than being assembled and disbanded for individual projects. Contracts could span at least two funding periods, with a proportion of work allocated to sustain capability and a further proportion competed to maintain commercial tension.
The report notes that a similar principle has been used in Network Rail’s Train Control Systems Framework, where the challenge was also to build and sustain capability for repeated delivery while preserving competitive pressure.
Power supply is identified as another area where a more strategic approach could unlock savings. RIA says GBR should engage directly with the electricity supply industry to develop a mutually beneficial plan for providing cost-effective power to rail. With the railway a major electricity customer, the report sees opportunities around distribution network connections, static frequency converters, energy hubs, smart grids, renewables and storage.
Freight is also part of the case. RIA argues that electrification can improve freight performance and capacity, particularly through the higher power and acceleration of electric locomotives. It says forthcoming analysis will show that battery-only locomotives are not a viable alternative for mainline freight, although hybrid electric-battery locomotives may have a role in specific circumstances.
The wider message is that electrification is back on the table not as a prestige project, but as a practical productivity measure. RIA’s argument is that electric railways are cheaper to operate, more reliable, more attractive to customers and better aligned with long-term economic, environmental and energy security objectives.
For suppliers, the report is a direct appeal for confidence and consistency. For government and GBR, it is a challenge: if the industry is serious about lowering whole-life costs, improving performance and creating skilled jobs, it cannot keep treating electrification as an occasional project.
The question now is whether the forthcoming rolling stock and infrastructure strategy, and the development of CP8/FP1, will turn that argument into a funded programme. RIA’s view is clear. The railway already knows how to electrify more efficiently. What it needs now is the structure, leadership and continuity to do it at scale.
