Supplementary written evidence submitted by Mark Barry, Professor of Practice in Connectivity at Cardiff University’s School of Geography & Planning (RIW0007)



Addendum to my submission to Welsh Affairs Select Committee

Rail Investment in Wales

February 14th, 2021 DRAFT 1.0             
Mark Barry, Professor of Practice in Connectivity at Cardiff University’s School of Geography & Planning 


In January 2021, I submitted and presented oral evidence to the Welsh Affairs Select Committee’s investigation of Rail Infrastructure and Investment in Wales[1].   Again, thank you for the invitation.  If I may, I’d like to provide a little further clarification/reflection as to the:

First, on HS2

There is a tendency from some of its supporters to associate more benefits to the HS2 than are reasonable or valid. In so doing they sometimes make assertions (often incorrectly) about rail priorities in places like Wales, esp. when viewed from the London and/or HS2 end of the rail industry telescope. 

So, let me provide some clarity.  According to the latest Full Business Case (April 2020) for HS2[2]

There is a looming issue/decision coming up as to whether to associate the benefits for HS2 Phase 2b Eastern leg (the section from Birmingham to Leeds) with that section, or shift them to North Powerhouse Rail; NPR will also radically reduce journey times from Birmingham to Leeds when linked to Phase 1, 2a and the western section of Phase 2b and so will abstract some of the benefits already calculated for the eastern leg of Phase 2bIt seems unlikely that both can be justified

Wales has set out its rail priorities, many of which were summarised in its “Rail Enhancement Priorities” in 2020[4]. These are all independent of HS2, because they are focussed on connectivity and movement within Wales and to/from Wales and England.  HS2 and NPR COULD help the latter in north Wales at the margins.  However, from a Welsh perspective HS2 does not make the top 10 most important rail enhancement schemes.


Now to the constitutional issue. 

And this is important. Wales voted for devolution in 1997; the current failed institutional arrangements for investing in and managing the rail network, in Wales have not been amended to reflect that democratic decision.  Why?  The rail network is a fundamental part of Wales’ economic infrastructure and should have been treated like the road network and included in the devolution settlement. This constitutional anomaly needs to be addressed.

The issues raised at the January session re: complexities of cross border infrastructure and services, liabilities, etc are just bureaucratic challenges to be managed and overcome, and in themselves are just distractions from the real issueI would reference my point in oral evidence about cross border infrastructure and services (inc. rail) being quite common challenges around the world. For example, between Aachen, Maastricht and Liege, 3 cities, 3 countries all less then 30Km apart.

We are talking about a National Government in Cardiff, not a parish council; WG already manages significant issues and liabilities(e.g. the road network in Wales).  To suggest that Wales “was or is unable” to manage the issues related to rail infrastructure is frankly patronising given how poorly those responsibilities in Wales have been discharged by Westminster for the last 30 years. I would make the same case more broadly in terms of energy infrastructure, the role of Crown Estates, etc. The issue is really a Whitehall one, in that it struggles to see how it could work more collaboratively where interests align, with a devolved nation with full responsibility over such matters.

I am not saying the DfT, NR or the ORR don’t have the capability to properly act as custodians for Wales rail network (they clearly have a huge amount of capability)It’s just that they have not been organised or remitted in any way that could be described as effective from a Welsh perspective – nor could they, viewing Wales as they do, through a Whitehall lens.  Wales is and has always been, at the periphery of Whitehall thinking. That is why devolution was and is even more required.

In this context, it is also relevant to view some of the small print of  the 2020 Spending review[5]. As a result of  HS2  expenditure and NR Enhancement  spend now being included in  Department of Transport’s  budget, the  Barnett Comparability  Factor  for Wales has fallen from 90% in 2015 to only to 36% today! Figure 6 The Comparability Factors for  Scotland and Northern Ireland are still ~90%  I am not sure how anyone can defend this – especially as Scotland does get some quantified benefits (transport user and economic) from HS2.

In effect, costs for HS2 and rail enhancement are being allocated to Wales -yet none of the benefits apply to Wales  This is the same perverse situation as the debt associated with NR’s Regulatory asset Base (RAB) - ref my first submission - where the debt accrued for the rail enhancements since 1997 have nominally been spread evenly across the network whereas the actual investment was not.  This is, at best, a very questionable accounting practice and certainly a constitutional dysfunction.

The only equitable and effective resolution is to fully devolve all rail powersas well as an ability for WG to raise monies and borrow to invest in economic infrastructure in the way the UK Gov does.  Note: the UK National debt is now 100% of GDP at £2Tn;  how much of that was used to support and/or invest in Wales’ economic infrastructure?  The ability of the UK Treasury to raise debt and issues bonds etc should be devolved so that Wales (and the regions of England perhaps) can invest for the long term in economic infrastructure – rather than be lumbered with the debt accruing from investment elsewhere in the UK.

This is a broken system and any intent to level up needs to grapple with this serious failing.  As I have written, elsewhere, the climate emergency , the challenges of post-industrial decline and inequality, will require a radical overhaul of how our economies function (in a way that most people have not yet realised). I suspect many countries will eventually come to realise that  the costly transition to a more carbon friendly, equitable and sustainable economy will require the issue of long term “climate change transition” bonds or similar as a well as radical fiscal changes – inc. ubiquitous measures to reduce car dependency.




Description automatically generated

Figure 1 Network capacity freed up by HS2


Figure 2 Economic Analysis of HS2


Figure 3 DfT HS2 FBC, BCR over time


Figure 4 DfT HS2 FBC, BCR Phase 1 and 2a (Statement of Intent Network)

Figure 5 DfT HS2 FBC, BCR Full Y Network


Figure 6 - Selected data from UK Treasury Dept Comparability Factors, CSR 2020





Mark Barry is Professor of Practice in Connectivity at Cardiff University’s School of Geography and Planning. Mark also has his own consulting business M&G Barry Consulting. He led South Wales Metro Development for Welsh Government from December 2013 to January 2016 following the publication of his Metro Impact Study in 2013.



February 2021


[1]               Railway Infrastructure in Wales - Committees - UK Parliament

[2]               Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.

[3]          HS2 Regional Economic Impacts (
HS2 'losers' revealed as report shows potential impact - BBC News
OneDrive for Business (

[4]               mainline-railway-enhancement-requirements.pdf (

[5]               Statement of Funding Policy 2020.docx (