Network Rail scrapped GRIP in favour of PACE back in 2021. If you're working on rail infrastructure projects, you've probably noticed the difference. Fewer stage gates. Faster decisions. Less waiting around for sign-offs that used to take weeks.
But what exactly changed? And more importantly, what does PACE mean for how you manage records, handle variations, and protect your commercial position on rail projects?
This guide breaks down the practical differences between the two frameworks, shows you what PACE looks like in action, and explains what it means for contractors working on Network Rail projects today.
The 30-Second Summary
GRIP had eight sequential stages with formal gate reviews between each one. Teams couldn't progress until they'd completed every requirement and received sign-off. This created rigour, but it also created delays.
PACE has four main phases that can overlap where it makes sense. Decision-making authority sits with project teams rather than requiring escalation through multiple management layers. The aim is to keep the control without the bureaucracy.
The result? The Dartmoor Railway Line went from concept to construction in eight weeks under PACE. Under GRIP, that process would have taken months.
GRIP: The Framework That Served Rail for 20 Years
Network Rail introduced GRIP (Governance for Railway Investment Projects) in 2000 to bring structure and risk management to rail infrastructure delivery. For two decades, it was the standard approach for any project enhancing or renewing the operational railway.
The Eight GRIP Stages
GRIP divided every project into eight distinct stages, each with specific deliverables and a formal gate review before progression:
| Stage | Name | Purpose |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Output Definition | Define the needs and requirements of the project |
| 2 | Feasibility | Assess whether outputs can be delivered economically |
| 3 | Option Selection | Evaluate options and select the preferred solution |
| 4 | Single Option Development | Develop outline design for the chosen option |
| 5 | Detailed Design | Complete detailed design and prepare for construction |
| 6 | Construction, Test and Commission | Build, test and commission the works |
| 7 | Scheme Hand Back | Hand back to operations and close out construction |
| 8 | Project Close Out | Complete final accounts and capture lessons learned |
The approach was product-driven rather than process-driven. Each stage had an agreed set of deliverables that had to be completed before moving forward.
The approach was product-driven rather than process-driven. Each stage had an agreed set of deliverables that had to be completed before moving forward.
What Each Gate Required
Before progressing through each gate, teams had to demonstrate they'd met specific requirements. This created thoroughness, but also created bottlenecks:
| Gate | Key Requirements Before Progression | Typical Duration |
|---|---|---|
| Gate 1→2 | Strategic fit confirmed, funding route identified, stakeholders mapped | 4-8 weeks |
| Gate 2→3 | Feasibility study complete, outline business case, initial risk assessment | 8-16 weeks |
| Gate 3→4 | Options appraised, preferred option selected, outline design started | 12-24 weeks |
| Gate 4→5 | Single option developed, land requirements confirmed, planning submissions | 16-32 weeks |
| Gate 5→6 | Detailed design complete, all approvals obtained, contracts awarded | 20-40 weeks |
| Gate 6→7 | Construction complete, testing done, safety certification obtained | Varies by scope |
| Gate 7→8 | Operational handover complete, defects liability period started | 4-12 weeks |
Why GRIP Worked (Initially)
GRIP brought genuine benefits when it was introduced:
Risk Reduction: The staged approach caught problems early, before they became expensive to fix. Gate reviews provided assurance that projects were ready to progress.
Consistency: Every project followed the same framework. Teams moving between projects understood the process. Clients knew what to expect.
Governance: Clear accountability at each stage. Documented decision-making. Audit trails that stood up to scrutiny.
Where GRIP Started Causing Problems
Over time, the rigidity that provided control started creating different problems:
Sequential Bottlenecks: Teams couldn't work in parallel. Civil engineers waited for design sign-off. Procurement waited for civil. Every delay cascaded forward.
Escalation Overhead: Minor decisions required approval from multiple management tiers. A project manager couldn't approve a sensible change without escalating through layers of governance.
Disproportionate Process: A small footbridge required the same stage-gate rigour as a major station rebuild. The process didn't flex to match project complexity.
Time and Cost Creep: The bureaucracy added weeks to project timelines. Those weeks cost money. And the industry was under pressure to deliver more for less.
Mike Wright, Network Rail's Capital Investment Programme Director, summarised the problem: the goal was "to keep the rigour of GRIP but not control projects so excessively that we are adding extra time and cost to the delivery."
PACE: The Framework Built for Speed
PACE (Project Acceleration in a Controlled Environment) received Network Rail board approval in November 2020 and began rolling out to projects from January 2021.
It emerged from Project SPEED (Swift, Pragmatic and Efficient Enhancement Delivery), a joint initiative between the Department for Transport and Network Rail focused on cutting both the time and cost of project delivery.
The Four PACE Phases
PACE condenses the eight GRIP stages into four main phases:
| Phase | Name | Purpose |
|---|---|---|
| 0 | Initiate | Initial project setup before formal phases begin |
| 1 | Strategic Development & Project Selection | Define requirements, assess feasibility, select approach |
| 2 | Project Design | Develop and complete design, prepare for delivery |
| 3 | Project Delivery | Construct, test, commission and hand back |
| 4 | Project Close | Complete closeout activities and capture lessons |
The critical difference isn't just fewer phases. It's that these phases can overlap. Teams can work in parallel where it makes sense, rather than waiting for sequential handoffs.
The Philosophy Behind PACE
PACE isn't just GRIP with fewer stages. It's built on fundamentally different principles:
| Principle | What It Means | How PACE Delivers It |
|---|---|---|
| Outcome-Focused | Measure success by results, not process followed | Reduced mandatory products, focus on value-adding deliverables |
| Accountability & Empowerment | Give teams authority, hold them accountable | Delegated decision-making, clear ownership at project level |
| Integrity & Trust | Trust professionals without excessive checking | Reduced approval layers, assurance proportionate to risk |
| Service Focus | Remember the end user – passengers and freight | Faster delivery means benefits realised sooner |
Level of Control: Governance That Scales
One of PACE's most significant changes is tailoring governance to project complexity. Not every project needs the same level of oversight:
| Level | Project Type | Governance Approach | Decision Authority |
|---|---|---|---|
| LoC 1 | Simple renewals, like-for-like | Minimal documentation, streamlined approvals | Project Manager |
| LoC 2 | Standard enhancements | Standard PACE products, phase readiness reviews | PM with Sponsor oversight |
| LoC 3 | Complex, multiple interfaces | Full PACE product set, engineering milestone reviews | Sponsor with Investment Panel |
| LoC 4 | Major programmes, high risk | Enhanced governance, independent assurance | Investment Panel / Board |
This means a straightforward track renewal doesn't face the same governance burden as a major station rebuild. The controls match the risk.
What PACE Changed in Practice
Parallel Working: Different disciplines can progress simultaneously. Procurement can begin while detailed design continues. Construction planning doesn't wait for every drawing to be finalised.
Delegated Authority: Decision-making sits with project teams. Minor changes don't require escalation through multiple approval layers. The people closest to the work can make decisions about the work.
Tailored Controls: Project complexity determines the level of control required. Sponsors and project managers can tailor controls to match their project's risk profile.
Integrated Risk Management: Rather than treating risk assessment as a separate exercise at predetermined checkpoints, PACE embeds risk consideration throughout the project lifecycle.
Consistent Procurement: The framework creates more uniform procurement and contracting processes across civil, electrical, and mechanical works.
GRIP vs PACE: Side-by-Side Comparison
| Aspect | GRIP | PACE |
|---|---|---|
| Structure | 8 sequential stages | 4 overlapping phases |
| Progression | Complete each stage before next | Phases can run in parallel |
| Decision-Making | Escalate through management tiers | Delegated to project teams |
| Governance | Same controls for all projects | Tailored to project complexity |
| Risk Management | Assessed at stage gates | Embedded throughout lifecycle |
| Procurement | Varied across disciplines | Consistent process |
| Philosophy | Control through rigid stages | Acceleration through flexibility |
| Status | Being phased out | Current standard (from 2021) |
Where the Time Savings Come From
The comparison table shows what changed. This table shows how those changes translate into actual time savings:
| Activity | GRIP Approach | PACE Approach | Time Saved |
|---|---|---|---|
| Feasibility to Design | Complete feasibility, gate review, then start | Begin outline design during feasibility | 4-8 weeks |
| Design to Procurement | Complete all design before tendering | Early contractor involvement, design-build | 8-16 weeks |
| Minor Design Changes | Escalate to gate review, formal change control | Project team decision within authority | 2-6 weeks each |
| Risk Decisions | Formal review at each gate | Continuous, real-time decisions | Ongoing |
| Cross-Discipline Work | Each discipline completes before next starts | Disciplines work concurrently | 12-24 weeks |
Understanding PACE Milestones
While PACE has fewer phases than GRIP, it still has clear decision points. Understanding these milestones helps you plan your work and know when key decisions will be made:
| Phase | Key Milestones | What Gets Decided |
|---|---|---|
| Initiate | Project Brief Approved | Should we progress? What Level of Control? |
| Strategic Development | Options Complete | Which option to develop further? |
| Investment Authority | Is business case strong enough to commit? | |
| Project Design | Design Freeze | Is design complete enough for construction? |
| Construction Ready | All approvals, contracts, resources in place? | |
| Project Delivery | Construction Complete | Is physical work finished and tested? |
| Operational Handover | Can operations safely take control? | |
| Project Close | Final Close | All accounts settled, lessons captured? |
The critical difference from GRIP is that reaching these milestones doesn't require completing every preceding activity. If you can demonstrate readiness, you can progress, even if parallel workstreams are still ongoing.
PACE in Action: The Dartmoor Railway Line
The restoration of the Dartmoor Railway Line demonstrates what PACE makes possible.
The line between Exeter and Okehampton closed to regular passengers in 1972. For nearly 50 years, daily services didn't run. Then, in 2021, it became the first railway to reopen under the government's Restoring Your Railway programme.
The Timeline
- February 2021: Project initiated using PACE approach
- March 2021: £40.5 million government funding confirmed
- April 2021: Construction begins (8 weeks from concept)
- November 2021: Regular passenger services commence
From concept to construction in eight weeks. Under GRIP, the stage-gate process alone would have consumed months before any construction activity could begin.
What Made It Possible
The project team worked through feasibility and detailed design in parallel rather than sequentially. Issues were identified and resolved in real time through early collaboration, rather than discovered at formal gate reviews.
Christian Irwin, Network Rail's Industry Programme Director, led the project with PACE's emphasis on speed and delegation. Teams made decisions at project level rather than escalating through approval hierarchies.
The Results
The 11-mile stretch of line was transformed in nine months, completed under budget. The line now carries over 550,000 passenger journeys per year, far exceeding initial expectations.
This wasn't just faster delivery. It was proof that reducing bureaucratic overhead doesn't mean reducing rigour. The project delivered safely, on time, and under budget.
What PACE Means for Contractors
If you're working on Network Rail projects, PACE changes several things about how you'll operate:
| Area | Under GRIP | Under PACE | What You Need to Do |
|---|---|---|---|
| Programme | Sequential activities, clear handoffs | Overlapping phases, concurrent work | Build programmes handling parallel dependencies |
| Changes | Formal submission, wait for gate | Faster turnaround, project-level decisions | Be ready to respond quickly |
| Documentation | Full product set regardless | Tailored to Level of Control | Understand your LoC requirements |
| Risk | Formal reviews at gates | Continuous, embedded in daily work | Capture and escalate risks real-time |
| Approvals | Multiple tiers, longer waits | Delegated authority, faster decisions | Know who can approve what |
| Records | Assemble for stage gate reviews | Maintain continuously | Contemporaneous capture more important |
Faster Decision Cycles
With delegated authority, you'll get decisions faster. Changes that previously required weeks of escalation and approval can now be resolved at project level. This is good for programme but requires you to be ready to respond quickly.
Parallel Workstreams
You may find yourself working on detailed design while procurement is already underway. This requires better coordination and clearer communication about dependencies. Your programme management needs to handle overlapping activities rather than sequential handoffs.
Tailored Governance
The level of control will vary by project complexity. A simple renewal will have lighter governance than a major enhancement. Understanding where your project sits on this spectrum helps you pitch your approach appropriately.
The PACE Product Index
PACE organises its documentation requirements into eight themes. What's produced for each theme depends on your project's Level of Control:
| Theme | What It Covers | Key Products |
|---|---|---|
| Manage Integration | Overall project management | Project Management Plan, Stakeholder Plan |
| Manage Scope | Defining and controlling inclusions | Requirements Spec, Scope Management Plan |
| Manage Time | Planning and scheduling | Project Schedule, Planning Management Plan |
| Manage Cost | Budgeting and cost control | Cost Plan, Cost Management Plan |
| Manage Risk | Identifying and mitigating risks | Risk Register, Risk Management Plan |
| Manage Quality | Meeting requirements | Quality Management Plan, Assurance Plan |
| Manage Resources | People, equipment, materials | Resource Plan, Organisation Chart |
| Manage Procurement | Contracts and suppliers | Procurement Strategy, Contract Plan |
For LoC 1 projects, you might only need basic versions of key products. For LoC 4 projects, you'll need the full set with enhanced governance products. Understanding this early helps you plan your documentation effort appropriately.
Why Records Matter More Under PACE
This seems counterintuitive. Lighter governance should mean less documentation, right?
Actually, the opposite is true. Under GRIP, formal stage gates provided natural documentation checkpoints. Teams assembled evidence for reviews. The process enforced record-keeping.
Under PACE, those checkpoints are fewer and lighter. But the need for evidence doesn't disappear. It shifts from formal review packages to continuous contemporaneous recording.
| PACE Characteristic | Why Records Are Critical | What to Capture |
|---|---|---|
| Parallel Workstreams | Multiple activities need clear audit trail | Date-stamped decisions, who made them, why |
| Delegated Decisions | Project-level decisions need evidence | Decision logs, supporting analysis |
| Continuous Risk | Ongoing decisions need documentation | Real-time risk registers, mitigation logs |
| Tailored Governance | Lighter process means records fill the gap | Evidence controls were followed |
| Faster Pace | Less time for retrospective documentation | Daily logs, progress photos, resources |
| NEC Requirements | CEs, early warnings still need substantiation | Contemporaneous evidence linked to events |
If you're on an NEC contract (which most Network Rail projects are), your ability to substantiate compensation events, demonstrate defined costs, and support early warnings still depends entirely on the quality of your site records. PACE doesn't change that. It just means you can't rely on stage gates to force the discipline.
Which Framework Applies to Your Project?
Most new projects will use PACE by default. But there are scenarios where GRIP might still apply or where a transition makes sense:
| Scenario | Framework | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| New project starting 2024/25 | PACE | Default for all new projects since 2021 |
| Project started under GRIP, now Stage 5+ | GRIP | Continue to avoid disruption |
| GRIP project at early stages | Transition to PACE | May benefit if significant work remains |
| Simple renewal or like-for-like | PACE (LoC 1) | Lightest governance, streamlined |
| Major programme (e.g., HS2 interface) | PACE (LoC 4) | Full framework with enhanced governance |
| Urgent / emergency works | PACE (expedited) | Flexibility allows acceleration |
If you're joining a project mid-way, check which framework it's using. The documentation requirements, approval processes, and governance expectations differ significantly.
Common Challenges in the Transition
Teams moving from GRIP to PACE often encounter similar challenges. Knowing what to expect helps you prepare:
| Challenge | What Happens | How to Address It |
|---|---|---|
| Old habits persist | Teams wait for approvals that aren't required | Clear communication of delegated authorities |
| Parallel coordination | Overlapping activities create confusion | Integrated planning, interface management |
| Documentation uncertainty | Teams unsure what's required for their LoC | Early LoC assessment, clear guidance |
| Moving too fast | Speed prioritised over rigour, issues missed | Continuous risk management, not just faster gates |
| Supply chain adjustment | Contractors still on GRIP expectations | Clear requirements, early engagement |
| Records gap | Less formal review = less documentation | Embed contemporaneous recording in processes |
The most common failure mode is treating PACE like "GRIP but faster." The mindset shift matters as much as the process change. Delegated authority only works if people actually use it. Parallel working only saves time if teams coordinate effectively.
Key Takeaways
Key Takeaways
The Dartmoor Railway went from concept to construction in eight weeks under PACE. That timeline wasn't possible under GRIP.
Teams working simultaneously rather than sequentially is where the time savings come from.
Decisions at project level eliminate weeks of waiting. But you need to respond quickly.
Fast-moving projects with overlapping workstreams need even better records.
New Network Rail projects use PACE unless there's a specific reason not to.
Frequently Asked Questions
PACE (Project Acceleration in a Controlled Environment) is Network Rail's current framework for managing infrastructure investment projects. It replaced GRIP in 2021 and focuses on faster delivery through parallel working, delegated decision-making, and governance tailored to project complexity.
GRIP was replaced by PACE, which was developed through Project SPEED (Swift, Pragmatic and Efficient Enhancement Delivery) and approved by the Network Rail board in November 2020. PACE has been applied to new projects since January 2021.
PACE has four main phases: Strategic Development and Project Selection, Project Design, Project Delivery, and Project Close. There's also an initial "Initiate" phase (Phase 0). Unlike GRIP's eight sequential stages, PACE phases can overlap where appropriate.
GRIP is being phased out. New projects use PACE unless there's a specific reason to continue with GRIP. Some legacy projects that started under GRIP may continue using that framework through to completion.
Project SPEED (Swift, Pragmatic and Efficient Enhancement Delivery) is a joint initiative between the Department for Transport and Network Rail that developed the PACE framework. It focuses on reducing both the time and cost of delivering rail infrastructure projects.
Level of Control (LoC) is how PACE tailors governance to project complexity. LoC 1 is the lightest (simple renewals), while LoC 4 is the heaviest (major programmes requiring Board approval). This means simple projects don't face the same governance as complex programmes.
Contractors experience faster decision cycles, parallel workstreams, and tailored documentation. The main adjustment is being ready to respond quickly when decisions are made at project level. Contemporaneous records become more important, not less.
The Dartmoor Railway (Exeter to Okehampton) was the first line reopened under Restoring Your Railway. Using PACE, it went from concept to construction in eight weeks. The 11-mile line was transformed in nine months, under budget, now carrying 550,000+ passengers per year.
Related Resources
- NEC4 Contract Administration: A Practical Guide
- Site Diary Best Practices for Rail Projects
- How to Substantiate Compensation Events
- Commercial Record Management for Infrastructure Projects
Key Takeaways
Related blogs you may like
Project 13 & Site Records for Infrastructure Success
How Project 13 transforms UK infrastructure through collaborative delivery and data-driven site records.
2025 Network Rail Calendar Download
Download the free 2025 Network Rail calendar with all 13 periods marked. Learn why the rail period system matters for possession planning, payment cycles, and commercial management on NEC4 contracts.
5 Tips for Getting to Grips with RMM
Discover 5 essential tips for understanding Rail Method of Measurement (RMM), Network Rail's standardised approach to cost analysis and benchmarking.
.webp)
