Impact on the Railways of Leaving the EU

[Rods_of_Revolution]

Now it seems to be a certainty that Britain will leave the EU, what sort of impact will this have on the railways?

 

The "Railway Packages" that the EU introduced have drastically changed the business model for many of the railways across Europe, creating a situation where trains and track have to be owned by separate companies and all parties must given equal opportunities for open rail access; This has given rise to many new operators across Europe. Will the current situation change once the government are free from the EU directives, or will things continue in much the same way?

 

There are plenty of weird EU directives that are regarded by many as daft, like the repealed bent banana directive. Are there any similarly strange directives currently/previously in force on the railways?

 

All the best,

 

Jack

[stovepipe]

There seems to be an assumption that we will leave the single market as well as the EU. I'm not altogether sure this will actually happen. Statements made prior to the vote are already being backpedalled on.

 

History tells us that UK government never invests in the railways in a very sensible or adequate way, so I expect this to continue.

[PhilJ W]

Now it seems to be a certainty that Britain will leave the EU, what sort of impact will this have on the railways?

 

The "Railway Packages" that the EU introduced have drastically changed the business model for many of the railways across Europe, creating a situation where trains and track have to be owned by separate companies and all parties must given equal opportunities for open rail access; This has given rise to many new operators across Europe. Will the current situation change once the government are free from the EU directives, or will things continue in much the same way?

 

There are plenty of weird EU directives that are regarded by many as daft, like the repealed bent banana directive. Are there any similarly strange directives currently/previously in force on the railways?

 

All the best,

 

Jack

There was no such directive as the 'Bent banana directive'. This was a story created in the editorial office of a foreign owned newspaper.

[griffgriff]

We are more than capable of writing our own silly directives;)

[PhilJ W]

We are more than capable of writing our own silly directives;)

Indeed, and a lot of them were/are re-writen by our own bureaucrats.

EDIT sepllign.

[Dunsignalling]

Indeed, and a lot of them were/are re-writen by our own bereurocrats.

Given a document printed on two sides of A4 arriving from Brussels, Whitehall can (allegedly) transform it into something the size of a Telephone Directory inside a month.

 

Back on topic though, without the privatisation process, the trains we travel on would not have been replaced with modern stock at anything like the pace they were. OK lots of us might prefer to still be grinding around in Mark 2 coaches behind sixty-year old Duffs but that's not likely to be the view of Joe Public.

 

Under BR, the Treasury's habit of turning the taps off and on unpredictably meant that even those introductions that were completed took years longer than planned.

 

On the network itself, projects were often cancelled because the money was cut off after many millions had already been spent getting to a point short of where they would begin to have any practical function.

 

Even when things did proceed far enough to be of benefit, they were frequently trimmed back with the result that, far too often, what eventually got delivered was half the project for three quarters of the budget in twice the time.

 

Would we really want to return to that?

 

John

[Titan]

 

There are plenty of weird EU directives that are regarded by many as daft, like the repealed bent banana directive. Are there any similarly strange directives currently/previously in force on the railways?

 

 

 

Unfortunately yes. What is worse is that some of the directives have been written in to UK law without a moments thought from the politicians, meaning that even when we leave the EU the UK law will require to be repealed.

 

The worst example I have come across in my field is regarding minimum contact wire height in relation to platform height at stations. Our combination of smaller loading gauge and higher platforms, means that almost all of our railway stations with OLE now have illegal wire heights, especially if there is a low footbridge. The fact that we have been running 25kv OLE for almost 60 years like this is neither here nor there, grandfather rights don't count. Network rail are therefore currently breaking the law and not only would it cost Network Rail countless millions to raise every bridge on or near a station and regrade the wires for no other purpose than to satisfy some red tape,  many of the bridges are listed so in order to comply with one law you may end up breaking another!!!!

 

I would not be surprised if there are other examples out there.

[Zomboid]

No one knows what will happen now, but if our government deems it appropriate, vertical integration could be back on the table as an option.

In reality though, nothing significant will change for a while, all the pan-european rules are written into UK law, and I imagine the politicians will be worrying about other things for several years before they give much thought to the rail industry.

[Oldddudders]

Dunsignalling is right. The amount of Government money now being poured into the railways far exceeds the wildest dreams of the BR years. Trent Valley four-tracking? Electrification to Wales, Sheffield etc? Dream on! Those schemes were never in Rail Plan!

 

26 years ago I reported jointly to two BR Board bosses - Glyn, Director, Financial Planning and Don, Director, Projects, who had also just completed being Project Director, ECML Electrification. BR was supposed to talk about money with the Department of Transport (DTp), so BR's relationship with HM Treasury was arms-length, but Glyn said it was currently more like nose to nose. ECML Electrification has been regularly slated as being done on the cheap. How else would it have got done at all? BR had to fight tooth and nail for every £, and received annual targets for cost-cutting. Singling of lines was identified by DTp as an additional virility symbol, with dire consequences for service resilience, of course.

 

It is my belief that the separation of infrastructure and trains started in Whitehall, not Bruxelles, when Railtrack was conceived. Britain became the model for Europe, rather than following EU diktats. I am prepared to be corrected, though.

[corneliuslundie]

"It is my belief that the separation of infrastructure and trains started in Whitehall, not Bruxelles, when Railtrack was conceived. Britain became the model for Europe, rather than following EU diktats. I am prepared to be corrected, though"

Exactly, and Britian pushed the EU hard on the issue, against the wishes of several national governments such as France, so it is unlikely that there will be any moves in the opposite direction, since seemingly both main parties at the time supported the changes (though in politics, which we must not enter, anything is possible).

Jonathan

[plarailfan]

I wonder if this new scenario will impact in any way, on the proposed HS 2 scheme and Trans-Pennine electrification plans ?

[Grovenor]

 

It is my belief that the separation of infrastructure and trains started in Whitehall, not Bruxelles, when Railtrack was conceived. Britain became the model for Europe, rather than following EU diktats.

That is also my understanding.

Regards

[Zomboid]

I think Norway (non EU, of course) pioneered the separation of track and train approach, but no one else embraced it quite so enthusiastically as the UK government which created railtrack. So I doubt it'll be changing back any time soon.

Likewise, privatisation is a British thing. DB, SNCF, NS, SNCB... All nationalised (as far as I know).

[Zomboid]

I wonder if this new scenario will impact in any way, on the proposed HS 2 scheme and Trans-Pennine electrification plans ?

Depends on whether we end up richer or poorer than we are now. If the money dries up, the projects will stop.

[Rods_of_Revolution]

There was no such directive as the 'Bent banana directive'. This was a story created in the editorial office of a foreign owned newspaper.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission_Regulation_(EC)_No._2257/94

 

It required that bananas were "free from deformation or abnormal curvature", so it was a real directive, though an upper and lower radius were not specified to define "abnormal curvature".

[rockershovel]

There seems to be an assumption that we will leave the single market as well as the EU. I'm not altogether sure this will actually happen. Statements made prior to the vote are already being backpedalled on.

History tells us that UK government never invests in the railways in a very sensible or adequate way, so I expect this to continue.

The EU has considerable "previous" for contriving to over-ride, or simply ignore inconvenient or "unacceptable" referenda. France and Netherlands have both demonstrated this recently, Ireland and Czechoslovakia in the past. The Referendum was NOT binding on Parliament, there is a substantial cross-party consensus for REMAIN in the Commons which will make it very difficult to get anything invoking Article 50 or repealing the 1972 Act through the HoC, and there seems to be a general reality check being administered in a number of directions, judging by today's papers. I wouldn't be in tne least surprised to see Cameron, Farage, Corbyn and Johnson gone or going in the fairly near future.

 

I wouldn't bet on anything right now, but if I was to do so, I certainly wouldn't bet on H2S going ahead in any foreseeable future.

[edcayton]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission_Regulation_(EC)_No._2257/94

 

It required that bananas were "free from deformation or abnormal curvature", so it was a real directive, though an upper and lower radius were not specified to define "abnormal curvature".

 

If it's in Wiki it must be true.

 

Ed

[Rods_of_Revolution]

I think Norway (non EU, of course) pioneered the separation of track and train approach, but no one else embraced it quite so enthusiastically as the UK government which created railtrack. So I doubt it'll be changing back any time soon.

Likewise, privatisation is a British thing. DB, SNCF, NS, SNCB... All nationalised (as far as I know).

 

The situation is a little different even with nationalised railway companies, back during BR it was BR's trains and tracks, no one but the British Government could permit other operators. EU legislation has forced the national railway companies to break up, separating track and trains, so theoretically SNCF's trains have no more right to run trains on SNCF's tracks than Rail4Chem's trains for example.

 

Once separated from the EU, the UK government who still own the infrastructure could at anytime decide to restrict access to the rail network. I think it affects freight more than passenger, but something will probably have to be done to inform FOCs what the future will be in terms of access, to assure them it's still a safe investment.

 

All the best,

 

Jack

[62613]

There was no such directive as the 'Bent banana directive'. This was a story created in the editorial office of a foreign owned newspaper.

Created by one of the new prime ministerial candidates

[rockershovel]

Created by one of the new prime ministerial candidates

Like all good urban legends, it's far from new. The earliest reference to the general subject, I can find is a comic, or novelty song recorded in 1926

[The Stationmaster]

The separation, financially, of infrastructure and trains was formalised in EU Decision 91/440 - i.e. it dates in EU terms from 1991.  The proposal for it was made by the UK Govt and the UK govt made the running on it and got it through despite reservations on the part of a number of European mainland Govts.  there have been different interpretations but basically all it requires is financially separation of infrastructure and trains, it does not require privatisation although it did pave the way for a later requirement (supported, if not proposed by UK Govt officials) to introduce widespread open access throughout Europe.  

 

The British approach was to denationalise although that was as much for UK political reasons as for anything else although it was, in effect facilitated in the form it took by EU91/440i.

 

Interoperability is a more recent requirement and I don't think Britain objected to it even if those involved at the official level probably didn't understand it however somebody made sure that derogations are available and they only need to be signed off by a NoBo (Notified Body) so they can, in effect, be used to avoid altering existing infrastructure to the standards required by/or interoperability.  Similarly I understand that the change to ROGS in the UK was effectively driven by EU legislative changes however it seems to have been acceptable to UK Govt and to many in the industry and in my view is that it is effective so need not change for any reason I can think of.

 

Like many things which are 'blamed' on the EU the truth is - certainly for the rail industry - sometimes very different (just as it is with light bulbs where EU 'energy saving' (!!) requirements are several years behind those in the UK and are not driving it).  

Incidentally on behalf of my then employer I had the job of studying the implications of the Working Time Directive when it first appeared from Brussels (as it happens I used to receive any relevant, to us, Directives straight from Brussels as I was on the EU mailing list).  So I had the official EU English language version of the WTD to check through to see how it affected us - it comprised 16 pages and it took me a couple of hours to go through carefully - no impact.  A few months later the UK Govt version of the Directive landed on my desk, but fortunately not on my hand as, it consisted of 64 pages and some of it did affect us although we were already compliant.  Thus I have very limited faith in the UK Govt and Civil Service when it comes to legislative documents, Regulations and Orders and alas I think many other people might soon begin to find out the truth - 4 pages to tell you that such and such a day is to be treated as a public holiday (had that one too).

[asmay2002]

One thing that will probably vanish is the requirement for any major contract to be competed across Europe (which brought us Siemens EMUs, etc.).  This might help the surviving UK train makers.

[rockershovel]

One thing that will probably vanish is the requirement for any major contract to be competed across Europe (which brought us Siemens EMUs, etc.).  This might help the surviving UK train makers.

I wouldn't put money on anything if the sort. The Norwegians have no manufacturing industry to speak of, just extractive industries like oil, gas, iron ore and fish which are specific to the location. They don't compete with anyone in EU, just sell them stuff they want and buy stuff in return - mostly food and engineering manufactures of various kinds.

 

Different situation

[asmay2002]

I wouldn't put money on anything if the sort. The Norwegians have no manufacturing industry to speak of, just extractive industries like oil, gas, iron ore and fish which are specific to the location. They don't compete with anyone in EU, just sell them stuff they want and buy stuff in return - mostly food and engineering manufactures of various kinds.

 

Different situation

What the Norwegians choose to do in their own country is spectacularly irrelevant to the future decisions of a sovereign UK government.

[Gwiwer]

Little is likely to change immediately.  Dust needs to settle.  Board-room pens need to be sucked.  The rail industry is a global one these days with most of the ultimate ownership held by European-based multinational bodies with brands, franchises and fingers in many pies.  We do not know how or even if that will change, nor whether any change may be enforced or made as purely business decisions.  What we do know is that the rail industry in the UK is generally in better health than it ever has been and is arguably in better shape than many of its European counterparts.  To that extent it remains, and is likely in my opinion to remain, a good investment.

 

We are unlikely to see the sudden and mass hand-back of franchises owned by European organisations.  They stand to lose too much.  Whether they bid for renewals is a moot point.  It is not an effect of the EU referendum vote that DB seems to be taking urgent steps to prevent itself going down the gurgler but even so they are not walking away - merely restructuring.  The major players typically operate both bus operations and rail franchises.  Buses are run on an entirely commercial basis with the owner taking full revenue risk.  A minority of routes, and in some areas no routes at all now, exist because they are purchased - effectively franchised - by the local authority but as most go to the lowest bidder the major groups tend to not do well in this area.  

 

There may be a further period of austerity measures while the financial markets settle and decide for themselves what they think of the referendum vote.  That has a potential to impact upon some medium-term planning and infrastructure projects including electrification and rolling stock procurement.  Rolling stock will potentially become more costly if there is no trade deal with the manufacturing nation and / or the UK leaves the EEA.  With much of our rolling stock now built in Germany or Spain and tested at Wildenrath before delivery via the Channel Tunnel it may require some smart talking and hard bargaining to maintain the status quo.  On the other hand while there may hiccups in the European supply chain this might be good news for the people of Derby and possibly those assembling what are essentially Japanese trains in the north east of England.  We shall still need new trains.  And we have been capable of building very good ones indeed.  We could do so again.

 

Eurotunnel and Eurostar have already stated it is "Business As Usual" so while border controls might change in the future nothing may change for at least two years.

 

Changes to the economy might cause a slowing in the seemingly never-ending rail travel boom.  If that is carefully managed it may work to the advantage of the railways as a whole.  If it is allowed to become a burst and travel falls into sharp decline then we have problems as franchise payments may be not met and capacity might once again exceed demand.  

 

Ironically it's a situation I'd prefer to not arise despite the frustration of being corralled outside Victoria tube station because the place is so busy that no more people can get in.  

 

I suspect change will come but it will come in a managed and manageable way.  Not sudden and overnight but little by little as contracts come up for renewal and as the new order evolves and we understand to what extent the UK is actually withdrawing from Europe.  That might not be as much as many people expect.