Impact on the Railways of Leaving the EU

[Coryton]

Article in the Guardian today about Ebbw Vale (new £30m station, college, regeneration project) as the recipient of more net EU money than any other small UK town (pop 18,000) which voted predominately leave - you couldn't make it up:

http://gu.com/p/4myfh/sbl

 

Well, they've had the money now and won't have to pay it back when we leave the EU...

[Coryton]

So what about my European train driving licence and ERTMS course I've just completed?

 

Presumabky like almost any question about leaving the EU, nobody knows.

 

The Leave campaign didn't seem to have many answers about what leaving would mean, nor were they in a position to make any promises even if they had.

 

It's hard to imagine that we wouldn't continue with ERTMS though - why invent something different?

[The Stationmaster]

So what about my European train driving licence and ERTMS course I've just completed?

 

No doubt they will remain valid Jim - the EU isn't everything and agreements between countries (including the UK) and others in Europe existed long before the EU came into existence. 

[number6]

Well, they've had the money now and won't have to pay it back when we leave the EU...

Well I would call that a rude and ungrateful attitude and the gist of that article!

 

I think my point was that was an example of positive EU rail investment - now you'll be looking to Westminster for that money and from a much smaller pot of cash.

[Taz]

....

Article in the Guardian today about Ebbw Vale (new £30m station, college, regeneration project) as the recipient of more net EU money than any other small UK town (pop 18,000) which voted predominately leave - you couldn't make it up:http://gu.com/p/4myfh/sbl

Money can't buy you love.....

[andy stroud]

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.

 

Would we really want to return to that?

 

John

No its only on the privatised railway that diesel locos of between 50 and 60 years of age are still in use and being rebuilt. BR had a tendency to replace things.  Under BR, not much  lasted more than 30 to 35 years. We would have had mark V coaching stock introduced 25 years ago but the wonderful privatisation process knocked that on the head. Now what we do have is paid for many times over in leasing charges.

[Pacific231G]

Effect on passenger traffic,

Domestic, probably fewer passengers associated with a weaker economy especially in and out of London as some of the financial services sector inevitably migrates to the EU. Larger effect on Eurostar with less internaitonal commuting and fewer Brits, who seem to make up the majority of leisure users, travelling abroad. Inward traffic from Europe probably won't make up for that as, despite a weaker pound, some weakening of the EU economy, which was starting to grow again, is also likely. 

Freight traffic, some depression within Britain (whatever "Britain" means in ten or twenty years time)  due to a weaker economy and no development of cross channel rail freight as trade with the rest of Europe becomes a smaller proportion of total trade.

 

Impossible to tell how pronounced these changes will be but the railways, like the rest of the country, are unlikely to be enjoying significantly greater prosperity anytime in the forseeable future.

[Pacific231G]

No doubt they will remain valid Jim - the EU isn't everything and agreements between countries (including the UK) and others in Europe existed long before the EU came into existence. 

It's true that the UIC (for example) existed long before the EEC/EU and we'll continue to belong to that but the difference is that then we were dealing with a number of completely separate states. Now we're about to see a situation where every signiificant European country apart from Britain will be in or closely aligned with a single customs and trading block that we've chosen to stand outside.   

[31A]

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).

 

I think it was Sweden, actually.

[60159]

To establish the impact on railways of leaving the EU, one only has to ask those who voted for Brexit as they will have carefully considered all such matters before casting their Leave vote.

[david.hill64]

So what about my European train driving licence and ERTMS course I've just completed?

This raises the question of what UK will do about standards in general, and rail in particular.

 

I would expect that we would wish to continue to use many EN standards and ERTMS is a good example of where there are potential benefits in having a universal system provided by a number of suppliers. But we will have regained the ability to make standards that are applicable to UK rail only (yellow fronts anyone?) rather than be compelled to use TSI's without modification or embellishment. 

 

In the case of ERTMS we will have the right to implement it before the final version is in place if we think that it is the right thing to do. Companies like Bombardier have a working version of the moving block ERTMS level 3 system, but cannot yet sell it in the EU as the final standard is not agreed. Network rail could (and I am not suggesting that they should) take a punt on introducing the level 3 system earlier than they would otherwise be able to do.

 

Remember that the ill fated WCML modernisation plan relied on the introduction of a moving block radio based signalling system and that Railtrack's US consultants had assured them that developing such a system was easy. Back in 1993 Railtrack expected that TPWS would have a life on some routes of less than 10 years as the commercial benefits of ERTMS level 3 were so overwhelming that private industry would deliver within 5 years. 23 years later and the specification for the system is only now being finally agreed.

[uax6]

I would expect in the short term for nothing to happen, as the budget already exists (and has been spent) for CP5. CP6 could well see the money cut back drastically, which will send the railways on another round of searching down the back of the sofa for cash to do any works. I can foresee the mass resignallings to the ROCs slowing down, with only the eradication of semaphore signalled areas. Whether these are resignalled to colour lights or go fully recontrolled to the ROC's under ERTMS (or some other digital solution) will depend probably depend on what traffic gains need to be made for that section of railway. 

 

But again in reality who actually knows, as the poor economic situation will probably make everything cost more, so less will be achieved.

 

Andy G

[darrel]

With a lot of trains built in Germany and Spain will it make it more expensive to buy new trains. Hitachi said they would move manufacturing out of the UK in the event of brexit, whether that was an empty threat considering how much they have spent building a brand new large factory, who knows.

Will the state owned foreign companies such as DB, and abellio still want to bid for franchises?

The thing is no one knows we are in uncharted territory, and I don't think anyone thought the vote would go this way.

[Coryton]

Will the state owned foreign companies such as DB, and abellio still want to bid for franchises?

The thing is no one knows we are in uncharted territory, and I don't think anyone thought the vote would go this way.

 

If there is still money to be made out of UK rail franchises, why would the likes of DB and Abellio not want to bid? European rail companies have taken on contracts in North America so why not in a UK which is out of the EU? Given all the uncertainty at present, I think it's easy to overestimate what will go wrong.

 

Agree completely on the uncharted territory - we were voting for status quo against a near total unknown. It would have been different if we'd been voting for a coherent plan to leave...but even if the leave campaign had had such a plan  they had no powers over what would happen.

[Coryton]

To establish the impact on railways of leaving the EU, one only has to ask those who voted for Brexit as they will have carefully considered all such matters before casting their Leave vote.

 

Where is the "agree with the meaning of the post but not the actual wording because it was clearly sarcasm" button?

[Coryton]

I would expect that we would wish to continue to use many EN standards and ERTMS is a good example of where there are potential benefits in having a universal system provided by a number of suppliers. But we will have regained the ability to make standards that are applicable to UK rail only (yellow fronts anyone?) rather than be compelled to use TSI's without modification or embellishment. 

 

Indeed. It would be a mistake to think of ERTMS as another unpleasant thing forced upon us by that nasty EU.

 

I think there are several ERTMS installations outside Europe, where it has the advantage that as a non-proprietary system you aren't locked into a single supplier who can then charge pretty much what they like for upgrades etc.

 

As for TSI's, according to the latest Modern Railways the catenary on the ECML can hope with two "short" IEP's multipled up, despite the proximity of the two pantographs. The catenary on the GWML needs careful design so that it can not only survive such an event, but meet the TSI requirements....even though it's a little hard to imagine continental rolling stock managing to squeeze under the bridges and through the tunnels.

 

But I do not take everything I read there as gospel.

[stewartingram]

On the infrastructure side Thales GTS who do a lot of work for LUL and Network Rail and TfGM is French owned.

 

And what about those of us who have signed the European Directive on Working Hours, which basically controls our shift pattern. Will that now change?

 

Stewart

[Talltim]

Anyone got any positives?

[Pacific231G]

Mainland Europe amalgamated all remaining private railways into national railways in the aftermath of WW I, for strategic reasons. It took another war for the UK to do the same. The pre-war competition meant many lines where available in two-fold (and with some diversions even more) so it made sense to rationalise these. Which was accelerated by the Depression era (post 1929, in Germany even earlier: the French imposed measures that would eventually led to WW II) and the upcoming and unregulated competition from private cars, buses and trucks.

Not entirely true. France didn't nationalise its railways until 1938 and it came as something of a surprise. France also had relatively little duplication of routes because, from very early on,  the network was determined by the state (usually after discussion with existing or potential railway companies) and then awarded as concessions. For the national network those concessions were regional and the compamies weren't supposed to be in competition. Though the railways were run by the companies the infrastructure up to the ballast was always owned by the state (or by the Départements in the case of the French equivalent of light railways) which is why lines aren't usually dismantled until some years after they have closed. 

 

Ironically it was the frequent duplication of railways built by private companies in Britain that gave the railways a built in level of redundancy with distinct strategic advantages during the second world war in their ability to absorb damage by air raids and, with some upgrading and new junctions, to handle new traffic flows such as those during the build up to D-Day.  By contrast it was far easier for a combination of air raids and resistance activitiy to cripple the French network sufficiently to slow down German response to the allied invasion. 

 

I don't know this for sure but I think a similar situation in N. America was strategically important for handling the massive flows of men and material during WW2.

[The Stationmaster]

It's true that the UIC (for example) existed long before the EEC/EU and we'll continue to belong to that but the difference is that then we were dealing with a number of completely separate states. Now we're about to see a situation where every signiificant European country apart from Britain will be in or closely aligned with a single customs and trading block that we've chosen to stand outside.   

 

Having attended numerous meetings which were within the UIC structure long after the creation of the EU I can assure you that in many respects 'significant European countries' were a long way from aligned when it came down to some practical matters.  It is very true that within the UIC there is a lot of agreement and 'closeness' in some areas - especially the technical ones - but the individual railways are  (in my direct experience and involvement) still as different from each other as, say, the UK train operating companies and get along only because they have to do certain things within a common procedure (assuming that, for once, the Italians can manage to keep up).

[The Stationmaster]

And what about those of us who have signed the European Directive on Working Hours, which basically controls our shift pattern. Will that now change?

 

Stewart

I would be surprised.  The Working Time Directive as published by Brussels had no impact at all on UK rail operators and most of the changes to such things as longer turn lengths or flexible turn lengths pre-dated it and were unchanged.  There is a quite remarkable divergence on working hours and such things as shift lengths for Drivers across the continental mainland countries and as far as I know there is nothing in the WTD (and amendments thereto) which has altered any of that.  The only worrying thing about the WTD has been Whitehall's insistence on re-writing it into often irrelevant meaningless garbage and I'm afraid that will continue - without the brake that Brussels has effectively applied in the simplicity of what it issues.

 

Likewise with TUPE - whether it vanishes not will make no difference because all it does is protect conditions of employment when staff are transferred over.  Once the are under a new employer that employer can negotiate in whatever changes they can manage to get past staff reps or, in the case of some of us, simply give us new contracts of employment with no choice but to sign them (or leave, bit without redundancy).

[Mark Saunders]

I am unsure if it is the UIC or the European Directive on interoperability that has been the biggest influence on Britains railways recently!

 

All wagons now recieve UIC numbers even purely domestic ones! However locomotives, coaching stock and multiple units do not!

 

Mark Saunders

[Metr0Land]

Anyone got any positives?

 

Surely the threat by Hitachi to move was a blunt threat?   By building in the UK and exporting any sales (assuming the £ reamins weak for some time) would generate higher foreign currency earnings.  This of course would depend on exporting outside EU and/or there being no punitive trade barriers when selling in EU.

 

We saw on Friday that the FTSE100 ended the week UP (although FTSE250 was down).  Principally due to many FTSE100's like Rolls Royce aero engines having large foreign earnings, whilst FTSE101-250 tend to be more UK domestic.

[Metr0Land]

 

 

When the EU ordered UK style privatisation in the early 90's, many national railways bluntly refused. After a short time it was clear the UK style privatisation wasn't working and in essence those who stalled (DB, SNCF, etc) where effectively let off. Early adopters, like NS, now face the consequences. Particularly NS was cut up in a bad way by politics, using a blunt axe to severe the state-owned network and the state-controlled TOC.

 

Did the EU ever actually order privatisation?

 

We went through a lot of pain with privatisiation in 1994 with the John Major administration, and I seem to recall he admitted several years later that what the EU had actually directed was to split the accounting of track and trains, but that the civil servants had misunderstood what was actually being directed, and thus advised him according to what they thought and not what was actually the case.  Rather like Yes Minister.

[Phil Bullock]

Current activity at the Channel tunnel...

 

http://tse3.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.M124a1ffc771c9a9de5a6abf3fdc9977ao0&pid=15.1

 

Phil