Impact on the Railways of Leaving the EU

[Pacific231G]

Looking again at the OP after a few days to reflect, I think the effect on the railway industry will depend on our actual future arrangements with the EU. The British electorate will have no real say in that and it includes a wide range of options from our "exit" being largely theoretical, effectively becoming a non-voting member of the club like Norway, though with the size of our econony giving us rather more inflience,  to one where our former partners simply become as foreign as China or Japan so far as we're concerned. 

 

The end result will probably be somewhere between those extremes but I predict we will be somewhat poorer so investment in infrastructure will be somewhat less and current EU funding for regional development that includes railways will not be replaced by a Treasury concerned only with reducing government spending.

 

Some firms may continue to invest in Britain helped by a weak pound though held back by an underskilled workforce (Further Education and training in Britain have been woefully underfunded for decades) others will probably keep their existing operations for now, especially those serving the British market, but will focus future investments in Europe within the EU. 

 

Perhaps the referendum question should have been "Do you wish Britain to remain in the EU or do you want something else that politicians will come up with in due course when they've got their act together but without consulting you again ?"

 

I'm finding it very interesting to read the commentary and analyses coming from US sources. Though there are a few dissenting voices- mostly from free market fundamentalists- they generally think we've gone from Great Britain to Little England and can't quite believe that a country as sophisticated as Britain could have been so incredibly stupid (and in the process seriously weakened America's major ally in the world). 

[Coryton]

Perhaps the referendum question should have been "Do you wish Britain to remain in the EU or do you want something else that politicians will come up with in due course without consulting you again ?"

 

Some might say that given what happened when "the people" were consulted last week, it might work out better if they weren't asked again...

[PhilJ W]

Some might say that given what happened when "the people" were consulted last week, it might work out better if they weren't asked again...

That happened in Germany in 1931 and we know what that led to.

[Rivercider]

I assume that amongst other things the balance of funding for trains currently supported by 

Citizens Rail (an EU Interreg - international cooperation project) will change. 

 

The Riviera Line - Exeter to Paignton is part of the project suppoerted by EU partners in France, Germany

and the Netherlands as well as Devon County Council, Torbay Council, Great Western Railway,  and others.

On weekdays there are seven return trips Paignton - Newton Abbot supported by Citizens Rail which helps to provide a half hourly service between those towns.

153325 branded for Citizens Rail is formed on the front of the 07.26 Bristol - Penzance 26/6/2016

 

cheers

[Talltim]

Trains to Glasgow will now leave from Ston station.

[31A]

Erm, BR had ceased to exist by the time franchising in the rest of Europe finally started to happen so it wasn't a case that they blocked BR from tendering - the Conservative Government comprehensively dismantled BR so it couldn't tender for bidding for overseas franchises / contracts

 

 

BR WAS blocked from tendering for franchises to run TOCS in this country at the time of UK rail privatisation (which is what I think Coryton as referring to if I've read his post correctly), as it was suggested in some quarters at the time that that might happen, but it wasn't allowed.

[pete_mcfarlane]

An example being in the 1950s when the government of the time said that manned military planes would become redundant pretty quickly. This led to a lot of cancelled projects (most notably TSR.2), and along with other factors the dismantling of our leading advantage in this area (at least in some aspects of aviation). Of course it was proven to be utter nonsense, and we had to go to the US for their F-111 Aardvark in place of TSR.2, which they then cancelled, and then we got Phantoms  instead a bit later.

I think you've merged two rounds of Defense cuts in to each other. The the 1957 Sandys review was the one that favoured missiles over manned aircraft, and led to some aircraft projects being cancelled in their early stages due to a perceived lack of a long term future for manned jets (the Avro 730 Mach 3 bomber for example). 

 

The TSR2 cancellation (and the subsequent F111K fiasco and eventual RAF Buccaneer purchase), came later on in 1965 under the Wilson government. These were largely driven by money, rather than any longer term assessment of military requirements.

 

The purchase of the Phantom instead of the Hawker P.1154 supersonic jump jet is a separate saga of it's own. Money was involved, but the Navy was never that keen on the P.1154 which seems to have been a big technological risk compared to the simpler Harrier they eventually got. 

 

With hindsight the people who made the 1957 decision got it wrong, but remember that it was based on the best advice available at the time, and involved civil servants and military officers in the decision making process rather than being something that Duncan Sandys thought up in the pub one evening. I find it difficult to blame them for this mistake - given how quickly military aircraft had developed over the previous 15 years it would have been reasonable to expect the development to continue to the point where aircraft became obsolete and missile did everything. Instead we ended up with a situation where a lot of aircraft in service or development in 1957 were still in service decades later (they'd have laughed if you suggested that the Canberra had another 50 years of front line RAF service ahead of it...).

 

It just goes to show how difficult it is to predict the future accurately enough to make long term policy decisions. No wonder Politicians don't always like to think long term. 

[The Stationmaster]

Of course they have realised! - why do you think the EU has been pushing through various railway 'liberalisation' packages over the past two decades despite strong opposition from the likes of France?

 

Despite what the anti-EU brigade claim, the Conservatives have actually been pretty sucessfull in installing their liberalising, pro privatisation friends inside EUs policy bodies precisely because they wanted to force the other member states to adopt the "the free market is King" mentality the are wedded to in the UK. The Irony is that we are leaving just as one of their key goals (forced competitive tendering for all Government procured rail services in member states) looks like it will come to pass.

 

The fact that DB is still (German) state owned is unfortunate in Conservative thinking, but in a true free market such bodies cannot be excluded from the bidding process, particularly if it increases the number of bidders and thus the amount of competition - from which we are told everybody (be they you shopping for bread, mobile phones, insurance or Government shopping for rail franchise operators) benefit from. In any case the Conservatives also no doubt justify it by saying that if the German Government wishes to risk its taxpayers money in such an enterprise more fool them. 

 

I'm sorry Phil but that is total nonsense.  

 

Were you involved in any of the processes of change - yes or no?  I was so I know some of what took place and who was pushing what and who wasn't and which nations were most heavily involved and which weren't and the UK representative didn't attend any of the meetings developing and agreeing processes or ideas except a couple of the final 'rubber stamp' meetings and even then he didn't bother to ask the few of us involved in it on a day-to-day basis if what he would be signing off was what was wanted.

 

True the UK Govt had initiated and pushed EU 91/440, true it was very much in favour of open access but it was completely out of it in the European context where the hard work was done by a Danish led working party  (I knew the Chairman of it quite well and we occasionally discussed the way various things could be done).  And of course subsequently Britain has been something of a laggard in open access operations anyway  with, for example, very few emergent new freight operators compared with e situation in mainland Europe.

 

The main people against it all have consistently been SNCF - partly for practical reasons (it was very interesting explaining some of it to a couple of senior SNCF executives for example) but also because they found it difficult to get their heads round how it would work.  But they still went ahead and sectorised and they were keen to get senior people into place in Britain in various roles to get a better understanding of how the system worked or could be improved  (and I can assure you from practical experience that SNCF Regional Directors designate have very generous expense accounts when it comes to business lunches).

 

And of course the whole concept is not limited to the UK and Europe - the original Australian infrastructure authority in NSW Track Access conditions certainly weremlb't promoted by a UK politician despite the fact they were almost exactly teh same as the original Track Access Conditions here.

[Coryton]

BR WAS blocked from tendering for franchises to run TOCS in this country at the time of UK rail privatisation (which is what I think Coryton as referring to if I've read his post correctly), as it was suggested in some quarters at the time that that might happen, but it wasn't allowed.

 

Yes that was indeed what I meant.

 

While of course it's now too late, if BR had been allowed to bid for the initial UK franchises there is the possibility that it would have done so successfully, continued to do so, and now be in a position to bid for franchises outside the UK. 

 

Of course if the government was right and BR would have been no match for the commercial competition, it would have disappeared long ago anyway. But they didn't choose to put it to the test.

 

I think while other European countries have made the state-owned incumbents compete to continue to run services, none have dismantled the existing company first.

[Mark Saunders]

It just goes to show how difficult it is to predict the future accurately enough to make long term policy decisions. No wonder Politicians don't always like to think long term. 

 

Long term to most Politicians is the next election whereas other countries are playing the long game!

 

It is similar to many roads that when built appear to be under used and a few years later are full!

 

Mark Saunders 

[Pacific231G]

Yes that was indeed what I meant.

 

While of course it's now too late, if BR had been allowed to bid for the initial UK franchises there is the possibility that it would have done so successfully, continued to do so, and now be in a position to bid for franchises outside the UK. 

 

Of course if the government was right and BR would have been no match for the commercial competition, it would have disappeared long ago anyway. But they didn't choose to put it to the test.

 

I think while other European countries have made the state-owned incumbents compete to continue to run services, none have dismantled the existing company first.

It's interesting, though a rather long perspective, that the most dynamic of the French "big five" railway companies in the decade or so before they were nationalised in 1938 was probably the Etat which was owned, as its name suggests, by the state. It was formed in 1878 to take over a number of failing companies in the west of the country and then the struggling l'Ouest (West) company in 1908. Much of Its success was down to the management of Raoul Dautry from 1928 but it does give the lie to the ideological assumption that a private company is always better managed and more efficient than a public enterprise.  

[Edwin_m]

The EU has rules on State Aid which (in my limited understanding) forbid governments from unfairly supporting particular companies.  I guess it's possible that someone could try to bring such a case against one of the overseas state railways bidding in the UK, on the grounds that any losses they make will ultimately be bailed out by their owning governments.  However the fact this hasn't happened suggests there is probably some reason why it can't.  Even if this course of action was possible before it's not likely to be possible if the UK ends up outside the single market. 

[phil-b259]

I'm sorry Phil but that is total nonsense.  

 

Were you involved in any of the processes of change - yes or no?  I was so I know some of what took place and who was pushing what and who wasn't and which nations were most heavily involved and which weren't and the UK representative didn't attend any of the meetings developing and agreeing processes or ideas except a couple of the final 'rubber stamp' meetings and even then he didn't bother to ask the few of us involved in it on a day-to-day basis if what he would be signing off was what was wanted.

 

True the UK Govt had initiated and pushed EU 91/440, true it was very much in favour of open access but it was completely out of it in the European context where the hard work was done by a Danish led working party  (I knew the Chairman of it quite well and we occasionally discussed the way various things could be done).  And of course subsequently Britain has been something of a laggard in open access operations anyway  with, for example, very few emergent new freight operators compared with e situation in mainland Europe.

 

The main people against it all have consistently been SNCF - partly for practical reasons (it was very interesting explaining some of it to a couple of senior SNCF executives for example) but also because they found it difficult to get their heads round how it would work.  But they still went ahead and sectorised and they were keen to get senior people into place in Britain in various roles to get a better understanding of how the system worked or could be improved  (and I can assure you from practical experience that SNCF Regional Directors designate have very generous expense accounts when it comes to business lunches).

 

And of course the whole concept is not limited to the UK and Europe - the original Australian infrastructure authority in NSW Track Access conditions certainly weremlb't promoted by a UK politician despite the fact they were almost exactly teh same as the original Track Access Conditions here.

 

No I wasn't involved in the process - what I believed to have taken place is therefore a retrospective view from outside and based simply on what is what I read and hear about the whole privatisation saga - which I freely admit could be wrong and not a true reflection of things. However unless someone comes along to put matters right that, how do I know its any different?

 

The thing is unless people like yourself who were deeply involved with the process come forward and tell us exactly how things happened, persons like myself can only base our views on 3rd hand information as it were. As such your corrections are welcomed and I am better informed as a result.

 

As others have said your long railway career, and the seniority you achieved within it has given you many insights into things that are not obvious to some of us - even those who work in the industry (particularly at the base level so to speak). Any further insights you can share would be welcomed.

 

As such it is interesting to hear your comments on what actually took place and the legacy the have left us.

[Bulwell Hall]

There is of course n interesting twist developing. Some commentators are suggesting the Bexit pole is a recommendation and it would be down to a PM to invoke it, bringing the possibility this could still be theoretical rather than a reality. What will happen, who knows and only time will tell. What I do know is that the Severn Valley Railway would be over 1.5 million pounds worse off without it.

And I think we can forget about the rebirth of the Lynton and Barnstaple Railway which was to be part funded by the EU.

 

Gerry

['CHARD]

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.

 

I know it's not generally considered 'good form' to answer a lighthearted post with something more serious, but the percentage of voters of any persuasion - remain or leave, left, right, republican, anarchist or floater - with any knowledge of macro-economic/ political railway influences will number in the low 0.00X%.

 

I work in the industry for a European company, and corporately the implications of the UK leaving the EU are about as well understood as Hornby's marketing and product development strategy.

[The Stationmaster]

No I wasn't involved in the process - what I believed to have taken place is therefore a retrospective view from outside and based simply on what is what I read and hear about the whole privatisation saga - which I freely admit could be wrong and not a true reflection of things. However unless someone comes along to put matters right that, how do I know its any different?

 

The thing is unless people like yourself who were deeply involved with the process come forward and tell us exactly how things happened, persons like myself can only base our views on 3rd hand information as it were. As such your corrections are welcomed and I am better informed as a result.

 

As others have said your long railway career, and the seniority you achieved within it has given you many insights into things that are not obvious to some of us - even those who work in the industry (particularly at the base level so to speak). Any further insights you can share would be welcomed.

 

As such it is interesting to hear your comments on what actually took place and the legacy the have left us.

 

It might perhaps then be better to comment in a way which does not present something as bald fact but rather that it is your understanding from what you have read or heard.   It is quite understandable that the vast majority of people might not have been involved in all sorts of things in the railway industry - or indeed in anything else - and there is no reason at all why we cannot give our opinions based on what we know of things which we weren't involved in although in some cases we might have been close enough to contextualise what was going on or provide more informed comment.

 

For that reason there are plenty of things I don't talk about while there are some where I try to make it clear that I am only expressing my view or that my view is based on what I do know - occasionally i fail and have indeed been taken to task by those who better knew than I did the detail.

 

Another example is the case of BR not being allowed to bid for franchise - which many of us who were involved at the time can clearly remember - plus it was public knowledge.  What seem to be less remembered is the proposal that BR should be retained as the 'operator of last resort' in the event of a franchisee failing to deliver.  This was very strongly advocated from several sources within BR, and possibly the Civil Service(?), but was finally rejected for what it seems were mainly political reasons - quite understandable (like it or not) when the political aim was to establish privatisation as an effective going concern without the shadow of BR lurking in the background.  Hence the role and purpose of BR Residuary was quite severely restricted from what had been proposed o

[dmustu]

The rail engineer ran an article at the start of the month which some may find interesting here - 

 

http://www.railengineer.uk/2016/06/03/the-impact-of-eu-membership-on-britains-railways/

 

One thing that has not been looked at much on this thread is the effect leaving the eu will have on research and development in the uk. Recently I have made some contacts at the Birmingham Centre For Railway Research and Engineering (BCRRE), at Birmingham University. The BCRRE is Europe's biggest railway research department, but around 50% of it's funding comes from the eu. Where is that funding going to come from once the uk is outside of the eu? 

 

As they explained on a recent visit there, the uk does not have a large 'home grown' manufacturer to spend money on R&D in the uk. Seimens will spend the money in Germany, Hitachi in Japan and Bombardier in Canada. The uk government simply wont have the money to invest in such R&D, even if it wants to.

 

BCRRE is facing the real possibility of becoming 50% smaller and loosing it's position as a prime facilitator of R&D, not just for the uk network, but also affecting it's activities for other eu railways.

 

And these issues are not unique to just this part of industry or this particular university. The uk currently is a world leader when it comes to research on all sorts of things, most of the work carried out by university's in this country. All of this work is underpinned by eu money which won't be accessible once withdrawal from the eu is complete.    

[Pacific231G]

And I think we can forget about the rebirth of the Lynton and Barnstaple Railway which was to be part funded by the EU.

 

Gerry

Oh, do you not think the Treasury will rush to spend some of the £350 million pounds Boris told us was being sent to Brussels each week on social projects in N. Devon?  After all it's only about 1/1000 of the losses Britain made in the first eight hours of the result being announced  so even when most some a bit of it has been spent on the NHS there should be something left over. 

 

Though it'll be given very little coverage in the mass media I'm far more worried about the effect on science and research, including railway research . About 80% of British scientists were opposed to Brexit but when our Nobel laureates signed a letter to that effect the BBC gave equal coverage to a statement in favour of leaving from "Science for Britain". giving the impression that scientists were as equally split on the issue as the general population. 

 

I also wonder if Tim Peake will now be the last British astronaut ; though the ESA is not an EU body it is part of the general cooperation across Europe.

[Rugd1022]

In response to the thread title - apparently my employer Freightliner Heavyhaul have an 'exciting announcement' tomorrow, which I only found out about by accident yesterday... to say I'm trembling slightly, and not in a good way, is an understatement...

[Coryton]

public knowledge.  What seem to be less remembered is the proposal that BR should be retained as the 'operator of last resort' in the event of a franchisee failing to deliver.  This was very strongly advocated from several sources within BR, and possibly the Civil Service(?), but was finally rejected for what it seems were mainly political reasons - quite understandable (like it or not) when the political aim was to establish privatisation as an effective going concern without the shadow of BR lurking in the background.

 

I don't really understand how that would have worked. How would you maintain the expertise on "stand-by" with nothing for them to do in the meantime?

[pete_mcfarlane]

I don't really understand how that would have worked. How would you maintain the expertise on "stand-by" with nothing for them to do in the meantime?

I suppose it could have worked if BR was retained as a shell company, in the way that Directly Operated Railways functions, with no staff. But I got the impression that wasn't what was being suggested at the time.

[Coryton]

I also wonder if Tim Peake will now be the last British astronaut ; though the ESA is not an EU body it is part of the general cooperation across Europe.

 

ESA is an interesting case as much of what governments pay into it comes back as funding to industry - and contracts are placed taking geographical location into account in order to ensure everybody gets back out what they put in.

 

Anyhow given how rarely ESA astronauts get to the space station it will probably be a long time before we have another British astronaut actually in space no matter what happens.

[Coryton]

I suppose it could have worked if BR was retained as a shell company, in the way that Directly Operated Railways functions, with no staff. But I got the impression that wasn't what was being suggested at the time.

 

As I wrote that, I was wondering how DOR worked and if could have been similar in principle.

 

When it comes down to it, when a franchise changes hands, how much of the company actually changes? Same staff on the ground, doing what they did before. How much of the management changes?

[pete_mcfarlane]

I also wonder if Tim Peake will now be the last British astronaut ; though the ESA is not an EU body it is part of the general cooperation across Europe.

The current Government seems pretty keen on funding space - they've been quietly funding the Skylon project over the last few years (having first asked the EU if they were allowed to do this..... ). 

[The Stationmaster]

I suppose it could have worked if BR was retained as a shell company, in the way that Directly Operated Railways functions, with no staff. But I got the impression that wasn't what was being suggested at the time.

 

With staff on zero hours contracts possibly.  I think the only way it could have worked was with a sort of 'call off' list for Director level expertise however you're also left questioning how much of the expertise necessary to run a  BR business sector would have been relevant to a franchise 15 years later especially when you also see some folk who have reached senior positions in franchise posts who would probably still be in the starting blocks if BR had continued.