Scot Rail to be nationlised?

[lmsforever]

Seen on the BBC news website tonight ,the Scottish Assembly is going to have discussions with trade unions etc about a public operator for Scotrail   and vertical integration of NR .They are very unhappy with Abello over performance etc but don't seem to realise the amount of work going on to improve services,think the magic wand factor is coming into play.Yesterday a public apology from the top was issued because of one broken down train so its definitely a political campaign probably to just how caring the SNP are .This will be an interesting programme of talks to follow and will the RMT to push there rather outdated views.

[Mike Storey]

Interesting contrast with their desire to remain in the EU, which requires separation of track and wheel, at least commercially, to allow competition. Whatever, another policy they have pinched from Labour, once they saw how popularly it polled, misguided or otherwise.

[Legend]

They won't , because then they , the Scottish Govt, would be blamed directly for late or bad running, and they only like positive PR . They like to keep anything that could possibly cause embarrassment at arms length.

[sulzer27jd]

I think you will find it was the Scottish Government making the proposal, although I wouldn't be surprised if that was a straight lift from the BBC, who seem to specialise in snide comments. If anyone wishes to actually check, the SNP have had the policy of running the rail system as a public service, rather than for private profit, for many years. There was a previous attempt to have a staff bid put forward to run Scotrail, but that came to little as the three main unions would not co-operate. As for nationalisation (in any guise) being a Labour policy, I suppose all the years that they were in power and did nothing are indeed best forgotten. 

 

Different opinions are of free to be held, but crude attempts at political attacks are always seem for what they are, whether they come from desperate opposition politicians, their media lackies or other ill-informed sources.

[Dagworth]

Seen on the BBC news website tonight

An interesting piece of news, pity you then had to fill the rest of your post with a load of politically biased garbage

[Mad McCann]

"[The RMT]'s outdated views".

 

You mean like workers having reasonable, safe and fairly paid working conditions..?

[lmsforever]

All  entitled to opinions I think but unions track record not good nor political parties either so don't think this a non starter not political garbage.

[Gwiwer]

If it were to eventuate there would still be competition.  Both the Virgin franchises compete with Scotrail to an extent as does Cross Country.  There would have to be provision for an open-access application, whether or not it was successful.  All the regular charters to the scenic routes are hardly "competition" and neither is the Caledonian Sleeper operation but they all indicate that it is not a monopoly by any means.  Nor would it be if it were vertically-integrated.

Edited November 20, 2016 by Gwiwer

[pete_mcfarlane]

The BBC news article is here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-38040804

 

There seem to be three parts to this:

 

- Taking the franchise back if performance gets worse and running it themselves through a shadow operator, like the DfT did with East Coast. That's pretty much non-news, as it's always a contingency with these franchise agreements.

 

- Getting somebody in the public sector to put a bid together to run the service, within the existing franchise structure. That's not strictly nationalisation. 

 

- A wishlist item to nationalise the entire Scottish railway network including infrastructure, which they don't have the powers to do. 

['CHARD]

Slow news day, was it?

 

There is nothing of substance in this article or any of its by-lines.

[sulzer27jd]

The BBC news article is here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-38040804

 

There seem to be three parts to this:

 

- Taking the franchise back if performance gets worse and running it themselves through a shadow operator, like the DfT did with East Coast. That's pretty much non-news, as it's always a contingency with these franchise agreements.

 

- Getting somebody in the public sector to put a bid together to run the service, within the existing franchise structure. That's not strictly nationalisation.

 

- A wishlist item to nationalise the entire Scottish railway network including infrastructure, which they don't have the powers to do.

This shows how the story is being fed to people. 1option is a normal part of the franchise; 2 is the new option that allows a public service bidder And 3 requires full independence. Option 2 is becoming a realistic possibility.

 

But If course the truth won't stop the rabid dogs attacking.

[Mad McCann]

Slow news day, was it?

 

There is nothing of substance in this article or any of its by-lines.

Well, it is the BBC.

Or Pravda as many in Scotland refer to it today... ;-)

Edited November 20, 2016 by Mad McCann

[Ken.W]

 And 3 requires full independence.

Which as they'll then re-join the EU they still won't be allowed to do

[60159]

Scottish Government and Scottish Transport Minister under pressure so they have to be seen to be doing (or at least saying) something. Frankly I don't think they have a clue about what they'd be letting themselves in for.

 

Having said that, as a customer, I was quite impressed with state operated East Coast (although their livery left something to be desired!) It would be good if the unions and operators could come together to fashion a first class service but sadly I just don't see it. The whole railway thing is completely screwed up by a mixture of government regulation and big business drive for profit.

 

Usually the SNP government seek to link all issues with the their crusade for Scottish independence - can't see the connection here, so again don't see it happening, but wouldn't be disappointed to be proved wrong if they can sort out our railways, starting with the last train home to Perth from Edinburgh - a dreadful experience.

['CHARD]

 

but wouldn't be disappointed to be proved wrong if they can sort out our railways, starting with the last train home to Perth from Edinburgh - a dreadful experience.

 

... that last proper train having departed in January 1970 after certain lobbies conspired to ruin rail connectivity via Kinross.

 

But that's another story from a different time....  

 

 

that still echoes...

[jjb1970]

I think the nationalisation angle of this story is hyperbole, it is more about a public sector TOC being promoted as an idea. That is not the same as re-nationalisation of the railways. And of course NR is already nationalized.

If I was a voter there I'd like to know why the same politicians that told the world this was a simply splendid franchise bid last year when they awarded it are now telling the world how awful it is. If they lacked the competence to properly evaluate the proposal then why should they be considered competent to take on the job?

To me this sums up the politicizing of the railways. Most of the political debate is dominated by ideological posturing. A principal reason for BR's relatively strong operating performance was that politicians were kept as far removed as possible. If the railways were to be renationalised then making them a playground for politicians and unions would be disastrous.

I'm agnostic on the concept of nationalization and would support it if I was confident it'd deliver a better railway. Unfortunately the evidence of DafT micromanagement, IEP and the GWML electrification give me no reason to believe nationalization would offer any benefits. And I see no evidence that the transport mandarins of Scotland are any better than those South of the border.

[Zomboid]

Which as they'll then re-join the EU they still won't be allowed to do

The EU may change their mind though, the separation was a British idea that France and Germany were lukewarm about, at best.

[Mad McCann]

The EU may change their mind though, the separation was a British idea that France and Germany were lukewarm about, at best.

h

 

That's interesting. Do you have any links to that specific debate? I would like to be. able to use that information in future discussions, thanks.

 

Dave.

[Legend]

They are under pressure because people are complaining about Scotrail under Abellio. The Transport Minister is under pressure, so what better strategy to appeal to public sentiment by saying I'm investigating taking the railways under public control, but it depends on several factors. Lo and behold these factors will prove impossible to solve. So flying a kite to appeal to public sentiment and get themselves off the hook. That's all we are seeing here

[frobisher]

...the Scottish Assembly ...

Scottish Parliament, the Welsh have an Assembly, there are crucial differences.

[The Stationmaster]

h

 

That's interesting. Do you have any links to that specific debate? I would like to be. able to use that information in future discussions, thanks.

 

Dave.

 

I don't have any links to the debate Dave but EU Directive 91/440 (i.e Directive 440 of 1991) might reveal a bit if you do some digging and delving.  It was definitely very much a UK proposed idea originally but it gradually built fairly wide support in EU circles because it greatly facilitated the idea of open access through creating a level playing field on track costs.

 

I'm not so sure about the German viewpoint but some of the Scandinavians have always been strongly in favour of it and most of the industry parties which developed the international open access procedures were chaired and led by a Dane (excellent bloke), the current Chairman is Dutch - nice enough bloke but rather serious in my past experience of him.  The French were always the ones most against it and have put all sorts of obstacles in the way over the years.  They originally found it very difficult to get their heads round the idea of a separate track authority and I had what might best be described as an 'entertaining' time trying to get the idea into the heads of two very senior folk from SNCF about 20 years ago (and no, it wasn't a language problem - it was something very different, they just didn't want to understand how it would work;  but that is typical SNCF senior management I'm afraid although they do have a few excellent people.

 

In view of the amount of open access operation now happening in Europe plus various countries having taken on the franchising idea in a fairly big way I really can't see it being changed and to be honest I don't think it would be a sensible idea to change it anyway as it really does deliver some advantages with a very clear separation of costs.  But one point to bear in mind is that in many mainland European countries there is one big difference from what happened here - the state railway operator is allowed to bid for franchises etc and remain as a railway operator.

 

Oh and as far as Abellio is concerned my brief experience of them in Anglia (and my son's regular use of them) indicated to me that I wouldn't give them a contract to run a trainset let alone a 'big' railway (others of course might have different views).

[pete_mcfarlane]

If I was a voter there I'd like to know why the same politicians that told the world this was a simply splendid franchise bid last year when they awarded it are now telling the world how awful it is. If they lacked the competence to properly evaluate the proposal then why should they be considered competent to take on the job?

As ever with outsourcing, it's always the fault of the service provider. It's never the fault of the customer for not managing the contract properly.

[Mike Storey]

I think you will find it was the Scottish Government making the proposal, although I wouldn't be surprised if that was a straight lift from the BBC, who seem to specialise in snide comments. If anyone wishes to actually check, the SNP have had the policy of running the rail system as a public service, rather than for private profit, for many years. There was a previous attempt to have a staff bid put forward to run Scotrail, but that came to little as the three main unions would not co-operate. As for nationalisation (in any guise) being a Labour policy, I suppose all the years that they were in power and did nothing are indeed best forgotten. 

 

Different opinions are of free to be held, but crude attempts at political attacks are always seem for what they are, whether they come from desperate opposition politicians, their media lackies or other ill-informed sources.

 

Did nothing?? You don't recall the deliberate defenestration of Railtrack then and its replacement by a not for dividend NR, effectively arms length nationalisation, now nationalised formally by accounting rules? How ill-informed was that?

 

Let me see - Labour dropped full monty nationalisation as government policy under Blair (when they found it would be too expensive, especially the RT and ROSCO elements), although it remained an aspiration for the party, but restored it as policy from 2010 since when they have not been in power. The SNP, it is very true, have long advocated re-nationalisation and have been in government now for six(?) years. Since when they have hardly acted on it, and fully trumpeted the new franchise award. I am not saying at all that Labour have been any better than them, but to promote the SNP's virtuosity beyond all else because you want a particular political outcome, despite their very similar behaviours in office to any other political party, somewhat demotes the moral highground. Bias is a two way street.

 

Allowing a "public body" to apply to run the train operation (or franchise) is something they have done in Germany for years (and elsewhere in the EU) in competition with the incumbent state-owned, but supposedly arm's length, operator. What happens is that the incumbent has tended to use every opportunity, when a private competitor has won a bid, to cry foul to the courts. They have lost such cases every time, except once where the timescales had been stretched out so far that there was no way the real winner (in this case NX) could actually get the new trains in time, so de facto, DBAG kept it (for now). The general public discontent with DB (whose current CEO once famously said that he preferred buses) continues to grow. There is similar disatisfaction in France and in northern Italy. Quite why this model is puffed out when it too has extreme failings, is not clear from anything other than a political perspective.

 

The "public body" that ran the ECML franchise for several years was actually a private company of consultants, First Class Partnerships, commissioned by the DfT to take over as their "last resort" without open competition or scrutiny (other than post-award). Luckily, they are/were a bunch of highly competent, largely ex-BR senior managers who have some clue as to what they are doing (I worked for or with many of them in past roles). But most are now well past retirement.

 

I don't see anyone mentioning the fourth solution which is the management contract franchise, that works so well for TfL. As the ScotRail franchise is so heavily regulated and specified already (and I am assuming here that it continues to be of the more traditional type currently, as having read through large parts of the current Abellio agreement available on the Scottish Government Register website, franchise payments appear to be involved and revenue performance risk is largely taken by Abellio), this would be a more logical next step? This does not preclude "public body" applications, whatever those really are, but gives a greater element of control and rights to termination for TfS for poor performance, but does give them greater financial risk. A conundrum given the state of Britain's, including Scotland's, finances currently.

[jjb1970]

As ever with outsourcing, it's always the fault of the service provider. It's never the fault of the customer for not managing the contract properly.

Sound of hammer hitting a nail there!!

 

There is also a deeper issue in that aside from managing a contract, very often the government departments don't evaluate what they need, enter into a rubbish contract and then blame everybody but themselves. I saw this over and over again in defence contracts. The government orders A, realises later that what they actually wanted was B, then blames the supplier for delivering what they were contracted to provide.

[Bon Accord]

Did nothing?? You don't recall the deliberate defenestration of Railtrack then and its replacement by a not for dividend NR, effectively arms length nationalisation, now nationalised formally by accounting rules? How ill-informed was that?

 

Let me see - Labour dropped full monty nationalisation as government policy under Blair (when they found it would be too expensive, especially the RT and ROSCO elements), although it remained an aspiration for the party, but restored it as policy from 2010 since when they have not been in power. The SNP, it is very true, have long advocated re-nationalisation and have been in government now for six(?) years. Since when they have hardly acted on it, and fully trumpeted the new franchise award. I am not saying at all that Labour have been any better than them, but to promote the SNP's virtuosity beyond all else because you want a particular political outcome, despite their very similar behaviours in office to any other political party, somewhat demotes the moral highground. Bias is a two way street.

 

You may not be aware but the Scottish Government does not have the power to renationalise the railways North of the border, that is a matter reserved for Westminster. What they do have the power to do is appoint a TOC, nothing more.

Therefore whilst their long term political aspiration has been public ownership - something which concurs with public opinion - they have not and indeed do not have the power to make that happen.

Such powers were mentioned post referendum and indeed moves were made to have that power devolved ASAP in view of the upcoming tender, but like so many promises made at that time by Westminster it hasn't been kept and London wants to keep control.