Proposal for public sector bidders in Scotland

[LNW-GW Joint]

I wonder if public sector bids will be offered for the sleeper service as well.

Currently with cross border trains north of Edinburgh each day there are 6 to Aberdeen, 2 to Dundee, 1 to Fort William, 2 to Inverness and 1 to Stirling I think but it would be a bit strange to suggest to remove them to try and get more people using ScotRail.

SG is the franchising authority for the Sleeper operation, so might well take a similar view as for Scotrail.
However, unlike Scotrail the DfT does part-fund it (they stumped up cash for the new CAF fleet).
VTWC, VTEC, XC and TPE are cross-border franchises still with DfT.
Glasgow-Carlisle-Newcastle (joint Scotrail/Northern) is an odd-ball service.

 

[Marklund]

Sorry, I don't have a clue what any of this means?

It means that there is a lot of services Scotland Territory would have to buy in if it were a separate entity.
The TRU, (Track Recording Units) are central, as are many things such as the overhead aerial surveys, spares distribution, etc., etc.

Why should/would rNR do it for cost price?

This would just add to the current Scotland NR bill. Ergo, hiving off NR Scotland is not a fiscally good idea.

 

[thenorthern]

SG is the franchising authority for the Sleeper operation, so might well take a similar view as for Scotrail.
However, unlike Scotrail the DfT does part-fund it (they stumped up cash for the new CAF fleet).
VTWC, VTEC, XC and TPE are cross-border franchises still with DfT.
Glasgow-Carlisle-Newcastle (joint Scotrail/Northern) is an odd-ball service.

Joint Scotrail/Northern could be interesting although I would think a state owned operator would be run as an arms length public body.

If the Welsh Government was given the same rights with public sector bids for the Wales and Borders Franchise I think that could be an issue given that many of the services run quite far into England.

 

[Highland37]

It means that there is a lot of services Scotland Territory would have to buy in if it were a separate entity.
The TRU, (Track Recording Units) are central, as are many things such as the overhead aerial surveys, spares distribution, etc., etc.

Why should/would rNR do it for cost price?

This would just add to the current Scotland NR bill. Ergo, hiving off NR Scotland is not a fiscally good idea.

Em, we already own it. Scotland is part of the UK. We do pay taxes which contribute to the things you mention.

 

[Marklund]

Em, we already own it. Scotland is part of the UK. We do pay taxes which contribute to the things you mention.

What 10% of the Track Recorder and Helicopter do you want? :roll:

Creating a separate company achieves little, and fragments the railway even further, but I guess that's the end game of a certain party...

 

[thenorthern]

If Network Rail was split I would think trains in Scotland would cost more to run compared to England there are quite a few long lines which have few services running on them for example the West Highland Line, the Far North Line and the line to Inverness are very long distances and the passengers per mile numbers aren't that impressive.

 

[47271]

The argument for Scottish Government control of infrastructure is of course that Network Rail performance has been poor, with most of the delay minutes in last year's Scotrail 'crisis' attributable to NR issues. As it is for Caledonian Sleeper or probably any other operator.

Regardless of share of helicopters or whatever, will integration with passenger train operations and direct oversight by Transport Scotland improve this? What would they change to achieve that?

I'm supportive in general terms, but I'd like to see specifics as to how they're going to deliver.

 

[Moonshot]

The argument for Scottish Government control of infrastructure is of course that Network Rail performance has been poor, with most of the delay minutes in last year's Scotrail 'crisis' attributable to NR issues. As it is for Caledonian Sleeper or probably any other operator.

Regardless of share of helicopters or whatever, will integration with passenger train operations and direct oversight by Transport Scotland improve this? What would they change to achieve that?

I'm supportive in general terms, but I'd like to see specifics as to how they're going to deliver.

This is a very fair point - no matter who owns or runs the infrastructure, a signal failure will happen somewhere at some point.

 

[Clansman]

This is a very fair point - no matter who owns or runs the infrastructure, a signal failure will happen somewhere at some point.

If anything Humza can't play the blame game on anyone else when it does go tits up. Basically, it's suicide if they don't get it right from the get go.

Although I do share 47271's sentiment.

 

[Marklund]

If anything Humza can't play the blame game on anyone else when it does go tits up. Basically, it's suicide if they don't get it right from the get go.

Although I do share 47271's sentiment.

Yet they do, correct me if I'm wrong, control NR in Scotland's spending.
What was originally mentioned in this thread, was a separate organisation, which to me, is not a clever move.

 

[signallerscot]

Some of NR Scotland budget, yes. But lots of things are funded centrally as has been mentioned. The massive wage bill for one!

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Scotland does have a separate HLOS/SoFA for funding NR, but I think the vast bulk of it is simply the NR UK-wide costs divided up by mileage or some other formula.
They do have a separate enhancements budget, and can decide (say) to divert transport spend from road to rail and vice versa.
But the total UK transport budget will be set at Westminster and carved up according to the Barnett formula for Holyrood to spend.
The SG doesn't really have a separate stash of cash it can spend on rail (or not).
In any case the flow of funds to NR is determined by ORR, which is not devolved.
Wales doesn't even have this level of autonomy/control, the NR figures published are included with England's.

As another example, the electrification contracts are all negotiated centrally by NR with suppliers, and will apply UK-wide to UK-wide standards.
I doesn't make any sense for NR Scotland to do separate contracts with firms like Carillion or Amey.

 

[Marklund]

Some of NR Scotland budget, yes. But lots of things are funded centrally as has been mentioned. The massive wage bill for one!

So as I've said, not the smartest proposal then!

 

[thenorthern]

I think a big problem with Network Rail being devolved is that essentially many things such as research, infrastructure consistency and track access rights are better decided on a Great Britain basis.

I know this story is hypothetical and unrealistic but for example if a train was leaving Berwick-upon-Tweed heading for Scotland at the border would it need to change to the other signalling system? The other voltage? and would VTEC suddenly have to pay track access charges to Network Rail Scotland who charge more?

 

[mcmad]

As I understand it, the plans for (Internal Network Rail) devolution mean that the various regions will be 'buying' central services in anyway so the SNP plans for NWR Scotland to report into them would not be a large change in this.

 

[DarloRich]

The argument for Scottish Government control of infrastructure is of course that Network Rail performance has been poor, with most of the delay minutes in last year's Scotrail 'crisis' attributable to NR issues. As it is for Caledonian Sleeper or probably any other operator.

Regardless of share of helicopters or whatever, will integration with passenger train operations and direct oversight by Transport Scotland improve this? What would they change to achieve that?

I'm supportive in general terms, but I'd like to see specifics as to how they're going to deliver.

the same people will be doing the work and facing the same challenges even if you create Scotworkrail Infrastructure ltd

 

[Highland37]

I think a big problem with Network Rail being devolved is that essentially many things such as research, infrastructure consistency and track access rights are better decided on a Great Britain basis.

I know this story is hypothetical and unrealistic but for example if a train was leaving Berwick-upon-Tweed heading for Scotland at the border would it need to change to the other signalling system? The other voltage? and would VTEC suddenly have to pay track access charges to Network Rail Scotland who charge more?

Why would a devolved NR not be sharing research? Your whole post is scaremongering.

 

[IanXC]

Why would a devolved NR not be sharing research? Your whole post is scaremongering.

I read "devolved" as in 'devolved to the Scottish Government who would no doubt remove the assets to a new company', as opposed to "devolved" as in 'part of the decentralisation of Network Rail already underway'.

 

[thenorthern]

Why would a devolved NR not be sharing research? Your whole post is scaremongering.

I just used it as an example of something if devolved it would affect the way Network Rail works as at the moment we have guaranteed consistency across the network which wouldn't happen if Network Rail was devolved.

I will use the roads as an example as prior to devolution we all knew that the drink drive limit across the UK was 0.08%, the national speed limit sign was a black line in a grey circle and and several other things. That has now changed in that the drink drive limit is lower and national speed limits is marked by a sign with the limit on it.

If Network Rail was devolved would the systems remain the same? Given that Scotland I think carries much less passengers per mile than England would track access charges be increased? Would Network Rail Scotland be required to have its own measurements train?

Devolving Network Rail just doesn't make any sense to me.

 

[JohnR]

We just have to look at what the Scottish Government have done with the BTP once it was "devolved" to them. They had the opportunity to keep a unified force, with control and accountability to the Scottish Minister for those in Scotland. But they had to break it up. Same will happen to Network Rail.

 

[Highland37]

I just used it as an example of something if devolved it would affect the way Network Rail works as at the moment we have guaranteed consistency across the network which wouldn't happen if Network Rail was devolved.

I will use the roads as an example as prior to devolution we all knew that the drink drive limit across the UK was 0.08%, the national speed limit sign was a black line in a grey circle and and several other things. That has now changed in that the drink drive limit is lower and national speed limits is marked by a sign with the limit on it.

If Network Rail was devolved would the systems remain the same? Given that Scotland I think carries much less passengers per mile than England would track access charges be increased? Would Network Rail Scotland be required to have its own measurements train?

Devolving Network Rail just doesn't make any sense to me.

Your example is erroneous. You are referring to the law, not roads. The law in Scotland has been "devolved" (not really the right term but you get my point) since 1707.

The answer is yes and no. You are getting confused between devolution and independent.

 

[Highland37]

We just have to look at what the Scottish Government have done with the BTP once it was "devolved" to them. They had the opportunity to keep a unified force, with control and accountability to the Scottish Minister for those in Scotland. But they had to break it up. Same will happen to Network Rail.

Given what a financial basket case NR is and its failings on many projects such as GWR electrification, I can't see a huge problem here.

 

[Marklund]

Given what a financial basket case NR is and its failings on many projects such as GWR electrification, I can't see a huge problem here.

The blinkers of separatism. :roll:

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Given what a financial basket case NR is and its failings on many projects such as GWR electrification, I can't see a huge problem here.

NR's Scotland Route (with all the other Routes) is due to get more autonomy from NR HQ, with its own CP6 settlement and funding.
They will buy central services from HQ where needed.
This isn't the same as SG being in day-to-day control though.
Things like signalling and electrification strategy will not be devolved.

 

[Railsigns]

I just used it as an example of something if devolved it would affect the way Network Rail works as at the moment we have guaranteed consistency across the network which wouldn't happen if Network Rail was devolved.

No, we don't. There are lots of regional practices and preferences evident across Network Rail.

 

[signallerscot]

the national speed limit sign was a black line in a grey circle and and several other things. That has now changed ... national speed limits is marked by a sign with the limit on it.

That bit is just nonsense. Motorway Regulations have always been different in England in terms of speed signage, the English use a national speed limit sign on motorways whereas here in Scotland the limit has to be specifically signed as 70, but this has been the case since the 1960s. Absolutely nothing has changed in the way national speed limit zones are signed in Scotland. I'd be interested to read what the "several other things" are to see if they are similarly fictitious/imagined.

 

[Altnabreac]

We just have to look at what the Scottish Government have done with the BTP once it was "devolved" to them. They had the opportunity to keep a unified force, with control and accountability to the Scottish Minister for those in Scotland. But they had to break it up. Same will happen to Network Rail.

There does seem to be a bit of inconsistency here. Some posters here have been heavily criticising Scottish Government and Transport Scotland for failings such as the delays in electrification and Scotrail performance issues caused by Network Rail failings.

Now SG and TS are proposing changes that would give them more control over these areas and give them the potential to improve (or indeed make worse) Network Rail performance in Scotland the same posters are also criticising them again.

Seems to me you can't have cake and eat it.

 

[signallerscot]

Some posters here are following the unionist dogma of being highly critical of anything done by the Scottish Government because they have a pathological hatred of the SNP. In a post above a member refers to the "blinkers of separatism" but I suggest it is those on here who oppose everything the SNP does and stands for who are blinkered.

 

[HH]

There does seem to be a bit of inconsistency here. Some posters here have been heavily criticising Scottish Government and Transport Scotland for failings such as the delays in electrification and Scotrail performance issues caused by Network Rail failings.

Now SG and TS are proposing changes that would give them more control over these areas and give them the potential to improve (or indeed make worse) Network Rail performance in Scotland the same posters are also criticising them again.

Seems to me you can't have cake and eat it.

A lot of the problems in Scotland have been caused by the SG & TS, rather than despite their best efforts. Perhaps that's why people are sceptical that more control would result in an improvement...

 

[Altnabreac]

A lot of the problems in Scotland have been caused by the SG & TS, rather than despite their best efforts. Perhaps that's why people are sceptical that more control would result in an improvement...

Which bad things do you think are caused by SG or TS?

If I was doing a scorecard of Rail issues in Scotland at the moment I'd rank it something like this:

Scotrail Franchise specification (TS) - Good. TS specified it well and if it is delivered it will be very positive.
SQUIRE (TS) - Excellent. A TS innovation that I really think makes a difference compared to English Franchises.
Smart Ticketing (TS) - Quite Poor. Within SG and TS powers and not yet delivered as much as it could be.
Electrification Strategy (TS) - Good. The rolling programme is an excellent idea and gives some certainty of future demand for sub contractors and specialists
Delivery of Electrification (NR) - OK. Doing better than projects like GW but still some issues with costs and quality of work by subcontractors / suppliers.
Loss of Rolling Stock from previous franchise (??) - Very poor. Allowing Southern to get the out of contract 170s was a big mistake. Unclear exactly how they ended up out of contract but probably at least a TS failing not to secure them for new franchise.
Scotrail performance (Abellio) - OK. Teething troubles and Stock / staff availability issues but the criticism seemed overdone to me and looks to be an improving picture over last year.
Infrastructure Performance (NR) - OK. Some high profile failures but again overall the Network Rail Scotland performance seems reasonable and is going in the right direction.
New 385s (Abellio) - Good. Seem to be on target and look to be a decent train.
Refurbished HSTs (Abellio) - Good. TS deserve credit for specifying higher quality for Intercity routes and Abellio deserve credit for an innovative bid. Negative comments here seem mainly to be about length and cycle provision but both of those look to be relatively easy to resolve if they turn out to be a problem.
Station reopening (TS, councils) - OK. Councils need to part fund, or secure developer contributions. For projects of this scale that seems reasonable to me and within the control of councils. Station reopenings are happening where justified, although still difficult to make them happen.
Line reopening - delivering approved schemes (TS) - OK. TS have done a good job of taking over Borders Rail and driving it through despite political and financial temptations to drop it. We also now forget issues such as the low quality job done on Stirling - Alloa by Clacks and TIE. TS have been better at ensuring quality.
Line reopening - new schemes (SG) - Poor. There is a gap between strategic national projects (High speed, Halbeath - Inverkeithing etc) and small scale station reopenings. For medium size schemes like Levenmouth they are too big for councils to fund, but SG refuse to fund as not nationally strategic. Hawick, Penicuik, Levenmouth, Grangemouth, Banchory, Bridge of Weir, Ellon, Alloa - Dunfermline, GARL all have potential but none (except the ridiculous GARL tram train) currently have any funding. A scheme like Scottish Stations Fund that would provide councils with a match funding source to bid for and more support for STAG assessments of these reopenings would be of immense value.
Specification of enhancements (TS) - Good. Seems to me the right sort of projects are in the CP6 and CP7 delivery plans. Will they happen though?
Delivery of enhancements (NR) - Poor. Lack of cost control and also insufficient work done in advance to establish the required works. Aberdeen - Inverness for example is way over budget, though a large proportion of that seems to be because more is actually being delivered in a Total Route Modernisation way which may be better value in the long term.
High Speed Rail (TS) - Excellent. Extension of HSR to Scotland was not on the UK government agenda at all and TS have really driven it forward with high level political support from SNP ministers despite it not fitting well with a separatist agenda.
Major enhancement schemes (TS) - Good ideas but lacking delivery. Inverkeithing - Halbeath is a great scheme but hasn't really advanced in 5 years. Extension from Halbeath to Bridge of Earn would be even better but doesn't seem to have political support yet. Would really like to see development of the longer version of this scheme progress in next 5 years. Cross Glasgow tunnel to relive Glasgow Central is another scheme that really needs to move up the agenda.

So overall my scorecard for rail in Scotland is middling. Performance by Scotrail, Network Rail and Transport Scotland is reasonable. Scottish Government has been reasonably supportive of rail schemes but perhaps less keen to sign up to major new rail schemes compared to more eye catching road commitments like A9 and A96 dualling where major expenditure and a long term plan has been put in place.

I'd like to see some political buy in to some major new rail schemes even if the delivery horizon needs to be 10-15 years. Set out the long term strategy and then deliver it.