Proposal for public sector bidders in Scotland

[och aye]

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.

Thats a pretty decent summary of where we're at with the railways in Scotland. Although not directly related, I do think the merging of the BTP with Police Scotland is a poor idea.

 

[paul1609]

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.

I've never understood why some single carriageway roads in Scotland are signed as 60 mph and some dual carriageway as 70 rather than the national speed limit sign. When I join the A82 from A 814 there is 60 mph signs and the A1 has 70 mph signs for the whole of the dual carriageway out of Edinburgh.

 

[signallerscot]

Differences between Scots law and English law. We do things our own way.

 

[HH]

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

Mucked up EGIP, which you don't mention. Mucked up Borders (not sure how you class that as good). Generally muck up most projects in reality.

What do I mean by muck up? Well they get the numbers wrong, which means they make the wrong decisions. Sometimes others carry the can for what are actually TS failures.

 

[haggishunter]

the A1 has 70 mph signs for the whole of the dual carriageway out of Edinburgh.

The A1 towards Dunbar and the A720 City of Edinburgh Bypass are Special Roads, to which the NSL has no meaning in Scots Law. An NSL sign would indicate derestricted .

The statutory instrument which defines the special road also specifies the speed limit and it must be explicitly signed and applies to all vehicle classes permitted.

 

[Clansman]

Mucked up EGIP, which you don't mention. Mucked up Borders (not sure how you class that as good). Generally muck up most projects in reality.

What do I mean by muck up? Well they get the numbers wrong, which means they make the wrong decisions. Sometimes others carry the can for what are actually TS failures.

At what point do you draw the line between TS/SG failures and Network Rail failures in the context of major schemes that you've mentioned?

In the overall grand scheme of things, major projects have been carried out relatively Ok - Airdrie to Bathgate, Glasgow Queen Street & Edinburgh Waverley enhancements etc, are proof that there already is a track record of successful projects.

Although I take your overall point about the failings of those you mentioned (the same can definitely be said with the Edinburgh Trams also), which could be an underlying reason the SG are reluctant to proceed ahead with other major proposals such as Halbeath to Inverkeithing until they've sorted out the situation with Network Rail.

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.

A bit harsh given that Transport Scotland have managed to secure an additional 13 Class 170s on top of the original retention list. I know we shouldn't really be using the rest of the UK as a benchmark, but in comparison, and given the whole "DMU shortage", TS have has done bloody brilliant to be able to secure what they have.

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.

To be fair, the A9 should take priority regardless of how "eye-catching" it is politically and what not, as it's currently a disgrace and not fit for purpose.

Can't say I disagree with anything else. Pretty fair and accurate reflection to be honest.

 

[Altnabreac]

Mucked up EGIP, which you don't mention. Mucked up Borders (not sure how you class that as good). Generally muck up most projects in reality.

What do I mean by muck up? Well they get the numbers wrong, which means they make the wrong decisions. Sometimes others carry the can for what are actually TS failures.

By mucked up EGIP do you mean delivery or are you one of the people who was upset by the change in specification?

If you are talking about delivery then I would say it is covered by my comments on NR delivering electrification.

If you are still harking back to the 6tph scheme with a turn back platform at Croy then I'm afraid I disagree with you. I think TS have got it exactly right with the rejigged EGIP. Platform lengthening and 4tph will lead to a better and more reliable service with the same capacity increase.

The three things from descoped EGIP that were a shame to lose were Dunblane electrification, which was only postponed 12 months, Dalmeny Chord, which I am fairly certain will happen anyway in CP6 and Greenhill Junction remodelling, which likewise is still in the medium term upgrade plans.

As to Borders Rail I am yet to be convinced their is any infrastructure deficit that causes major problems. It seems a good case of making a marginal business case work by using a tightly specified infrastructure to keep costs down. I'd like to see more reopenings developed on that basis.

 

[Highland37]

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.

Well said. Clearly NR has very large problems with respect to cost forecasting and its finances. However, when this is brought to peoples' attention, the only response is an insult. They illustrate the problem very well.

Back on topic, I see no reason why the NR shouldn't be under the full control of the Scottish Government. Whether devolved or separate is another matter.

The proposal to have a public sector bidder for the franchise is also sound. Several parallels exist but as I said previously, I would be slightly concerned about the costs of operation as Calmac is not cheap for the SG.

 

[HH]

By mucked up EGIP do you mean delivery or are you one of the people who was upset by the change in specification?

If you are talking about delivery then I would say it is covered by my comments on NR delivering electrification.

If you are still harking back to the 6tph scheme with a turn back platform at Croy then I'm afraid I disagree with you. I think TS have got it exactly right with the rejigged EGIP. Platform lengthening and 4tph will lead to a better and more reliable service with the same capacity increase.

The three things from descoped EGIP that were a shame to lose were Dunblane electrification, which was only postponed 12 months, Dalmeny Chord, which I am fairly certain will happen anyway in CP6 and Greenhill Junction remodelling, which likewise is still in the medium term upgrade plans.

As to Borders Rail I am yet to be convinced their is any infrastructure deficit that causes major problems. It seems a good case of making a marginal business case work by using a tightly specified infrastructure to keep costs down. I'd like to see more reopenings developed on that basis.

It depends on how you're looking at things. TS/SG wanted transformational change (i.e. modal shift); 6tph would have achieved that - it's been proved many times. Especially when they would also have been faster.

TS themselves admit they've got the numbers wrong on a number of earlier schemes.

Also TS have stifled rail improvement in a number of areas over their insistence that there can be "no bad news", i.e. that services, once delivered, are set in stone forever.

 

[Altnabreac]

It depends on how you're looking at things. TS/SG wanted transformational change (i.e. modal shift); 6tph would have achieved that - it's been proved many times. Especially when they would also have been faster.

TS themselves admit they've got the numbers wrong on a number of earlier schemes.

Also TS have stifled rail improvement in a number of areas over their insistence that there can be "no bad news", i.e. that services, once delivered, are set in stone forever.

Transformational will be Edinburgh - Glasgow HSR when it comes. 6tph via Falkirk was very expensive to deliver for a relatively small improvement.

 

[GusB]

Transformational will be Edinburgh - Glasgow HSR when it comes. 6tph via Falkirk was very expensive to deliver for a relatively small improvement.

Is there really any point to having HSR between Edinburgh and Glasgow? Journey times aren't that bad, are they?

 

[Altnabreac]

Is there really any point to having HSR between Edinburgh and Glasgow? Journey times aren't that bad, are they?

Yes and No.

The BCR isn't fantastic for building it on it's own but if you are building Glasgow and Edinburgh - England HSR then adding a delta junction for E-G HSR is a marginal cost and you have plenty of capacity.

As well as HS2 and E-G services you can run TPE, Crosscountry and VTEC services on the new line.

Once you remove the Edinburgh - Glasgow passengers from the Falkirk line you gain both capacity and the ability to add more stops for services like Lenzie - Edinburgh and Glasgow - Edinburgh Park. You can also give priority to Aberdeen services and get time improvements there.

So basically like HS2 speed is part of it (though mainly for the cross border services) but the bigger part is the capacity increase.

 

[GusB]

Yes and No.

The BCR isn't fantastic for building it on it's own but if you are building Glasgow and Edinburgh - England HSR then adding a delta junction for E-G HSR is a marginal cost and you have plenty of capacity.

As well as HS2 and E-G services you can run TPE, Crosscountry and VTEC services on the new line.

Once you remove the Edinburgh - Glasgow passengers from the Falkirk line you gain both capacity and the ability to add more stops for services like Lenzie - Edinburgh and Glasgow - Edinburgh Park. You can also give priority to Aberdeen services and get time improvements there.

So basically like HS2 speed is part of it (though mainly for the cross border services) but the bigger part is the capacity increase.

I can see the point if it's joined up with a high-speed link from the south - just not as a standalone Edinburgh - Glasgow project. From the point of view of someone who lives in the northeast it's almost a case of "what? you've just had EGIP, and now you want more?"

The thing is, given the amount of money invested in the dualling of the A9 and A96, I can hear voices shouting "well, we're going to upgrade your roads, what are you moaning about?".

I guess we're drifting off-topic slightly.

 

[Altnabreac]

I can see the point if it's joined up with a high-speed link from the south - just not as a standalone Edinburgh - Glasgow project. From the point of view of someone who lives in the northeast it's almost a case of "what? you've just had EGIP, and now you want more?"

The thing is, given the amount of money invested in the dualling of the A9 and A96, I can hear voices shouting "well, we're going to upgrade your roads, what are you moaning about?".

I guess we're drifting off-topic slightly.

A2I and Usan doubling (announced in the City Deal) are some fairly meaty rail projects for the NE.

And as you say A9 and A96 are a serious financial commitment.

Given Moray has about 2% of the Scottish population I think it will be getting much more than 2% of the transport budget over the next ten years!

 

[HH]

Transformational will be Edinburgh - Glasgow HSR when it comes. 6tph via Falkirk was very expensive to deliver for a relatively small improvement.

Very expensive? What figures are you basing this assessment on, given that you believe they will carry out the majority of the scheme anyway - just in bits?

Compare the HSR cost and when it will be delivered.

Be honest, it all comes down to how you calculate the economic benefits and I've been involved in a few of those - they're a bit like statistics...

 

[Altnabreac]

Very expensive? What figures are you basing this assessment on, given that you believe they will carry out the majority of the scheme anyway - just in bits?

Compare the HSR cost and when it will be delivered.

Be honest, it all comes down to how you calculate the economic benefits and I've been involved in a few of those - they're a bit like statistics...

The Jacobs Review from 2012 is a good read (struggling to find it online just now) but basically it showed you got 90% of the EGIP benefits for about 50% of the costs.

This was needed to keep EGIP affordable while the Forth Replacement Crossing was underway.

And although I would expect things like Dalmeny Chord to get built, when they do the extra capacity will be used for things like semi fast Stirling services and Cumbernauld - Edinburgh services that wouldn't be possible if there was a 6tph EG via Falkirk High service.

 

[GrimShady]

Cal Mac being given the opportunity to bid can only be a good thing especially for the connecting Western Isles rail services. It gives them the ability to sell the entire "tourist package" as it were instead of the current broken arrangement we have between rail/maritime services. There is also an opportunity here to raise the standard of rolling stock to tie in with the delivery of new tonnage over the next few years for the Arran/Mull routes.

Interesting stuff, time will tell!

 

[HH]

The Jacobs Review from 2012 is a good read (struggling to find it online just now) but basically it showed you got 90% of the EGIP benefits for about 50% of the costs.

LOL. You actually believe that report? It said what TS wanted it to say...

 

[Altnabreac]

LOL. You actually believe that report? It said what TS wanted it to say...

It's unarguable that 4tph of 8 carriage trains creates a similar capacity per hour as 6tph of 6 carriage trains (32 carriages per hour versus 36 carriages per hour).

It's also unarguable that dropping Dalmeny Chord, Greenhill Junction remodelling and Croy turnback save a big chunk of money.

The remaining questions are how much additional benefit would the frequency increase from 4tph to 6tph and the additional speed improvements have created? Given 2tph were non stop from Glasgow Queen St - Haymarket the frequency benefit would only have been for end to end users and there may have been some disbenfit for intermediate station users depending on how the services were timetabled. The speed improvements again were a further 5-7 minute improvement in end to end journey times but only for Glasgow - Edinburgh users and only on the 2tph non stop services.

It's legitimate to ask whether those benefits were worth the extra costs. Personally I think once services get to 4tph the first capacity intervention should be train lengthening. I think 8 x 23m carriage trains are going to become the new standard across the central belt so I'd like to see more platform lengthening to accept those train lengths before frequency increases.

For me the missing scope in EGIP was platform lengthening at Bishopbriggs and Lenzie to allow 8 coach trains to run in the evenings without the need for SDO.

 

[HH]

It's unarguable that 4tph of 8 carriage trains creates a similar capacity per hour as 6tph of 6 carriage trains (32 carriages per hour versus 36 carriages per hour).

It's also unarguable that dropping Dalmeny Chord, Greenhill Junction remodelling and Croy turnback save a big chunk of money.

The remaining questions are how much additional benefit would the frequency increase from 4tph to 6tph and the additional speed improvements have created? Given 2tph were non stop from Glasgow Queen St - Haymarket the frequency benefit would only have been for end to end users and there may have been some disbenfit for intermediate station users depending on how the services were timetabled. The speed improvements again were a further 5-7 minute improvement in end to end journey times but only for Glasgow - Edinburgh users and only on the 2tph non stop services.

It's legitimate to ask whether those benefits were worth the extra costs. Personally I think once services get to 4tph the first capacity intervention should be train lengthening. I think 8 x 23m carriage trains are going to become the new standard across the central belt so I'd like to see more platform lengthening to accept those train lengths before frequency increases.

For me the missing scope in EGIP was platform lengthening at Bishopbriggs and Lenzie to allow 8 coach trains to run in the evenings without the need for SDO.

It's unarguable that 32 < 36.

It's unarguable that 6tph creates a 10 minute service, while 4tph creates a 15 minute service; ergo the benefit is not just the 5-7 improvement in journey time but also the 5 minute decrease in wait time.

It's widely recognised that 6tph is treated as a "turn up and go service" and that this brings significant benefits.

It's unarguable that the biggest economic benefits by some margin come from reducing the time from Edinburgh to Glasgow and not the intermediate stations.

That being the case it's certainly arguable that the change improved the BCR.

 

[Altnabreac]

It's unarguable that 32 < 36.

It's unarguable that 6tph creates a 10 minute service, while 4tph creates a 15 minute service; ergo the benefit is not just the 5-7 improvement in journey time but also the 5 minute decrease in wait time.

It's widely recognised that 6tph is treated as a "turn up and go service" and that this brings significant benefits.

It's unarguable that the biggest economic benefits by some margin come from reducing the time from Edinburgh to Glasgow and not the intermediate stations.

That being the case it's certainly arguable that the change improved the BCR.

I'm not sure I agree with your bolding. Last resesrch I saw was that >50% of the users on Falkirk High line were from Intermediate stations and there are a lot of high value business travellers and commuters in there.

By comparison I believe a decent chunk of the Edinburgh - Glasgow is leisure usage. So I'm unconvinced that purely focusing on the end to end journey times and frequency generates the best BCR.

Even HSR looks likely to consider intermediate stations. There is more to the central belt than Edinburgh and Glasgow.

 

[HH]

I'm not sure I agree with your bolding. Last resesrch I saw was that >50% of the users on Falkirk High line were from Intermediate stations and there are a lot of high value business travellers and commuters in there.

That would be pretty amazing, since a large number of the trains only stop at Falkirk, Polmont and Linithglow - unless you were thinking that Haymarket isn't Edinburgh...

 

[47271]

Rather than picking holes in the conclusions of Altnabreac's post #90, and the management of EGIP, would it not be more relevant for us to consider how the particular areas he identifies may be impacted by the transfer of Scotrail's management to the public sector, with or without the inclusion of TS oversight of infrastructure?

My view as of now is that the impact on passengers would be minimal. The verdict of 'middling' could just as easily be delivered in 7-8 years time as far as I can see, even if both changes were made. In principle I'm all for taking Scotrail out of a private contract, and moreover gaining Scottish control of the infrastructure, but I can't say that I've read much in this thread so far that convinces me that it'll be worth the effort, other than to say that we're Scottish and we've done it?

 

[HH]

Rather than picking holes in the conclusions of Altnabreac's post #90, and the management of EGIP, would it not be more relevant for us to consider how the particular areas he identifies may be impacted by the transfer of Scotrail's management to the public sector, with or without the inclusion of TS oversight of infrastructure?

My view as of now is that the impact on passengers would be minimal. The verdict of 'middling' could just as easily be delivered in 7-8 years time as far as I can see, even if both changes were made. In principle I'm all for taking Scotrail out of a private contract, and moreover gaining Scottish control of the infrastructure, but I can't say that I've read much in this thread so far that convinces me that it'll be worth the effort, other than to say that we're Scottish and we've done it?

I guess we have gone off the point a bit. TBH I don't see any great change now in Scotland, or the rest of the UK for that matter, no matter who the train operation is nominally run by. The fact is that UK governments have got far more involved in the running of the railways these days, although they try to hide the fact when things go wrong. That has only moved in one direction for the last 20 years, and I can't see that changing anytime soon.

Vertical integration is more of an unknown. I'm pretty certain that things would get worse in the short term, simply because you'd have the problems of culture clash that have bedevilled the attempts at "Deep Alliances". In the long run it all depends on how good the people at the top are. To my mind if they were that good they probably wouldn't want to work in an industry where they get told what to do by (rail) ignorant politicians and civil servants; but then I'm an old cynic.

 

[Clansman]

In principle I'm all for taking Scotrail out of a private contract, and moreover gaining Scottish control of the infrastructure, but I can't say that I've read much in this thread so far that convinces me that it'll be worth the effort, other than to say that we're Scottish and we've done it?

If there's no impact on ScotRail itself, at least the profits would go back into ScotRail or the economy rather than to Nederlandse Spoorwegen, as long as it's able to offset the cost of actually bringing ScotRail back into the public sector in the first place, then surely it's worth the effort for that reason alone?

 

[XC90]

Scottish railway ran by a Scottish company - oh wait, we had that and Scottish government changed it.

Everything they tinker with is a disaster and they should leave the railway well alone and let DfT deal with it.

BTP next!

 

[Clansman]

Scottish railway ran by a Scottish company - oh wait, we had that and Scottish government changed it.

Ok, I'll bite,

To complain that they "changed it" is ridiculous. They "changed it" because, under the UK franchising rules, the Scottish company's bid wasn't deemed as good as the winner's bid, even if the winner was Dutch.

If anything it shows that the government are putting what they think is best for ScotRail first - even if they disagree with the privatised system. It's simple carelessness to just award a franchise based on someone being Scottish or not.

Everything they tinker with is a disaster

I assume you opt to pay for your prescriptions if that's the case?

 

[XC90]

Don't get any.

What a great success though, free prescriptions. I take it all back.

 

[Clansman]

What a great success though, free prescriptions. I take it all back.

Thank you for your change of heart, mate

 

[tbtc]

so just accept that private companies must run rail for ever more?

Surely the entrepreneurial, agile, flexible, capitalist supermen of the private sector have nothing to fear from the bloated, slow, inefficient, lazy, public sector. They would win easily. Wouldn't they? I just want a way to end this argument once and for all. Which is best? Public or private. Lets commission an independent report on a public sector franchise & a similar private sector one and see.

None of the issues you suggest are insurmountable ( the hardest actually being the finding of the cash) I would suggest setting up an arms length company and transferring in or buying in suitable resource to run those companies along with an increased budget to allow for a bid. That way the risk is on the government body suggesting the idea.

We have just found £1bn to buy of the DUP. £5m is nowt.

Can I remind members that this thread is for discussion of the Scottish Government's proposal for a public sector bid for the next ScotRail franchise. General discussion of nationalisation versus privatisation is off topic.

In line with IanXC's comments, I'll try to keep this specific to Scotland (I don't think that we could ever settle the privatisation argument "once and for all" anyway - people always have their prejudices and will find a way to ignore inconvenient data).

I've no problem with a "public sector" bidder for ScotRail, I'm pragmatic enough to go with what works - there's good and bad in all types of bid.

The problem I do have is how you'd set that up. And the most practical way of doing this would be to find up to five million pounds of public money to give to CalMac - ten percent of their annual farebox revenue - to put together a bid so that a ferry operator can speculate at running trains?

How do you explain to people in the Orkneys/ Shetland/ Western Isles etc that Holyrood has found millions of pounds for the ferry operator to spend on something that will be of precious little benefit to the islands?

That the ferry operator will be taking their eye off the ball so that they can play trains?

If the bid is a failure then it'll be seen as a waste of millions of pounds of public money.

Regardless of whether Calmac "wins", any ferry cuts/ fare rises/ failure to upgrade older ships during the next few years is going to be used as evidence that "our money was used on central belt trains" - it'd be political suicide.

So, whilst it's a nice idea to have some public sector bid, I can't see a practical way of doing it - and if you are going to go to all of this hassle/expense then you probably want to pretty much guarantee victory.

But, whilst Stagecoach/ First etc may accept losing to each other, they are more likely to submit a court bid to review being beaten by a public sector bidder, since that threatens their future incomes. I'm not saying that it'd be right for them to do this, just that there's got to be a decent chance that they'll get the courts to check for any improper practices... which may delay the winning bid from starting, will add to the costs.

It's not that I don't think a public bid should happen, it's that I can't see a realistic way of how you could set one up in the modern world - maybe in the 1980s you could do things without so much scrutiny but not so feasible nowadays.

It's unarguable that 6tph creates a 10 minute service, while 4tph creates a 15 minute service; ergo the benefit is not just the 5-7 improvement in journey time but also the 5 minute decrease in wait time

Well, six trains per hour means a ten/twenty minute wait at Falkirk High, whereas four trains per hour means a simpler fifteen minute frequency.

It's not all bad.

It's widely recognised that 6tph is treated as a "turn up and go service" and that this brings significant benefits.

It's unarguable that the biggest economic benefits by some margin come from reducing the time from Edinburgh to Glasgow and not the intermediate stations.

That being the case it's certainly arguable that the change improved the BCR.

I'd rather have the full package, but there are a lot of routes where you can get a lot of the benefit for half the price - a lot of people would rather go for the full package with double track/ grade separate junctions/ diversionary routes... lots of "nice to have" stuff - we let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

It's unarguable that spending twice as much would bring more benefits, but it is arguable that spending so much would bring twice as many benefits. And, if we can use that lower price to keep the project alive, or use the money "saved" on other rail projects then I'm comfortable with that.