Scottish minister: Scotland should own Scotrail trains not lease them

Status
Not open for further replies.

aformeruser

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
30,637
A TRANSPORT pressure group says the next generation of new trains for Scottish routes should be owned by the government, rather than be leased.

Transform Scotland has made the call as a consultation continues on the shape of the next franchise north of the border, which is to start in 2014.

Paul Tetlaw of Transform Scotland explained: "One of the failures of rail privatisation was the decision to hand over ownership of the nation's trains to the private leasing companies rather than retain the trains in public ownership. We believe that there is a good case for any new trains procured by the Scottish Government to be owned by the state rather than be leased under the failed model pursued in the 1990s.

"In Edinburgh the city council is now the proud owner of its own set of rail vehicles. Whatever the problems that have beset the infrastructure works for the Edinburgh tram scheme, Edinburgh Council was able to acquire a fleet of light rail vehicles in a relatively trouble-free fashion. As such, we see no reason why the Scottish Government shouldn't own the nation's trains rather than see them be leased from a profit-seeking private entity."

The Scottish Government agency Transport Scotland has set out a number of options for the country's railways as part of its consultation. One possibility is the creation of several franchises in Scotland after 2014, divided by type of service, and hackles have been raised by another suggestion that some of the least-used stations could be closed.

But ministers have already been quick to dissociate themselves from those parts of the plan which have encountered public opposition, saying that the ideas put forward are no more than suggestions, which should not be taken to represent government policy.

http://www.railnews.co.uk/news/2012/02/13-trains-for-scotland-should-be.html
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Zoe

Established Member
Joined
22 Aug 2008
Messages
5,905
Transport for London I seem to remember made quite a big thing about the fact they were going to own the trains themselves but then they changed their mind and used a ROSCO instead.
 

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
16,090
Location
Yorkshire, Yorkshire, Yorkshire
Hmm so scotland can buy all the 158s it nicked from northern... and then they will never come back south.
Well, this is a problem, I guess, if you plan to only use trains for part of their expected life - all well and good owning outright stock which is intended to be used only on one life (e.g. Crossrail), but a generic unit like a three coach DMU could well end up being shifted around the country part way through its life - have Transform Scotland considered that this may mean Scotland being lumped with older units (rather than cascading them elsewhere, as would happen now, like when the Scottish 150s moved south a decade ago)...
 

kylemore

Member
Joined
28 Aug 2010
Messages
907
Well, this is a problem, I guess, if you plan to only use trains for part of their expected life - all well and good owning outright stock which is intended to be used only on one life (e.g. Crossrail), but a generic unit like a three coach DMU could well end up being shifted around the country part way through its life - have Transform Scotland considered that this may mean Scotland being lumped with older units (rather than cascading them elsewhere, as would happen now, like when the Scottish 150s moved south a decade ago)...
Well they could always SELL them to the Rip-Off ROSCOs down south who would be happy to screw the operators there!
They might even get more than they paid for them:)
 

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
16,090
Location
Yorkshire, Yorkshire, Yorkshire
Unless they set themselves up as a ROSCO...
True - could be a nice money earner for them

Well they could always SELL them to the Rip-Off ROSCOs down south who would be happy to screw the operators there!
They might even get more than they paid for them:)
Wouldn't surprise me - ATW seemed to be more interested in subleasing 150s (than running them) a year or two ago
 

aformeruser

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
30,637
Hmm so scotland can buy all the 158s it nicked from northern... and then they will never come back south.
For a start they would have to buy the units they already have, which may not be as easy to do as buying new units as the current owners have to agree the sale

Well, this is a problem, I guess, if you plan to only use trains for part of their expected life - all well and good owning outright stock which is intended to be used only on one life (e.g. Crossrail), but a generic unit like a three coach DMU could well end up being shifted around the country part way through its life
But then Metro owned the 155s but recently sold them due to be short of funds, so after the end of the current Northern franchise they could end up anywhere.

We do have the issue with 158s being used on unsuitable routes because Metro own 10 of them and Northern want consistent fleets.
 

Barn

Established Member
Joined
3 Sep 2008
Messages
1,433
Hmm. The Government may have to lease them to the TOC at a commercial rate anyway to avoid breaching State Aid rules...



 

transmanche

Established Member
Joined
27 Feb 2011
Messages
6,012
Hmm. The Government may have to lease them to the TOC at a commercial rate anyway to avoid breaching State Aid rules..
But as a 'Scottish Government ROSCO' would only need to cover its costs, its 'commercial rate' would be lower than other ROSCOs.
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
23,090
Transport for London I seem to remember made quite a big thing about the fact they were going to own the trains themselves but then they changed their mind and used a ROSCO instead.
Exactly. TfL's auditors reckoned purchase was more expensive than leasing, so the collective mind was changed...
 

Yew

Established Member
Joined
12 Mar 2011
Messages
3,986
Location
Nottingham
Surely any nationalisation would be from westminster? Apart from that I agree that ROSCOS are useless, and keeping trains under a single public company would be better (no shareholders to pay off, so more money to reinvest)
 

David

Established Member
Joined
9 Jul 2005
Messages
5,104
Location
Scunthorpe
If TS wants to buy their own trains, can we start by taking all leased stock off them first, then offering them all the 14x/153/313/314/315/321/322s plus some 150s and 156s?

Let them see what it's like to have all the crap stock and hand me downs. As it stands, Scotrail have a pretty good fleet of trains at the minute. There's no need to rock the apple cart currently.
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
22,364
Location
Redcar
Surely any nationalisation would be from westminster? Apart from that I agree that ROSCOS are useless, and keeping trains under a single public company would be better (no shareholders to pay off, so more money to reinvest)
Transport is a devolved issue so if they want to nationalise then they are more than able to do so (theoretically at least). The only fly in the ointment is that I'm under the impression that the DfT retain control of those trains procured under BR so the DfT would have to agree to the sale of the stock to the new national ROSCO.
 

PFX

Member
Joined
18 Dec 2011
Messages
352
Transport is a devolved issue so if they want to nationalise then they are more than able to do so (theoretically at least).
Stole the words from my fingers. If it did actually happen, it would be interesting to see how such a system would perform and even more interesting to see if it continued to run with a TOC.

I would have thought that it made economic sense if the Executive owned the stock, that they then run it too. I may (likely) be wrong of course. I'm thinking from the perspective of subsidies etc which would no longer be paid to a private company. Shareholders are also removed from the equation. Of course, the whole thing could end up a great big uneconomical mess.
 

aformeruser

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
30,637
It would seem to make sense if Scotland wants to own their own trains then they reshuffle the fleet so that, as far as possible, fleets of the same type of unit aren't split between England/Wales and Scotland.

Maybe 185s instead of 170s and 153s reformed as 155s and the 155s in the original form instead of 156s. The slight reduction in DMU vehicles would still allow extra capacity after further electrification and more 380s being ordered.
 

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
16,090
Location
Yorkshire, Yorkshire, Yorkshire
It would seem to make sense if Scotland wants to own their own trains then they reshuffle the fleet so that, as far as possible, fleets of the same type of unit aren't split between England/Wales and Scotland.

Maybe 185s instead of 170s and 153s reformed as 155s and the 155s in the original form instead of 156s. The slight reduction in DMU vehicles would still allow extra capacity after further electrification and more 380s being ordered.
Post EGIP the diesels that FSR (or their successor) will need will be:

A 170/185 equivalent (100mph, but maybe with doors designed for longer distance operation) for
  • Edinburgh - Fife Circle/ Perth
  • Edinburgh - Dundee - Aberdeen
  • Glasgow - Aberdeen
  • Edinburgh - Inverness
  • Glasgow - Inverness

A 156 equivalent (75mph) for
  • Glasgow - Oban
  • Glasgow Mallaig
  • Glasgow - Stranraer
  • Glasgow - Carlisle (via Kilmarnock)
  • Inverness - Aberdeen
  • Inverness - Kyle of Lochalsh
  • Inverness - Wick
 

68000

Member
Joined
27 Jan 2008
Messages
618
Surely this is about TS buying the rolling stock over time then off leasing the current rolling stock. Who owns the Class 380?

Edit: Evesholt Rail own the 380s , surely TS missed a trick there
 
Last edited:

paul1609

Established Member
Joined
28 Jan 2006
Messages
4,020
Location
Wittersham Kent
The press release doesn't suggest anything of the sort.
I believe the first trains that the Scottish government should own would be the HSTs currently operated by East Coast North of Edinburgh.
The East Coast Franchise should be let as just the core London-Edinburgh, leeds electric services.
Scotland can then decide whether it wishes to subsidise services throughout to the English Capital,



 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
11,593
I believe the first trains that the Scottish government should own would be the HSTs currently operated by East Coast North of Edinburgh.
The East Coast Franchise should be let as just the core London-Edinburgh, leeds electric services.
Scotland can then decide whether it wishes to subsidise services throughout to the English Capital,



So thats a grand total of five or six HST sets?
Thats a bit of a microfleet.
(You have one London-Inverness, 3 London-Aberdeen and 1 Leeds-Aberdeen).

Most of the HST fleet is propping up an overworked electric fleet and handling Hull/Lincoln/Skipton/Harrogate trains.
And Berwick is just as in scotland as Inverness, a more logical (but just as ridiculous suggestion) would be truncate all Electric services to Newcastle and transfer all Scotland trains to Scotrail, and do the same at Carlisle.
 

Zoe

Established Member
Joined
22 Aug 2008
Messages
5,905
Transport is a devolved issue so if they want to nationalise then they are more than able to do so (theoretically at least).
The Railways Act 2005 transferred the rail powers for the Scottish franchise to the Scottish ministers but the Railways Act 1993 prevents any emanation of the crown from holding the franchise so it would still have to be let to a private company. The overall regime for the provision of rail services is a reserved matter as discussed at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm110315/debtext/110315-0003.htm
 
Last edited:

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
24,515
Location
Yorks
The Railways Act 2005 transferred the rail powers for the Scottish franchise to the Scottish ministers but the Railways Act 1993 prevents any emanation of the crown from holding the franchise so it would still have to be let to a private company. The overall regime for the provision of rail services is a reserved matter as discussed at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm110315/debtext/110315-0003.htm
About time John Major's "act" were consigned to the cess-pool of history where it belongs. If I were the Scottish Parliament I'd just "assume" power and wait for someone to challenge :)
 

gingerheid

Member
Joined
2 Apr 2006
Messages
1,036
Why'd you buy an expensive asset where a high proportion of the lifetime cost is maintenance? Surely you want to lease them from the manufacturer so that they have an incentive to make sure they work?
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
11,593
Why'd you buy an expensive asset where a high proportion of the lifetime cost is maintenance? Surely you want to lease them from the manufacturer so that they have an incentive to make sure they work?
Well ideally the manufacturer would be the operator....

Atleast that is how it used to work
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top