RailReview: From our debate, a key concern of the industry is the risk of breaking up a whole-system approach. One business might want to take advantage of lighter regulation, which may have an undesired consequence for another. How will the RDG keep everyone’s eye on a single goal?
“Across the industry we have various groups seeking to reinforce and support that. In technical leadership we are trying to join up more with the Rail Supply Group. There should be a single ownership of that big challenge, to make sure we are looking holistically at the system. RSSB has an important role in supporting that conversation, as does Network Rail.”
RailReview: European legislation frames the separation of track and train. Yet the noises from Government suggest that in the UK that will not always necessarily be the case everywhere. Are the sands shifting?
“It is sometimes unhelpful to see it in completely black and white terms. When you are already separate, you actually want to have coming together and collaboration. It is a continuum. We can sell a long-term franchise separate from the infrastructure. You can also say you want those to come together in a single integrated team.”
RailReview: You tried that with South West Trains. It wasn’t a success.
“That was two separate legal companies coming together in a collaborative way. If you look at the behaviours on the ground of those teams, one of the legacies of that closer virtual integration is that they still collaborate in a way that wasn’t happening before the creation of that legal partnership arrangement.
“This isn’t about one model operating everywhere, it is about getting teams to work together for a common purpose. That was not happening before that alliance in SWT. That model was tried and it delivered some benefits, and it is still delivering some benefits in terms of behaviours.
“The lessons from that were learned and taken to another level in Scotland, where in effect the right to bid to be in that alliance was taken through the franchise process. It is a much closer virtual and vertical integration with two legal entities that are more closely aligned. So I don’t recognise the Network Rail/SWT alliance as having failed.
“The point is that you can apply different integration models in different places. It is about collaborating between local teams in local places with aligned incentives. The issue, however you organise it, is how to get local teams working towards a common purpose.
RailReview: You have the current issue on the table. So you have seen that our panel, chaired by Len Porter, called for a clearer focus and greater leadership from the Rail Delivery Group. How will you show greater leadership?
“This organisation has been helping the Department very extensively in understanding what the effects are, and helping them to manage discussions with the European Commission. That is an important part of the leadership role, making sure that we are able to bring the expertise from across the whole membership of Network Rail, freight and passenger operators, as well as joining up with the supply chain through RSG and RIA and so on.
“I don’t see this as about Europe. Whatever model we are operating in, we need to be showing leadership, although people are very sensitive about that word. We are challenging and provoking and testing. In terms of influencing Government thinking about potential future strategy, again I am hesitant about using the word ‘leadership’. It is important to distinguish who does the guiding. In many cases, Government or the regulator need to make the decisions. The industry needs to take ownership of the things it can do - the things that are within its own control. But we need to make sure the industry is informing Government about the choices it can take to make things better.
“The RDG and its membership and stakeholders want us to challenge Government and perhaps be less accepting of the status quo. Issues of ticketing and fares are perhaps good examples of that. We know as an industry those things need to be modernised. We know we need to get agreement from Government and the regulator to do those things. My challenge is to extract the knowledge and understanding from the industry in a way that enables Government to address those challenges.
“It’s about having these conversations. It’s about enabling the debate. It’s about considering how people may do things differently, how we should inform the future of the railway. That’s what we should be doing - not telling people what they should do, but highlighting the issues which need addressing.”
RailReview: When I was reporting during the referendum campaign, it was very difficult to find anyone in the transport industry that advocated leaving the EU. The RMT union was the only exception. Given the industry was heavily in favour of remaining, what could you pull from the Brexit process as a benefit?
“We have shaped that debate, recognising that a lot of what people now see as being required by Europe has actually come from us. In terms of liberalisation we have shaped the railway over many years.
“So you need to get away from any sense that we need to discard that. You need to look at how we tweak things to live within the spirit of the referendum decision, which in most cases we will still embrace, rather than living within the strict interpretation of it.
“We must not throw away a lot of the things that have been done for the railway by the EU, and we must not limit our supply chain or limit our opportunity to export elsewhere.
“All of this requires quality engagement by the industry. We have to shape, gauge, learn and take advantage of the commercial opportunities that flow from that.”
- The Rail Supply Group and the Rail Industry Association were both invited to take part in this discussion. Both declined, stating that it was “too political”.
