Collaboration within the rail industry and the opportunities for export of the sector’s skills come across as two key areas for Paul Plummer. His positive views on the opportunities that Brexit is likely to provide are welcome, and hopefully reflect the position taken by the majority of the members of the RDG.
Paul’s robust defence of the benefits seen in the Network Rail/South West Trains alliance, and how the lessons learned have been taken forward into other alliances such as that in Scotland, provide a good indicator of a desire to push the industry to look at the greater benefits provided by working together. It is also good to see that there is more emphasis on ‘collaboration’ rather than ‘alliances’, together with the suggestion that collaboration can be done at a local level. Arguably, this reflects the view of many members of the rail industry that we need to work together to make services work for customers, given the competition from other transport modes.
Hopefully, with the devolving of powers to the NR routes, there will be more opportunities for different forms of collaboration. The RDG needs to be a space where various models can be discussed and considered, to create a range of options that could be used. Having different forms of collaboration should be championed by the RDG, including in advising the DfT to be more accommodating of alternative models and not becoming fixed on one or two ‘preferred’ solutions, even where these are not the best fit.
If the industry is to focus more on collaboration, it should definitely grasp the nettle of ticketing. It is a difficult issue, but will not get easier and there is more pressure for smart and integrated ticketing across modes. With fewer young people having easy access to private cars and more acceptance that using public transport is OK, this should be high on the RDG’s agenda.
I take comfort from Paul’s views on the export opportunities provided by Brexit. UK industry has a strong inventive flair and a way of finding solutions to most problems. The RDG’s links into Government will be important to help focus support for export potential in the rail sector, whether through the Luxembourg Rail Protocol benefiting rolling stock manufacture and finance or the development of the Digital Railway. Rather than just looking at how we can ‘do better’ than other parts of Europe, we need the RDG to be working alongside bodies such as RIA to encourage export opportunities to all parts of the world. With the Chancellor’s Autumn Statement highlighting support for export opportunities, it is an area where we need the RDG to show a level of leadership.
Indeed, my main disappointment was to hear Paul shying away from using the word ‘leadership’ in connection with the RDG. While he is keen to emphasise the work the RDG is doing in providing a link between the industry and Government through its work with the DfT, there is a risk that such information will simply be one of a number of sources and not necessarily carry the weight of saying: “This is what we (the rail industry representatives) believe you (the Department) should be doing.”
Given that it has the word ‘Delivery’ in its title, I would like to see more publicity around what the RDG is delivering.
ollaboration within the rail industry and the opportunities for export of the sector’s skills come across as two key areas for Paul Plummer. His positive views on the opportunities that Brexit is likely to provide are welcome, and hopefully reflect the position taken by the majority of the members of the RDG.
Paul’s robust defence of the benefits seen in the Network Rail/South West Trains alliance, and how the lessons learned have been taken forward into other alliances such as that in Scotland, provide a good indicator of a desire to push the industry to look at the greater benefits provided by working together. It is also good to see that there is more emphasis on ‘collaboration’ rather than ‘alliances’, together with the suggestion that collaboration can be done at a local level. Arguably, this reflects the view of many members of the rail industry that we need to work together to make services work for customers, given the competition from other transport modes.
Hopefully, with the devolving of powers to the NR routes, there will be more opportunities for different forms of collaboration. The RDG needs to be a space where various models can be discussed and considered, to create a range of options that could be used. Having different forms of collaboration should be championed by the RDG, including in advising the DfT to be more accommodating of alternative models and not becoming fixed on one or two ‘preferred’ solutions, even where these are not the best fit.
If the industry is to focus more on collaboration, it should definitely grasp the nettle of ticketing. It is a difficult issue, but will not get easier and there is more pressure for smart and integrated ticketing across modes. With fewer young people having easy access to private cars and more acceptance that using public transport is OK, this should be high on the RDG’s agenda.
I take comfort from Paul’s views on the export opportunities provided by Brexit. UK industry has a strong inventive flair and a way of finding solutions to most problems. The RDG’s links into Government will be important to help focus support for export potential in the rail sector, whether through the Luxembourg Rail Protocol benefiting rolling stock manufacture and finance or the development of the Digital Railway. Rather than just looking at how we can ‘do better’ than other parts of Europe, we need the RDG to be working alongside bodies such as RIA to encourage export opportunities to all parts of the world. With the Chancellor’s Autumn Statement highlighting support for export opportunities, it is an area where we need the RDG to show a level of leadership.
Indeed, my main disappointment was to hear Paul shying away from using the word ‘leadership’ in connection with the RDG. While he is keen to emphasise the work the RDG is doing in providing a link between the industry and Government through its work with the DfT, there is a risk that such information will simply be one of a number of sources and not necessarily carry the weight of saying: “This is what we (the rail industry representatives) believe you (the Department) should be doing.”
Given that it has the word ‘Delivery’ in its title, I would like to see more publicity around what the RDG is delivering.
