Is a Hard or Soft Brexit better for the railways?

[thenorthern]

Given that the Conservative Party conference is happening in Birmingham and they are discussing Brexit I was wondering if a Hard Brexit (Out of the EU and out of the Single Market) or a Soft Brexit (Out of the EU but in the Single Market) would be better for the railways?

From what I can see the following benefits from each one would apply:

Hard Brexit - More control of TOC ownership, more control over who builds trains, potential for more collaboration with non-EU countries and potentially cheaper fuel prices.

Soft Brexit - More likely to be able to retain use of ERTMS, less likely to have passport checks for services between Belfast and Dublin, less likely to need visa and more stringent passport checks for Eurostar trains, more influence from other countries with building trains such as the Pendolino from Italy and potential for UK factories to build trains for other EU countries.

Which one do you think would be more of an advantage for the railways?

Please can we keep all discussions railway related.

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

Brexit won't have any noticable effect on the railways.

 

[najaB]

Brexit won't have any noticable effect on the railways.

Not immediately, but it definitely will in the longer term.

 

[Domh245]

You don't have to be in the EU to use ERTMS, indeed many countries outside of the EU have already installed it: link (pdf)

Rail engineer did an article looking at some of the possible effects of Brexit on the rail industry that might be worth a read

 

[daikilo]

There was a time before Great Britain and Northern Ireland joined Europe. I think the question should be whether with Brexit we go back to square one or soemthing else. From what was suggested on the BBC today, much if not all European laws now integrated in UK law will remain so I think the question is not hard or soft but how soft.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-37532364

It suggests a Great Repeal Bill which actually appears to consolidate everything in UK law!

Also, remind me, did we need visas to go to the then EU countries before the UK joined? Not that I remember when I travelled, including to some outside the EU.

Finally, remember EFTA of which the UK was a member before it joined the EC, it still exists so a repeal of economic ties with the EU could put the UK back into EFTA (if they will have us back)!

 

[thenorthern]

Also, remind me, did we need visas to go to the then EU countries before the UK joined? Not that I remember when I travelled, including to some outside the EU.

Finally, remember EFTA of which the UK was a member before it joined the EC, it still exists so a repeal of economic ties with the EU could put the UK back into EFTA (if they will have us back)!

As you say with EFTA if they will have us back in and by the looks of things some of the other countries are a bit uneasy about it.

We may not need a visa as such but there are the annoying Landing/Arrival cards that you have to fill in if you are arriving in the United Kingdom and aren't a citizen of a European Economic Area country or Swiss which could very easily make a comeback. Also British Citizens traveling on the Eurostar may need to fill them out when going abroad. All this comes with stricter passport checks that take longer.

Also there is the customs problem as currently its possible to travel with an unlimited amount of tobacco, alcohol, money and other items to other EU countries as long as they are for personal use which could very easily be stopped post brexit meaning longer times at customs for Eurostar trains.

 

[rf_ioliver]

*Theoretically* it would mean that the UK does not have to comply with EU regulations, directives and recommendations relating to railways.

If I've understood the text of the "Great Repeal Act" (the person who named that should get a prize...) then if this act proceeds successfully through parliament and becomes law then UK law in the areas 'devolved' (not the right word) would have supremacy over EU law, but, the starting point would be EU law for any future changes - stronger or weaker.

*Practically* no-one really knows Now there are arguments that the UK would not need to comply with EU disability, competition, safety etc laws. On the other hand UK law is a lot stronger than the minimums required by EU law in many cases.

Then there are the rules from the WTO regarding trade, purchasing, tendering etc which will complicate things when dealing with the EU and can/might/will put the UK at a disadvantage.

When it comes to technology such as ERTMS into which the UK has invested a huge amount of time, money and research (UK universities have made huge amount of work in this area), it is highly unlikely that the UK would start from scratch and invite its own system, but collaboration, especially academic collaboration and project funding would be more difficult.

I strongly doubt that the UK would change its rules on foreign ownership, given that currently UK companies can operate in the EU as EU can in the UK. What you don't want here is a tit-for-tat pulling out of investment, ownership etc. That wouldn't just affect the UK's railways, but the whole transport sector.

Ironically investment and ownership would come from places like China (Hinkley Point Nuclear Power Station with a Chinese/French partnership), which may or may not be a "good thing". Certainly ironic if one of the points of Brexit was to "take back control" and make everything British again.

Further, during this period of waiting many companies are going to hold off investment in the UK, eg: Honda in Sunderland, and start looking for better places to put their money. 6-24 months of lost investment is huge amount of money and jobs - not to mention loss of skills, future workforce, apprenticeships (many of which were partially funded by the EU).

One point though is that the money "saved" by not paying into the EU would be reinvested in the UK, but as we've seen with the 350million per nanosecond to the NHS, it isn't clear to anyone how much or where this money will go.

The major change - and something that has happened now - is that the UK's influence and ability to drive any changes across the EU has gone. We used to have the transport commissioner (Neil Kinnock), now that opportunity has gone.

At this point however the effects of Brexit are still speculation - let's be honest, if the current Cabinet ministers don't know then what chance do the citizens of the country have...?

t.

Ian

 

[Gareth]

The only big difference I could potentially see is that the railway could be fully renationalised if a future government wanted it without falling foul of EU law. That said, plenty of EU countries have essentially nationalised railways, using loopholes in the legislation to get around the restrictions, so the UK could have went down the same path if it had wanted to.

Hard Brexit or not, I don't foresee a bonfire of mutual standards between the UK and EU countries being thrown out merely because we could do it if we wanted to. Many of these standards aren't necessarily directly to do with the EU anyway and as often as not involve bodies like the Council of Europe or UNECE. So car number plates will remain the same shape as they are in most of Europe even if the country band changes, electrical wiring will remain brown for Line and blue for Neutral, metric measurements will not be expunged and HS2 will be built to the same technical standards as planned.

Passengers will still need a passport when using the Eurostar. You almost certainly won't need a visa.

 

[Tim R-T-C]

Hard Brexit - More control of TOC ownership, more control over who builds trains, potential for more collaboration with non-EU countries and potentially cheaper fuel prices.

This whole control issue was such a major part of the campaigning, (having 'control' over all sorts of things, not just railways of course). Is there any reason to think being able to rule out people like DB from running TOCs will make them any better or worse, is there enough domestic interest in running TOCs?

Similarly, the collaboration with non-EU countries idea. We already get a lot of locomotives from the USA. Where else would we want to get rolling stock from? China would be the only other major train producing company and ordering from them is hardly any better for our economy than ordering from Spain or Germany.

 

[PHILIPE]

The Railways Brexit thread is here:-

www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=131795

 

[najaB]

The only big difference I could potentially see is that the railway could be fully renationalised if a future government wanted it without falling foul of EU law.

It could be fully renationalised today without falling foul of EU law.

 

[Gareth]

The Railways Brexit thread is here:-

www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=131795

Which is a political thread about Brexit and what people personally think of it. The discussion on here about what the practical consequences for the railway may be remains a valid one.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It could be fully renationalised today without falling foul of EU law.

I've read differently but if you're correct then I don't foresee any big changes to railway that will be the direct cause of Brexit; whether that be hard, soft or poached.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

From what I can see the following benefits from each one would apply:

Hard Brexit - More control of TOC ownership, more control over who builds trains, potential for more collaboration with non-EU countries and potentially cheaper fuel prices.

I don't see how "control" of TOC ownership or train manufacturing is of any relevance to the discussion. Price is the key factor now and will continue to be so. Non-EU countries that are near enough for proximity to make any difference are not exactly numerous and those that are already have closer relationships with the EU than we are likely to have ourselves! As for fuel prices the EU has little influence on them and we need to be more concerned about Russian pricing of gas, OPEC acting more or less strongly as a cartel, North American rates of shale exploitation, all of which can change regardless of EU actions.

Soft Brexit - More likely to be able to retain use of ERTMS, less likely to have passport checks for services between Belfast and Dublin, less likely to need visa and more stringent passport checks for Eurostar trains, more influence from other countries with building trains such as the Pendolino from Italy and potential for UK factories to build trains for other EU countries.

As has been said ERTMS development is not at all dependent on EU membership, indeed it could be said that its chief proponents are in fact non-EU countries (Switzerland, China). The Anglo-Irish border is an interesting case but the local support for continuance of the Common Travel Area will likely require the EU to accept "non-standard" arrangements, especially as the immigration crisis is already pushing countries like Hungary and Croatia to adopt policies which are against the EU's ideals. Document checks for tourists will not change very much for crossing the UK's external borders given what already exists. Production of trains in this country is relatively limited these days and the only difference I can see with Brexit is whether Hitachi maintains its investment levels in the Newton Aycliffe site: the signs so far are positive.

Which one do you think would be more of an advantage for the railways?

So Brexit in itself is unlikely to make much difference to our railways directly. We should be much more concerned about what difference our trading relationship with the EU makes to the overall level of economic activity here as any change to this will quickly be reflected in ridership numbers. The final outcome will come down to political decisions and I hope we, as a nation, are prepared to accept the consequences of the referendum vote.

 

[najaB]

I've read differently but if you're correct then I don't foresee any big changes to railway that will be the direct cause of Brexit; whether that be hard, soft or poached.

The French and German railways are nationalised, among others.

 

[Gareth]

Never said they weren't. Cheers though.

 

[F Great Eastern]

It is very good news for a TOTALLY British rolling stock manufacturer.

Less good news for the rest of us who believe that quality is more important than where it is built.

 

[Gareth]

I've read or heard nothing that suggests UK rolling stock procurement will be subject to protectionist policies.

 

[najaB]

Less good news for the rest of us who believe that quality is more important than where it is built.

Don't forget price.

 

[Tim R-T-C]

I've read or heard nothing that suggests UK rolling stock procurement will be subject to protectionist policies.

Not necessarily protectionist, but at present (as my understanding) it would be illegal under EU law for a firm to just pick a supplier of their choice, they have to allow bids and select the 'best'.

If we are not in the EU and that law is not carried across then it might be possible for TOCs to pick the supplier of their choice, based purely on location if they wish. We wouldn't need to pass a specifically protectionist law to enforce it.

I suspect publicity over investing in British would be worth a fair amount to a British train firm and might encourage them to choose that option.

 

[najaB]

I suspect publicity over investing in British would be worth a fair amount to a British train firm and might encourage them to choose that option.

Until and unless it's pointed out that they could have purchased more, higher quality carriages at a lower price from a non-British source.

 

[Gareth]

Not necessarily protectionist, but at present (as my understanding) it would be illegal under EU law for a firm to just pick a supplier of their choice, they have to allow bids and select the 'best'.

If we are not in the EU and that law is not carried across then it might be possible for TOCs to pick the supplier of their choice, based purely on location if they wish. We wouldn't need to pass a specifically protectionist law to enforce it.

I suspect publicity over investing in British would be worth a fair amount to a British train firm and might encourage them to choose that option.

I don't think it's that likely. Certainly, no Conservative government would go for it. I doubt other countries around the world, from Germany to China would be impressed and it would in turn prejudice UK firms bidding for contracts in other countries. If the UK never joined the EC in the first place, I don't reckon we'd have such a system in place in 2016 and I don't think we'll implement such a thing just because we've left.

 

[thenorthern]

I don't see how "control" of TOC ownership or train manufacturing is of any relevance to the discussion. Price is the key factor now and will continue to be so. Non-EU countries that are near enough for proximity to make any difference are not exactly numerous and those that are already have closer relationships with the EU than we are likely to have ourselves! As for fuel prices the EU has little influence on them and we need to be more concerned about Russian pricing of gas, OPEC acting more or less strongly as a cartel, North American rates of shale exploitation, all of which can change regardless of EU actions.

Given how unpopular it is at the moment when state owned companies from other EU countries are awarded franchises it wouldn't surprise me if the Government brought in legislation saying franchises won't be awarded to companies owned by governments in other countries.

When there was the Thameslink contract there was a lot of ill feeling in Derby about the EU as many people felt that Bombardier should be given the contract as they had a factory in the United Kingdom while Siemens didn't and the Government's response was that they were required by EU law to get the best deal which meant building trains in Germany. This is probably one of the reasons why Derby voted out and was more Euroscpetic than Leicester and Nottingham.

I am aware that Bombardier isn't a British company and the Government should still always try and get bet best deal but I think many people will want British Trains built at British Factories even if it costs more.

Both of these though would only be possible with a hard brexit.

 

[Gareth]

No doubt we'll probably be reopening coal mines too instead of importing it.

 

[thenorthern]

No doubt we'll probably be reopening coal mines too instead of importing it.

Doubt it although given that much of the coal in this country comes from Poland it will mean a gap of 6 years between leaving the EU and the last coal fired power station closing.

 

[Domh245]

It is very good news for a TOTALLY British rolling stock manufacturer.

Less good news for the rest of us who believe that quality is more important than where it is built.

Would that be Vivarail then (although they are backed by a US firm)? Bombardier transportation are of course based in Germany, and are owned by a Canadian firm, using components from across Europe

 

[thenorthern]

Bombardier transportation are of course based in Germany, and are owned by a Canadian firm, using components from across Europe

Not to mention building many of its trains such as the Class 220, 221 and 222 in Belgium.

Bombardier isn't a British firm but the headline "British Trains built in Britain by British Workers" looks good on The Daily Mail.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

Given how unpopular it is at the moment when state owned companies from other EU countries are awarded franchises it wouldn't surprise me if the Government brought in legislation saying franchises won't be awarded to companies owned by governments in other countries.

When there was the Thameslink contract there was a lot of ill feeling in Derby about the EU as many people felt that Bombardier should be given the contract as they had a factory in the United Kingdom while Siemens didn't and the Government's response was that they were required by EU law to get the best deal which meant building trains in Germany. This is probably one of the reasons why Derby voted out and was more Euroscpetic than Leicester and Nottingham.

I am aware that Bombardier isn't a British company and the Government should still always try and get bet best deal but I think many people will want British Trains built at British Factories even if it costs more.

Both of these though would only be possible with a hard brexit.

With respect the only people really bothered by any of this are the xenophobes who made lots of noise during the referendum campaign but are keeping a low profile now that we need to work out how to make a post-Brexit UK work effectively. You can bet that they, like everyone else, don't think twice about spending their own money on foreign manufactured goods. Brexit passed because people were concerned about immigration and felt marginalised by the apparent lack of concern about the issue from the "ruling class". Dealing with that issue will make very little difference to the railways.

 

[najaB]

Dealing with that issue will make very little difference to the railways.

However, being outside the common market very well may.

 

[Busaholic]

I can think of no newspaper/magazine/ correspondent who has devoted more column inches (centimetres?!) to the subject of attacking the Common Market/EEC/EU over the years, particularly in relation to the U.K.'S membership, than Christopher Booker in the Sunday Telegraph. I'm not very often gobsmacked, but I was when I read his column today. He now regards any talk of a hard or semi-hard Brexit as being insane, the only hope of our not becoming totally impoverished and isolated being a soft Brexit with full access to a Single Market with the rest of Europe. Knock me down with a feather!!

 

[najaB]

He now regards any talk of a hard or semi-hard Brexit as being insane, the only hope of our not becoming totally impoverished and isolated being a soft Brexit with full access to a Single Market with the rest of Europe. Knock me down with a feather!!

Interestingly the Tory party conference was told today that there's virtually no chance of a soft Brexit happening. What's that old adage - be careful what you wish for?