Your post illustrates my point. No understanding of why you need to treat the fare paying passenger and the tax paying public as stakeholders in the industry.
Actually, my post detailed my interpretation of who the stakeholders are at stages. The fare paying passenger (as in end user) is a stakeholder in the finished product, e.g. what runs on the service at a given time. It seems to be somewhat folly to argue that the fare paying passenger is a stakeholder in an engineering works project at Wabtec. They have a vested interest in the works being completed, but, are they a stakeholder on the provision of the HST engineering works? That's debatable.
The stakeholders in such a project would (likely) be the ROSCO (Angel), the lessee (Abellio ScotRail), and, the authority granting the Franchise (e.g. Transport Scotland and the Scottish Ministers). I've added the ROSCO as I neglected to do so previously, but, their relevance is significant given they own the assets. ORR and NR would also have interests, e.g. in any certifications and track access.
The passenger interests are represented by their representatives in Parliament, the public servants at the Authority, and, of course, by bodies such as Transport Focus. Those bodies could certainly ask for detailed progress reports, and, might very well do so if they have interests (e.g. TS in upholding any commitments under the Franchise Agreement.
You might find
that document to be of use - Schedule 6.2 on page 338 relates to the 'Inter-city' stock, parts that might be of interest could be section 3 para 3.2 and 3.3 (page 340), 9 (page 344), 10 (page 345). There's also a delivery schedule on page 346 outlining 'proposed' dates, however, clearly there is slippage. Appendix 2 (page 348) might also be of general interest as it covers the actual technical works.
You could ask Transport Scotland, via FOI, to disclose any relevant information they hold - equally, you could also ask your MSP to contact Abellio or TS (perhaps via the Transport minister) for a substantive update.
Until there's useful information to share however, I doubt there will be a all-encompassing release from Abellio or TS indicating the state of the project - other than the usual 'more to follow' type releases. It makes sense to share
useful information at the earliest opportunity, but, what purpose would an update serve if there isn't
useful information available, other than being slightly specious?
Useful information could be details of when they expect the first completed unit to go into service, but, given the coaching stock has only just arrived, there is perhaps still too many moving parts to know that just yet (e.g. have enough staff been trained, is Haymarket ready to do maintenance, are the trades union reps happy and so on).
Rail has trousered large amounts of taxpayers cash and not delivered the improvements in service. There is considerable disquiet amongst the public.
Can you cite a source for that 'considerable disquiet', other than anecdotal evidence on these forums (and the echo chamber of social media)?
Even a publicly owned TOC (see ref LNER) is a commercial entity - there are limits to what will be made generally available when it could harm commercial interests. Likewise, it might not be in the 'public interest' either, as, the Authority could then have difficulty pursuing suitable redress.
Nationalisation wouldn't change the scenario being faced here - you'd just be transferring control to Transport Scotland or a new Executive Agency. It'd be the same people, doing the same job, with a different name on the door. And, it'd still be ran commercially, just like other state owned transport operators.
I'd stress that I have no stake in this other than as a customer, but, some of the comments on this thread appear to amount to hyperbole, or, are hankering back to the nostalgic days of the past.
