I totally agree. If we must have rail privatisation along the seperate track and trains format, then by all means set up Network Rail track authority. Then passengers services to mirror the old BR sectors: ScotRail, Regional railways, InterCity and Network South East.
The loss of the nationally recognisable InterCity and Network South East branks was a shameful waste.
The government of the day showed a terrible error of judgment when they failed to consulted BR about the way it should be privatised. The one organisation that had expertise was ignored.
The Government was guided by the Civil Service and HM Treasury.
You need to understand that the purpose of the Civil Service is to supply options which are considered to be the workable outcome of a Political decision. As the only "Political" figure in the Civil Service in the days before Bliar, was the Minister, it was very difficult for a Minister to insist on following a line that did not have the tacit support of the Civil Servants in the Department.
This was why Bliar Politicised the Civil Service directly (within hours) of taking over in 1997.
The Conservative position was for vertical integration into what would have been the modern version "Big Four", and was certainly the position favoured by Major.
The EU Directive did not permit that option, requiring separation laterally at the point of rail / wheel interface, which as any professional will tell you is the worst possible engineering situation. Naturally the EU was not interested in an optimal Engineering solution merely a typical neatly tied up administrative solution akin the the airline Industry.
No one in the EU understood then, or understands now (or is interested in understanding) that the two forms of transport are not interchangable in that manner. The EU is simply following a Politically motivated solution, and cannot see that what
may be right for Europe will probably be the wrong solution for the UK.
Remember Ireland which can in no way become part of the TENS network is still required by the Directive to separate its Railway structure to allow new Operators in :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:
HM Treasury favoured the current model because (a) it fitted in with the Directive, and (b) it would generate postive revenue. HM Treasury opposed vertical integration because it would have meant only four big Companies paying Corporation Tax, rather than a whole host of smaller Companies, together with Franchise payments.
It is typical HM Treasury parsimony, supported by the dead hand of the Civil Service which foisted this type of Privatisation upon the UK.
The fact that it has been introduced elsewhere in the EU as a form of EU "good practice" is demonstrative of the steer being given from Brussels at that time.
The changes brought about by Labour have now created a monster that is not a public nor a truly private Industry, as well as this, it is continually being "micro-managed" by Civil Servants with no ability or understanding of Railways, aided and supported by those whom were found to be wanting when they worked in the Industry.
The Railtrack model did work to a larger and better degree than the current Network Rail one, but was destroyed not because it was not working as such, but as a sacrifice on the alter of Political expendiency, jealousy and Leftist dogma.
The situation that Railtrack was in could have been resolved. It was not.
Putting Railtrack into Administration was a cynical and obvious attempt to distance Labour from the situation as it stood then, whilst gaining short-term Political benefit and support from the Party, single-issue activists, and the Railway Trade Unions at the cost of the longer term good of the UK and the economy.
