A gross oversimplification perpetrated by the
European Council then?
That sounds pretty conclusive to me, all contracts will be put out for competitive tender with the private sector.
Which combined with existing forced unbundling of infrastructure leads inevitably to a system that looks pretty much exactly as the current UK one does.
The International Railway Journal provides a far more detailed review of the current situation, notes the continued significant objections to some parts of the regulation by relevant bodies, acknowledges that as long as
any qualified entity may bid to operate a service, then a qualified entity
may defacto be state-owned, observes that even in its current form the legislation permits certain parts of the status quo to remain until 2034 and, importantly, that the use of holding companies renders the part of the legislation relating to separation and 'unbundling' largely impotent:
Mandatory unbundling was opposed by CER, which argues the Fourth Railway Package includes adequate provisions to protect the interests of new entrants in countries where the holding company structure persists. “There are sufficient safeguards in the legislation to ensure non-discriminatory access to infrastructure,” Lochman says. “Without system integration a railway simply cannot function, and you can’t separate the infrastructure manager off without ensuring you maintain proper system integration. The Fourth Railway Package is an opportunity to ensure that this is implemented in the proper manner. We don’t need the pressure for full vertical separation.”
With unbundling no longer on the agenda, Lamb says the pressure is now on regulatory authorities to ensure that a level playing field is maintained in countries where incumbent operator and IM remain under the umbrella of the same holding company. Indeed, as regulation of the market matures, those responsible for policing it are beginning to show their teeth.
https://www.railjournal.com/in_depth/the-fourth-railway-package-magic-bullet-or-missed-opportunity
Accordingly, if a state owned (holding) company bids and wins the right to run a service, then it is held that Fourth Railway Package will permit this, even if the various continued challenges to the legislation do not result in further amendments.
What it does
not mean,
in practice is that:
Compulsory franchising comes in, so there is little point nationalising it just to privatise it again then.
That, I contend, is a gross over-simplification.
I largely agree with
@Bletchleyite, though:
I really don't understand why the EU does this kind of thing - if it isn't broke, don't fix it. It's one of the biggest reasons that would push me in favour of a "strict" Brexit, i.e. total withdrawal with no deal - this kind of policy matter really needs to be legislated on a per-country basis in my view. Of course if the decision was made to tender or franchise, then by all means ensure that is on an equal basis to all EU providers, but the decision on what to nationalise and what to privatise is well outside what I would consider a fair remit for the EU.
It does indeed appear to be a poor piece of EU legislation in its current form, much like others such as EU261/2004, perhaps also borne of noble intent, bud sadly lacking in the required level of understanding of the complexity of that which it sought to affect.
The Fourth Railway Package is, arguably, critically compromised for many of the reasons reported above; without derogations, grandfather rights and, even, unilateral ignoring of certain parts of just the technical provisions, physical infrastructure across the continent would otherwise have to be ripped up and replaced, or just closed down.
That the aim was to improve accessibility, safety and accountability, service and choice and to discourage closed-shops, favouritism and even corruption is clearly not a bad thing. Legislators' ability to achieve those things is sadly lacking as evidenced by the Fourth Railway Package's current provisions, and particularly worrying given that their (now circumvented) desires with regard to vertical disintegration and tendering for services appear completely blind to the practical implications and realities of almost the very-same strategy which has already been tested in the UK since 1997.
