Exit from Europe potential impact on the railway?

[WestRiding]

Not sure if this has been discussed as yet. If the UK leaves the EU, then how will this affect the railways. We order our trains from Europe, Network Rail relies on European firms for most of its Re-Signalling plans in the future. What impact would it have on such things, as the country couldn't be seen to be supporting European companies, could it?

 

[dysonsphere]

Well if nothing else might allow use to get around the stupid emmision rules for diesels as they were written without any thought of our smaller loading gauge, what works in Euorpe dont fit here.

 

[Gadfly]

Not sure if this has been discussed as yet. If the UK leaves the EU, then how will this affect the railways. We order our trains from Europe, Network Rail relies on European firms for most of its Re-Signalling plans in the future. What impact would it have on such things, as the country couldn't be seen to be supporting European companies, could it?

Trade will continue regardless - a free trade deal would be signed because the UK buys far more from the rest of the EU than it sells.

 

[richa2002]

Not sure if this has been discussed as yet. If the UK leaves the EU, then how will this affect the railways. We order our trains from Europe, Network Rail relies on European firms for most of its Re-Signalling plans in the future. What impact would it have on such things, as the country couldn't be seen to be supporting European companies, could it?

Why not? Business is business regardless of EU membership.

 

[a729]

Not sure if this has been discussed as yet. If the UK leaves the EU, then how will this affect the railways. We order our trains from Europe, Network Rail relies on European firms for most of its Re-Signalling plans in the future. What impact would it have on such things, as the country couldn't be seen to be supporting European companies, could it?

Maybe it might encourage us to start building our own trains like we used to?

 

[route:oxford]

Maybe it might encourage us to start building our own trains like we used to?

That all depends on whether they can be built here to a lower cost than importing from anywhere else in the world.

 

[EM2]

...the country couldn't be seen to be supporting European companies, could it?

Why not? We'll happily buy 59s, 66s and 70s from the USA, that's not really any different.

 

[crehld]

Many rail improvement projects are co-financed through the EU's ERDF and TEN-T programmes. This money would go meaning any short fall would have to be found elsewhere or investment cut. And if anyone thinks the money saved on EU membership (although it's debatable if there are any savings to be had) would be reinvested in the railways, then they place more faith in HM Treasury and central government than I do.

 

[Gadfly]

Many rail improvement projects are co-financed through the EU's ERDF and TEN-T programmes. This money would go meaning any short fall would have to be found elsewhere or investment cut. And if anyone thinks the money saved on EU membership (although it's debatable if there are any savings to be had) would be reinvested in the railways, then they place more faith in HM Treasury and central government than I do.

The UK pays far more in contributions to the EU than it gets back. Many of the grants we receive depend on "matched funding" i.e. the EU tells us how to spend it and we have to pay half ourselves.

 

[starrymarkb]

Norway and Switzerland are in the EEA - this means they implement EU directives even though they are not full members. They do so because they get the benefits of trade without the cost of full membership. But it does mean they don't have a say in these policies.

Re engine emissions isn't that down to the engine makers to produce something that will fit. Or we can extend our knitting and use electrics.

 

[crehld]

Many of the grants we receive depend on "matched funding" i.e. the EU tells us how to spend it and we have to pay half ourselves.

Indeed. So for those schemes that are co-financed the budget would be cut in half. This has direct implications for the railways in this country as I don't believe any savings released by leaving the EU will be reinvested in the railways, or at least not at the same level.

 

[HarleyDavidson]

Could it mean the end of privatisation? As that's one of the EU's idiotic ideas.

Perhaps we should ask the Kiwi's how to do it!

 

[Monty]

Perhaps we should ask the Kiwi's how to do it!

With refurbished Mk2s and German engined, Chinese built locomotives?

 

[21C101]

That all depends on whether they can be built here to a lower cost than importing from anywhere else in the world.

If we were outside the EU we could impose tariffs on imported trains to protect the domestic train building industry
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Many rail improvement projects are co-financed through the EU's ERDF and TEN-T programmes. This money would go meaning any short fall would have to be found elsewhere or investment cut. And if anyone thinks the money saved on EU membership (although it's debatable if there are any savings to be had) would be reinvested in the railways, then they place more faith in HM Treasury and central government than I do.

The treasury pays approximately £2 in membership fees for every pound we get back in EU grants for such EU sponsored projects.

 

[najaB]

If we were outside the EU we could impose tariffs on imported trains to protect the domestic train building industry.

Unfortunately WTO obligations would put paid to that idea.

 

[21C101]

Norway and Switzerland are in the EEA - this means they implement EU directives even though they are not full members. They do so because they get the benefits of trade without the cost of full membership. But it does mean they don't have a say in these policies.

Re engine emissions isn't that down to the engine makers to produce something that will fit. Or we can extend our knitting and use electrics.

Actually that is wrong. The majority of EU directives have their origin in ISO Standards issued by the United Nations International Standards Organisatio, these in term become ENs' European Norm standards which are heavily referenced in EU directives as harmonised standards and thus the preferred/only method of compliance with EU directives.

Guess what. Norway and Switzerland have a say in the ISOs because they have a seat on the ISO committee. UK has no say because we are an EU member so don't have a seat and the EU sits on it instead.

 

[68000]

Network Rail relies on European firms for most of its Re-Signalling plans in the future

The 3 Tier 1 signalling contractors for NR frameworks are

1. Siemens (formally Invensys, Westinghouse and Signalling Control UK) - very much a British firm owned by a German multinational firm

2. Signalling Solutions Limited - A joint venture between Alstom (French multinational) and Balfour Beatty (British multinational)

3. Atkins (British multinational)
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Could it mean the end of privatisation? As that's one of the EU's idiotic ideas.

That was the Tory idiotic idea, the EU only calls for separate accounting for operators and infrastructure

 

[Masbroughlad]

I believe that the UK must stay in Europe for the longer term. Disaster if we leave fuelled solely by immigration.

Only upside for the railway is train operators could own infrastructure too?

 

[crehld]

The treasury pays approximately £2 in membership fees for every pound we get back in EU grants for such EU sponsored projects.

The point is not how much we pay or get back (that's a separate, off topic argument) - rather it's what the money gets spent on.

 

[Class 170101]

Could it mean the end of privatisation? As that's one of the EU's idiotic ideas.

Privisation is how we chose to implement the EU Directive but I think you will find is that the EU Directive is meant to allow other operators to be allowed to use the network. So we could have done it the way France and to a lesser extent Germany did it which is just split the infrastructure from the operator and leave it at that. Instead we chose to have many franchised operators.

 

[anme]

Actually that is wrong. The majority of EU directives have their origin in ISO Standards issued by the United Nations International Standards Organisation, these in term become ENs' European Norm standards which are heavily referenced in EU directives as harmonised standards and thus the preferred/only method of compliance with EU directives.

Guess what. Norway and Switzerland have a say in the ISOs because they have a seat on the ISO committee. UK has no say because we are an EU member so don't have a seat and the EU sits on it instead.

I can't comment on whether EU directives are largely based on ISO standards. However, I'm intrigued by your claims about ISO. According to the ISO website, the UK is not only a member of ISO, but it sits on 748 ISO committees, via the British Standards Institute. From a quick scan of the website, I think that's more than any other nation except France. The EU doesn't appear to be mentioned on the ISO website at all - membership seems to be at country level.

Please can you explain which ISO committee you are referring to, and what responsibilities that committee has?

Edit: curiously, a similar claim turns up on a couple of UKIP party websites. Sadly for UKIP, it appears to be less than accurate.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

If we were outside the EU we could impose tariffs on imported trains to protect the domestic train building industry
[

Why would Bombardier and Hitachi keep UK train-building plants without access to the EU single market?
Imposing tariffs would take us back 50 years and lead to tit-for-tat protectionism.

 

[21C101]

I can't comment on whether EU directives are largely based on ISO standards. However, I'm intrigued by your claims about ISO. According to the ISO website, the UK is not only a member of ISO, but it sits on 748 ISO committees, via the British Standards Institute. From a quick scan of the website, I think that's more than any other nation except France. The EU doesn't appear to be mentioned on the ISO website at all - membership seems to be at country level.

Please can you explain which ISO committee you are referring to, and what responsibilities that committee has?

Sorry, wrong body quoted, working from memory and got mixed up. Correct details in this article by Barkworth:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...democracy-is-nothing-for-Britain-to-fear.html

 

[thealexweb]

The point is not how much we pay or get back (that's a separate, off topic argument) - rather it's what the money gets spent on.

I think he was implying if all the money was spent and raised just by the UK Government there would be more money for the UK railways without a doubt.

 

[21C101]

Why would Bombardier and Hitachi keep UK train-building plants without access to the EU single market?
Imposing tariffs would take us back 50 years and lead to tit-for-tat protectionism.

How many UK built trains have Bombardier and Hitachi exported to the EU? (Ireland dosent count as we have free trade agreements with them independently of the EU) and why would it make any difference to them if we left the EU and did as Norway and Switzerland do and remain in the single market?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I think he was implying if all the money was spent and raised just by the UK Government there would be more money for the UK railways without a doubt.

Correct, because there would be approx £10 billion a year more money. The days of the UK government starving the railways to fund the "Great car economy" are long over.

 

[anme]

Sorry, wrong body quoted, working from memory and got mixed up. Correct details in this article by Barkworth:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...democracy-is-nothing-for-Britain-to-fear.html

That article, and the one the following week by the same author, also seem misleading. Try looking at the websites of the organisations he mentions (which *includes* ISO).

The UK is a member of most of these organisations and is fully entitled to participate and vote if it chooses to do so. In fact, the EU is not generally entitled to be a member of these bodies at all (other countries are unlikely to agree to EU members effectively getting an extra vote!), and EU countries are not so stupid as to trade their 28 separate votes for a single EU vote.

 

[Monty]

Unfortunately WTO obligations would put paid to that idea.

Which should mean in theory anyway that not much is lost in trade in monetary terms.

 

[MarkyT]

Perhaps leaving EU could allow HS2 to be built with UK standard platform heights and clearances throughout. Then captive and classic compatible trains could all use the same platforms at Euston, Old Oak Common and elsewhere for far more operational flexibility. With no continental gauge connection to HS1 planned, it's not as if there's any chance of through European services and most commentators feel there would be little market for anything beyond one or two 'token' daily services to Paris, so for this unconnected tail to wag the whole damn dog seems a little sub-optimal to say the least. Its not as if such a policy (UK platform standards) would make the line as a whole incompatible with standard Euro trains in a connected future. A small number of platforms at the major (out of London) city terminals could be made convertible for future Euro services, but those wouldn't be able to call at the intermediate hubs.

On the other hand if EU exit occurred due to UKIP victory in the next general election, then the whole project would be just cancelled full stop. Along with keeping free pensioner bus passes, abolishing toll roads (for Brits), a 'Britdisc' vignette toll system for foreign drivers and stopping councils 'making money' out of traffic enforcement cameras, that forms the totality of their transport policy.

 

[The Ham]

Perhaps leaving EU could allow HS2 to be built with UK standard platform heights and clearances throughout. Then captive and classic compatible trains could all use the same platforms at Euston, Old Oak Common and elsewhere for far more operational flexibility. With no continental gauge connection to HS1 planned, it's not as if there's any chance of through European services and most commentators feel there would be little market for anything beyond one or two 'token' daily services to Paris, so for this unconnected tail to wag the whole damn dog seems a little sub-optimal to say the least. Its not as if such a policy (UK platform standards) would make the line as a whole incompatible with standard Euro trains in a connected future. A small number of platforms at the major (out of London) city terminals could be made convertible for future Euro services, but those wouldn't be able to call at the intermediate hubs.

On the other hand if EU exit occurred due to UKIP victory in the next general election, then the whole project would be just cancelled full stop. Along with keeping free pensioner bus passes, abolishing toll roads (for Brits), a 'Britdisc' vignette toll system for foreign drivers and stopping councils 'making money' out of traffic enforcement cameras, that forms the totality of their transport policy.

The advantage of HS2 using European loading gauges has nothing to do with us being in Europe, rather that by doing so we can get more people on each train. Given that the route is being built because of capacity problems, scrapping it in favour of the more restrictive UK versions would be short sighted.

It may well be that over time that more lines are converted to allow HS services to run on "conventional" routes. Although expensive, especially in regards to bridges, it does bring benefits which could justify the cost. The expense could be reduced if NR had a policy that all new structures would need to be designed to take this on board.

 

[MarkyT]

The advantage of HS2 using European loading gauges has nothing to do with us being in Europe, rather that by doing so we can get more people on each train. Given that the route is being built because of capacity problems, scrapping it in favour of the more restrictive UK versions would be short sighted.

It may well be that over time that more lines are converted to allow HS services to run on "conventional" routes. Although expensive, especially in regards to bridges, it does bring benefits which could justify the cost. The expense could be reduced if NR had a policy that all new structures would need to be designed to take this on board.

I wasn't talking about building the line to UK loading gauge in terms of bridge and tunnel clearances, just using standard UK PLATFORM height and lateral clearance so all trains can use the same platforms on the new line. You could still have double decker trains if desired for captive services. Whilst UK platforms are slightly higher and intrude closer to the nearest rail than in Europe, all the HS2 platforms at intermediate stations are on platform loops, so UK platform standards being employed would not actually prevent full European size stock passing on the through lines. Anywhere such Euro trains DID stop would require dedicated platforms clearly, which would seem likely anyway for security and immigration concerns if through European services ever happen at all, and they will always be in the minority compared to domestic services.

So to sum up:

Build the line as planned to Euro gauge (GC I think)

Build all new platforms at Euston and intermediate stations en route to UK standards.

Purchase captive AND classic compatible stock with UK platform height and clearance standards, but captives not limited to UK classic height restriction so double decker still possible.

Build a limited number of terminal platforms at non London terminals in Leeds, Manchester, Birmingham (one or two platforms ONLY at each) for possible future conversion to Euro platform standard for possible future through continental services. Think about security and immigration segregation from other parts of those stations in that design process. Other platforms to be built to UK standard. In the meantime for the foreseeable future, provide conversion decking on the Euro-proofed platforms to bring height and reach to UK standards.

Result:
A standard railway where any UKHS train can use any platform on the system, so groups of platforms at Euston for example need not be dedicated for either classic compatible or captive trains. This brings much more real time flexibility in operations, and also long term service flexibility over the balance in services between the two types of train and how that may change over the years with the size of the network and the extent of through running to the classic network.