That Eurostar 'private sector' bid for ICEC in full

Of mere passing interest, no doubt. 

A quick glance at wikipedia, here and here, reveals the following...  

Eurostar International Limited (EIL) is the parent company of the Eurostar service operating between London, Paris and Brussels. Eurostar was previously operated by three separate companies in Belgium, France and the United Kingdom, but this structure was replaced by EIL as a new single management company on 1 September 2010. EIL is owned by London and Continental Railways (40%), SNCB (5%) and SNCF (55%).#

London and Continental Railways (LCR) is a company that was involved in the construction of High Speed 1 (HS1) in the United Kingdom. Originally established in 1994 as a private consortium to build HS1 under a contract agreed with the UK Government, it subsequently ran into financial difficulties and has been owned by the Department for Transport since 2009 

So Eurostar, 40% owned by HMG is allowed to bid for franchises, but DOR (100% owned by HMG) isn’t.

Of course DfT is perfectly happy for overseas state owned railways to run as many of Britain's trains as they want, whether passenger or freight.

Eurostar's ICEC bid partner, Keolis, is 56.7% owned by French railway SNCF.

None the less, Eye wonders at what percentage point does UK state involvement in running a competitively tendered franchise suddenly become unpalatable? 

Answer from the Treasury and DfT came there none...

UPDATE: Eye issues unreserved apology to Keolis!

According to a press release on the Keolis website from April 2012...

"SNCF increases its shareholding in Keolis to accelerate the next phase of the company’s development
 
"At the closing of this transaction, SNCF will hold a 70% stake of Keolis alongside a long term investment partner."

Eye wishes to apologise for misleading readers into thinking that the Keolis/Eurostar bid for ICEC might, in anyway, have been considered to be 'private sector'.
 

ORR parks tanks on RDG's lawn

Good news for fans of needless duplication on the railway!

This from the ORR and DfT:

ORR and DfT recognise that more can be done to improve the way performance of the rail industry as a whole is monitored and to promote stronger incentives for train operating companies to reduce costs and collaborate effectively with Network Rail. To facilitate this, ORR will do more to highlight whole industry performance and cost issues, and ensure they are addressed. These changes will help Government, the Regulator and the industry to improve performance, tackle waste and inefficiency and improve services for passengers.
 
Quite so.
 
So pray tell what is the role of the RDG in today's new, exciting, streamlined and post McNulty railway?

UPDATE: This from the Horseferry Inquisition...
 
In answer to Eye’s question of what RDG is for, I refer you to the published responses to the TSC Rail 2020 report, from DfT and ORR, as below:
 
Recommendation 7. We recommend that the DfT and ORR keep a close eye on the work of the RDG to ensure that it acts in the best interests of the farepayer and taxpayer, rather than of established rail interests. (Paragraph 38)

DfT response: 
The Department agrees with this recommendation. The Government welcomed the establishment of the Rail Delivery Group (RDG). The establishment of an authoritative and effective voice, able to lead for the rail industry, is crucial if the industry is to meet the challenge of reducing the cost of running the railway. The formalisation of the RDG puts the organisation in the best place to take forward whole industry leadership.

ORR response:  
We support the formation of the RDG which was established in response to the McNulty report's view that many of the barriers to improving efficiency across the railway could be addressed by a high-level cross-industry leadership body charged with driving forward change. To facilitate formation of the RDG we implemented a new licence condition obliging Network Rail, and passenger and freight operators that use the mainline network, to actively support and participate in the work of the group. We have made clear that, to be effective, RDG will need to engage with wider industry stakeholders (including funders, suppliers, and employees). 

We believe that in order to deliver change across the railway, and therefore meet McNulty's aspirations, the industry should take responsibility for developing policies and strategies to improve its effectiveness and efficiency. It is for this reason that, along with industry funders, we are not members of the group and have no direct interaction in the workings or decision making of RDG. Our role is limited to keeping the overall arrangements under review, approving changes to the RDG articles of association, ensuring licence holder compliance with them and considering changes proposed by RDG to the existing industry change implementation processes (including the Network Code and track access contracts). We do however engage with the work of the RDG along with other stakeholders and are active members of the asset management/project management working group.

See, perfectly clear.

And good to see that such high levels of trust exist between Whitehall and the railway.

McLoughlin wins non-sequiter of the year award

Good to see that the DfT hasn't lost its skill at pretending a pig's ear is a triumph.

In today's press release from the Department on the future of the C2C, FGW, FCC and Southern franchises is the following gem from McLoughlin...

"As always our priority is to ensure these changes will not impact on services or our commitment to improving the railways. Our latest step towards delivering a high-speed rail network which will link many of our major cities by a new fleet of state-of-the-art trains is testament to how we are delivering on that commitment."

Presumably this is ministerial confirmation that the franchising debacle will now also not be resolved until the late 2020s?

UPDATE: This from Chionanthus Virginicus...
 
Aha -  we're going to have "state of the art" trains for HS2 are we?

So we must infer that DfT

• have the necessary technical clairvoyance
• have drawn up the specification of  the trains
• have resolved any inter-operability issues with the "conventional" railway

An Epiphany moment... could they have been blinded by a bright object which has stopped over a birthplace in the North East?

Confused travel messages from DfT

Exciting news for those not entirely convinced by HS2!

This from the DfT website:


Good to see that DafT is creating new capacity for journeys it considers unnecessary.

UPDATE: This from Captain Deltic...

So, on the one hand DfT is trying to reduce business travel while on the other hand it is trying to increase business travel by building HS2.

Oh well, consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds. It all makes work for the railway journalist so who am I to complain.