RAILWAY privatisation is an unpopular and, in our view, an undesirable
and politically driven measure; and the Government has chosen a complex
and possibly unworkable formula, with the track coming under different
ownership from the services. Nevertheless, if there is going to be
privatisation -- and there obviously is, unless the Government fails to
last the full term -- then it had better be done as efficiently as
possible. By this we mean the privatised network should be efficient not
just in the sense of cost-effectiveness but also in the old-fashioned
sense of giving a satisfactory service to users. For these reasons we
welcome the appointment of Mr Chris Green to lead ScotRail into the
private sector. This means not only that he will be in charge during the
''shadow franchise'' period next year, which is supposed to give
potential bidders a basis on which to work, but also that he will lead
the expected management buy-out bid for the network. This he is well
qualified to do, to judge by his record as ScotRail general manager in
the mid-1980s, when his energy and determination created a very
favourable public impression. He and his probable deputy, Mr Alexander
Lynch, have the makings of a highly effective team with the right kind
of hands-on experience to make a credible buy-out bid. As ScotRail's
present depute director and financial controller Mr Lynch has been
working for some months on the preparations for privatisation --
apparently to free the current director, Mr Cyril Bleasdale, to
concentrate on a study of the accounts. The Green-Lynch team should
therefore hit the ground running and be in an advantageous position to
bid for the franchise when the time comes.
They will not have much time in which to show their paces, however.
The shadow franchise period is to be six months only -- from April till
October, 1994 -- compared with the expected period of one year. It would
seem that the Government wants to have the sale over well before the
next General Election -- a political consideration, but since the
privatisation scheme is itself politically motivated there may be a
certain logic to that thinking. The new team will also operate under
other constraints. Mr Green demonstrates commendably positive thinking
when he says that the network that he helped to rebuild in the 1980s has
a good chance of succeeding in the new world; but it might have a better
chance if the services were to remain under the same control as the
track and infrastructure. Their separation must make coherent planning
extremely difficult.
Not least, there is the question of funding, which is obviously
outwith the control of the ScotRail management. Potential investors in
the privatised British Rail have been told to expect returns of at least
30%, which could hardly be achieved purely by the improved marketing
that the Government cites as the potential source of the profit. The
only other possible sources are subsidy increases, higher fares, and
redundancies, and the Government's record gives a pointer to which
permutation to expect. Recent investment levels, which compare miserably
with continental countries, must cast doubt over the Government's future
intentions, despite the Transport Secretary's assurances that uneconomic
Highland lines will be kept open. The Government's preference for a
private-funding formula for the vital west coast line to London can only
add to the doubts. All this is bound to make life more difficult for the
new ScotRail team, but it ought to spell out its own commitments as far
as possible and as soon as possible. While we consider the journey to
privatisation unnecessary, we still hope that the train stays on the
rails.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article