Rail Delivery Group
RDG
Rail Delivery Group (RDG) was established in 2011 to provide industry leadership following Government review and consulted on by the ORR.
ID: 330475719111-69
Lobbying Activity
Response to Evaluation of the rail freight network
19 Mar 2019
The Rail Delivery Group (RDG) brings together passenger train operators, freight train operators, as well as Network Rail.
Rail freight is very important to Great Britain; in 2016 freight operators delivered £1.7bn in economic benefits for the UK economy delivering substantial productivity gains for UK businesses and significant environmental and congestion benefits, with each freight train removing up to 76 lorries off the road.
Rail freight services commenced operation through the Channel Tunnel (CT) in 1994. Since the commercial opening, the tonnage of freight carried by rail through CT increased from just below 0.5 million tonnes in 1994 to a peak of 3.14 million tonnes in 1998. Since the traffic peak, cross-Channel rail freight traffic has faced issues which have had a negative impact on the volume of traffic. Issues including security concerns raised by the migrant crisis and major strikes by railway staff in France created a decline in users of the route. However, with renewed efforts by the parties involved, there are signs that traffic is returning to the route, with new paths secured by rail freight operators in 2018. Last year saw cross-border rail freight increase its year-on-year volumes by 5%, its highest rise in 4 years.
There is potential to increase this traffic, moving freight onto rail from other modes with the associated environmental and social benefits. In 2017 1.22 million tonnes of freight were moved by 2,012 trains, predominantly as import flows into the UK reflecting the balance of trade between the UK and the EU. Rail freight traffic represents 6% of the total freight tonnage conveyed through the Channel Tunnel. Currently two freight Rus, DB Cargo and GBRf, are licensed and hold Safety Certification to operate through the CT.
The UK is on RFCNSM, North Sea-Mediterranean. RDG members believe that RFCs are a good basis on which to build a competitive and attractive rail freight sector helping to overcome operational barriers such as national rules and procedures. Furthermore, the corridor concept is important at developing cross-border traffic. Although traffic is currently at relatively low levels the corridor is essential to increase competitiveness of rail freight and achieving modal shift.
Whilst the corridor has not been used very frequently, RDG believes the benefits of the corridor are as follows:
•There is consistency for applicants with clear access and certainty;
•There is greater certainty for British operators going into mainland Europe and vice-versa;
•The Corridor Information Document (CID) is a useful and comprehensive source of information;
•The Corridor One Stop Shop (C-OSS) provides a collaborative framework;
•Clear and targeted route of collaboration with Eurotunnel; and
•Paths identified for freight through the Channel Tunnel.
Members have also identified some drawbacks:
•Some members perceive that corridor managers sometimes do not adhere strictly to the framework;
•Sometimes there is limited certainty around procedures for pre-arranged paths (PAPs);
•Some members perceive that the C-OSS framework is not used consistently;
•Limited long-term certainty over path. Currently framework agreements provide up to 10 years certainty over access. The PAPs do not provide certainty of access beyond a year; and
•Unilateral extensions can be unhelpful as they do not always recognise domestic constraints.
The corridor is not the only mechanism for securing modal shift from road to rail. RDG and its members believe it is important to provide a modal level playing field. This includes not over-legislating for the rail sector and achieving parity in charging. For example, in the whole of the EU distance-based charging is applied to 20% of the road freight network and 100% of the rail freight network.
Following Brexit, planed for 29 March 2019, the UK will no longer be a member of RFCNSM. Nonetheless, RDG and its members remain committed to facilitating international freight
Read full responseResponse to Economic Equilibrium Test for national rail regulatory bodies
16 May 2018
The Rail Delivery Group (RDG) brings together passenger train operators, freight train operators, as well as Network Rail; and together with the rail supply industry, the rail industry – a partnership of the public and private sectors - is working with a plan In Partnership for Britain’s Prosperity to change, improve and secure prosperity in Britain now and in the future. The RDG provides services to enable its members to succeed in transforming and delivering a successful railway to the benefit of customers, the taxpayer and the UK’s economy.
In addition, the RDG provides support and gives a voice to passenger and freight operators, as well as delivering important national ticketing, information and reservation services for passengers and staff.
The rail industry in Great Britain (GB) was liberalised in the mid-1990s, with a separated infrastructure manager (IM), private freight operators, passenger operators running under a franchise contract system (Public Service Contract, PSC) and passenger operators accessing the market via open access agreements. In this context, over the past 20 years, the number of passenger journeys have more than doubled. The total distance travelled by passengers has also gone up by 36%.
In the context of a competitive market that runs both open access and public service contracts the British independent regulator, the ORR, introduced the ‘not primarily abstractive’ test, to ensure that operators’ new service proposals were not primarily abstractive of other operators’ revenue.
It is with the experience of operating in a competitive environment and balancing open access with franchises that the RDG offers its opinion on the Commission’s proposals. RDG would also like to note that the European Commission has undertaken significant consultation with the industry via the ‘RU Dialogue’ leading up to the issuing of this draft and we have welcomed the opportunity to input thus far.
RDG believes in an open and competitive rail sector where the independent IM is able to operate and develop the network in the interests of all its RU customers and, ultimately, passengers and freight users. As such, RDG welcomes the Fourth Railway Package and has actively supported its passage through the legislative process. RDG wishes to continue to use its members’ experiences of operating in a competitive market to support the Commission in developing the implementing acts of the Fourth Railway Package. To set out the details of the procedure and criteria to be followed by relevant parties using the economic equilibrium test, the Commission has the right to adopt an Implementing Act (IA) which we broadly support subject to some specific amendments.
RDG highlights the following articles as a priority for the Commission to review.
Article 3(5): The term “financial balance” is unclear. The EET looks at the impact the new open access operator has on an existing PSC. Therefore, it should also look at the estimated financial impact on the financial balance.
Article 7(2)(c): The requirements for the business strategy to be disclosed compromise the principle of commercial confidentiality. The requirements in the list should be sufficient without the overarching strategy.
Article 10(3)(d): Deletion of “in particular rolling stock” – other investments by an operator are just as important. The focus should not lie purely on rolling stock.
Article 12: There is no logical reason for there to be any difference between conventional and high-speed services. The role of the EET is not to segment markets, and any asymmetrical provisions between markets should be avoided.
Detailed feedback on specific amendments is included in the accompanying attachment.
Read full responseResponse to Practical arrangements for the rail vehicle authorisation process
1 Sept 2017
[IMPORTANT NOTE: PLEASE DISREGARD PREVIOUS FEEDBACK SUBMITTED UNDER F6823. A KEY PARAGRAPH WAS OMITTED]
It is stated in the first Recital of this draft Regulation that ‘the practical arrangements for the vehicle authorisation process referred to in Directive (EU) 2016/797 should reduce the complexity, length and cost of the vehicle authorisation process, provide uniform conditions for harmonising the vehicle type authorisation and/or vehicle authorisation for placing on the market in the Union and foster collaboration among all the parties involved in the vehicle authorisation process’
However, the reality contained in the draft Regulation text is very different.
Compared to the existing arrangements for Vehicle Authorisation, the proposed Regulations have now added further complexity (and therefore costs to the sector) in terms of additional requirements related to:
1. Specification of the area of use and extension of the vehicle in the vehicle type authorisation,
2. Introduced the concept of variants and versions of vehicle type.
3. Introduced the concept of ‘Vehicle Type Authorisation holder’,
4. Additional costs to the sector in terms of the use of the ‘One Stop Shop’ IT System even in the case during the transition arrangements when an NSA has commenced the authorisation process
It is our view that this added bureaucracy will therefore make the operation of rail vehicles across the Single European Railway Area more difficult, not less, without significant beneficial effects on safety or interoperability. However, we are aware that CER and UNIFE have also made some very specific comments about the IA VA which we hope that the Agency will give detailed consideration.
Therefore, in relation to these arrangements, without some important amendments, the Fourth Railway Package is in very real danger of being a missed opportunity for our sector - since the original objectives appear to have now been forgotten.
Read full responseResponse to Access to service facilities and rail-related services
14 Aug 2017
RDG welcomes measures by the Commission to open the rail market in Europe and has been supportive of the First Railway Package Recast. However, any new regulations to open depots and service facilities should be proportionate and consider the progress made by mature liberalised markets.
It is very important to legislate clearly for those who do not want to de facto open their markets, even where de jure this may be the case. However, this requirement to put more detailed measures in place can have a negative impact on mature, liberalised markets which have found pragmatic and proportionate ways to work.With this overarching principle in mind, RDG have made detailed proposed amendments to the text in the accompanying attachment. RDG's detailed amendments fall into six areas.
1. RDG is particularly concerned about the contents of Recital 7 and the disproportionate burden it would place on the rail industry. Recital 7 requires the service facility statements proposed in this Implementing Act to be subject to the rules in the Recast proposed for the Network Statement. In Great Britain, there are over 2500 stations and more than 100 depots and is a largely domestic network, with international services contained on a short and discrete part of the infrastructure as a whole. The requirement to publish the service facility statements in at least two languages would be disproportionately costly with no clear benefit. Importing this level of cost into the rail industry makes it less competitive and less able to attract passengers from other, less sustainable, modes. Furthermore, a publication and consultation process for this volume of documents would also be burdensome.
2. Whilst RDG agrees with the spirit of the proposals, there are some difficulties with regards to stations and station capacity. This is because the capacity to arrive at a platform is usually managed by the infrastructure manager or capacity allocation body, who in Britain is often different to the facility operator. RDG has suggested an additional article to address situations where the capacity allocation or infrastructure manager provides a complementary role to the service facility operator.
3. Article 2 provides exemptions to the Implementing Act. Whilst RDG agrees with the principle of not over-regulating, our members with aspirations to enter other markets would be concerned if these exemptions were used too widely to avoid implementing the spirit of these measures. Critically, new entrants in historically closed markets may find it hard to access markets if they are forced to contest exemptions through the regulator. Any exemptions need to be consistently applied across Member States and competing service facilities should be subject to the same legislative requirements to avoid distorting the market.
4. RDG has made some proposed changes to protect commercial confidentiality. Whilst it is absolutely critical for facility owners to be transparent and open, it is also important to have commercial freedom. If the principles of charging, for example, are transparent this should suffice in providing transparency without distorting the market.
5. Article 19 provides information on transition periods. Preparation of the network statement for the working timetable starting on December 2019 has already started and is about to be concluded, the transition period laid down in the draft proposal is not realistic. A deadline for the December 2020 network statement would be more workable.
6. Finally, RDG has proposed amendments to the text where the word ‘ensure’ has been used. Ensure means guarantee and in many cases where this is used, a guarantee of an outcome would be impossible. Wording consistent with the objective of the Commission has been suggested throughout.
Read full response