“The passenger train and freight operating companies continue to strive to be as efficient as we can,” he says carefully. “But I’ll be honest, Nigel, there are areas like Driver Only Operation in which yes, theoretically you could say there are efficiencies - but in terms of the wider industry and industrial relations, they are not necessarily deliverable.”
At least that’s an honest answer, even if the missing words are “…until the Government gives us the required support and air cover”.
Because he’s right. There ARE very significant efficiencies to be had, although the sotto voce instructions to TOCs from government has thus far been: “Do what you like, but don’t have a strike.”
This is one area where Whitehall plays a frankly sneaky game. It often criticises TOCs in public for not pursuing savings, or for perceived rip-off fares, while behind the scenes either denying the air cover needed to pursue DOO or (as regards fares) playing a key role in driving fares up and then keeping quiet while TOCs take the rap.
To be taken really seriously, RDG needs to go further than Griffiths’ rather coded language. But of course, no one wants to ‘bite the hand that feeds’ by criticising DfT. I welcome Griffiths’ small steps and appreciate the tightrope he walks - but RDG needs much sharper teeth if it is to be what he clearly wants it to be, in my opinion.
In Griffiths’ own oft-repeated words, RDG has “a long way to go”, so we’ll continue to watch and wish him well in this endeavour. He is especially pleased with more non-contentious work done by RDG (and led by Tim O’Toole) on asset management and supply chain management. He believes RDG has gone way beyond what it was believed was possible here.
I ask about RDG’s credibility and authority, given its non-statutory, self-appointed nature and its accountability to no one. The answer is urbane, but I’ve touched a nerve.
“I think you’re unfair to say it’s self-appointed,” Griffiths answers. “It was a leadership group that came together - was asked to come together by the Government and by DfT. The then Secretary of State said we needed to see how the industry could respond to the growth and efficiency agenda, and also provide the right leadership.”
Unsurprisingly, given my scepticism and Comment page criticisms of the past few months, Griffiths heads off what he believes will be my next question.
Suppliers are represented
“I’ve heard the challenge about why some of the supply chain and ROSCOs are not in RDG. But at the end of the day, in any organisation and in any industry, that doesn’t mean that these people aren’t important, or involved,” he explains.
“But if I had everybody who wanted to be on the RDG around the table we would fill Wembley Stadium, we’ve had so many knocks on the door!”
I counter that if this was aviation, any similar Delivery Group would most likely tell only half the story via membership of Ryanair, easyJet and Flybe - you would also want Boeing and Airbus. Surely, including suppliers would deflect the accountability argument and enhance RDG’s credibility?
Griffiths is having none of it!
“Just to be clear,” he counters. “Suppliers ARE represented, in a number of RDG’s work and sub-groups, and their role is very important. That’s working well, and the other thing that we encourage - and I’ve been speaking to Alstom’s (and the RSG’s) Terence Watson about this - we now have a clear working relationship with them, so RSG will come and regularly update RDG on what they’re doing and their priorities.
“Equally, my colleague Tim Shoveller is on that Rail Supply Group and is my alternate on the RDG, so we have full interaction there.”
This duplication still strikes me as odd - and expensive - to a private sector that normally avoids excessive costs like the plague. I remind Griffiths that I was sought out and lobbied by big suppliers who were, frankly, spitting blood about exclusion from RDG. Isn’t RSG’s very existence proof of my point?
“I can’t speak for them - I can only tell you about the very constructive dialogue I’ve had with someone like Terence - and he didn’t run out and form the RSG because he wasn’t on RDG,” says Griffiths. (Which is an interesting answer to a specific question I didn’t even ask!)
“It wasn’t like that. His strategic agenda for RSG was to say we are punching way below our weight here. He is rightly saying that while some of the companies involved are not UK companies, they do operate here, have big workforces, and should have a bigger voice.
“I think that RSG’s formation was more a response to some of their internal issues, rather than their supposed exclusion from the leadership of the industry. I think we work very hard to make sure that they ARE included - but you just cannot have everybody around the big, wooden table.”
TOC representation
I don’t disagree, but point out that prioritising isn’t difficult, in this instance. There’s plenty of TOC representation at RDG - but is it right that National Express, for example, with its one very small Essex Thameside operation, should occupy a full seat at that table while the giant multi-national Alstom, for example, or Siemens, which has billions of euros of ‘skin in the game’ for maybe the next 30 years or so, is excluded? It just doesn’t bear logical scrutiny.
“And they are very important, I’m not belittling them or their contribution at all,” replies Griffiths.
“We have a good relationship, and in terms of some of the specific work loops like rolling stock…”
My repeated question as to why not have them at the top table merely elicits the repeated answer that the table isn’t big enough.
Griffiths isn’t giving a millimetre: “It doesn’t mean the relationship isn’t important, and it doesn’t mean that we don’t want to leverage off their skills and their knowledge at the right time.
“You’re using the opportunity to say National Express has a small franchise. Interestingly it has had that franchise confirmed and renewed, and it is going to be bidding for more. National Express, over the long term, has been an important player in UK Rail.”
He continues: “You could argue for better or for worse, but we think it’s been working, and we have to make sure that it is an inclusive group while recognising that at the end of the day you just can’t have everybody. We think we have a good structure for leading the industry, going forward.”
