It is easy to get caught up in the macro debates about Brexit and what it means for our economy as a whole, for immigration and for jobs. We can also be distracted by reports on the news of legal challenges and last grasps of straws to stop Brexit from actually happening.
What the RDG seems to be doing is getting on with the job of analysing at a more micro level what Brexit could look like for the rail industry - acknowledging the risks, but also looking for opportunities and identifying areas where we don’t want much change. Brexit seems inevitable - it is important for the industry to own the problem and to influence and shape the future.
We need to keep the GB rail industry (like the country) open for business. This means finding a way to engage with the supply chain in the UK, in Europe and beyond. A lack of comment from the Rail Supply Group on this article is not helpful in this regard - we need to know what we can do to help the supply chain, and therefore engagement at all levels is paramount. Paul Plummer comments on the importance of both supply from Europe into the UK and from the UK into Europe. We don’t want to end up in a position that makes either or both of these flows unattractive for the industry.
Collaboration is another word that Paul uses a lot. As we move towards a more localised railway industry (with increased devolution), collaboration between local teams working to a common purpose is key. However, collaboration will also have wider implications. As a joined-up industry, we need to ensure that we continue to collaborate with our European cousins - gaining from their experiences and sharing ours as they move closer to opening up their markets to greater separation and competition. Brexit may mean that working together could get easier, with relaxation of rules around strict separation between operation of infrastructure and trains. Paul comments that there is an opportunity to follow less the black and white rules, but continue to adhere to a broad intent. He is right to identify that this could lead to a potential lessening of competition, and it could also lead to less transparency in the industry in relation to access to key infrastructure. We should remember that the GB rail industry implemented separation a long time prior to the rest of Europe, and (on the whole) that this has been a successful platform for the industry to grow.
The RDG often has to tread a careful line. It is held up as ‘leadership’ for the industry, yet is heavily influenced by individual members who all have diverse interests and different drivers within their businesses. Trying to represent a common voice across the whole industry is never going to be easy - particularly with some very strong voices within the RDG.
The RDG and its members need to strike a careful balance between what is good for the industry and what would work best for individual members. RDG has seemingly approached this by highlighting issues and guiding debate, rather than telling people what to do. This does mean that individual RDG members have a responsibility to lead within their organisations, and address Brexit issues as they arise in a way that is beneficial not only to them, but to the industry as a whole.
