At first, VR explained that subsidies were needed in order to keep the train running. Since the current Minister of Transport and Communications announced that the train runs on profit, it was argued that the recently introduced double deck sleepers cannot move on the non-electrified section from Rovaniemi without special arrangements (a generator van or a certain diesel engine type VR owns). However, existing older generation sleepers and day coaches can run freely all the way from Helsinki.
In late August, the Ministry agreed to the operator's subsidy demand and also required the Regional Council of Lapland to participate with the financing. At first, the Council objected to this as a question of principle: no other region has been required to finance (profitable) long-distance train services. A compromise seems to be the result, as the slight regional subsidy quota is to be directed at marketing. In spite of this, interruption of the sleeper service is a fact, and when reintroduced, the train will run on a less favourable schedule.
All in all, the bottom line seems to be the operator's urge to get rid of a certain service, the passengers and communities concerned having no official say in this play. I compare this set-up with foreign examples.
International precedents
A decade ago, the late British Rail had to cancel its plans of withdrawing sleeping cars to the Scottish Highlands due to heavy protest (both the Highlands and Lapland can be defined as underdeveloped areas).In Finland, about 21.000 people signed a petition to save the Kemijärvi night train and a demonstration was organised with MP's participating. The operator's intentions have also accounted for a claim to the State Audit Office by an MP, a claim to the Parliamentary Ombudsman by a town councillor and a claim by private citizens to the Finnish Competition Authority. While these claims are still pending answer, the Competition Authority has estimated that the question falls out of its jurisdiction.
One contributing factor to VR's stubbornness is historical: our administrational traditions date back from the Russian Empire, where the Tsar derived his powers from God himself. As VR used to be a part of our administration until recently, one might vaguely understand the company's behaviour in this context.
Since the battle with the Scottish sleeper service and also lessons learned from the famous and controversial Beeching closures in the 1960's,a more detailed procedure has been evolved in the UK. The proposed closure guidance based on the Railways Act 2005 calls for a meticulous study of the impacts of withdrawing train services as well as stations or part of the network. Among the interested parties, passengers and areas served by the train are also involved. Even if "bustitution" is an option, alternatives will be thoroughly studied.
Loophole exposed
The United States is known as a country of free enterprise. However, this enterprise seems to have limits. In California, Pacific Electric Railway Company's predecessors were founded to provide passenger train services for the growing Los Angeles area. By the 1930's the company had turned its focus on freight traffic. Therefore, it substituted most of the passenger trains with buses on one of the busiest commuter lines to Burbank.
The travelling public resorted to California State Railroad Commission (nowadays California State Public Utilities Commission), which ordered the company to restore full-time passenger services and even ordered modern rolling stock to be invested. The decision was based on Public Utilities Act dating back to 1912.
The California verdict reveals a loophole in our common market reality. Refusing to run profitable (long distance) train services while nobody else can substitute the refusing party is monopolistic behaviour. This is not helped by high-speed trains that depart in the small hours instead of overnight services leaving at more comfortable timing from the viewpoint of the passengers. The recent proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and the Council on public passenger transport services by rail and road is going to regulate only public service obligations and even this proposal has faced opposition.
Matter for the Union
One can also ask if this loophole is an EU matter. At least in some cases it should be. The treaty of Rome tells that the Council shall lay down the conditions under which non-resident carriers may operate transport services within a Member State (article 71 paragraph 1). According to paragraph 2, the Council shall act in a case where the regulatory system for transport would be liable to have a serious effect on the standard of living and on employment in certain areas and on the question of transport facilities.
Kemijärvi is in a region with high unemployment resulting partly from globalisation. Thus, the area has received special attention from the state. Among other things, job opportunities are being created and the railroad track between Rovaniemi and Kemijärvi is being ground repaired by the Finnish Rail Administration (RHK). Tourism is an important industry which fears job losses as tourists will opt for resorts more easily accessible since the train ceases to run. Finnish track gauge is wider than the Central European standard and the loading gauge is also more generous. One can say that rolling stock operating here is purpose-built. VR is scrapping freight and passenger equipment due to their age, it is explained. However, one might suspect that the true reasons are more egoistic and in contrast with the needs of the society. Consequently, the society should have means to tackle such behaviour. Reflections on the night train battle:
Kalevi Kämäräinen
Attorney-at-law
Published in Eurometri 2/2006