By Rowland Ataguba | 18 February 2026
London Bridge is one of mý more familiar stations for it was at the Hop Exchange nearby on Southwark Street that I did some of my more important work for Network Rail major projects and investments some 20 years ago. Of course there was No. 1 Eversholt Street at Euston where we did our reporting and where the top brass were based. Travelling through London Bridge station always brings back the memories of those days and last Friday was one such occasion.
That Network Rail is disappearing in another restructuring exercise after over 2 decades as a successor to the failed Railtrack which succeeded British Rail in one of Margaret Thatcher’s more audacious restructuring exercises calls for some sobre reflection.
Great British Railways (GBR) the putative successor is a different kettle of fish from Network Rail which is a rail infrastructure owner and manager only. GBR on the other hand is an integrated railway infrastructure owner/manager and operator offering rail freight and passenger services. It would appear an attempt to return railway operations to the public sector as what obtained during the British Rail era. There are however some key differences. Regulation is independent and will be carried out by the Office of Rail and Road (ORR) whereas British Rail regulated itself. Furthermore, GBR will be a horizontally integrated operator on a partially separated network while British Rail was a vertically integrated operator. This means that GBR will own and manage the fixed infrastructure and operate train services in competition with third parties to which it will grant track access. Competition under the new regime will be for the track rather than for the market as obtained under the Thatcher privatisation model. British Rail had no internal competition within the industry.
Overall GBR sounds like a good idea but I have some reservations about aspects of the model.
GBR no doubt will address the fragmentation problem and bring about closer integration of the fixed infrastructure and railway operations. It will also address the issue of foreign national railway companies running our railways which has niggled many. It may also alleviate concerns regarding private investors pocketing significant profits which has rankled the unions and labour.
I would however separate the freight business from the pax business. Indeed, I would keep GBR out of freight so it can better focus on the problematic passenger business. Rail freight has performed quite well since privatisation and if it ain’t broke, why fix it? As a potential cash cow for GBR to cross subsidise the passenger business may be fraught with risk. The 80/20 rule suggests that the passenger business would ultimately undermine the performance of the freight business. If GBR must run freight, it should keep it ring fenced from the passenger business so that subsidies can be applied to passenger operations effectively and transparently
It is also difficult to imagine that a public sector run business will not be bureaucratic and perhaps unwieldy in structure given its size. This could have implications for inter modal competition.
Invariably, GBR will be run by the Secretary of State for Transport and it is a concern that political expedience could influence decisions which would otherwise be better determined by market forces.
While the ORR has come a long way, regulating competition and potential abuse of dominant position by GBR may be challenging and that perception may discourage private operators, depriving the railways of the innovation and versatility they bring.
After 30 years of reform, I have this sense of foreboding, of returning to where we are coming from. The difference this time is that most of us are unlikely to be around in 30 years time to say how mistaken we were to have gone the GBR way