Posted 28th November 2024 | 3 Comments
First railway renationalisation Act receives Royal Assent
This is an archived story, and some of the details have since changed. For an update, click here
The Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Act has received Royal Assent, and it means that public ownership of the former passenger franchises is now the default, rather than the last resort.
Some parts of the 1993 Railways Act, which privatised the railway, have been amended.
The first National Rail Contracts which are now set to be renationalised are Chiltern Railways and Govia Thameslink Railway, which both reach break points, also known as core expiry dates, on 1 April 2025.
The last DfT contract to be ended is likely to be CrossCountry, which is set to be terminated on 17 October 2027, when its core term ends.
The Government is reserving the right to terminate contracts more quickly if the terms of the contract have been breached.
Another Act will be needed to create Great British Railways in full, when it will become the operator. Until then, the DfT’s Operator of Last Resort will take over. It already runs LNER, Northern, TransPennine Express and Southeastern. Three more operators are run by the devolved governments in Scotland and Wales, including Caledonian Sleeper.
Private sector lobby group Rail Partners has consistently opposed renationalisation.
Its chief executive Andy Bagnall said: ‘Royal Assent of the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Act is a watershed moment that means the Government has now assumed direct responsibility for improving Britain's railways, but simply changing who runs the trains won’t mean more reliable or affordable services for passengers.
‘This Act is political not practical. It is counter intuitive to remove the private sector from the railways when it is the only part of the system with a track record of delivering growth in passenger numbers to reduce subsidy – especially when answering the question of what will replace it is being parked until further rail legislation next year.’
It has already been reported that Rail Partners itself is to be wound up in April 2025.
Reader Comments:
Views expressed in submitted comments are that of the author, and not necessarily shared by Railnews.
david C smith, Bletchley
Both Ed and Chris below make valid points re. things that have hindered the railway over a span of 100 years. What I find of concern in the current " re - jig " is the way some of these hindrances seem to be in line to be re - created.
Is it still feasible to have a proper consultation on the forms things take within GBR ? ( not something to placate those outside , which then is just shelved).
david C smith, Bletchley
Over the past 100 years, we have tried the"big four" grouping, nationalisation, and privatisation through franchising, which have all proven to be flawed , one way or another. We need a rethink based on 21st century possibilities ,not a return to any of these above , with their roots in party political dogmas .
[I do not agree that either Grouping or nationalisation were flawed in principle. The Grouped companies were burdened by excessive regulation of their freight charges which had been introduced in the Victorian era and had become out of date by the 1920s. World War II was another challenge. Nationalisation was tainted by the failure of the British Transport Commission to plan for tomorrow's railway rather than yesterday's, and its position was made much worse by the obligation to pay the interest on British Transport Stock and frequent meddling from government. The Beeching plan was largely politically-driven by a transport minister whose business was building motorways. Great British Railways needs to be run by professional railway people, and spared political interference as much as possible. The flaws of privatisation were obvious from the start, particularly as the structure was designed by politicians and civil servants who knew nothing about the industry.--Ed.]
Chris Jones-Bridger, Buckley Flintshire
A rather predictable response from Mr Bagnall that ignores the inflated cost of running the privatised railway with it's duplication of roles and unnecessary transaction costs created by the bureaucratic matrix of organisations.
The challenge for the next stage of the legislative process is to create a framework for GBR that simplifies the industry's administrative structure. As BR found with sectorisation a sharp commercial focus is certainly a priority and as sectorisation showed diligent cost control minimised subsidy. Let it be recalled some of the most successful post privatisation executives honed their skills as sector/sub sector managers.