A Railway Fit for Britain's Future – Government Response CP 1442 (Full PDF, November 2025)

A Railway Fit for Britain's Future
Government Response

CP 1442 November 2025

tertttttttt

Department for Transport
A Railway Fit for Britain’s Future
Government Response
Presented to Parliament
by the Secretary of State for Transport
by Command of His Majesty
November 2025
CP 1442

tertttttttt
This paper replaces CP 1419 (ISBN 978-1-5286-5962-8) presented to Parliament on
5 November 2025

© Crown copyright 2025
This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except
where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-
government-licence/version/3.
Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain
permission from the copyright holders concerned.
This publication is available at www.gov.uk/official-documents.
ISBN 978-1-5286-6078-5
E03487758 11/25
Printed on paper containing 40% recycled fibre content minimum
Printed in the UK by HH Associates Ltd. on behalf of the Controller of His Majesty’s
Stationery Office

tertttttttt

Contents
Foreword 5
Our vision: a railway fit for Britain’s future 7
The railway today 9
The need for reform 9
What’s in motion 11
Our plan for change: a new Railways Bill 13
A new industry landscape 13
A new directing mind 14
Putting passengers back at the heart of our railways 16
A financially sustainable railway 19
The railways as an engine for growth 20
Summary of Responses 24
Campaigns 26
Our response 27
1. Leadership for Britain's Railways 30
We asked 30
We heard 30
Our response 35
2. An independent voice for passengers 53
We asked 53
We heard 53
Our response 56
3. Making best use of the rail network 64
We asked 64
We heard 65
Our response 67

tertttttttt
4. Financial framework 79
We asked 79
We heard 79
Our response 80
5. Fares, ticketing and retail 84
We asked 84
We heard 84
Our response 86
6. Devolution 90
We Asked 90
We heard 90
Our response 93
7. Train driver licensing and certification regime 98
We asked 98
We heard 98
Our response 99
Additional Evidence and Next Steps 101
We asked 101
We heard 101
Our response 102
Next Steps 102

5

Foreword
Declining public trust and pride in today’s railway are
symptoms of a system which has lost sight of the very people
and customers it is meant to serve. A railway that, for three
decades, has been focused on contracts and codes rather
than the needs of its customers and taxpayers.
Britain deserves a railway fit for its future. One that restores a
lost sense of pride and rebuilds the trust of each and every
one of its passengers, with a relentless focus on their needs
and the growth of their communities. As Transport Secretary,
delivering this change is one of my top priorities. This vision is
already becoming a reality as we bring more operators back into public ownership. But the
outdated model of franchising and structural fragmentation still inhibits how the railway is
run.
To fix this, we will introduce a new Railways Bill to fundamentally reform the sector and
establish Great British Railways (GBR) as its directing mind.
GBR will deliver the leadership and long-term strategic thinking the sector sorely needs.
There will be no more red tape or contracts to hide behind: GBR will be unambiguously
accountable to its customers for the service it provides. It will have clear targets on service
performance and quality it must meet, and real consequences where it does not. The new
streamlined and simplified structure will make it easier for GBR to take decisions that
reflect the needs of the passengers and communities it serves, while also maximising the
economic and environmental benefits from opportunities such as rail freight. Our reforms
will also enable staff to get on with delivering a better railway for all users, ensuring the
benefits of their hard work can truly be realised.
These structural changes will provide the foundations for a transformed sector. This
means passengers up and down the country will once again be able to rely on our railway,
knowing that their interests are firmly at its heart, and feel the benefits through improved
performance, reliability and value for money.
Importantly, they will also deliver a railway which can maximise the social, economic and
environmental value of every pound passengers pay and taxpayers invest. This means a
railway that puts its customers first, that connects families and friends, and that supports
the diversity of Britain’s economy, from tourism to steel, banking to housebuilding. A

6

railway that reduces congestion, keeps supermarket fridges stocked and contributes to
cleaner air.
The Government’s Plan for Change requires a high performing railway to drive economic
growth and support the creation of new jobs and new homes. GBR will improve reliability,
generate better usage of our trains and reduce public subsidy.
The views received from passengers, industry stakeholders, and taxpayers on our public
consultation have been fundamental in shaping the Railways Bill and putting our railways
back on track. This Government Response sets out our final plans for this landmark
legislation, taking us one step closer to delivering a railway fit for Britain’s future, and one
that we can all be proud of.

Rt Hon Heidi Alexander MP
Secretary of State for Transport

7

Our visiona railway fit for Britain’s future
This year marks 200 years since the birth of the modern railway. We rightly reflect on the
railways as a core part of our national identity; a British technological revolution which
supercharged growth, drove opportunity, and brought the country together in a way never
possible before. Today those images of steam and steel, progress and new horizons, have
faded to delay, dysfunction and decline. Britain deserves better.
As this government presses ahead with a decade of national renewal, our reforms will
ensure the railway is once again a source of pride. We will deliver a reliable and efficient
railway that gives passengers and taxpayers a better deal, driving the economic growth
this country needs to raise living standards and investment in our public services. A
railway that connects communities up and down the country, providing people with greater
choice about where they work and spend their time. A railway that keeps goods flowing,
ports bustling and reduces congestion on our roads.
We have taken that mission seriously from the beginning. On day one of the new
Parliament, we brought forward the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill,
paving the way for a railway that, after three decades of privatisation, puts the public first.
Services from South Western Railway, c2c and Greater Anglia have already come into
public ownership under this legislation, and by the middle of next year 80% of passenger
journeys the department is responsible for will be made on a publicly owned service.
Despite public ownership delivering this platform for change, our ability to deliver true
reform remains hampered by a railway still rooted in the failed franchising model. It is a
model which has instilled spiralling taxpayer subsidy, vague accountabilities and poor
democratic oversight over how decisions are made. It has left behind a culture focused on
regulation over delivery, where staff are confronted by a myriad of contracts and regulatory
hurdles to make even simple decisions in the best interests of customers. That is why,
earlier this year, we consulted on the legislation that will pave the way for the fundamental
reform the sector desperately needs.
Great British Railways (GBR) is at the centre of these plans. A new publicly owned
company that will be at the core of the reformed rail industry, it will unite responsibility for
providing safe and reliable passenger services with efficiently managing infrastructure as a
critical UK asset. GBR will usher in a new, agile, and commercial industry structure,
charged with delivering the Transport Secretary’s agenda, from improving performance
and growing revenue, to unlocking new house-building opportunities and increasing the
use of rail freight.

8

At the same time, we will deliver a democratic and common-sense approach to running
and regulating the sector. The layers of bureaucracy and unnecessary burdens that have
taken hold since privatisation will be stripped back. The new model will provide true
democratic accountability and cement a better approach to running the railways, with the
focus squarely on customers. With GBR at their heart, our plans will deliver on the
Transport Secretary’s six objectives for a reformed railway – reliable, affordable, efficient,
high quality, accessible, and safe.

• Reliable – by bringing the management of track and train together to improve
performance, with GBR managing day-to-day operations and taking long-term
decisions in the public interest.

• Affordable – ensuring the railway works for both passengers and taxpayers to
deliver financial sustainability and value for money, with clear oversight of fares
by the Transport Secretary and safeguarding of railcards.

• Efficient – by doing away with more than a dozen existing rail bodies whose
functions will move into GBR, reducing duplication and ridding the sector of the
current fragmented web of interfaces and competing interests.

• High quality – with a powerful watchdog to champion passengers’ interests,
equipped with tough powers to investigate issues, settle disputes, and highlight
where improvements for all passengers can be made.

• Accessible – maximising integration across the whole rail network so that
disabled, and all other passengers get a safe and reliable service while removing
barriers and delivering accessibility improvements in a more joined-up way.

• Safe – ensuring everyone feels safe when travelling on the railways while
preserving our world-leading culture of rail safety, with oversight by the Office of
Rail and Road (ORR).

This government has set a clear ambition for our railwaysto make them fit for Britain’s
future. From the millions who use the network to travel every day, to the thousands of
suppliers – big and small – whose businesses keep the railways on track, the need for
fundamental reform is clearly recognised. Bold, decisive action is needed to fully unlock
the potential of our railway and drive forward the government’s missions to kickstart
economic growth, break down barriers to opportunity, and make Britain a clean
energy superpower.

Informed by thousands of consultation responses, this document sets out the legislative
changes that will unlock that transformation and provides the government’s detailed
response to the feedback we have received.

9

The railway today
The need for reform
Today’s railway simply cannot deliver the improvements its customers and taxpayers
rightly expect to see. Despite the best efforts of those working on the front line, the
contractual nature of our railway, the vacuum of leadership and absence of true
accountability means our railway has lost sight of the needs of those it serves. And the
result is clear: customers and taxpayers are getting a bad deal for the fares they pay and
the billions they invest.
Overcrowding, delays and cancellations are an all too familiar story for millions of
passengers day-in-day-out, with a fares and ticketing system that is difficult to navigate for
even the most seasoned travellers. The consequences of this are not just measured in
time lost or money wasted. Every time the system fails to deliver means yet another family
dinner put on hold; a medical appointment missed; or a business meeting cancelled. The
railway can’t make the changes customers and taxpayers rightly deserve to see without
legislative reform.
Driving this failure is a model which for three decades has prioritised extracting dividends
over reinvestment and public service. It is a model which has fragmented the sector across
more than 17 different organisations, with hardworking staff forced to go from pillar to post
to try to get the best results for passengers within a system that is fundamentally not set
up for them to succeed. It incentivises rigid and siloed thinking, a deeply embedded
adversarial culture and results in an entire sector unable to seize new opportunities to
drive genuine change – meaning improvements are hard to embed even when there is
agreement they are needed. The country saw these effects most acutely in 2018, where
the absence of clear accountability and inability to manage systemic risks meant that the
May timetable collapsed, triggering chaos and misery for the travelling public on a huge
scale. Even when train operators were delivering profits, the old franchising model meant
that much of this money was handed over to shareholders rather than being reinvested
back into the system.
This broken model has been embedded over the years within an increasingly complex
regulatory system, with each iteration consolidating a structure which delivers conflicting
accountabilities and unclear leadership, ultimately selling customers and staff short.
Excessive red tape blocks innovation before it can even begin and an engrained culture of
blame when things go wrong prevents real change and improvement. But despite these

10

huge challenges, up and down the railway there are examples of staff delivering genuine
improvements for customers; we want to create a rail system that supports these efforts,
making them the rule not the exception.

Blame game

Conflicting priorities, complex contractual relationships, and a lack of clear accountability
have resulted in the allocation of resource and effort towards identifying who is to blame
when things go wrong. For example, a 2020 report found that Network Rail and Train
Operating Companies (TOCs) were employing hundreds of full-time staff to establish
who should cover the cost of delays, leading to inefficiency for both users and
government.

GBR will provide a clear point of accountability for performance, doing away with the
adversarial nature of the current system and focusing on getting the best possible
outcomes for passengers and freight customers.

How many rail sector bodies does it take to change a lightbulb?

At most stations, TOCs are responsible for maintenance (including changing light bulbs)
while repair responsibility sits with Network Rail. When a faulty light is reported, the TOC
sends out its contractor to investigate what has happened. If the contractor determines
that the fault is not due to a blown bulb and instead requires a repair, the TOC contractor
will report back to the TOC, who will let Network Rail know. Network Rail will then send
out its own contractor to repair the issue. This system results in additional cost (due to
multiple contracts) and worse customer experience (the light takes longer to fix). In
future, GBR will be responsible for asset management activities at most stations, taking
a cost efficient, joined-up approach to station asset management.

Making the most of the Railway

On the busiest parts of the network, demand is high, space is tight, and choices really
matter but today’s system doesn’t plan for that. On major national routes like the East
Coast Main Line, timetables are often built by trying to piece together layers of past
decisions and contractual rights. This means even when a timetable can be agreed, it
may not make full use of upgraded infrastructure or reflect how travel patterns have
changed since the pandemic.
For example, many passengers interchange between services at Guildford when
travelling from Reading towards London. Fragmented planning and contractual rights
have resulted in no consideration of the timing of that interchange, with connections
often only passenger-friendly by chance at times of disruption. An effective interchange
would not only improve the experience of the many passengers that make this journey
each day, but also encourage more people to use the railways, increasing revenue,
reducing congestion on the local road network, and supporting the government’s net-
zero goals.
The establishment of GBR gives us a chance to realise this in the future. GBR will be
able to shape timetables with the whole network in mind. It will honour existing rights but
it will allow smarter decisions about how new services are added, what trade-offs are

11

worth making, and how to build a railway that runs more reliably, carries more people
and goods, and delivers better value for the country.
Leaves on the line

Where trains are delayed due to leaves on the line, Network Rail is usually responsible
for paying the related performance penalties and other associated costs. Train operators
therefore have little incentive to fit additional sanding equipment on their trains that
would help reduce the problem of leaves on the line and improve performance.

By bringing together track and train under GBR’s leadership, the misaligned incentives
which prevent customer focused decisions being taken will be removed. Instead, GBR
will focus on whatever delivers the best service for all customers.

We regret to inform you…
Passengers have become all too familiar with announcements that their train has been
cancelled at the last minute due to a shortage of staff. This is because train operators
currently have little incentive to plan how to staff services for the long term and no single
body is responsible for training and developing train staff at a strategic level. GBR will be
able to take long-term decisions focused on passengers, not profit – including creating
more flexible and resilient workforce plans to cut down on cancellations.

The power you’re supplying (it’s not electrifying)

The programme to electrify the Great Western Main Line by 2017 was delivered
significantly over budget, three years behind schedule, and ultimately de-scoped. The
National Audit Office was heavily critical of both the Department for Transport and
Network Rail, describing a lack of joined up thinking during the project. Despite the
project being de-scoped, it was still £1.2 billion over budget, and that bill was picked up
by the taxpayer.

Integrating responsibility for the railway will mean GBR will oversee all aspects of a
project like this and be the one body ultimately accountable for its delivery. It will be able
to take a more joined-up approach to planning major improvements.

What’s in motion

The government has already made major steps in its rail reform agenda. We have acted
swiftly to pass the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Act, which will enable
us to bring all franchised passenger services into public ownership by October 2027.
Shadow GBR continues to bring together the leaders of the publicly owned railway (the
Department for Transport, Network Rail and the DfT Operator) to start to unlock the
benefits of integration between track and train. We have also already begun putting
passengers back at the heart of our railways again. Latest performance data can now be
found at over 1,700 stations, reflecting a new era of transparency and accountability to
help rebuild passengers’ trust and drive-up performance. Passengers across Greater
Manchester and the West Midlands will soon join many stations in the South East,
benefiting from a simpler way to travel as the rollout of pay-as-you-go ticketing promises to
transform the customer experience. Passengers can use their tickets on another publicly
owned operator at no extra cost during disruption and are now able to make cheaper

12

journeys with expanded availability of advanced fares across LNER, Northern and
TransPennine Express.

While public ownership and Shadow GBR provide a solid platform to make changes now,
the need for deeper structural reform means there is a limit to the progress we can make
without further legislation. Without reform, taxpayers would continue to be left with the
absurd reality of footing the bill for a railway they own and pay for being fractured across
17 different industry bodies. The current system is fundamentally not set up to work
together to best serve the needs of local communities, passengers and customers.
Wholesale reform is needed and that is what this government will deliver.

13

Our plan for changea new Railways Bill
The legislative framework that has built up since privatisation is a complex web of rules
and requirements, beginning with the Railways Act 1993.

The government will change the fundamental basis of that Act to create GBR and deliver
the necessary changes to support a predominantly publicly owned and operated network.
The Railways Bill will provide the legislative foundation for a transformed rail sector
structure. Our reforms will sweep away much of the complex, bureaucratic, and outdated
web of regulations and requirements introduced since privatisation and create a more agile
sector with the right culture and incentives. It will be rooted in the public interest, balancing
the need for a streamlined sector with the Transport Secretary’s six key objectives, with a
particular focus on ensuring our railways are safe and accessible for all.

For any transformation this significant, it is vital the transition is as smooth and efficient as
possible for passengers, freight customers, and businesses. As a result, arrangements will
be provided for in legislation to ensure a safe and smooth transition to the GBR model that
works for the sector.

A new industry landscape

The Railways Bill will consolidate functions currently spread across at least 17 different
industry bodies into GBR. This will include – among others – responsibility for passenger
services, infrastructure management, decisions on the use of network capacity, supporting
functions currently performed by the Rail Delivery Group (RDG), and ownership of the
customer experience.

This will mean that, after decades under a fragmented model, there will be a single body
accountable for the overall performance of the railway and the experience of its customers.
This in turn will drastically reduce duplication of regulation and process, increase
purchasing power and economies of scale, and make it easier and cheaper to plan
maintenance, renewals and upgrades. Meanwhile, the wider sector and supply chain will
benefit from fewer interfaces to navigate, clarity of direction, and greater long-term
certainty.

Similarly, we want to have a more rational and streamlined framework for setting technical
standards on the railway that weighs up the cost to taxpayers and passengers against
each benefit. We are pursuing this outside the Railways Bill and will consult on proposals
in due course.

14

A new directing mind

GBR will be at the core of the reformed railway. It will bring together responsibility for track
and train under a single organisation, planning and running the railway as one connected
system, and delivering benefits for passengers, freight customers, and taxpayers. It will
operate the railway in the public interest, running publicly owned passenger services and
managing access to the network in line with its duties and strategic direction set by
Ministers. It will drive and deliver efficiencies, be incentivised to grow revenue, and make
decisions with a long-term, whole-system financial perspective.

Setting direction

GBR’s purpose as the directing mind for the railways in Great Britain will be established in
the Railways Bill through the provision of a clear set of statutory functions. GBR will be
subject to a streamlined set of general statutory duties which will apply across the breadth
of its statutory functions, thereby establishing how GBR will deliver on its purpose as the
directing mind. These general duties will also apply, where relevant, to the Transport
Secretary, the ORR, and Devolved Ministers to ensure consistency across the system.
This will include duties relating to passengers and accessibility, freight, performance, and
the public interest. A new access framework will also be established in law, enabling GBR
to take access and charging decisions.

GBR will be steered by the objectives and outcomes set by the Transport Secretary via a
new Long Term Rail Strategy (LTRS), and by Scottish Ministers within the Scottish
Government’s Rail Strategy. The Railways Bill will set out a new Periodic Review (PR)
funding process, under which the Transport Secretary and Scottish Ministers will set a
Statement of Objectives and will sign off GBR’s Integrated Business Plans. The Transport
Secretary (as the funder of GBR’s infrastructure in Wales) will be required to consult
Welsh Ministers in the preparation of both the LTRS and her Statement of Objectives to
ensure Welsh Ministers have an opportunity to influence GBR’s objectives in Wales and
promote alignment with their objectives for Transport for Wales (TfW).

While Ministers will set its overarching objectives and strategic direction, GBR will be an
empowered organisation with the independence and expertise to balance customer,
planning, and operational needs. It will be a commercial and agile company. Where
consistent with its objectives and duties, it will be able to seek out opportunities that deliver
benefits for customers and reduce costs to the taxpayer. GBR will be incentivised to
deliver wider social good, balancing its objectives and available funding to achieve wider
benefits such as housing, net zero and regional growth across the country.

A further benefit of consolidating accountabilities under GBR is an industry that is more
responsive to local priorities. GBR will collaborate with local partners to bring decision-
making as close to communities as possible. It will work in partnership with Mayoral
Strategic Authorities (MSAs), enabling genuine local influence and control to support
multimodal integration and the development of local public transport networks. Legislation
will play a role in ensuring that national and local strategies are factored into GBR
decision-making. GBR will also be required to consult Devolved Governments and MSAs
on certain significant changes to rail passenger services, have regard to their transport
strategies and share certain information.

15

Integrating track and train locally

GBR will be structured to focus on delivering for its customers locally. Business Units will
be the powerhouse of the organisation, bringing together today’s infrastructure
management functions provided by Network Rail, and passenger operations currently led
by TOCs into a single local team, providing a locally focused ‘face of the railway’ and
managing track and train together. This will provide a single point of leadership for local
stakeholders and devolved leaders, as well as enabling the development of local initiatives
to encourage more people to use the railway.

To fulfil the government’s vision of GBR being a ‘directing mind’, some functions will need
to sit centrally in the organisation. This will provide a whole system approach that ensures
the government’s outcomes are delivered and maximises value from the system. GBR’s
Network organisation will take on this role and have overall accountability for railway
outcomes. It will set the strategic, planning and financial frameworks that its Business
Units will operate within, aligned to the LTRS set by the Transport Secretary.

The Network will deliver nationally co-ordinated initiatives to drive customer satisfaction,
patronage and revenue growth, and house GBR’s Strategic Freight Unit. A new strategic
system operator function will administer GBR’s Access and Use Policy (AUP), lead the
industry timetabling process, and drive integrated system-wide decision making. It will also
manage GBR’s finances in line with the framework set by the government and provide
direction to Business Units on business planning and financial management.

Streamlining regulation

GBR will be accountable for the performance of the railway. It will have clear targets and
will be held to account for delivery first and foremost by its Chair and Board. The Transport
Secretary will appoint the Chair and will have a role in shaping the Board to ensure it is
equipped to deliver this vision.

GBR will operate under a streamlined regulatory framework that recognises its unique
position as a publicly owned company managing the rail network in the public interest. It
will be subject to a single, streamlined licence covering its activities across all its assets.
This will be issued by the Transport Secretary and will comprise a targeted set of
conditions focused on the key outcomes expected of GBR – particularly around passenger
experience, industry obligations and standards that GBR must fulfil or facilitate. The
licence will be independently enforced by the ORR. The Passenger Watchdog will monitor
compliance with consumer standards made binding on operators via licence conditions.
GBR’s draft licence will be subject to public consultation. We expect to consult on a draft
version of the licence following the introduction of the Railways Bill, and for it to be
finalised once the legislation has received Royal Assent.
We are clear that getting best use of the network must be driven by the people who own
and maintain it, those who can prioritise and adjust capacity in the best interests of all
users of the railway. Therefore, GBR will take on the decision-making responsibilities of
overseeing access to and use of the network and how much operators who use it pay to
access it. It is essential that decisions are made within a clear and transparent framework
and that GBR is held accountable for sticking to it. That is why legislation will establish the
ORR as an appeals body, ensuring GBR’s capacity allocation, access and charging
decisions are in line with its duties, and that GBR has had the appropriate regard for

16

interventions from Ministers (such as guidance) and its own published AUP. The ORR will
advise the Transport Secretary and Scottish Ministers on GBR’s financial settlement,
awarded via the new PR, and will continue to regulate the whole industry, including GBR,
for health and safety. It will continue to oversee licensing of all non-GBR entities, as it does
today.
Establishing GBR

The establishment of GBR is complex, bringing together a number of TOCs, the DfT
Operator, Network Rail and parts of the RDG. We intend to amalgamate the DfT Operator,
its TOC subsidiaries, and parts of the RDG into Network Rail’s group structure. This will
avoid making the establishment of GBR dependent on highly complex transfers of Network
Rail’s historic assets to another body, which would cause unnecessarily delay.
GBR will be a new organisation, with a new culture and mindset from the very beginning,
drawing in a greater diversity of skills and experience from the sector and beyond. We are
committed to making GBR an employer of choice, where working on the railways is not
just a job, but a career people take pride in.

Derby will become the heart of our rail network as the home of GBR. The national
headquarters will bring high-skilled jobs to a city already brimming with rail industry talent.
Derby already has well-established connections with the rail industry, supply chain and
customers, as well as an extensive local cluster of private sector rail businesses. Existing
centres of excellence across the network, including Birmingham, Manchester, London,
Milton Keynes and York will serve as hubs for decision making and industry leadership.

Putting passengers back at the heart of our railways

We know passengers want a reliable railway that delivers value for money and a quality
service. GBR will, therefore, place a relentless focus on passenger experience, guided by
its statutory duties and incentivised to grow its revenue by providing a service that all
passengers want to use. The new, streamlined regulatory framework will give GBR the
freedom to own the overall customer offer, while ensuring the right mechanisms are in
place to hold it to account on passengers’ behalf if it falls short. The Railways Bill will just
be the start of embedding this relentless passenger focus within GBR. Work is already
underway to ensure that delivering for passengers is also central to GBR’s culture and
organisational design.

An independent voice for passengers

A strong advocate is needed in a reformed railway to ensure the passenger’s voice is
heard at every step and that GBR consistently delivers excellent services. Legislation will
pave the way for a powerful passenger watchdog to be established from Transport Focus
to champion improvements across rail services. It will protect and advocate for all
passengers’ interests and rights, offer advice, ensure the continued provision of Alternative
Dispute Resolution service (ADR) for unresolved passenger complaints and independently
monitor passenger experience, holding operators to account and reporting on its findings
publicly and transparently. This will bring roles and functions currently split across the
ORR, Transport Focus and the Rail Ombudsman (RO) into one place, simplifying the
consumer landscape and making it easier for passengers to navigate, while preserving the
expertise these bodies have built up over many years.

17

GBR is expected to succeed in delivering for the passenger and will have every incentive
to do so. If it does not, the watchdog will have tough investigation powers, and will be able
to demand data and information from GBR and other operators to expose issues where
passengers feel they are being let down. This could help highlight – for example – a
pattern of defective ticket machines, persistent issues at particular locations or routes,
failures to provide information during disruption, or common issues faced by passengers
on complex fares and tickets.

GBR and the government will be expected to consider the watchdog's advice when
making decisions, writing policies, and setting strategies which affect passengers. In some
cases, there will be a legal obligation to consult the watchdog. That means when decisions
are made, passengers will have an independent voice fighting their corner, ensuring a
continued provision of an independent service to help passengers pursue unresolved
complaints when they are unsatisfied with GBR or another operator’s response.

In line with consultation feedback, the watchdog will also have the ability to set and
monitor passenger experience standards which are conferred on operators through
consumer licence conditions. This will mean it can amend or develop guidance and codes
of practice in the areas of accessible travel policies, passenger information, complaints
and delay compensation, ensuring it is equipped to drive forward improvements for all
passengers. All operators, including GBR, will be required to meet these minimum
standards and the watchdog will be able to escalate issues to the ORR for enforcement
action where necessary.

Simplifying fares & ticketing

The current landscape of fares and ticketing is overly complex and has lost the trust of
passengers. With 55 million fares available, it can be hard to know what ticket to buy, how
to buy it, whether it will be accepted, and whether it represents the best value for money.
This is partly the result of the historic, fragmented approach to the railways – where the
ticket offer was more reflective of how the multitude of private operators preferred to
receive their revenue, than of how passengers preferred to travel. For example, between
Coventry and Birmingham, passengers face five different ticket options for a day return,
and it can be unclear which tickets are valid on which services.

We are already making progress on improving this for passengers – including with the
expansion of Pay As You Go schemes across the country and the success of fares trials
on LNER services, and public ownership is already helping to reduce confusion for
passengers. For example, when disruption occurs, it has not always been clear if
passengers can use their ticket to hop on an alternative train. We have made it easier for
tickets to be used interchangeably across some publicly owned operators.

Once GBR is established we will be able to go further and faster. GBR will consolidate the
14 existing operator websites into a single online platform that will compete alongside
independent retailers. GBR will also be empowered to build on the reforms highlighted
here to strip back the fragmentation created by franchising to deliver a fares system that is
easy for all passengers to navigate and reflects how they want to travel.

18

A railway that is accessible for all
All too often, the railway has fallen short in delivering the services and assistance that
disabled passengers rely on. This must change. The government recognises the
importance of an accessible network and has clearly named accessibility as one of the
Transport Secretary’s six key objectives for the railway. If this priority is to be met, GBR
must succeed in serving the diverse needs of all passengers up and down the country.

Disabled passengers are a key priority within this and have directly felt the impacts of the
current fragmented system, where the need to navigate a maze of competing operators
has meant that they cannot always be sure they will have the right assistance across the
whole of their journey. Consolidation of services under GBR will mean better coordination
of end-to-end journeys for disabled passengers, which in turn will enable better delivery of
safe and reliable passenger assistance.
Similarly, bringing together the operations of the various TOCs under GBR will make it
easier to deliver consistent, simplified fares and ticketing for disabled passengers by
removing the need for complex negotiations across multiple organisations. Alongside ticket
offices, an integrated, accessible and user-friendly GBR website and app will also make it
easier for disabled passengers to navigate bookings, reducing the number of interfaces
they have to deal with.
Integrated decision making will also enable GBR to leverage greater resources in its
approach to decisions, procurement, and prioritisation. For example, GBR will be able to
provide more consistency around future specifications for new rolling stock to better reflect
the needs of disabled passengers. By taking a whole-system approach to station
management and delivering upgrades and enhancements across both track and train,
GBR will be able to utilise resources more efficiently, removing the barriers faced by
disabled passengers and delivering on accessibility objectives more effectively than under
the current fragmented system. These integration benefits and accessibility improvements
will make the railway easier to use not only for disabled passengers but also for groups
such as passengers with reduced mobility and the elderly. Furthermore, our commitment
to ensuring there will be a representative on the GBR board with responsibility for
accessibility will make sure GBR is supported and held accountable for delivering a more
accessible railway.
The Railways Bill will provide the legislative foundation for this accountability. It will include
a passenger and accessibility duty in primary legislation to ensure GBR factors in the
needs and interests of disabled passengers when carrying out its statutory functions. This
is one of the general duties which will also be applied to the Transport Secretary, Scottish
and Welsh Ministers, and the ORR, ensuring focus and consistency by embedding
accessibility in the legislative foundations of the whole system – with all these bodies
required to take disabled passengers into account when making decisions across the
railway.
The GBR licence will also require GBR to meet minimum standards for how its passenger
services will serve disabled passengers, with the ORR ready to take action if it falls short.
The content of GBR’s licence will be defined outside legislation, and will be subject to
public consultation before being finalised. The draft licence brought forward for
consultation will outline a requirement for GBR to engage with stakeholders, including
relevant accessibility stakeholders.

19

These measures and provisions will enhance and strengthen existing protections such as
the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED), the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory
Committee’s (DPTAC) role as an expert, statutory advisor to the Transport Secretary and
the department, as well as key regulatory standards including the Rail Vehicle Accessibility
(Non-Interoperable Rail System) Regulations 2010 and the Design Standards for
Accessible Railway Stations. The Bill will also protect discount schemes like the Disabled
Persons Railcard.
However, the government is not waiting for the Railways Bill to continue delivering
meaningful improvements for disabled passengers. This is why we have published an
Accessibility Roadmap setting out the actions being taken in the lead up to GBR,
demonstrating that improving rail accessibility and delivering better services and
assistance continues to be a priority for the government. The roadmap includes key
activities and deliverables that are already underway such as the Access for All
programme, which has delivered over 260 additional step free stations, with more
underway, but it also includes new ideas and initiatives – such as extending the eligibility
criteria for the Disabled Persons Rail Card to make it available to a wider range of disabled
people, as well as a small, dedicated funding stream that will deliver a series of projects
with the aim of making the day-to-day travelling experience for disabled people easier so
they can travel with greater confidence.
A financially sustainable railway

For decades, taxpayers have provided funding for a railway that fails to meet the
standards they rightly expect. Conflicting priorities and interests from competing arms of
the sector have led to inefficiencies, misaligned incentives and a lack of focus on what
really matters: delivering a railway that works. This has not only eroded confidence in the
railway, letting down passengers and freight customers, but has also left taxpayers picking
up the slack. Despite recovering passenger numbers following the pandemic, taxpayer
funding for the day-to-day running of the railway is more than double pre-pandemic levels.
This is clearly unsustainable, which is why GBR will be tasked with maximising cost
efficiency, improving financial sustainability, and growing revenue to reduce this financial
subsidy and ensure a fair deal for taxpayers. This will also allow GBR to focus on
increasing passenger numbers for the purpose of revenue generation, with the
organisation incentivised to deliver for its customers rather than focusing on isolated
aspects of the railway, as is the case under the current system.
Streamlined incentives
By bringing responsibility for track and train into one organisation, GBR will be incentivised
to deliver for passengers, customers, and taxpayers. GBR will be expected to achieve
efficiencies and drive value from the improved coordination this integrated system offers.
The new structure will encourage GBR to achieve this by removing the mixture of
conflicting incentives across multiple organisations, meaning accountability will be
focussed on GBR to deliver results. Not only will this incentivise better strategic decision-
making for the railway, the alignment of motivations and rewards within GBR will drive
efficiency – ensuring financial sustainability and delivering for taxpayers are no longer an
afterthought.

20

The Transport Secretary, alongside Scottish Ministers, will also incentivise strong financial
performance from GBR to foster a culture of continuous improvement and innovation. GBR
will be incentivised to deliver high performance and will be rewarded through a framework
agreed by the government.
Long-term confidence
The government recognises that certainty of funding is key to driving growth, better
efficiency, and value for money. It not only ensures GBR has the confidence to deliver for
all passengers but provides certainty to the wider rail supply chain and to businesses
across the country who rely on Britain’s railways. Having a tried and tested financial
framework that instils confidence in the financial sustainability of the railways is key to
providing a platform for innovation and greater efficiency within the sector.
That is why the government will retain many of the benefits generated by the established
PR processes, by taking what works from this current process and adapting it for the
publicly owned, integrated railway that GBR will direct. Doing this will reinforce confidence
in GBR’s financial sustainability, empowering both GBR and the wider sector to maximise
efficiency and promote innovation. This approach also ensures that taxpayers are not
forgotten, with the ORR continuing to scrutinise the sufficiency and efficiency of the
funding agreed via this process, meaning the government and Scottish Ministers are fully
equipped to maximise the value of the support taxpayers provide to the railways.
By establishing GBR with reformed incentives and a funding model that instils confidence,
the government will deliver a more efficient, financially sustainable railway for passengers,
customers and taxpayers. We are committed to delivering a railway that can once again be
relied upon, not only to move passengers from A to B but to be a vital part of the growth,
innovation and efficiency of the whole economy.

The railways as an engine for growth

As the directing mind, GBR will be empowered to make smarter decisions about how
public money is spent by joining up business planning across track and train, and
leveraging the best of both the public and private sectors. This will unlock efficiencies and
maximise the value of every single taxpayer pound for the public benefit. Additionally, GBR
will have various tools at its disposal to increase revenue and grow passenger numbers,
because it will be incentivised to focus on its own finances and customers’ experience
holistically.
As well as helping to ensure GBR can run a better railway for all its customers, meeting
the government’s objectives for the railway will unlock the full potential of Britain’s towns
and cities up and down the country. Our proposals will improve connectivity, opening new
opportunities for people and supporting the flow of goods across the country. This will help
to build on the already considerable agglomeration benefits the railway delivers each year,
improving productivity and access to labour markets across Great Britain.
By delivering customer-focused leadership, clear accountability for meeting the Transport
Secretary’s LTRS and simplifying the complex industry processes and structure, a
reformed railway will be more focused and able to grasp opportunities for growth. These
include building on the momentum of the new government-owned company Platform4,
delivering up to 40,000 new homes and putting the railway at the heart of regeneration and

21

stations at the centre of communities. GBR’s ability and remit to break free from the short-
termism today’s system incentivises will deliver stability and confidence to investors,
making it easier to introduce innovation and seize new opportunities as they emerge.
The government’s reforms will put industry experts in the driving seat, grow a diverse,
skilled workforce, and unlock the long-term and strategic leadership the whole sector
agrees is desperately needed. For the rail sector, the benefits could be substantial, with
partners from freight, the supply chain and open access benefiting from GBR’s directing
mind.
Rail freight
The government recognises the huge economic and environmental potential of rail freight
to support our wider missions and is committed to growing the sector further. In 2023, rail
freight accounted for 8% of UK domestic freight moved and this government is committed
to realising the potential of this industry.
Rail freight is also critical to the UK’s economy and national resilience. It is already
attractive to investors, creating jobs in the sector and wider supply chain that can support
in delivery of the government’s number one mission to kickstart economic growth. As a
sector with a wide geographic footprint, it can offer career pathways and progression to
people right across the country, breaking down barriers to opportunity and raising living
standards in regions outside London and the South East.
Rail freight is a crucial tool in bringing down overall transport emissions as we drive
towards Net Zero, through both modal shift and transporting greener fuels that will allow
other sectors to decarbonise. It will also play an important role in delivering the
government’s housebuilding targets by efficiently transporting building materials across the
length and breadth of the country. The sector is innovative, and is already growing into
new markets such as express services for parcels and medical consignments. Investors in
the sector will be confident that under a reformed railway, the benefits of their investment
will be realised in a way that the current complex web of regulation, contracts and codes
does not always allow.
Recognising this vital contribution, the Railways Bill will apply a statutory duty to GBR, the
ORR, the Transport Secretary, and Scottish and Welsh Ministers to promote the use of rail
freight in Great Britain. The Transport Secretary will have a duty to publish a freight growth
target and GBR will have a duty to have regard to it, alongside any freight growth target
published by Scottish Ministers (see chapter 1 for more detail). In addition, the Transport
Secretary will have the power to issue directions to GBR when proportionate and justified,
and this power includes directions in relation to rail freight. Though not set out in the
legislation, there will also be a representative on GBR’s Board with responsibility for
freight, and a central freight team within GBR to give freight customers a single point of
contact for promoting freight growth across the organisation.
Open Access
Open access can help to deliver our vision by opening up new markets, increasing
connectivity for passengers, and driving innovation across the rail industry to deliver
growth. At its best, open access has harnessed the risk appetite of the private sector to
exploit new opportunities that may be too risky for public investment, and we recognise the
benefits many communities have seen from this.

22

However, in order to ensure we maximise the benefits from the whole network and deliver
a railway that is more than the sum of its parts, we need to take a holistic approach to the
network which drives the best possible value for passengers, customers, and taxpayers,
and which remains responsive to the needs of all its users. We want GBR to be offering
services the public need and want but we also want the private sector to seize the
opportunities where its risk appetite and innovation can provide solutions a publicly owned
company cannot. However, this needs to be delivered in a financially sustainable way,
which takes into account the large amount of cross-subsidy across the network and
balances the comparatively few profitable routes with the need for the broader financial
sustainability of our railways.
Therefore, whilst open access will continue to play an important role on the network, it
must genuinely add value that benefits the public and aligns with the overall strategy for
growth on our railways set by the government and delivered by GBR. Existing access
rights for open access operators will be honoured by GBR until the end of current
contracts. This will ensure open access operators can continue to play their part in driving
innovation and growth across our railways, while balancing the needs of passengers and
taxpayers.
Open access will also continue to play a vital role in international passenger services
between Great Britain and mainland Europe, which carried a record 11.2 million
passengers in 2024. A number of potential new entrants have announced their ambitions
to launch services to compete with Eurostar in the coming years. The government is
committed to the continued growth and success of international rail services, which
provide a greener means of travelling internationally, providing socio-economic benefits for
both the UK and Europe. The government wants to see a thriving and competitive
international rail services market, which will ultimately benefit all passengers in terms of
greater choice and potentially lower fares.
These services will continue to be provided on an open access basis and the rules
underpinning these operations will not be affected by the reforms planned under the
Railways Bill. This will provide a level playing field for operators running services between
Great Britain and the EU and ensure the UK’s obligations under bilateral treaties with
France are protected, while also providing certainty, clarity and confidence to operators
and investors.
Rolling Stock
Rolling Stock Leasing Companies (ROSCOs) play an important role in the industry,
bringing benefits to both taxpayers and passengers. Since 1995 there has been significant
private sector investment in rolling stock totalling over £20 billion. Rolling stock owners
have used their commercial, engineering and technical expertise to supply over 15,000
vehicles for passenger operators to meet passenger demand, improve efficiency and
reduce delays.
However, under the current system the interaction between operators and ROSCOs has
been inefficient and ineffective. Each operator procuring different specifications of rolling
stock from different companies has created challenges for production and has rendered
delays in the delivery pipeline.
Therefore, under this new sector model, GBR will work with ROSCOs and manufacturers
in a much more effective and streamlined way. By setting out a longer-term approach, we

23

will sustain the manufacturing and assembly market and the jobs in it, give industry the
confidence to innovate, and back technologies that will help to meet our economic and
environmental goals for the UK. The government’s public sector holding company, and, in
the longer term, GBR, will continue to lease existing rolling stock from ROSCOs where
they can offer value for money terms. The government will develop a long-term industrial
strategy for rolling stock which will support manufacturing and ensure a stable pipeline of
work. Once established, GBR will take a whole-system and long-term approach to using
rolling stock across the network, providing certainty to manufacturers and rolling stock
companies across the country and globally. Taking this approach to rolling stock will
enable greater certainty and lower risk for the supply chain and will be a better way to
secure value for money.
The Luxembourg Rail Protocol was signed by the UK in 2016, and the government
remains committed to ratifying the protocol, given the clear benefits to unlocking greater
private sector financing of rolling stock, securing inward investment and promoting UK rail.
The government will therefore include a legislative power within the Railways Bill which will
enable the UK to ratify and implement the Protocol through secondary legislation to unlock
its benefits. We are committed to a full consultation and impact assessment before
implementing the Protocol.
The supply chain
The supply chain is crucial for the day-to-day running, maintenance and development of
the railway, supplying infrastructure, trains and other services to Network Rail, HS2 Ltd,
train operators and manufacturers. Currently Network Rail spends £8 billion with more
than 4,000 rail suppliers each year, 75% of which are small and medium-sized, and 99%
of which are based in Britain. It also creates and maintains skilled jobs in signalling
technology, engineering and innovation, and has an important role in helping government
achieve its goals on decarbonisation, safety and passenger experience.
All of this will continue under the new sector model, but with the benefit of GBR’s strategic
leadership, meaning better coordination between track and train, a centralised point of
contact and greater long-term certainty for manufacturers and operators. Providing
certainty for the sector is key to its long-term growth; there will therefore be no impact on
international obligations and treaties to instil confidence throughout the rail supply chain.

24

Summary of Responses
In February 2025, we published the consultation ‘A railway fit for Britain's future’, which
sought views on new policies to be included in the forthcoming Railways Bill.

We consulted on primary legislative changes to bring about the government's vision for the
railways, seeking views on 20 questions. As this was a consultation focused on how to
deliver the specific vision through legislation, it did not seek views on public ownership
more generally, the price of fares, or operational issues, as policies such as these sit
outside the remit of legislation.

The consultation was open for 8 weeks from 18 February 2025 to 15 April 2025. It was
published on GOV.UK. Responses were accepted via online survey, email and written
correspondence.

We received thousands of responses to the consultation. It was vital we took the time to
carefully analyse and consider all the feedback received alongside finalising our legislative
plans. This is a once in a generation chance to transform our railways and we need to
ensure a change this significant reflects the views of the public, understands the impacts
on businesses, and can be delivered successfully. Therefore, this response has not been
published within 12 weeks of the original consultation closing. In the period following the
consultation, we have undertaken further close engagement with affected stakeholders,
the devolved governments, MSAs and affected public bodies to further test and refine our
proposals ahead of legislation. The consultation and this response form just one part of the
continued engagement with passengers, parliamentarians, operators, communities and
businesses that will continue as we deliver a railway fit for Britain’s future.
The consultation received 8,453 responses, including campaign responses. Devolved
Government input into the consultation was conducted through an exchange of ministerial
letters, with these responses being considered within this document. ‘Campaign
responses’ refer to responses prepared by particular campaign groups on specific issues,
to which respondents attach their names. This is addressed in a standalone section below.
For the purpose of the statistical summaries for each question, campaign responses have
only been counted once, regardless of how many individuals submitted them.

Across the many other responses we received from individuals, industry and other
organisations, there was broad general support for the proposed primary legislative
changes set out in the consultation, including for:

25

• The establishment and proposed role of GBR within a streamlined regulatory
framework

• The Transport Secretary setting a LTRS for the government’s vision and desired
outcomes for the railway

• The establishment of a powerful passenger watchdog to be an independent
champion for passenger interests, built from a strengthened Transport Focus.

• A new, simpler access framework to enable GBR to take decisions on the best
use of its network, putting the interests of passengers and freight customers first

• A new funding process to facilitate integrated decisions and enable GBR to plan
with certainty and provide confidence to the wider sector and supply chain

• Industry-wide modernisation and reform of the complex and fragmented fares
landscape, including GBR retailing tickets directly alongside other third-party
retailers

• Creating a statutory role for Devolved Governments and MSAs in governing,
managing, planning and developing the rail network

• Addressing an existing legislative power gap in relation to train driver licensing
and certification

The tables below provide a breakdown of the general consultation responses by type of
respondent (Table 1), and a breakdown of the campaign responses received (Table 2).
Types of consultation respondent

Types of respondents Number of responses
Academic body 3
Action group 18
Business representative group 15
Charity 17
Community rail 10
Devolved Government 2
Environmental interest group 1
Financial services 1
Freight 15
Individuals 532
Infrastructure organisation 11
Other 9
Other private sector 47
Passenger rights group 18
Parliamentarian 9
Public body 11
Regional/ local government 42
Rolling stock 5

26
Sub-national transport body 7
Supply chain 20
Trade union 6
Train Operating Company/ Owning group 18
Tourism 2
Total 819
Campaigns
Campaigns Number of responses
We Own It1 6131
Bring Back British Rail2
Other Campaign 10
Campaign responses
Due to the high number of responses which were wholly, or significantly, based on
campaign templates, and the fact that several of the issues raised such as public
ownership relate to many of the topics and questions considered throughout the
consultation, we are responding to issues raised in campaigns here. This means that when
we refer to respondents in the main body of the document, we are not referring to
responses that were wholly or significantly based on these templates.
What they told us
The We Own It campaign supported the approach being taken towards public ownership
but encouraged the implementation of four additional points to ensure it would be a
success:
• Include key accessibility, environmental and socioeconomic duties – regarding
reinstating duties set out in the previous government’s draft Rail Reform Bill – to
ensure that the railway works for all customers and delivers on net zero targets
• Create Great British Trains – a publicly owned rolling stock company – removing
the railway’s dependence on private rolling stock companies and bringing these
into public ownership
• Give passengers a real voice in GBR – providing passengers with a real say over
what happens on the railway
1 11 responses from the We Own It template campaign were received by the consultation team. Due to
technical issues with an external spam filter service, a significant number of the campaign's template
responses were not received by the consultation team. To ensure the scale of the campaign is properly
reflected, this figure has therefore been provided by the campaign coordinator on the basis of the number
of responses sent, and is reflected in the totals found above.
2 1,480 Bring Back British Rail responses were received by the team. 13 were affected by the issue above.
1493
7634 Total

27

• Back reforms with greater investment – increase investment in the railway to
encourage increased ridership and improvements to the environment through
reduced carbon emissions

The Bring Back British Rail campaign respondents explained why they advocate for a fully
publicly owned railway with no private sector involvement. The key proposals put forward
were:

• Create one publicly owned ticket retailer – where concerns were raised regarding
the consultation’s commitment to ensuring a thriving third-party retail sector

• End all privatised passenger services – which requested that GBR take control of
all passenger services and remove access rights for open access operators

• Ensure new rolling stock is publicly-owned – where concerns were raised
regarding the omission of rolling stock from the consultation and public ownership
programme

• Always put the public interest first – which requested social and economic value,
accessibility, and environmental statutory duties on GBR

The final campaign response focused on the following two areas:

• Demand for public interest duties (questions 1 and 2) – expressing concern about
the lack of detail about GBR’s duties, changes from the previous government’s
draft Rail Reform Bill and stating that there should be a priority to focus on a
socioeconomic duty; this accompanied a desire to disapply competition law with
respect to GBR

• Expressing concern about a perceived lack of focus on accessibility and a desire
for this to be prioritised

Our response

Public ownership

There was significant support for public ownership across all campaigns. While that
support aligns with the government's approach in relation to franchised passenger
services, further public ownership is not being prioritised by this government and is not
considered to be in scope of this consultation.

Regarding the creation of one publicly-owned ticket retailer, the government is planning to
implement this measure through the consolidation of different ticketing functions of existing
TOCs into one central retailer under GBR. However, this does not include third-party
retailers as the government wants to continue to enable a thriving market to ensure that
there is always the best available offer for customers and that standards continue to be
driven upwards through a competitive market.

While the creation of GBR will mean the incorporation of all franchised TOCs into one
organisation managing passenger services and infrastructure, that will not preclude the

28

involvement of private sector operators on the rail network. The government is keen to
ensure that there is availability for open access operators to run passenger services on the
network where there is value in them doing so. Rail freight will also be essential in
ensuring this government can continue to build on the economic and environmental
benefits that rail freight offers. Given the value of the private sector in rail markets such as
these and others (e.g. supply chain), GBR will remain subject to competition law.

Regarding the nationalisation of rolling stock companies, the government will not mandate
public ownership of all new rolling stock as there is significant value in private investment
in rolling stock and the benefits this has brought to passenger experience. Nationalising
rolling stock companies and their assets would be incredibly costly, and it would not be
right to spend significant amounts of taxpayers’ money on buying existing rolling stock at a
time when there are considerable other demands on the public purse.

However, we do expect the owners of existing rolling stock to provide good value for
money in the terms on which they provide rolling stock to the DfT Operator, and
subsequently GBR. We will consider the best financing structures for future orders and
contracts that both give taxpayers better value and private capital a fair return on the
investments they make. Both the DfT Operator, which runs the publicly owned rail
operators, and Department officials carefully scrutinise the contracts we agree with rolling
stock companies to ensure they deliver benefits for all passengers while also delivering
value for money for the taxpayer.

Passenger interest and accessibility duty
In line with the feedback and strong support outlined in responses to the consultation, the
passenger interest duty will explicitly reference the needs and interests of passengers with
disabilities. This will hold GBR to account on this important issue, in line with the
government’s priorities.

Passenger voice
The request from the We Own It campaign for GBR to deliver for passengers will be
answered directly through the creation of reformed incentives and a simplified and
streamlined regulatory framework. This will enable GBR to be more focused on outcomes
for passengers rather than trapped in bureaucratic contracts and regulations; where this
does not happen, the Passenger Watchdog will be able to ensure passengers’ interests
are factored into every decision the organisation makes. This body will champion
passengers’ interests and monitor that GBR and other operators are meeting minimum
standards. The body will also have a specific role on accessibility to ensure that there is a
critical focus on GBR and other operators’ delivery for disabled passengers.

Greater investment
The We Own It campaign raised a concern about there not being enough investment in the
railway. The government provides considerable funding to the rail industry in the UK,
which has increased in recent years, particularly since the pandemic. Total enhancements
funding was £10bn in 2023-24 and total operational funding to the railway was £12 billion.
Whilst this has ensured the railways have been able to continue to operate, it has also led
to an increased burden on taxpayer funding, with operational support more than doubling
compared with 2018-19. Therefore, the reforms we are implementing will ensure the

29

considerable investments being made in our railways provide the best possible value for
money for taxpayers, while attracting more people back to rail, increasing overall revenue
and reducing taxpayer subsidy.

Summary of consultation responses
This document provides a summary of the consultation responses received. It does not
attempt to capture every point made, nor does it seek to cover comments on aspects of
policy that fall outside the scope of the consultation. This document sets out the changes
the government intends to make to its proposals in response to the main points raised in
the consultation. Where the government is not proposing to make changes, the reasons
are explained.

The government recognises that there was some confusion between the terms “access”
and “accessibility” in the consultation document. We would therefore like to clarify that
where “access” appears in this document; this relates to the framework through which
operators access the rail network. Generally, where the term “accessibility” is used, this
relates to passengers not being excluded from using trains, stations, apps and websites
due to a disability or relying on extra assistance (for example older passengers, or
passengers with prams or luggage).

We have provided a statistical summary of respondents for each question where relevant,
i.e. where a yes/no answer was sought, or a range of options was given. The
government’s responses to some questions have been consolidated where there are
significant similarities in responses to avoid repetition. We have indicated throughout this
document where responses to questions have been grouped.

A number of respondents chose not to answer some questions. For the purposes of the
statistical summary of responses to each question, we have excluded those respondents
who did not answer the question.

For some yes or no questions there was the option of adding an accompanying qualitative
response. Qualitative responses have been reviewed, regardless of whether respondents
answered the yes or no question.

Some respondents provided evidence on wider themes broadly related to the railways and
industry but not related to a specific question in the consultation. Some of the topics raised
sit more appropriately outside of legislation or as part of wider reform programmes.
Nevertheless, while the points themselves are not addressed in detail in this response, the
evidence provided has informed the development of policy and, where appropriate,
legislation.

30

1. Leadership for Britain's Railways
We asked

Question 1 –

Do you agree that GBR should be empowered to deliver through reformed incentives and
a simplified and streamlined regulatory framework?

Question 2 –

Do you agree that the Secretary of State should be responsible for issuing and modifying a
simplified GBR licence enforced by the ORR, and that the ORR’s duties with respect to
GBR should be streamlined to reflect the new sector model?

Question 3 –

Do you agree that the Secretary of State should be responsible for setting a long-term
strategy for GBR to align with government priorities?

We heard

Question 1

Of the 642 responses to this question, 73% of respondents supported empowering GBR to
deliver through reformed incentives, with 9% opposing the position, 9% providing no view,
and a further 9% providing an alternative view. Additionally, 82% of respondents supported
streamlining the regulatory framework, with only 5% opposing, 5% not expressing a view,
and 8% providing an alternative view. Overall, there was considerable support for
empowering GBR to deliver through reformed incentives, with respondents emphasising
the need for a simplified and streamlined regulatory framework.

Key points:

• Respondents generally felt there was a need to clearly define what ‘streamlining’
entailed and its impact on cost reductions and efficiency improvements, with
detailed explanations of proposed incentives and their effectiveness.

31

• Public sector bodies and TOCs highlighted the importance of specifying
commercial, public, and passenger objectives and providing a clear decision-
making framework.
• Across all stakeholder groups, there was a strong emphasis on improving service
quality and satisfaction for passengers, and prioritising passenger safety and
accessibility.
• The majority of respondents agreed a streamlined regulatory framework should be
enshrined in law, with clear statutory duties for GBR to implement and uphold safety
and accessibility policies.
• There was also an emphasis on ensuring the Transport Secretary has the powers
to instruct GBR and that the ORR, as the regulator, can hold GBR to account with
legislated enforcement powers.
• Transparency in the decision-making processes and governance structures was a
recurring theme. Stakeholders, including Sub-national Transport Bodies and private
sector companies, stressed the need for clear definitions of roles and
responsibilities.
• Respondents, including business representative groups, requested a simplified
regulatory framework, which eliminated complexities and focused on value for
money for the taxpayer and customers, ensuring passenger, freight, community,
and environmental needs are met.
• Trade unions, passenger representative groups and other stakeholders expressed
concerns that streamlining the regulatory framework could potentially mean cutting
corners and reducing, for example, health and safety standards or protections for
disabled passengers.
• The freight sector stressed the importance of accountability and a secure regulatory
framework for freight operators to promote fair competition in the freight sector.
• Other key themes raised were employee protections, safeguarding employee rights
and pensions, GBR’s operational independence, and efficiency and technological
reforms.
Question 2

Of the 614 respondents to this question, 67% agreed with the Transport Secretary issuing
and modifying a simplified GBR licence enforced by the ORR and streamlining the ORR’s
duties; 12% disagreed, 12% did not express a view, and 9% provided an alternative view.
Overall, respondents expressed considerable support for the Transport Secretary issuing
and modifying a simplified GBR licence, with enforcement functions retained by the ORR.
There was also considerable support for streamlining the ORR’s statutory duties to ensure
alignment with the reformed sector model.

32

Key points:

GBR’s licence

• The majority of respondents felt the Transport Secretary would be the most suitable
authority to issue GBR’s licence given GBR will be a publicly owned company.
Supportive stakeholders included public sector bodies and business representative
groups. Similarly, respondents thought the Transport Secretary issuing the GBR
licence would enable the Transport Secretary to clearly define GBR’s objectives in a
transparent manner.
• The majority of respondents were supportive that the GBR licence should be a
streamlined and targeted document. Respondents thought this approach provided
an opportunity to clarify responsibilities, reduce complexity and ensure GBR was
empowered to deliver under proportionate regulation. While there was broad
agreement on the benefits of a streamlined licence approach, respondents
emphasised that this should not come at the expense of robust and effective
oversight of GBR. Respondents were strongly supportive of the ORR retaining
responsibility for enforcing GBR’s compliance with its licence.
• The most common concern from those opposed to the proposal was based on the
view that the ORR, not the Transport Secretary, should issue and modify the GBR
licence, as is the case today. Some respondents from the charity sector felt that the
Transport Secretary issuing the GBR licence would increase the risk of frequent
changes to the licence and adversely affect accountability. A minority of
respondents stated that GBR did not need a licence and that alternative
governance arrangements should be utilised.
• Several respondents offered views on the design and content of the GBR licence.
This included views that the GBR licence should help deliver economic, social, and
environmental benefits, as well as accessibility protections. A particular view from
freight bodies was that existing requirements in the Network Rail network licence
for land disposal should be retained in the GBR licence. This included a view that
GBR’s decisions related to land disposal should be subject to consultation.
• Respondents also highlighted that the GBR licence should provide benefits for both
passengers and freight. Finally, a number of respondents emphasised the
importance of consulting on the GBR licence when it is initially drafted and when it
is updated, including that there should be specific statutory consultees.

Streamlined ORR duties

• Overall, there was considerable support for our proposals to streamline the ORR’s
duties to reflect the new sector model and align with the government’s ambition to
create a more agile state. It was recognised that the ORR has an important role to
play but that its roles and responsibilities should be clarified. Respondents
welcomed the opportunity to reduce duplication and clarify the ORR’s duties to
ensure they are fit for purpose in a reformed railway.

33

• There was widespread support for the ORR to retain its role as the health and
safety regulator, with respondents emphasising the importance of maintaining
independent oversight of safety across the rail network. Respondents also
emphasised that any reform to the ORR’s duties should ensure the ORR remains
capable of enforcing the new GBR licence.
• Some respondents raised concerns that reform of the ORR’s duties could reduce its
effectiveness as a railway regulator. Some highlighted that streamlining duties
might lead to a perceived weakening of the ORR’s role, and a risk that GBR would
not be sufficiently held to account. While respondents were less concerned about
removing specific duties, there was a general concern reform could undermine the
ORR’s overall effectiveness. A few respondents also cautioned that reform could
inadvertently lead to increased fragmentation and create regulatory gaps.
• Finally, some respondents used this question to raise additional concerns that were
most relevant to other consultation questions. For example, some respondents
believed the ORR should retain its existing role on access decisions, to ensure fair
use of and access to the network for non-GBR entities like freight and open access
operators (see chapter 3 for further detail). Another theme was the importance of
establishing clear lines of accountability between the Transport Secretary, ORR,
GBR, and the Passenger Watchdog, and of avoiding duplication in oversight of
GBR (see chapter 2 for further detail).
Question 3
Of the 627 respondents, 74% agreed that the Transport Secretary should be responsible
for setting a long-term strategy for GBR to align with government priorities, 15% did not
agree and 11% were indifferent. Overall, this indicates there was considerable support for
the proposal.

Key points:

Ownership and alignment with wider policy and other strategies

• There was considerable support for the Transport Secretary to set the LTRS and for
it to be aligned with government priorities. However, while many stakeholders
wanted the Transport Secretary to set the vision, strategic objectives and desired
outcomes for the LTRS, there was strong support for GBR to set the strategy for
delivering against them.
• Many stakeholders said the LTRS should take account of other government
strategies (in particular the Integrated National Transport Strategy (INTS) and the
10-year infrastructure plan), with others also referencing the need to have regard to
the transport strategies of the Scottish Government, Welsh Government and
regional and local strategies across England. A small number of key stakeholders
specifically called for the LTRS to be framed by rail’s five strategic objectives
(consulted on in 2022), which are based around meeting customers’ needs,
financial sustainability, economic growth, addressing inequality and environmental
sustainability.

34

• Another common theme was the concern that shorter-term electoral cycles would
lead to short term political and/or financial decisions being made to the detriment of
long-term planning for the railway.
Mechanisms and accountabilities

• Stakeholders, particularly those from devolved, regional and local government,
wanted to understand what the mechanisms would be for embedding the LTRS in
GBR’s planning and decision-making processes. Some called for there to be a duty
to consult, and for that requirement to be embedded in either legislation or GBR’s
licence.
• A small number of key stakeholders also raised the suggestion that the LTRS
should be independently reviewed and scrutinised by another organisation, with the
ORR, the Passenger Watchdog and National Infrastructure and Service
Transformation Authority all suggested as potential options, alongside
parliamentary scrutiny. A number of stakeholders questioned what was meant by
GBR being required to have regard to the LTRS when carrying out its functions.
Devolution and engagement

• Some respondents were concerned about how a national LTRS could be developed
without clarity over the different roles of the Devolved Governments and MSAs and
their rail services, and that devolved operators would be disadvantaged. There was
a proposal that the Transport Secretary should have a duty to consult MSAs or their
nominated bodies on the LTRS, to account for how decisions made at a national
level will affect delivery and priorities locally. There were also some questions on
how Scotland and Wales will be engaged with the LTRS.

• Stakeholders across all groups raised concerns around the need to be engaged or
consulted on the LTRS. There were calls from a small number of stakeholders for
consultative mechanisms for the LTRS to be included in either the legislation or in
GBR’s licence.

Freight

• Many respondents stressed the importance of rail freight for economic growth and
supporting house building ambitions. There were strong calls for the LTRS to
reinforce commitments to freight and for it to include proposals for increasing rail
freight traffic, with substantial numbers of respondents wanting a freight (and in
some cases passenger) target to be included in the LTRS, and some calling for this
to be a statutory requirement. Some stakeholders raised the issue of fair access for
freight to the rail network and that costs associated with track access charges
should be competitive with the costs of road freight to support mode shift to rail.

Accessibility

• Improved accessibility for disabled passengers who use or want to use the rail
network was another key theme from a range of respondents, and there was a
concern it could be deprioritised in favour of other political or policy objectives.
There was a call for the LTRS to have a commitment for GBR to be responsible for

35

routinely reviewing how to improve station and rolling stock accessibility for
disabled passengers, and for that to be fed into monitoring frameworks overseen
by the Passenger Watchdog. There were also calls for a separate National Rail
Accessibility Strategy. Another respondent called for there to be a legal duty for the
Transport Secretary to prioritise accessibility for disabled passengers in all aspects
of strategic planning and decision making.

Integrated transport

• Respondents raised the importance of integrating rail with other modes of transport
and wanted reassurance that the LTRS would support and align with the INTS.
Respondents also raised the importance of rail supporting housing and spatial plans
and connecting with international ports and airports.

Our response

The government proposed that GBR should be empowered to deliver through reformed
incentives and a simplified and streamlined regulatory framework. In addition, the
government proposed that the Transport Secretary should issue a simplified licence and
that the ORR’s duties with respect to GBR should be streamlined. The government also
proposed that the Transport Secretary should be responsible for setting a long-term
strategy to align with the government’s priorities.

Given the considerable support shown for the proposals and with careful consideration of
a wide range of responses, the government intends to proceed with the proposals
consulted on.
Reshaping the State and the regulatory framework
The Prime Minister has committed to reshaping the state, ensuring that those who are
democratically accountable set the direction of travel, and reducing the number of strategic
decisions taken by regulators. In line with wider government plans to overhaul our
regulatory system, the government proposed to establish a streamlined regulatory
framework for the rail sector that is targeted, proportionate, and reduces complexity.

The structure of the current railway incentivises each part of the system to act in isolation
and often in conflict with one another. Operators are incentivised to focus on their own
revenue and costs, while Network Rail focuses on infrastructure upgrades and
maintenance, with little ability to ensure that these are reflected in improved services for
passengers.

Bringing track and train together into the same organisation will create a more aligned
sector structure and incentivise better strategic decision-making for the railway. In addition,
the alignment of incentives and rewards within GBR as the directing mind will set it up to
deliver better outcomes for its customers. GBR will be incentivised to deliver high
performance and will be rewarded through a framework agreed by the government.

Increased revenue generation will be a key indicator of whether the public are choosing
the railway and GBR will be expected to own the financial consequences of its decisions.
These measures are intended to encourage a culture of continuous improvement and
innovation where GBR will be a leader of change for the sector. The new structure will

36

also allow for local arrangements that cater for local needs and improve efficiency to
achieve value for money for taxpayers. To reduce complexity and eliminate inefficiencies,
the regulatory framework will be clear, consistent, and conducive to the effective
management and operation of the railways. All bodies in the system will have clear
accountability, and there will be improved transparency and efficiency across the rail
network.

A fundamental part of the changes to the regulatory framework is the approach to capacity
allocation. The government will establish a simpler and more proactive capacity allocation
framework in primary legislation, with GBR responsible for making the best use of the rail
network. GBR will be empowered to plan and manage the network strategically, working
with all parties to ensure best use that supports growth, improved performance, and better
passenger outcomes. Simpler and more efficient industry processes with fewer
prescriptive regulations will allow GBR to be agile and innovative to emerging trends and
priorities (see chapter 3 for further detail).

Further reforms towards these goals will be delivered separately to the Railways Bill,
including reform of the regulatory framework for the application of rail technical standards.
Previous reviews of this framework, and of Britain’s National Technical Specification
Notices for rail interoperability, have demonstrated a clear case for change to streamline,
simplify and reduce regulatory burden. The government intends to create an improved
standards framework for the new sector model that delivers better outcomes for rail users,
reduces cost, and supports innovation while maintaining high levels of safety and
interoperability. We will consult on proposed changes to the regulatory framework for rail
technical standards in due course.
Oversight of the Rail Sector
It is imperative that GBR is an empowered directing mind with strong incentives to deliver
improved performance and grow revenue, but alongside this there must be the right
external mechanisms to hold it to account for delivering. Our proposed oversight
framework reflects this with the Transport Secretary being the ultimate source of
democratic accountability for GBR, and accountable to Parliament for delivering an
effective rail sector. The Transport Secretary will also have a clear role in setting GBR’s
strategic objectives and, alongside the Scottish Government, providing the funding to
support the running of railway infrastructure.

GBR will be at the centre of the new model, set up to deliver a better railway from the
outset for passengers, freight customers, taxpayers and the wider public. We will
strengthen the ORR’s ability to be an expert advisor to the Transport Secretary on the
entirety of GBR’s business performance, and the ORR will also have strengthened scrutiny
and information gathering powers. This will ensure Ministers have expert insight into how
GBR is performing to reflect their democratic accountability for the overall performance of
the system supported by a strong regulator.

The ORR will remain the independent health and safety regulator for the sector and
continue to enforce licences, but its other roles and functions will be streamlined to reflect
the new sector model. These are set out in more detail below. Alongside the ORR, the
Passenger Watchdog will be established from Transport Focus, taking on most of the
ORR’s consumer-related functions to provide a strong advocate for passengers in the

37

sector and simplify the current fragmented passenger landscape (see chapter 2 for further
detail).

This new, simplified framework will ensure clear lines of accountability between the key
sector bodies, empowering GBR to deliver but ensuring there is no ambiguity as to who
should hold it to account if it fails to do so.

The sector will be subject to a streamlined set of statutory duties
In line with the wider government agenda on regulatory reform, and to support the new
sector model, GBR and other key sector bodies will be subject to a new streamlined set of

38

general duties within legislation. These duties are those essential to delivering the
government’s six key objectives for the railways (reliable, affordable, efficient, high quality,
accessible, safe) and will ensure the railway consistently delivers for passengers, freight
customers, taxpayers and the wider public. A set of general duties will be shared by GBR,
the ORR, the Transport Secretary, and Scottish and Welsh Ministers. This will ensure
improved alignment in decision-making by establishing a common set of statutory
requirements across key sector bodies, and these, alongside other specific duties, will
replace the general duties currently applying to many of the sector bodies in section 4 of
the Railways Act 1993 that the Railways Bill will repeal. The shared general duties will
cover:
• Passengers and accessibility – We will require passenger interests to be a
fundamental part of decision-making on the railway. This duty is an integral part of
the new passenger-focused culture that will be fostered under GBR. It will put
passengers back at the heart of the railways by ensuring that GBR and the other
key sector bodies always consider the interests of all passengers when taking
decisions. Accessibility is a core priority for this government. We recognise the
additional barriers that disabled passengers face and improving their experience will
be integral to GBR. This duty will therefore have an explicit requirement relating to
the interests of disabled passengers. This will support the sector in delivering our
objective to create a railway that is truly accessible. Furthermore, we will consult on
including a specific requirement in the licence for GBR to engage with stakeholders,
including relevant accessibility stakeholders.

• Performance – Railway performance has too often fallen short in recent years and
addressing this is a key driver of the government’s reforms. Therefore, we will
include a duty within the Railways Bill for the sector bodies to achieve and maintain
high standards of performance when they carry out their statutory functions.

• Public interest and use of public funds – We will require sector bodies to
consider the interests of the wider public, which would include social, economic and
environmental considerations, when they carry out their statutory rail functions, and
to ensure public funds are used effectively and efficiently to the benefit of
taxpayers. For GBR, these duties will ensure that its decisions are not exclusively
focused on its own commercial interests, and that the interests of the public and
taxpayers are considered. These duties will also support GBR to make decisions on
access proposals from freight and open access operators when managing the use
of its network more broadly in the public interest.

• Enabling industry planning – It is important that the decisions sector bodies take
enable providers of railway services to plan the future of their business with
confidence. This duty reflects the need to ensure that railway service providers
(including GBR) are able to plan, invest and make decisions about their own
businesses, contributing to the government’s Growth Mission and providing
businesses in the sector with certainty, clarity and confidence.

• Funder strategies – To ensure that the strategic objectives set out by funders are
considered by relevant bodies, the ORR and GBR will be required to have regard to
the LTRS and the Scottish Minister’s Rail Strategy when exercising their relevant
rail functions. This reflects the fact that the UK Government is the funder for GBR in
England and Wales, while the Scottish Government is the funder for the GBR

39

infrastructure in Scotland. This is intended to provide continuity of approach over
the long-term. Although Welsh Ministers do not directly fund railway infrastructure, a
further duty concerning the transport strategy of the Welsh Government will be
placed on GBR and the ORR to ensure that these bodies demonstrate regard for
the strategies of Welsh Ministers when exercising their functions.

• Promoting rail freight – The government is committed to growing the rail freight
sector, recognising its key role in our Growth Mission and Net Zero ambitions. GBR,
the ORR, Transport Secretary, and Scottish and Welsh Ministers will therefore be
subject to a general duty to promote the use of rail freight in Great Britain. In
addition to this shared general duty, GBR will also have a general duty to have
regard to any freight growth target issued by the Transport Secretary or Scottish
Ministers (in relation to Scotland). This duty will ensure that GBR considers the
impact on and growth of rail freight when making decisions, thereby providing
certainty to the sector and its investors that rail freight will be a much-valued part of
the railway.

• Safety – We will ensure that safety is central to the railways in Great Britain so that
they continue to rank amongst the safest globally. To ensure that sector bodies are
aligned with the government’s safety objectives the ORR, Transport Secretary, and
Scottish and Welsh Ministers will be subject to a general duty on safety. GBR will
be subject to the robust legal framework that currently underpins railway safety,
including the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 and the Railways and Other
Guided Transport Systems (Safety) Regulations 2006, and so a general duty on
safety would be unnecessarily duplicative and detract from the existing framework.
The ORR will continue to perform its role as Health and Safety Regulator and
applying a general safety duty will embed safety considerations when the ORR
exercises its broader non-safety functions.
The Railways Bill will not create a hierarchy between the general duties. It will be
incumbent upon the bodies subject to the duties to ensure that their decision-making
demonstrates consideration of competing requirements, where these exist, and seeks to
strike an appropriate balance when making these decisions.

It is imperative that GBR is supported by a streamlined accountability framework that
establishes an appropriate level of oversight, whilst still enabling GBR to focus on
delivering high quality outcomes rather than compliance with overburdensome regulations
or conflicting duties. Enabling GBR to act as the single directing mind that delivers in the
public interest is vital to delivering the full benefits of public investment in the railways.
Therefore, there are duties proposed by some respondents which have not been included
because they are either redundant or conflicting, would not have the desired effect, or
would prevent GBR from delivering in this way. Duties with support from a significant
number of respondents but which are not being taken forward included:
• An environmental duty –
This is because environmental considerations will be included when the sector
bodies take decisions and discharge their wider general duties, in particular, the
public interest duty. This approach aligns with the ambition to streamline the
regulatory framework and remove duplicative or unnecessary duties on public
bodies, whilst making sure existing environmental measures remain a key area of
consideration when the sector bodies take decisions.

40

Additionally, there are environmental requirements set out in existing legislation,
both at a national and devolved level, that will already apply to GBR and other key
sector bodies when exercising their rail related functions. Therefore, an additional
duty on the environment is not necessary, given existing regulations and other
mechanisms will be available to achieve the outcomes desired.

• A duty to grow passenger numbers and/or improve passenger experience –
This is because the general duties being taken forward in relation to passenger
interests and railway performance will already incentivise GBR to grow passenger
numbers and improve passenger experience. The railway is one of the country’s
most important national assets and the government is committed to increasing the
number of passengers and improving the passenger experience. GBR will have the
flexibility to determine how it can deliver on these ambitions, without establishing
adverse incentives which may conflict with the overall vision for rail reform. For
example, if there was a duty to grow passenger numbers, it could incentivise GBR
to increase passenger numbers through congesting the network, at the expense of
passenger experience. Conversely, a duty to improve the passenger experience
could incentivise GBR to reduce journey times by cutting the number of passenger
services, limiting the availability of services for passengers.

Finally, including such duties would mandate the sector bodies to deliver growth in
passenger numbers or improvements in passenger experience on an indefinite
basis. This would not be possible due to practical constraints such as finite network
capacity, resourcing and the limited number of potential users of passenger
services.
The Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED)
To support the Transport Secretary’s six objectives for rail reform, GBR will be subject to
the PSED when it carries out its public functions, including operating passenger services
and managing network infrastructure in Great Britain. This means that the PSED will play a
much more substantial role in a reformed rail sector than it does today.
Furthermore, the application of the PSED to GBR will mean that all key sector bodies will
be subject to the general equality duty under PSED as set out in Section 149 of the
Equality Act. This means that the key bodies in the reformed rail sector will all share a
common objective and legislative duty to promote and improve equality and accessibility
when taking decisions related to the railways.
The role of the Transport Secretary
While GBR will be an independent organisation at arm’s length from the government and
with responsibility for operational decision-making, it will be directly accountable to the
Transport Secretary. To that end, the Transport Secretary will have a set of targeted and
proportionate mechanisms through which they will set GBR’s remit. These mechanisms
are designed to ensure the railway remains responsive to the public interest and aligned
with the government’s wider transport and economic objectives, while preventing undue
political interference in GBR’s day-to-day decision making so improvements can be
realised efficiently.

41

As GBR will be a large publicly owned company responsible for significant amounts of
taxpayer money, it is right that Ministers continue to have a role in certain important areas
to ensure democratic accountability. The Transport Secretary will therefore retain key
controls in a limited number of areas, for example signing off GBR’s business plans
(chapter 4) and setting parameters for fares (chapter 5). In addition, the Transport
Secretary will retain responsibility for setting overall rail budgets and approving key
strategic decisions. This will include continuing to oversee the closures regime alongside
the ORR, meaning any proposals to close or modify parts of the rail network will be subject
to the same process as they are today, ensuring continued independent scrutiny and
democratic accountability over these important decisions. Scottish and Welsh Ministers will
also have defined roles in holding GBR to account (see chapter 6 for more detail).
The Transport Secretary will use the mechanisms set out below to ensure that GBR
remains focused on delivering better outcomes for passengers, freight users and
taxpayers, while operating with the independence and commercial flexibility required to
succeed as a modern, integrated rail body.
The Transport Secretary will appoint the Chair of GBR’s Board
GBR will be held to account first and foremost by the Transport Secretary through its Chair
and Board. The Transport Secretary will appoint the Chair, have a clear role in the
appointment of Board members, and will continue to seek the views of Scottish Ministers,
as funders of rail infrastructure in Scotland, and engage with Welsh Ministers on these.

GBR’s success relies on its Board being empowered to:

• Focus the organisation’s culture on delivering for passengers and freight
• Ensure GBR carries out its duties as a publicly owned company
• Provide strong assurance to the Transport Secretary
While not specifically consulted on, a range of views were expressed in relation to GBR’s
Board, centred primarily on ensuring it would be able to properly represent the views of
different railway users.

The government recognises the importance of all users of the railway having appropriate
and sufficiently senior representation when key decisions affecting them are made. We are
therefore committed, in line with consultation feedback, to ensuring there will be a
representative on the GBR board with responsibility for freight, as well as a board member
with responsibility for accessibility. These measures will be set out in GBR’s Articles of
Association and framework document to ensure proper representation.
The Transport Secretary will set the Long Term Rail Strategy (LTRS)
The Transport Secretary will be responsible for setting a long-term strategy for the
railways. The LTRS will ensure GBR aligns with, and supports, the INTS, the
government’s priorities including rail reform, and broader social, economic and
environmental policy ambitions. The LTRS will set out the Transport Secretary’s vision for
rail, the strategic objectives that will be used as a framework for decision making, and the
desired outcomes for GBR and the rail industry to work towards.

42

The LTRS will be a strategic framework supporting GBR to make trade-offs and choices in
how it sets out its plans within the funding allocated by Ministers. This will give GBR the
freedom to make decisions that will have positive, long-term impacts both on and beyond
the railway, while remaining agile to emerging operational challenges and opportunities.
When responding to the LTRS, GBR will be required to set out its plans for delivering the
priority outcomes set by the Transport Secretary, framed against the strategic objectives
and wider government ambitions.

The strategic objectives within the LTRS will support delivery of the Transport Secretary’s
objectives for a reformed railway (reliable, affordable, efficient, high quality, accessible,
and safe) within a single, overarching, strategy, while ensuring GBR plays its role in
supporting rail freight customers, taxpayers, devolved authorities and wider society
through:

• Meeting customers’ needs
• Financial sustainability
• Long-term economic growth
• Reducing regional and national inequality
• Environmental sustainability
Considerable work and stakeholder engagement went into the development of rail’s long-
term strategic objectives, including a call for evidence in 2022. They are designed to be
resilient and useful in long-term planning cycles. By retaining them, the government is
demonstrating its commitment to long term strategic planning on our railways. As part of
the above objectives, the government will expect GBR to have a particular emphasis on
supporting economic growth and house building.

The LTRS will be developed in tandem with other key government strategies including the
INTS and the 10-year Infrastructure Plan. GBR will be required to take those strategies,
alongside those of the Devolved Governments and other transport authorities, such as
MSAs, into account when developing its response to the LTRS.

Key themes for inclusion within the LTRS raised in consultation responses were:

• Growing freight traffic
• Improving accessibility
• Improved integration of rail with housing and other modes of transport, including
international ports and airports
The LTRS will primarily be a tool for GBR and other stakeholders to frame their planning
and decision making, ensuring that choices they make, including in the short and medium
term, are contributing to the desired long-term outcomes for the railway. Business planning
processes, notably the five-year PR, Statement of Objectives, and Statement of Funds
Available (SoFA) will be used to ensure that the long-term direction of the LTRS is
embedded in the business plans for GBR, with appropriate funding allocated to those
plans. It is imperative that the LTRS promotes collaboration and ensures strategic
alignment between the Transport Secretary, Scottish and Welsh Ministers, GBR, and local

43

leaders, such as mayors, and their respective transport plans. By setting a decision-
making framework through the strategic objectives, the government is enabling GBR to
retain the freedom to balance its plans and recommendations from Devolved Governments
and local leaders to ensure it delivers the best solution for the railway.

The LTRS will set out clear strategic objectives and high-level outcomes which, to provide
certainty to industry and unlock innovation and efficiencies, must stand true over thirty
years. As there has already been in-depth engagement and a call for evidence receiving
high levels of support on the strategic objectives, there will not be a further formal public
consultation.

However, engagement with a wide range of stakeholders, including Devolved
Governments, MSAs and local government, will be vital to the development of the LTRS.
The Department for Transport will therefore undertake extensive engagement to discuss
emerging thinking and to obtain evidence and analysis to inform the LTRS evidence base.
Additionally, GBR will be required to engage with stakeholders on its approach to
delivering against the required outcomes in the LTRS.

The government is also committed to improving accessibility on public transport and will
work to ensure this commitment is carried through in the strategic objectives. Specific
delivery plans on how accessibility will be widened will be set out by GBR in its response
to the LTRS. Delivering an effective, efficient and integrated transport system that meets
local, regional and national needs will play a vital role in delivering the missions of this
government. The railway plays a crucial role in realising this ambition.

The INTS will be published later this year, setting the vision for how transport should better
meet the needs of its users across England. It will recognise transport’s role in supporting
growth and access to opportunities and equip local leaders to deliver the right transport for
their communities. We expect the INTS to be clear about how transport planning, the
planning system and the delivery of homes and spatial planning work together. The LTRS
will be aligned to the INTS’s vision through the LTRS’s five strategic objectives. The
government is committed to ensuring that the outcomes of the railway are aligned with the
ambitions of the INTS, particularly economic growth, access to opportunity and the
delivery of homes and spatial planning.
The Transport Secretary will issue a streamlined GBR licence
GBR will be subject to a streamlined and targeted licence, issued and modified by the
Transport Secretary with independent oversight and enforcement by the ORR. The GBR
licence will be tailored to reflect GBR’s roles and responsibilities as the directing mind for
the reformed rail sector, setting clear conditions that GBR must adhere to. As a principle,
the government’s position is that the GBR licence should not duplicate requirements that
will be established in legislation. The licence will also be limited to areas where
independent enforcement by the ORR delivers clear value to the wider railway.

Under the new model, the Transport Secretary, rather than the ORR, will be responsible
for granting and modifying the GBR licence to ensure clear democratic accountability.
However, the ORR will retain the ability to modify the GBR licence, with the consent of
GBR, in relation to technical matters. The ORR will oversee GBR’s compliance with the
GBR licence and will be solely responsible for enforcement. The government response
regarding the role the Passenger Watchdog will play in setting minimum standards for

44

passenger experience-related licence conditions can be found in chapter 2. Any
modifications to the GBR licence by the Transport Secretary will be subject to a
transparent process set out in legislation, including consultation requirements.

The GBR licence will be an enduring document designed to provide stability to GBR and
the wider industry. It is envisaged that the licence will be reviewed approximately every
five years, at an appropriate point in the funding cycle, to ensure it remains fit for purpose.
It will cover GBR’s activities across each of the assets it operates (the rail network,
passenger trains, depots and stations). Therefore, GBR will not require a separate train
operator licence under The Railway (Licensing of Railway Undertakings) Regulations
2005.

Work is ongoing to develop the contents of the GBR licence. The intention is that it will
establish key industry obligations and minimum standards that GBR must fulfil or facilitate.
The licence will prioritise requirements that GBR must meet in order to ensure consistency
and fairness between GBR and non-GBR operators, this includes a consistent passenger
experience.

The government has also considered the ORR’s role in relation to monitoring GBR’s
business performance. Currently the ORR monitors and enforces Network Rail’s business
performance by assigning Network Rail’s functions and duties in its licence. The ORR
monitors how Network Rail is delivering against its licence conditions covering areas such
as network management, performance planning, and asset management. Separately, the
Department for Transport currently monitors and incentivises passenger service
performance through legally binding passenger contracts between the Transport Secretary
and TOCs. These include establishing performance metrics to measure how well
operators meet service delivery targets, such as on-time arrivals and cancellations.

The government greatly values the ORR’s expertise and independence, and the ORR will
play a central ongoing role in ensuring that the reformed rail system works effectively. It
will act as a critical friend to both the Department for Transport and GBR – trusted to
speak candidly, operate independently, and add value through expertise. We therefore
propose to reshape the ORR’s role, removing its role in independently enforcing on GBR’s
network management, to instead becoming the Transport Secretary’s independent expert
advisor on the whole rail system, with strengthened advisory, scrutiny and information-
gathering functions established through legislation.

We propose that the ORR will provide independent advice to the Transport Secretary and
Scottish Ministers on the development of GBR’s business plan, and then on GBR’s
subsequent performance against this, including efficiency, asset management and
emerging risks. The ORR will be expected to report regularly and proactively to the
Transport Secretary, drawing on GBR’s own data, with the power to request further
information where needed. A key aspect of the ORR’s role will be regular dialogue with
GBR to identify risks before they escalate and flagging issues to GBR in the first instance
for GBR to rectify where needed. Where concerns remain, the ORR will advise the
Transport Secretary and escalate concerns where it believes action may be necessary,
enabling the Transport Secretary to make an informed decision about what action to take.

Through this strengthened advisory and scrutiny function, the ORR will be positioned as
the trusted independent voice that Parliament, GBR, and stakeholders turn to for
authoritative insight and expertise, challenging GBR to shape long-term improvements

45

across the system. Reflecting this, we are proposing that the ORR’s role in monitoring
GBR’s business performance should be set out in legislation, and supported by guidance
from the Transport Secretary, rather than through a licence condition.

While the ORR will no longer independently enforce GBR’s general network management,
it is our intention that the licence include a strategic outcome-focused condition to ensure
GBR has due regard to long-term asset stewardship, and this will be included in the draft
licence subject to statutory consultation. This will enable the ORR to carry out a focused
enforcement role on this specific issue, giving government additional confidence that the
long-term health of the infrastructure is being managed appropriately.

The government reaffirms its statutory commitment to consult on the GBR licence, which
will enable any interested parties to make representations on the proposed contents.
Consultation will take place after the introduction of the Railways Bill, with the final GBR
licence being issued after Royal Assent and ahead of GBR becoming operational. A
single, streamlined GBR licence represents a significant step towards ensuring GBR’s
licensing arrangements are fit for purpose under the new sector model.

In preparing the consultation, the government will consider the points raised by
respondents regarding additional requirements for the GBR licence. The government
acknowledges the existing Network Rail network licence provides certain protections to
third-party interests – including requirements for land disposal. Work is underway to
determine the appropriate requirements for GBR in this area.
The Transport Secretary will be able to issue directions and guidance to GBR
The Railways Bill will grant the Transport Secretary new statutory powers to issue binding
directions to GBR, as well as non-binding guidance to which it will need have to have
regard, on any matter at any time. This will include a requirement to publish any directions,
as well as variations or revocations. This will allow Ministers to steer GBR on key issues
while respecting its operational independence in day-to-day delivery.
Directions will be used proportionately and with strong justification, with GBR's overarching
objectives set by the Transport Secretary through the appropriate levers to ensure that the
right expectations and requirements are being set for GBR.
As Scottish Ministers fund GBR and Scotland's Railway activities, they will have powers of
providing guidance and directions to GBR over GBR functions to the degree they affect
Scottish railway activities. This will ensure that GBR meets Scottish Ministers objectives
for the railway in Scotland.
To avoid a scenario where GBR receives contradictory directions from the Transport
Secretary and Scottish Ministers, there will be a power for Transport Secretary to revoke
directions that are inconsistent or in conflict with a direction from the Transport Secretary,
or the direction appears to go beyond the Scottish Ministers’ responsibilities.
Passenger Services Responsibilities
The Railways Bill will also ensure clarity of responsibility for passenger services between
relevant authorities (such as the Secretary of State for Transport, Scottish Ministers,

46

Welsh Ministers or other devolved authorities). Legislation will retain a power for the
relevant authority to grant exemptions to allow services or areas to be carved out or
devolved. Exemptions may be made conditional and time-limited and may be revoked if
conditions are breached or time limits expire. All existing exemptions, known as exemption
orders (such as those for London or Liverpool City Region), will continue.
The Transport Secretary will set a Rail Freight Growth Target
The government recognises the critical role rail freight plays in moving goods around the
country and across borders, supporting our Net Zero ambitions as a low-carbon form of
transport, and contributing to our Growth Mission. Therefore, the Railways Bill will include
a requirement for the Transport Secretary to issue a freight growth target. This is intended
to support delivery of the objectives set out in the consultation, and the longer-term
strategic objectives in the LTRS.

Alongside the general duty on GBR to promote the use of rail freight, this demonstrates
the government’s commitment and support for the rail freight industry, and will provide
long-term certainty, clarity and confidence to freight operators and investors. In addition to
this, GBR will be required to have regard to any rail freight growth target issued by either
the Transport Secretary or Scottish Ministers. The Transport Secretary will also have the
power to issue directions to GBR when proportionate and justified, and this power includes
directions in relation to rail freight. This is intended to ensure that GBR has regard to any
targets issued and takes rail freight into account when making decisions.

The LTRS will further reinforce the government’s commitment to the freight growth target
through strategic objectives and associated outcomes. Specific plans on how GBR will
promote rail freight usage and achieve the strategic objectives will be set out in GBR’s
response to the LTRS.
The role of GBR
GBR will bring track and train together into the same organisation to deliver better strategic
decision-making for the railway. The alignment of incentives and rewards within GBR as
the directing mind will set it up to better deliver for passengers, customers, and taxpayers.
GBR will be empowered to plan and manage the network strategically, working with all
parties to ensure best use that supports growth, improved performance, and better
passenger outcomes.

GBR will be empowered to deliver against the strategic objectives set by the Transport
Secretary. It will be accountable for both its delivery and performance in carrying out the
breadth of its statutory functions and duties, including its responsibility to manage network
infrastructure and operate designated passenger services.

GBR will have targeted duties

In addition to the general duties set out above, GBR will be subject to additional duties
relating to specific aspects of its role, for example allocating access to its network. These
are set out in more detail in the relevant sections of this document, but as with the general
duties they have been limited to only those which are appropriate for inclusion in primary
legislation and essential to ensure GBR is able to deliver on our six key objectives for the
railway (reliable, affordable, efficient, high quality, accessible, and safe).

47

GBR’s functions will be set out in statute
In order to deliver its envisioned roles and responsibilities, legislation will provide GBR with
a clear set of statutory functions. These will establish the purpose of the organisation and
provide the statutory footing required for GBR to act as the directing mind for the railways
in Great Britain. Legislation will also include a power for the Transport Secretary to confer
further statutory functions on GBR through secondary legislation.
In addition to taking decisions on access to its network, GBR will be responsible for
managing the rail network infrastructure as Network Rail does today. GBR will have
responsibility for the operation of most passenger services and will be able to set fares and
sell tickets for those services. GBR will be able to provide systems to facilitate the running
of railway services, including certain functions currently delivered by the RDG. This
includes activities such as customer support and information services. GBR will also be
able to carry out research and publish advice.
GBR will develop plans to deliver a high-performing railway
GBR will be responsible for planning at all levels across its business. As part of the new
funding process (see chapter 4), GBR will set out, in its Integrated Business Plans how it
will deliver its plans in line with the objectives of the Transport Secretary and Scottish
Ministers set out in the LTRS. These plans, approved by the Transport Secretary and
Scottish Ministers, will have success measures that will be key performance indicators
used to publicly hold GBR to account. These measures will only cover monitoring of these
high-level integrated plans and will not include regional or day-to-day business planning
that GBR will carry out.
GBR will take decisions on access to its network
GBR will be responsible for taking decisions on access to its network and the ORR will be
responsible for hearing appeals on GBR decisions. For access decisions on GBR’s
network, the ORR’s duties will align with GBR’s duties, and the ORR will have a robust
and meaningful appeals function, which could require GBR to review an access decision
and – in certain circumstances direct GBR to change a decision (see chapter 3 for further
detail).
GBR will be subject to today’s world-leading safety regime
Great Britain has one of the world’s safest railways and maintaining our high levels of
safety remains a top priority as we deliver reform. The Railways Bill will not introduce any
changes to the regulatory framework for managing rail safety. However, we will keep
safety regulations under regular review to ensure they remain fit for purpose and will
consider the case for any changes to improve them under the new rail sector model.
GBR will consolidate functions from multiple industry bodies
To ensure GBR can be established and can get on with the job of delivering for all
passengers as quickly as practicable, it will be established out of Network Rail
Infrastructure Limited, Network Rail’s main operating company. This will avoid highly
complex, time-consuming and potentially costly transfers of Network Rail Infrastructure

48

Limited’s assets and contracts, as well as over 40,000 staff it employs, as part of the
project to set up GBR.

While GBR will be formed out of Network Rail Infrastructure Limited, the way it is set up
and operates will be fundamentally different to Network Rail. Operating within the
streamlined sector structure and with the reformed incentives set out in this chapter.

GBR will bring together roles, functions and capability from across the industry – including
the RDG, the DfT Operator, parts of the Department for Transport and 14 separate TOCs
in addition to Network Rail. In doing so, GBR will be focused on getting the best out of both
the services it operates and the infrastructure it manages to deliver for its customers and
drive a culture of innovation and continuous improvement.

To deliver this, the Railways Bill will include a power for the Transport Secretary to create
transfer schemes to transfer the necessary staff, property, rights and liabilities:
1) from the Transport Secretary to GBR or a wholly owned subsidiary of GBR
2) from GBR or a wholly owned subsidiary of GBR to the Transport Secretary
The Railways Bill will also ensure that these transfers can happen successfully in relation
to Scottish and Welsh Ministers, with agreement from the Transport Secretary if there is a
transfer into GBR. Any Transfer Scheme must be done in accordance with the Transfer
Schemes Schedule in the Bill. The exact detail of each transfer will be set out in each
transfer scheme itself.

In the event a transfer scheme is used for the transfer of employment into GBR,
appropriate consultation will be undertaken with trade unions and impacted staff before
any transfer and will be undertaken in line with Cabinet Office Statement of Practice
guidance on staff transfers in the public sector. The Cabinet Office Statement of Practice is
a policy statement as to how government conducts the transfer of staff in the public sector
and the steps which can be taken, through transfer schemes and other means, to ensure
continuity of employment and of terms and conditions.

Similarly, to ensure that the Passenger Watchdog is set up with the right people and
expertise from its inception, the same transfer scheme approach will be taken regarding
moving staff between the ORR and the watchdog.

At present, the RDG oversees schemes and functions that deliver a wide range of critical
industry functions such as managing central retailing systems and access to journey
information for passengers. We anticipate that GBR will ultimately assume the delivery of
the majority of RDG’s functions, to a timeline that ensures the continuity and sustainability
of critical industry functions.

The government is reviewing the RDG’s functions with a view to ensuring the right
arrangements are in place to deliver on our objectives for a railway fit for the future.
Consideration will be given to the policy outcomes currently effected by the RDG’s
capabilities and agreements, as well as any relevant governance matters and how this
may be delivered in the new model. The RDG and other industry stakeholders will be key
partners in this work as it progresses.

49

It is essential that GBR and the wider sector has the right people, expertise, and tools to
succeed from the outset and that the Transport Secretary has the ability to transfer what is
needed into GBR and the watchdog.

Building on the lessons from alliancing, where elements of the current sector culture work
well and produce good outcomes, they will be preserved. For example, the new system
will seek to emulate the existing level of collaboration we see when it comes to railway
safety, building on the requirements for cooperation established by the Railways and Other
Guided Transport Systems (Safety) Regulations 2006, and the leadership and culture of
the industry to take a unified and coordinated approach to address common issues. Open
communication, integrated systems, shared data analysis, and harmonised industry
strategies, will define this framework. It is these features and behaviours that have led to
Britain having one of the safest railway networks in the world. The government’s aim is to
build upon this success and enhance it even further.
The role of the Office of Rail and Road
Today, the ORR is the economic and safety regulator that oversees the railways. It
licences operators and infrastructure managers, and enforces competition, consumer law,
and safety requirements. It also approves access rights, sets charges, and monitors the
delivery of performance and efficiency targets for Network Rail.
The ORR’s role has evolved over the years since privatisation to accommodate the
complex web of regulations and competing interests which characterise the current
system. The fragmented system has also created a risk that the ORR is required to focus
on taking actions on parts of the system where things have already gone wrong to improve
outcomes on a case-by-case basis and has not always had the necessary information and
levers to make proactive, strategic decisions across the system as a whole. For example,
in access decisions, operators must navigate a complex and legalistic process, including
securing rights from Network Rail and approval from the ORR, all while aligning with
different strategic goals.
The ORR’s current role also reflects the current fragmentation in the system, with
responsibility for running rail services and managing infrastructure split between different
bodies. This will no longer be the case under the new model and therefore the ORR’s role
has to be adapted within a system that is changing. Establishing GBR as a directing mind
while streamlining the role of the ORR will create a clear, accountable system that
manages risks, assumptions, and changes with clarity and fairness. This is, therefore, a
vital step in delivering a simplified regulatory framework focused on the passengers,
businesses, and customers it is there to serve.
In the future, the ORR will be a more focussed organisation with a streamlined role. It will
retain critical responsibilities where the system works, in areas such as safety regulation
and competition law enforcement, but it will no longer have decision-making power over
access rights. Instead, GBR will be the primary decision-maker for managing capacity,
access and network planning – consolidating roles that are currently fragmented across
multiple bodies. The ORR’s new role will include:

50

• Monitoring and enforcing the Transport Secretary issued GBR licence; focused on
passenger experience, industry obligations and processes that GBR must fulfil or
facilitate
• A strengthened independent expert advisory role in legislation to monitor GBR’s
business performance and advise the Transport Secretary and Scottish Ministers.
• Taking up a new access appeals function to give confidence to freight and open
access operators (see chapter 3 for more detail)
• Advising Funders on whether GBR’s business plans are efficient and align with their
Statement of Objectives and Statement of Funds Available (see chapter 4 for more
detail)
The ORR will also retain existing functions where parts of the system currently work or are
safety critical, including:
• Its role as the health and safety regulator for rail, maintaining the system that has
led to Britain’s railways consistently ranking among the safest in the world
• Licensing of non-GBR operators, stations, depots and infrastructure managers and
managing the access regime for the non-GBR network
• The overall regulation of cross-border services between the UK and France
• Enforcing competition law concurrently with the Competition and Markets Authority
(CMA) and enforcing consumer law in relation to the railways
• Continuing to produce and publish ONS-accredited Official Rail Statistics for the rail
sector
• Acting as highways monitor for strategic roads
The ORR will have specific additional duties
To support its new role, the ORR will be subject to the streamlined set of general duties
set out above. It will also retain some specific duties to fulfil its unique roles, for example:
• To have regard to general guidance issued by the Transport Secretary when
exercising its general safety functions, other than in respect of its
enforcement of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 and associated
regulations – this exception is to preserve the operational independence of the
ORR in carrying out its safety enforcement. This duty is the only duty in the
Railways Bill that applies to the ORR’s safety functions and will ensure guidance
issued by the Transport Secretary can be considered across safety as well as the
ORR’s other functions.
• To have regard to guidance issued by the Transport Secretary and Scottish
Ministers when exercising non-safety functions – both the Transport Secretary
and Scottish Ministers will be funders of GBR, meaning it is right that the ORR has

51

regard to their guidance. This will ensure existing devolution arrangements are
maintained and that the ORR takes the views of Scottish Ministers into account on
matters related to Scotland.
• To promote competition – the application of the ORR’s existing duty to promote
competition in the provision of railway services will be amended to ensure it is
focused on rail markets where competition adds most value in the new model, for
example in the supply chain. This duty will not apply to the ORR’s access appeals
function, to ensure access decision-making remains with GBR as the directing mind
and that it can run the network in the public interest.
The ORR has other duties set out in legislation that it will continue to be subject to, such
as the Growth Duty – which the government has recently announced plans to strengthen
and also provide more clarity around what growth means in practice for regulators. The
government is clear, however, that reform of the ORR’s duties must not reduce its ability to
act as an effective regulator for the railways or provide effective oversight of GBR and the
wider railways. The purpose is to ensure the ORR is set up to fulfil its role effectively in the
reformed rail sector.
The ORR will receive funding from GBR
We are also making a legislative change to how the ORR’s non-safety functions, such as
economic regulation, will be funded. This is to replace Network Rail’s licence fee, which
currently funds most of the ORR’s non-safety railway functions, with a new statutory levy
on GBR to cover the costs incurred. Adjacent infrastructure managers (AIMs) such as High
Speed 1, Northern Ireland Infrastructure and the Core Valley Lines will continue to pay a
levy as they do today. This change is necessary to ensure the ORR receives a stable and
legally secure funding stream that is independent of direct departmental budget decisions,
and independent of the Transport Secretary-issued GBR licence, but which also reflects
the financial flows under the new sector model.
The ORR will not have the power to fine GBR in relation to its licence
As GBR will be a publicly owned company overseeing a primarily publicly owned railway,
we intend to remove the ORR’s power to fine GBR when enforcing the GBR licence. Fines
would simply recycle public funds and risk distorting incentives in ways that undermine its
intended goals. The ORR will still retain other robust enforcement powers to ensure GBR’s
compliance with its licence, including issuing enforcement notices. Additionally, the ORR
will retain its health and safety, consumer law and competition law enforcement powers.
The ORR will retain the ability to issue fines for breaches of licence conditions by non-
GBR licensees.
Most of the ORR’s consumer functions will move to the Passenger Watchdog
As part of the Railways Bill, the government will strengthen Transport Focus to create the
Passenger Watchdog to advocate for all passengers and hold GBR accountable for
delivering excellent services to them. The government is clear the watchdog should reduce
the fragmentation of the current passenger focused functions in the industry and clear
lines of accountability should be established between the roles of the Transport Secretary,
GBR, the ORR and the Passenger Watchdog. In the new system, we propose that the
ORR will enforce minimum consumer standards, set by the watchdog, which operators

52

must adhere to ensuring a consistent passenger experience across the system including
for accessible travel policies, complaint handling, passenger information, and delay
compensation. Full details on the functions of each body can be found in chapter 2.

53

2. An independent voice for passengers
We asked

Question 4 –

What are your views on the proposed functions of the new passenger watchdog?

Question 5 –

Which of the approaches would best enable the establishment of the new passenger
watchdog?

Question 6 –

Which of the options to establish the Alternative Dispute Resolution function as part of the
passenger watchdog would deliver the best outcome for passengers in your view?

We heard
Question 4
We received a total of 604 responses to this question. There was considerable support for
the proposed functions of the Passenger Watchdog, with 69% of respondents agreeing
with all the proposed functions. 16% of respondents were supportive or open to the idea of
a watchdog but did not agree with all the proposed functions or had further suggestions.
Only 5% disagreed with the proposal altogether and 10% of respondents did not express a
view.
Key points:
• Most responses across all groups supported the creation of a strong, independent
watchdog to advocate for passengers, provided it has sufficient resources,
independence from government influence, and a clear focus on improving

54

passenger experience. The most supportive groups were individual respondents,
passenger rights groups and private sector rail organisations.
• Many respondents emphasised that the watchdog must have clear authority and
enforcement powers to ensure its effectiveness. Without these, there was concern
that it would be reduced to an advisory role with limited impact.
• Some respondents disagreed with the proposed functions of the watchdog, citing
concerns about inefficiency, unnecessary bureaucracy, and potential overlap with
existing bodies like the ORR and Transport Focus. Some suggested that the
watchdog's creation may not add value and could complicate the current system.
Individual respondents expressed the most sceptical views.
• Some respondents also advocated for enhancing the roles of existing bodies like
Transport Focus or the ORR instead of creating a new watchdog. Others proposed
alternative solutions, such as regional or locally based oversight mechanisms.
• Several responses highlighted the need for the watchdog to focus on accessibility
for disabled passengers and other vulnerable groups. Suggestions included
stronger enforcement powers, proactive monitoring, and a clear mandate to
address system wide accessibility issues.
• There were calls for the watchdog to adopt a multi-modal approach, integrating
oversight of buses, trams, and other transport modes to ensure a seamless
passenger experience. Some also suggested including freight considerations within
the watchdog’s scope.
Question 5
For Question 5, a total of 605 respondents provided a view on which approach would best
enable the establishment of the Passenger Watchdog. There was considerable support for
the watchdog to be a statutory advisor with regulatory functions, with 66% of all
respondents agreeing with the proposal. 14% wanted the watchdog to be a statutory
advisor only. 20% did not agree with the proposal, didn’t have an opinion, or wanted
something else.
Key points:
• The majority of responses were supportive of the Passenger Watchdog having a
statutory advisor and regulatory role. The support came widely from different
groups of respondents including individuals, local authorities, TOCs, rail and other
private sector organisations, passenger rights and business representative groups,
as well as charities and unions. The recurring theme among those supporting the
proposals was that the watchdog should be powerful. Each group had a few
responses that did not support the proposals citing concerns around duplication of
functions between bodies already in existence.

55

• The majority of respondents supported the statutory advisor with regulatory
functions option for the watchdog. They believed that this approach would provide a
structured and effective way to manage regulatory functions.
• A significant number of respondents stated that they would like the watchdog to
have the power to hold GBR to account and expressed a desire for the watchdog
to have a strong oversight role and mechanisms to ensure accountability.
• Some respondents said that the watchdog should be independent and have
enforcement powers, with a small number wanting it to have the ability to sanction
and fine operators. There was also a preference for a watchdog that can operate
autonomously and take binding action when necessary.
• A small number did not consider that change was needed and were concerned
about costs and duplication with the ORR’s role. This reflects a minority view that
the current system is sufficient, and that changes could be costly and unnecessary.
• A few respondents also raised the issue of open access operators and wanted
reassurance that the watchdog would also oversee them.
Question 6
For Question 6, a total of 569 respondents provided a view on which of the options to
establish the ADR function as part of the Passenger Watchdog would deliver the best
outcome for passengers. 24% agreed with the proposal to transfer the ORR’s sponsorship
of RO to the watchdog, while 42% supported the transfer of the RO’s powers and
functions. 14% said they disagreed with both options and 20% either did not have an
opinion or offered alternative views.
Key points:
• The majority of respondents agreed with either transferring the sponsorship of the
RO or its powers to the watchdog. Most, especially individual respondents,
supported simplifying the system and giving the watchdog the responsibility to
address unresolved complaints, citing that this would give the watchdog a better
ability to drive change and make the complaints process quicker and simpler for
passengers.
• Those who supported the transfer of the RO’s sponsorship mostly believed it would
reduce disruption to passengers during the transition period and maintain the high
standard and independence of the current ADR service. This option had most
support from rail industry bodies, including the current watchdog, Transport Focus.
• Some respondents disagreed with both options, citing concerns about the
ombudsman's independence, the addition of more bodies, and the cost to
taxpayers.

56

Our response

Establishing the Passenger Watchdog
The current landscape of passenger rights, standards, and redress is frustratingly complex
and difficult to navigate. Passengers dealing with limited access to services, persistent
delays, and cancellations during their journeys are faced with a lack of clear routes to raise
concerns or reliable mechanisms to bring about change. Therefore, we will establish a
powerful passenger watchdog to ensure there is an effective passenger focused body to
support GBR and other operators in delivering an excellent passenger experience,
including more accessible services, and to address the fragmentation of the current rail
consumer landscape. While GBR will own its relationship with passengers and be
responsible for delivering excellent passenger services from the outset, the watchdog will:
• Advise and support GBR to help shape its passenger offer and advise the
Transport Secretary on passengers’ interests and needs
• Monitor passenger experience across rail services in Great Britain
• Shine a light on any issues that passengers face, ultimately raising persistent
issues that impact passenger experience more formally with GBR, other operators
and the ORR
• Hold GBR and other operators to account for how well they are delivering for all
passengers
The Passenger Watchdog will not be a new body but will be established from Transport
Focus by transferring the sponsorship of the RO and most consumer functions of the ORR
into it. This will help to streamline the currently fragmented rail consumer landscape, in line
with the government’s ambitions to create a more agile state, and ensure all passengers
are represented more effectively. It will also create clearer lines of accountability, so that
passengers know where to go when issues arise and can be confident they have a
powerful voice in the sector standing up for them. In addition, we will expand on Transport
Focus’ existing rail powers in legislation to ensure the watchdog is sufficiently powerful and
able to seek improvements from operators where necessary. This includes enhanced
investigation powers so the watchdog can request information from operators in a timely
manner. We also considered creating an entirely new body or establishing it from the
ORR. However, our approach was chosen for the following key reasons:
• Transport Focus is already a recognised and independent passenger watchdog,
and its cultural values closely align with the single-minded passenger focus desired
of the new body. Expanding its powers and bringing other consumer functions into
its remit will maintain the already established watchdog and give it more power to
advocate on passengers' behalf.
• Transport Focus has existing powers and expertise to assess and publish
information about the performance of Britain’s railways, investigate issues affecting
passengers and make recommendations for improvements. These powers will be
strengthened further through the Railways Bill.

57

• Building the watchdog out of Transport Focus is the quickest approach to
implement and will have the lowest impact in terms of the transfer of staff and other
assets.
• Transport Focus is already multi-modal, allowing the watchdog to access these
functions from the start. This is especially important as passengers often use more
than one mode of transport when making their journeys. The watchdog is therefore
able to take a more holistic view of the challenges passengers face, investigate
issues and advocate improvements for cross-modal journeys.
• Creating a new body and transferring more staff and assets into it would need
considerably more time, resources and incur more cost. Due to the scope of the
Bill, we would also be unable to transfer Transport Focus’ functions in non-rail
modes, which would create further fragmentation of the transport consumer
landscape.
• Until the Railways Bill is introduced and during the subsequent transition period,
Transport Focus will continue operations until its new powers and functions are fully
set up alongside GBR, providing continuity to passengers.
Several respondents raised concerns about whether the watchdog would be sufficiently
independent from both the industry and government to freely express its views on the
performance of publicly owned railways. Ensuring its independence is essential. While we
acknowledge that Transport Focus as a non-departmental public body (NDPB) receives
government funding, it independently determines its funding needs to meet its statutory
duties (which will increase as it takes on an expanded watchdog role). These requirements
are approved by a Board and Chair appointed by the Transport Secretary. As part of its
NDPB classification, Transport Focus is funded through a government grant in aid, and the
Department for Transport does not exercise detailed controls over day-to-day spending.
Therefore, although Transport Focus is sponsored by the Department, its operations and
policymaking remain independent. This independence will be preserved as it transitions
into its new role.
The watchdog will cover all the national rail services which are currently in Transport
Focus’ scope, including open access services. Transport Focus currently engages with all
open access operators on the GB network and with some owning groups. The exception to
this is Eurostar services, which are primarily overseen by London TravelWatch. This
includes bilateral meetings, providing feedback on passenger experience when relevant,
and sharing data and publications. Open access operators are also included in relevant
user surveys. While this will not be mandated in legislation, we expect this engagement
will continue as Transport Focus transforms into the strengthened watchdog.
The watchdog will also set some passenger experience standards which will be conferred
on operators in licences, this will apply to all licensed passenger train operators and
station operators. Some responses also called for freight services to be included in the
remit of the watchdog. However, we do not consider it to be appropriate for a passenger
watchdog to also cover rail freight services, as the needs of these two client groups are
different and sometimes competing. The ORR will act as a robust and independent
appeals body for operators including rail freight to ensure fair and transparent network
access. The rail freight growth target, GBR’s freight duty, and accountability for freight on

58

GBR’s Board will ensure the interests of the freight sector are properly considered and
championed alongside passenger interests.
The functions of the Passenger Watchdog
While we are establishing the watchdog from Transport Focus, the Railways Bill will
expand its powers to ensure it is able to hold GBR and other operators to account.
Watchdog
The watchdog will cover all rail services within its remit and play an important role in
holding rail operators to account for how effectively they are delivering for all passengers.
It will do this by monitoring passenger experience, investigating emerging issues, and
overseeing ADR to identify repeated issues and common themes.
As Transport Focus does today, it will be able to conduct research into passenger
experience and investigate issues using strengthened information gathering powers. It will
draw on additional sources of data and intelligence including open access sources to
provide a holistic understanding of the rail passenger experience. It will ensure issues and
passenger priorities identified are raised through advice to the Transport Secretary, GBR,
and any other relevant operators and rail bodies, encouraging action to address them. This
direct dialogue with operators and key industry bodies can also include highlighting areas
of concern or interest, publications of the watchdog’s research, and analysis so the
industry are regularly updated on how the network is performing for passengers. The
watchdog could also call GBR and other operators to public meetings to discuss their
performance, a provision which we will consider including in operator licences subject to
further consultation. Legislation will specifically give the watchdog:
• Powers to investigate any matter relating to the provision of rail passenger or
station services, except where the provision of those services is wholly within the
London Railway Area where London TravelWatch has the lead responsibility to
investigate. Where a matter affects services both within and out of the London
Railway Area, the watchdog must work with London TravelWatch to ensure
passenger interests are represented in the most effective way.

• Powers to obtain any information it considers necessary during an investigation
from providers and operators of rail passenger and station services for the purpose
of carrying out the investigation. The operator must provide the information within a
reasonable period specified by the watchdog.

• The ability to refer non-compliance to the ORR for potential enforcement action.

• The ability to make representations to anyone it thinks appropriate for the purpose
of achieving a satisfactory resolution of an investigation.

• The ability to report on its findings publicly and share a copy of the report with the
Transport Secretary, Welsh and Scottish Ministers, GBR, or any other person it
thinks fit.

Currently many passengers, particularly disabled people, find it complex and confusing to
raise issues when things do not go well, and find lines of accountability ambiguous. The

59

need to strengthen monitoring and enforcement of existing standards and make it clear
where and how to lodge complaints, has been raised as key improvement area. The
Transport Select Committee report Access Denied: rights versus reality in disabled
people's access to transport underscores the importance of addressing this. Therefore, a
core part of the watchdog’s function will also be an explicit duty on accessibility. The
watchdog will specifically monitor how services are delivered to disabled people (for
example, by gathering information through surveys and complaints data) and will be
expected to engage directly with accessibility stakeholders and disabled passengers to
gain insight on persistent issues which it will raise with operators to seek improvements.
The watchdog will not replace any current accessibility bodies or statutory advisors such
as DPTAC. While we are not mandating specific representation on its board in legislation,
we are committed to the disabled representation currently found on Transport Focus’
board continuing. The watchdog must consider the diverse needs of all passengers and is
expected to engage with relevant organisations when fulfilling this duty. This new specific
duty will ensure disabled passengers have a strong advocate in the railways that can drive
improvements on their behalf.
Statutory Advisor
In addition to Transport Focus’ current functions and powers, the watchdog will be
empowered to become a statutory advisor to the Transport Secretary and GBR. It will also
be able to advise other rail bodies, operators, and Devolved Governments where
appropriate or if asked. It will advise the Transport Secretary on passenger priorities
including on policies and strategies which affect passengers – for example, the LTRS
(chapter 1) and priorities for funding periods (chapter 4). It will advise GBR on its policies
and strategies which affect passengers including business plans, plans for managing
upgrades and service disruption, and passenger charters and policies. GBR will be
expected to have regard to the watchdog’s advice.
Regulatory functions - setting standards and enforcement
The consultation responses indicated strong support for the watchdog to have a regulatory
role in addition to its statutory advisor and watchdog functions. The government has
therefore decided to proceed with this approach and give the watchdog the ability to set
standards. For the watchdog to have a meaningful ability to drive up standards for all
passengers, we consider it is important it has input when minimum passenger experience
standards are developed, while also balancing ambition with operational and financial
realities. Therefore, we believe the best approach is to transfer the development and
monitoring of passenger experience related standards from the ORR to the watchdog.
In practice, this means the watchdog can amend or develop guidance and codes of
practice against consumer licence conditions, which will be subject to public consultation,
in the areas of accessible travel policies, passenger information, complaints and delay
compensation. This process could work in the following way:
• Development and consultation on standards: if the watchdog wishes to update
the current codes of practice and guidance, it must consult accordingly. It will first
involve the ORR and the Department for Transport in the process before seeking
the expert advice of DPTAC and consulting relevant stakeholders as the ORR does
today. The feedback should be considered when it finalises the proposal.

60

• The Transport Secretary and ORR consent: the watchdog must seek consent
from the Transport Secretary as GBR’s licence issuer and the ORR as the issuer of
other licences on the updated codes of practices/guidance. This is to ensure the
proposed amendments are affordable and enforceable. The Transport Secretary
and the ORR must consider if updates in licence conditions are needed, discuss
with the watchdog where necessary and inform it of the final agreed licence
conditions set.
• Publication and compliance monitoring: should the licence conditions have been
updated, the watchdog will publish the updated standards on its website and is
responsible for the ongoing monitoring of GBR and operators’ compliance with
them. It will consider core compliance data collected and provided by the ORR. It
can also follow up issues by requesting further information or investigate issues
where necessary.
• Action short of enforcement: the watchdog can encourage compliance with
licence conditions ahead of any formal enforcement action by publishing
performance data, directly engaging with operators, asking for information and
improvement plans, and by issuing warnings of potential referral to the ORR for
enforcement action.
• Enforcement (if required): if the watchdog has exhausted all avenues to seek
compliance, it can refer cases to the ORR for enforcement. The ORR would
consider each case on an individual basis and decide appropriate action. It must
keep the watchdog informed of its decision and outcomes.
This process will ensure the watchdog can drive up standards and advocate improvements
for passengers, while having a powerful but proportionate voice in the industry. We
acknowledge many respondents called for the watchdog to have enforcement powers in
addition to regulatory powers. However, the ORR will remain the sector’s safety regulator
and will retain powers to monitor and enforce GBR’s licence, including conditions on
passenger experience, and will therefore hold enforcement powers in relation to its
functions. Giving enforcement powers to two separate bodies would pose a high risk of
duplication and inconsistent enforcement, which creates a risk of additional fragmentation
and is not in line with the government’s ambition to create a more agile state. Therefore,
we believe one sector enforcer will be more effective, provide clarity and confidence to
operators and clear lines of accountability. The ORR as the current regulator has the
relevant experience and access to information required to be an effective and fair enforcer.
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)
Today, if passengers do not receive the expected standard of experience regarding a train
or station service, in the first instance they should contact the operator directly. Operators
can help with problems such as compensation for delays, reservations, or train service and
station facilities. If the complaint cannot be resolved satisfactorily, a passenger can use the
ADR service and appeal their case to the RO (the current ADR service provider), who can
assess the complaint from an independent perspective and make decisions that are
binding upon the service provider. If a complaint does not meet the Ombudsman’s
eligibility criteria, they will transfer the complaint to Transport Focus and London
TravelWatch, who can review complaints and, where appropriate, follow issues up on
passengers’ behalf. This basic process will remain unchanged in the new model.

61

The consultation laid out two options for the future of the ADR service for passenger rail.
To transfer the sponsorship of the RO’s contract to the watchdog, or to give the watchdog
itself relevant powers in legislation to make it the ADR service. While most respondents
supported the transfer of ADR powers to the watchdog, the transfer of the RO’s
sponsorship represents the simplest option with the least disruption to the passenger
experience as outlined in the consultation document. This was supported by key industry
bodies including the RO, Transport Focus, and the RDG. Having analysed the range of
consultation feedback in detail, we consider this the more desirable option for the following
reasons:
• The current service is fit for purpose and decisions on disputes are made by legally
trained staff, which gives passengers and operators assurance and confidence the
disputes are handled fairly and correctly.
• We recognise the RO holds experience and expertise specific to rail and the ADR
process and can promote cross-sector best practice sharing.
• Sponsorship helps to preserve the impartial nature of the ADR service. The RO is
currently independent of its sponsor and has an independent governance structure
where the sponsor’s role is to monitor its performance against agreed objectives to
ensure high standards of service to all users. The resolutions the RO makes are
binding; impartiality and neutrality between passengers and operators is therefore
key to resolving disputes fairly. This ensures passengers achieve fair solutions
while operators will be required to issue reasonable compensation. The watchdog
will rightly have a single-minded focus on passengers, and it would be more difficult
for it to achieve the required impartiality were it to become an ombudsman itself.
• The RO has been accredited by the Chartered Trading Standards Institute and the
Ombudsman Association, meaning it meets the high standards to be expected of an
ADR service provider. We do not expect the watchdog could achieve the
Ombudsman Association’s accreditation as it would not meet the high threshold of
impartiality and objectivity. Therefore, the sponsorship would preserve the currently
independent status of the scheme.
• There is no clear benefit that might be experienced by passengers or operators as a
result of taking on the more challenging approach of making the watchdog itself the
ADR service. While the provision of the ADR service would be similar to
passengers under both options, it would be more difficult to ensure its impartiality if
it was provided by the watchdog directly rather than through sponsorship of the
ombudsman.
Dispute resolution focuses heavily on generating insights into persistent issues across the
industry. Both approaches, the transfer of sponsorship and the transfer of powers, can
ensure opportunities for improvement are identified and be used by the watchdog to drive
standards. We also believe there are opportunities to enhance the passenger-facing
presence of the ombudsman and deliver an optimised ‘single front door’ experience to
passengers, ensuring the clearest possible journey for unresolved complaints. Therefore,
we believe transferring the sponsorship will achieve a solution where passengers find it
easy to contact the watchdog as a passenger-facing service (or the ombudsman directly)
with any issues they face, with the reassurance that disputes will be resolved by an
independent and accredited ombudsman.

62

Other functions
Some respondents also called for more specific roles in areas such as personal safety,
safety more widely, timetabling, routes and fares. We are not giving the watchdog specific
roles in these areas for several reasons. Firstly, the operational safety of the railway is and
will continue to be the responsibility of the ORR, recognising its strong track record and
expertise as a world-leading independent safety regulator. While not specified in
legislation, Transport Focus can investigate areas of personal safety, and we do not plan
to specify this in legislation as the watchdog does not need specific powers to undertake
research or investigations on personal safety matters. Fares, routes and timetabling are
both operational and policy matters which are currently set by the Department for
Transport, Network Rail and operators. The watchdog may, as part of its advisory role,
feed in passengers' priorities and key issues when decisions are made, but the legislation
must remain suitably flexible and will not name these as specific areas.
Devolution, local and regional services
Transport Focus, the RO, and the ORR all cover the rail services across Great Britain in
their remit, including devolved services in England (except for watchdog functions in
London, which are covered by London TravelWatch), Scotland and Wales. This will not
change and the watchdog will continue to cover all rail services in Great Britain with a
limited number of exceptions as set out below.
Like the ORR today, the watchdog will set passenger experience related standards, which
all licensed operators must comply with, including devolved rail operators. The watchdog
will also monitor compliance and may directly engage with operators who do not comply
with the standards satisfactorily. However, any enforcement action for non-compliance will
still be taken by the ORR. Transport Focus is the current rail passenger watchdog and
covers all services in Great Britain except international rail services and services operating
within the London Railway Area. These will continue to be covered by London
TravelWatch. The RO also already covers all devolved operators, including Transport for
London (TfL) rail services, meaning the ADR function will be GB wide without exceptions.
Therefore, the Passenger Watchdog is set to be a GB-wide body.
Ensuring sufficient representation of devolved services will be crucial. Transport Focus is
led by a Board of non-executive directors, including members for Scotland, Wales and
London appointed by the respective governments and the London Assembly. These are
currently statutory appointments and will be retained in the Railways Bill. While it is
important the watchdog is aware of and considers local needs around the country, we will
not add more statutory appointments to its board to ensure there is flexibility to have the
right composition and size of the board.
Transport Focus currently has a regional approach to engagement, with engagement
managers responsible for each English region, and two Senior Engagement Managers
responsible for Scotland and Wales. While these roles will not be set in legislation to allow
flexibility in the organisation, we expect this two-way relationship with local and regional
authorities, including community rail groups, to continue.
London TravelWatch
Several responses sought clarity on London TravelWatch’s role alongside the watchdog.
London TravelWatch is the statutory transport watchdog for all passengers in the London

63

Railway Area. It represents the interests of passengers using all TfL services, as well as
international rail services serving London. It works alongside the RO, which provides ADR
services covering all London rail services (including the Elizabeth Line and London
Overground) and their stations. The government recognises the role that London
TravelWatch plays in championing the interests of people who travel across all modes of
London’s integrated transport network, and does not intend to change its purpose, role or
remit as part of the Railways Bill.
Some respondents commented that the current boundary between the geographic remits
of London TravelWatch and Transport Focus adds complexity and confusion to the
complaints process. We note these concerns but observe that London TravelWatch and
Transport Focus work closely together on cross-boundary issues to ensure complaints are
dealt with by the appropriate organisation. We expect this to continue as Transport Focus
becomes the watchdog.
London TravelWatch will continue to have a voice on matters that could impact the London
transport network. The Passenger Watchdog will be required to consult appropriate bodies
when it is setting passenger experience related standards, providing the basis to consult
London TravelWatch. We also intend to expand London TravelWatch’s investigatory and
information-sharing watchdog powers and duties for rail to align with the new powers for
the watchdog to ensure London passengers have the same level of consumer protection
and advocacy as those in the rest of the UK. The government will continue to work with the
Greater London Authority and London TravelWatch as work to establish the watchdog
continues.
Modal scope
The watchdog will be multi-modal through the inclusion of passenger watchdog functions
currently carried out by Transport Focus. This currently covers bus, coach and tram
passengers and users of the strategic road network in England (outside London) in
addition to rail passengers across Britain. The Watchdog will retain Transport Focus’
current responsibilities and functions in these modes. This means it will, for example,
continue to conduct user surveys and can advocate on behalf of the passengers using
these modes.
Our focus right now is to establish a powerful rail watchdog. However, we will continue to
examine whether there is scope in the future to further expand the watchdog’s modal
scope to cover multi-modal journeys more comprehensively, noting we would expect this
to require further primary legislation.

64

3. Making best use of the rail network
We asked
Question 7 –
Does the proposed new access framework enable GBR to be an effective directing mind
that can ensure best use of network capacity? 
Question 8 –
What - if any- key access rules and requirements for GBR should be updated and included
in legislation? 
Question 9 –
Does the proposed role of the ORR acting as an appeals body to ensure fairness and non-
discrimination provide sufficient reassurances to all operators wishing to access the GBR-
managed network? 
Question 10 –
Do you foresee any unintended consequences of the ORR retaining its existing powers
with regard to adjacent infrastructure managers (AIM) which might affect the smooth
passage of trains between the GBR and non-GBR network?
Question 11 –
The government intends to include in primary legislation a power to enable amendments to
the Railways (Access, Management and Licensing of Railway Undertakings) Regulations
2016 to ensure consistency with GBR’s processes used by AIMs. Do you agree with this
approach?

65

We heard
Question 7
A total of 599 respondents answered question 7. There was considerable support for the
proposed new access framework and its role in enabling GBR to be an effective ‘directing
mind’ that can ensure best use of capacity on the network. 61% of respondents agreed
with the proposal, while 14% disagreed and 25% were unsure, did not express a view, or
provided alternative views.
Key points:
• There was a general consensus among respondents that GBR’s role could support
the integration of track and train and create more efficient processes by acting as a
single decision-making body.
• Local authority groups stressed the importance of GBR balancing the interests of
passengers, freight, and open access operators to ensure that equal access rights
are granted for all types of services to run smoothly.
• Local authority groups wanted increased powers to help ensure that local strategy
goals were taken into consideration in GBR decision making.
• Freight and other private sector organisations wanted clear definitions of GBR
duties and wanted these reflected in the AUP for transparency. This was seen as
important in giving investors certainty and to enable GBR to be held to account
during the appeals process.
• Freight and open access operators highlighted the risk that GBR would favour its
own passenger services given the pressure it will be under to grow revenue. Here,
operators wanted clear safeguards in legislation to protect them from discrimination
and to provide assurance to investors prior to them making track access requests.
• Freight groups were keen for further details on how the AUP would be designed
and developed and what it would contain. This was seen as important, particularly
for investors who will want transparency in the capacity allocation and charging
processes and how guidance from the Transport Secretary will be reflected in the
AUP.
Question 8
A total of 276 respondents provided views on which key access rules and/or requirements
for GBR should be updated and included in legislation.
Key points:
• Respondents highlighted the need for robust legislative safeguards to be in place to
protect private sector investment. Freight groups and local authority groups
suggested that such safeguards should include protection against discrimination

66

against non-GBR operators, and a requirement for GBR to support long-term
private investment by offering track access contracts for longer than five years.
• Business representative groups also highlighted the importance of including GBR’s
decision-making criteria, application processing timescales, and the methodology
for calculating costs and charges in the AUP. This was seen as vital in ensuring
transparency of decisions and providing assurance to existing and future private
investors.
• Respondents also thought that legislation should include a requirement for GBR to
work closely with AIMs to ensure better alignment of processes and the smooth
passage of trains between networks.
Question 9
A total of 579 respondents answered Question 9. About half of respondents (51%) agreed
that the proposed role of the ORR acting as an appeals body to ensure fairness and non-
discrimination provided sufficient reassurances to all operators wishing to access the
GBR-managed network. 18% disagreed, and 31% were unsure, did not express a view, or
provided an alternative view.
Key points:
• There was a general consensus among respondents that the existence of an
appeals body would provide non-GBR operators with greater confidence to invest.
Respondents were concerned that the ORR must have the ability to direct GBR to
change a decision and have the power to enable it to be an effective regulator of
GBR decisions.
• All stakeholders thought that the ORR’s appeals role should be set out in
legislation. This was seen as vital to ensuring the ORR had the necessary power to
hold GBR’s decisions to account, ensuring fairness and non-discrimination and
providing assurance to private operators.
Question 10
A total of 273 respondents gave examples of unintended consequences of the ORR
retaining its existing powers with regard to AIMs which might affect the smooth passage of
trains between the GBR and non-GBR network.
Key points:
• The majority of respondents agreed that the ORR should continue to regulate AIMs
under the existing regime. This was seen as important in providing stability at a time
of significant reform.
• Both TOCs and freight operators expressed concerns that not maintaining the
ORR’s role for AIMs might have adverse impacts, especially for HS1 and Channel
Tunnel operators.

67

• This concern was also highlighted by other private sector operators, who requested
clarification on how two regimes might work in practice. They stated that the
legislation should also require GBR to collaborate directly with AIMs to manage
cross-boundary paths effectively and ensure the smooth passage of trains between
networks as part of capacity allocation processes.
Question 11
A total of 561 respondents answered Question 11. There was considerable support for the
proposal, with 65% of respondents agreeing with our proposal to include in primary
legislation a power to enable amendments to the Railways (Access, Management and
Licensing of Railway Undertakings) Regulations 2016 to ensure consistency with GBR’s
processes used by AIMs. 6% disagreed, whilst 29% were unsure, did not express a view,
or provided alternative views.
Key points
• There was a broad consensus amongst respondents that the power could facilitate
more integrated and consistent processes between GBR and non-GBR networks
where issues of divergence may arise.
• Both private sector operators and freight stakeholders responding agreed that any
proposed changes to the Access and Management Regulations 2016 (AMRs)
should first be consulted with industry. Concerns around changes being made
without parliamentary scrutiny and proper consultation were also highlighted by
Local Authorities.

Our response

Creating GBR offers a once in a generation opportunity to deliver a railway that better
serves passengers, taxpayers and freight operators and which delivers economic growth.
GBR cannot deliver these benefits within the existing regulatory and contractual framework
as complexity, conflicting priorities and fragmentation of decision-making means it is not fit
for purpose. Without reform, GBR will not be able to take the long-term strategic view
necessary to ensure the very best use is being made of the rail network.

The problems within the existing framework are compounded by the realities of growing
demand for access rights on an already highly constrained network. This means decisions
on management of the infrastructure are taken separately from decisions on how the
network is used and the design of passenger and freight services, resulting in a
fragmented system that fails to deliver for taxpayers, passengers and operators.

To deliver the benefits of GBR as a directing mind, we will fundamentally reform the
existing contractual and legislative framework for access to and use of the railway. That
means putting the day-to-day running of the railway into the hands of GBR, who will be
tasked with making the best use of the network. It will be GBR that will have the authority
and expertise to make the difficult trade-offs between competing options and priorities,
whether this be proposals for new passenger services, opportunities for rail freight,

68

growing important supply chain capabilities, or realising the ambitions of devolved
governments and mayors.

This chapter will detail how GBR will make these difficult trade-offs. This includes how it
will allocate capacity and set charges in line with its new duties and policies and deliver
greater efficiency and better performance, ending the current separation of decision
making and inconsistent priorities that have hindered the railway for 30 years. Our new
access framework will put the government’s strategic goals for the railway at the heart of
GBR’s decision-making, removing barriers to economic growth in an improved system.

A new capacity allocation framework to make the best use of the network

Creating GBR as an integrated directing mind that is responsible and accountable for
making the best use of the railway requires the establishment of a new framework in
legislation. We will therefore disapply the existing access specific legislation within the
Railways Act 1993 for GBR, including the powers of the ORR under Section 17-22C and
its corresponding Section 4 duties. We will also disapply for GBR those parts of the 2016
AMRs necessary to enable GBR to act as the directing mind for the railway.

A new capacity allocation framework will be established through the Railways Bill to create
a simpler, more efficient system that empowers GBR to make the very best use of the
network. We will take the best aspects of the current model, those that operators care
about most such as fairness, transparency, and long-term certainty, and build them into
the new framework. This will give GBR a coherent structure to act as a proactive,
innovative, directing mind, able to balance freight and passenger needs while managing
the difficult trade-offs on a finite network.

Within this new framework GBR will need to weigh its general statutory duties outlined in
chapter 1 with its access-specific duties, while aligning with government priorities in the
LTRS; any guidance issued by the Transport Secretary; and having regard to the
strategies of devolved governments and MSAs.

We note the general concerns raised by stakeholders around providing strong safeguards
to ensure fair access to the network, as well as concerns around operators losing existing
rights. We recognise the need to balance fair access to the network and a continued role
for open access operators alongside our commitment to deliver maximum value for
passengers and taxpayers. So, in addition to the government maintaining its commitment
to honour existing rights in Schedule 5 of track access contracts until they expire, the
Railways Bill will also place duties on GBR for how they take decisions on access,
ensuring that they strike a fair balance between the impacts on their decisions on
taxpayers, passengers and the performance of the network. We will also include a duty on
GBR that provides all investors and operators with a reasonable degree of assurance to
plan, something we recognise as being vital to the sector following the consultation
feedback.

Legislation will require GBR to publish its criteria for how it will make the best use of the
network in its AUP. We expect this criteria to include a test to guide its decision making
and consider the impacts and benefits of applications to access the GBR network,

69

including how it will assess the level of revenue abstraction that might be caused to GBR
passenger services3. Today, it is the ORR, through its own devised tool (the Not-Primarily
Abstractive Test), which considers the ratio of generation of services to the abstraction of
existing services (funded by the government). In the future, GBR will take into account the
level of taxpayer funding of the railways, including on enhancements and investments.

We expect that GBR will look at much more than the financial impacts on GBR services: it
will be taking all decisions in a way that fulfils all its statutory duties. A well-designed set of
criteria will be a core component of GBR’s AUP that must provide a clear, consistent, and
defensible basis for approving or rejecting aspirations from all parties – including GBR
operators. When considering aspirations GBR will be informed by HM Treasury’s (HMT)
Green Book principles and relevant transport appraisal guidance. Decisions will be based
on (but not limited to):
• GBR’s statutory duties including economic benefit, passenger interests,
performance of the network, freight growth and value for money
• Impact on public finances and operational revenues (e.g. abstraction)
• Impact on network efficiency
• HMT’s Green Book principles, and relevant transport appraisal guidance.

Capacity allocation and timetable production process

We have carefully considered the feedback received from stakeholders which emphasised
the importance of clarity and transparency in how capacity allocation and timetable
production will be managed. The Railways Bill will set out a clear and robust structure for
managing capacity allocation and timetabling with key stages and decision points that
GBR must adhere to, ensuring transparency and accountability at every step. This
structure has been designed to:
• Embed strategic planning into GBR’s decision making process
• Allow difficult decisions on capacity to be resolved earlier in the process, rather than
left until the very late stages of timetable production
• Ensure that key decisions taken during the capacity allocation process give
certainty for all parties
• Provide a robust appeals process
GBR will be required under legislation to produce, consult on, and publish its policies,
processes and criteria on capacity allocation, timetabling and use of the network and its
dispute resolution processes. In addition, legislation will enable GBR to deliver to specific
obligations at the following key stages:
• Infrastructure Capacity Plans: Following consultation with the market, key bodies
and the public and in accordance with its general duties, GBR must develop and
consult on Infrastructure Capacity Plans. These Plans will set out how operators of
various kinds may expect to use its network, which could include allocating
capacity where GBR is satisfied is appropriate. As today, individual operators will

3 A test of the economic impact on other operators and the public sector, including where income expected
to be generated by new proposed services results from passengers switching from existing services (often
referred to as level of abstraction).

70

then receive specific contracts allocating them capacity, to be known as ‘‘capacity
commitments”. In this way, GBR will provide multi-year contractual allocations of
capacity made at a higher level than timetable paths that give long-term certainty to
operators and funders. Infrastructure Capacity Plans will be enduring, and we
expect GBR to only develop new Plans when there are significant and material
changes to the capacity on that part of the network to ensure that operators can
plan their businesses with a degree of certainty. Where an operator has an existing
capacity commitment GBR will prioritise this should a new Infrastructure Capacity
Plan be triggered.
• Timetable production: GBR will develop the timetable in accordance with its
Infrastructure Capacity Plans and any issued capacity commitments. Requirements
for the frequency of timetable changes and notice periods for engineering work and
short-term changes will not be set in legislation.

A number of responses to the consultation highlighted the importance of placing a legal
requirement on GBR to support long-term private investment by offering access contracts
exceeding 5 years. Therefore, we are reaffirming our commitment that the new access
framework will enable increased opportunity for GBR to offer longer-term certainty to third
parties – including contracts beyond 5 years.

Following the consultation, the department has undertaken further policy development to
ensure there is clarity on how GBR will make access decisions to enable best use of the
network and also operate services itself. GBR will be required to ensure that it has the
available capacity it needs to run those passenger services that the government has
required it to provide. This requirement will not change the proposition on access and
capacity allocation that was set out in the consultation. GBR will need to work with
devolved authorities, freight and open access operators to consider their aspirations for
the services they want to run, and where these represent ‘best use’ of the network, they
can expect to be awarded capacity commitments. The role of the ORR as an independent
appeals body overseeing GBR’s access and charging decisions (as set out later in this
chapter) is also not impacted.

Access to stations, depots and service facilities

Stations and light maintenance depots operated by GBR will be exempt from the
provisions in the Railways Act 1993 that would ordinarily give ORR a right to approve or
direct GBR into access agreements. This exemption is to protect GBRs ability to act as the
directing mind. GBR will still, however, be required to provide fair access to its GBR
operated service facilities, including stations and light maintenance depots.

AIMs sought clarity regarding privately owned facilities located on the GBR network and
what rules might apply. Both GBR and non-GBR operated service facilities, including
stations and light maintenance depots will remain subject to existing rules in the AMRs.
The only distinction is that non-GBR operated facilities will also be subject to the role of the
ORR in relation to access agreements in the Railways Act 1993. Therefore, in cases
where GBR sought access to any privately managed stations or light maintenance depots,
GBR would be able to make use of the provisions in relation to access agreements and
the role of the ORR in the Railways Act 1993, as per the existing regulatory framework.

71

GBR’s Charging Functions

GBR will establish a charging framework that must be consistent with its duties and
functions set out in legislation. This will include maintaining broad principles of cost
reflective charges; as well as setting charges that enable non-GBR operators to plan the
future of their businesses with a reasonable degree of assurance. Operators will be able to
appeal the decision to the ORR, if they allege that GBR has not acted in accordance with
its duties.

As set out in the consultation, the final determination made by the ORR on access charges
for Control Period 7 will be honoured. We therefore intend for the GBR charging
framework to become operational from Control Period 8.

Requirements for transparency

In response to questions raised to the consultation on transparency of charges set by
GBR, the government will place a requirement in legislation that GBR must consult on and
then publish its charging principles.

To avoid a complex ‘money go round’ of one part of GBR paying another within a single
organisation, GBR passenger services will not pay track access charges to use the GBR
managed network. To ensure transparency and fairness, we expect GBR to carry out a
transparent cost apportionment process which will account for the cost of providing rail
infrastructure and record the costs of its own passenger services using GBR managed
infrastructure. This will enable non-GBR operators to directly compare their own charges
with the published ‘indicative charges’ so that the risk of unfair charging is mitigated.

Types of charges

Cost directly incurred (CDI)

Some responses to the consultation expressed concern that Commission Implementing
Regulation (EU) 2015/909 on costs that are directly incurred – the cost that is directly
incurred by Network Rail as a result of operating the train service (CDI) – would not apply
to GBR. Although this Implementing Regulation is being disapplied for GBR, the
terminology is being replicated in the Bill to ensure consistency between networks for the
benefit of all users.

While this broad definition will remain, GBR will be permitted to develop (having separately
consulted with industry on its broad commitments and principles for charging as part of its
AUP) its own methodology for how all charges, including CDI, will be calculated – though
legislation will require that, subject to the exclusions (discounts and mark-ups), charges
must reflect the CDI as a result of running the train service.

Discounts

There was support from consultees for the proposal that GBR would have the flexibility to
offer discounts on CDI where it is financially viable to do so, on any part of the GBR

72

network, and to any market segment outside of its own services that would ordinarily be
subject to paying CDI.

Legislation will set out a non-exhaustive list of criteria for when discounts can be offered,
including to encourage use of GBR infrastructure where there is spare capacity, to
promote new rail services or to give effect to any guidance issued by the Transport
Secretary.

Some responses to the consultation called for additional funds to be made available to
GBR specifically for discounts. Legal requirements around subsidy control and competition
rules, as well as the requirement for GBR to have regard to Transport Secretary funds,
mean that any discounts must be funded from existing budgets and be balanced within
GBR’s own revenue stream within a set period. Any discounts will need to be in line with
GBR’s funding settlement.

Mark-ups

GBR will have the ability to impose additional costs (mark-ups) on operators who can
afford to pay higher charges. GBR will design a test of affordability to measure this in
consultation with industry. This test will also consider where the benefits realised by an
operator as a result of an enhancement to GBR infrastructure justifies a higher charge.
There will be a clear route to appeal should an operator feel higher charges have been
imposed unfairly or against GBRs agreed published policies.

Reservation charges

Where an operator fails to make use of an allocated path, GBR may levy a charge as if the
service had run as intended. The extent to which this charge is used will be at the
discretion of GBR and is not mandated in all instances. This is particularly important for
taking into consideration divergent industry operating models, such as freight, which is
market driven and therefore has less assurances on services. If an operator believes they
have been disadvantaged by a GBR decision, then they will be able to appeal to the
ORR.

Performance Schemes

There was significant support across all sector responses for the GBR network to be
subject to a performance scheme. As with commitments on Control Period 7, GBR will
maintain the existing performance scheme (schedule 8 provisions) until Control Period 8.

The legislation will provide GBR with the scope to design a bespoke scheme of its own
making – contingent on a robust consultation process – that ensures certain protections
are in place for all operators. When designing the scheme, GBR should set out how it
intends to be accountable and how it will be incentivised to avoid disruption where it can
reasonably do so, as part of wider requirements for transparency and fairness.

Dispute resolution mechanisms will be available, including for matters of contractual
dispute, such as delay attribution. Legislation will include a route to appeal to the ORR on
GBR’s performance scheme.

73

As is the case today, GBR will be the central counterparty through which all performance
scheme payments are made in relation to its infrastructure, such that there is no need for
contractual arrangements between train operators themselves.

The Access and Use Policy (AUP)

The AUP will be an important document containing the detailed processes that sit behind
legislative requirements, including the criteria for how GBR will take decisions on the ‘best
use of the network’ when balancing its statutory duties, guidance and, should they be
issued, any directions from the Transport Secretary on use of the network.

The majority of responses to the consultation called for a need for GBR to have a
legislative requirement to consult on and publish its policies relating to access to and use
of the railway. Therefore, to provide reassurance that the AUP will be fair and transparent,
there will be a legislative requirement for GBR to consult the sector on its policies and
processes, and for the ORR and the Devolved Governments to be statutory consultees as
part of this process. In its role as a statutory consultee, we expect the ORR to ensure that
as it is developed by GBR, the AUP is consistent with and reflects any guidance issued by
the Transport Secretary on the government’s priorities for how the network is used. The
ORR will report periodically on how the access regime is facilitating private investment in
rail consistent with GBR’s duties and its wider objectives set by Ministers.

We noted some concerns raised that the AUP would enable GBR to set its own rules for
access and charging without any checks and balances. This is not the case, as the AUP
must align with clear legislative requirements.

The consultation sought views on what requirements there should be in legislation for GBR
to publish specific policies and processes. The Bill therefore contains a number of
requirements on GBR that may form part of its AUP, including but not limited to its criteria
for deciding what train paths over GBR infrastructure are to be available and to whom
those train paths should be allocated.

In advance of GBR being formally stood up, we have commissioned Network Rail to work
with industry, Devolved Governments, the ORR and other interested parties to develop a
technical discussion paper on the content of the AUP to be published shortly after Bill
introduction. This technical document is expected to contain detail on proposed GBR
processes for capacity allocation, charging and performance schemes, subject to formal
consultation. While they will not own the final product, the Department has tasked Network
Rail (as the body with the right technical expertise) to start discussions with industry on the
AUP.

A new GBR network code will be created based on Network Rail’s Network Code but with
some key changes to reflect the new industry structure and role of GBR as integrated
directing mind. This will include changes to Part C and replacing the voting and ORR’s
approval. Over the longer term, GBR will update the code through consultation to reflect
new industry processes on access, including on timetabling. Operators will have a route of
appeal to the ORR if amendments are unfair, or they have been disadvantaged.

74

Model Contracts

As GBR assumes its new role as decision maker on access and capacity allocation, it will
develop, consult on and publish its own model contract with new terms as an industry
standard for new operators seeking access onto GBR’s network. This will ensure that
operators have confidence that there is a fair and transparent approach to access
contracts and also makes it administratively efficient for GBR to make updates.

ORR as an Independent Appeals Body

To establish GBR as the directing mind, the ORR’s role will need to change. Under the
new framework, the ORR will act as a robust and independent appeals body for access
decisions made by GBR on the GBR-managed network.

We recognise concerns from some respondents about the impact of this change on their
ability to access the GBR-managed network. The ORR’s appeals function will provide a
clear, credible, and accessible route for any directly affected railway undertaking or
operator to challenge decisions that they believe are unfair or inconsistent with GBR’s
duties and AUP.

Respondents sought reassurance that the appeals function would be defined in legislation,
with sufficient scope to deliver fair outcomes while ensuring the process be timely,
accessible, and not undermine operational certainty. Others also wanted reassurance that
remedies would be transparent and enforceable. We have worked closely with the ORR to
ensure the new appeals function addresses these concerns.

Scope of Appeals

We agree with consultation feedback that the scope should cover a wide range of GBR
decisions, processes and policies, for example where GBR may not have acted in
accordance with its legal duties or established procedures. Legislation will therefore clearly
state that appeals can be made on GBR’s capacity allocation, access and charging
decisions.

Appeals Process

Legislation will require the ORR to comply with its duties in addition to existing public law
duties when hearing appeals. The ORR will also apply the same set of duties as GBR, so
the ORR can assess whether GBR has acted in accordance with its duties, without
substituting its own judgement, or applying different priorities.
As part of developing its appeals process, the ORR will be required to ensure that its
policies on timescales are reasonable and that the process is credible and capable of
delivering meaningful outcomes, while allowing GBR to manage the network effectively.

Remedies

Respondents demonstrated concern regarding previous wording around ‘direction’ and
‘recommendations’ for remedies. In response, this language has been replaced to offer
reassurance on the extent to which ORR can always issue remedies in a meaningful way.
So, where an appeal is successful, the ORR will select appropriate remedies on a case-

75

by-case basis, determined in a way that proportionately considers the specific appeal in
question. The ORR will be able to dismiss the appeal and support GBR’s decision, send
the decision back to GBR for reconsideration, or substitute GBR’s decision with its own.
Limits on appeals and remedies
When determining the appropriate remedy, the ORR will be expected to consider its effect
on the network’s stability and the certainty needed by operators. In particular, we expect
the ORR to consider:
• Protections for confirmed access rights granted through previous processes
• The stability and integrity of already published timetables
• The interests of other network users and passengers
The ORR will not be expected to propose a remedy that conflicts with already confirmed
access capacity allocations, or which would require GBR to change previously allocated
paths to accommodate a successful appeal. This balance is important, it gives GBR the
space to plan best use of the network, while giving operators a reasonable degree of
assurance that GBR’s capacity and access decisions are not at risk of being overturned
many weeks or months after they have been taken.
In instances where a GBR decision is found to be inconsistent with the framework but
paths have already been allocated, the ORR would likely consult all parties to agree an
alternative remedy. This would ensure a resolution for the appellant without undermining
the wider timetable or negatively affecting operators outside of the original claim.

Adjacent Infrastructure Managers (AIMs)

The existing legal framework and ORR’s regulatory responsibilities will continue to apply to
non-GBR infrastructure and facility managers, such as the privately owned HS1 Ltd, the
Core Valley Lines (owned by the Welsh Government), and parts of the network in London
operated and managed by TfL. This ensures that these parties (some of which are
privately owned with commercial interests) have a stable and predictable framework under
which they can operate alongside the GBR-managed network. The ORR will recognise
GBR as a network-wide organisation with widely drawn duties to support public benefit.
Stakeholders broadly supported retaining the ORR’s existing powers, recognising the
value of regulatory continuity and the ORR’s expertise in overseeing AIMs. Many
respondents emphasised that maintaining the ORR’s oversight of these networks would
provide necessary independent scrutiny and help avoid the creation of a fragmented
regulatory landscape.

Respondents also highlighted that effective coordination and alignment between GBR and
AIMs will be essential, particularly where services cross network boundaries. We agree,
and GBR will be expected to collaborate with AIMs on capacity allocation and timetabling
to support operational efficiency. Consistency in approaches across networks will be
essential to avoid undue complexity and ensure fairness for operators.

76

The Power to Amend

While GBR will not be within the scope of the AMRs as an infrastructure manager, all AIMs
such as TfL, HS1 and Core Valley Lines will continue to be within scope. As GBR’s new
processes evolve and bed in there may be opportunities for these other bodies to benefit
from similar flexibilities that are being provided to GBR, for example on timetable changes
dates. We also want to ensure that where necessary processes can align, and these
bodies are able to benefit from greater flexibility in the new framework. To enable this, we
will include a power to amend the AMRs in the Bill.

Overall, most respondents were supportive of a power to amend the AMRs and
recognised our objective to facilitate integrated and consistent processes between GBR
and non-GBR networks where issues of divergence may arise. Several respondents,
however, specified a desire for more detail on the scope and intended use of the power, as
well as indicative examples of what a “targeted power to make technical amendments”
means in practice. While we do not wish to restrict the power by attempting to predict what
type of changes might be necessary or advantageous, it is important that the power
enables consideration of a wide range of policy options, including consequential
amendments to other legislation where this might be necessary, procedural changes to
rules such as performance schemes, charging and requirements for timetable change
dates.

A common theme amongst all responding groups was the preference that government
consult on any proposed changes made using the power. Concerns were also raised by
private sector operators that that this could give the Transport Secretary excessive powers
to amend the AMRs without clear consultation with stakeholders. In order to place the
appropriate necessary checks and balances on the use of the power, it will be subject to
the affirmative procedure to ensure mandated parliamentary scrutiny and there will also be
a statutory consultation requirement for any time the power is used.

Transitioning to the new framework

Under today’s legislation, the ORR is responsible for approving or directing the access and
station contracts that operators hold with Network Rail. We have committed that all
existing schedule 5 rights to access the network (those with contracts approved by the
ORR) will continue under GBR until they expire. The terms of those bilaterial contracts
specify that only the ORR can approve amendments to the contracts. The ORR also has
the power to update access contracts to implement the final determination of a periodic
review for example a new charging framework for the next Control Period. Finally, under
Part C of the Network Code, only the ORR can approve a proposition to amend the
Network Code that has gone through a class representative committee voting process.

A time limited power for the Transport Secretary to amend existing access contracts will be
a necessary backstop to ensure that the transfer to the new access and charging regime
under GBR can happen. This is because certain changes to existing contracts must be
made to ensure that they function properly under the new system. A solution is required to
ensure that in continuing to respect existing operators’ schedule 5 access rights, the
necessary changes to contracts are made to implement the new regime.

77

For example, the Railways Bill will see the ORR’s powers under S17-22C of the Railways
Act 1993 and its corresponding Section 4 duties disapplied. As a result, the ORR will no
longer be able to approve changes to existing access contracts and will have no legal
basis to amend an existing contract without an operator’s consent. This would mean that,
routine and periodic updates to access charges which are an essential requirement both
now and in the future could not happen and existing contracts would become unworkable
with no legal way of updating them.

Ahead of GBR stand-up, it is proposed that Network Rail will work with the ORR and
engage and consult with operators to identify inoperable clauses and propose replacement
wording to amend contracts.

The clause will provide the Transport Secretary with a power to amend contracts and the
Network Code that have not been amended following this programme of engagement and
consultation. It is to be used as a backstop measure only to ensure that existing operators
(some of whom have several-year contracts) cannot prevent transition to the new model or
be left with unworkable arrangements. The power to amend contracts will not be exercised
lightly and would only be used as a last resort to ensure necessary changes to contracts,
such as to reflect the changing role of the ORR and creation of GBR. We are committed to
honouring ORR’s Periodic Review 2023 final determination, including conditions on
charging and incentives (up to Control Period 8 when GBRs new charging framework will
be applied).

The Role of Devolved Governments in Access and Charging

We recognise the railway’s role in serving diverse communities across Great Britain and
the importance of the Scottish and Welsh Governments in shaping transport priorities in
the devolved nations. Our reforms aim to enable effective collaboration between GBR and
the Devolved Governments, while maintaining the clarity needed to manage the network
efficiently and ensure best use.

A single, integrated access regime will be established for the GBR network, underpinned
by a published AUP. The AUP will be underpinned and informed by meaningful
engagement with Devolved Governments as key public sector funders and strategic
partners. Ongoing collaboration will ensure devolved priorities are reflected in GBR’s
decision-making.

We have listened to the concerns raised about how the access framework can best reflect
devolved strategies and needs. To give practical effect to this commitment, legislation will:
• Place a statutory duty on GBR to have regard to the rail strategy of Scottish
Ministers and the Welsh Ministers’ Wales Transport Strategy; and
• Make Scottish and Welsh Governments statutory consultees in the development of
GBR’s AUP.
GBR’s usage planning and timetabling functions will be delivered in close partnership with
GBR Wales and Borders and delegated to GBR’s Scotland business unit. This will ensure
local operational knowledge informs access decisions and capacity allocation in line with
devolved strategies. For example, Infrastructure Capacity Plans in Scotland will take

78

account of Scottish Ministers’ Statement of Objectives and rail strategy, while the Wales
and Borders business unit will work with TfW and have regard to the Wales Transport
Strategy.

We acknowledge that trade-offs will sometimes be necessary between local, regional,
freight and cross-border priorities. GBR will make those decisions transparently and with
due regard to statutory consultation responses and its wider duties, including to promote
rail freight. Where a Devolved Government believes that GBR has not acted reasonably or
in line with its statutory duties, it will have the right to appeal to the ORR.

Legislation will enable GBR to develop a more targeted and effective model than exists
today. For example, legislation will allow GBR to develop bespoke performance schemes
for different parts of the network where appropriate to do so, including for Devolved
Governments. In Scotland, we would expect GBR to work with Transport Scotland to
develop a performance scheme that reflects the specific funding arrangements between
Scottish Ministers and GBR, the existing alliance model, and opportunities for further
integration. In Wales, we would expect the regime to take account of TfW status as a
public service operator and future partnership arrangements. In both cases, the goal is to
enable a more responsive, outcomes-based approach to performance management that
aligns with the roles and strategies of the Devolved Governments.

79

4. Financial framework
We asked

Question 12 –

Do you agree with the proposed legislative approach regarding a 5 year funding settlement
for GBR?

We heard

Question 12

A total of 608 respondents answered this question. 64% agreed with the proposed
legislative approach regarding a 5 year funding settlement for GBR, 18% disagreed and
13% did not know, with 5% expressing a different view. More than three times as many
respondents supported the proposals as did not, demonstrating considerable support for
our proposals.
Key points:
• In almost every type of stakeholder group identified, the majority agreed with the
proposals. The exceptions were Devolved Governments and freight stakeholders,
who were generally supportive in tone of the direction of travel but provided more
nuanced and detailed responses.

• From all stakeholders who provided comment, there was overwhelming support for
the continued focus on certainty for railway funding. Generally, the 5 year funding
commitment was welcomed and the continued role for the ORR throughout the
process was seen to provide important protections. It was emphasised that longer-
term funding commitments were the best way to achieve best value for money and
foster a stable operating environment. It is worth highlighting that those in support
cited a robust long-term strategy as the key to any funding settlement’s success.

• From those critical, most said that proposals did not go far enough in providing
certainty given the long-term nature of rail and railway projects. The top concern