When the Department for Transport (DfT) launched an eight-week consultation on its plans to create Great British Railways (GBR) earlier last year, it came as no surprise that the rail industry had plenty of feedback. Having waded through over 2,300 responses to the consultation, the DfT published its response on 4 November 2025. The 'once in a generation' Railways Bill (the Bill) was published the following day, on 5 November 2025, with Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander outlining the proposals to a packed room at the Railway Industry Association's annual conference. Now we finally know the government's plans for the future of the railways, will it be a burst of brilliance or a damp squib?
The Bill's central aim is to establish GBR as the single, unified 'directing mind' of the reformed rail industry, a notable shift from earlier ideas of GBR as a mere 'guiding mind'. This signals a more interventionist approach, with GBR set to manage, operate, maintain, renew, and improve railway infrastructure, deliver passenger services, set fares (except for open access and devolved services), sell tickets, support innovation, and publish advice and standards.
GBR's functions are underpinned by broad duties: promoting the interests of users, supporting freight, maintaining high service standards, enabling business planning, promoting the public interest, and considering costs to public funds. Interestingly, there is no explicit duty to grow passenger numbers or improve the passenger experience. These are said to be covered elsewhere, though there is little evidence to back up that claim.
No hierarchy exists among these duties, giving GBR significant discretion in decision-making. This flexibility could be beneficial, but also raises questions about how competing interests will be balanced and whether the right priorities will be chosen. GBR's actions will be guided by the Long-Term Rail Strategy (LTRS), set by government. Key objectives will be meeting customer needs, financial sustainability, economic growth, reducing regional inequality, and environmental sustainability. Currently, details on how these goals will be achieved are lacking. With capacity constraints and competing demands, clearer guidance will be needed to ensure GBR's decisions align with the government's vision.
The government also reaffirmed commitments to promoting rail freight, supporting devolved governments, introducing a new financial framework, and establishing a passenger watchdog. Private sector involvement will continue, but only where it adds public value and aligns with GBR's strategy.
The role of the Office of Rail and Road (ORR) will be "streamlined", focusing on safety regulation, competition law, and monitoring GBR's licence. Most consumer functions will transfer to a new passenger watchdog being created out of the existing Transport Focus and also including existing Rail Ombudsman functions. Its role in access to the rail network will be significantly curtailed. The ORR will hear appeals on GBR's access decisions, but its powers will be limited and it will only be able to intervene on points of law.
The new passenger watchdog will set industry standards, monitor passenger experience, and investigate complaints. Although there is widespread support for its creation, questions remain about its independence, given that its funding is controlled by the Secretary of State. At this stage it is too soon to tell if it will be a powerful advocate or a toothless observer.
The Bill introduces the concept of the Access and Use Policy (AUP) (with detail to be developed), a new framework for how GBR will allocate limited network capacity amongst potential competing demands for that capacity. While the AUP is meant to simplify access and ensure the 'best use' of the railway, GBR itself will set the criteria, including the criteria by which its own operators will access the network. This raises concerns about transparency and fairness, especially given competing demands from non-GBR operators, freight operators, and open access operators.
The risk that GBR could prioritise its own nationalised services, given its statutory duty to maximise revenue and manage costs, could leave non-GBR operators disadvantaged or overlooked. Although the ORR is given a limited appeals role, its ability to challenge GBR decisions is tightly constrained, and offers only a modest check on GBR's broad powers. Only time will tell whether the ORR's residual powers in this area will serve as an effective check and balance on GBR's powers. For non-GBR infrastructure, the existing position on access will largely continue to apply.
Existing access contracts for non-GBR operators will be honoured until expiry, but the Secretary of State retains sweeping authority to amend agreements, which could create uncertainty and undermine business confidence.
Finally, while the Bill sets out charging principles, GBR will not charge GBR operators for network use, and key questions remain unanswered about how capacity and costs will be fairly shared. This lack of clarity could result in unfair or disproportionate costs for non-GBR operators, freight operators and open access operators, a recipe for future tension. Those operators will need to keep fully involved as the charging arrangements are worked up further.
The Bill replaces the current five-year periodic review with a new funding process. Five-year settlements remain, providing stability for the supply chain, but the Secretary of State, not the ORR, will now determine final funding allocations. While cost savings are a key reform goal, it is unclear where efficiencies will come from. In bringing together different operators, and different sets of terms and conditions, costs are only likely to go in one direction, and means politicisation of the workforce will undoubtedly increase.
On ticketing and fares, GBR will create a centralised ticketing platform, merging separate systems from 14 operators. Third-party retailers can continue to operate, and open access and devolved operators will set their own fares. Fares simplification is a stated aim, but details are vague. The Secretary of State has not promised cheaper fares, so delivering value for money will be crucial to winning public trust.
The Bill marks a significant step towards reforming Britain's railways, fulfilling the government's election promise to bring the industry back into public ownership. By consolidating track and train, the Bill aims to simplify a fragmented system and deliver better outcomes for users. Yet, much detail is still missing, and the success of GBR will depend on fair frameworks, clear accountability, and genuine industry collaboration.
It's clear that the government has listened to industry feedback, making some adjustments in the Bill. However, challenges remain, particularly around capacity allocation, operator fairness, and watchdog independence. The journey to a truly integrated, efficient, and user-focused railway is just beginning. For now, the Bill is a promising start, but more fireworks are needed before the industry can celebrate real transformation.
Darren Fodey is a Partner and Lachlan Mack is an Associate in the Transportation and Trade sector group at Stephenson Harwood.
