Britain’s railway network sits at the intersection of nearly every major policy challenge facing the country: regional inequality, economic stagnation, housing, jobs and decarbonisation chief among them.
As the government takes forward its Railway Bill, the question is not whether rail can contribute to solving these problems, but how to unlock its potential. The case for investment is clear: for every £1 spent on the railway, a further £2.50 is generated in the wider economy.
Leaders from across the rail network, MPs, and managers of regional transport policy gathered at Whitehall for an event hosted by the New Statesman, in partnership with Avanti West Coast. The discussion focused on how the industry can best leverage renewed interest in rail and work together to ensure the UK’s railways remain a cornerstone of national growth. The event was held under Chatham House rules.
The Railway Bill was introduced in Parliament on 5 November 2025. It will create Great British Railways (GBR), a new public body that merges Network Rail with 14 contracted train operating companies.
GBR will manage and improve rail infrastructure while operating most passenger rail services in England and cross-border services into Scotland and Wales. The government aims to bring train operations under unified public ownership and control, ending decades of divided management and rail privatisation.
All the attendees acknowledged how pivotal the upcoming bill – and the creation of GBR – will be in tackling long-term issues facing the railways and, by extension, the country. One attendee representing a transport watchdog said it was a “really exciting time” for the rail industry and was keen to hear what people thought of the potential opportunities created by the legislation changes.
But there were concerns. A rail chief executive observed that, under the GBR structure, key components like rolling stock ownership and its maintenance – a huge driver of customer satisfaction – “will continue to be maintained by third parties” outside GBR.
Others were also concerned about the need to maintain a clear separation between the Secretary of State’s powers and GBR’s governance.
A member of a transport advocacy group reminded participants of the Beeching cuts – a major series of route closures and changes that occurred during rail nationalisation in the UK in the 1960s. “People have talked about GBR potentially being Network Rail 2.0, but what we don’t want to see is a Beeching 2.0,” they said. “If a secretary of state who is unsympathetic to rail has too much power, they could reduce funding or make other decisions that would be damaging. Ensuring long-term funding and detachment from direct ministerial control is crucial.”
Accountability under the new rail body was on the minds of many roundtable attendees. One MP said he was impressed by the system in Scotland where elected members met with chief executives of the rail industry and hoped it would continue under GBR. “I just don’t really see that happening elsewhere just now so let’s hope we get some of that as well.”
A number felt that, while the bill outlines the national structure, it missed important local and regional nuances. “What’s the role of mayors and transport authorities? That is not answered by the bill,” a head of local rail policy observed.
The government had launched a consultation on rail reform ahead of the bill. Recommendations included an obligation for GBR to work with devolved authorities to ensure that any plans reflect local ambitions for growth.
The head of local rail policy argued local users must be central to rail reforms. “[Customers] may want punctuality on other routes, but on high-frequency routes it may not always be the primary consideration.”
They shared an anecdote about how London Underground passengers rarely consult a timetable and instead simply turn up and watch the countdown to the next train. By prioritising punctuality nationally, they warned, it may result in the industry deciding to take trains off the network to meet punctuality targets.
“I think there is a central role for local bodies representing local people to be working with the rail industry to set what the right incentives are for them and make sure that they can credibly deliver the connections to businesses,” one attendee said.
Another rail chief executive hoped GBR would not disempower the significant contribution independent players can make to network capacity. They said open-access operators were already significantly improving regional connectivity, serving areas that might otherwise lack rail services. “Who else is going to put on the Cardiff to York service?”, they asked.
The bill could support long-term growth if it enables faster decision-making and gives the supply chain more certainty, they continued. The rail chief executive pointed to an 11-week procurement process between two private companies, “from the first conversation to signing the contract”, compared to an eight-year wait for a government-owned fleet.
They believed the bill should remove barriers and allow quicker, more flexible procurement for long-term investment. “It shows how a whole-system, holistic approach allows money to move through the chain.”
The roundtable discussed other issues beyond the Railway Bill – most pointedly, investment and the railway’s central role in building and sustaining communities.
The head of local rail policy said the industry had long failed to make good use of the empty space in many stations, arguing that opening it up for community use could improve safety and reduce vandalism. He referenced one station in Eastbourne that holds an NHS facility. “[It’s] a fantastic example of giving people a reason to go to a station other than to board or get off their train,” they added.
Putting passengers at the heart of decision-making was a theme returned to time and again.
A senior member of a public affairs transport body expressed disappointment that the government’s response to the GBR consultation, published alongside the Railways Bill, made no specific mention of women’s safety. “Improved lighting, improved accessibility, people knowing that their train is going to be on time and linked up to a bus or walking and cycling. That’s really important if you want women to feel safe and to be able to travel by train.”
An MP similarly said that people with disabilities are “less likely to use the railway” than other passengers, and that progress depended on improving day-to-day assistance rather than relying solely on large capital projects.
“Get those fundamentals right and you will increase revenue, reduce taxpayer subsidy, and attract more people to take advantage of leisure opportunities,” they said.
As the bill moves through parliament, the challenge for ministers and industry alike will be to turn this renewed focus on rail into practical, durable reform. The discussion underlined both the scale of the opportunity and the risks of getting it wrong. A railway that is better governed, locally attuned and responsive to the people who depend on it can support growth in every region of the country.
Whether GBR becomes the vehicle for that ambition will depend not just on its structure, but on sustained investment, clear accountability and a willingness to place passengers’ needs at the centre of decisions.
Related
