UK rail nationalisation plan raises competition concerns

UK rail nationalisation sits at the centre of a broad reform package that, according to international law firm Pinsent Masons and reporting by RailTech, could dampen competition, deter private investment and slow innovation across the rail sector. The firm warns that the choices now being made about ownership and control of infrastructure will shape the market for years to come.

This is reported by the railway transport news portal Railway Supply.

Ministers, for their part, present the reforms as a route to greater efficiency and a simplified ticketing system for passengers. The Railways Bill, introduced to parliament by the Labour government on 5 November, sets out the final legal framework for creating Great British Railways (GBR), a single body that will oversee both rail operations and infrastructure. Within that framework, many of the Railways Bill competition concerns voiced by lawyers and market participants focus on how such a centralised structure will function in practice.

Don’t miss…Metrolink extension to Stockport plans agreed by TfGM

Pinsent Masons argues that GBR’s vertically integrated model would concentrate decision-making power and weaken independent scrutiny. In their view, the impact would reach beyond the activities directly covered by the legislation, with implications for freight operators, open access passenger services and third-party ticket retailers that depend on fair and transparent access to the network. As the Bill proceeds through parliament, the firm says MPs will need to check carefully that competition safeguards are robust enough to support sustainable, long-term growth in what will effectively become a reshaped, publicly led system of UK rail infrastructure.

How UK rail nationalisation shapes Great British Railways?

Robbie Owen, a transport and parliamentary specialist at Pinsent Masons, considers the proposal to create Great British Railways as a vertically integrated monopoly raises serious questions about transparency and fairness across the network. Placing control of the tracks, related infrastructure and train operations in one organisation, he notes, risks making GBR both “judge and jury” in decisions that affect every operator using the system. For him, this concern sits at the core of the Pinsent Masons warning on GBR monopoly risks, which is also explored in an analysis by Pinsent Masons on the wider UK rail revamp.

Owen also draws attention to a significant shift in institutional power. Under the proposals, key responsibilities move away from the sector regulator, the formally independent Office of Rail and Road (ORR), towards the Secretary of State, a political appointee. He warns that this transfer could weaken accountability in the future regime and questions whether those powers will in practice be exercised robustly when GBR itself is in the spotlight. Without stronger duties placed directly on GBR, he argues, the reforms risk choking private investment and undermining competition — a direction that would run against the government’s stated intention of improving the system.

Competition law risks for operators and ticket retailers

With the Bill now moving through its series of parliamentary readings on the way to becoming law, the need for close scrutiny is, in the firm’s view, becoming more urgent. Antitrust specialist Angelique Bret at Pinsent Masons points out that GBR’s dual role as network operator and gatekeeper introduces complex competition law questions. The integrated model is designed to deliver operational efficiencies, but it inevitably raises issues for open access passenger operators, freight companies and online ticketing platforms such as Trainline, all of which rely on non-discriminatory access and stable, clearly defined rules.

According to Bret, the legislation does introduce competition safeguards, yet a key question remains how effective they will be at keeping GBR’s new monopoly in check. Under the proposed framework, the ORR role under the UK Railways Bill is reinforced: the regulator is expected to take on an enhanced independent function, with powers to review GBR decisions on network access and charging structures.

A dedicated code of practice will govern ticketing arrangements, with the aim of protecting third-party retailers and preventing anti-competitive behaviour. Even so, Pinsent Masons stresses that the entire system will operate under explicit political oversight and a political agenda, a factor that has to be kept in mind when assessing the risk profile of the reforms.

Public ownership rollout and timetable

The firm places the Railways Bill within a wider sequence of legislative and policy changes that are reshaping public ownership of UK rail infrastructure. The current Bill follows the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Act 2024, which removed the presumption in favour of private-sector provision for passenger rail services. In practice, one piece of legislation dismantles the default role of private operators, while the next sets out how a new public-sector structure, centred on Great British Railways, will bring those activities back together.

Initial transfers into public hands have already taken place this year: franchised operations South Western, c2c and Greater Anglia have moved into public control. West Midlands Trains is scheduled to follow in February 2026, and Chiltern Railways and Great Western Railways are expected to be next in line, with full completion of the public ownership rollout targeted by the end of 2027 — a trajectory also outlined by Railway Supply. For market participants, this timetable shows how quickly the balance between private operators and the public sector is being redrawn.

Alongside the creation of GBR, the ORR will continue to focus on safety oversight and network-wide efficiency. A strengthened passenger watchdog will assume consumer protection responsibilities previously handled by the regulator. The reforms also envisage centralised ticketing and streamlined fares to improve the experience for passengers. At the same time, third-party ticket retailers are expected to remain active under the new competition safeguards, preserving at least some choice for consumers within a more tightly controlled overall system.

Powers to rewrite access agreements under the Railways Bill

Another sensitive issue raised by Owen is the breadth of GBR’s proposed powers to retrospectively rewrite existing rail access agreements. He argues that, despite the government’s public explanations, the authority granted in the Bill appears to go considerably wider than has been emphasised. As a result, he fully expects parliament to push for amendments so that these powers correspond more closely to the government’s stated objectives and do not undermine confidence among operators and investors.

The independent passenger body Transport Focus has welcomed the reform package and, under the new arrangements, will provide the template for a new passenger watchdog within GBR. Great British Railways will also take responsibility for setting fares and collecting revenue, while still allowing third-party agents to operate within the system.

Pinsent Masons concludes that the public will ultimately judge the success of UK rail nationalisation and the wider reform programme by practical outcomes rather than by institutional diagrams. For most passengers, the key tests will be whether the changes deliver fewer cancellations, better punctuality, simpler and more understandable fares, and clearer communication when disruption occurs — all within a framework that maintains fair competition and encourages investment rather than stifling it.

News on railway transport, industry, and railway technologies from Railway Supply that you might have missed:

Find the latest news of the railway industry in Eastern Europe, the former Soviet Union and the rest of the world on our page on Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, read Railway Supply magazine online.

Place your ads on webportal and in Railway Supply magazine. Detailed information is in Railway Supply media kit