The plans for privatisation in the early 90s

[yorksrob]

Because it would need significant ongoing subsidy, and would have been the only one of the big privatisations where that was the case.

Which was how it turned out anyway.

Realistically, a service requiring subsidy was still going to need subsidy somewhere along the line privatised or not. You'd have thought the Government of the time would have worked that out.

But then these were the same geniuses that brought us water privatisation.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Mar 2026 ==

Running rights did exist but they were the exception rather than the rule as in most the time rail companies would have their own seprate lines, sometimes in duplicate with other lines to avoid having to use another operator's line.

Yes, but the concept would still be fine for today's cross boundary routes.

 

[Bald Rick]

Which was how it turned out anyway.

Realistically, a service requiring subsidy was still going to need subsidy somewhere along the line privatised or not. You'd have thought the Government of the time would have worked that out.

100% agree.

 

[SuspectUsual]

But then these were the same geniuses that brought us water privatisation

And paragraph one of the rail privatisation white paper told us all about how successful privatisation had been!

 

[JamesT]

And paragraph one of the rail privatisation white paper told us all about how successful privatisation had been!

At the time it was seen as successful. Investment doubled and was no longer subject to the whims of the Treasury. Our water is cleaner and safer than it was then.

 

[thenorthern]

There's no reason it couldn't have been an SNCF style separation between infrastructure and (passenger) operations though, while still remaining nationalised. Selling off the state-owned operator wasn't enforced by the EU (then EC), all it enforced was simply opening it up so that alternate private providers can also have access alongside the state-owned operator. Privatising BR - and the way it was privatised - was a political decision by the government of the time, nothing to do with Europe, and that government would probably have done it anyway regardless.

As I say British Rail as we knew it would have to have been broken up even if it was still mostly owned by the government.

 

[Djgr]

As I say British Rail as we knew it would have to have been broken up even if it was still mostly owned by the government.

although we seemed to be twenty years ahead of the curve compared to other European countries, which suggests that this notion was being used as a weapon for Tory ideological reasons.

 

[thenorthern]

although we seemed to be twenty years ahead of the curve compared to other European countries, which suggests that this notion was being used as a weapon for Tory ideological reasons.

Most likely although EU railways are slowly becoming privatised. Granted nowhere near as fast as it happened in the United Kingdom, but it's happening.

Freight transport which as I say people rarely talk about is becoming increasingly privatised across Europe.

 

[nw1]

Most likely although EU railways are slowly becoming privatised. Granted nowhere near as fast as it happened in the United Kingdom, but it's happening.

Other countries following the UK's "lead" even though UK rail privatisation doesn't have a great reputation. Begs the question of why the EU, and individual countries within the EU, are doing this.

 

[Hbbz9392]

Other countries following the UK's "lead" even though UK rail privatisation doesn't have a great reputation. Begs the question of why the EU, and individual countries within the EU, are doing this.

Isn’t UK re-nationalizing their railways?

 

[Djgr]

Other countries following the UK's "lead" even though UK rail privatisation doesn't have a great reputation. Begs the question of why the EU, and individual countries within the EU, are doing this.

Because many don't learn from history.

Because many just like following the "rules" rather than challenging their sense (e.g. £120m bat cave)

 

[SargeNpton]

According to my then MP (Labour), the word in Westminster at the time was that it was done this way to make it near impossible for a future Labour government to reverse it

With a side-effect of reducing the number of national rail strikes if a union was in dispute with one of the train operators.

 

[yorksrob]

With a side-effect of reducing the number of national rail strikes if a union was in dispute with one of the train operators.

And that's been shown to have been bunkham over the last decade as well.

 

[Recessio]

With a side-effect of reducing the number of national rail strikes if a union was in dispute with one of the train operators.

And that's been shown to have been bunkham over the last decade as well.

I think Railtrack signallers had a large strike in 1994 that caused disruption over many areas anyway, not just limited to one TOCs patch

 

[thenorthern]

One thing to remember as well is that when privatisation was being planned devolution wasn't a thing.

In non-railway politics and in railway terms Scotland and Northern Ireland have always had somewhat separate bodies to a certain extent. Wales on the other hand until devolution was very much integrated into England, which to a certain extent is still true given a lot less powers are devolved to Wales than Scotland and Northern Ireland.

You have to remember back when the railways were privatised, what is now the Wales and Borders franchise was covered by 3 franchises. Wales and West in most of South Wales, Valley Lines for the Cardiff area, Central Trains for the Cambrian Line and First North Western on the North Wales coast line. The idea that Wales would have it's own railway franchise run by a government in Cardiff was unthinkable.

One thing that people rarely talk about is open access operators. Were they mentioned in the original plans for privatisation?

According to my then MP (Labour), the word in Westminster at the time was that it was done this way to make it near impossible for a future Labour government to reverse it

Had anyone other than Tony Blair been Labour Prime Minister in 1997 then Labour might have looked at renationalising the railway. With the abolition of Clause VI in 1995 it effectively put an end to speculation the renationalisation of the railways as none of the 3 main parties (at the time) supported it.

I think Railtrack signallers had a large strike in 1994 that caused disruption over many areas anyway, not just limited to one TOCs patch

They did indeed although until 1996 Railtrack PLC was still state-owned.

On the subject of Railtrack PLC I think I read that while the Major government always planned that Railtrack PLC would be sold off at some point it wasn't a priority. Shortly after however, there was a change of policy and the government sold off Railtrack PLC very quickly.

 

[mmh]

And that's been shown to have been bunkham over the last decade as well.

Well, it did stop national strikes. It just increased local ones instead.

 

[BazingaTribe]

At the time it was seen as successful. Investment doubled and was no longer subject to the whims of the Treasury. Our water is cleaner and safer than it was then.

Yeah, my dad worked with Thames Water for a long time and ended up the director at his firm responsible for water projects after successfully masterminding a long overdue revamp of the Reading sewage treatment system. Companies treating infrastructure as assets don't have to be run for private profit (I work for the NHS facilities organisation, which has improved the quality of building fabric because it's no longer a millstone around clinical providers' necks, but we're still owned by the DHSC and a non-profit organisation).

I don't think rail privatisation worked as well as water did, but despite the issues of the past few years I could say that running things on a quasi-commercial basis actually helps efficiency and investment into infrastructure needs without political interference. (Which is why I hope GBR will be similar to the organisation I work for where we still have government oversight and no private profit but we have the business sense and efficiency.)

 

[Stossgebet]

The Tory railway act of 1993, was a direct result of the (then) eec mandate, eec 440/1991.
This mandated that train and track operations must have separate accounting, and the must be a track access charging regime set up for operating trains.

The Tories/UK didn't lead or create this concept. The privatisation model actually came from Sweden.
Once it was eu (eec) law. The UK and everyone else in the eu, had no choice at all as to the structure of their railway industry.
It is baked into eu law, that all public train operations must be tendered to the private sector, in a never ending short term cycle, out of sync with the assets.

The only difference that the tories did, from what the eu is. Was that the tories specifically disallowed BR from bidding for train operations. Other eu countries allow their state to bid. But that doesn't undo the legal requirement to break it all up and tender it out.

 

[simonw]

The Tory railway act of 1993, was a direct result of the (then) eec mandate, eec 440/1991.
This mandated that train and track operations must have separate accounting, and the must be a track access charging regime set up for operating trains.

The Tories/UK didn't lead or create this concept. The privatisation model actually came from Sweden.
Once it was eu (eec) law. The UK and everyone else in the eu, had no choice at all as to the structure of their railway industry.
It is baked into eu law, that all public train operations must be tendered to the private sector, in a never ending short term cycle, out of sync with the assets.

The only difference that the tories did, from what the eu is. Was that the tories specifically disallowed BR from bidding for train operations. Other eu countries allow their state to bid. But that doesn't undo the legal requirement to break it all up and tender it out.

We could have vetoed it if we didn't support it.

 

[JonathanH]

You have to remember back when the railways were privatised, what is now the Wales and Borders franchise was covered by 3 franchises. Wales and West in most of South Wales, Valley Lines for the Cardiff area, Central Trains for the Cambrian Line and First North Western on the North Wales coast line. The idea that Wales would have it's own railway franchise run by a government in Cardiff was unthinkable.

Five, rather than three?. There was a separate Cardiff Valleys franchise, and stations in South Wales run by Great Western which transferred to the Welsh operation.

 

[Pegpilot]

And who remembers Roger Freeman (then a Transport Minister, as I recall) touting the benefits of open access. He proposed that we could have first class trains for the likes of, er, Roger Freeman, and second class trains for the Secretaries. Not sure it was well received by the teeming masses (a.k.a the Electorate), but it was an indication of how far removed from reality some Tories had become.

 

[Stossgebet]

We could have vetoed it if we didn't support it.

Haha.

There is no 'veto' against eu law. Why fo you invent such a thing? The eu railway laws are actually a creation of the 'eu single market for rail'. There is no possibility of a veto. Any suggestion of such a thing, smacks of disagreeing witn the eu, but imagining you have any power to enact that disagreement.... i repeat. There is no veto!

And also note, that Labours former leader, Neil Kinnock, was the eu transport commissioner at the time of the eu first railway package.

So labour has direct responsibility for smashing up the state railways of the eu...

 

[simonw]

Haha.

There is no 'veto' against eu law. Why fo you invent such a thing? The eu railway laws are actually a creation of the 'eu single market for rail'. There is no possibility of a veto. Any suggestion of such a thing, smacks of disagreeing witn the eu, but imagining you have any power to enact that disagreement.... i repeat. There is no veto!

And also note, that Labours former leader, Neil Kinnock, was the eu transport commissioner at the time of the eu first railway package.

So labour has direct responsibility for smashing up the state railways of the eu...

You might want to do some research into how the eu works.

 

[Stossgebet]

The law is the law. And the way i which the eu mandated that the state railways have their train operations and infrastructure be separated, and the train operations be tendered to the private sector, and open access operations be allowed... isn't a matter of opinion. It is a matter of fact, as proven by the fact that it is the same all over the eu.

A treaty might have an option for vetoes. The law, does not.

I am sorry if this doesn't suit your narrative, or how you want to believe the eu is. But the reality is what it is. And the time line of laws and the enactments of those laws, tells the story, whether you like it or not.

I don't like what the eu did. And the main railway trade unions (RMT and ASLEF) supported brexit precisely because brexit was the only mechanism by which we could vertically reintegrate our railway.

 

[Oxfordblues]

BR Railfreight competed directly with a privately-run, highly-efficient road haulage industry which enjoyed massive hidden state subsidies thanks to Minister of Transport Ernest Marples insisting in the 1960s that the new motorways would be toll-free. With no internal competition, railfreight customers were faced with a take-it-or-leave-it offer from BR salesman. Many chose to leave.

Privatisation was a major improvement for freight customers who now had a choice of operators and could play one off against another to secure the best rate and service. Renationalisation of rail freight would have been regressive unless all the private road haulage outfits were also nationalised, which was never suggested.

 

[Bald Rick]

One thing that people rarely talk about is open access operators. Were they mentioned in the original plans for privatisation?

Depends what you mean by ‘original plans’, but the legislation expected it, yes.

On the subject of Railtrack PLC I think I read that while the Major government always planned that Railtrack PLC would be sold off at some point it wasn't a priority. Shortly after however, there was a change of policy and the government sold off Railtrack PLC very quickly.

Correct.

 

[Merle Haggard]

BR Railfreight competed directly with a privately-run, highly-efficient road haulage industry which enjoyed massive hidden state subsidies thanks to Minister of Transport Ernest Marples insisting in the 1960s that the new motorways would be toll-free. With no internal competition, railfreight customers were faced with a take-it-or-leave-it offer from BR salesman. Many chose to leave.

Privatisation was a major improvement for freight customers who now had a choice of operators and could play one off against another to secure the best rate and service. Renationalisation of rail freight would have been regressive unless all the private road haulage outfits were also nationalised, which was never suggested.

I spent my working life with Railfreight and I would not agree with your first paragraph but that's for another day except to say that imo (too) much freight traffic rates were quoted based on only marginal costing.

What I do notice is that the FOCs now seem to be competing between themselves for existing traffic to a much greater extent than trying to attract new flows. If you're a rail freight customer, receiving a rates offer that undercuts your present supplier is obviously good news. However, for the rail industry this inevitably means dwindling income with very likely the same costs (costs of leased locos, Network Rail tolls, staff likely to be similar for all the FOCs) . The old comment about cut throat competition kills everyone.

 

[Recessio]

It is baked into eu law, that all public train operations must be tendered to the private sector, in a never ending short term cycle, out of sync with the assets.

The only difference that the tories did, from what the eu is. Was that the tories specifically disallowed BR from bidding for train operations. Other eu countries allow their state to bid. But that doesn't undo the legal requirement to break it all up and tender it out.

That came much later than the original 1991 directive though. Even after the changes in 2007 there was still a lot of cases of direct award to the state owned operators. It's only within the last ten years that mandatory tendering has come in as part of later regulations and directives.

Therefore, on the topic of this thread, no it wasn't the EC regulations that required privatisation in the 1990s, nor did it require privatisation of BR in a particular way or structure. All it required was separate accounting for track and train - which would have eliminated the vertical integration of British Rail, yes, but didn't have to lead to the abolishing of British Rail altogether, which was a political decision by the government of the time. Again, I point you to the other nationalised monopolies in other EC/EU nations.

There is no 'veto' against eu law. Why fo you invent such a thing? The eu railway laws are actually a creation of the 'eu single market for rail'. There is no possibility of a veto. Any suggestion of such a thing, smacks of disagreeing witn the eu, but imagining you have any power to enact that disagreement.... i repeat. There is no veto!

Is that why the UK and Denmark formally vetoed joining the single currency? Is that why the UK vetoed the social chapter? And joining Schengen? And the Social Chapter? In fact, there's even a Wikipedia page for all the parts of EC/EU legislation that the UK vetoed joining, it might make interesting reading for you.

 

[Stossgebet]

That came much later than the original 1991 directive though. Even after the changes in 2007 there was still a lot of cases of direct award to the state owned operators. It's only within the last ten years that mandatory tendering has come in as part of later regulations and directives.

Therefore, on the topic of this thread, no it wasn't the EC regulations that required privatisation in the 1990s, nor did it require privatisation of BR in a particular way or structure. All it required was separate accounting for track and train - which would have eliminated the vertical integration of British Rail, yes, but didn't have to lead to the abolishing of British Rail altogether, which was a political decision by the government of the time. Again, I point you to the other nationalised monopolies in other EC/EU nations.

Is that why the UK and Denmark formally vetoed joining the single currency? Is that why the UK vetoed the social chapter? And joining Schengen? And the Social Chapter? In fact, there's even a Wikipedia page for all the parts of EC/EU legislation that the UK vetoed joining, it might make interesting reading for you.

The single currency and the schengen zone are 'treaties' .

The schengen zone is within the 'amsterdam treaty' of 1997, and the single currency is party of the maastricht treaty of 1992. The negotiation of the treaties enabled vetoes. Those vetoes don't exist in the passing of standard eu law, even if that eu law is so big as to be breaking up state railways.

And while it is true that the tendering of the train operations to the private sector was only law from directive 1370/2007 in the year 2007. It is fair to say that the whole point of the eu laws was the 'racheting effect', in that the direction of travel was clear. Everything had been set up to enable such a thing, then that thing became law.... as i previously said, in the same model/structure as Sweden. Which predated it all.

 

[aron2smith]

Public or private, I feel sectorisation is the only way we should be running a complex rail system like ours. Really not keen on a single GBR livery in most of England. Not even Irish Rail has a single livery for everything, even on its regional routes.

Also from a history perspective, I get the impression British Rail's privatisation was really rushed and botched as a result. Thankfully, a lot of what discussed in this thread never happened though. Some very barmy ideas seemed to be taken really seriously.

 

[Recessio]

The single currency and the schengen zone are 'treaties' .

The schengen zone is within the 'amsterdam treaty' of 1997, and the single currency is party of the maastricht treaty of 1992. The negotiation of the treaties enabled vetoes. Those vetoes don't exist in the passing of standard eu law, even if that eu law is so big as to be breaking up state railways.

And while it is true that the tendering of the train operations to the private sector was only law from directive 1370/2007 in the year 2007. It is fair to say that the whole point of the eu laws was the 'racheting effect', in that the direction of travel was clear. Everything had been set up to enable such a thing, then that thing became law.... as i previously said, in the same model/structure as Sweden. Which predated it all.

If they managed to get concessions on major international treaties, then surely the political will could have been expended to get an opt-out on this (or perhaps limiting it to HS1 as the only bit of rail actually connected to another EU member state).

I do like that GBR seems to heading more towards vertical integration - which yes wasn't possible under the regulations. I do wonder what would have happened under privatisation if the idea to return to a "Big Four" style setup had succeeded. If memory serves, John Major was personally in favour of this approach, after seeing the privatisation of Japan's railways.

Still, could have been worse - they could have implemented the Serpell report and just ripped up most of the network...