The plans for privatisation in the early 90s

[Stossgebet]

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...

But it created 'the eu single market for rail'
Like anything 'eu' and 'single market' it applies across the eu irrespective as to whether a product or service is domestic or international. As a case in point, look at Finland. A country just as rail connected to other eu members as the UK is, and the eu rules apply there too.
The rules exist because of politics and capitalism, not practicality, efficiency or logic.
Look at how many businesses that never ever traded outside the UK, still had to abide by eu laws, in all their different guises. Eu law is supreme. And again, the eu turned the railways into a single market for the benefit of private companies.

It was a process that began in 1991, and tied the hands of national governments into breaking up their state railways all in the same way. I agree with you regarding your memory of how John Major wanted to privatise along the Japanese model... but we have (until GBR gets created and enacted) the eu model.

 

[yorksrob]

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

Yes, replaced by ones which lasted years on end instead.


== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Mar 2026 ==

But it created 'the eu single market for rail'
Like anything 'eu' and 'single market' it applies across the eu irrespective as to whether a product or service is domestic or international. As a case in point, look at Finland. A country just as rail connected to other eu members as the UK is, and the eu rules apply there too.
The rules exist because of politics and capitalism, not practicality, efficiency or logic.
Look at how many businesses that never ever traded outside the UK, still had to abide by eu laws, in all their different guises. Eu law is supreme. And again, the eu turned the railways into a single market for the benefit of private companies.

It was a process that began in 1991, and tied the hands of national governments into breaking up their state railways all in the same way. I agree with you regarding your memory of how John Major wanted to privatise along the Japanese model... but we have (until GBR gets created and enacted) the eu model.

Although Ireland did manage to get a carve out from those rules.

 

[nw1]

Correct.

According to Wikipedia it appears that this was due to pressure from Bob Horton, presumably because he would make more money out of it. (early privatisation of Failtrack).

 

[Stossgebet]

Yes, replaced by ones which lasted years on end instead.


== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Mar 2026 ==



Although Ireland did manage to get a carve out from those rules.

Sorry to inform you that Ireland is not and does not have an exemption from eu law on this matter. It may want it, but there are no grounds for an exemption for the ROI. They are obviously against the eu laws on this matter, in just the same way that some of the Irish are against the recent Mercosur trade deal. But being against something, doesn't take away from it being a binding law. You will find that come 2033, the Irish Railways will be carved up exactly as the eu laws demand. They are just putting it off as long as they possibly can.

If i am wrong about this, please do provide the evidence of an exemption, because that will be super interesting for us all.

 

[yorksrob]

Sorry to inform you that Ireland is not and does not have an exemption from eu law on this matter. It may want it, but there are no grounds for an exemption for the ROI. They are obviously against the eu laws on this matter, in just the same way that some of the Irish are against the recent Mercosur trade deal. But being against something, doesn't take away from it being a binding law. You will find that come 2033, the Irish Railways will be carved up exactly as the eu laws demand. They are just putting it off as long as they possibly can.

If i am wrong about this, please do provide the evidence of an exemption, because that will be super interesting for us all.

Perhaps it's like joining the Euro. Legally required but in reality an indefinite commitment.

In reality, I can't see IE (or NIR for that matter) being carved up and privatised any time soon.

 

[Stossgebet]

Perhaps it's like joining the Euro. Legally required but in reality an indefinite commitment.

In reality, I can't see IE (or NIR for that matter) being carved up and privatised any time soon.

No. As i explained above. It is eu law. There is no exemption to it. And it is why the main UK railway trade unions supported brexit.
They, like the Netherlands are holding out as long as they can before they fall in line. But they will fall in line.
I understamd that you can't see it. But perhaps if you see what has happened throughout the railways of the eu, in terms of eu countries becoming compliant with the law, you'll see that it doesn't happen overnight, but just like the creation of GBR, once the law is in place, it will happen... slowly in some places, quicker in others, but relentless none the less, and always the same direction of travel.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Mar 2026 ==

No. As i explained above. It is eu law. There is no exemption to it. And it is why the main UK railway trade unions supported brexit.
They, like the Netherlands are holding out as long as they can before they fall in line. But they will fall in line.
I understamd that you can't see it. But perhaps if you see what has happened throughout the railways of the eu, in terms of eu countries becoming compliant with the law, you'll see that it doesn't happen overnight, but just like the creation of GBR, once the law is in place, it will happen... slowly in some places, quicker in others, but relentless none the less, and always the same direction of travel.

Ah, and NIE was given in the law, as an example of a state that is exempt from the law, as it doesn't have a ig enough railway to break up.

The criteria being that the state railway must operate above a given number of train kilometers per year, or have a financial turnover above a given amount. And NI was below the threshold.

 

[yorksrob]

No. As i explained above. It is eu law. There is no exemption to it. And it is why the main UK railway trade unions supported brexit.
They, like the Netherlands are holding out as long as they can before they fall in line. But they will fall in line.
I understamd that you can't see it. But perhaps if you see what has happened throughout the railways of the eu, in terms of eu countries becoming compliant with the law, you'll see that it doesn't happen overnight, but just like the creation of GBR, once the law is in place, it will happen... slowly in some places, quicker in others, but relentless none the less, and always the same direction of travel.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Mar 2026 ==


Ah, and NIE was given in the law, as an example of a state that is exempt from the law, as it doesn't have a ig enough railway to break up.

The criteria being that the state railway must operate above a given number of train kilometers per year, or have a financial turnover above a given amount. And NI was below the threshold.

Yes, we'll see how it pans out.

I bet IE will be doing just as it is now in ten years time. A pint ?

 

[Stossgebet]

Yes, we'll see how it pans out.

I bet IE will be doing just as it is now in ten years time. A pint ?

It's a pint i would be happy to buy you... but as i say, the law is the law.

10 years is a long time to wait. We'll find out a bit earlier, when the European Court of Justice makes its judgement on the Dutch, who gamed the rules, to give their state railway a 10 year direct award, to kick the can down the road as long as possible... and have been taken to the court for it.
The outcome of that case will be telling. But remember that the ECJ only exists to enforce eu law. And sorry to be a pain, but the law is clear.

 

[Matt P]

I still wonder why. I never understood the point of the messy and fragmented form privatisation took.

Two reasons in my opinion.

First, maximising competition at every level, due to a political ideology that believed that the public sector was inheritently inefficient.

Second, to completely destroy BR, either due to the reason above and/or to make it extremely difficult for a Labour government to undo it.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Mar 2026 ==

It's important to remember as well that although the privatisation of the railways was a John Major / Conservatives idea it was largely influenced by the Single European Railway Directive which requires open access operation to the railways.

The EU legislation gets an unfair wrap for the model the UK government chose for privatisation. The original 1991 Directive did not require liberalisation of domestic rail services. The requirement for liberalisation of the railfreight sector came in a later Directive and the liberalisation of the passenger sector in an even later Directive, both long after the 1993 Act.

As others have mentioned, various options were considered. The Track Authority model, was, I understand, am idea floated by the Adam Smith Institute. Sweden may also have been an inspiration. They separated track and operations in the late 1980s.

The 1991 Directive required an infrastructure/operations split for accounting purposes. Most EU countries complied by either setting up a publicly owned infrastructure operator, leaving operations with the state railway company (Netherlands for example) or creating a holding company model, with infrastructure and operating companies as wholly owned subsidiaries (Germany for example).

The decision to split operations and infrastructure and privatise both was a wholly UK grown option. There's no reason why BR could not have survived as a public rail authority and been required to be a purchaser of rail services rather than directly operating them.

 

[Djgr]

Two reasons in my opinion.

First, maximising competition at every level, due to a political ideology that believed that the public sector was inheritently inefficient.

Second, to completely destroy BR, either due to the reason above and/or to make it extremely difficult for a Labour government to undo it.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Mar 2026 ==


The EU legislation gets an unfair wrap for the model the UK government chose for privatisation. The original 1991 Directive did not require liberalisation of domestic rail services. The requirement for liberalisation of the railfreight sector came in a later Directive and the liberalisation of the passenger sector in an even later Directive, both long after the 1993 Act.

As others have mentioned, various options were considered. The Track Authority model, was, I understand, am idea floated by the Adam Smith Institute. Sweden may also have been an inspiration. They separated track and operations in the late 1980s.

The 1991 Directive required an infrastructure/operations split for accounting purposes. Most EU countries complied by either setting up a publicly owned infrastructure operator, leaving operations with the state railway company (Netherlands for example) or creating a holding company model, with infrastructure and operating companies as wholly owned subsidiaries (Germany for example).

The decision to split operations and infrastructure and privatise both was a wholly UK grown option. There's no reason why BR could not have survived as a public rail authority and been required to be a purchaser of rail services rather than directly operating them.

Indeed.

By the sounds of it, if we were still in the EU we could have held out until 2033!

The principal reason was Tory ideological dogma, with more than a sprinkling of helping their mates.

 

[Stossgebet]

Indeed.

By the sounds of it, if we were still in the EU we could have held out until 2033!

The principal reason was Tory ideological dogma, with more than a sprinkling of helping their mates.

The public passenger train operation could have held out. But the separation.of train and track, open access and private freight operations would still have been forced through the the eu laws.

Remember that the 1991 directive wasn't an end. It was the foundation of all that then followed. With it, the direction of travel was set. It is no surprise, to those that think things through, that we are where we are.

 

[Recessio]

Second, to completely destroy BR, either due to the reason above and/or to make it extremely difficult for a Labour government to undo it.

New Labour ended up renationalising Railtrack as Network Rail - would they have had the option of just letting franchises expire and then running them under a state-owned TOC, as happened later on? Maybe politically it would have been more difficult, but I think legally and financially that wouldn't have been too difficult (at least not more difficult than the Railtrack fiasco, surely?)

The privatisation of the rolling stock to the ROSCOs though definitely reeks to me of an attempt to make it difficult for a Labour government to undo - that would be very expensive to undo. I guess in the end the New Labour government continued with PFI so would have been unlikely to purchase rolling stock outright anyway.

 

[Djgr]

The public passenger train operation could have held out. But the separation.of train and track, open access and private freight operations would still have been forced through the the eu laws.

Remember that the 1991 directive wasn't an end. It was the foundation of all that then followed. With it, the direction of travel was set. It is no surprise, to those that think things through, that we are where we are.

Well, of all the bad things coming out of the privatisation Pandora's Box of pain, the smashing of the public passenger train operation into a million disconnected pieces was probably the worst.

 

[Matt P]

The public passenger train operation could have held out. But the separation.of train and track, open access and private freight operations would still have been forced through the the eu laws.

Remember that the 1991 directive wasn't an end. It was the foundation of all that then followed. With it, the direction of travel was set. It is no surprise, to those that think things through, that we are where we are.

The later EU Directives required liberalisation. But they do not require privatisation of the state owned operator. So there is absolutely no reason why ended up where we are is inevitable. It is the result of a series of political choices that trace their origins back to the outcome of the 1992 General Election.

Compliance with the initial Directive and every one since could have been achieved without breaking up BR entirely.

Separation of operations and infrastructure would have required unpicking some of the Organising for Quality structure. One option would have been to create Railtrack as a BR infrastructure sector, sitting alongside the passenger and freight sectors. Alternatively, Railtrack could have been created as a stand alone entity but retained in government ownership (which was in fact the initial plan) with BR left as the operating company or authority.

Liberalisation of freight would have simply required giving private operators access to the network in competition with BR's freight sector.

Liberalisation of the passenger sectors could have followed a similar path to Germany and Sweden. Regional Railways and NSE could have been required to become buyers of services rather than direct operators by putting their services out to tender. The profit centres (which formed the basis of franchises in the actual timeline) could have formed the basis of concessions. Intercity could have remained as was, but with open access permitted for long distance routes in competition, as happens in a number of EU countries.

All of what I have suggested could have been easily achieved without smashing BR to smithereens. Such an evolutionary approach could also have been implemented over a longer period of time, particularly as it may have been palatable to New Labour as well.

 

[deltic]

New Labour ended up renationalising Railtrack as Network Rail - would they have had the option of just letting franchises expire and then running them under a state-owned TOC, as happened later on? Maybe politically it would have been more difficult, but I think legally and financially that wouldn't have been too difficult (at least not more difficult than the Railtrack fiasco, surely?)

Why would they want to operate a state owned TOC. While the party members might support nationalisation, Ministers did not want to take the blame for 8.15 being cancelled again. Having a private operator running the service meant they were one step removed from day to day complaints. Tony Blair when PM was taken aback at being questioned by a member of the public about a cancelled operation at a hospital. The problem of the PM and Ministers getting sucked into the day-to-day minutiae of public services has led to the creation of lots of arm length delivery bodies to try and reduce that, but not always succeeding.

 

[Recessio]

Liberalisation of the passenger sectors could have followed a similar path to Germany and Sweden. Regional Railways and NSE could have been required to become buyers of services rather than direct operators by putting their services out to tender. The profit centres (which formed the basis of franchises in the actual timeline) could have formed the basis of concessions. Intercity could have remained as was, but with open access permitted for long distance routes in competition, as happens in a number of EU countries.

What does "buyers of services" and out to tender mean in this context, sorry? Is this that NSE etc would have had to compete for a tender as another TOC against private operators? Or that NSE etc would still manage it, in the style of London Overground/Elizabeth line where it's quite well defined and someone else just operates it? Or if I've completely misunderstood, something else entirely?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Mar 2026 ==

Why would they want to operate a state owned TOC. While the party members might support nationalisation, Ministers did not want to take the blame for 8.15 being cancelled again. Having a private operator running the service meant they were one step removed from day to day complaints. Tony Blair when PM was taken aback at being questioned by a member of the public about a cancelled operation at a hospital. The problem of the PM and Ministers getting sucked into the day-to-day minutiae of public services has led to the creation of lots of arm length delivery bodies to try and reduce that, but not always succeeding.

I wasn't wondering whether they wanted to (clearly, they didnt!) - I was just wondering if the way that privatisation of passenger operations did occur was done with deliberate legal/financial implications that theoretically would have made it difficult for later government to undo (if they had wanted to do so). And, therefore, if an alternative style of privatisation (BR plc, "Big Four" vertically integrated, "Japan" style, or otherwise) would have been easier for a later government to undo.

 

[Energy]

would they have had the option of just letting franchises expire and then running them under a state-owned TOC, as happened later on? Maybe politically it would have been more difficult, but I think legally and financially that wouldn't have been too difficult (at least not more difficult than the Railtrack fiasco, surely?)

The DfT would be unable to support the new in-house operations without a lot of work. East Coast trains was run by the government, via Directly Operated Railways, iirc the DfT utilised consultants to support this, but they are finite in number. This is also why bringing operators under GBR / DfT control has taken a while.

 

[317 forever]

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?



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.



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.

From what I remember, the integrated railway for Wales was a Prism Rail idea. Prism Rail was taken over by National Express, but when Wales & Borders went out to tender the winner was Arriva. Subsequently the Senedd took the operation in-house (as did the Scottish government with ScotRail and now the UK government with English franchises).

 

[Matt P]

What does "buyers of services" and out to tender mean in this context, sorry? Is this that NSE etc would have had to compete for a tender as another TOC against private operators? Or that NSE etc would still manage it, in the style of London Overground/Elizabeth line where it's quite well defined and someone else just operates it? Or if I've completely misunderstood, something else entirely?

Not dissimilar to how London buses were privatised with a public sector body setting fares, service frequencies etc and a private sector operator providing the service in return for a fee. This would be not unlike the much later London Overground example you mention. In this alternative scenario, NSE and Regional Railways would plan service provision and fare levels but contract or buy the day to day operation from the private sector. NSE and RR branding would remain.

This is not unlike how regional services are procured and run in Germany, albeit with services being specified by state and local governments, who then contract DB or private operators to run them. The reason why I think BR's sectors being the purchaser in my alternative privatisation scenario is that in 1993, outside of PTE areas, there was no local control over rail services. However, assuming the 1997 election played out as per actual history, post devolution, the Scottish and Welsh Governments having a role in the tendering process is likely to have happened, mirroring what happened in reality.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Public or private, I feel sectorisation is the only way we should be running a complex rail system like ours.

There's silence from the DfT on how it wants GBR to be structured and run.
Sectorisation seems to be out, if they implement a Regional setup which is based on Peter Hendy's preferences from his time at Network Rail.

We also know that the budgets of operation and infrastructure will continue to be separate until at least 2029 (by continuing with the NR Control Period 5-year plans), while operation (ie the current TOC setup) will be funded by the government's funding reviews and more susceptible to political whims). Devolutions also dictates some management and operational borders.

It's possible the financial separation of operations and infrastructure will continue under GBR (shades of the EU directive!), and unlikely that we will see a return of business sectors.

 

[Stossgebet]

The later EU Directives required liberalisation. But they do not require privatisation of the state owned operator. So there is absolutely no reason why ended up where we are is inevitable. It is the result of a series of political choices that trace their origins back to the outcome of the 1992 General Election.

Compliance with the initial Directive and every one since could have been achieved without breaking up BR entirely.

Separation of operations and infrastructure would have required unpicking some of the Organising for Quality structure. One option would have been to create Railtrack as a BR infrastructure sector, sitting alongside the passenger and freight sectors. Alternatively, Railtrack could have been created as a stand alone entity but retained in government ownership (which was in fact the initial plan) with BR left as the operating company or authority.

Liberalisation of freight would have simply required giving private operators access to the network in competition with BR's freight sector.

Liberalisation of the passenger sectors could have followed a similar path to Germany and Sweden. Regional Railways and NSE could have been required to become buyers of services rather than direct operators by putting their services out to tender. The profit centres (which formed the basis of franchises in the actual timeline) could have formed the basis of concessions. Intercity could have remained as was, but with open access permitted for long distance routes in competition, as happens in a number of EU countries.

All of what I have suggested could have been easily achieved without smashing BR to smithereens. Such an evolutionary approach could also have been implemented over a longer period of time, particularly as it may have been palatable to New Labour as well.

You say the eu law doesn't require the privatisation of the state train operator. And you are corrct to say that.
In reality. The process requires the state train operator to be broken up, and its services tendered to the private sector.
Yes, the state operator can bid, and can win. But as we see in Germany for example, where DB Regio still exists, and still wins bids... there are whole routes and areas where it hasn't... so while you might like to say it hasn't been privatised. The reality is that a whole host of routes it once had, have been taken over by the private train operations.

Your point is akin to saying that a gangrene infection didn't kill you, so you still exist. Great, but your arm was amputated. So yeah. Still exist. But not fully intact, and now facing complicated issues going forward. Not least, the fact that the law (in this silly similie) mandates a never ending process of gangrene infections (and healings) across the body at different times and affecting different areas.

 

[Matt P]

You say the eu law doesn't require the privatisation of the state train operator. And you are corrct to say that.
In reality. The process requires the state train operator to be broken up, and its services tendered to the private sector.
Yes, the state operator can bid, and can win. But as we see in Germany for example, where DB Regio still exists, and still wins bids... there are whole routes and areas where it hasn't... so while you might like to say it hasn't been privatised. The reality is that a whole host of routes it once had, have been taken over by the private train operations.

Your point is akin to saying that a gangrene infection didn't kill you, so you still exist. Great, but your arm was amputated. So yeah. Still exist. But not fully intact, and now facing complicated issues going forward. Not least, the fact that the law (in this silly similie) mandates a never ending process of gangrene infections (and healings) across the body at different times and affecting different areas.

The Directive requires tendering of public service obligation type services, i.e subsidised services. Not all services. Liberalisation of services that can run on a commercial basis is via open access.

The tendering process in Germany has resulted in contracts being awarded to the private sector. But this isn't a one way process. The contacts are fixed term. The services are also owned by the public sector, just operated privately. Moreover, in Germany the tenders let by state and local governments ensuring a far more bottom up democratic accountability than has ever existed in the UK franchising process, at least outside of Scotland, Wales, Merseyside and London.

The model I'd suggested was actually slightly different to the German model but kept the ownership and oversight of passenger services in the public sector. This was in acknowledgement of the fact that unlike Germany, the UK is a unitary state and in 1993, devolution had yet to happen. So what I'd envisaged was a more pragmatic evolution of the then existing BR structure to one of purchaser of services rather than direct provider.

The advantage as I see it is that it would have fulfilled the Conservative Party 1992 manifesto regarding privatisation (and accepts that some form of privatisation was invenitable). But would have kept BR in tact as an entity with responsibility for strategic planning and oversight. It would have also been far less fragmented.

 

[Stossgebet]

The Directive requires tendering of public service obligation type services, i.e subsidised services. Not all services. Liberalisation of services that can run on a commercial basis is via open access.

The tendering process in Germany has resulted in contracts being awarded to the private sector. But this isn't a one way process. The contacts are fixed term. The services are also owned by the public sector, just operated privately. Moreover, in Germany the tenders let by state and local governments ensuring a far more bottom up democratic accountability than has ever existed in the UK franchising process, at least outside of Scotland, Wales, Merseyside and London.

The model I'd suggested was actually slightly different to the German model but kept the ownership and oversight of passenger services in the public sector. This was in acknowledgement of the fact that unlike Germany, the UK is a unitary state and in 1993, devolution had yet to happen. So what I'd envisaged was a more pragmatic evolution of the then existing BR structure to one of purchaser of services rather than direct provider.

The advantage as I see it is that it would have fulfilled the Conservative Party 1992 manifesto regarding privatisation (and accepts that some form of privatisation was invenitable). But would have kept BR in tact as an entity with responsibility for strategic planning and oversight. It would have also been far less fragmented.

As you say. The eu law that mandates all this, it requires all public train operations to be tendered to the private sector. Or to be run on a commercial (and profitable) basis as open access... and if they are not profitable, then they will go bust... or be subsidised, and thus tendered out. It is a one way road. And the open access allowed by the eu could lead to the something once profitable for the state, becoming loss making and needing subsidy (afterall, open access is about cherry picking the profits and not operating the services deemed social)

I agree that BR could have been kept as a form of network 'manager' or a 'guiding mind' in current language, or as your idea of exisiting for "planning and oversight"... but that doesn't undo the legal requirements of the eu laws, to separate train ops and infrastructure, and break up and tender the train operations. Saving BR doesn't save us from the mess and the rip off. But it may have saved some efficencies in planning, procurement and operations. But saving a bit of a rip off, still means you have been ripped off.

All train operating contracts issued in the eu, have a fixed term. They are contracts afterall. And the process is never ending. You say "it isn't a one way process". And it isn't. It is a never ending merry-go-round of expensive musical chairs. And a fragmentation that has cost us all huge amounts of money. A member state can pick what that length of the contract is, as long as it is within the length allowed by eu laws (which doesn't and probably never can match the working life of the assets. Think 20 year max franchise ordering trains with a 30-35 year working life.). And can choose what the detailed service provision, rolling stock criteria and small print is. The eu says you can do what you like, as long as it is within their law. And that's exactly what we got and why we got it. Other member states have implemented it with variations. But the principle is the same, because it complies with the same overall framework.

And how can you claim something is "more bottom up democratically accountable"... when the system that mandates this structure, has been imposed from an eu level, pretty much without the knowledge or consent of the electorate, and without any legal means to return to a vertically integrated structure (other than by leaving the eu as whole!).

While we can't blame the eu laws for the last labour government issuing franchises (like northern, london midland, cross country, midland mainline ect) that had a practically zero growth, rolling stock fleet procurement embedded within the franchise specification. But the fact that the train operations had to be broken up to begin with, means all effiencies and shared assets, were lost in the fragmentation of every individual part of the broken and fragmented structure now needing to make a profit (often from each other) to survive, much less succeed. Gave us all a fake 'profit/loss/subsidy figures, while the overall cost of the industry shot up, and buying in the services you say we still own, from the private sector, hasn't served to do anything other than enrich private equity at the expense of the taxpayer. And in my opinion, has distanced the public service from the public, by taking away their state owned service and replaced it with a never ending rotation of various operators, expensive and bureaucratic tendering processes and often resulting in nondescript and frankly unwanted and disposable brand names, to deliver what we already had, and deliver less than what the previous vertically integrated structure could have achieved, if it had the same amount of funding that goes into the mess we have today.