Should the Railways Be Renationalised?

All aboard The Big Debate Express! This week we ask: “Should Britain’s railways be renationalised?”

For more perspective, see our in-depth discussion on The Big Debate: Should the Railways Be Renationalised?

Yes – Harry Adams

The way Britain currently operates its railway system is flawed. For over two decades, governments have maintained lengthy franchise deals for Train Operating Companies (TOCs), granting them limited competition and massive government subsidies. Complicated ticketing and above-inflation fare rises risk turning our railways into, in the words of former Transport Secretary Philip Hammond, “a rich man’s toy.”

Given the fractured nature of the system—where infrastructure, operating rights and rolling stock are owned by separate entities—it’s little wonder we face such chaos. Yet passenger numbers continue to boom, and the government cites this growth to justify the status quo. A recent YouGov poll found that 58% of respondents support nationalisation, illustrating the electorate’s clear wishes.

The way Britain currently operates its railway system is flawed.

The privatisation argument rests on two myths:

1. Privatisation alone rescued passenger numbers. The 1993 dissolution of British Rail halted decline thanks to private investment and rebranding. However, record-high passenger figures owe much to rising road congestion and fuel costs rather than franchise structure.
2. A publicly owned rail network must mimic pre-1993 British Railroads. Yet from 2009–15, Directly Operated Railways (a not-for-dividend DfT subsidiary) ran the East Coast Main Line profitably, with lower subsidies than the Virgin-operated West Coast.

The Hogwarts Express was once part of British Rail, then privatised in 1994 under Albus Dumbledore’s management. Only “open access agreements” have introduced genuine choice, and these remain limited by major TOCs defending profit margins against competition.

Transport policy has become ideological. Governments make nationalisation difficult—delaying any transition until the early 2030s—ensuring TOCs resist renewal. The result? Continued eye-watering subsidies with no private-sector competition in sight.

This is transport policy at its most ideological.

Further privatisation would fracture the system permanently, selling off assets and risking higher fares or service cuts. The obvious solution is measured nationalisation along Directly Operated Railways’ lines—profitable and effective for taxpayers, passengers and government alike.

No – Alistair Woods

“Poor service, late, dirty…” Ask any parent about British Rail and expect that verdict. Since privatisation in the mid-’90s, Britain’s railways have improved markedly.

Key facts:

• Increased investment: From £1.2 bn in 1994 (inflation-adjusted) to £6.8 bn in 2014.
• Passenger satisfaction: Rose from 76% in 1999 to 83% today.
• Passenger growth: Up 117% since privatisation, outpacing France and Germany.

Subsidies have risen from £2.2 bn to £3.8 bn, but per-journey costs have decreased by about 20%. Fare increases of 24% (Economist) are often highlighted, but renationalisation offers no guaranteed reversal.

Since the railways were privatised in the mid ‘90s they have improved markedly in multiple ways.

Renationalisation advocates cite Britain’s 40% inefficiency versus publicly owned European systems. Yet the main culprit is expensive labour practices, not lack of scale. London’s TfL pays Tube drivers £50 k, with annual strikes—would the government tackle this head-on? Real improvements lie in track leasing reforms or lease-length adjustments.

Instead it is expensive labour practices that need to be tackled.

Buying out TOC leases would cost billions, while letting leases expire would deter private investment. Chronic underinvestment under past public ownership means we would need massive capital injections—far from the “golden ticket” some expect. Private operation delivers better service and value for money; that’s the reality we must accept.