Building on the Railways Bill: Why Collaborative Rulemaking Matters More Than Ever
Last November’s Railways Bill designed the playing field and broad objectives for the creation of GB Rail, but left the detailed playing rules to be agreed. This gap creates both risks and opportunities for future operation of the rail network.
Negotient’s Charles Tarvin sets out how this creates an opening for rail sector partners beyond passenger services to negotiate a reformed operational environment.
The Opening for Collaborative Action
The Bill established the legal framework for a more unified railway. However, much detailed implementation work remains to be done, as highlighted in the subsequent Transport Select Committee hearings.
At Negotient, we work with clients to build negotiation dynamics which facilitate joint working on commonly owned, negotiated, policy and financial approaches. This complements traditional policy and advisory work by focusing as much on how parties decide together, as what they should decide.
We believe that industry-led initiatives need not await final GBR establishment nor wait in hope that departmental and regulatory duties, powers and strategy will be effective at meeting the whole industry’s needs. Core issues require attention now, and work should begin immediately.
Approaching the future of non-passenger services as a form of collaborative rulemaking offers:
Legitimate, implementable outcomes
Reduced disputes and faster implementation
Integration of longer-term public and private sector objectives
For industry stakeholders ready to engage proactively in shaping these frameworks, there is an opportunity now to shape the regime for non-passenger rail to meet present and future needs. Waiting for imposed solutions risks delay and the failures of fragmented decision-making.
The Framework Is Set - The Details Are Not
GBR has been established as the railway’s preeminent body, and the Bill has set out statutory duties, consulting requirements and appeals processes. However, its attention will inevitably be dominated by the volume and pressing needs of passenger services. Critical implementation details have been deferred: Access and Use Policy, land protection mechanisms, capacity allocation processes, and devolution arrangements all remain to be finalised.
If detailed rules are hurriedly produced and imposed top-down, substantial parts of the rail network will operate inefficiently, leading to mismatched investment and incentive horizons, backward-looking attempts to redress issues, and reduced scope for innovation or transformational investment.
The space now exists for co-creation of how the industry works together. As proposed in our previous article, rail partners and their DfT counterparts could use an approach based on collaborative rulemaking to address sector-specific needs whilst fitting constructively within the wider GBR framework. It just needs the will and, vitally, the means to engage constructively.
Where Details Will Determine Success
Rail Freight
The statutory duty to promote rail freight is welcome, but it lacks operational detail. The presence of a freight growth target duty and a statutory duty to promote freight are not themselves sufficient foundations to support innovation and growth. The mechanism to determine, monitor and promote the Freight Growth Target is unspecified, and approaches to capacity allocation between passenger and freight services remain undetermined. The "best use of network" criteria remains undefined, even at a high level.
Freight policy and management also aspire to help address wider national objectives beyond the immediate rail context: multi-modal transport efficiency, decarbonisation, industrial development, and regional economic growth. Rail freight's contribution to these goals requires explicit recognition in the detailed rules and ways of working.
Rolling Stock Leasing
ROSCOs remain private sector lessors, but face uncertainty about the future market shape in both demand (potential near-monopsony for passenger stock) and supply. Rolling stock financing requires long-term investment horizons and stable frameworks extending 25+ years.
The impacts on individual ROSCOs depend on their mix of investments and are likely to play out over a longer term than operators. Nevertheless, collaborative engagement in the development of future relationships, procurement processes, and regulatory frameworks would help shape arrangements that balance public objectives, industry innovation, and private sector investors’ needs.
Rail-related Real Estate and Infrastructure
Land disposal protections have been deferred to the GBR licence. Land and infrastructure decisions intrinsically require long horizons, multiple stakeholders, and significant financial resources. Strategic freight terminals and regeneration sites need safeguarding, but also flexibilities for holistic and innovative evolution.
Balancing revenue generation, spatial development needs, economic growth, and strategic rail capacity requires a structured approach over a 10-25 year perspective. This extended timeframe is essential for realising modal shift objectives, supporting the economy, and decarbonisation. These decisions should complement GBR's core network operational management role, which naturally operates on shorter timescales.
Open Access Passenger Operators
Open access passenger services have been retained, but the conditions under which they operate remain undefined. The "not primarily abstractive" criteria lacks clarity, market entry processes are unspecified, and capacity allocation arrangements are unclear.
Proposals should be shared and discussed with prospective operators well before they are finalised. The innovation and efficiency benefits that open access can deliver will only be realised through fair, transparent rules that all parties understand and accept.
Conclusion
We are keen and excited to play our part helping bring rail sector partners together to develop and agree a new rail future.
The next two years will determine whether rules are co-created or imposed. This process should not await full GBR establishment and the appointment of permanent GBR leadership but should start now as integrated co-development. Our August article identified the gap; November’s Bill confirmed it; this paper now targets where to focus efforts.
Collaborative rulemaking offers a proven path to collectively accepted, tailored results. It requires both government and the rail industry to engage proactively. The opportunity is there; the question is whether it will be taken up.