Great Britain: from privatization to renationalization of the railways, fiasco or model?

Written by Sophie Renassia

Published on March 22, 2025

“I can't wait for the SNCF to be privatized”, ‘I can't wait for competition’... Have you ever heard or uttered these words? So have we. Even if France, with its singular social model, resists neoliberal doctrines a little better than others, well, the idea that the free market and competition could solve all our problems is gaining ground. But it's far from simple...

To convince you of this, we'll take you across the Channel to Great Britain, the first European country to have fully privatized its rail network back in the 1990s. You'll understand why this decision led to growing discontent, to the point where around two-thirds of Britons are now calling for the railways to be renationalized! From the key stages in this long history to the changeover that led to the gradual return of the entire rail network to public ownership... We explain it all to you.

Psst... This survey is also available in 100% audio format.

Railroad privatization: the British story

A mixed heritage

Before getting to the heart of the matter, let's take a brief look at the definition of what we're talking about. The United Kingdom (officially the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) is made up of four nations: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, which together form Great Britain and Northern Ireland. While there is often talk of “privatization of the railways in the UK”, this mainly concerns Great Britain. Northern Ireland, on the other hand, remained under public management via Translink NI Railways, and did not follow the privatization trend of the 1990s.

This distinction is all the more important as rail policies have evolved differently in different regions. Scotland and Wales, although subject to the UK privatization framework, have gradually regained a degree of public control over their network, notably by recentralizing certain services under government control.

So what is privatization?

Privatization is when a service that was previously run by the state (i.e. with public tax money) is sold to private companies. These companies, once they own the service, can manage it to make a profit, and in exchange, are responsible for maintaining and financing the service's structure. In the case of railways, this choice is a delicate one, as trains are considered to be a public utility service: everyone should have access to them, whatever their income or geographical location (in the same way as health or education).

Historically, however, railroads were initiated by private companies, who saw an economic opportunity! But faced with “anarchic” development, governments had to intervene to protect the public interest and coordinate a sector that had become vital, notably for reasons of safety and network coherence. In many countries, this led to the nationalization of railroads in the XXᵉ century. This was the case in Great Britain, before a further privatization a few years later.

This privatization of Britain's railroads then concerned all activities: infrastructure management, rolling stock leasing, maintenance or freight, with the creation of a multitude of independent structures.

The liberal roots of British railways

As the cradle of railways in Europe (the first rail link dates back to 1825, well before France or Germany!), Great Britain is characterized by a resolutely liberal policy. By the end of the XIXᵉ century, 300 companies were already competing for 31,000 km of lines, forming the densest and most developed network in the world.

The snag? This multitude of players caused numerous problems: overlapping infrastructures, lack of unified standards and tariffs, growing need for public investment... Evils that would reappear later, after the wave of privatization.

Pre-privatization: nationalization under British Rail

The Big Four and gradual nationalization

After the First World War, the British government took control of the rail sector to ensure more efficient management in times of conflict. After the war, the government sought to centralize the sector by consolidating the numerous existing rail companies into four large entities, known as the “Big Four” (GWR, LMS, LNER, SR). The aim of this restructuring was to simplify network management, improve economic efficiency and enhance viability. A hybrid but essentially private model, operating under strict state regulation. Despite this, inefficiency persisted, leading to full nationalization in 1948: British Railways (later British Rail) was born.

Modernization and the crisis of the 1970s

In the early decades, British Rail modernized the network, with a marked increase in ridership. But with the economic crisis of the 1970s and the emergence of other means of transport (car, bus, plane), British rail began to falter. Soon, the service was considered slow, mediocre and costly for the state.

The Thatcher era and the genesis of privatization

A major political turning point

On May 3, 1979, Margaret Thatcher and her Conservative Party came to power. To turn around the British economy (which was collapsing under the impact of high inflation and massive strikes), her policy was to limit union power, cut taxes and privatize public companies. As a result, many companies went private (British Airways, British Telecom, etc.). Contrary to popular belief, Thatcher did not dare privatize the railroads, believing that they were too complex to manage by segmenting the system profitably, and that privatizing them would deprive rural areas of essential services, which would have penalized her Conservative electorate.

The arrival of John Major and the Railways Act 1993

In 1990, John Major succeeded Margaret Thatcher in privatizing the railways. A number of factors accelerated this move, not least European Directive 91/400, which imposed a legal separation between train operations and infrastructure management. The European Union's aim was to reopen the railways to competition, allowing companies to operate services freely on any track in Europe, in return for a right of access.

In 1993, the Railways Act was passed. It marked the beginning of a new era: the break-up of British Rail into more than 100 separate entities. Unlike other European countries, where the railroads remained integrated under a single public entity - such as SNCF in France and Deutsche Bahn in Germany - the UK divided its network into several structures: Railtrack (infrastructure), Rolling Stock Companies (ROSCOs) for rolling stock, 25 franchises awarded to Train Operating Companies (TOCs), private companies for freight, and a regulator, the Office of Rail Regulation (ORR), to set fares...

Rail operations were then carried out under franchises, lasting 7 to 10 years, entrusted to private operators selected by tender.

The first effects of privatization... and the return of the State

Deceptive success

In the early days, the “franchise” model had everything going for it: better customer service, modernized trains, soaring passenger numbers! But the infrastructure (Railtrack), privatized and listed on the stock exchange, ultimately proved problematic. The State can no longer intervene directly, and the need for profitability leads to neglect of maintenance and safety. A neglect that would soon have dramatic consequences...

Fatal accidents and Railtrack's bankruptcy

Between 1997 and 2002, a series of tragic accidents (Southall, Ladbroke Grove, Hatfield, Potter Bar) highlighted the flaws in the system. With over 90 derailments in a single year and dozens of fatalities, it was a wake-up call. The situation caused a scandal, and it became clear that the system was not working.

Railtrack went bankrupt and was replaced in 2002 by Network Rail, a non-profit organization under state control. The main difference lies in the way it is financed. Network Rail's aim is not to generate profits for shareholders, but to reinvest in maintaining and improving the network. It operates with public subsidies and can borrow at low rates thanks to a government guarantee. The structure therefore reinvests massively in safety and maintenance, making the British network one of the safest in the world.

The limits of the franchise system

Golden age and turnaround

Although the system continues to operate on a franchise model for train operations, the state now exercises much more direct control over rail infrastructure. From 2004 to 2014, this system worked quite well! For almost ten years, train companies in the UK paid large sums to the state for the exclusive right to operate certain lines. This period, known as the “net premium”, is seen as the golden age of the British franchise system for railroads.

The problem with this system, however, is the vulnerability of the private sector in times of economic crisis, as it does not enjoy sufficient financial stability. And this is what is happening in 2016: economic crises, falling ridership, Brexit, major disruptions linked to the overhaul of rail timetables (2018)... The sector is once again weakened.

The Williams Review and the start of reforms

In May 2018, the country goes through a series of disruptions linked to the management of train timetables, resulting in a real disaster for passengers. The timetable management system is failing, due to a lack of investment and the inability of franchised companies to meet the growing challenges of the economic crisis.

In response to the “timetable chaos”, the government commissions a report, the “Williams Review”, proposed by Keith Williams (ex-CEO of British Airways). In it, Keith Williams highlights the weaknesses of the current model and proposes several objectives: to reduce the fragmentation of the sector, encourage better collaboration between players, and guarantee the financial viability of the railways. But nationalization is still out of the question.

In 2020, a “small” global event accentuated the sector's fragility: the COVID-19 pandemic. The British railways experienced a further fall in ridership, rendering the franchise model totally obsolete. In 2021, a new report, the Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail, provided for the creation of Great British Railways (GBR), a public body responsible for network planning. So, although GBR was seen by some as a disguised renationalization, the government insisted that it was rather a hybrid model, where private operators would continue to play a role in running services, but under more supervised contracts. Despite the ambition of this reform, its implementation has been subject to numerous delays, due in part to a lack of political will, but also to opposition from certain private-sector players who feared a loss of control and a reduction in their profitability under the new model.

Towards inevitable renationalization

2024: the historic changeover

It was on November 28, 2024, that the British rail industry underwent a real sea change: the new Labour government passed a law renationalizing rail services. Great British Railways became a centralized public entity, bringing together infrastructure, planning and pricing, with the aim of simplifying network management, improving service quality and reducing passenger fares. Popular support is overwhelming: according to YouGov, 66% to 70% of Britons support rail renationalization!

It has to be said that users are particularly frustrated by the steady rise in fares, often well in excess of inflation, and by the poor reliability of services, particularly on the busy lines in the south of England.

A gradual return to public control

The transition to public management is taking place franchise by franchise: South Western Railway in May 2025, c2c in July 2025, Greater Anglia in autumn 2025... By October 2027, all railways should be under public ownership, marking the end of the “radical” privatization model initiated in the 1990s.

What can we learn from the British example, for France and elsewhere?

Far from being the model of efficiency promised at the time of privatization in the 1990s, British rail has turned out to be a costly, inefficient and unequal system. Rather than stimulating competition and improving services, as its proponents intended, it has above all led to exorbitant prices, chronic delays, accidents, fragmentation of the network and, paradoxically, ever greater public intervention to prevent the system from collapsing!

Although Europe is encouraging competition, no country has gone as far as Great Britain in liberalizing the railways. In France, SNCF remains a single state-owned company, even though services such as TGV Inoui and OUIGO are operated without direct state funding and opened up to competition (with the arrival of players such as Trenitalia).

While competition may offer certain advantages, it must not take precedence over service quality, network coherence and accessibility. Let's not forget that the train is a right to mobility, and as such requires strong public commitment and regulation. So, should France draw more inspiration from the British model or, on the contrary, learn from it to preserve its national network? Food for thought...

Further information
- Our first investigation, on another rail anomaly: the only French department without a passenger station.
- All our surveys in video format on our Youtube channel or in audio format on your favorite podcast platform!