Open letter: stop First Group, Arriva and other private firms from clinging on to our railway

14 Jul 2025

Dear:

Rt Hon Heidi Alexander - Secretary of State for Transport

Lord Peter Hendy CBE - Minister of State responsible for the railway

We write to request that you intervene in the failed system of open access to impose an urgent moratorium on any further approval of open access applications, pending the establishment of new rules.

The Department for Transport is currently writing a new Railways Bill to replace this discredited system, yet private operators like First Group and Arriva are flooding the regulator, the Office of Rail and Road (ORR), with applications in the hopes of being approved before you have the chance to reform the system.

Despite a series of warnings on the economic and timetabling dangers of open access, the Office of Rail and Road (ORR) is still processing applications, with many decisions expected imminently. As the government itself has recently stated, the ORR’s economic duty is not fit for purpose, and any more approvals would create ‘significant long-term constraints’ on Great British Railways.[1] By continuing, therefore, the ORR is acting against the public interest and disrespecting the democratic process. The only solution is an immediate moratorium on its activities.

Threats to the timetable

The entire railway’s timetable is at risk, with Network Rail making ‘Formal Declarations of Congested Infrastructure’ on the East Coast Main Line (ECML), warning that there will be severe repercussions for the December 2025 timetable if any more applications are signed off. [2] The ECML timetable has already been delayed for four years, and detailed analysis by Network Rail predicts dire performance outcomes even without the additional open access applications.[3] Despite these warnings, the ORR has already signed off a ten-year contract extension for Grand Central Trains (Arriva), locking in the taxpayer until 2038 and going explicitly against your Department’s commitment in February that it would honour current track access agreements only until 2029.[4]

Threats to the economy

Warnings on the economic dangers of open access are equally severe, with publicly-owned operator LNER finding that it would cost £1.1 billion in lost revenue on the ECML over the next decade.[5] The causes are well known and were acknowledged by the Secretary of State earlier in the year: 1) revenue abstraction, with ORR signing off applications that allow up to 70% of revenue to be abstracted from existing services; 2) indirect subsidies, as open access companies do not cover long-term maintenance and central support costs; 3) undermining of public investment, with the four year delay to the ECML timetable undermining the value of £4 billion investment in the line;[6] and 4) long-term and ‘cumulative’ economic impacts, with the ORR ignoring ‘the true scale of abstraction’ estimated by the DfT to be £229 million per year.[7]

Threats to rail reform

The current track access system creates a complex web of legal duties blocking rail integration, and it is now the biggest obstacle to rail reform. The ultimate cause is the competition-based legal framework, which prevents ORR from favouring socioeconomic interests in their decisions, since this is seen as ‘discrimination’ against private companies. The present dangers can be seen in the competition-based demands of lobbyists like First Group, including: stronger competition regulation by the ORR; separation of accounting and bans on cross-subsidy within GBR; bans on information-sharing and collaboration; and fewer powers for devolved regions. They even want the ticket retail licensing function to move to the ORR, weakening it further as a public interest regulator.[8]

The only solution is to fully repeal all competition clauses in the Railways Act 1993, and remove the competition duty of the ORR. No compromise solution will do, as already proven by four years of attempts by the previous government, which found it impossible to achieve even minor exemptions to competition law in favour of the public interest.[9]

How to reform the open access system

1. End open access: the ORR’s economic role has been overbalanced by the interests of private companies, and it is now acting against the public interest by continuing to sign off applications. The Secretary of State must impose an urgent moratorium and then bring a permanent end to open access in the new Railways Bill.

2. Repeal all competition clauses of the Railways Act 1993, removing the competition function of the ORR and the role of the Competition and Markets Authority.

3. Reform ORR as a public interest regulator - responsible for only safety, accessibility, passenger rights and rail performance. Any economic or timetabling functions retained should be solely in the interests of socioeconomic value or in balancing the needs of devolved regions.

4. A socioeconomic model for GBR, restoring public interest duties for ‘maximising social and economic benefits’, accessibility and environment. The socioeconomic duty should be an overarching principle synchronised across all law and regulation.[10]

5. A national InterCity network for Great British Railways, replacing the open access system and coordinated for the best possible rail performance and socioeconomic value. All profits should be reinvested to grow the network, using cross-subsidy to build regional networks and restore lost services.

Great British Railways has the potential to be a great success, but this will only happen if the government commits to full public ownership in the social and economic interest. After four years of the previous government’s failure to fix this system, it now comes down to a binary choice – a competition-based model that restricts rail integration, or a socioeconomic model that guarantees the best value for public money?

We look forward to your immediate intervention to impose an urgent moratorium on approval of open access applications and a permanent end to open access, ensuring that rail reform takes place in the best interests of the public.

Yours sincerely,

Signatories

• We Own It
• Association of British Commuters (ABC)
• Bring Back British Rail (BBBR)
• Maryam Eslamdoust - General Secretary, TSSA
• Disabled People Against Cuts (DPAC)

End Notes:

1. DfT, Letter to ORR from Director-General of Rail Reform and Strategy (20 June 2025). Though ORR recently rejected three open access applications (3 July), this was explicitly done for timetabling reasons, not economic ones, with the ORR including a disclaimer to this effect.

2. Network Rail, General representation on the ECML (14 March 2025).

3. Ibid, 8-9.

4. On March 26th, ORR approved Grand Central’s application for a ten-year extension of its current contract until 2038 – speeding this through in the space of one day without even performing a value for money test. The DfT had stated in its February consultation on Great British Railways that it would honour open access agreements only until 2029. (GBR consultation, p 29, para 3.31).

5. ‘Impact of Open Access Services on LNER’ (10 April 2025), unpublished report held by the Department for Transport.

6. DfT, ‘Secretary of State for Transport’s expectations for how open access will operate’ (6 Jan 2025); DfT, A railway fit for the future: GBR consultation (Feb 2025), p 25.

7. DfT, Letter to ORR from Director-General of Rail Reform and Strategy (20 June 2025).

8. First Group submission to GBR consultation (April 2025); Independent Rail Retailers submission to GBR consultation (April 2025).

9. ORR response to Plan for Rail consultation (July 2022), CMA response to Plan for Rail consultation (August 2022); DfT, Plan for Rail consultation response (Feb 2024), p 56-59.

10. Association of British Commuters, DfT drops public interest duties from Great British Railways (24 Feb 2025); Association of British Commuters, Ministers must restore public interest duties to Great British Railways (28 Feb 2025)