There are 13 mentions of "fragmented/fragmentation" in the consultation. The government is clear that the existing privatised structure of the railway needs to change. It intends that Great British Railways will be a single "directing mind" (note the change of language from "guiding mind" in previous consultations) that will run the rail infrastructure and passenger services in the public interest: "passengers will travel on GBR trains, running on GBR tracks, and arrive at GBR stations".

GBR will be formed out of Network Rail Infrastructure Limited, to avoid transferring assets, people and contracts. This is a similar approach to the creation of the new National Energy System Operator (NESO), which was formed from an existing company.

GBR's remit includes delivering passenger services; planning timetables; operation, maintenance and renewal of infrastructure and rolling stock; setting fares; managing access to the network and setting access charges. This all sounds good for passengers, but there is concern that freight may be disadvantaged, even though there will be an explicit statutory duty on GBR to promote rail freight in line with a growth target set by the government.

While pulling a number of parts into a single GBR will remove external fragmentation, there will continue to be a need for the various parts to work together. The civil engineers responsible for the infrastructure will still have a different opinion on when they should have access to the tracks for repair works to the managers running the trains. Internal processes to manage these conflicting requirements will continue to be required and some may end up being similar to the existing external interfaces, with the safety card being key. Getting the internal interfaces right will be important for the smooth operation of GBR going forwards.

The major change this consultation proposes is that GBR will control track access. The forthcoming Railways Bill will establish a new access framework. GBR (not the ORR as currently) will decide when open access operators and freight can use the network, via a new Access and Use Policy (AUP) developed in consultation with the industry. Open access and freight will still be bound by the Access and Management Regulations but GBR's passenger services won't be.

The approach to track access will be more proactive, based on Usage Plans to be developed with industry, rather than reactive and based on access applications. This implies a degree of centralised planning for the network which could be a good thing as long as there is sufficient flexibility to adapt the Usage Plans over time.

What is unclear from the information on the Usage Plans is the extent to which priority may be given to longer distance passenger and freight services compared to services which may be proposed by devolved authorities, particularly Mayoral Strategic Authorities who are looking for services to fit within their own integrated transport networks.  In the case of freight, routes will need to take account of strategic services coming up from ports or running from centres of aggregate production and no doubt the wider freight sector will want to have some input into this area.

There is an open question in the consultation on what key access rules and requirements for GBR should be included in the legislation, so this is still very much up in the air and industry has a chance to shape this policy when responding.

The consultation also proposes a new charging framework. GBR's own operators won't pay access charges to access the GBR network, but open access and freight will, so there will need to be a cost apportionment process to ensure charges are fair and non-discriminatory. Non-GBR operators will have a legal right to appeal to the ORR if they feel the charges are unfair.

At the moment, Network Rail is subject to a periodic review of its business plan and charges every five years. Under the reforms, there will still be a review every five years but the process will be simplified. The Secretary of State for Transport will still issue a high level output specification (HLOS) of what services it would like to see, and a statement of funds available (SoFA) to meet that specification. GBR will then create a business plan to address this. The ORR will assess that business plan for viability but the Secretary of State will be the one to ultimately sign it off. 

There will be a new duty on the Secretary of State to consult mayoral strategic authorities when deciding the HLOS: see point 5 below for more detail.

The ORR loses powers, for example it will no longer grant track access. It will remain responsible for safety, competition, consumer law enforcement, and licensing (but only of non-GBR entities).

The DfT steps back from the day to day running of the railway but sets the long term strategy and issues directions and guidance. It will draft, issue and (where necessary) amend GBR's licence, although ORR will enforce it. Presumably it will direct the "directing mind" of GBR.

The Rail Delivery Group (RDG) may no longer have a role. It looks like their functions will be divided up amongst other parties.

A new passenger watchdog will be created to be an independent champion for passenger interests. The consultation, despite devoting a whole chapter to it, contains surprisingly little detail on what the watchdog will do and even what it will be called. The 2024 Labour manifesto referred to it as the Passenger Standards Authority, but its official name will be decided once its precise roles and functions have been confirmed. This is still up in the air: "Responses to this consultation will be used to inform whether and how to consolidate existing passenger-focused regulatory functions of the ORR, the existing watchdog responsibilities of Transport Focus, and the dispute resolution role of the Rail Ombudsman into one body." The watchdog could be just a statutory advisor or also have regulatory functions e.g. guidance on and approval of accessible travel requirements.

There is much talk in the consultation on devolution but reading between the lines, for Scotland and Wales the position will remain similar to now. There will be potentially more powers for Mayoral Strategic Authorities (MSAs) – a term from the English Devolution White Paper. Both the devolved governments and MSAs will have a new statutory role in governing, managing, planning and developing the rail network. GBR will have to collaborate with devolved governments and MSAs and ensure that national and local strategies are factored in to GBR decision-making. 

MSAs will also have the right to request further rail devolution in their areas. A framework has already been developed with MSAs to demonstrate what could be covered in a future partnership between GBR and MSAs, with options ranging from strategic engagement (where both parties keep each other informed of their plans) all the way to a fully devolved service carve out from GBR, like London Overground and Merseyrail.

Another possibility, not really covered in the consultation, is the introduction of tram-trains and potentially the conversion of existing rail routes to tramways, which could then move into the full control of MSAs, removing those routes from the national rail network.  Discussions with Network Rail on such possibilities have been ongoing for a number of years and are likely to continue alongside the formulation of Usage Plans.