Can our railway structure improve?

In RAIL 841, both Nigel Harris and Industry Insider are critical of the current structuring of the railway.

The franchising model indeed has serious flaws. It is relatively short-termist, with inflexible private monopolies under a high degree of state control that discourages enterprise, innovation and long-term investment and development.

Effective on-rail competition, where feasible, is probably the better means for giving accountability than via DfT ‘command and control’. Most inter-city and longer-distance services would fall into such a category,

Industry Insider addresses more local operations, mentioning Community Rail Partnerships (CRPs). Local/commuter operations largely involve captive markets and need an effective mechanism for accountability, to which CRPs may be an answer - at least, a structure involving local direct democracy seems preferable.

Trying to vertically integrate a multi-operator railway, as Nigel points out with particular reference to the East Coast Main Line, seems to be a fundamental contradiction.

Since privatisation we have had three infrastructure models: Railtrack; Network Rail Mk 1 with its weird ‘not for profit, limited by guarantee’ constitution; and NR Mk 2, nationalised in all but name.

What set-up would be optimal doesn’t seem clear, but it may be useful to look abroad for inspiration. Sweden, for example, has integrated rail, road and water infrastructure management into a single body.