IN Brief:
- Rail reform would reunify track and train under Great British Railways.
- CILT(UK) says non-GBR services represent about 30% of movements.
- Freight operators want enforceable capacity rights, appeal routes, and cost certainty.
The Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport (UK) has welcomed the Government’s Railways Bill and its plan to create Great British Railways (GBR), but has warned that freight and other services outside GBR could be left exposed unless Parliament tightens the Bill’s duties around capacity allocation, access decisions, and charging.
In its submission to the House of Commons Public Bill Committee, CILT(UK) supports the reunification of track and train, and points to the potential for a more integrated railway to reduce friction between infrastructure management and operations. Its concern is that the Bill’s current drafting gives GBR wide discretion to shape the network around its own services, without sufficiently robust statutory protections for non-GBR operators, including private sector freight, open-access passenger services, and passenger operations led by devolved authorities.
CILT(UK) notes that rail services not operated by GBR, including freight and non-GBR passenger services, represent approximately 30% of total train movements. The institute argues that the Bill should make it explicit that these operators will receive durable safeguards against decisions made by a single, state-owned infrastructure and capacity provider, particularly where freight access underpins private investment in terminals, rolling stock, and customer contracts.
The institute supports the concept of a Freight Growth Target, but argues that the current duty on GBR to “have regard to” that target is too weak in legal terms, because it can be outweighed by other priorities. CILT(UK) proposes stronger wording that would require GBR, when exercising its statutory functions, to act in accordance with the target and relevant devolved strategies for freight in Scotland.
A central flashpoint is the way the Bill handles capacity. CILT(UK) highlights provisions it believes could be read as requiring GBR to prioritise its own current and future services and maintenance activities over the requirements of non-GBR users. The institute argues that freight needs predictable paths and operational resilience — not a discretionary “best efforts” approach that can be squeezed during timetabling changes, disruption management, or when new passenger services are introduced.
Charging is the second pressure point. CILT(UK) warns that the Bill’s approach to access charging could create uncertainty for freight operators if GBR is able to raise charges where it deems an “efficient operator” can afford to pay more, particularly under future fiscal pressure. It argues that this risk could deter private investment in freight growth, and has called for tighter constraints linking charging decisions to freight growth objectives and devolved transport strategies.
Alongside capacity and cost, CILT(UK) is also pushing for stronger oversight. The Government’s accompanying material sets out an appeals role for the Office of Rail and Road (ORR) on access and charging decisions, but CILT(UK) argues that some provisions should be brought within clearer appeal routes, and that the ORR should have stronger powers of direction where it believes GBR has not dealt fairly with access applicants on capacity and charges.
With freight operators already planning around long asset lives and multi-year customer contracts, CILT(UK) is effectively asking MPs to hard-wire protections into primary legislation, rather than rely on secondary legislation, policy statements, or institutional goodwill that could shift with ministerial priorities.
