This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United Kingdom Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. London Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Companies Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Companies To-do: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes Maintain : Portal:Companies Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs Other : Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner Answer requests for comments Transport Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Transport, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TransportWikipedia:WikiProject TransportTemplate:WikiProject TransportTransport Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Trains: in UK / in Scotland High‑importance Trains Portal DYK August 17, 2018 This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated projects or task forces: /  This article is supported by WikiProject UK Railways (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Transport in Scotland (assessed as High-importance).

Wikipedia policy WP:CRYSTAL requires that we do not say that something "will" happen since reality may intervene. The most we can do is to report that the government says that it is it's intention that it will happen.

Do we require clarifications in this document? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:52, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I assume not as the wording refers to things that "will" happen once Royal Assent is given. This can is changed if plans are abandoned. 90.251.179.30 (talk) 02:35, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft Rail Reform bill has just been announced please read and update this article if interested. 90.251.179.30 (talk) 02:53, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As the IP editor observed, the website no longer responds. The last successful archive.org capture (30 March 24) has large notice

This website is no longer being updated. For the latest information about rail reform and how we are integrating as an industry, please visit the websites of the Department for Transport, DfT Operator and Network Rail.

Obviously we can't yet say more than that (a) the website is dead and (b) the enabling legislation has not been tabled.

Or at least not until a reliable source picks up the story and investigates. [Hint!] 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:06, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's a few things on GBR (from page 24) in the April edition of Modern Railways if you have access to that. If not I can take a look later this evening and see what I can add. FozzieHey (talk) 12:01, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No I don't so can you do the honours? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:02, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First impressions of reading the article is that the chronology is a bit mixed up. For example, the latest "status update" is actually in the "Scope and powers" section which states: "A separate Railways Bill providing for the establishment of GBR will be brought forward later in 2025, with the new body anticipated to be fully operational by late 2026." I think a lot of this can be merged into the History section, and a lot of the minor older History content can be removed per WP:UNDUE. FozzieHey (talk) 17:30, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've merged some content from "Scope and powers" into "History", and have added a few more paragraphs detailing the current status. Basically it appears like a lot of it is still unknown, but I've included some estimates on the timescale. I've tagged the Scopes and powers section as needing an update as pretty much all of it is from the original announcement. I'm still not sure what to do with this section, I'm considering merging it all into the History section for now until we get something more conclusive. I'm sure that some of the powers under Labour will differ from the original ones proposed under the Conservatives, so should we include the originals in the "Conservative government" section of the History, and then add the others once they become clear? Interested to hear others thoughts. FozzieHey (talk) 20:09, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is a little bit stale now but this BBC report (20 January 2025) reports The government is continuing to develop its new operating body, Great British Railways. So unless we get an equally explicit statement that it has been abandoned, we have to assume continuance. But in the mysterious circumstances of the website going offline, I think we need to keep my cautionary hatnote for the present 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:36, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JMF: I've still got a bit more to read in Modern Railways, but as far as I understand it is that Shadow GBR is starting to get up and running by bringing more operators into DfT Operator, and we currently know the dates for South Western Railway, c2c and Greater Anglia at least. During this shadow period they will work closer to Network Rail, so when GBR is fully established they can all be integrated together. We currently have a few cited estimates for late 2026 to early 2027 for when GBR is actually going to be up and running, I don't think there's value in having a citation needed in the lead up until then so I'm happy to move those estimates into the lead if you agree. FozzieHey (talk) 16:28, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is clear what DfTO is doing, reclaiming the franchises as and when their contracts end: I don't see that as particularly relevant to this article. Almost certainly there is no significance to the GBR website going offline but the closing message "ask the DfT or DfTO" was very strange (but probably not authorised!). The value of estimates is questionable, see WP:CRYSTAL.

My preference is to do nothing and wait to see what happens. WP:NOTNEWS. Others may disagree of course. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:28, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We really need a reliable source for what is to happen to the TOCs, since there seems to be a variety of understanding and sloppy journalism about. As far as I know (and I only read the papers, I have no insider knowledge), the TOCs will not be nationalised. The same will happen as happened to the TOCs that handed back the keys (or had them taken back for non-performance): the franchise will not be renewed, that's it, been nice knowing you, goodbye. Same process as e.g. the Virgin to Avanti transfer, except this time it is Avanti to GBR. Presumably TUPE will apply to most staff.

And the Open Access Operators aren't affected (and maybe one or two of the TOCs will relaunch themselves as OAOs?).

But where is the evidence for any of that???? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:03, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Sure there may be room for improvement and the inclusion of more recent history, but that shouldn't mean the total erasure of what happened before. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:21, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am slightly lost to what history you think is being lost here? Orangeisacop (talk) 19:30, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The notion of a publicly owned body called "Great British Railways" was first set out in early 2020s by Boris Johnson. I don't see much credit given to him, or coverage of his vision for the organisation, or the steps his government took towards the creation of it, or the influence of the Covid pandemic on it, in the "big rewrite". Similarly for Rishi Sunak's government's role in the story. What about the reception given to the bold new idea at the time of its conception by the then opposition party, Labour? -- DeFacto (talk). 08:14, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

None of the existing info about the Williams-Shapps plan was removed, nor about COVID measures. Infact I've tried to expand on the differences between those plans and Labours to put it all in context, so again not sure what history you think is being erased?

Worth noting that although there are clear similarities (including being an integrated rail body, and the very Johnson name), the Williams-Shapps plans for reform/GBR were never implemented, and the current plans for GBR are quite different. I agree it's important context though, that's why it's still there!

Apologies for the unhelpful initial edit summary (I didn't think it would be controversial) and I get it's a big byte edit which is scary, but I stand by that no valuable content was lost in my refactor. The line about taking in services as contracts expire was used 3 times before, almost verbatim. If there's areas you feel need expanding, then as I say, we should go ahead and iterate from there WP:PERFECTION Orangeisacop (talk) 09:05, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, inadequateedit summaries can lead to misunderstandings, we've all been thr ;-). I wasn't talking about removals over what was there before though, just that there wasn't the same amount of attribution given in the 'rewrite' to Johnson's vision in 'inventing' the idea or to Sunak's contribution, or the opposition party reaction, as there was to Starmer's subsequent adoption of GBR and tweaks to it. So it seemed like certain, even key, aspects had been erased from its history resulting in a non too NPOV version. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:39, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point I suppose, had another swing at it. Course feel free to add any more info on the Williams-Shapps proposals or the differences to what's being established. Bearing in mind undue weight etc. Orangeisacop (talk) 11:37, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Something should be added about when all the current franchises expire and when GBR will be expected to take over control. Rail isn't my area of expertise per say so I would rather someone slightly more knowledgeable could add this. Louis (talk) (contribs) 18:40, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Better to leave the details of the franchises in Passenger rail franchising in Great Britain, since they won't exist in the GBR world. -- Wire723 (talk) 10:16, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, makes sense. Thanks. Louis (talk) (contribs) 12:20, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've proposed a move to move GBR (the disambiguation page) to GBR (disambiguation), so that GBR can re-direct to this page, Great British Railways. Please comment your thoughts (see Talk:GBR#Requested move 9 December 2025). Regards, Fortek67 (talk) 22:24, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]