Share this post:
Passengers travelling between London and Essex from today (July 20) will be doing so on publicly owned trains, as c2c services become the latest to be brought back into public hands.
On the face of it, this is a good move — but it’s no time for celebration.
Not yet.
From today, the popular c2c commuter service between London Fenchurch Street and Shoeburyness will operate under public ownership for the first time in more than two decades.
The announcement was made as part of the government’s Plan for Change, an initiative to reverse the fragmentation caused by rail privatisation and restore a sense of unity, stability, and public accountability to the UK rail system.
c2c becomes the sixth rail franchise now managed by the Department for Transport’s Operator of Last Resort (OLR), joining Northern, TransPennine Express, Southeastern, LNER and most recently, South Western Railway, which re-entered public control in May.
The move is part of a wider strategy to bring more services under the umbrella of Great British Railways (GBR) — a new public body that aims to run track and train together under one brand, one mission, and one set of standards.
According to the government, this transition marks “a key step in the rail reset” and is intended to boost reliability, drive passenger growth, and support economic development in communities served by the railway.
The language is confident, even celebratory.
Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander said:
“Whether you’re shopping in Lakeside or walking along the beach in Southend-on-Sea, from this Sunday you will be able to get there on a train service run by the public, for the public.”
We’ve heard this before.
The problem is, rhetoric doesn’t run railways — policy does.
And policy must be measured not just by its intentions, but by the results it delivers.
A promising start — if promises are kept
In fairness, c2c is a strong choice for the latest re-nationalisation.
Even under private operation, it was consistently one of the best-performing operators in the country.
Its punctuality rates were high, its customer satisfaction score has reached 89 per cent, and it serves a critical economic corridor between East London and coastal Essex.
So the transition begins not from a place of failure, but from a solid base of functionality.
Government ministers claim that public ownership will allow the benefits of good operators like c2c to be shared across the network.
The idea is that public control will promote collaboration, allow best practices to circulate, and enable operators to plan together — rather than compete against each other in the fractured model left behind by privatisation.
Passengers are promised better coordination during disruption (such as cross-honouring tickets on other publicly owned routes), smarter booking systems, and more joined-up thinking when it comes to service planning, capacity and timetabling — particularly during peak seasons and events.
On the surface, then, this looks like progress.
And it is — but only if delivery matches the promises.
Behind the press release: uncomfortable truths
Despite the upbeat tone, there are major caveats.
The first is the most obvious: there is no promise of cheaper fares.
Ministers have already acknowledged that the current rail network is deeply in deficit — requiring more than £2 billion in annual subsidies just to keep running.
As Heidi Alexander herself admitted late last year, public ownership is not a magic wand for high ticket prices.
Any expectation that passengers will suddenly enjoy radically lower fares is, for now, unfounded.
Meanwhile, the idea that nationalisation will automatically fix reliability or efficiency issues is not borne out by the data.
Past experiences with publicly operated franchises have shown that performance can remain static — or even worsen — depending on management, infrastructure and investment.
And as the Financial Times has noted, the operating subsidy for publicly owned operators has often risen, not fallen.
Then there’s the looming question of governance.
Critics fear that Great British Railways — when it eventually materialises — could become a sprawling state bureaucracy, plagued by the same inefficiencies and delays that undermined nationalised British Rail in the 1970s and 80s.
The government insists that GBR will be “run like a proper business,” not by civil servants but by transport professionals.
That might reassure some — but without radical reform of how rail infrastructure is funded, maintained, and modernised, this could just be a reshuffle in name only.
What about unions, investment, and long-term strategy?
Another factor worth mentioning is the role of the rail unions — particularly Aslef and the RMT.
Under public ownership, their influence naturally increases.
That’s not necessarily a bad thing, but it does present challenges.
Negotiating modern working practices, tackling absenteeism, and dealing with outdated rostering or shift rules will all require political will and constructive partnership — something successive governments have struggled to achieve.
There’s also the elephant in the room: private investment.
Re-nationalisation means public funding must pick up the slack once carried (however patchily) by private operators.
Rolling stock, station upgrades, digital signalling, and network expansion are all costly, long-term projects.
Without a clear and well-funded capital plan, there’s a danger that public operators simply manage decline, rather than drive growth.
Vox Political’s position: We’ve waited years for this — now make it count
At Vox Political, This Writer has been calling for rail re-nationalisation for more than a decade.
So my gut reaction is that this move is welcome, and long overdue.
But let’s be honest with ourselves: public ownership must deliver.
This is not about ideological victory – it is about practical change. We need to see:
-
Reliable, frequent and punctual trains
-
Lower or frozen fares, especially for lower-income passengers
-
Profits reinvested in the railway — and, where possible, into broader public services
-
Transparency in performance targets and spending
-
True public accountability, not just symbolic ownership
This is also a test — not just of the rail network, but of the broader idea of trickle-down economics.
If public ownership can’t generate enough benefit to be redistributed — to improve services or reduce costs — then what confidence should we have in claims that private wealth ever trickles down?
Re-nationalisation must be about public good, not just public control.
If public operators end up hoarding resources, duplicating inefficiencies, or failing to cut costs, then we haven’t solved the problem — we’ve simply changed the branding.
A necessary step — but not a moment to relax
So yes, this is progress.
Yes, the re-nationalisation of c2c is part of a much-needed shift toward a more cohesive, coordinated rail system.
And yes, it reflects public opinion — with over two-thirds of Britons supporting public control of rail services.
But until we see better trains, cheaper fares, and greater investment, this is not yet a cause for celebration.
It is a foundation, not a finished product.
Vox Political will continue to support public ownership — but will also continue to hold it to account.
If Great British Railways wants to be more than just a logo, it must earn the public’s trust.
And it must do so not through promises, but through performance.
Share this post:
This rail re-nationalisation is no cause for celebration… YET
Share this post:
Passengers travelling between London and Essex from today (July 20) will be doing so on publicly owned trains, as c2c services become the latest to be brought back into public hands.
On the face of it, this is a good move — but it’s no time for celebration.
Not yet.
From today, the popular c2c commuter service between London Fenchurch Street and Shoeburyness will operate under public ownership for the first time in more than two decades.
The announcement was made as part of the government’s Plan for Change, an initiative to reverse the fragmentation caused by rail privatisation and restore a sense of unity, stability, and public accountability to the UK rail system.
c2c becomes the sixth rail franchise now managed by the Department for Transport’s Operator of Last Resort (OLR), joining Northern, TransPennine Express, Southeastern, LNER and most recently, South Western Railway, which re-entered public control in May.
The move is part of a wider strategy to bring more services under the umbrella of Great British Railways (GBR) — a new public body that aims to run track and train together under one brand, one mission, and one set of standards.
According to the government, this transition marks “a key step in the rail reset” and is intended to boost reliability, drive passenger growth, and support economic development in communities served by the railway.
The language is confident, even celebratory.
Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander said:
We’ve heard this before.
The problem is, rhetoric doesn’t run railways — policy does.
And policy must be measured not just by its intentions, but by the results it delivers.
A promising start — if promises are kept
In fairness, c2c is a strong choice for the latest re-nationalisation.
Even under private operation, it was consistently one of the best-performing operators in the country.
Its punctuality rates were high, its customer satisfaction score has reached 89 per cent, and it serves a critical economic corridor between East London and coastal Essex.
So the transition begins not from a place of failure, but from a solid base of functionality.
Government ministers claim that public ownership will allow the benefits of good operators like c2c to be shared across the network.
The idea is that public control will promote collaboration, allow best practices to circulate, and enable operators to plan together — rather than compete against each other in the fractured model left behind by privatisation.
Passengers are promised better coordination during disruption (such as cross-honouring tickets on other publicly owned routes), smarter booking systems, and more joined-up thinking when it comes to service planning, capacity and timetabling — particularly during peak seasons and events.
On the surface, then, this looks like progress.
And it is — but only if delivery matches the promises.
Behind the press release: uncomfortable truths
Despite the upbeat tone, there are major caveats.
The first is the most obvious: there is no promise of cheaper fares.
Ministers have already acknowledged that the current rail network is deeply in deficit — requiring more than £2 billion in annual subsidies just to keep running.
As Heidi Alexander herself admitted late last year, public ownership is not a magic wand for high ticket prices.
Any expectation that passengers will suddenly enjoy radically lower fares is, for now, unfounded.
Meanwhile, the idea that nationalisation will automatically fix reliability or efficiency issues is not borne out by the data.
Past experiences with publicly operated franchises have shown that performance can remain static — or even worsen — depending on management, infrastructure and investment.
And as the Financial Times has noted, the operating subsidy for publicly owned operators has often risen, not fallen.
Then there’s the looming question of governance.
Critics fear that Great British Railways — when it eventually materialises — could become a sprawling state bureaucracy, plagued by the same inefficiencies and delays that undermined nationalised British Rail in the 1970s and 80s.
The government insists that GBR will be “run like a proper business,” not by civil servants but by transport professionals.
That might reassure some — but without radical reform of how rail infrastructure is funded, maintained, and modernised, this could just be a reshuffle in name only.
What about unions, investment, and long-term strategy?
Another factor worth mentioning is the role of the rail unions — particularly Aslef and the RMT.
Under public ownership, their influence naturally increases.
That’s not necessarily a bad thing, but it does present challenges.
Negotiating modern working practices, tackling absenteeism, and dealing with outdated rostering or shift rules will all require political will and constructive partnership — something successive governments have struggled to achieve.
There’s also the elephant in the room: private investment.
Re-nationalisation means public funding must pick up the slack once carried (however patchily) by private operators.
Rolling stock, station upgrades, digital signalling, and network expansion are all costly, long-term projects.
Without a clear and well-funded capital plan, there’s a danger that public operators simply manage decline, rather than drive growth.
Vox Political’s position: We’ve waited years for this — now make it count
At Vox Political, This Writer has been calling for rail re-nationalisation for more than a decade.
So my gut reaction is that this move is welcome, and long overdue.
But let’s be honest with ourselves: public ownership must deliver.
This is not about ideological victory – it is about practical change. We need to see:
Reliable, frequent and punctual trains
Lower or frozen fares, especially for lower-income passengers
Profits reinvested in the railway — and, where possible, into broader public services
Transparency in performance targets and spending
True public accountability, not just symbolic ownership
This is also a test — not just of the rail network, but of the broader idea of trickle-down economics.
If public ownership can’t generate enough benefit to be redistributed — to improve services or reduce costs — then what confidence should we have in claims that private wealth ever trickles down?
Re-nationalisation must be about public good, not just public control.
If public operators end up hoarding resources, duplicating inefficiencies, or failing to cut costs, then we haven’t solved the problem — we’ve simply changed the branding.
A necessary step — but not a moment to relax
So yes, this is progress.
Yes, the re-nationalisation of c2c is part of a much-needed shift toward a more cohesive, coordinated rail system.
And yes, it reflects public opinion — with over two-thirds of Britons supporting public control of rail services.
But until we see better trains, cheaper fares, and greater investment, this is not yet a cause for celebration.
It is a foundation, not a finished product.
Vox Political will continue to support public ownership — but will also continue to hold it to account.
If Great British Railways wants to be more than just a logo, it must earn the public’s trust.
And it must do so not through promises, but through performance.
Share this post:
you might also like
Labour’s rail plan – what we need, rather than what we want?
Unhelpful things lefties shouldn’t say part 1 – alittleecon
Rachel Reeves’ weak speech has little to offer but social insecurity