New European evidence confirms a simple reality: rail competition delivers lower fares, better services and stronger growth.

A recent peer-reviewed study finds that open access competition reduces rail fares by 6% to 27%  even alongside publicly funded services. Meanwhile, Italy’s liberalised rail market has delivered more trains, lower prices, rising demand and clear modal shift to rail.

The United Kingdom has demonstrated these benefits. Open access operators Hull Trains, Grand Central and Lumo have consistently delivered high customer satisfaction, new direct connections to London from under-served communities, and better value for customers. They have expanded the market, attracted new passengers to rail and invested privately without requiring taxpayer subsidy.

John Thomas, Policy Director at ALLRAIL, said:
“The evidence is overwhelming. Competition in rail works. Yet the UK’s rail reform proposals risk moving decisively in the opposite direction.”

The model being developed under Great British Railways will centralise decision-making, weaken competitive pressure and increase reliance on public funding.

“We are replacing a system that delivered growth and private investment with one that has no metrics for success.” Thomas added “Not a single  defined target, no credible plan to reduce subsidy, and no evidence that this model will deliver better outcomes for customers.”

The question is whether the UK chooses to follow the evidence — or ignore it and pay the price.