Future of Rail Devolution Report

Future of Rail: Devolution Summit Summary of discussions July 2025 Run in partnership between the Urban Transport Group and the Railway Industry Association (RIA), the Future of Rail: Devolution Summit in July 2025 connected over 80 participants from across the supply chain and combined authorities to share their ideas on how we can serve local communities better, make more informed decisions, and build rail networks that work for those who use it. The wide-ranging discussion is summarised in this note. RIA welcomes further discussion and contribution to the debate about how the rail sector, and supply chain in particular, can support devolved decision makers.

Please contact RIA Policy Executive Reuben Bull at reuben.bull@riagb.org.uk for more information. Information about the Urban Transport Group can be found at: https://www.urbantransportgroup.org/

Background This Devolution Summit explored the growing role of metro mayors and regional authorities in shaping the future of rail, alongside wider system reform and investment priorities. Combined Authorities are playing an increasingly important role in shaping rail services and infrastructure investment priorities and there is further momentum with £15.6bn of Transport for City Region funding announced in the recent spending review, and proposals to allow greater devolution of rail under Great British Railways.

Attendees included Claire Ward, Mayor of the East Midlands, representatives across four Mayoral Combined Authorities (MCAs) and their transport authorities, the Urban Transport Group, the Centre for Cities, Network Rail and leaders in the supply chain.

Key discussion points • • • • • •

What are the investment priorities of metro mayors and combined authorities?

Where do metro mayors and combined authorities hope to be in 10 years regarding transport?

Where should operational responsibilities and revenue-raising powers sit?

What does good look like in terms of commercial and procurement relationships between combined authorities and suppliers?

What opportunities can rail reform and Great British Railways (GBR) coupled with the Devolution agenda create for the industry?

What tools do combined authorities need to fund and finance local rail investment sustainably?

The Vision of Metro Mayors for Devolved Transport •

Transport devolution can be a vehicle for broader policy change. Metro mayors and combined authorities see transport devolution as a mechanism to unlock economic opportunity, environmental progress, and social inclusion. It is not simply about managing transport assets but about delivering cross-cutting outcomes including expanding employment opportunities, enabling housing development, decarbonisation, and skills development.

•

Buses have shown what’s possible – now rail must follow. In many areas, mayoral powers have already enabled significant reform in bus services through franchising, local investment, and integration. Attendees called this impact “transformational,” and several combined authorities made the case that similar ambition must now be extended to local rail services. Without equivalent progress in rail, transport outcomes risk remaining fragmented and unequal.

•

Local ownership, identity, and pride in place. Representatives from MCAs highlighted that control over local transport systems fosters civic identity and builds public trust. Tailoring services to the character and needs of individual regions – whether South Yorkshire or the West Midlands – is central to delivering systems that reflect and support local aspirations. Aspirations including greater housing development and regeneration of local communities and spaces.

•

Mismatch between local accountability and central control. A strong theme across the summit was frustration that metro mayors are held accountable by local electorates for services they do not control. This accountability-agency gap is reinforced by fragmented decision-making, short-term funding, and a reluctance from central government to "let go" of powers.

•

A call for long-term funding and genuine fiscal devolution. MCAs emphasised the need for multi-year financial settlements, allowing them to plan and invest with greater confidence. The current reliance on competitive bidding for one-off funds was described as inefficient and unfair — especially to less-resourced authorities. Calls were made for devolution not just of operational powers but of revenue-raising tools.

•

Rail as an enabler of inclusion and regeneration. Devolved rail is not only a transport issue but one of social equity. In many regions, poor connectivity is directly linked to limited access to education, employment, and healthcare. MCAs want to embed rail within wider regeneration and housing strategies, treating it as infrastructure for opportunity. Rail must be embedded in local growth plans, including housing delivery, town centre renewal, and brownfield land use strategies.

What Would the Model for Devolved Transport Look Like?

•

A rare moment of opportunity for change. With Great British Railways (GBR) and rail reform underway and the devolution agenda expanding, speakers stressed that, if managed strategically, these twin reforms could deliver a generational shift in how rail supports local and national outcomes.

•

Collaboration is critical – but often difficult. While there was consensus that collaboration between local authorities, central government, and industry is essential, participants also acknowledged that barriers remain. These are not purely institutional but often stem from people, behaviours, and attitudes. Building mutual understanding and shared goals will be vital.

•

Beyond consultation: operational control over rail. MCAs are clear that to deliver integrated systems, they need more than influence — they want control, such as the ability to set local timetables, determine fares, manage stations, and shape local networks. Without these powers, metro mayors cannot deliver joined-up transport systems akin to those in London.

•

A single integrated transport authority model is preferred. Rather than piecemeal responsibilities across different agencies, attendees supported a “single roof” model that unites bus, rail, and tram oversight within combined authorities. This approach enables more coherent planning, simplifies accountability, and maximises the value of local investment.

•

Developing capacity to act as intelligent clients. For MCAs to take on greater rail responsibilities, they must be equipped to act as confident, commercially capable clients. This requires building in-house expertise in procurement, delivery, and strategic investment — alongside clear local transport visions and the political leadership to see them through.

•

Revenue and investment constraints remain a key obstacle. MCAs currently have limited ability to raise or retain revenue beyond fare income. Powers to capture land value uplift, apply tourist levies, or benefit from commercial development around stations are either unavailable or restricted. This lack of fiscal autonomy hinders longterm investment in infrastructure.

•

Transport investment must be fully integrated with spatial planning. MCAs argued that transport must drive regeneration – not follow it. Giving authorities a share of the uplift in land and property values linked to rail improvements would align incentives and encourage more ambitious, joined-up delivery.

•

Procurement models must evolve to unlock third party investment and local value. Examples from the West Midlands and others show growing interest in tools

such as developer contributions, access charges, and station commercial models.

MCAs also called for the retention of income from investments, reinvesting value in local areas.

•

Readiness for devolution varies – and must be supported. Not all authorities are at the same stage of institutional maturity. Devolution requires commitment and capability. Support will be needed to help regions build capacity — from skills to data systems. There was broad support for the principle that no single model should be imposed. Partnerships must reflect local context, ambition, and capacity — and evolve over time through trust, experimentation, and joint working. Alignment with local economic, housing, and planning goals is essential.

•

The GBR Mayoral Partnership Framework provides a graduated approach The framework is designed to formalise relationships between GBR and MCAs with the ultimate ambition to move beyond service-level agreements towards genuine strategic collaboration through three tiers of partnership: o

Foundational Partnership: Focused on data-sharing and strategic input, suitable for MCAs early in their devolution journey.

o

Intermediate Partnership: Involves joint governance and co-development of investment plans, with shared accountability.

o

Advanced Partnership: Grants MCAs full commissioning powers, including direct contracting and oversight of rail operations, similar to the Merseyrail or TfL Overground models.

How Can Combined Authorities and Suppliers Work Best Together?

•

Combined authorities will need commercial and procurement expertise to manage the significant investments. Suppliers want to work with MCAs that are capable, consistent, and strategic. Becoming an “intelligent client” means moving beyond rigid procurement rules to longer-term thinking, commercial acumen, and openness to new models and partnerships.

•

Early engagement unlocks shared value. Early-stage dialogue allows suppliers and authorities to align on outcomes before specifications are locked in. This creates space for innovation, helps manage risk collaboratively, and ensures that procurement reflects local priorities — from decarbonisation to job creation.

•

Procurement reform is essential for smaller suppliers and SMEs. Traditional procurement models often favour large contractors and short-term cost reduction.

Suppliers called for reform to enable more proportionate, flexible processes – particularly for social value-led or community-focused projects.

•

Long-term supplier relationships must replace fragmented contracting.

Authorities were encouraged to develop region-wide procurement frameworks and build continuity with trusted suppliers. Starting afresh for every project can waste time, increases risk, and limits supplier investment in local delivery.

•

Visibility of investment pipelines builds market confidence. Suppliers stressed the importance of clear, coordinated investment pipelines across regions. Without this, firms cannot plan their workforce, invest in training, or develop the capacity to deliver at scale.

•

A shift toward professional cooperation and shared responsibility. Delegates called for a new mindset in public-private working — moving from transactional contracting to strategic partnerships. Authorities don’t need to do everything, but they must know how to lead and when to collaborate.

•

The skills gap is a concern for all. Both MCAs and suppliers face shortages of people with the right mix of transport, commercial, and public policy experience.

Joint solutions, such as shared training programmes, secondments, and collaborative workforce planning, were strongly supported.

•

Legislative and regulatory constraints can hinder progress. Speakers highlighted outdated and fragmented rules on station leasing, land assembly, and planning consent. Even when local partners align, central government sign-off can delay or dilute outcomes.

•

Innovative financing is possible but underutilised. Successful international examples – such as land value capture in Canada and Australia or Tax Increment Financing — demonstrate what’s possible. Yet UK authorities face barriers from Treasury caution and fragmented governance structures.

Throughout the 200th anniversary year of rail, RIA will be running a series of events delving into different areas of rail, asking what the future needs to look like, and how we can all help to shape it.

To find out more or register, scan the QR code or visit www.riagb.org.uk