Rail: more opportunities, but models still in flux
Many sessions focused on rail, with authorities showcasing pipelines and upcoming schemes. Yet there was limited clarity on what the “next generation” of PPP or private finance models will look like, largely because rail reform and GBR’s more detailed arrangements remain in development.
Conversations at REIIF reinforced some practical lessons on using private finance in infrastructure:
- private capital needs to be brought in at the right time, not bolted on at the end;
- the right people must be in the room – genuine decision makers on both sides; and
- the “ask” of each party, in terms of risk, return and control, has to be explicit from the outset.
For the public sector, that means earlier, more open market engagement and a willingness to shape schemes around bankable risk allocation. For investors, it means treating this period as one of model building as much as deal making – coming to the table with workable structures for brownfield upgrades, digital rail, stations and transit linked development.
Fiscal devolution: more power – and more risk – for Mayors
A roundtable sponsored by Addleshaw Goddard with the Northern Powerhouse Partnership focused on fiscal devolution, following the Chancellor’s Mais lecture and commitments in the King’s Speech.
There was clear consensus that if Metro Mayors are to be truly accountable for transport outcomes, they must control at least some of the funding they rely on, rather than depending entirely on central grants. Ideas included enabling combined authorities to raise and borrow against local taxes to fund transport and wider infrastructure.
The opportunity is a more predictable, locally driven investment pipeline. The risk is that “devolution” turns into unfunded responsibility, or a patchwork of fiscal and governance models.
- Public bodies should be planning now for how they will use new revenue and borrowing tools, demonstrate affordability, and maintain investor confidence.
- Private investors will need to scrutinise each area’s creditworthiness, governance and policy stability, rather than assuming a uniform national approach.
New players, new pipelines: GBR, Platform4 and NISTA
Platform4 (linked to Network Rail and GBR) is now established as the development body for GBR with a mandate to push forward major regeneration projects on surplus rail land and around stations.
Alongside this, the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority (NISTA) has a 10 year pipeline which launched in July 2025 and is updated every six months. The conversation at REIIF was about refining that pipeline; by next year the question will be how many schemes have actually moved into delivery.
For both public and private stakeholders, this means:
- understanding who really “owns” each project
- tracking the national pipeline closely to align local plans, regeneration, and investment strategies with the schemes most likely to proceed.
Policy churn vs delivery certainty
Finally, while new announcements – such as a proposed City Investment Fund for northern projects, changes to Transport and Works Act orders, and a new mass transit taskforce – are welcome, frequent legislative change carries its own risk. Constant reform can delay rather than accelerate delivery, as promoters and funders pause for clarity. Delegating more consent powers to mayors may help in some cases, but only if capacity, process and compensation frameworks are robust and consistent.
For public sector clients, the message is to prioritise clarity and stability over headline grabbing change. For investors, legal and consenting risk will remain central to pricing and appetite – making early, detailed engagement on strategy and structure essential.
Transport remains at the heart of the UK’s growth story. The winners – public and private – will be those who treat governance, funding and delivery models as core design choices, not afterthoughts.
