The idea in the 1990s was that the railways would be a regulated utility, like electricity, gas, telecoms, water, aviation etc.
The ORR is just one of several similar industry regulators which have had varying degrees of success in their sectors.
The railways don't exist in isolation, they have to be taken along with the other national assets and run accordingly.
I still can't quite get the Labour logic about all this, because they are not proposing the "nationalisation" of all the utilities, still less the coal and steel industries which was their 1940s mantra.
These days the fabled "triple alliance" of coal, steel and rail has no meaning.
At the bottom of this is why the government should be running (as opposed to controlling) these industries.
The 1948 nationalisations, as per Clause 4 and all that, put each entire industry in government hands (the staff effectively became civil servants).
These evolved somewhat in the 1960s/70s, and the privatisations of the 1980s/90s put most of them in the private sector, but the railway was left in a curious half-privatised state.
Nobody talks today of nationalising telecoms and aviation, they are too successful as they are, with UK firms in those sectors being globally significant.
The energy sector is not popular but is not really targeted for nationalisation (bar nuclear which has never been privatised).
Railways, and perhaps water, seem to be different. Why?
What is it about railways that people think the government should run them on a day-to-day basis?
And doesn't it do that already if somewhat at arm's length via the TOCs (and directly with Network Rail)?
I'm at a loss to know what controls the government would get from "nationalisation", that it doesn't already have via direct ownership or franchise specifications.
The unions seem to want an enlarged Network Rail with the TOCs folded into it (ie insourced), making the entire operation "in house".
Given Network Rail's organisational, management and performance shortcomings I doubt this it what will happen.
I would expect "nationalised" TOCs to remain separate, along with private freight and open access, and still regulated by a body like ORR.
That also gives scope for separate operation of (eg) HS1/2, Heathrow Express and the various devolved regional systems, and allows new entrants.
Otherwise, the railway becomes a monolithic, closed body like it was under BR, and I don't think this is likely to happen.
I'd also remind folk that BR ended as effectively 4 separate business-oriented railways (Intercity, NSE, Regional and Freight).
The old Big 4-based geographic Regions were abolished in 1993, before privatisation started, and folded into the business sectors.
The politicians don't seem to have got their heads round this at the moment.
Chris Grayling is intent on his East Coast Partnership (also a merger of NR Route and TOC) and clearly wants a different system that the current one.
Network Rail is well on the way to being devolved to its individual Routes with a supporting centre.
He also believes it's the way to get big new money into the railway (particularly infrastructure).
Meanwhile Labour just parrots the nationalisation card, as though that solves every problem.
They need to put up some more detailed analysis of what they intend before we all vote next time, with costs attached.
By the time they get in, the railway may look significantly different to how it does today, and be harder to unpick.
Extension of public ownership is all very well, but there's a downside when the IMF comes calling with austerity conditions in order to fund the government loans.
Labour had a nightmare in 1974-79 on government debt, and the Tory privatisations were the result.
Membership of the EU constrains some of the government's actions, but contrary to common belief does not ban public ownership or operation.
It does mandate a level of competition on the railway, which we interpret as franchises, as well as the technical interoperability standards (TSIs).
Leaving the EU notionally gives us more freedom, but depending on what trade agreements we end up with we could find similar rules apply in the future.
The public-private partnership we have now may be unsatisfactory in many ways, but I doubt the private part of it is about to be completely wiped off the map.