Trains and tracks could be reunited and put under public control for the first time since privatisation , under plans to make Scotland a test case for the rest of the rail industry (links below.)
http://www.rmtbristol.org.uk/2007/04/secret_talks_open_way_to_natio.html#more

http://www.rmtbristol.org.uk/2007/04/scotland_may_end_private_rail.html#more

The RMT welcomes the idea and both Network Rail & the DfT issue a denial as transport stocks , led by FirstGroup , fall (links below.)
http://www.rmtbristol.org.uk/2007/04/rmt_welcomes_call_for_reintegr.html#mor

http://www.rmtbristol.org.uk/2007/04/thursday_morning_stock_market.html#more

"The report is "absolutely ludicrous,'' said P.J. Taylor, a spokesman for London-based Network Rail. "There have been absolutely no secret talks. We're happy with the current situation and we think the rest of the industry is as well.''

"The U.K. government has ``no plans to change the structure of the rail network,'' the Department for Transport said in an e- mailed statement. "The current arrangements have given the railway the stability to deliver real improvements for passengers.''

"For us, it's business as usual,'' said Rachael Borthwick, a spokeswoman for FirstGroup, in an interview. "We have a contract to run First ScotRail until 2011 with an option to extend after that and we've achieved an extraordinary amount since taking over.'' The company hadn't heard anything about a possible government takeover of railways until today, she said."

"Any nationwide nationalization is unlikely to impact until the middle of the next decade and is likely to happen on a phased basis, as franchises expire,'' said Andrew Fitchie, an analyst at Collins Stewart in London, in a note to investors. The "threat of nationalization'' would be likely to ``turn off any hopes of private equity interest in the sector.''

I am reminded of the following quotes from this May 2006 article by Christian Wolmar (link below.)
http://www.christianwolmar.co.uk/articles/rail/540.shtml

"One thing he could do better than Darling - and that is to be honest by putting the case for government policy on the railway in a straightforward way. Most notably, it would be good if the new minister were honest about the government’s vision for the railways. For example, rather than saying that he is doing the best possible out of a botched privatisation and difficult economic circumstances, he should be prepared to argue coherently for the present structure of the railways. If he sincerely believes in the strange amalgamation of renationalisation and privatisation that his predecessor has created, then he should articulate that vision. And if he does not, then he should be prepared to suggest a better way forward."

"What I found so gobsmackingly dishonest about Darling was his performance at the 2004 Labour Party conference (RAIL 498) when he said renationalisation would cost £20 billion whereas, in fact, the union sponsored motion he was speaking against was putting forward the idea of taking franchises back in-house when they expired, a policy that would have cost nothing. Alexander, being new to the job, does not have to obfuscate in that way and should be honest, making clear what the government wants."