The trains will continue to run, and not only the frontline staff, but the managers, schedulers and others will remain at work, albeit with a different employer.

The one uncertainty is whether National Express will be allowed to retain its other franchises, including its trains in East Anglia. Strictly speaking, this isn't allowed, but finding a new franchisee for the East Coast Main Line will be challenge enough for the Department for Transport.

Renationalisation of the railways is something that the Government wanted to avoid. Tony Blair may have gone, but the spirit of New Labour
steams on.

The timing couldn't have been more difficult. Having rejected a bid from First Group, whose railway interests include ScotRail and which operates most of Yorkshire's buses, National Express yesterday announced the departure of its highly regarded and experienced chief executive, Richard Bowker, to run railways in the United Arab Emirates.

It shouldn't have happened this way. In May 2005, the then incumbent operator of the East Coast Main Line, the Great North Eastern Railway (GNER) was re-awarded the franchise.

I wrote in the Yorkshire Post at the time: "Two cheers for GNER." Why? Simply because the premium to be paid to the Government for running the franchise was very ambitious, as were plans for developing the route, and there was also the need to buy or, more likely, lease new rolling stock.

What no one foresaw was that it would not be the East Coast line that would bring down GNER, but problems with its parent company, Sea Containers. Once again, the franchise had to be re-let, and this time it went to National Express. The problem was that the new operator
took over the route just before the recession began to bite, with a sharp fall in travel and especially in premium
business travel.

Economies were put in hand with substantial cuts in catering facilities, especially restaurant cars, while a £2.50 charge for seat reservations was introduced to boost revenue.

Both measures attracted criticism. As a long-distance service, passengers expected a seat to be included in the price of a ticket, and something rather more sustaining than a sandwich off the trolley was wanted by many.

Yet, in the past, the old British Rail often did charge for seat reservations. British Rail's management, or perhaps the accountants, also saw railway catering as a costly use of carriages and staff instead of a means of attracting passengers to railway travel, which was why railway meals became so expensive.

Some will have wondered why the country's main long-distance express coach operator was allowed to operate railways that compete with its existing business. Yet, in their desire to get the best premium from
train operators, or at least pay
the lowest subsidy, rules have been bent.

Perhaps the real point is that railway privatisation was mishandled. The infrastructure was sold off, as was the freight business, the ferries and the hotels, while the rolling stock was sold to three leasing companies. The operation of the trains was leased, initially for periods of seven years, to more than 20 train operating companies. The whole idea was to maximise revenue to the government on profitable lines, and minimise cost to the taxpayer on the loss-making lines.

Yet, one of the advantages of running a railway is to have control over track and train in a way that bus operators do not have. This essential link was broken, partly in the hope of attracting so-called "open-access" operators, such as Hull Trains on the East Coast line.

This caused disputes over fitting open-access trains on to an already crowded route with some tight bottlenecks, especially on the approaches
to London. Hard-pressed operators such as National Express also felt that the open-access operators did not carry their fair share of the costs of track and signalling.

If we are to avoid similar problems in the future, combined with uncertainty for passengers and indeed for railway workers, who can expect to see a new employer every seven years or so, there are only two ways forward.

One is renationalisation, the other is to recreate railway companies serving a wider geographical area and with ownership of trains, track,
signals and stations, everything in fact. One could work
towards rebuilding the old four grouped companies, but in fact the original scheme in 1919 called for seven grouped companies.

Yet, is there the political will for any political party to embrace either of these solutions in the next General Election?
Somehow, I imagine that whoever wins will have bigger problems to deal with.