Talk:Rail Regulator

Confusing
I am puzzled by this sentence:
 * ''Critics regarded this as an unjustified interference in an inter-dependent contractual matrix, contrary to the legitimate expectations of private investors in the railway.

What was an unjustified interference? The Railways Act or the proposed amendment? Should we reword this to make it clearer? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 08:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed merge with International Rail Regulator
Although the offices of "Rail Regulator" and "International Rail Regulator" were strictly speaking legally distinct, in practice the same individuals always occupied both offices. There is very little coverage of the "International Rail Regulator" in reliable sources, beyond just acknowledging its existence. Given this situation, I don't think there is much sense in having a separate article for "International Rail Regulator", I think the best solution is just to make it a small section in the "Rail Regulator" article. SJK (talk) 12:18, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ Klbrain (talk) 07:40, 3 May 2020 (UTC)