A call for change was circulated on Friday among the 118 members who control the company. They have the power to remove top executives and reject annual accounts.

The letter was sent by Lord Berkeley, a long-serving Network Rail member who represents the rail-freight industry. He

urged a change in Network Rail’s corporate governance, saying the current systems did not work and the company was not being held to account by anyone.

“If NR were structured as most private-sector companies, its shareholders might have something to say . . . we have nothing like the power or the responsibilities that go with owning large blocks of shares, and of course the NR board effectively appoint us. Even if we wanted to, we cannot easily organise ourselves.

“In other words, one can argue that there is a democratic deficit in the corporate governance structure of NR,” he wrote.

Network Rail is a not-for-profit company, with no shareholders. Most of the powers held by shareholders in normal companies are taken by the members’ group. Berkeley said yesterday he had already received support from other members. He said he was spurred to action by the new-year travel debacle.

“It really can’t go on like this. We always have the same old apologies and I have a wider concern that Network Rail has actually become a very risk-adverse company.

“It does now have money to spend on improving the railways, but I’m worried it will do nothing with it,” he said.

More than 250,000 passengers were hit by last week’s problems. Late-running engineering works closed the West Coast Main Line at Rugby for three days longer than planned, and also delayed the planned reopening of London’s Liverpool Street station, used by thousands of City commuters every day.

Iain Coucher, Network Rail’s chief executive, will tomorrow meet Bechtel, the company responsible for managing the West Coast works, and contractors. But Network Rail sources played down reports that major project work would be brought in house.

Berkeley suggests replacing the member system with one borrowed from the NHS Foundation Trusts. There would be fewer members � more like “governors” � who would have to seek election from passenger and industry representatives.

“A members’ council formed on these lines, rather than 118 appointed by Network Rail, would undoubtedly reduce the democratic deficit without causing a major upset in the railway structure,” Berkeley’s letter said. A copy has been sent to the Office of the Rail Regulator, which is mounting a formal inquiry into the new-year problems, and to Sir Ian McAllister, Network Rail’s chairman.

Network Rail said yesterday it was aware of Lord Berkeley’s proposals. “We have a vigorous selection process in place that ensures the highest-calibre people become members � it selected Lord Berkeley after all,” a spokesman said. “We will never dismiss out of hand such ideas but they’d need to go a long way to improve the very active, involved and engaged membership we currently have.”