|
Re: Deprivatisation of railways
Where made money under state ownership? TSB? Rolls Royce possibly. Mind you, I don't think the state had any role in running banks or making aeroengines so selling those off was a good idea.
Parts of BR made money of course, which isn't the case for the same services under private ownership, despite higher passenger numbers and higher fares. Lubricating the interfaces and contracts takes up all the cash.
Having said that, a return to a state-owned monolith would be a backwards step - the infrastructure should be nationally-owned, along with maintenance and renewals, but I see nothing wrong in private companies being contracted to run trains by the national organisation (for instance city commuter services), but not a lot more. Train ownership and leasing is ok in the private sector too, means flexibility. Freight is actually doing very well privately, in fact freight trains are often more modern than passenger trains now, so you can leave that alone. Socially necessary services should be state-run though.
The interface between the network company and the operating companies needs to be thought out in such a way that the network company has an interest in the trains running reliably and the operating company has an say in the track maintenance. Quite how you do that (bringing wheel and rail together) I really haven't a clue, but the state railway certainly requires a division that actually operates trains, partly to get the insanity of modern signalling practice ended.
|