3 ms·

But the way it should work is that the franchises pay in to maintain the infrastructure that they use, which is itself privately owned. The subsidies were well

But the way it should work is that the franchises pay in to maintain the infrastructure that they use, which is itself privately owned. The subsidies were well above pre-privatisation levels long before HS2, largely due to a couple of major incidents in 2000 or soon after (showing that the claims privatisation could fund a safe rail system was at best grossly incorrect and at worse an outright lie by those bidding for the franchises). The public purse should not be raided more after privatisation than before, surely?

mytailorisrich 3y ago
Well no, the infrastructure is not really privately-owned since Network Rail is owned by the government. But I agree that in an actual privately-run system franchises should cover all those costs. Of course that would mean even higher fares. In any case, railways are expensive and need significant investment. In terms of financing the question is then to find the the sweet spot between fares and public spending (i.e. taxes). Neither privatisation nor nationalisation are silver bullets. As is often the case it is a question of good management and customer focus. That being said, it is hard to imagine a system with real competition because of the very nature of railways, which tend to be natural monopolies. That being the case, state ownership may make sense, with the caveat that it should be well managed along private sector standards.