The central claim of the article makes sense. Tickets are too expensive and that's all i care about as a consumer. I don't agree with many of the authors argume

The central claim of the article makes sense. Tickets are too expensive and that's all i care about as a consumer. I don't agree with many of the authors arguments and his proposed solutions. > the case against fragmented and privatized operations focuses on three key arguments. The first is that railways are complex systems where commercial boundaries at engineering interfaces are a threat to safety and efficiency. The second is that railway operations are geographic monopolies where market conditions are — at best — contrived. The third is that railways are a public service that cannot fail — hence, introducing private interests into the railways is merely a way to sequester income into private hands while the state shoulders the financial risk. In other words, private interests’ role is simply to extract profit that could otherwise be reinvested into the system. That is true of most infrastructure. The closest parallel i can think of is the airline industry. It may never be perfect but these problems are solveable. Next the claim that moving decisions away from Westminster will make things better. That is highly debatable. Finally the main point. The nationalised railway worked well in the 90s so it would work well today. That is such an obviously flawed argument i won't even bother discussing it. I think the local government in London has far more direct control of local transport and it is horribly inefficient and expensive. Finally look at the ongoing, slow motion train wreck which is the hs2 rail project. At this stage it's just a government employment program for labourers. It's way, way too expensive and they should have pulled the plug on it years ago or drastically deregulated idk. As it is we have the worst of both worlds. However, it is interesting that Thatcher didn't want to privatise the rails. Does anyone know what her opinion on it was?