Quote:
|
Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri
Why?
|
Because overall, while the ticket prices are probably higher, the service and number of trains running has vastly improved. Of course some places miss out but in my experience, there have always been plenty of trains running to places I want to go.
Even when I was in Exeter, the train service was top-notch. I'm sure that if it was nationalised there would be at least half as many trains running. While cheaper, I'd rather have a good service and pay for what I get.
Of course there's the dubious area of privatised companies scrimping on safety to get a higher profit, as we saw in 2001 with that big crash. Since then, I haven't heard of any major train crashes. So it seems that the current system, where it is (supposedly) privatised, but controlled rigidly and thoroughly by the government, seems to be the best.
Having said this, I've only travelled further north than London on one occasion, up to Manchester. The train service on that one occasion was excellent though (and not too expensive either, even for a student).
I never experienced the rail service before it was privatised (Jersey has no trains) but from what I've read and heard from other people, it is better overall than before. While there will always be faults, and there will always be people finding fault with it, I do think it's one of those industries that works better under privatisation than nationalisation. Simply due to
more companies = more trains and
more competition = better service. Unfortunately the supposedly common rule of
more competition = lower prices doesn't seem to be working.