No. The pressure to increase prices to maintain profits at the expense of genuine travellers will exceed any common sense.
John Smythe, Oxford
Yes. Despite a few glitches, privatisation has been a huge success, with more, better and faster services which have doubled the passenger usage in 20 years. Competition has delivered. Overall Britain’s railways deliver a good service, reflected by customer surveys which show the highest satisfaction figures in Europe.
Chris Fox, Chester
Living in the Midlands I can fly to northern Africa and back cheaper than I can get to our capital city by private organisation trains. By definition, trains are public transport. More privatised railways will target only the business traveller, with scant regard for the general public.
Duncan Saunders, Derby
On the face of it, it is madness to break the railway into bits and let foreign companies take some of the profit. They don’t work together, trains are crowded, unreliable and often unpleasant. Then I remember the days of British Rail and think maybe in the UK it is the only way!
Jeff Bulled, Lidlington, Bedfordshire
No. Without real competition at the point of delivery rail passengers can’t vote with their feet to seek a better alternative. Whilst the franchise selection process may be designed to try to get a good deal for the government and for the travelling public, I’m not sure that this is necessarily what it delivers. The only party that is accountable to the customers is the government, and the customers are suffering from high prices, late trains and overcrowded carriages.
Peter Ingamells, Hook, Hampshire
In a word, no. Whilst it cannot be denied that privatisation has brought some benefits to passengers, I remain convinced that public transport should be publicly owned and operated. Too much money has gone from the public purse into the pockets of shareholders, lawyers and accountants.
Neil Dinmore, Derby
The East Coast rail link has performed very well indeed since it was taken back into public ownership, and the decision to sell it is a major mistake. To place our railway system in private hands would be a financial transport disaster for Britain. We should reject it and ensure that this national asset is nationally owned, run and funded so that we achieve its main purpose – efficient, green, mass passenger transport, not private profit.
Richard Young, Manchester
Yes, because private companies have the advantage of attracting experts in their field who will take on the design, implementation and operation of the rail system. Their reputation and profit margin are directly related to how well they serve their passengers. Governments are in general equally committed to doing a good job, but their objectives may change more often with the political climate, giving a less consistent and more expensive deal for the passengers.
Jon Whitehouse, Birmingham
It can be if the service is properly regulated towards the targets and business plan, ensuring value for money and balance with profitability. Otherwise we end up with poor service, as UK history has shown.
Sid McFarland, Cheltenham
The best solution is a system that has integrity and is efficient. That means a passenger-focused organisation that provides a cost-effective system not hidebound by bureaucracy. The nationalised system has a history of bureaucracy, ineffective management, and a lack of foresight. The privatised system has a history of profit-focused policy to appease shareholders. A privatised system with effective governmental oversight would be ideal: an efficient organisation that has to justify profits and reinvest a sufficient portion to remain effective.
David Maclean, Somerset
I’ve quite enjoyed the East Coast service over the last few years. It is more competitive than the West Coast franchise. Privatisation is supposed to encourage competition but a lot of lines just have one operator with subsidies so it is difficult to see how a truly privatised system could benefit communities.
Peter Airey, Crieff, Perthshire
I remember the bad old days of British Rail when a supposed eight-hour journey from Glasgow to Newton Abbot regularly took 10 or more hours, in old rolling stock and standing room only in second class. Now the trains are full again, but they mostly run on time. The key is investment in track and rolling stock, and the government or its agencies are habitually useless when running big projects – so best they keep out.
Geoff Buck, Newton Abbot, Devon
It can be the best solution, but only once there is clarity on whether train operators are ‘franchisees’, ‘concessions’ or ‘management contracts’. The current arrangements lack clarity or consistency and fail to allow operators freedom to take risk, innovate, improve and procure additional stock and capacity.
Stuart Maclean, Reading
Yes. Despite the good performance of the East Coast franchise under government control, I cannot forget the awfulness of British Rail, and the political games played with it. The government should stick to what it has to do. Possibly that does include Network Rail, but not running the trains.
Bill Ball, Lincoln