(19 Aug 2015, 7:12 pm)northern156 wrote I don't understand why people wanting the railways publically owned again want it.

"Oh because it worked fine when it was British Rail" isn't going to work; to go back to that would mean one whole load of changes in the industry. Even then, in my opinion it will just fall apart as you lose the competition. Prices will no doubt rise (given it would be at least part-owned by George Osborne and his chums, that's a given anyway) and people will once again complain.

Back in the 70's and 80's, subsidy was a dirty word.
The Government and media (similar to the outcry over benefits we see and hear now), made sure that everyone knew how much the public purse was supporting the public railways.

Fast forward 40 or so years, and those subsidies still exist.
Except it isn't a dirty word, despite those public funds are now supporting the privatised railways.

We were all told in 91 (or whenever it was), that privatisation of the railways will lead to competition, lower prices and the end of subsidies.
However, it hasn't happened like that.

Millions of pounds are still pouring in to the private sector - see link and spreadsheets (https://www.gov.uk/government/publicatio...enger-mile).
There is very little competition - just look at who operates on the WCML, ECML and Midland Mainline as well as the main player in the home counties/London.
Prices are rising annually, well above wages.

Look at the success story that was East Coast. The figures are in the spreadsheet.
If the bar can be set, to the standard set over the last few years with EC, why shouldn't it be renationalised?
Our pennies can be reinvested into the railways - and not sent off to whichever Island Branson lives, Holland, France or Germany.

edit: It may be worth comparing the link I put up yesterday about foreign ownership and compare it to those getting the biggest subsidies too.