too true, like when the intercity 125 went.

A surplus/profit call it what you want, it is still having money left after trading.
Certainly a few routes can and do make these surpluses/profits, many cost millions to provide a service.

Hovercraft would be nice way to travel. I'll suggest it to my local MP.

B.G.; ignoring whether we call any excess money a surplus or profit, surely it is better for the country as a whole that that money is re-invested to improve the rail network rather than lining shareholders pocket.

I always have and always will believe that essential services and infrastructure are too important to the country to be left to market forces. Too many companies operate with the short term goal of improving profits for their shareholders rather than having a long term plan.

Especially when you consider the total dog's breakfast of a mess that was made of rail privatisation. Instead of having one organisation to procure, administer and manage the rail network, infrastructure and rolling stock, we ended up with one company managing the track & infrastructure and a number of other companies managing the rolling stock and services.

We then ended up with the company managing the infrastructure being forcibly wound up and taken back into public ownership because the private company was so spectacularly inept at managing said infrastructure and the business itself. At least two train operating franchises have been handed back to the public sector and of those that are left, many have relied on government to procure new rolling stock and then lease them at preferential rates. If that's how private enterprise works then my cock's a kipper.

Would you consider the provision of food to be an essential service?

Oh I agree with you but services like the railways as a whole don't make money so this surplus that goes to investment doesn't happen and what you get is either underinvestment of the state paying an even bigger share.

The state is already subsidising the rail companies to a bigger extent than it ever did when the system was nationalised.

Wrt the post on food being an essential service. Every state should ensure it has a policy to provide enough food for its population. You could argue that we already make sure people are fed by the provision of free school meals for kids and the welfare state providing benefits for adults so that they can purchase food.

No because it is not a service. Unlike things like the buses, railways or power generation.

It also isn't a monopoly enterprise requiring a regulator to ensure the public isn't ripped off. There is nothing wrong with private industry providing us with goods such as food where the market naturally provides for competition. Wherever you see a regulator involved you can guarantee the market doesn't actually exist to do this.

Well, 80% of the UK's grocery retail trade is in the hands of the major supermarkets (those with a minimum of 8% of the nation's total retail trade each). Thirty years ago, that figure was 20%.

In some towns, the only options are a big box Tesco, a smaller Tesco and a Tesco express.

There are reasons that words and phrases such as 'Tesco town' and 'Tescopoly' have entered the lexicon.

Could well be. I know there's a cut off time for when you can claim any refund, which is slightly more than that. As I found out when Southern Railways were late arriving from Brighton to London by less than said cut-off (with no announcements or apologies), which meant I missed my booked Virgin train to Preston. Virgin re-charged me the full £75 to get home and Southern's response to my complaint might as well have said "tough sh*t."

We have the greatest food distribution and supply system.....entirely beyond the comprehension of previous populations.
Have a think about worldwide cases where the state has tried to manage food production distribution and supply.

Food distribution and supply isn't a service? Food is a product, distribution and supply are services.



So you don't believe there is competition in the provision of transport service? For all journeys, there is only one single method of transport open to you?

For many people either the bus or the train is the only option of getting to work. So regardless of quality of service or, to a large extent, price, many people have no option but to use that bus service or that train service. Unless there were 3/4 buses from competing companies waiting at the bus stop then the passenger is forced into a monopoly system.
There is an element of competition in that those companies have to win the franchise to provide that service, but that kind of situation is not where the private sector flourishes and I believe that the state/council/region could run these services just as well for a lower cost without the need for costly franchise applications, changeover of franchise costs, and no need for profits to be made or dividends to be paid.

So we've already moved on from the trains being a monopoly, to train or bus now, therefore trains are no longer a monopoly. It's going to vary between networks, but even on the same line I have the choice between Virgin and London-Midland for a journey.
That's before we have even thought about walking, cycling (own or Boris-bike style hire), taxis, coach services, trams, driving (own car, hire car) car-share schemes, flying.
The railways are far from being a monopoly in the provision of transport.

Nice attempt to shift the goalposts.

Virgin (for instance) has a monopoly on the rail route from London to Manchester. No other companies run that route.

That is a monopoly.

You think Virgin have a monopoly on travel between London and Manchester? There no other ways to travel between London and Manchester, other than on a Virgin Train? erm......OK

Perhaps you could provide examples of where the state has run things more cost effectively and more efficiently than private enterprise?

Are you serious - I could get a train from London to Leeds and then a train from Leeds to Manchester - neither train is run by Virgin!!

There you go Mintball. Another option on how to travel between Manchester and London. So even someone with a bizarre train fetish, who could only travel by train, and who could not possibly consider any methods of travel other than trains, still has an option other than Virgin.
That's on top of all the other methods of travelling other than rail that anyone without a train fetish could use.

You said provision of food. I assumed by that you meant provision as in producing it not delivering it. As to delivery it is not delivered by a franchisee who has a monopoly on food distribution for 15 years.



There is only one provider of passenger rail services from Chester to London. Virgin trains at the moment. If I want to go to Manchester on the train I can only do so on an Arriva provided service. If you are trying to suggest I could use a bus/coach service to make the same journey's so that provides competition that is a rather ridiculous argument given the services are not comparable e.g there are far fewer coach services to Manchester than train services - National Express has one coach at 12:15 and the next is at 17:00 for example.

You would do that? Really?

Its hardly a serious alternative though is it ?

If the question is how do I travel from London to Manchester on a train, then as a customer I don't expect to be told that there are two options but one of them involves travelling in a different direction and then changing trains to correct.

I travelled from Leeds to Birmingham via train on Monday, it was booked by my company via the Virgin Trains web site and if there was even a smidgen of a chance that they could have got me onto one of their services then they would have done - they could for instance have booked me on a Trans-Peninie train to Manchester and then on a Virgin train to Birmingham, but they didn't because they aren't so stupid as to think that I would consider that to be an excellent way to travel when there is a monopoly of a franchise on the Leeds/Birmingham route operated by Cross Country, which is what Virgin booked me onto.

Semantics. The point being, it's essential, but we have no concerns whatsoever about it being in the hands of private enterprise, despite an earlier posters insistence that essential services are better in the hands of the gov.



Why is it "One provider of rail services" rather than "providers of transport services"
Why is it "If I want to....on the train" rather than "if I want to travel"

The railway service is not a monopoly on transport. There are many other ways to travel.

Why is the question "how do I travel from London to Manchester on a train" rather than "how do I travel from London to Manchester" ?