py_megapixel
Established Member
As much as opinions differ on the merits or otherwise of the privatisation of train operations in the 1990s, and as much as we can speculate about what ulterior motives there could have been, and bemoan that what was promised is not necessarily what materialised in reality, the public-facing goal is quite clear - the intention was that competition between train companies would drive up standards and drive down costs.
What I don't understand is what was hoped would be achieved by making the management of stations part of the TOC contracts. Why was it not instead the responsibility of the infrastructure operator - Railtrack when it was first sold off, then later Network Rail? In particular an open access operator can't exactly set up a new station to compete with one of the TOC ones.
Look at buses, for example. Their privatisation was a lot more drastic than that of the railway, sweeping away almost all regulation, but bus stops are still considered part of the highway infrastructure and managed by the local council or PTE, rather than the bus operating companies.
What I don't understand is what was hoped would be achieved by making the management of stations part of the TOC contracts. Why was it not instead the responsibility of the infrastructure operator - Railtrack when it was first sold off, then later Network Rail? In particular an open access operator can't exactly set up a new station to compete with one of the TOC ones.
Look at buses, for example. Their privatisation was a lot more drastic than that of the railway, sweeping away almost all regulation, but bus stops are still considered part of the highway infrastructure and managed by the local council or PTE, rather than the bus operating companies.