In summary you get will responses largely along the lines of 'The private corporations/foreign rail companies are profiteering *******s, nothing will improve unless the government replaces the ToCs, it should be a public service not a way of rich people getting richer etc etc', from those who would fully nationalise the railways (Bear in in mind the railways are not privatised in any way shape or form at present, they are franchises, big difference). Then from those who object to nationalisation will say 'The old British Railways was crap, we have lots of new services that British Railways would never have invested in, some of the ToCs are really quite good' etc etc
The reality is that the government dictates almost everything in the railway industry, timetables, most fares, most infrastructure investment etc etc. Franchising is way of transferring risk to the private sector at a cost, the cost being the profit that the ToCs and ROSCOs make. It's also quite an effective way of watering down union power. Had the Southern DCO/DOO issue occurred when BR was fully nationalised then the strikes would probably have affected the whole country IMHO. The government would say that the cost incurred in the profits of the private companies is offset by savings of using more 'efficient' private companies, whether you believe that is another thing entirely. It probably would be 'cheaper' to run as a whole as a fully nationalised railway.
Personally I think that franchising is ok as long as the Government runs it properly which it often doesn't.
