You're either deliberately going off on a tangent because it doesn't suit your anti-EU agenda or you fail to understand something very basic. There can be clauses in contracts which allow an increase or decrease in service provision if passenger numbers change, it is not automatically fixed at a certain number for the entire duration of the contract and even if it is that's a minimum number and it wouldn't be a 'breach of contract' for the operator to choose to add in additional services.
I fully understand you can write such things into the contract (to enable an increase or decrease in services at a later date).
Just that this will cost money - people will not take on contracts with such provisions unless they will improve their profit margin in virtually all of the circumstances detailed in such contracts.
If there is a risk that some set of circumstances will made the position of the operator less favourable, this risk will be priced into the contract, making it more expensive.
The problem is that these contracts are inherently complicated, hard to understand, and tend to lead to madness like we see in PFI in the NHS.
You are suggesting that we attempt to rules-lawyer our way out of the thing the EU very clearly intended when it wrote the rail directive, and hope that noone brings a case against it that leads to the entire system being ruled to be illegitimate. And this system will be inevitably far more expensive than the traditional model because you still have to maintain a giant open access pricing infrastructure and all the interfaces current in the privatised railway.
And since we will no longer have any way to veto any further changes to the railway directive package - we will be helpless when the EU inevitably changes the rules to make waht you are attempting outright illegal.
The
whole point of the railway package is to destroy state-associated railways.