To answer some of the points raised in the previous posts.
The salary you are paid reflects the demand for the skills you have in the market. There seems to be a misunderstanding that pay is related to the 'importance' (for some value of 'importance') of the task in society. Although one would wish that some tasks are better paid, social workers, nurses, train cleaners..., the pay scales simply reflect supply and demand. Pay rates do not make a moral judgement.
The benefit for the taxpayer is that better paid people are generally healthier, do not require Social Security support and pay more taxes. Lower pay for railway staff relative to other businesses would reduce the number of people entering the industry and make the present level of train services more difficult to maintain. With fewer staff available the pressures to run more trains with only one crew member on board could well increase and more tasks could become automated. This may not be the outcome you expected or wanted.
I do not understand what is meant by 'neo-liberal' - it seems to come from the same source as 'rabid right wingers' - both are knee-jerk, content free responses.
If you read my post carefully I was not arguing for the status quo. There are clearly issues - but these issues are all to do with the requirements being placed on Network Rail and with its funding yielding outcomes which are not necessarily properly aligned with the interests of the train operators. NR also has the problem of knowing who its customers are. Its customers should be the TOCs, but because much of its funding comes from the DfT which, because it wants to know how the money is being spent, is in closer contact with NR than are the TOCs. The ORR also climbs all over NR to answer questions on 'value for money' and 'efficiencies' and the like.
The perceived problems are largely caused by the mis-alignment of incentives. For example the train operators are loath to permit NR sufficient access to the tracks to perform maintenance, renewals and enhancements - by which NR is judged - because it discourages passengers and inflicts extra costs in replanning stock and crew rosters and train maintenance. 'Twas ever thus, even in the days of BR (although the situation was easier as train frequencies were not so high and the engineers could often have the line to themselves over the weekends. Fatality rates were higher though).
My argument is that, ultimately, ownership per se is not the issue. The issues are all to do with the tasks set for the organisation and the clarity of the objectives. The quality of management at all levels is critical. Private business has a very clear view of its customers; NR is schizophrenic as is inevitable when it is pulled in three different directions at the same time. The problem has been known for 2,000 years "No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other." The TOCs have a clear view of their customers at the moment - their problem is the degree of control by the DfT in the way they meet the needs of their customers.
Without making any judgement on whether nationalisation is a good thing or a bad thing, one is more likely to achieve a satisfactory solution to all the perceived weaknesses of the service offered to the fare-paying customer by evolving the current set-up rather than having yet another reorganisation imposed from outside.
But the macro-economic arguments about the insidious effects of monopoly and monopsony on both staff and customers are irrefutable. As I wrote earlier - be very careful for what you wish.
