Against state interference in the railways

From CroziervisionWiki

Author: Patrick Crozier
Permalink

I am against state interference in the railways (whether it be by nationalisation, contracting out, regulation, subsidy or safety regulation) because:

Q&A

What about the Swiss? Their system is state-run and that seems to work pretty well.

People certainly seem to think so. I have heard lots of good reports. Why the Swiss system should be so good, I do not know. It may be because Switzerland is largely a free market economy and the disciplines from that somehow transmit themselves to the railway. Whatever the case may be it is still something of an exception and I am far from sure about the financial situation.

What about the French, or the Germans, or the Dutch?

I don't know much about their systems but what I do know suggests that the picture may be far from rosy.

What about British Rail privatisation? Doesn't that prove that railways should be nationalised?

Not really.
But, surely if the state didn't interfere in the (British) network (by subsidising it) large parts of it would have to be closed down
First of all, I do agree with the statement that in the absence of state subsidy large parts of the UK rail network would, indeed, have to be closed down. I just don't think it would be such a bad thing

References

1. Edwin A Pratt (1911). Railways and Nationalisation. The Railway Gazette. No ISBN. p109
2. Christian Wolmar (2003?). Down the Tube. Aurum?. ISBN?. p?? Permalink