Quote Originally Posted by BDunnell
I do see your point, but the fact of the privatised network requiring ever-greater government subsidy may well nullify this to some extent. Had BR continued demanding less and less subsidy, things may have 'evened out' and made funds available for such projects.



Beyond that, privatisation has left us with a bewildering array of fare options.
My wider point was that BR's "efficiency" at the time was completley unsustainable, modernisation, renewals and maintenance were put off, requiring less funding and obviously also causing less disruption, meaning a short term increase in performance. That efficiency and decreasing subsidy, i beleive, would and could not have continued, as the investment had to be made sooner or later, and by it coming later it has probably cost more in the long term, as what could have been maintained had to be replaced. There was no way the infrastructure at privatisation could have taken the traffic or performed the journey times, now available. The downside is that investment means work being carried out, which causes disruption and reflects badly on the networks performance short term