PalQ

The UK has experienced Europe's highest rate of increase of rail users, according to stats i've read. Not to conclude that 'privitization' is a success as this might imply but for whatever reason, high cost of petrol?, whatever many people are flocking aboard the beleagured rail system.
And a whopping 28% increase is predicted for the next decade. At the same time national rail expenditures are expected to FALL by 20% Industry sources say fares are expected to rise to keep overcrowding down - sort of a 'congestion charge' for rail travel as there is for road travel in London. If trains can't accommodate the increase the buses and cars will only further over inundate roads, requiring massive government investment in road building, which is why the decline in spending on rail is so daft!
Other recommendations are to close little used stations and eliminate some stopping trains that clog up the rails for higher-speed inter-city running. In actuality what is need is new rail lines, such as the Channel Tunnel rail link, called Britain's first new main rail line since the 1850s or some such incredible date.

Intrepid1

Possible reasons?

Some people finally figured "it" out.

The London "congestion" charge for drivers.

FlannerUK finally took a train somewhere.

flanneruk

Flanneruk has been keeping Britain's railway system in business for the past four years.

Where else do you think I find the time for this constant attempt to educate you all? The system has its flaws. But trains are virtually never out of GPRS contact. So wherever they stop, passengers can catch up on their favourite bulletin boards, and fire off missives.

The growth in passenger traffic is simply down to a growing economy and enormous investment by private companies in extra rolling stock. The growth in passenger misery is simply due to the State mismanaging the miserly investment in permanent way and signalling.

PalQ

'investment by private companies in rolling stock' - please correct me but i thought that most franchises get government subsidies, thus this is government money the private companies are investing?

PalQ

My mind's eye of FlannerUK on train: Sitting in his first-class seat with the tea cup shaking in its saucer due to poor track conditions, reading the Times of London or Financial Times, briefcase open for some intended reviews, laptop ready to send didactic missives to us when the GPRS allows. Maybe a glass of white wine on the return run. Mobile phone laying on the table to tell significant other when he really will be arriving" "Yeh were sitting at xxx station - something with the signalling or perhaps a driver didn't show up - they tell us 20 minutes but you never know - i'll ring you up when we reach Milton Keynes.

rkkwan

I think the short story with the subsidies is this:

The private train operators have to invest their own money on their rolling stocks. But the tracks and infrastructure is owned and kept by Network Rail, which used to be Railtrack after privatisation. But Railtrack basically went bankrupt and is bailed out by mostly the British government (i.e. taxpayer).

So, there is definitely a subsidy for the train operators, but it's an indirect one.

PalQ

So private train operators get no subsidies - this flies in the face of what i've read - that some train franchises do indeed get general subsidies from local governments, etc. - some of the less-viable local lines. I may be wrong, very well could be but you say no private train companies get a farthing of general subsidies - beyond the generous ones they get on tracks and infrastructure.