too true, like when the intercity 125 went.

A surplus/profit call it what you want, it is still having money left after trading.
Certainly a few routes can and do make these surpluses/profits, many cost millions to provide a service.

Hovercraft would be nice way to travel. I'll suggest it to my local MP.

B.G.; ignoring whether we call any excess money a surplus or profit, surely it is better for the country as a whole that that money is re-invested to improve the rail network rather than lining shareholders pocket.

I always have and always will believe that essential services and infrastructure are too important to the country to be left to market forces. Too many companies operate with the short term goal of improving profits for their shareholders rather than having a long term plan.

Especially when you consider the total dog's breakfast of a mess that was made of rail privatisation. Instead of having one organisation to procure, administer and manage the rail network, infrastructure and rolling stock, we ended up with one company managing the track & infrastructure and a number of other companies managing the rolling stock and services.

We then ended up with the company managing the infrastructure being forcibly wound up and taken back into public ownership because the private company was so spectacularly inept at managing said infrastructure and the business itself. At least two train operating franchises have been handed back to the public sector and of those that are left, many have relied on government to procure new rolling stock and then lease them at preferential rates. If that's how private enterprise works then my cock's a kipper.

Would you consider the provision of food to be an essential service?

Oh I agree with you but services like the railways as a whole don't make money so this surplus that goes to investment doesn't happen and what you get is either underinvestment of the state paying an even bigger share.

The state is already subsidising the rail companies to a bigger extent than it ever did when the system was nationalised.

Wrt the post on food being an essential service. Every state should ensure it has a policy to provide enough food for its population. You could argue that we already make sure people are fed by the provision of free school meals for kids and the welfare state providing benefits for adults so that they can purchase food.

No because it is not a service. Unlike things like the buses, railways or power generation.

It also isn't a monopoly enterprise requiring a regulator to ensure the public isn't ripped off. There is nothing wrong with private industry providing us with goods such as food where the market naturally provides for competition. Wherever you see a regulator involved you can guarantee the market doesn't actually exist to do this.

Well, 80% of the UK's grocery retail trade is in the hands of the major supermarkets (those with a minimum of 8% of the nation's total retail trade each). Thirty years ago, that figure was 20%.

In some towns, the only options are a big box Tesco, a smaller Tesco and a Tesco express.

There are reasons that words and phrases such as 'Tesco town' and 'Tescopoly' have entered the lexicon.