Quite.

The London underground never made real profits when in private hands with different lines owned by different companies, and provided a much better transport system when eventually it was all linked up.

Competition and "the market" isn't always the best solution.

So what you're saying is, privatisation worked because it induced investment?



Not really an argument against my point that.

Not really, I read it as the same results could have been achieved if BR had been allowed to raise funds in the same way the privatised rail companies did.

But how would the BR lads get hammered in the Railway clubs if people wanted to make the railways work?

Like Deutche Bahn have been, you mean?





Anyway, you get £20m for failing to win a franchise bid, so I'm off to jots some numbers down on this post-it and submit it when the Great Western franchise comes up

Yes. You're right.



In the olden days, not a single train ever actually ran or ran on time and, if it did, it was driven by a drunk, while the on-board staff were also three sheets to the wind or seriously hung over.

I was.

What? You never ran on time?

Always, pity my colleagues didn't have the same attitude.

You never get that sort of thing in the world of private business etc, do you?



Just coke sniffing in the City, say ...

You read it exactly right, that is what I meant.

Cheaper results actually, as BR wouldn't have had to pay dividends.

Don't know where I said that privatisation "worked".

I said that the same investment could have been got without privatisation.