[antognini]

Britain seems to have a better system than the US. In the US the rails are privately owned, but the train service is operated by the government. In Britain the rails are owned by the state but the operators are private. That seems to make for a better experience.

[secabeen]

Britain has gone through regular and repeated crises with their trains, and pretty much the entire system went bankrupt during COVID. The government paid what it took to keep it going, but it's not a smooth system by any means. Even during what people would consider the heyday of British Rail, it still required significant and ongoing government subsidies:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_rail_transport_in_G...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_rail_transport_in_G...

[midasuni]

As does the road network. And schools. Goverent services require subsidies, they aren’t run for profit.

And the subsidies given the the rail which were needed because of the governemt laws about not travelling were far lower than US subsidies.

[ggm]

Better only in narrow relative terms. The privatised trains are a disaster of Tory politics and renationalisation is a vote winning proposal. The lines which gave most problems have been resumed by the state in some cases.

I miss BR. Bit of a shame it was Jimmy Saville voicing "this is the age of the train"

Rail demands subsidy. Public utility functions often do.