h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Every time we hear uneducated so-called experts in the media 'reporting' on the 'problem' of pubclic transport in the UK, trains specifically, there always seems to be this absolutely bonkers idea that one of the main reasons it is a problem that cannot be addressed is because it will 'cost too much', and the money for it can't be paid by taxes etc., etc., Surely with as far as I know each and every opperator of the rail network system making huge profets year in year out, mighten it be time that the government (who still subsidise what is now a share holder owned industry), turned to the rail opperators and put in place some legal duty on them to plough a pretty hefty percentage of their profets back into opening cloed rail routes, and on improving railstock and stations and on keeping the price of tickets low.
Also, its about time a more reasonable method of charging for rail travel was introduced. My journey at the weekend into London cost £25. A simular distance on a train line about a hundred miles from here, costs less than half that, on the basis it doesn't go to London. I'd like to see something equivelent to the zone system of charging that exists on the London Underground, extended to cover the rail network.

Can someone explain why congestion charging was introduced to discourage car travel at peak times, then the train companies put their prices up at peak times.

If the govt wants a coherent transport policy, it has to take control of transport infrastructure. Penalising one method through taxation just drives people into the arms of profiteers.

One rail company is stopping off peak fares because it didn't like the fact some customers were waiting until 10am to make their journeys...off-peak fares are not regulated by the government so they can't so anything about it.

On Radio 4 this morning, there was some bloke (didn't get his name, was walking to work at the time!) talking about the subsidies the rail companies were getting, and then he talked about National Express which has just taken over the GNER franchise, it's paid £1.4 billion pounds for it. That's a lot of money the company has to get back somehow...Is it the case the company that wants the franchise has to pay the government billions of pounds for it - then the government pays the rail companies subsidies so they can afford to run the railways? (am I understanding that correctly?)

I don’t understand how, if the railways have been privatised, they're still subsidised by the government?

I don't think it's possible for public transport (which to offer a truly integrated effective service is not always going to be making a profit) to be run by private companies (which, ultimately, are after profit).