Discussion Competition The case for privatisation of the railways is generally fought over increased efficiencies, cheaper prices due to lower costs and better quality of service in this instance via faster times, lower fares and better seating among other things. The argument for the privatisation goes back to July 1992, when the then Minister for Transport, John MacGregor published a White Paper called “New Opportunities for the Railways, the privatisation of British Rail” which was used to justify the privatisation for the railways with a series of theories and promises. MacGregor (1992)believed that the free-market would benefit the consumers, employees and managers as privatised companies would care more about the customers' needs due to the greater incentives that management and employees in the private sector have, to provide the services which the consumer wants (Macgregor, 1992, p.4). As well as this, Macgregor argued that greater competition and thus, ending the monopoly, would increase, not only the quality, but also the quantity of the services provided. As new operators will be allowed to provide services, giving customers a greater choice with improved services (Macgregor, 1992, p.3). However, you cannot have two train operating companies competing on one line of track, operating at the same times. There is no direct …show more content…
Furthermore, since privatisation, rail industry costs have increased by £4 billion, 60%, to a total of over £11 billion (2009/10 prices) (McNulty, 2011, p.18). As well as this, since privatisation, rail subsidies have doubled; from £2 billion to £4 billion (Bowman et al., 2013, p.41). The increase in the total cost of running the railways and the increase in public subsidies, would heavily suggest that privatisation has