Yes but Grum by that same logic motorists are subsidised by the HA. How dare drivers moan about petrol prices, they're paid far more than the rail industry!
My point was that statements about Virgin being paid millions to operate aren't true. Of course they're making money, but they're not exactly state funded! Yes they benefit from NR funding, again, as drivers do from HA funding.
I understand that Network Rail is government owned but don't the train operators own the roiling stock. If not why not they are the ones making the profit and providing the service. All just seems bloody complicated.
Rolling stock, right... For a start the TOCs generally don't own their stock, they lease it, (it's bloody expensive) but that's not the point. The franchise agreements will contain details on service provision, which will include things like new trains - eg Virgin were awarded the WCML franchise on the proviso they bought the Pendolinos (there's a whole other thing there about the WCML upgrade). First have the same with the Thameslink franchise. The TOCs are quite tightly governed on what they can do, it's not a free for all once they get the award - hence the bidding process. Where new rolling stock is required there's a tendering process to go through (see the recent controversy with Siemens beating Bombardier for the new Thameslink stock).
There are big issues with capacity - you can't just add more trains on most of the network, there isn't the physical space, most notably on the WCML/Southern/South Central (hence HS2, the big advantage of high speed rail is increased capacity). You can't make trains longer, there are all sorts of limits on that front! With MU stock you can potentially add more units where possible, but most overcrowded services are already as long as they can be, the 03:21 to Thurso probably doesn't need another 2 coaches!
So basically the reasons TOCs can't go out and just buy more trains is:
- Expensive
- Franchise restrictions
- Physical capacity
There's a bit of a degree of 'too many cooks' and too much red tape. NR are shifting to longer franchise agreements to try and bring some more stability to the industry. Nationalisation does have it's advantages, however there's a lot of rose-tinted spectacles being used when looking at the rail industry - it carries more passengers than at any time since WW2, on half the route miles, on predominantly Victorian infrastructure (if you look to replace that people are up in arms though, see the HS2 example!). Punctuality is better than BR ever managed.
Yes it is expensive, but compare the service we have to that in, for example, the US (even their North East Corridor, which is the busiest bit of line). We don't do that badly!
