Comment by muyuu

I think seeing it as a market introduces the kind of biases and distortions that make the British system so incredibly expensive, and now also unreliable.

This is not the market for some fruit or some generic consumer good, with competition at all levels and a very flexible incentive structure that will move resources around to make the product as good and as cheap as possible, creating even different grades where demand justifies it.

This is more a piece-wise single provider structure that only has incentives to extract as much money as possible from the user, and substitute services are also pushed up indiscriminately by the government/regulators hierarchy, that sees them as a politically manageable way to fund massive pressure groups.

The NHS works under similar incentives and is also way out of hand by now.

Internally, the incentive to improve processes and infrastructure is much diminished by the fact that money isn't allocated on value or even perceived value, but established budgets that actually get locally lost if they are not spent, so oftentimes spending more for the same is better. Any improvement or extra budget allocation is a power struggle between localities and political pressure groups.

Trying to introduce competition has also been a massive failure. You have companies outsourcing as much of the maintenance as possible to the infrastructure regulator, squatting lesser profitable lines with skeleton-crew service, and actively impeding the entry of other operators.

It's not a matter of subsidies, sweet-spot for prices and passenger capacity. It's much deeper than that.

The Dutch system is primarily public and primarily operated by NS which is a public operator. The Japanese system is primarily private and operated by private companies, and the regulator has a tight control over it. The British system is hard to even categorise. It's a flailing mish-mash of public/private operation that goes back and forth and that is incompetently regulated.