Perhaps, but:

> The government says the new system should look more like Transport for London, with multiple operators under one brand, offering greater accountability when things go wrong.

If it introduces more accountability, it's basically doing it's job. Multiyear contracts do not mean no accountability. I'm not a regular passenger but my understanding is that reliability of current service is generally poor with little to no recourse.

I didn't see any promises about additional recourse. It seems to be more about bureaucratic consolidation than accountability.

This is not the nationalisation and price freezes promised by Corbyn.

I don't see specific details either if that's what you mean, other than the suggestion in the statement I quoted above.

Perhaps i'm being naive, govt is not exactly my forte, though it feels reasonable to suggest accountability is implicit to consolidation here... currently they seem to get contracted to essentially go and manage themselves and their lines; whereas multiple operators under one government management structure of some kind at least has potential for accountability without relying on the operators goodwill (which seems to be as absent as the free market forces).

> "I'm not a regular passenger but my understanding is that reliability of current service is generally poor with little to no recourse."

In my experience, the UK rail system has been running fantastically since Covid began! I don't think I can remember even a single delayed train since March 2020 and certainly no overcrowded ones. So it seems like the real problem with the trains was always the passengers ;)

Isn't that a bit like saying it's not the ISP's fault that they aren't delivering even 50% of the throughput they promised? if only there weren't so many subscribers - this is literally what happens on cheap mobile internet with high contention ratios, when it's sunny outside, the throughput and stability shoots through the roof.

It might be "one line", but the number of trains, carriages, staff and general stress on the infrastructure is based on the number of people using it - if not managed well, or resources are stretched to thin to squeeze profits, it's not the passengers fault. COVID simply created a sudden and unusual surplus of resources for them.

The OP finished with a winky. They were being tongue-in-cheek.

I'd be happier than the status quo even if it just meant presented to customers as a single brand — I always found it ludicrous trying to get to, say, Gatwick from London Bridge & thinking "There's a Thames Link train leaving at 5 past, I'll go for that but if I don't reach the platform on-time, I won't be allowed use my ticket on the next train, because that's South Eastern, so I'll have to wait for the train after that". Unnecessarily confusing.

"Flexible season tickets" is also a really welcome one, especially if people go to WFH/office hybrid set-up.

So does Transport for London, in some behind the scenes way I don't need to know or care about.

Nationalisation is not a panacea.

In France for instance, SNCF runs the non-TGV railway with inefficency and carelessness on a "it's our railway and we decide how you can use it" basis, and the regional governments are chomping at the bit to be able to award the contracts for subsided services to someone other than the state monopoly.

Pricing and scheduling are to be centralised though AIUI