• Assess whether complete nationalisation of the rail industry might protect employees. (10)

Extract A The case for nationalisation Privatisation has not made the rail industry cheaper to operate, despite the promise from one government source that it would see private companies bringing: \"more competition, greater efciency and a wider choice of services\". One reason, suggest the critics, is fragmentation. Instead of pushing British Rail into 5 the private sector as a single supplier the government chose to break it into three components of track, train operators and rolling stock i.e. the trains and carriages. This has encouraged each part of the rail industry to prioritise its own prots rather than collaborating to improve the system. Privatisation, meanwhile, never really worked. The rail network of 2 500 stations and 10 32 000 km of tracks was renationalised in 2001. This has encouraged the government's transport secretary, a supporter of private sector involvement, to argue that the state Network Rail monopoly should be removed so that companies can bid to build new rail lines to upgrade the railway. The privately-owned train operators are now the subject of fierce criticism, due to l5 overcrowding and cancelled services. Private companies are supposed to compete to win a bid to be the train operator for a region for a short number of years. However in recent years the number of private companies bidding or renewing their contract as rail operators has fallen. In May 2018 the government rescued the East Coast line by renationalising it. The line had been run by the private rail operatorVirgin Rail, which was 20 suffering lower passenger numbers and revenue than forecast. Some argue that there is a simple solution: reunite track and train in the only feasible manner, nationalisation. {Source adapted from: httpsy'lwwwjtcoWcontent/d32848ca-f7ba-1 1e7-38l75465a6ce1a00}