You can nationalize the infrastructure without nationalizing the operations upon it.
Many other countries use a system where one government-related entity manages in the infrastructure, and many private companies can pay to operate rail services on that infrastructure.
This would actually allow market competition instead of geographic monopolies.
My intention was to nationalize the rails; the current operators can still do so as private businesses but they now have to share with other operators (including passengers).
After initially privatising everything in the 1990s, which led to cut corners on track/signal maintenance and accidents as a result, Britain nationalised the rail infrastructure -- track, electric catenary, signals, tunnels, bridges and stations.
Companies (private or public) operating trains pay a fee to use the track.
The UK runs one of the worst rail services in Europe[0]. The involvement of the operating companies is a charade with the sole purpose of siphoning public money into private hands.
What value is a private operator adding to the system when tracks, signalling, timetables, and fares are managed by the public body? Especially given they aren't providing the rolling stock themselves.
Note that the private operators did such an awful job of managing timetables and fares that the responsibility was taken from them.
Sorry, I was very ambiguous but I meant only that the public-run infrastructure was working much better than when that was privately run. Britain's railway network is one of the safest in Europe, and it's a very busy network.
I agree the private operators bring nothing. Train tickets are one of the few things that are more expensive in Britain than here in Denmark, and I can't think of anything at all that's better about trains in Britain, other than the more varied scenery.
Many other countries use a system where one government-related entity manages in the infrastructure, and many private companies can pay to operate rail services on that infrastructure.
This would actually allow market competition instead of geographic monopolies.