You understand me.

There was a piece on City AM today about how Eurostar could soon see its monopoly end, with a possible competitor on the way (five companies are interested). There’s also been talk about doing the same on UK-wide railways.

I must be missing something. Surely only a limited number of train companies can operate on one track? Unlike buses, which can share a road, and overtake each other, trains have to operate at a safe distance from each other on the same track. Even a layman like myself knows that. So I don’t understand all this talk of competition on railways.

I rarely use public transport, but I caught a train a few years ago. The train was stuck at a station for a while. The conductor told us that our train was waiting for the train in front to clear a signal and be a safe distance in front.

I just don’t see how there can be constant talk of competition on a railway which can only accommodate so many trains safely. Things already seem congested. My brother travels by train, and he has occasionally mentioned how his train is stuck outside a major station, with an announcement being made about the train waiting for a platform to be free.

Eurostar might be different as one site claims it offers one hourly service, so perhaps a competitor could run on that line without causing congestion, but I certainly do not understand recent talk about creating competition on already-busy UK lines.

Not being political here, by the way. Trains are about passengers, political or not.

It feels really weird here. Network Rail, state-owned, does own the infrastructure, which includes the tracks, while train companies run on the tracks.

I think. I challenge even a railway journalist to tell me what’s what.

You see, I was once told that Network Rail also managed the railway stations. And in some cases, that was true. But a friend showed me an e-mail he’d sent to Network Rail, complaining about the toilets being out of order for weeks - only for the reply to be, “I’m sorry, Network Rail doesn’t have responsibility for the toilets at that station, it’s the train company - London Midland - who are responsible for the toilets there.”

It seems counter-intuitive for a train company, one of many operating a vehicle that stops at that station, to be responsible for the toilets at said station. Surely that would fall under infrastructure? I mean, it’s a different ball game in some respects, but I do not believe, at least here in the UK, that bus companies are responsible for toilets at bus stations.

I don’t know how practical it is, and I’d seek a railway journalist out to help me, but I can’t help imagining that maybe we could live in a UK where one entity - let’s call it UK Railways - managed everything infrastructure-wise and also ran the trains. But I don’t know how practical that would be.

I’m watching the original Dragnet tv show right now. Man, I love the rapid fire dialogue. 

One of the all-time Joe Friday comebacks.

If you want something different, yet still pure Jack Webb, check out The DI......



He gets it wrong, though; it's a door, not a hatch. Doors go between bulkheads, hatches go between decks.