I've long thought the unique nature of the railway really means it should be regarded more as a social service than a profit-making company. In a sense, the existence of the hugely impressive track coverage we had in the '60s was more of a national heritage cultural infrastructure than a mere transport system. Yes - there were lines that were lucky to see a single passenger on some days, but they did provide an invaluable means of keeping communities in touch with one another.
And now, all across the UK, they're talking about reopening tracks, relaying disused tracks and creating new tracks. One example is that - perhaps unbelievably - there's no way to get a direct train from Liverpool to Llandudno. But there used to be and the old track still exists. It's called the Halton Curve, and they've been discussing its restoration for some time.
But one thing's worth remembering: over the years (well, certainly from as far back as 1963) Tory policy has been determined by those who stood to gain (financially) the most. It still astonishes me that the owner of the biggest road haulage group in the UK was responsible for decimating the railways - an action which has now returned to haunt them all.
We don't learn. Ever. We keep letting the same cronyism run rampant in the political sphere.
On the other hand , I do know that one major issue for the train network has been passenger expectation on safety. Maintaining the track has always been an extraordinarily expensive business, so that has to fall to government, I think. The other side of the coin, of course, is that with anything government-owned the expectations can be unreasonable, so I do concede the case for denationalisation. But AFAIK no country in the world has managed to have a railway network which is entirely free from government subsidy.
There's another aspect to nationalisation. The Unions are always aware that when something is entirely government owned, any industrial action on their part will reflect badly on the party in power at that time. I always prefer a compromise, with the government owning 50% of the shares, which often then sees the best of both worlds.