Over the weekend I went to Blackpool, and decided to get the train as I really couldn't be mythered trying to find a parking space.

I went through 4 stations, each run by a different rail company, each with different levels of standards and facilities.

 - First there was the station run by Northern - bit like the trains, decreped, neglected etc etc (think they refer to it as cheap and cheerful, although in one of those twists of irony I find it neither)
 - Then there was the sation run by Notwork Rail - big, bustling, charges me to take a piss although from the state of the toilets I should have asked for my money back! and a wide range of facilities.
 - Then there as the station run by Transpennine Express (TPX) - some facilities but it just smacked of "doing the minimum to keep our franchise."

All in all it was a pretty bizarre experience - ranging from ice station zebra to a plush busy station with a M&S no less, with trains to match.

But this is the thing that really bugged me - the train companies (Northern and TPX) are running the trains and paying Network Rail to stop at stations, so why are they running the majority of the bloody stations?

Now, politics isn't really my thing (I tend to shout a lot and call Hazel Blears a lying conniving bastard before she even opens her mouth, what can I say she just looks short and shifty and is a self made hypocrit!) but, as this system has been brought about by politicians, I'll happily wade into it!

Train companies should run trains - Network rail should run the infrastructures and facilities.

This way full accountability can be properly attributed to the right people.
 - If my train's overcrowded I kick off at Northern - or offer feedback to the train manager (although they tend to agree!)
 - If the station is a bag of shite then I kick off at Network Rail rather than try to guess which of the 4 train operators in the region happens to be running it!

OK, so this does appear to introduce extra layers, but bear with me!

TOCs (apparently that's what to call people who run trains) do not like to invest in stations and only do it begrudglingly as it is part of their franchise agreement. Take Northern Rail (no please, do!!!!) They operate Manchester Victoria. What a dump, it needs massive investment. It is a fabulous building to look at, but massively neglected and in need of a lot of work. Will Northern commit to it - no - it isn't in their interests as their franchise only runs for a certain period of time and, according to the company itself, "the franchise does not cover investment or expansion into the network" jobsworths!

But if it was handed over to Network Rail then Northern would be demanding that the work be done so that they could get more people through the station, and more money; and in return Network Rail would be demanding that Northern get its' act together so that they could have more people investing in the facilities at the station, pushing up its revenues.

Basically, by playing them off against each other we could feasibly see an improvement of facilities without having to lift a finger.

Perhaps needs a bit of work but I think I'm onto something - thoughts?