>
"This isn't the vindication of privatisation you seem to think it is."I'm not suggesting it is. I'm saying that privatisation has not been a disaster, which was the OP's claim. If privatisation was a disaster, passengers would not have flocked to the railways in record numbers.
> "the operators are still using the exact same rolling stock as in 'the old days of British Rail'"
This isn't true in the vast majority of cases. With very few exceptions (like a few remaining HSTs), you'd be hard pressed to find any train operating into London that dates back to British Rail. Many routes have been through multiple rolling stock upgrades since the BR days!
But note that rolling stock is not something that the operators have much control over anyway. Upgrades are decided/determined by the Department for Transport as part of the franchise terms. So if you do find yourself on an ancient train on some regional route, that's really the government's fault, not the operator's.
> "How is it that half of the UK's private operators are subsidiaries of other countries' nationalised operators?"
Nationalised operators tend to have low costs of capital, so can potentially bid lower for franchises than private competitors who are likely to be paying higher interest rates. They also already have management experience in running large railways, which helps to support their bids.
> "The 'bad old days' of British Rail were because of persistent underfunding, not the ownership structure."
I think this is partially true.
> "The UK state spends more on railways today under a privatised system than they did when the entire system was nationalised."
Yes, but again, passenger numbers have increased dramatically in that time. In 2019, the UK's total rail subsidy (including Network Rail spending) was 3.97p per passenger mile. That's just about as low as it's ever been since at least 1980.