When British Rail was created, what were the reasons for not making the
London Underground part of it?


For a few years they were both part of the British Transport Commission
(1950s), then split again. Why? - it's all part of the political football that
public transport has been throughout the 20th Century. With the morons now in
power, things look set to continue the same way.

Doesn't the existence of two very separate railway networks in London make
travelling in or across London harder (when separate fares and/or tickets
are needed), less well informed (due to relative lack of public knowledge of
the ability to make many journeys by NR instead of/as well as by LU, or vice
versa), and more expensive (due to missed economies of scale in management,
staffing and many other areas) than could be the case with one merged
network? What mitigating circumstances are there?

A metro system that is part of the National Rail network seems to work
perfectly well in Liverpool. Are there reasons why it wouldn't in London?

(Genuine questions from a puzzled non-expert.)


Yes, well it's even worse now that different parts of the Underground are owned
and/or maintained by different private companies.

Ask John Prescott why, when in Opposition, he said and did everything to oppose
all privatisation on principle, and now is quite content to allow privatisation
to continue and fragment the Underground in a way the Tories would never even
have dared for fear of Labour squeals.

Labour seem to be too busy harassing foxhunters to give a damn about the
Undergound.

Marc.