At the beginning of this week it was reported that the New Zealand government has bought back the country's main rail and ferry operating business from Australia's Toll Holdings for NZ$665m (£258m) after the two sides failed to settle a funding dispute over upgrading the rail network.
The deal ends an experiment in rail privatisation that began in 1993 with the sale of the network to US railway company Wisconsin Central and a consortium of New Zealand investors for NZ$320m (£126m).
Michael Cullen, the Labour finance minister, said the privatisation "and the running down of the asset afterward has been a painful lesson for New Zealand". Not half as painful as some of the lessons we are continuing to learn here.
According to the Financial Times, the decision of the New Zealand government to take back the rail operating business is expected to win public support. "This signifies a sharp reversal of the mass privatisation and radical free-market policies for which the country became internationally known in the 1980s and early 1990s," it writes.
The other day, we tried to buy tickets to travel by Virgin trains from London to Carlisle on Friday, returning Sunday, to visit an elderly relative. We could go one way, but the three of us, including a child, would not be able to sit together - and there was no guarantee of a seat for any of us, anyway. In France, when you buy a ticket, you buy a seat.
On the return, we were told, the four-hour journey would take six and include a coach ride because of works on the line. Works on the line happened in the days of nationalisation. Trains were often delayed; scruffy and, on occasions, staff didn't give a damn. But they weren't making huge profits out of the misery of passengers and, often, porters and station staff gave a premium service.
We had £78 worth of vouchers to pay for our tickets, given to us on the most recent occasion we were delayed for several hours on a Virgin train. It's almost as if recompense for delays is factored in to the ticket price so that the passenger pays twice.
I don't know if Virgin is better or worse than other lines. I am aware that on the frequent occasions that I travel on Virgin, the loos stink; the carriages are either boiling hot or freezing cold and often the buffet runs out of hot water for coffee and tea, 10 minutes after departure. When delays do happen, information is invariably non-existent.
In the old days of nationalisation in the UK, the train traveller was expected to put up and shut up - but even after savage cuts, services did exist for many in far flung corners who had to rely on rail almost entirely. Now, "choice" and the importance of the customer is the mantra that allegedly rules government and industry. So, as a pipe dream, would it be possible to deliver a decent, reasonably priced, efficient, nationalised train service (more eco-friendly than cars) mindful that those who pay for a ticket deserve a certain standard of service?
Competition is supposed to be the magic ingredient that makes the private sector better than the public. If we want to travel to Carlisle by train, we don't have much of a choice except to go by Virgin - and pay dearly for the experience. Still, why should the shareholders care?
