answer: #Person2# thinks it is good for the railways to be nationalized because more and more cars appear and the railways gain less and less. #Person1# thinks what #Person2# copes is two extremes: trying not to lose too much money and providing the best services.
documents: #Person1#: There is an element there about competition then, isn't there? Because British railways are a nationalized industry. There's only one railway system in the country. If you don't like a particular kind of big beans, you can go and buy another. But if you don't like a particular railway, you can't go and use another.
  #Person2#: Some people who write to me say this. They say that if you didn't have a monopoly, you wouldn't be able to do the things you do. Well, I don't think we do anything deliberately to upset our customers. We have particular problems. Since 1946, when the Transport Act came in, we were nationalized.
  #Person1#: Do you think that's a good thing? Has it been a good thing for the railways, do you think, to be nationalized?
  #Person2#: Oh I think so, yes. Because in general, modes of transport are all around. Let's face the fact. The car arrived. The car is here to stay. There is no question about that.
  #Person1#: So what are you saying then? Is it if the railways happen being nationalized, they would simply have disappeared?
  #Person2#: Oh, I think they would have. They're disappearing fast in America. Er, the French railways lose 1 billion pounds a year. The German railways, 2 billion pounds a year. But you see, those governments are preparing to pour money into the transport system to keep it going.
  #Person1#: So in a sense, you cope between two extremes. On the one hand, you're trying not to lose too much money. And on the other hand, you've got to provide the best service.
  #Person2#: Yes, you are right.