The Big Question: Why does rail travel in Britain seem so much worse than in the rest of Europe?

Why are we asking this now?

Yesterday, European rail operators launched a continental alliance aiming to get passengers off planes and on to trains. The Railteam alliance - which includes Eurostar, France's SCNF, Germany's Deutsche Bahn and Austrian, Belgian, Dutch and Swiss operators - will create one system to book international fares, which are likely to drop.

Why are trains more widely used on the Continent than in the UK?

Although rail use has been growing strongly in the UK since the end of the last recession in the early 1990s, rail's share remains low by European standards - behind France, Germany and the Netherlands, for example. The share of cars in distance travelled in Britain, by contrast, is second only to Norway.

Why this should be is trickier to say. An obvious reason might be Britain's growing prosperity and higher disposable incomes, but closer analysis suggests that car ownership is not that high in comparison with our European peers. The UK also has a highly developed network of internal flights, and some longer journeys, especially by business people, are migrating to the skies.

There's also the matter of the rail network itself. It was once easy to go almost door to door anywhere by train, but now it's almost impossible. Britain's vast Victorian network was seriously denuded after the cuts recommended by Dr Richard Beeching, the chairman of the railways board, in his review in 1963.

Why don't we use the railways more?

Today, the disincentives are cultural and financial. Public transport has a low-rent image, once summed up by Margaret Thatcher when she declared that "any man riding a bus to work at the age of 26 may count himself a failure". The railways' reputation hasn't been favourable since the Second World War. The statist inefficiencies and curled sandwiches of British Rail, which took over in 1947, were succeeded by a botched privatisation in the 1990s, a collapse in performance, exacerbated by some high-profile accidents (especially Hatfield in 2000) and topped off with the bankruptcy of Railtrack, the track operator, in 2001. Since then, things have got better, and demand has increased, though more passengers mean fewer seats. Harsh perceptions of a difficult to use, expensive, uncomfortable service, linger. So the picture of Britain as a car-loving, rail-hating nation seems to have some truth to it.

What effect has privatisation had?

A patchwork of private regional monopolies replaced a state one. In 1996 John Major's government rushed things through before a general election it was widely assumed they would lose. The set-up, separating track from operators and both from the rolling stock companies, led to some chaotic travel arrangements and accidental fortunes for those who found themselves sitting on undervalued assets. Safety may have suffered. Setting the length for franchises is particular problematic: too short and there's no incentive to invest, too little and there's less competitive edge. Seven years is the norm.

What about ticketing?

This used to be one of the weakest points of the dismembered network, but the arrival of the National Rail Enquiries service and web-based information sites have helped, as has the availability of cheaper pre-booked tickets.

Why are the trains so expensive?

Localised monopolies and a high demand from a buoyant economy are two reasons. But costs are high. Decades of underinvestment have left a lamentable legacy. Even with substantial public subsidies going into Network Rail (trebling from £1.5bn to £4.5bn a year after the Hatfield accident), track and rolling stock investment tends to be very "lumpy", with large-scale schemes tending to run into notorious cost overruns, the most spectacular example being the electrification of the west coast line. One way or another, taxpayers and passengers have to pay.

How do rail firms get away with charging high prices for such a bad service?

They do and they don't. Regulated fares generally don't shock commuters too much, though there have been exceptions. Unregulated fares are different. Take the new seven-year contract to run the East Midlands lines, won by Stagecoach recently. Stagecoach has pledged to pay £133m, in net present value terms, over the life of the franchise. Public subsidies of £64.3m in the first full year reverse to a £43.8m premium payment in 2012, rising to £155m in 2015.

To do this they will need to double revenues. Part of this will come from growth and part from making the most of their pricing power. Stagecoach, like the others, do this because the nature of the industry requires them to satisfy shareholders and HM Treasury as well as passengers.

What can be done to lure people away from cars and planes?

What already is being done: introducing more congestion-charging and, in the medium term, road pricing and increasing the cost of motoring. The sheer scale of congestion also has an effect - if people are going to be late for work every day, even the most committed petrol-head might consider taking the train. More imaginative schemes for trams and light railways can also help. More rolling stock and longer platforms will ease overcrowding.

Should the railways be renationalised?

Few, including the Conservative Party, which was responsible for the policy, have much good to say about the way British Rail was broken up. The establishment of the not-for-profit Network Rail a few years ago is as far as anyone seems likely to go for now. Some Scottish Labour politicians were thinking about taking control of trains north of the border before the last elections for Holyrood. Reorganisation is more likely: some train-operating companies would like to run the regional track as well as the trains.

Are the railways getting better?

Yes, though from some abysmally low levels. Even freight, long the weakest wagon in the train, is showing an improvement. Passenger Focus's survey of travellers' opinions shows an improvement from 73 per cent to almost 80 per cent in five years. The Rail Regulator's key Public Performance Measure, which follows punctuality and reliability, is at an eight-year high. South-east commuter lines are still relatively miserable, and overcrowding and fare rises take the edge off the more passenger-friendly experience that a decade of upheaval and investment has delivered. Still more will be required, though; the Association of Train Operating Companies says passenger numbers could increase by 30 to 40 per cent in the next 10 years.

Should we be pessimistic about our rail network?

Yes...

* The number of commuters choosing to use their cars suggests that many have a negative view of rail services

* After years of growth of investment in the railways, funding has fallen back slightly over the past two years

* With the cost of air travel so low, a good network of domestic flights could rob the railways of passengers

No...

* Since emerging from a botched privatisation and crippling underinvestment, the network is finally receiving higher funding

* Passengers have been voting with their feet, with rail use growing strongly over the past 15 years

* Despite criticisms over ticket prices, travelling by train is still relatively cheaper than driving