Full privatisation is essential for the railways to continue to grow.
It is the means by which costs are reduced in operations which would otherwise grow through internal bureaucracy and vested interests. It enables more efficient provision of services with management in the position to make the appropriate decisions, and provides a means of long-term investment through open financial markets. These all contribute to the growth in the quality of the service provided.
BR rail failed because it was in the hands of politicians and was periodically undermined by the self-interest of the unions who hand the politicians in their pockets. It was not able to commit to long-term investment because of the vested interests and could not attract private sector investment because of the those interests and miss-management of the rail assets. It was not able to make appropriate operational decisions due to the subversive activities of the unions with the result that it was not run in the public's interest.
If in doubt, look to the market economics of the soviets, the local railways in France, and the shoddy services provided by BR. Today, UK railways deliver a much better standard of service, are more punctual, and have a better public perception of the standards of service compared with most if not all of the other members of the EU. Rail services in the UK are close to profitable in the L&SE which means we are close to being able to reduce fares. The reduction in surplus labour will also contribute to achieving this, something that would not happen with the sabotage of efforts if the unions had their way.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
The other side of the coin is that you give evidence that it has not.
Essay time :P
I'll start with the evidence:
If you want some clear evidence that growth in the railway is down to things other than privatisation, then look at East Coast... a train operating company that has experienced a passenger growth exactly the same as any other TOC (one such source
http://www.mediacentre.eastcoast.co.uk/imagelibrary/downloadmedia.ashx?MediaDetailsID=571&SizeId=-1 and an older one
http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pd...ok-2010-11.pdf) and is nationalised. If, as you are suggesting, this growth is down to privatisation, then East Coast would not have achieved this.
If you want more, let's look at the external (as in, not railway related) factors that may have also affected passenger growth. Since 1997, fuel prices have risen far more drastically than ever before (in fact, almost doubled; source
http://www.petrolprices.com/the-price-of-fuel.html) and road congestion has also risen, especially around London and South East England. Many people have publicly said that, since then, they choose to use the train because of these reasons; driving is too expensive, congested or takes too long (something which was heard far less often before the turn of the millennium). In addition, and the fact that there has been a big population increase will obviously lead to more rail usage, which should be unquestionable and need no proof. This is passenger growth that is not down to privatisation, but due to rising fuel prices, congestion and population increase.
Furthermore, we have seen a change of attitude leading to more investment in the railways. This actually coincided with with the first increase in passenger numbers, suggesting that the increase in passenger numbers was the cause of this attitude change. It should be fairly obvious to see that this increased investment brought about a further increase in passenger numbers (the ORR even stated this in a report this year found at
http://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf...r-rail-usage-quality-report-2013-02-20-q4.pdf at the bottom of page 5). This shows that further passenger growth is due to investment. The VAST majority of this has been carried out by Network Rail, so we can therefore conclude that a lot of the passenger growth from investment is down to this. Whatever way people look at it, they have effectively been nationalised since Railtrack went (and will be officially from Monday). Therefore the vast majority of passenger growth due to investment is not down to privatisation, but a government spending and subsidies... privatisation actually had the opposite effect on passenger growth due to investment, as Railtrack proved (shoddy maintenance leading to crashes which drove passenger away?)...
So, to sum up, why has this growth been down to things other than privatisation? Because East Coast, a nationalised company, have achieved the same growth. Because fuel prices and road congestion have risen and people have said they choose to take the train because of this, meaning more passengers. Because population has risen and this would undoubtedly mean more passengers. And because a further passenger growth has come from increased investment, mostly from a nationalised company.
This is all evidence that the growth that the railway has experienced is down to things other than privatisation, and that privatisation has simply been able to take credit from these external factors. The only evidence I have been given for privatisation being the cause of passenger numbers increasing because they have increased under privatisation and didn't under BR. Under that umbrella, I could also say that fully privatised railways would still use steam powered trains, as BR fully replaced them and the LNER, LMS, GWR and SR didn't. This claim would obviously be madness. Now I've presented my evidence, please enlighten me as to how privatisation specifically has brought about this railway growth?
Now, regarding your case about full privatisation being essential for the railways to grow:
All of your evidence for that comes from free market theory that I have heard many times before; more financially efficient and better services due to the profit incentive, lack of state intervention means they can try what they want, while competition between private companies means that they drive the prices as low as possible. It makes sense, but is however all theory.
It does not cover the fact that the railways are not profitable, and will not be while road and air transport are so available (a situation that will only change through government intervention). So there goes the profit incentive immediately, and we'll end up with a cut back in railway services until the industry became profitable. Private companies like that are also liable to being bought out by others, inevitably leading to a private monopoly. There goes the competition to drive prices down, and we'll end up with prices being as high as private company can get away with. And finally, the lack of state intervention meaning they can do what they want really isn't always beneficial... kind of worrying actually. And then it definitely doesn't solve the fact that you have an asset that is massive both physically and regarding its societal importance in private hands, under no control of the state; how is that justified?
The examples you've given to prove your case; yes, in many ways they're true. But look at Trenitalia; they have an excellent railway where you can make a two hour, 100+ mile regional journey for £6.50. Look at DB; brilliant railway system which has operations abroad adding to its coffers. And look at East Coast; experiencing growth the same as Britain's private TOCs while investing much more into the railway than any of them, having very similar stats to them (often better), pioneered wifi on trains in Britain, is the only TOC to allow you to choose your reserved seat when booking online, is the only TOC to include menus in each carriage, and the only one I've been on to offer both buffet cars and trolley service. That sounds like pretty good service to me...
BR was not perfect, but it was also around when the railway was seen in a different eye and unions were so powerful, and it also achieved so much in light of that (the HST? The replacement of steam?). A future nationalised railway would probably be different; East Coast is a bit of proof for that.
Pffffffffff!! 
