I got shown a graph recently, when arguing for renationalisation of passenger train services in Scotland, that passenger use of the rail network started climbing significantly higher when the current franchise system came into play.
Though the franchise system isn't "liberalisation" - it's just granting near-monopolies over certain routes in most cases. As a result, we have Virgin/Stagecoach providing the only reasonable routes from Scotland to London.
And, of course, the network in England only ever seems to receive investment where it affects Londoners. But we tried to privatise the rail network itself once, and that went very, very badly.
>use of the rail network started climbing significantly higher when the current franchise system came into play
I know more people who have long train commutes these days than I used to. That's not a function of how much better run the network is though, it's a function of rising house prices (which has been going on since the 90s) driving people further and further out.
With a nationalized rail system the same thing would have happened.
Or did the privatised rail system allow people to more reasonably travel long distances for work, allowing people to move further out, allowing cities to grow and require more workers and thus raising house prices further out with increased demand?
Personally, I'm not really in favour of the franchise system - a concession system a la London Overground would work better in many places (inc Scotland) IMO - but I don't think it's as simple as "the franchises are doing exactly what British Rail would've done".
>Or did the privatised rail system allow people to more reasonably travel long distances for work, allowing people to move further out, allowing cities to grow and require more workers and thus raising house prices further out with increased demand?
No. The increase in house prices was both staggering and coincidental with investors buying up properties an leaving them empty.
>don't think it's as simple as "the franchises are doing exactly what British Rail would've done
British Rail was neglected and lacking investment. This is part of the privatization handbook - intentionally underfund and then use that as a pretext for pushing privatization.
I think if it was well funded we'd have a cheaper, better system.
A number of things all happened around the time that the railways were privatised, and one can argue no end as to what caused the rising passenger numbers.
As crdoconnor says, rising house-prices will play a part in it. But in the ScotRail case, there's also the obvious contrast in the age of the rolling stock: the Glasgow suburban lines had plenty of 1950s-era DMUs and EMUs until ~2000 being replaced by stock from ~1990 and some new build stock, and the main intercity routes moved to brand new DMUs. (I believe the only pre-1979 stock that remained with ScotRail were a number of the sleeper coaches.)
Though the franchise system isn't "liberalisation" - it's just granting near-monopolies over certain routes in most cases. As a result, we have Virgin/Stagecoach providing the only reasonable routes from Scotland to London.
And, of course, the network in England only ever seems to receive investment where it affects Londoners. But we tried to privatise the rail network itself once, and that went very, very badly.