Does the North get a raw deal on rail?

[whole diary]

[ellendune]

Devon provides an impressive demonstration of very positive public transport update and development.  It involves impressive people, backed up by (or perhaps provoking) a general regional will.  Yes, there are good lessons to learn / examples to adapt and follow.

We could say the same about Wiltshire!

[Electric train]

There is a very good reason why London and the Southeast gets the lions share of investment, if you take NR^» (Network Rail - home page) Southeast Route it has a route 25 to 30% of all of the passengers on the National network, Southwest Route is not far behind that.  Its quite simple something like 60 to 70% of all rail (national network) passenger journeys start and finish in the London and Southeast area.

Crossrail in part is being funded by a levy on the London business rates and local council tax payers also the City of London has invested in it, the same is being proposed for Crossrail 2, so when the Government says Northern Powerhouse you need to seek the funding the Government are not saying they will not contribute they just will not pay for it lock stock and barrel

[grahame]

Devon provides an impressive demonstration of very positive public transport update and development.  It involves impressive people, backed up by (or perhaps provoking) a general regional will.  Yes, there are good lessons to learn / examples to adapt and follow.

We could say the same about Wiltshire!

Wiltshire used to be regarded as just about the worst county for public transport support, but it's far from that now.  However, it has moved (so far) from being one of the worst to middle ground, rather than (as yet) an example of shining achievement all around.  There is momentum there, there are excellent / impressive people (who I won't embarrass by naming) but there are also significant pockets who do things in a certain way "because we always have", or carry on with old ways "don't want to risk anything new / don't have the time".

Wiltshire - "most improved in this decade" - quote possibly.  "One of the best counties for a modern appropriate public transport system" - not yet.   On trains, a couple of new stations, services that run slightly varied and appropriate routes, with some frequency increases, that connect well with other trains and buses.   On buses, services that run as a network without disparate ticketing issues, that connect with each other and trains, that run when people want them, with centralised information and well labelled buses and bus stops. And that encourage multiple use of the same vehicle / route for local, school, senior and visitor flows so that the whole thing is welcoming and economic.

[ellendune]

There is a very good reason why London and the Southeast gets the lions share of investment, if you take NR^» (Network Rail - home page) Southeast Route it has a route 25 to 30% of all of the passengers on the National network, Southwest Route is not far behind that.  Its quite simple something like 60 to 70% of all rail (national network) passenger journeys start and finish in the London and Southeast area.

Crossrail in part is being funded by a levy on the London business rates and local council tax payers also the City of London has invested in it, the same is being proposed for Crossrail 2, so when the Government says Northern Powerhouse you need to seek the funding the Government are not saying they will not contribute they just will not pay for it lock stock and barrel

Yes, however that is to some extent a circular argument.  London gets the investment so passenger numbers grow so it gets more investment.....

While other parts of the country that need investment don't get it, so passenger numbers don't grow.....

There is an argument that Scottish, Welsh devolution is not the solution, its the whole of the rest of the country that needs devolution from London (though I am not sure where you would draw the boundary)!

Trans-Wilts has shown what even a small investment can do so the trains are overcrowded, now with some investment .....

There are other examples elsewhere in the country outside London

[TaplowGreen]

There is a very good reason why London and the Southeast gets the lions share of investment, if you take NR^» (Network Rail - home page) Southeast Route it has a route 25 to 30% of all of the passengers on the National network, Southwest Route is not far behind that.  Its quite simple something like 60 to 70% of all rail (national network) passenger journeys start and finish in the London and Southeast area.

Crossrail in part is being funded by a levy on the London business rates and local council tax payers also the City of London has invested in it, the same is being proposed for Crossrail 2, so when the Government says Northern Powerhouse you need to seek the funding the Government are not saying they will not contribute they just will not pay for it lock stock and barrel

Yes, however that is to some extent a circular argument.  London gets the investment so passenger numbers grow so it gets more investment.....

While other parts of the country that need investment don't get it, so passenger numbers don't grow.....

You may have noticed a little thing called HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s))?

[martyjon]

There is a very good reason why London and the Southeast gets the lions share of investment, if you take NR^» (Network Rail - home page) Southeast Route it has a route 25 to 30% of all of the passengers on the National network, Southwest Route is not far behind that.  Its quite simple something like 60 to 70% of all rail (national network) passenger journeys start and finish in the London and Southeast area.

Crossrail in part is being funded by a levy on the London business rates and local council tax payers also the City of London has invested in it, the same is being proposed for Crossrail 2, so when the Government says Northern Powerhouse you need to seek the funding the Government are not saying they will not contribute they just will not pay for it lock stock and barrel

Yes, however that is to some extent a circular argument.  London gets the investment so passenger numbers grow so it gets more investment.....

While other parts of the country that need investment don't get it, so passenger numbers don't grow.....

You may have noticed a little thing called HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s))?

Being pedantic here but I doubt whether anyones noticed it yet, heard of it as,  proposed HS2, but until its built no one can notice it !!!!

[TaplowGreen]

There is a very good reason why London and the Southeast gets the lions share of investment, if you take NR^» (Network Rail - home page) Southeast Route it has a route 25 to 30% of all of the passengers on the National network, Southwest Route is not far behind that.  Its quite simple something like 60 to 70% of all rail (national network) passenger journeys start and finish in the London and Southeast area.

Crossrail in part is being funded by a levy on the London business rates and local council tax payers also the City of London has invested in it, the same is being proposed for Crossrail 2, so when the Government says Northern Powerhouse you need to seek the funding the Government are not saying they will not contribute they just will not pay for it lock stock and barrel

Yes, however that is to some extent a circular argument.  London gets the investment so passenger numbers grow so it gets more investment.....

While other parts of the country that need investment don't get it, so passenger numbers don't grow.....

You may have noticed a little thing called HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s))?

Being pedantic here but I doubt whether anyones noticed it yet, heard of it as,  proposed HS2, but until its built no one can notice it !!!!

You're absolutely right..................................very pedantic!!! 

[simonw]

A huge proportion of the HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) budget is assigned to rebuild parts of North London. The original idea for HS2 was to rejuvenate the Midlands and North, but it appears a large proportion of the money is being spent in London.

Why not build HS2 Birmingham to Manchester first, then HS3 from Liverpool to Hull/Newcastle.

[John R]

A huge proportion of the HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) budget is assigned to rebuild parts of North London. The original idea for HS2 was to rejuvenate the Midlands and North, but it appears a large proportion of the money is being spent in London.

Why not build HS2 Birmingham to Manchester first, then HS3 from Liverpool to Hull/Newcastle.

Because the greatest need for capacity release on the WCML^▸ (West Coast Main Line) is south of Birmingham and also it will give the quickest benefit to number of routes where journey times will be reduced.

[TonyK]

South Devon seems to have found way to buck the trend with the South Devon Metro, in actual effect, being built now if you look at the recent progress with Newcourt and Cranbrook stations now open and new ones at Marsh Barton and Edginswell seemingly imminent.
It seems to be down to regional political will combined with effective cooperation with local business and other interest groups.
Some lessons to be learnt by other regions?

Devon provides an impressive demonstration of very positive public transport update and development.  It involves impressive people, backed up by (or perhaps provoking) a general regional will.  Yes, there are good lessons to learn / examples to adapt and follow.

And how much better would it be with proper investment to actually improve things in the way the local leaders see necessary? (MetroBust excluded, obviously).

[onthecushions]

As a Lancs/Bucks hybrid my narrow view is that the Northern 3 Regions, only a little less in population than London and the South East do get a raw deal. However you need to look at the totality of transport spending (and the North's choices) to have a balanced view.

The Inter City rail electrifications probably drained rather than fed the North's economies as they only pointed South and did not include lateral routes. HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) will probably continue this. Even today, the TP scheme, arguably connecting more population than CrossRail is in doubt. Scotland is a contrast in the Glasgow blue train and now multiple central belt wirings. Some would say that the SNP should have extended to include the Northern Regions. The best heavy rail achievements are the Merseyrail system and the North Leeds wiring of four routes. The North has had light rail in Newcastle, Sheffield and Manchester and would have had one in Liverpool if the 18km scheme had not come in at £450M. The latest 5km extension of the Sheffield system is costing £125M.

If you drive in parts of the North you will appreciate the extent of roads investment over the last century. Liverpool has dual carriageways everywhere - two ring roads (Queen's Drive and the M57) and most "A" roads are thoroughly improved. Skelmersdale is a road constructor's Nirvana with no station but grade separated junctions on housing estate roads! They are still relatively depressed areas.

If you back the wrong horse you lose your money.

OTC

[stuving]

All the papers were at it again today. This time the source of the "research" was PA^▸ (Public Address), though the Times for one didn't see fit to mention that. I think they all stuck close to the supplied text, at least at the start (but not that dire headline). PA's own site only has this teaser:

Mind the snores! Snail’s-pace trains four times slower outside South East

Trains connecting Britain’s major towns and cities are up to four times slower outside the South East, according to new research. Press Association analysis of the quickest possible trains on 19 routes found that services from London travel at average speeds of 65-93mph, compared with just 20-60mph elsewhere. The slowest...

Doesn't that wording just shout "junk research"? I mean, who chose those 19 routes, and what do they represent? One was London-Reading, which was the 93 mph, while Liverpool Central-Chester (Merseyrail) was the 20 mph - hence the ratio of four:one. Does that look a reasonable comparison?

Oh, of course you need to measure the distance in a straight line, otherwise you don't get as low as 30 mph for Cardiff-Bristol. But we all know about the government's penny-pinching refusal to build the Bristol Channel bridge, don't we?

There is a point, no doubt, to be made - just not that way. Once you've pointed out that long-distance lines were built and still run from London, and they have fewer stops and (partly for that reason) are faster, what would be good comparisons? I understand that York-Darlington in The North - that's over 100 mph, which proves...?

I wonder what PA's motive is for putting out this kind of stuff. Is it mostly staffed by splenetic scousers?

[IndustryInsider]

Very well put, Stuving.

[Rhydgaled]

Why not build HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) Birmingham to Manchester first, then HS3 from Liverpool to Hull/Newcastle.

As well as the fact that there would not be capacity for HS2 services on the WCML^▸ (West Coast Main Line) south of Birmingham if you did it that way, you would have to redesign HS2 as even when phase 2 is complete there will not be a direct route from Birmingham to Manchester, unless by 'Birmingham' you mean somewhere with Birmingham in the title in which case you are looking at a line from Manchester to 'Birmingham International' A.K.A. 'Birmingham Interchange'.

When I have mentioned this before somebody posted that some London-Birmingham services would reverse and continue to Manchester, but the service patterns I have seen in HS2 Ltd. published documents have them as seperate London-Birmingham and London-Manchester shuttles, with a change required in Birmingham. Either way, there will be no long-distance passengers on these services (because they'll be on the services that bypass Birmingham) so in my opinion these shuttles do not justify the engergy required to run them at 200mph plus (wheras if there were no Birmingham bypass line and trains to Manchester, Crewe, Glasgow etc. ran through central Birmingham there would be long-distance passengers on from London too). If you could run the shuttles at 140mph I'd be less annoyed with the poor design of HS2, but they'd get in the way of the 200+mph long-distance trains if you did that and you still wouldn't be able to justify HS2 trains to certain destinations (north Wales for example wouldn't generate enough passengers from London to fill HS2's long trains, but if the train could call at Birmingham on the way it could also serve the Birmingham to north Wales market which would help fill the train and save a path (because there would just just one London-Birmingham-Wales train on HS2 instead of seperate London-Wales and Birmingham-Wales trains on the classic network)).

There is perhaps also an argument that phase 1 should have been London to Manchester without a break in construction or the authorisation process to ensure the London-Birmingham line cannot be built while there is still a risk the government may cancel the northern half.

The Inter City rail electrifications probably drained rather than fed the North's economies as they only pointed South and did not include lateral routes. HS2 will probably continue this.

I agree completely with that last sentance; it's related to what I'm saying above about HS2 in Birmingham. If the London trains could call at Curzon street on the way there would at least be links with Birmingham not just with London so rather than drain, but ideally there would also be improved Manchester-Birmingham-Bristol and Leeds-Birmingham-Bristol services too (electric and using HS2 north of Birmingham, though the Leeds trains would have to use New Street rather than the HS2 station in Birmingham). All a missed opertunity now that the HS2 Birmingham terminus plan is final, London-centric HS2 here we come (now what happens when the GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line) and ECML^▸ (East Coast Main Line) are as full as the WCML?).

you need to look at the totality of transport spending (and the North's choices) to have a balanced view.

If you drive in parts of the North you will appreciate the extent of roads investment over the last century. Liverpool has dual carriageways everywhere - two ring roads (Queen's Drive and the M57) and most "A" roads are thoroughly improved. Skelmersdale is a road constructor's Nirvana with no station but grade separated junctions on housing estate roads!

Good question; if you add up all transport funding (not just rail) do the other regions still get a raw deal compared to London or is it just that transport funds are generally spent more-sensibly in London (on public transport) compared to transport spending elsewhere (on roads)?

[simonw]

One of the issues justifying HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)), and not allowing it to use New St is the lack of capacity in the West Midlands area, hence the desire to redevelop and use Curzon St.

Why not implement a rail loop in the West Midlands to stop many local trains going to New Street, improve the local transport infrastructure in the West Midlands to make it more attractive.

As a country we must invest more in regions outside of London, be it South West, Midlands, North West, Yorkshire and North East, improve links to these areas whether adding new lines or improving capacity at bottle necks like New St station in Birmingham.

At no point have I every been against investment in London, it is needed, but at the expense of the rest of country? No!