"The North Of England Is Getting A Rough Deal" discussion

[Moonshot]

Oh dear, can open, worms everywhere.....

In the meantime, my local newspaper had picked up on a inference that fares could soar under possible terms under the new Northern / TPE franchises:

http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co...._soar_to_pay_for_improved_services/?ref=var_0

Now whilst I accept that fares will probably have to go up to justify both the Northern Hub works & other electrification projects, as well as possibly new stock under the new franchises, I don't accept that they should be levelled with fares in the S/E. We are a very long way from having the level of investment seen down there, even with the planned upgrades.

And a bigger fear is that fares will rise to pay for projects even before they have been completed, or worse still begun, with subsequent withdrawals further down the line. Can you imagine the reaction to fare increases justified by plans to buy new stock, only for the DfT to change their mind & send up up more cascaded stock from elsewhere on the network. Maybe I'm being too cynical here, but I can't help feeling that the minister is poking the nest to see if they can get away with higher fares & a promise of better to come somewhere further down the line...

Maybe fares should be subject to true market forces rather than regulated and subsidised?

 

[AM9]

Maybe fares should be subject to true market forces rather than regulated and subsidised?

Well, that can only be applied when there is true competition on our rail system, otherwise you will just get true profit motives driving prices.

 

[Moonshot]

Well, that can only be applied when there is true competition on our rail system, otherwise you will just get true profit motives driving prices.

So how do we get true competition on our rail system? Maybe the answer lies in bidding for paths ?

 

[HSTEd]

The railway does not compete with itself. Competition is essentially with other transport modes.

So the answer would be total vertical integration followed by watching as, without massive subsidies (which people who ramble about market forces tend to hate), the railway network comes to pieces.

 

[northwichcat]

So how do we get true competition on our rail system?

If you get true competition then you'll likely finish up with loss leader routes, where passengers on services which aren't subject to competition subside the passengers on services with competition.

Maybe the answer lies in bidding for paths ?

Then you could finish up with Northern running services like Southport to Salford Crescent and Buxton to Stockport as the likes of Virgin will be able to get as many paths as they want and may bid for paths they don't actually plan to use in the short term but may want to use before the next round of bidding.

 

[muddythefish]

Maybe fares should be subject to true market forces rather than regulated and subsidised?

And maybe road users should pay the true cost of motoring.

 

[Bantamzen]

Maybe fares should be subject to true market forces rather than regulated and subsidised?

So how do we get true competition on our rail system? Maybe the answer lies in bidding for paths ?

The problem with both these ideas is, well to be blunt the market itself. Given the freedom to charge as they like, or to bid for the best paths will lead to one thing. A reducing service that costs ever more. We are increasingly seeing this with many of the large bus companies (of course many of these also operate rail services) who are concentrating more & more on high-frequency, high profit routes & ditching the lesser used ones. Some routes are taken up by smaller operators but usually with vastly reduced capacity, and the rest are left to die. Whilst this might please the accountants, the reality is that the loss of these services leads to greater congestion on the roads, and eventually costs both the country & business.

The railway network in this country is an integral part of our essential infrastructure. Without it millions of people would be forced elsewhere, probably onto the roads, many of which up here in the North as in the South East are already struggling to cope. It's becoming increasingly obvious that only small sections can operate at an actual profit, so this leaves us with a small number of options.

- Remove all central & local subsidies & operate the network on a profit only basis.
- Continue to offer central & local subsidies, and allow private TOCs to continue to run services as they are but setting their own fare structures.
- As above, but regulate all fares based on region.
- Nationalise the network, and fully fund it centrally or divide it into regionally funded zones.

The first option will without doubt see a vast reduction in services in the long run as described above, but without actually offering an alternative solution. The second option allows a degree of central & regional intervention, but ultimately TOCs would still be free to price unprofitable routes out of the market & eventually shut them. Option 3 offers the best option for the public whilst still allowing private companies to try for profits. But of course there would be a constant struggle between regional authorities & TOCs on cost & profit margins. And option 4, unthinkable to many would give back control & any potential profits to central or regional authorities, but would also mean all investment would have to be publicly funded or rallied.

Personally I lie somewhere between 3 & 4. I can't see any gain from simply allowing private industry to be able to cover their losses with subsidies, but still walk away with profits. It's an insane situation that will end badly for the network, it's employees & it's passengers. Until a better solution is found, subsidies are going to be needed & vast long term investment needs to be injected by the government. Simply culling services & hiking prices ain't going to cut it. There's only so far people's budgets will go, and we've already see far in excess of RPI fare increases in recent years so much more and people will walk (well drive). So for me, let's see more involvement from regional authorities (a la Rail North) and allow regional councils to consult with locals with a view to better fund the existing infrastructure & future developments, along with some help from the Treasury. And then they can work towards a better integrated public transport network, which actually sees bus & rail built in together rather than in competition.

 

[HSTEd]

Presumably Northern would revert to using the Hope Valley line as it would be cheaper than the route via Stockport. (If the service continued at all)


Removing subsidies would lad to the extinction of all diesel operated passenger services overnight.

 

[Grumpy]

Removing subsidies would lad to the extinction of all diesel operated passenger services overnight.

So farewell to rail services to Cardiff, Bristol, Salisbury, Hull etc and X Country etc.

 

[northwichcat]

Removing subsidies would lad to the extinction of all diesel operated passenger services overnight.

Then all of a sudden the electric Intercity services would lose a significant number of passengers, as passengers can't use the diesel services to connect to them and we'd finish up with a hourly Glasgow to London via Liverpool, Manchester and Birmingham service.

 

[306024]

So how do we get true competition on our rail system? Maybe the answer lies in bidding for paths ?

If that is the answer it must have been a b stupid question. I'd love to go to the auction It is complicated enough to plan a timetable as it is thanks.

 

[Moonshot]

If that is the answer it must have been a b stupid question. I'd love to go to the auction It is complicated enough to plan a timetable as it is thanks.

Isnt it true that airlines bid for landing slots at airports ? The idea certainly isnt stupid, though whether it could be applied to the rail network is not an easy one to answer.

It was also mentioned further up that diesel services would all but disappear under that scenario......would that include Grand Centrals operation as well ?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

And maybe road users should pay the true cost of motoring.

Like car insurance, servicing costs, fuel, etc....:roll:

 

[HSTEd]

It was also mentioned further up that diesel services would all but disappear under that scenario......would that include Grand Centrals operation as well ?

It has eben demonstrated that diesel passenger services almost never make money.
And yes, GC would go because the collapse of the railway and its conversion to full market forces would remove its present ORCATs raid income stream.

Electric services would only survive because they have far lower marginal operating costs.

 

[Moonshot]

It has eben demonstrated that diesel passenger services almost never make money.
And yes, GC would go because the collapse of the railway and its conversion to full market forces would remove its present ORCATs raid income stream.

Electric services would only survive because they have far lower marginal operating costs.

Hmmmmm this goes back to a point I made ( and others have as well ) about the potential of closing down some stations in Northern land which are simply not viable either in pure monetary terms or with wider economic benefits.

 

[Wolfie]

Oh dear, can open, worms everywhere.....

In the meantime, my local newspaper had picked up on a inference that fares could soar under possible terms under the new Northern / TPE franchises:

http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co...._soar_to_pay_for_improved_services/?ref=var_0

Now whilst I accept that fares will probably have to go up to justify both the Northern Hub works & other electrification projects, as well as possibly new stock under the new franchises, I don't accept that they should be levelled with fares in the S/E. We are a very long way from having the level of investment seen down there, even with the planned upgrades.

And a bigger fear is that fares will rise to pay for projects even before they have been completed, or worse still begun, with subsequent withdrawals further down the line. Can you imagine the reaction to fare increases justified by plans to buy new stock, only for the DfT to change their mind & send up up more cascaded stock from elsewhere on the network. Maybe I'm being too cynical here, but I can't help feeling that the minister is poking the nest to see if they can get away with higher fares & a promise of better to come somewhere further down the line...

This is EXACTLY what has been happening down South for years. I started work in London in 1986 and have seen above inflation fare rises EVERY year since to pay for "improvements". The cascaded stock you are complaining about receiving became free as a result of this. I'm sorry but there is no such thing as a free lunch (since Northern is already ridiculously subsidised).....
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

And maybe road users should pay the true cost of motoring.

While I am a fan of public transport the reality is that if you factor in all the taxes road users pay signifiacntly more than is spent on roads.

 

[Moonshot]

This is EXACTLY what has been happening down South for years. I started work in London in 1986 and have seen above inflation fare rises EVERY year since to pay for "improvements". The cascaded stock you are complaining about receiving became free as a result of this. I'm sorry but there is no such thing as a free lunch (since Northern is already ridiculously subsidised).....
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


While I am a fan of public transport the reality is that if you factor in all the taxes road users pay signifiacntly more than is spent on roads.

yes but the figure for enviromental and congestion costs probably make up the difference.

 

[Bantamzen]

This is EXACTLY what has been happening down South for years. I started work in London in 1986 and have seen above inflation fare rises EVERY year since to pay for "improvements". The cascaded stock you are complaining about receiving became free as a result of this. I'm sorry but there is no such thing as a free lunch (since Northern is already ridiculously subsidised).....

Yes but the South is getting its improvements, yet in the article I linked there was a suggestion that the hopes for electrification of the Calder Valley line (for example) in CP6 might be pushed back or scrapped but fares would go up regardless. That's the fear that I hold. As for the cascaded stock, well it is what is & we will be getting some of it and until the two franchises are sorted out there’s not a whole lot we can do about it. But I don't think it justifies levelling the fares with the South for them. If that is to happen, then why not spread the new stock out as well as the cascades, giving all areas some new, some not so new? After all if we are going to be paying them same, surely we should get the same...?

And on the subject of subsidises, aside from the report recently linked above suggesting that regional services were being effectively over-charged (which would account for at least some of those subsidies), let's not forget that most of the cheaper fares lie within the PTEs, which are part funded by local councils, who are in turn part funded by us Northern (and other regions) council tax payers. So before you go off cutting the services we help to pay for, how about all the regions have their say on how our money is spent? You might find that given the choice many commuters may prefer lower regulated fares, partly subsidised by their council taxes rather than market driven prices.

There is one other factor to consider, especially in the case of the North. Aside from a few headline projects such as the A1/M1 link, the M62 <cough> widening and the M60 development, there hasn’t been a huge spend on the roads in this region. Most projects have been about better managing traffic flow, rather than offering additional capacity. Any huge hikes in fares here will invariably lead to more people moving back from rail to road, which will lead to even worse congestion here. I have no idea if you’ve ever had to commute by road to many Northern towns and cities, but it can be horrific. Manchester & Leeds in particular are, despite the improvements to the motorways around them hugely overloaded at times. And when there are roadworks, or an accident, the lack of alternative routes from many places means that an hour commute can rapidly turn in two or three hours. So we need our rail network to carry at least some of the strain, and ideally we need much greater capacity & faster running between our major hubs to try to reduce the chaos on the roads. Unfortunately this will cost, and you almost certainly won’t raise the funds from private sources alone, nor from massive ticket price hikes. So public investment is needed, whether folk in the South like it or not.

If this means that fares have to go up somewhat to help cover the costs then so be it, but until we have a network up here with the kind of capacity that is offered in the South you can forget charging the same up here I’m afraid.

 

[Hadders]

Fares won't suddenly rise overnight. It'll be an RPI+x% over the life of the franchise where x will probably be 3% or so.

Effectively the fares will rise by stealth over a number of years.

 

[Wolfie]

Yes but the South is getting its improvements, yet in the article I linked there was a suggestion that the hopes for electrification of the Calder Valley line (for example) in CP6 might be pushed back or scrapped but fares would go up regardless. That's the fear that I hold. As for the cascaded stock, well it is what is & we will be getting some of it and until the two franchises are sorted out there’s not a whole lot we can do about it. But I don't think it justifies levelling the fares with the South for them. If that is to happen, then why not spread the new stock out as well as the cascades, giving all areas some new, some not so new? After all if we are going to be paying them same, surely we should get the same...?

And on the subject of subsidises, aside from the report recently linked above suggesting that regional services were being effectively over-charged (which would account for at least some of those subsidies), let's not forget that most of the cheaper fares lie within the PTEs, which are part funded by local councils, who are in turn part funded by us Northern (and other regions) council tax payers. So before you go off cutting the services we help to pay for, how about all the regions have their say on how our money is spent? You might find that given the choice many commuters may prefer lower regulated fares, partly subsidised by their council taxes rather than market driven prices.

There is one other factor to consider, especially in the case of the North. Aside from a few headline projects such as the A1/M1 link, the M62 <cough> widening and the M60 development, there hasn’t been a huge spend on the roads in this region. Most projects have been about better managing traffic flow, rather than offering additional capacity. Any huge hikes in fares here will invariably lead to more people moving back from rail to road, which will lead to even worse congestion here. I have no idea if you’ve ever had to commute by road to many Northern towns and cities, but it can be horrific. Manchester & Leeds in particular are, despite the improvements to the motorways around them hugely overloaded at times. And when there are roadworks, or an accident, the lack of alternative routes from many places means that an hour commute can rapidly turn in two or three hours. So we need our rail network to carry at least some of the strain, and ideally we need much greater capacity & faster running between our major hubs to try to reduce the chaos on the roads. Unfortunately this will cost, and you almost certainly won’t raise the funds from private sources alone, nor from massive ticket price hikes. So public investment is needed, whether folk in the South like it or not.

If this means that fares have to go up somewhat to help cover the costs then so be it, but until we have a network up here with the kind of capacity that is offered in the South you can forget charging the same up here I’m afraid.

my bold - Absence of anything like the same concentration of journeys and lower demand means that is never going to happen.

At the very least Northern's successor will be expected to cover more of its costs through fare revenue as the current level of subsidy is unsustainable. Your argument about subsidies and freight would be more convincing if exactly the same arguement could likely not be applied to passenger operations country-wide ie those in the South are likely similarly subsidisiing freight. As such the relative level of subsidy remains an issue.....

Northern road congestion is quite bad I agree BUT it is even worse down South (why do you think the London congestion charge - don't forget Greater Manchester rejected a version which would have funded public transport improvements (just like London) - was introduced?) and there has been even less investment in roads....

 

[Starmill]

my bold - Absence of anything like the same concentration of journeys and lower demand means that is never going to happen.

At the very least Northern's successor will be expected to cover more of its costs through fare revenue as the current level of subsidy is unsustainable. Your argument about subsidies and freight would be more convincing if exactly the same arguement could likely not be applied to passenger operations country-wide ie those in the South are likely similarly subsidisiing freight. As such the relative level of subsidy remains an issue.....

Northern road congestion is quite bad I agree BUT it is even worse down South (why do you think the London congestion charge - don't forget Greater Manchester rejected a version which would have funded public transport improvements (just like London) - was introduced?) and there has been even less investment in roads....

TIF should never have been rejected. I was the only person I know who voted for it.

The road lobby and selfishness.

 

[AM9]

TIF should never have been rejected. I was the only person I know who voted for it.

The road lobby and selfishness.

The north doesn't have a monopoly on road user selfishness, it's just that London has a far greater problem with traffic and at the time of introducing the congestion charge, had a leader who was prepared to stake his next election success on it.

 

[muddythefish]

While I am a fan of public transport the reality is that if you factor in all the taxes road users pay signifiacntly more than is spent on roads.

The 'true' cost of motoring - taking into account the indirect costs including pollution, noise, accidents and congestion - is more than double the tax revenues - £32.5bn as against £13.8bn - according to Transport 2000.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

There is one other factor to consider, especially in the case of the North. Aside from a few headline projects such as the A1/M1 link, the M62 <cough> widening and the M60 development, there hasn’t been a huge spend on the roads in this region.

Not in recent years but can the area honestly take more motorways ? Whenever I travel around Manchester and Lancashire I am staggered at the amount of road building compared to the area I knew more than 40 years ago. I would say the north is saturated with roads while its rail network needs billions spending on it just to get anywhere near the levels it should be in the 21st century.

 

[Moonshot]

The 'true' cost of motoring - taking into account the indirect costs including pollution, noise, accidents and congestion - is more than double the tax revenues - £32.5bn as against £13.8bn - according to Transport 2000.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Not in recent years but can the area honestly take more motorways ? Whenever I travel around Manchester and Lancashire I am staggered at the amount of road building compared to the area I knew more than 40 years ago. I would say the north is saturated with roads while its rail network needs billions spending on it just to get anywhere near the levels it should be in the 21st century.

Dont forget we also have an excellent and growing tram network which didnt exist 40 years ago !!

 

[muddythefish]

Dont forget we also have an excellent and growing tram network which didnt exist 40 years ago !!

True, and it is a wonderful thing for Manchester. However my journey from Bolton to Clitheroe last week on overcrowded 153 unit on a single track, weedy, unelectrified line showed how much needs to be done in the region.

 

[Peter Lanky]

I have just skimmed through all these pages, and noticed one thing that hasn't really been mentioned much, and is rarely mentioned in everyday conversation.

Has anyone considered just how much time and money are effectively wasted on commuting, in whichever part of the country it is? Millions of people spending up to 4 hours a day just sitting on a train or in a car for 60% of their days throughout their working life.

Add this to all the other social issues of the way we live and travel to work, and there is huge scope to make changes if only people would see it. Most of the jobs don't need to be in the places they are located in, so all these millions of people are having their daily lives disrupted, just for the benefit of a small elite group of individuals (including politicians) insisting on their business being located where they want it to be, and to hell with everyone else.

We have even got to the position were (because commuting is becoming accepted without question) people on minimum or just above minimum wages are expected to travel 20 miles each way just to earn their crust, when probably a similar person is making the journey in the opposite direction, for a similar job with a similar salary.

Perhaps looking at the absurdity of this could benefit everyone, but somehow I doubt anyone would take the lead.

 

[Clip]

This thread still amuses me because anyone who didn't know about england would assume that the north of england is only about manchester and leeds.

 

[Moonshot]

This thread still amuses me because anyone who didn't know about england would assume that the north of england is only about manchester and leeds.

Which is no different from us Northerners just considering that anything down south is London and thats it!!!!

 

[Peter Lanky]

Which is no different from us Northerners just considering that anything down south is London and that's it!!!!

It would be easy to make this mistake. When I get emails from any company offering me train tickets at a 'price just too good to miss', there is only one destination offered to me, be it from Manchester, Liverpool, Preston or even the station I want to use (Wigan).

 

[ainsworth74]

This thread still amuses me because anyone who didn't know about england would assume that the north of england is only about manchester and leeds.

Perhaps I should start a thread entitled 'Is the North East of the North getting a rough deal'?