DarloRich
Veteran Member
Ah, It's obvious. It's the boundless superiority complex and sense of entitlement of some people who live in the south of England, and their apparent belief that those of us who arw dull enough to remain up north should simply accept how things are without question. Those are the vital factors I've missed justifying why expenditure on rail down there per head is many times what it is in the north.
I feel a proper banana now.
What on earth are you talking about you? The needs of the two areas are vastly different. Are you really unable to identity why that is and why the requirements for spending and the targets of that spending are different?
There is one rather obvious issue that even you should have spotted. There are less people working in the north and that means less people travelling. I hate to say that having lived most of my life in the north east ( and being very proud of where I come from) but it is true. That's why I and many others no longer live there. And I will point out that when you get down here and see and join the hordes travelling you start to understand a little bit of the issue. I felt the same as you when I lived in Darlo. I changed my mind after a couple of months into Euston every morning)
Those that do work in the north, travel shorter distances by train. Milton Keynes to London is about 50 miles. I suspect there aren't many people commuting into Leeds from 50 miles away. The train from Milton Keynes is, at peak hours, often a full 12 car train. Do you think you need a 12 car train from Castleford to Leeds? It is also worth noting that London commuting starts a lot further out than Milton Keynes. How far out does bulk commuting to Leeds end? York? Wakey? Donny? Vast numbers of people have to be conveyed longer distances. That means, longer trains, longer platforms, more tracks, more junctions etc ( that doesn't make it right - i would rather spend a shorter time on the train and live closer to work but it simply isnt possible down here. In Darlo i lived a 5 minute walk from the office.) and that costs money
Those that do commute by train in the north do so in a much more compact peak period than in London. The numbers of trains involved is smaller ( although those trains are both too full and too small). Taking Leeds > Castleford as an example between 0700 & 0830 there are 5 trains to Leeds. I pick those hours as they seem sensible to allow you some sleep but be in work before 0900. There is an 0644 that gets you into Leeds just after 0700 if you want to add that one. I don't think that is enough trains but comparing that to Bletchley> Euston there are 12 trains in that period. Most of those trains will be 8 or 12 car trains ( the southern ones are 5 cars) Using Milton Keynes > Euston for the same time scale produces more as there are Virgin trains to add to the mix. It is also worth nothing that the "commuting hours" into and out of London start much earlier than Leeds or Manchester.
Lets look at the numbers using the stations. Leeds is the 13th busiest station in the country with Manchester the 16th. Millions of people use those stations but the numbers travelling while big are not of the same order as into London. That's the issue. The trains are very busy, of a very poor quality and the services inadequate. We could provide infrastructure to accommodate 12 car trains into these stations ( in theory) but it would be wasted money. That money spent in London delivers a return in a much shorter period. The money needs to be target not on blanket "we must have more" type arguments but where it can improve services.
Another point ( that I know posters here don't like) is the level of fares. They are cheaper in the north. Could paying a bit more be a way to increase the monies available for investment? Should we not contribute a part of the money needed to allow for the services we want to see?
I completely agree more and better spending is needed on the infrastructure in the north. I am a regular user of the trains in both areas so want to see them improved. However, that isnt going to be at the level in London and the SE. To deliver that level of investment would be wasted. Do we need 12 car infrastructure between Leeds & Castleford? I doubt it. Do we need an electrified mainline between Newcastle and Liverpool ( and especially Leeds & Manchester) with longer, faster and better trains. We most certainly do. Do we need targeted investment to improve the commuter journeys into Leeds and Manchester and Newcastle? Certainly. Is that level of spending going to be the same as London? I doubt it.
Personally I would devolve budgetary control ( and increase the block grant) to the regions and let them decide on what to spend the money. The local politicians and administrators will know the challenges and the solutions better than central government. I would even let a devolved authority raise its own additional funding to invest more money via contributions from local business or property development, borrowing or other sources such as local taxation. Is that not the best way to get the money spent on things that might make a difference and increase the level of money available?