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

[tbtc]

There’s a number of threads that are getting disrupted by how (apparently) hard done by the north of England is.

This means that discussions about Crossrail operations/ Scotrail franchise requirements/ the future for 313s/ LO taking over some “West Anglia” lines/ the quality of stock in the West Midlands etc become bogged down by discussion about the North/South (which usually relates to the fact that Northern still operate Pacers).

So, I thought I’d start a thread for those who want to claim that London’s railways are more heavily subsidised than those in “the north” or who want to complain that the electrification schemes in “the north” are delayed or want to use proposals from long ago as a benchmark for what might have been (the fabled “200 carriages” or the PicVic tunnel or the idea about building a fleet of “210”s) etc...

...or argue that London and "the south" are different, argue that Thameslink 2000 is hardly on time either, that capital spending needs to be amortised over a generation to be fairly compared to annual subsidies, point out that many more "northerners" are going to benefit from using Crossrail when in the capital than the much lower number of "southerners" who are going to benefit from the Ordsall Chord... that kind of thing.

Take all off-topic arguments here

(personally, I think that some parts of “the north” have done pretty well in recent years and some have done pretty badly, though it depends on what you are counting – if you use only the Northern TOC as your example then investment looks poor, but you can similarly skew statistics by choosing to only use capital spending/ only use subsidies/ stretch and shrink your definitions of "north" and "south" to suit your argument - e.g. does your "south" include places like the Isle of Wight or are you just talking about "London" - and even "London" has several definitions)

 

[Clip]

There should be an LO frequency of service on the Settle & Carlisle line. If London can have it then so must we.

 

[northwichcat]

I think we'll have to see what happens when the next Northern and TPE franchise specs are published. People in the North have been wanting Pacers replaced for a long time and Rail North say they want a franchise commitment of the next franchise to replace the Pacers and 150s, so we'll have to see if that goes ahead and when it goes ahead.

We now know the 315s and 442s in the South East/London will be replaced due to the new franchise award and routes being moved between franchises.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

Manchester-Chester via Altrincham should have a service every 10 minutes and Scotland-Bolton needs to be at the very least half-hourly.

 

[northwichcat]

There should be an LO frequency of service on the Settle & Carlisle line. If London can have it then so must we.

You do know LO have the highest seat occupancy rate of any TOC due to their low seating density and high standing capacity. Do you want that on Settle & Carlisle?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Manchester-Chester via Altrincham should have a service every 10 minutes and Scotland-Bolton needs to be at the very least half-hourly.

I don't think is should. The best argument I can think of for a high frequency service based on a London style pattern is Knutsford-Manchester could be every 10 minutes, Northwich-Manchester every 20 and Chester-Manchester every 30. Although, the infrastructure won't support that level of frequency!

 

[Clip]

Manchester-Chester via Altrincham should have a service every 10 minutes and Scotland-Bolton needs to be at the very least half-hourly.

Falkirk to Scarborough should have at least 1tph IMHO
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

You do know LO have the highest seat occupancy rate of any TOC due to their low seating density and high standing capacity. Do you want that on Settle & Carlisle?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


I don't think is should. The best argument I can think of for a high frequency service based on a London style pattern is Knutsford-Manchester could be every 10 minutes, Northwich-Manchester every 20 and Chester-Manchester every 30. Although, the infrastructure won't support that level of frequency!

I dont think you get sarcasm

 

[gordonthemoron]

all stations in Cumbria should be closed because the place is a dump (I lived there for 10 years)

 

[northwichcat]

I dont think you get sarcasm

You could try a bit harder then. Like suggesting one of these trains every 12 minutes on Settle-Carlisle: http://www.1000lonelyplaces.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Swiss-glacier-express.jpg

 

[cuccir]

It depends what we want the rail network to do.

If it is only to respond to how society is, to serve the populations that exist or are forming, then we need to continue to invest in London. London is continuing and will continue to grow in terms of population. In a global context, large cities are getting bigger, at a rate which has increased with communications technology developments and globalisation. If we want London to continue to be a world leading city, then its infrastructure has to keep pace with it.

On the other hand, we could see the role of infrastructure as part of a wider role of planning, which should shape and push demand in ways in which are sustainable. If we wanted to do this, then one way of taking the heat out of London and redistributing population growth would be to invest heavily in infrastructure in the North.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

South Wales and the South West have just as much to complain about as the "North", but don't seem to bang the "victim" drum as much.
142s in the Valleys replaced by 315s? Not much to cheer about there.
The problem is the same - a poor business case for new trains.

The North has had billions spent on the WCML, Pendolinos, Voyagers, 175s/185s/350s, as well as Sheffield, Leeds and Manchester Piccadilly/Airport station upgrades.
To come is NW/TP/MML electrification, Northern Hub and IEP in the east.
NT/TP/VT are caught at the wrong end of the refranchising process, with no long-term planning possible.
I think prospects will all look very different in a couple of years.
In the meantime, those costs have to come down.

 

[northwichcat]

South Wales and the South West have just as much to complain about as the "North", but don't seem to bang the "victim" drum as much.
142s in the Valleys replaced by 315s? Not much to cheer about there.
The problem is the same - a poor business case for new trains.

It's not quite the same though. The 315s are expected to be an interim measure, like when the 308s were used in West Yorkshire. The 319s are likely to remain in the North West until they are life expired.

A successful business case for new diesel trains for Northern, TPE and FGW did exist. However, this was dropped in favour of electrification which has very high up front costs, which makes it harder to justify new trains when you're spending hundreds of millions in infrastructure costs, especially when there are usable 319s which were surplus to requirements in their existing franchise.

The North has had billions spent on the WCML, Pendolinos, Voyagers, 175s/185s/350s,

Well the 350/4s are effectively delayed compensation for the Manchester-Scotland Voyagers being taken with no replacement stock provided at the time. While some of the 185s are replacement for the 175s which were moved to South Wales services.

 

[snowball]

House of Commons Transport Committee report:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmtran/1140/114002.htm

"the spend per head of population is £2,595.68 in London but just £5.01 per head in the North East."

"The key test of the new arrangements is whether transport spending is distributed more equitably across England."

 

[mister-sparky]

It's down to money. If Manchester brought the same amount of money into the UK economy as London does, then a more equal amount of money will be spent there.

It's also down to population. If Manchester had 8 million people living and working there, then more would be spent on its infrastructure.

You can't expect millions to be spent on "crossrail" and "tube-style" projects when the population and money doesn't justify it.

 

[AM9]

South Wales and the South West have just as much to complain about as the "North", but don't seem to bang the "victim" drum as much.
142s in the Valleys replaced by 315s? Not much to cheer about there.
The problem is the same - a poor business case for new trains.

I have to admit that I've never travelled on a pacer, but judging by the continual complaining about them on this forum, I imagine that by most people's standards, a 315 service would be an upgrade, i.e more capacity, quieter, faster acceleration and more reliable to name just a few. If there is an insistence on new trains to replace the 142s then the 142s can't be that bad.

 

[northwichcat]

It's down to money. If Manchester brought the same amount of money into the UK economy as London does, then a more equal amount of money will be spent there.

It's also down to population. If Manchester had 8 million people living and working there, then more would be spent on its infrastructure.

You can't expect millions to be spent on "crossrail" and "tube-style" projects when the population and money doesn't justify it.

Well Yorkshire has a higher population than Scotland but yet Scotland gets more rail investment.

The argument for Scotland getting more is it's more rural so it's less cost effective, while the argument for London getting more than the North as a whole (which has double the population of Greater London) is it's more urbanised giving high spending projects a better business case. So the North loses out by being in the middle of the two.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I have to admit that I've never travelled on a pacer, but judging by the continual complaining about them on this forum, I imagine that by most people's standards, a 315 service would be an upgrade, i.e more capacity, quieter, faster acceleration and more reliable to name just a few. If there is an insistence on new trains to replace the 142s then the 142s can't be that bad.

What has to be noted is cascaded EMUs won't just replace Pacers but they'll also replace 150s (with 2+2 seating and tables) in South Wales and 156s in the North West. In fact the only Northern diagrams which are expected to switch to 319s in December are class 156 diagrams. (The Northern 156s are in a very good condition compared to the rest of the Northern fleet having been refurbished years ago and having had a more recent refresh.)

According to Northern the 319s won't be refurbished but will be made to look 'more Northern like' which some people have interpreted as they'll be downgraded.

 

[AM9]

House of Commons Transport Committee report:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmtran/1140/114002.htm

"the spend per head of population is £2,595.68 in London but just £5.01 per head in the North East."

"The key test of the new arrangements is whether transport spending is distributed more equitably across England."

It depends on what is meant by 'equitably'. Also, what about locally sourced capital, e.g. council tax and business rates, or cash from large employers in the area. The Paris metro is 50% funded by businesses in the city, and 80% of current London transport projects are being financed by London generated capital.

 

[northwichcat]

It depends on what is meant by 'equitably'. Also, what about locally sourced capital, e.g. council tax and business rates, or cash from large employers in the area. The Paris metro is 50% funded by businesses in the city, and 80% of current London transport projects are being financed by London generated capital.

Some Manchester public transport has external funding as well e.g. the 147 bus route and the Metroshuttle buses, while Peel Holdings funded the Metrolink spur to MediaCity and additional trams to run a service on it. The lack of a Metrolink line to the Trafford Centre is because Peel Holdings wouldn't fund one when they owned the Trafford Centre (it's now owned by intu.)

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

It's down to money. If Manchester brought the same amount of money into the UK economy as London does, then a more equal amount of money will be spent there.

It's also down to population. If Manchester had 8 million people living and working there, then more would be spent on its infrastructure.

You can't expect millions to be spent on "crossrail" and "tube-style" projects when the population and money doesn't justify it.

I think that's a little unfair. Second cities elsewhere do very well.
In Germany there are at least 6 conurbations with highly-developed and modern transport infrastructure (Munich, Stuttgart, Cologne, Hamburg, Frankfurt, Berlin) including S-bahn and U-bahn systems and trams.

To go back a century or two, the UK railway system was developed largely with northern money (dominated by Liverpool merchants), stemming from the North's industry and transport needs.

London benefits hugely by having an integrated transport authority (TfL).
The north is still stuggling out of the era where umpteen county boroughs ran un-integrated local bus services and ignored their neighbours.
Rail North is about 50 years behind TfL in getting its act together.
A single voice in Whitehall instead of a dozen bickering authorities will make a big difference.

 

[AM9]

What has to be noted is cascaded EMUs won't just replace Pacers but they'll also replace 150s (with 2+2 seating and tables) in South Wales and 156s in the North West. In fact the only Northern diagrams which are expected to switch to 319s in December are class 156 diagrams. (The Northern 156s are in a very good condition compared to the rest of the Northern fleet having been refurbished years ago and having had a more recent refresh.)

According to Northern the 319s won't be refurbished but will be made to look 'more Northern like' which some people have interpreted as they'll be downgraded.

Well its swings and roundabouts. I have been on 150s and they are dire. The noise and vibration is quite unpleasant even though performance is sluggish to say the least. Class 205 thumpers were an easier ride. I sympathise with those who have journeys lasting over an hour in a 150.
At least EMUs are generally quieter and have smooth acceleration. I suppose a table is handy if the 150 dies mid-trip.

 

[thealexweb]

After moving from Bolton to Scotland I have noticed a huge difference between the rail services offered. The worse you would find in Scotland would be a 156 while Bolton has got accustomed to Pacers. One thing for certain Scotrail needs to force to release some 156s and 158s now, they have far more than they need.

 

[GatwickDepress]

House of Commons Transport Committee report:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmtran/1140/114002.htm

"the spend per head of population is £2,595.68 in London but just £5.01 per head in the North East."

"The key test of the new arrangements is whether transport spending is distributed more equitably across England."

Surely London has a lot more commuters and visitors/tourists than any other city in the United Kingdom, as well as National Rail passengers using London to interchange between termini, so basing it entirely on population seems a bit... odd.

 

[AM9]

Some Manchester public transport has external funding as well e.g. the 147 bus route and the Metroshuttle buses, while Peel Holdings funded the Metrolink spur to MediaCity and additional trams to run a service on it. The lack of a Metrolink line to the Trafford Centre is because Peel Holdings wouldn't fund one when they owned the Trafford Centre (it's now owned by intu.)

So there should be approached to Intu for funding.
I'm no fan of Boris Johnson, and as a result of some inappropriate outbursts, he's not best loved up north either, particularly Mersyside, but it sounds like Manchester needs someone like him to extract serious money from those commercial outfits that stand to benefit most from transport infrastructure improvements.
Many northern areas had massive road investment in the '60s , e.g. Manchester, West Yorkshire and the Northeast. By the time investment reached London, (Thatcher's era), it was too late to provide for the a much higher car-owning population in a sprawling city with high land costs.
From my limited visits to Manchester, Liverpool and West Yorkshire, I think road travel there is still the dominant transport mode, so the businesses will hold onto their cash until getting to work hurts their employees a bit more. So its not quite as simple as MrSparky says as the existing travel habits of the population need to be squeezed off the roads. Just look how London has embraced cycling to work despite numerous serious injuries and deaths and a rather ambivalent attitude to cycle carriage by TOCs.

 

[47802]

As I see it the discontent mainly revolves around northern rail it being a no growth franchise, railbuses, the poor state of the rolling stock internally generally OK some have improved of late, overcrowding and the extension of the existing franchise isn't providing any answers at the moment.

Getting cast off stock, Cascaded 319's are OK if they get a 321 style refurbishment, which was indicated in the original electrification proposals but not now happening and we now have to wait until the new franchise to see how that gets resolved, and similarly what electric rolling stock will TPX get and how will the intermediate problem of the 170's be solved.

Railbuses what's the plan given electrification as it stands presently probably wont facilitate replacement of them all, the remaining sprinter fleet what's the plan there as well as some of those units to be retained long term need a major life extension.

Overcrowding what level capacity increase will there be on northern routes over the next 5 to 10 years,

All these points need answers and we now have to wait until new franchises for northern and TPX to see how these issue's will be resolved

Of course many of these issue are not unique to northern England many of the issue apply to all locations outside London. I also think there is concern that outside London may in future just be a dumping ground for old London stock, and cascading 319's is one thing cascading life expired stock such as 313/315 is another

 

[northwichcat]

Railbuses what's the plan given electrification probably wont facilitate replacement of them all, the remaining sprinter fleet what's the plan there as well as some of those units to be retained long term need a major refurb.

Given the idea is no DMUs would be withdrawn as a result of North West/Thames Valley electrification schemes due to the extra capacity needed on the network. Will Valley Lines electrification, North TPE electrification and the other approved schemes release 150 or so DMUs in total to allow the Pacers to be withdrawn? I think not and it will only be enough to withdraw the worse of the 142s.

 

[muddythefish]

It's down to money. If Manchester brought the same amount of money into the UK economy as London does, then a more equal amount of money will be spent there.

It's also down to population. If Manchester had 8 million people living and working there, then more would be spent on its infrastructure.

You can't expect millions to be spent on "crossrail" and "tube-style" projects when the population and money doesn't justify it.

Cause and effect. If you threw a fraction of the money spent on London infrastructure at Manchester, or Newcastle or Sheffield then there would inevitably be a dramatic effect on economic performance.

London's overwhelming dominance is the result of govt policies over the past 30 years to run down industry and promote "financial services". It can be argued those policies have actually damaged the rest of the country.

As has been pointed out, no other leading G7 country economy is dominated by one city in the same way as Britain's. France and Germany all have big cities that contribute equally to the national wealth.

Belatedly, govt is starting to recognise this ("rebalancing") though their measures so far to my mind are far too timid.

 

[Bantamzen]

(personally, I think that some parts of “the north” have done pretty well in recent years and some have done pretty badly, though it depends on what you are counting – if you use only the Northern TOC as your example then investment looks poor, but you can similarly skew statistics by choosing to only use capital spending/ only use subsidies/ stretch and shrink your definitions of "north" and "south" to suit your argument - e.g. does your "south" include places like the Isle of Wight or are you just talking about "London" - and even "London" has several definitions)

I had to laugh at this bit. Now admittedly TPE have just taken ownership of a massive x10, 4 car brand new fleet so that must be the bit where the North has done pretty well. Well until / if Chiltern take possession of the TPE 170s then the deal isn't quite so sweet.

But then maybe we should also consider the new investment in the new Northern Hub & electrification projects. All very welcome, don't get me wrong, but a drop in the ocean compared to the projects taking place in London. Yet the projects in the North will serve similar population numbers as in the London area, so why the massive investment gap? Oh that's right, London is the centre of the UK universe. London makes the UK what it is, well except that it doesn't. London makes London what it is, and sod the rest of the place. Yes I know, I sound like just another bitter Northerner bellyaching about the place & being a bit jealous. So maybe we should all move towards London? But could the infrastructure down there cope with an extra 5, 10, 15 million people needing to move around the place? How many more Crossrails do you imagine you would need to cope with that extra demand?

My point here is (as I've made previously) is that there is only so far you can stretch the resources & infrastructure in the South East. It's already proved to be vulnerable to even moderately bad weather conditions on more than one occasion, so maybe it's time to think beyond the borders of the M25? Maybe it's time to consider having businesses trading beyond the walls of the Square Mile? Because if sometime goes terribly wrong, all our economic eggs are in one single basket, unlike many of our competitors, and that could spell disaster for this country. But the only way we have a chance of spreading the risk is to put the infrastructure in place to help persuade business that there is life beyond London. This means serious investment in the rest of the country (& not just the North of England), because if we don't we are just risking our entire economy on a very small, already stretched part of our country.

 

[Moonshot]

is the north of England getting a rough deal ? No its not ..... and I live here. My own city of Manchester has been transformed over the last 20 years or so. It is a brilliant place to live and work......helped in no small part by some visionary thinking into introducing a light rail network.

 

[Bill Stanier]

Northern largely operate a fleet of clapped out uncomfortable ancient scrap-yard-dodgers. The south gets new trains.

Even our 'new' trains (ex-Thameslink) will be the thick end of 30 years old. Oh, and Chiltern are about to nick some of our more modern trains from TPE!

There is absolutely no doubt the north gets a rough deal. Manchester may not justify a 'Crossrail', but there's no reason we should get clapped out cast-off stock when the south gets new stuff!

 

[Moonshot]

Northern largely operate a fleet of clapped out uncomfortable ancient scrap-yard-dodgers. The south gets new trains.

Even our 'new' trains (ex-Thameslink) will be the thick end of 30 years old. Oh, and Chiltern are about to nick some of our more modern trains from TPE!

There is absolutely no doubt the north gets a rough deal. Manchester may not justify a 'Crossrail', but there's no reason we should get clapped out cast-off stock when the south gets new stuff!

Maybe if the rail industry was fully privatised , then you may see a differing picture in terms of rolling stock......

 

[Philip Elliott]

is the north of England getting a rough deal ? No its not ..... and I live here. My own city of Manchester has been transformed over the last 20 years or so. It is a brilliant place to live and work......helped in no small part by some visionary thinking into introducing a light rail network.

Another stuck up Mancunian that thinks their tinpot city is the centre of the world. There is a lot more to the north than Manchester. Try inserting "it is a brilliant place to live and work" to Bradford, Sunderland, Hull or Rotherham - doesn't work does it?