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

[AM9]

I'm not sure what this ever-increasing list of fares for specific journeys from both sides of the Watford Gap is supposed to prove. Everyone on this Forum knows full well that the fares system is so labyrinthine and convoluted that quoting individual fares and season ticket prices is fairly meaningless. It's not difficult to find two sets of fares of similar distance that 'proves' that train travel is cheaper in the North, or South - or in the East, West, Scotland, Wales or Timbuktu. It would require a good deal of time on NRE and a spreadsheet before producing any figures that are statistically meaningful.

Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that rail travel is more expensive in 'the South' (and the anecdotal evidence seems to suggest this, generally speaking, is the case.)

Those who put forward this as an argument to prove that rail passengers in the South get a raw deal compared to their friends in the North never seem to ask themselves why they are paying more.

Most routes in the South (by no means all, but a much greater proportion than equivalent routes in the North) enjoy a frequency of service - both peak and off-peak - that the North can only dream of. The same applies (with the same caveats) to train lengths.

Of course this is necessarily so - the number of rail users in the South is much higher. There would be lynch mobs marching on the DfT if services from Wimbledon or East Croydon consisted of a two-car train every half an hour. But this level of service comes at a cost. In terms of rolling stock and infrastructure provision this is very inefficient and costly. This is reflected in fares.

The present Government is keen to persue a policy of 'user pays.' The debate as to the rights and wrongs of this I shall leave for others. But even if there is a change of Westminster Government next May, this is likely to continue. Improvements to rail services across the North - both in the pipeline and future plans - will inevitably result in higher fares here too.

So the argument that the South gets a raw deal because it pays more for fares doesn't really stand up to much scrutiny. If those in the London travel-to-work area want lower fares more akin to those elsewhere, this will only come at the cost of poorer services. They must ask themselves if that's what they really want. As we say up here - you can't have your cake and th'halfpenny!

As for rolling stock, as others have pointed out before, these things are cyclical. When I lived in London ten years ago, the fleet of Pacers and Sprinters being operated by First North West was far newer than the slam-door stock running out of Waterloo. (Although I know which I preferred! )

I think that the 'London gets a raw deal compared with the North' posts in this thread have been added to generate a counterbalance to the 'pity the poor North' stance that the OP alluded to. The bottom line is that London has a much heavier dependence on rail for commuting than other areas. Accordingly, services need capacity to deal with the volumes. Capacity in other regions should not suddenly be increased just because London has got it. It will only be provided because the volume of patronage demands it. I don't believe that industry will suddenly inject large numbers of jobs just because the region's rail services have improved, - it would be a process taking decades, so hardly justifiable from public funds when seen through south-western eyes.
This 'not fair to the North' position is as futile as when younger people complaining that seniors get better treatment because they vote. I agree that the North is probably not regarded as a fertile area for general election votes by the Tory party, similarly, the poor and/or socially driven voter living in the Chilterns and rural Surrey probably feel that a socialist party would not waste much energy courting their votes either. That's the way a democracy works, i.e. voters generally vote for themselves and their kind, and don't stand back to view the bigger picture.

 

[Grumpy]

Okay, I actually commute from Headcorn Kent to Charing Cross a distance that is approximately the same as Leeds Manchester for a service of 2 trains per hour I currently pay £4640 per annum.
The leeds commuter is paying £2908 for his journey so to be pedantic I am paying 59.6% more than him.
In truth if it was available I would use an early bird season if it was available so in theory Im actually paying 156% more.
Sorry but the frequent claims that the North pays its way really don't add up.

So you're paying £9.66/single journey. Which will be a great comfort when I buy an Anytime return from Leeds to Manchester tomorrow for £27.60

 

[The Ham]

So you're paying £9.66/single journey. Which will be a great comfort when I buy an Anytime return from Leeds to Manchester tomorrow for £27.60

Yet the same anytime reurn ticket (rather than a season ticket) would be £37.80 and two singels would be £43.40. That is the nature of a season ticket that it is cheaper than paying the on the day price.

Taking two reasonable size settlements (hopefuly far enough away from London so as to not be directly impacted by nearly everyone travelling to London pushing the prices up) Bournemouth to Winchester and the season ticket is £3656 or about 22% more than the "northern" season ticket.

Even Wool to Southampton is £3452 or about 18% more. If we go much further out then it starts becoming a it silly, as it could be argueed that it is no longer the South East.

There are some train tickets which you could argue are not impacted by London bound travel, for instance Reading to Dorking (a distance of about 40 miles) and that is £3300 for the year (not going via London).

 

[HH]

Tickets in the North are cheaper, and that largely goes back to BR. BR's fares policy was to price in accordance with supply and demand. Tickets in Scotland are cheaper still, and that is partially down to the Scottish Government taking a different view on rail subsidy compared to Westminster.

Because rail around London is both more expensive and more utilised, there is more money to spend on it. Lots of the new trains in the south have been ordered by the TOCs on the back of increased patronage, and this has resulted in more money paid to DfT. In Scotland, despite the additional spending, all that's happened is that the subsidy has got bigger.

It should be noted that not all lines in the South are profitable, but the more profitable lines effectively subsidise the others. In the North there are less profitable lines and more that need subsidy (and more subsidy). In addition most of the profitable bits have been hived off to TPE - a position that will get worse in the new franchises.

DfT are saying they are expecting more for less. It doesn't take a genius to work out that it's going to be hard to square that particular circle. If you work for Northern, I wouldn't start taking out any new loans.

 

[northwichcat]

Tickets in the North are cheaper, and that largely goes back to BR.

No-one's provided any evidence in this thread that fares in the South outside London such as those in Somerset and Hampshire are more expensive than fares in counties in the North such as Cheshire and Cumbria.

 

[Oswyntail]

I think that the 'London gets a raw deal compared with the North' posts in this thread have been added to generate a counterbalance to the 'pity the poor North' stance that the OP alluded to.

Yes, sad, isn't it, but a very human reaction.

The bottom line is that London has a much heavier dependence on rail for commuting than other areas. Accordingly, services need capacity to deal with the volumes. Capacity in other regions should not suddenly be increased just because London has got it.

While I agree with the first part here, I think you make a critical error in the second part, when stating that London has the capacity. IMHO, the problem is that London is fast reaching the limit of its capacity, not to ferry vast numbers of people around, but actually to contain the growth of productive industries that the country needs. The expansion of effective public transport outside the "South East" is a prerequisite of expanding that capacity in the rest of the UK.

It will only be provided because the volume of patronage demands it. I don't believe that industry will suddenly inject large numbers of jobs just because the region's rail services have improved, - it would be a process taking decades, so hardly justifiable from public funds when seen through south-western eyes.

Again IMHO, it is to get round this chicken and egg situation with regards to infrastructure that it is exactly the role of government to provide capacity before demand reaches a justifying level. It is generally the case that industry does not innovate in infrastructure, but goes where it is easiest. Only the government is in a position to take the required long-term view. (Whether it does or not....)

This 'not fair to the North' position is as futile as when younger people complaining that seniors get better treatment because they vote. I agree that the North is probably not regarded as a fertile area for general election votes by the Tory party, similarly, the poor and/or socially driven voter living in the Chilterns and rural Surrey probably feel that a socialist party would not waste much energy courting their votes either. That's the way a democracy works, i.e. voters generally vote for themselves and their kind, and don't stand back to view the bigger picture.

Like many commentators, you seem willing to write off the millions of "Tory voters" in the North and "Labour voters" in the South. I suspect that the vast majority of voters are actually quite wiling to be flexible, and would support a sensible expansion of infrastructural capacity outside the SE.

 

[HH]

No-one's provided any evidence in this thread that fares in the South outside London such as those in Somerset and Hampshire are more expensive than fares in counties in the North such as Cheshire and Cumbria.

Sorry, when I said South, I meant London & the home counties. I'm sure that rural areas south of the Humber have cheaper fares too.

PS I'm just reading an interesting article by "Industry Insider" in the latest Rail magazine. He says that stakeholder consultation is being asked for DfT plans that involve more capacity in the conurbations, but at the cost of significant reductions on the less used lines. It's also saying that DfT are looking at DOO and big reductions in TO staffing.

This is going to go down like Peter Sellers in a lift (here for those of you who are unaware of the scene).

 

[northwichcat]

It's also saying that DfT are looking at DOO and big reductions in TO staffing.

The Northern Rail consultation document suggests bidders will be asked to look at electric routes which will be suitable to go over to DOO. The reason they are saying that is so that the second member of staff can concentrate on revenue duties and not miss people by constantly going to open and close the doors. So it's wrong to say the number of staff will be reduced. In fact they will probably increase as there are proposals for more Monday-Saturday services to be introduced and the consultation is asking which lines should have enhanced Sunday services. The unions and many Northern Rail staff are claiming that conductors would lose their jobs and be replaced by cheap agency RPIs on trains but there isn't any concrete evidence to those claims.

 

[HH]

The unions and many Northern Rail staff are claiming that conductors would lose their jobs and be replaced by cheap agency RPIs on trains but there isn't any concrete evidence to those claims.

Just the fact that DfT want a big reduction in the subsidy. I'd be interested to hear how you think that can be managed without cutting staff costs substantially.

 

[northwichcat]

Just the fact that DfT want a big reduction in the subsidy. I'd be interested to hear how you think that can be managed without cutting staff costs substantially.

Northern Rail Limited make £20m in net profits per year, so would a cut in subsidy of around £10m not be possible without staff cuts?

 

[AM9]

While I agree with the first part here, I think you make a critical error in the second part, when stating that London has the capacity. IMHO, the problem is that London is fast reaching the limit of its capacity, not to ferry vast numbers of people around, but actually to contain the growth of productive industries that the country needs. The expansion of effective public transport outside the "South East" is a prerequisite of expanding that capacity in the rest of the UK.

Not sure what you mean by "productive industries". A large amount of commuting to it is for banking, insurance, tourism, etc. as a direct result of the Thatcher government's desire to destroy the unions and move the country away from industrial wealth generation. The clarion call was that our future lies in service industries, most of which just move money around. The exception being tourism which of course is location specific. Admittedly, the financial industries have been very naughty boys over the last two decades, but they still contribute a large amount to the export account. I don't think even the most left-wing government would starve London of investment to build transport infrastructure elsewhere, (i.e. not just 'the North'), because they wouldn't be in power long enough to see even the groundwork finished. As a consequence, the issue (for the politicians that make the decisions) is where to spend what is available which must be weighed against some sort of return:
industrial growth in new areas (= very long wait)
or
where the biggest demand is (= cash return before the next general election)
Politicians being what they are tend to go for the latter.

Again IMHO, it is to get round this chicken and egg situation with regards to infrastructure that it is exactly the role of government to provide capacity before demand reaches a justifying level. It is generally the case that industry does not innovate in infrastructure, but goes where it is easiest. Only the government is in a position to take the required long-term view. (Whether it does or not....)

See my reply above. I agree with what you say about the real need but governments have a five year (or less) view on life and the electorate (at least those who bother to vote) tend to have very short memories.

Like many commentators, you seem willing to write off the millions of "Tory voters" in the North and "Labour voters" in the South. I suspect that the vast majority of voters are actually quite wiling to be flexible, and would support a sensible expansion of infrastructural capacity outside the SE.

No I'm not writing them off, just pointing out a reality that there are many seats in parts of the country that rarely if at all change hands between the two main parties. Elections are decided by movement in marginal seats, i.e. where majorities are less than 10%. A 5% swing in voters intentions in a marginal can mean that one party has increased its voting power against its opposition by 2 votes at a lobby division. In a confirmed Labour or Tory constituency, a 5% swing makes no difference. That's why marginals get so much attention at elections. It would take a grand investment in infrastructure in the north to get any significant change in representation. That's why George Osbone's High Speed line across the Pennines is seen as either a cynical pre-Election sweetener that will not happen sometime soon (ever?) or given the HS2 reception in some nimby areas, just plain kite-flying.

 

[Oswyntail]

Not sure what you mean by "productive industries"....

Well, all industries, I suppose. Except, perhaps, tourism, which does actually need to have supply where the tourists want to go. And jouralism, which produces nothing The plain fact is that, even in finance, the capital is reaching capacity, as the property crisis shows. Something has to give.

Politicians being what they are tend to go for the latter.....

Leaving aside the rose-tinted nostalgic Thatcher-bashing, I think the short-termism we all suspect is much less the case than we think. Whether you approve of what they are doing or not, the current crew can not be accused of going for the quick hit in Health, Education, Welfare, Economy or, dare one say, Transport. I think we are all conditioned by the previous Government's habit of announcing policies one week only to drop them the next, and rotating Ministers so fast they couldn't get the desk plates printed in time. But that means we suspect everything. And, certainly at Health, the Civil Service is still thinking in short terms.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Leaving aside the rose-tinted nostalgic Thatcher-bashing, I think the short-termism we all suspect is much less the case than we think.

Not hoping that I will betray my age, does any one else remember "Red Robbo" who single-handedly did more to damage the car industry in the Midlands than anyone else at that point of time.

 

[6Gman]

Not hoping that I will betray my age, does any one else remember "Red Robbo" who single-handedly did more to damage the car industry in the Midlands than anyone else at that point of time.

I remember him.

And that you didn't want a Leyland car finished on a Friday .........

Happy Days:roll:!

 

[The Ham]

No-one's provided any evidence in this thread that fares in the South outside London such as those in Somerset and Hampshire are more expensive than fares in counties in the North such as Cheshire and Cumbria.

err.. I thought I did:

Taking two reasonable size settlements (hopefuly far enough away from London so as to not be directly impacted by nearly everyone travelling to London pushing the prices up) Bournemouth to Winchester and the season ticket is £3656 or about 22% more than the "northern" season ticket {Leeds Manchester}.

Even Wool to Southampton is £3452 or about 18% more. If we go much further out then it starts becoming a it silly, as it could be argueed that it is no longer the South East.

OK, I admit that theose routes are not wholy in Hampshire, but that may just be spitting hairs.

 

[muddythefish]

Not hoping that I will betray my age, does any one else remember "Red Robbo" who single-handedly did more to damage the car industry in the Midlands than anyone else at that point of time.

Really ? Nothing to do with mismanagement, inept labour relations and poor designs then.

Show me any failing organisation / company / country / football team (eg England) and the problems usually come from the top.

 

[AM9]

Well, all industries, I suppose. Except, perhaps, tourism, which does actually need to have supply where the tourists want to go. And jouralism, which produces nothing The plain fact is that, even in finance, the capital is reaching capacity, as the property crisis shows. Something has to give.

The capital has been said to be 'reaching capacity' (whatever that means) for many decades yet it still keeps providing more and more well paid jobs. As travel by roads and rail generally improves, commuting distances increase but take the same time. London hasn't had the necessary road investment that would need to make the capital like many other large cities (e.g. LA, Madrid), rail is the best option.

Leaving aside the rose-tinted nostalgic Thatcher-bashing, I think the short-termism we all suspect is much less the case than we think. Whether you approve of what they are doing or not, the current crew can not be accused of going for the quick hit in Health, Education, Welfare, Economy or, dare one say, Transport. I think we are all conditioned by the previous Government's habit of announcing policies one week only to drop them the next, and rotating Ministers so fast they couldn't get the desk plates printed in time. But that means we suspect everything. And, certainly at Health, the Civil Service is still thinking in short terms.

I think that this government see their current plans for health, education and welfare as well aligned with their aspirations of only helping those who can help themselves. Their rail investment would seem to many from the North who are posting on this thread as biased towards helping businesses in the south at the north's expense. Of course there are some eggs broken on the way, e.g. NW electrification and carving HS2 through the Tory heartlands of the Chilterns, but essentially the trend of loading a higher proportion of the fares onto rail travellers to subsidise from taxes which hit more in the south east than elsewhere is true to their core beliefs: as in less public provision and more personal income into company (TOCs) profits, (except ECML which is being re-privatised as fast as possible).

 

[cogload]

What current plans for health, education and welfare? Besides for the 90% of the population who do not use the railways asking those who day to pay up (a policy which has been pursued by all administrations recently) is only equitable isn't it?

The money will follow where the population and the density is. London and the SE export large amounts of capital in terms of tax revenue to the rest of the country. If they demanded their "fair share" how much would the "north" be missing out on as a consequence?

 

[fowler9]

What current plans for health, education and welfare? Besides for the 90% of the population who do not use the railways asking those who day to pay up (a policy which has been pursued by all administrations recently) is only equitable isn't it?

The money will follow where the population and the density is. London and the SE export large amounts of capital in terms of tax revenue to the rest of the country. If they demanded their "fair share" how much would the "north" be missing out on as a consequence?

Tax revenue from the likes of Amazon! Yeah right.

 

[The Ham]

What current plans for health, education and welfare? Besides for the 90% of the population who do not use the railways asking those who day to pay up (a policy which has been pursued by all administrations recently) is only equitable isn't it?

The money will follow where the population and the density is. London and the SE export large amounts of capital in terms of tax revenue to the rest of the country. If they demanded their "fair share" how much would the "north" be missing out on as a consequence?

Basicly there are two options drive and get stuck in traffic and pay a small amount of your taxes each year to enable those who wish to go by train (bus and cycle) to keep out of your way meaning the roads are less busy than they would be.

Drive and don't use any of your taxes to provide rail, bus and cycle provission and have a whole load of extra traffic on the roads (FYI traffic flows between school holidays and term time are about 10% and daily variations are about 2%, imagine how much worse it would be if every day was like a monday morning and friday evening with more traffic at those times) but not have any reduction in your tax as the government would likely spend that money on some new IT system or ID card or other compleate waste of money.

 

[northwichcat]

err.. I thought I did:

Can't see where. You seem to have linked to a previous thread where you mentioned a Basingstoke to Guildford fare.

Basingstoke to Guildford is £12.80 for an off-peak day return.

Some similar length non-PTE journeys in the North and the off-peak day return prices:
Winsford to Liverpool £17.10
Knutsford to Eastham Rake £16.80
Mirfield to Manchester £12.40
Chinley to Manchester £9.80

Average is £14, so £12.80 is cheap in comparison.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Really ? Nothing to do with mismanagement, inept labour relations and poor designs then.

Show me any failing organisation / company / country / football team (eg England) and the problems usually come from the top.

Being old enough to know the shortcomings of industry in those far off days, it does seem somewhat strange (or not, as may be the case) that agent provocateurs such as "Red Robbo" were much to the fore to exploit matters to their fullest extent. In the film."I'm all right Jack", there was a wonderfully well-played portrayal of a trades union shop steward who had a naive but unshaken belief in the Communist system and all it stood for at that same period of time.

One has to ask which of a number of totally differing bodies of widely opposing political hues were instrumental in that period saw great benefit in having such "firebrands" as him, ready to speak at mass meetings, where those present would be totally unaware of the real reasons that lay behind such oratory that was forthcoming.

To accept what you say in your quote above is to ignore what was a prevailing cynical usage of the honestly believed views of much of the British labour force at that time.

 

[AM9]

Being old enough to know the shortcomings of industry in those far off days, it does seem somewhat strange (or not, as may be the case) that agent provocateurs such as "Red Robbo" were much to the fore to exploit matters to their fullest extent. In the film."I'm all right Jack", there was a wonderfully well-played portrayal of a trades union shop steward who had a naive but unshaken belief in the Communist system and all it stood for at that same period of time.

I agree that the character Fred Kite (played by Peter Sellers), portrayed a comical version of the more ideological trade union leaders. He was seen as honest and committed to his role, but naive. The other side of the coin was also parodied in the film by the management taunting the unions to create a strike that I presumed would be presented as force majeure, enabling the company to avoid contract penalties.

One has to ask which of a number of totally differing bodies of widely opposing political hues were instrumental in that period saw great benefit in having such "firebrands" as him, ready to speak at mass meetings, where those present would be totally unaware of the real reasons that lay behind such oratory that was forthcoming.

It's quite possible that the likes of Red Robbo were used as management agitators to create a hostile industrial landscape that would allow subsequent punitive action by management to be seen as the only way to 'protect' the business.

p.s. Fred Kite would have died an embarrassing death if he committed the same indiscretion as he who played his part.

 

[SWTCommuter]

Basingstoke to Guildford is £12.80 for an off-peak day return.

Some similar length non-PTE journeys in the North and the off-peak day return prices:
Winsford to Liverpool £17.10
Knutsford to Eastham Rake £16.80
Mirfield to Manchester £12.40
Chinley to Manchester £9.80

Average is £14, so £12.80 is cheap in comparison.

Basingstoke to Guildford CDR is £17.10 (£12.80 is for the Guildford to Basingstoke CDR )
Average = £14.95

Winsford to Liverpool: CDR = £10.40 (£17.10 is the SVR fare)
Knutsford to Eastham Rake SVR = £16.60. (No CDR available)
Mirfield to Manchester £12.40
Chinley to Manchester £9.80

Average = £12.30

 

[northwichcat]

Basingstoke to Guildford CDR is £17.10 (£12.80 is for the Guildford to Basingstoke CDR )
Average = £14.95

So The Ham picked a flow where the fare in one direction is much higher than in the other direction and named the higher flow to try and claim that fares in the South are much higher.

I do think you need more than one flow to get a proper average though. For the ones I selected for North West non-PTE flows I didn't go for just the cheapest or most expensive but tried to pick a range of fares.

It also should be noted that peak time restrictions usually end earlier in the North. However, people making frequent journeys in the Network Railcard area can buy a railcard and get 1/3 off fares.

Winsford to Liverpool: CDR = £10.40 (£17.10 is the SVR fare)
Knutsford to Eastham Rake SVR = £16.60. (No CDR available)
Mirfield to Manchester £12.40
Chinley to Manchester £9.80

Average = £12.30

For some reason the Winsford CDR fare didn't appear on the site I tried earlier so I wrongly assumed the SVR fare was the CDR fare.

 

[yorksrob]

It all goes to show that the common line trotted out by London politicians, that the North is some shang-ri-la where everyone can travel hundreds of miles on the train for tuppence, is infact balderdash.

 

[The Ham]

Can't see where. You seem to have linked to a previous thread where you mentioned a Basingstoke to Guildford fare.

Basingstoke to Guildford is £12.80 for an off-peak day return.

Some similar length non-PTE journeys in the North and the off-peak day return prices:
Winsford to Liverpool £17.10
Knutsford to Eastham Rake £16.80
Mirfield to Manchester £12.40
Chinley to Manchester £9.80

Average is £14, so £12.80 is cheap in comparison.

On here I was posting season ticket prices, which although are different than turn up and go fares are what a lot of people use.

Of course the reason that off peak fares maybe cheaper in the south east is that there are hundreds of seats which need filling which are needed during the rush hour and would otherwise sit in siding between the peaks, whilst loading maybe more even spread during the day when the trains can only carry (say) 200 people compared with those which can carry 700 people.

Meaning that if you looked at the anytime fares they would likely show that the peak hour increase isn't as great as those in the SE. Also Basingstoke to Guildford is not that much more than Basingstoke to Woking, even though it is quite a bit further. The reason for picking it was to try and use a farily close to London ticket which wasn't totally dominated by the London flow of traffic.

 

[tbtc]

I think most of the objections to cascaded rolling stock relate to originally being promised something much newer e.g. the 319s and 322s arriving when previously new rolling stock (both DMUs and EMU) were included in the CP4 for delivery by December 2012 and the North finishes up with rolling stock that the South and Scotland no longer requires instead of new stock.

How many complaints were there when Northern got old 158s (and mainly used them to replace 156s in Yorkshire) or when TPE got 170s from SWT? The only complaints I've heard about 170s are a lack of carriages and the door layout, when the same thing applies to the newer 185s

There's "promises" and then there are "promises".

However I think that it's worth comparing the reaction in "the north" to getting cascaded stock from elsewhere.

I don't remember many complaints about getting nine modern 170s from SWT (but then SWT were getting some 1980s DMUs to replace them, so there wasn't the idea that "the north" was getting "southern cast-offs, since "the north" was getting the younger stock).

I don't remember many complaints about getting three modern 180s from FGW (but then FGW were getting some 1970s HSTs to replace them, so there wasn't the idea that "the north" was getting "southern cast-offs, since "the north" was getting the younger stock).

However, when "the north" is getting cascaded stock due to "the south" getting brand new trains, the chip-on-the-shoulder attitude seems to come to the fore.

TBH, I don't worry about a train's history when I consider whether it's suitable for the journey today or not. I doubt that many people on a 185 from Sheffield to Nottingham in a couple of years time will be worrying that they are "Transpennine cast-offs ("why should Chesterfield get Huddersfield's rejects" etc) - but the fact that some trains are moving from the M25-zone to the M62-zone seems to agitate a few people!

We've heard so many times here the word 'promised' in relation to services/stock in the future. The north is not unique in this , i.e. When I moved back to the Home Counties over 20 years ago, we were 'promised' the Thameslink 2000 upgrade. There was no mention of the GN link but the promise just didn't happen for nearly 15 years. Similarly, Crossrail was being 'promised' since the nineties but look how long that has taken.
I'm sure that this is just an aspect of the process relating to major public investment, being massaged for the benefit of politicians, particularly when approaching general elections. Investment budgets are touted each year, including those projects previously authorised and sometimes actually underway. There is no evidence that the North suffers any more than elsewhere, contrary to some of the selective chronicles quoted here.

Agreed - the more time that has passed, the "200 carriages" announcement becomes stretched and stretched so that I've seen people claim that it was "200 trains", I've seen people claim that they were all new carriages, I've seen people claim that it was a net increase of 200 carriages, I've seen people attribute the figure to "the north" (rather than shared elsewhere in England too)... it was a suggestion many years ago (rather than a manifesto commitment or a cast iron guarantee.

To put it into a nutshell:-

Large chunks of Northern Rail area are being electrified, so the logical thing would be to order new EMUs for them No London and the South East get the new EMUs and Northern receive their cast offs.

As I said. Put it in a nutshell, short and to the point. I notice you are from the South East. Matter closed so far as I'm concerned and no more arguments, please.

Large chunks of Northern Rail area are being electrified, based on the savings made by taking on cascaded EMUs (that are not suitable for the automatic-operation through the Thameslink core that the 700s can achieve).

Matter closed?

London has had the existing underground system to supplement its general railway facilities for a very long period of time.

An interesting point.

London's infrastructure (both in terms of rail and road) has changed relatively little over the last few generations. There have been some big schemes (Jubilee Line extension) and some local hot spots (DLR, Tramlink), but I reckon that a tourist who last visited London in the "swinging sixties" could navigate their way around the modern capital reasonably well with their 1960s A-Z and their 1960s Tube Map.

The same period has seen some huge changes in the same decades - I don't fancy driving round central Manchester/ Leeds etc with a 1960s road map (given the inner-city motorways and dual carriageways that have cut chunks through the landscape) - there was obviously no 1960s Metrolink map because such a system of long distance trams did not exist back then.

So whilst London has the "existing underground system" to rely upon, it's had that system for a long time and tries to deal with huge passenger numbers without the kind of supply-increases that it has needed. Thankfully Crossrail will be a big help to demand on the Central Line and the northern side of the "Circle".

But are South Eastern commuters really paying "premium" fares, or are they just paying for the very large infrastructure improvements taking place down there (such as Crossrail and Thameslink)

I think that, in focussing on fares between two "northern" places and fares between two "southern" places, we are missing the point that southern passengers tend to be paying most of the cost of their journeys, whilst those in "the north" pay slightly under half the cost of their journeys (with the rest made up in local/central subsidies).

Since the staffing costs on a two coach Pacer aren't going to be much less than the staffing costs on a DOO twelve coach EMU (and diesel fuel for the Pacer is going to cost more per passenger than the electricity), one is clearly a lot less efficient.

If it makes you feel better, during one of the programmes on the Parliament channel's Beeching night, there was an interview with a Heath era transport minister who mooted the point as to why his constituents in Richmond North Yorkshire (thich had just lost its train service in 71 I think ?) should be subsidising wealthy commuters on the then, heavily subsidised south eastern network. I guess what comes around goes around.

I don't know about boundary changes over the years, but William Hague's Richmond constituency does include Northallerton train station

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richmond_(Yorks)_(UK_Parliament_constituency)

Have any excuses come up yet for North Thameside getting 17 brand new trains? Surely the 319's have years of life left in them and would be just the job

There's a big difference between a newly electrified line with a poor business case (where passengers pay under half the true cost of their journeys) getting cascaded EMUs to a fairly profitable line (where the TOC are paying a premium to operate the service) getting cascaded EMUs.

Which of the two examples do you think has the better case for getting brand new EMUs?

Your attitude sums up perfectly my reasons for not contributing to this thread. Most people don't want reasoned arguments, just the opportunity to reinforce their biased thinking, north or south.

Sadly I think that the evidence on this thread is proving you right

I'm not sure what this ever-increasing list of fares for specific journeys from both sides of the Watford Gap is supposed to prove. Everyone on this Forum knows full well that the fares system is so labyrinthine and convoluted that quoting individual fares and season ticket prices is fairly meaningless. It's not difficult to find two sets of fares of similar distance that 'proves' that train travel is cheaper in the North, or South - or in the East, West, Scotland, Wales or Timbuktu. It would require a good deal of time on NRE and a spreadsheet before producing any figures that are statistically meaningful

Agreed

A quick flick through some of the comments on this thread is kind of depressing. The conversations tend towards re-enforcing some of the prejudices that employers have against employing people from some of the provinces. No wonder that many jobs go overseas because of the better work attitudes.

I don't see any evidence to support the OP's assertion, but there is a lot of ill-informed opinion.

To be pedantic, when I started this thread, I was trying to sit on the fence, rather than take one side or the other

 

[Grumpy]

There's a big difference between a newly electrified line with a poor business case (where passengers pay under half the true cost of their journeys) getting cascaded EMUs to a fairly profitable line (where the TOC are paying a premium to operate the service) getting cascaded EMUs.

Which of the two examples do you think has the better case for getting brand new EMUs?

How do you know that Manchester-Liverpool or Manchester-Blackpool have poor business cases? Have these been published?

Similarly how do you know that the passengers on these routes pay half the true cost, is there some kind of route analysis available ?

Government has decided which routes are kept open and the service levels to be provided. Government has decided which services to put into which franchise including the mix of profitable and unprofitable routes. Government decides how much to take out/put in to each franchise by adjusting the service level/subsidy/premium mix. We all pay the same rates of income tax, NI, VAT etc to government, we should receive similar services back.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The same period has seen some huge changes in the same decades - I don't fancy driving round central Manchester/ Leeds etc with a 1960s road map (given the inner-city motorways and dual carriageways that have cut chunks through the landscape) - there was obviously no 1960s Metrolink map because such a system of long distance trams did not exist back then.

The north-south cross city services via the Hazel Grove and Windsor Link chords did not exist either, nor the Airport branch.
Modest investments compared to London's, but hugely important to today's northern rail map.