Railways in the North, Dark Clouds Looming

[RichmondCommu]

But you could argue that the North (and other centres of the industrial revolution) generated the capital that built London up in the first place.

I concur but that is of no use to us now.

 

[HSTEd]

The railways act prohibits it

 

[LateThanNever]

The majority of British rail users would see the railways as a service, a means of getting from A to B, and couldn't give two hoots about the complexities of how the industry works, which is complicated at best.

Regardless of what knowledge we all have, I hear comments from fellow commuters about how poor the rolling stock is up here, etc, etc. I see no reason why us up north shouldn't have decent services and the decent trains to run them. We're people, we're taxpayers, we're not second class citizens.

London probably subsidies the whole of the UK, being by far the largest economy of the country. The BBC programme on Monday night highlighted this. I'm not against London, far from it, or its people. I love London and Londoner's. I just want a better deal than we currently get.

Don't think this is true what the BBC prog missed is that most of the government, civil servants, quangocracy, many head offices - including the BBC! are in London but they are all paid for by the whole country - so in fact the subsidy probably goes the other way

 

[RichmondCommu]

Posted twice!

 

[attics26]

Have you got one with "CHIP" on both shoulders?
As used in North Wales (the second chip is for Cardiff)...

with the cultural, geographical and (ok cannot think of a third) benefits of the north you really want a chip to show your supremacy over the south? ...

 

[Class377/5]

Don't think this is true what the BBC prog missed is that most of the government, civil servants, quangocracy, many head offices - including the BBC! are in London but they are all paid for by the whole country - so in fact the subsidy probably goes the other way

The BBC has shifted most of its parts outside the capital with only the Holborn main office areas left and the Wood Lane site being sold off. But don't let facts stop the rant (including something like 9x% of London tax going else where).

Of course we are getting into the London (which means the SE) vs North debate where feelings become facts and reality gets warped. But its worth noting London is one of only two top ranking cities in the world (along with New York) which creates an unique situation that demands for balancing ignores and would destroy rather than transferring.

 

[LateThanNever]

The BBC has shifted most of its parts outside the capital with only the Holborn main office areas left and the Wood Lane site being sold off. But don't let facts stop the rant (including something like 9x% of London tax going else where).

Of course we are getting into the London (which means the SE) vs North debate where feelings become facts and reality gets warped. But its worth noting London is one of only two top ranking cities in the world (along with New York) which creates an unique situation that demands for balancing ignores and would destroy rather than transferring.

The BBC still has Broadcasting House as I understand it and all the highest paid jobs seem to remain in London.
Never mind whether it's the top city - if the UK is paying for it, it can reasonably be supposed that the UK will decide. Meanwhile everyone in the country is paying not only for the BBC but also the government, head offices and 'civil servants'. Blimey even the banks are headquartered in London.
This is not a rant but just about subsidy.

 

[transmanche]

Don't think this is true what the BBC prog missed is that most of the government, civil servants, quangocracy, many head offices - including the BBC! are in London but they are all paid for by the whole country - so in fact the subsidy probably goes the other way

Well how about some actual facts, rather than stuff that's just been made up to support your prejudice.

As of March 2013 there were 448,000 civil servants in the UK (of whom, more than a quarter are part-time). Only 75,000 of these are employed in London. So that's "less than 17%" not "most".
Source: ONS

According to an FoI request in 2011, exactly half of the BBC's staff were employed in London. (Since then, as I'm sure you're aware, BBC TV Centre has closed and more jobs have been relocated to regional centres like Salford.)
Source: BBC.

In 2012, 54% of network TV programming spending was in London - and they aim to reduce this to 50% by 2016.
Source: BBC.

And as for head office locations? Organisations having their head office in the nation's capital? What a bizarre notion! :roll:

 

[Moonshot]

Going back to the original post, I m seem to remember mentioning this scenario was likely to occur a few weeks back. No matter which way you look at this, government spending has to be reduced......its a no brainer. The passenger simply has to be picking up the tab if they want a service.

 

[westv]

Going back to the original post, I m seem to remember mentioning this scenario was likely to occur a few weeks back. No matter which way you look at this, government spending has to be reduced......its a no brainer. The passenger simply has to be picking up the tab if they want a service.

But how does that square with calls for more people to swap car journeys to public transport?

 

[Moonshot]

But how does that square with calls for more people to swap car journeys to public transport?

Which has been happening for years anyway - rail growth has been running at 6% per year. But I ve no doubt that some of that growth in the north has been fuelled by fares a lot cheaper ( underpinned by subsidy ) than they should be.

 

[tbtc]

WatcherZero's recent Station usage 2012/13 thread had some sobering statistics that possibly put the 170 story into a little perspective:

• Chiltern Railways 6.8% increase in passenger numbers
• First TransPennine Express 2.0% increase in passenger numbers
• Northern Rail 1.5% increase in passenger numbers

...and Chiltern are bound to see a better number of passenger numbers on their "new" Oxford services than any new services on the "new" chord at Todmorden - I'd wager that Chiltern will see a bigger increase over the next couple of years than Northern will - so I can see an argument for stock moving south - frustrating as it is from a Yorkshire perspective.

The south east seems to be out of recession ahead of the rest of the UK (hence London Overground having 18.3% more passengers in 2013, London Underground having an extra 13.3% passengers...) compared to more modest increases elsewhere.

Come 2016/2017, we'll have a much better railway in northern England - electrified lines, new sections of railway, redoubling in some key areas etc. None of that "vision" has changed with the most recent developments, as far as I see it. The problem is that I think that things are going to get worse before they get better.

 

[yorksrob]

Which has been happening for years anyway - rail growth has been running at 6% per year. But I ve no doubt that some of that growth in the north has been fuelled by fares a lot cheaper ( underpinned by subsidy ) than they should be.

That's the issue though.

I can't see the scope for substantial fares increases as low fares are needed in PTE areas to keep road congestion down, whilst in the outer areas, fares just aren't low to begin with.

 

[transmanche]

No matter which way you look at this, government spending has to be reduced......its a no brainer.

Obviously that depends on your political persuasion - and whether or not you believe the world's sixth largest economy can afford it or not...

 

[Bevan Price]

Many of the free car parks in the north are provided by PTEs rather than TOCs or Network Rail, to discourage people from using cars in city centres, and I think they will be very reluctant to introduce car parking charges.

Stations like Runcorn would probably attract a lot more passengers to LIverpool if people did not have to pay the huge car park charges set by Virgin.

 

[Moonshot]

Obviously that depends on your political persuasion - and whether or not you believe the world's sixth largest economy can afford it or not...

I cant see anyone voting for tax increases to cover public spending irrespective of political persuasion. And as more than a few have pointed out ( including me ) we really should be looking at less state influence on the rail industry

 

[Starmill]

I have no time for this 'London subsidies the rest of the UK' nonsense. What there is is an imbalance between the proportion of economic activity which takes place in the South East and everywhere else. This is BAD. Not just for places which decay because their resources have been 'robbed' but also because London itself is unable to cope. If the economy had grown more evenly over the past few decades, the expense of things like Crossrail wouldn't be necessary - the free infrastructure capacity we have in the rest of the country would be being used more efficiently. As I've said before, I'm more concerned for what will happen to the South East if it continues to overheat than the decay elsewhere.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Thanks for the discussion, made me realise it was a bit of a knee jerk reaction.

 

[Monty]

Is that comparing the same crappiness of house?

I should imagine so, £165k will get you sweet FA in Oxford. Unless you are prepared to take one a small new build flat or a 'fixer upper'.

 

[Class377/5]

I have no time for this 'London subsidies the rest of the UK' nonsense. What there is is an imbalance between the proportion of economic activity which takes place in the South East and everywhere else. This is BAD. Not just for places which decay because their resources have been 'robbed' but also because London itself is unable to cope. If the economy had grown more evenly over the past few decades, the expense of things like Crossrail wouldn't be necessary - the free infrastructure capacity we have in the rest of the country would be being used more efficiently. As I've said before, I'm more concerned for what will happen to the South East if it continues to overheat than the decay elsewhere.

Of course two thirds of Crossrail is funded by London itself. Could other areas afford to do this itself? Manchester Airport is putting money into the Metrolink but can this be replicated across the country?

 

[LateThanNever]

Well how about some actual facts, rather than stuff that's just been made up to support your prejudice.

As of March 2013 there were 448,000 civil servants in the UK (of whom, more than a quarter are part-time). Only 75,000 of these are employed in London. So that's "less than 17%" not "most".
Source: ONS

According to an FoI request in 2011, exactly half of the BBC's staff were employed in London. (Since then, as I'm sure you're aware, BBC TV Centre has closed and more jobs have been relocated to regional centres like Salford.)
Source: BBC.

In 2012, 54% of network TV programming spending was in London - and they aim to reduce this to 50% by 2016.
Source: BBC.

And as for head office locations? Organisations having their head office in the nation's capital? What a bizarre notion! :roll:

I stand corrected and thank you for the link. It does show however that more civil servants are employed in London than any other region in the country and the majority of the highly paid ones will be there. The fact that head offices choose to be in London does not surprise us though it might be more surprising to the Spanish or Germans. But all I'm trying to show is that there is a transfer of monies to London in most of what we do in the UK and it would be advantageous to everyone if there were a lot less of it! This 'overloading' of one area presents an especially obvious problem for transport investment.

 

[northwichcat]

There are ups and downs to everything.

A nurse friend of mine gets the identical salary in Oxford as her sister does in Hull.

Cheapest (non-auction) 2 bedroom house in Hull - £30,000
Cheapest (non-auction) 2 bedroom house in Oxford - £165,000

Cheapest house in Oxford is probably a lot more desirable property than the cheapest in Hull. Nurses also get high priority for shared ownership schemes being essential workers.

 

[Cherry_Picker]

There was an interesting bit on The Today Show talking about some of the themes touched upon in this thread. They interview the UK head of Google and he explains why they are building their new headquarters next door to Kings Cross station. There is a link to it here, it's a five minute audio file, only 4mb I think so it shouldn't kill your data if you want to listen on a phone. It's definitely worth checking out.

 

[northwichcat]

Is that comparing the same crappiness of house?

A £30,000 2 bed property in Hull: http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-43023232.html

One for £155,000 just outside Oxford: http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-27979083.html?premiumA=true

It seems the Hull one is a bit larger but of inferior quality to the one in Oxford - the one in Hull could do with a lot of work being done to it while the one in Oxford is a new build.

Or for someone struggling to get a mortgage to cover a £155,000 they can buy a 25% share in this 2 bed Oxford flat for £42,500: http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-43831418.html?premiumA=true

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

A £30,000 2 bed property in Hull: http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-43023232.html

Does the £30,000 include a premium for the regular cleaning-off the external graffiti, as a viewing of your link will so clearly reveal...hock:

 

[Oswyntail]

If the UK were a commercial enterprise, some of the arguments put forward here would be absolutely right. The board would concentrate on the money-generating pat of the business and sell off the loss-makers. A Government cannot do this (and, contrary to the impression many would love to give us, the current Government is not doing this!).
However, the railway network is, supposedly a set of commercial enterprises, and the real problem is that the DfT does not really know whether it is an agent of Government or the Head Office of such an enterprise. Commercially, the transfer of the stock makes sense, but politically it is utterly crass from all sides of the picture. As ever, the answer is that DfT should step back, and let the TOCs make their own commercial decisions and take their own commercial actions, regardless of subsidy. In other words, have the confidence in franchises as franchises.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Does the £30,000 include a premium for the regular cleaning-off the external graffiti, as a viewing of your link will so clearly reveal...hock:

Off-Topic; I love that the estate agents list "New Holland 4.8 miles" among the nearest railway stations.

 

[northwichcat]

...and Chiltern are bound to see a better number of passenger numbers on their "new" Oxford services than any new services on the "new" chord at Todmorden

I agree. The thing with the Burnley-Manchester service is Burnley has high unemployment and a lack of local jobs and the government has decided a direct rail link to the nearest major city will help that problem. There is a good bus link between Burnley and Manchester but the problem is at peak times the journey time is very long due to congestion on the roads so Burnley residents are probably put off applying for jobs in Manchester for that reason. The unemployed residents of Burnley won't get jobs in Manchester overnight and it'll take time for passenger numbers to pick up which is probably why Lancashire CC are going to sponsor the service for the first 24 months.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Off-Topic; I love that the estate agents list "New Holland 4.8 miles" among the nearest railway stations.

Note the disclaimer: "Distances are straight line measurements." Never mind the swim across!

 

[David Barrett]

A £30,000 2 bed property in Hull: http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-43023232.html

One for £155,000 just outside Oxford: http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-27979083.html?premiumA=true

It seems the Hull one is a bit larger but of inferior quality to the one in Oxford - the one in Hull could do with a lot of work being done to it while the one in Oxford is a new build.

The one in Hull could probably stand a lot more being done to it than the "Park Home" in Oxford! It all depends on which particular quality one is looking for.

 

[transmanche]

I stand corrected and thank you for the link. It does show however that more civil servants are employed in London than any other region in the country and the majority of the highly paid ones will be there.

Well London also happens to be the second most populous region of the country. (8.2 million, pipped by the geographically 12 times larger South East region with 8.6 million.) London has almost the same population as Scotland and Wales combined.

And of course most of the senior civil service jobs will be in London; that's where the seat of the national government is! I'd bet the same is true of every country in the world. What would be the point of having senior civil servants hundreds of miles away from their ministers, who have to be in London to attend Parliament?

But all I'm trying to show is that there is a transfer of monies to London in most of what we do in the UK

I don't think you've shown anything of the sort.

and it would be advantageous to everyone if there were a lot less of it! This 'overloading' of one area presents an especially obvious problem for transport investment.

I'd agree with you regarding the overloading of population creating transport problems - but what you forget is that London is a world city. It attracts people to live and work there from across the globe - people who would not be interested in living and working in Nottingham or Preston - but would consider New York or Paris instead.

 

[northwichcat]

Does the £30,000 include a premium for the regular cleaning-off the external graffiti, as a viewing of your link will so clearly reveal...hock:

The house next door is clearly boarded up so I wouldn't be surprised if some of the houses on that road form part of one of those schemes where they let you can buy a derelict boarded up house for £1 if you agree to invest something like £10,000 on renovations and agree to live in it for a few years.