Railways in the North, Dark Clouds Looming

[Xenophon PCDGS]

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.

That only refers to internal refurbishments as the said property is not one that is boarded-up.

 

[ComUtoR]

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

The less influence the state has then the less they should be responsible financially. Ergo less subsidy.

There is also a vox populi that would support re nationalisation of the whole railway.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/oct/25/labour-renationalisation-railways-hs2

Rather than a full renationalisation, it is understood Labour would be more interested in allowing state-run non-profit companies to bid for franchises when they come up for renewal.

Some unions have been calling for renationalisation of the railways and the idea has caught hold following the success of the publicly owned east coast mainline, which is making profits for the taxpayer.

The government is planning to privatise the east coast mainline again, while Labour is campaigning for it to remain under state control.

The bit in bold is what I would support. I don't believe that a fully nationalised railway would be profitable for the UK taxpayer.

The way in which the railways is run needs to be looked at rather than a simple subsidy reduction and revenue raising. Track access, Delay fines, Contracting, Procurement, Maintenance, Rolling stock etc. all need to be looked at.

Is there a north/south divide in terms of investment ? That is certainly something for the bean counters but investment should reflect demand. Southeastern has just undergone platform lengthening as there is going to be an introduction of 12-Car trains. There is a clear demand to alleviate overcrowding and accommodate the growing passenger numbers. Should "the north" have a cash investment equivalent to what has just been invested in SE London ? Certainly not.

My questions are that : Are the needs of passengers being met "in the north" and what specific investment is needed ? Isn't "the north" being upgraded ? http://www.networkrail.co.uk/North_West_electrification.aspx That is significant investment. Following electrification there should be rolling stock upgrades. ERTMS is another example, so is GSMR. The north have had those systems invested in yet down south those upgrades are a long way of.

Finally, you have to remember that the portion of the ticket price that goes back into the government coffers will get redistributed as required. Frankly I don't care that part of my ticket goes "t'up nor'th" and see a holistic view for the railway.

 

[daccer]

Is this news as such? With the country being run on an austerity basis, Network Rail having to find 20% savings in CP5 and councils having funding capped why would two heavily subsidised TOC's escape the cuts?

Both these franchises have performed well financially (for their owners!) and are a natural target for the Dft to recoup finances.

I know the two are supposedly unrelated but I still don't see how finding 42bn for HS2 cannot have some effect on traditional rail finances - even if it is just the Control Period funding mechanism being tightened in advance of construction starting on HS2.

One last thing apparently passenger income is over 8bn pounds per annum now and seemingly on an inexorable climb. How close are we to seeing the Govt's desired intention of a 75/25 split for rail funding between passengers and taxpayers. When we do get there will it stop or will the Govt then be looking for the Utopian ideal of a self-financing network.

 

[Cherry_Picker]

It will move that way (towards self financing) until people realise that can't work, then there will be a period of heavy investment and subsidy until people decide they can't afford it or don't want to pay for it anymore, then it will be pushed towards self financing again. Like everything political, this cycle will continue until the end of time.

 

[Oswyntail]

.... That is significant investment. Following electrification there should be rolling stock upgrades......

What is crass, both politically and commercially, is that there is to be a perceived rolling stock downgrade before electrification. Whoever in TPE/Northern allowed the story to be spun as "fare and car park fees to rise, trains to go South" needs to be strung up.

 

[Bantamzen]

This is becoming a very interesting discussion, and one that merits much more debate.

It is starting to become obvious that the rail network in the North might suffer over the next few years, with less short to medium term investment in rolling stock & reduced subsidies for rail companies here. All of which could well lead to higher fares, and the risks of service reductions to boot. Some may argue that because the main bulk of the UK’s business is located in the South East then this is fair. After all why should they have to subsidise the rest of the country?

However, this is a rather simplistic view and largely ignores the fact the S/E by & large enjoys higher wages, a better quality of life & lower unemployment. The only way that any kind of economic balance can be made is to invest in the infrastructure of the rest of the country, which for the North of England includes the Northern Hub works planned. Businesses will not look to create new centres away from London if the logistics of moving staff, goods & services are viable which at the moment could be argued that they are not. Many of the major arteries around the North’s big towns & cities are regularly clogged, and the capacity on buses & trains is below what is needed & with precious few opportunities to move large amounts of freight around. And cuts or large increases in costs on the rail network may only serve to worsen this problem.

You might argue that there is no need to change things, after all the S/E does very well for the rest of the country doesn’t it? Well no actually, because much of the wealth generated doesn’t make it outside of the radius of the M25 so in real on the ground terms, there is a huge imbalance that I hope one day a government will be strong enough to tackle. But sooner or later London & the S/E will grind to a halt. You can build all the skyscrapers & dig all the tunnels you like, but the amount of space to locate businesses & more importantly the space to move people & logistic around is finite. So investing in the North, and elsewhere in the nation is the right thing to do.

Sadly I suspect politics are starting to take over right now. With the spectre of a general election on the horizon, and a ruling (sort of) party not really gaining any more support, they are giving the impression of abandoning the areas where the feel they cannot win. So areas served by companies like Northern & TPE might seem like legitimate targets to introduce cuts, whilst the investment will be moved towards companies that better serve the heartlands of their support. It’s a disheartening picture that’s being drawn.

I’ve already asked the question elsewhere without response so far, but if there are subsidy cutbacks, along with higher fares / charges over the next couple of years before the Northern Hub works start to have a wide impact, what will this do for the two franchises up for grabs? Personally speaking I worry that this is making them look less attractive & might end up with a below par service being offered up post 2016, regardless of infrastructure improvements.

 

[Ploughman]

Any one got any detail on the crime figures for the 2 sites in Hull and Oxford?

From working around Hull I would guess that unwelcome visitors are quite common.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Government policy from 1945 sought to improve the overall UK economy and to reduce the "SE" domination of service and to an extent manufacturing - (obviously could nto relocate the coal and steel industries) - very mixed results in terms of say the car industry. London and the South East is part of the massive , flexible "agglomeration" and people / skills based international /global hub. Think more of the European London - German - Dutch triangle extrapolated to emerging Asia and even North America scenario.

In any case - many of my travelling chums on a 319 in the morning would gladly swop for the Leeds North electrics - and would love the overall less stress of the North for the madhouse of London and the Tube. I think the quality of life of a 30 min commute over the standard hour + of the SE would be welcome - but it is not going to happen.

 

[LateThanNever]

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?

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

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.

In accepting that the vast majority of the best paid (government) jobs are in London, as the entirety of taxpayers pays for them, it is an inescapable logic that ipso facto there is a regional wealth transfer.
Similarly the wunch of bankers we have all been forced to subsidise reside principally in London.
I don't really know what a world city is but if it made London a better place to live then I'm sure I'm not alone in preferring that those who couldn't possibly countenance being in Nottingham or Preston went instead to New York or Paris .
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Government policy from 1945 sought to improve the overall UK economy and to reduce the "SE" domination of service and to an extent manufacturing - (obviously could nto relocate the coal and steel industries) - very mixed results in terms of say the car industry. London and the South East is part of the massive , flexible "agglomeration" and people / skills based international /global hub. Think more of the European London - German - Dutch triangle extrapolated to emerging Asia and even North America scenario.

In any case - many of my travelling chums on a 319 in the morning would gladly swop for the Leeds North electrics - and would love the overall less stress of the North for the madhouse of London and the Tube. I think the quality of life of a 30 min commute over the standard hour + of the SE would be welcome - but it is not going to happen.

Quite, but it needs radical government action. And the naysayers will always say you cannot do this or that because "London is a world city"! If we are paying for it we should be able to decide whether that is desirable for the UK or whether perhaps a bit of localism is required. Trouble is in the UK localism is always a "postcode lottery" - which in a way it is. But it is not a lottery if there is local democratic control. Which, unfortunately there rarely is in the UK - less still in England!

 

[edwin_m]

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?

Not necessarily - look at Germany for example. Possibly because their capital was taken from them in 1945, many of the "national" institutions are spread around. The constitutional court is in Karlsruhe, almost right across the country from Berlin.

Germany and Switzerland are highly federal countries with much devolution of power to the regions. Both of them seem to have done pretty well out of it, and they also have some of Europe's best integrated public transport networks!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Watching Evan Davies on Monday night I was quite taken with the idea that London drives the rest of the economy and we all benefit from its being there.

However thinking about it later, what he didn't mention is that a lot of London employment is in financial services and other industries which make their employers and themselves a lot of money but bring relatively little benefit (and sometimes a lot of disbenefit) to the rest of us. Compare with Germany where the financiers seem to be a lot more geared up to supporting the rest of the economy, and for example hostile takeovers are virtually impossible.

I think the UK's problem may be more an imbalance towards parasitic over beneficial occupations, rather than an imbalance towards London as such.

 

[yorksrob]

It‘s the same old story. I remember reading a book in the early nineties by economic journalist Will Hutton called "The State We're In" which bemoaned the fact that the City of London was more interested in dodgy dealings on the other side of the globe than doing its job and raising capital for Britishindustry. Plus ca change.

 

[transmanche]

In accepting that the vast majority of the best paid (government) jobs are in London, as the entirety of taxpayers pays for them, it is an inescapable logic that ipso facto there is a regional wealth transfer.

Well if that's what you want to believe, fine. But you're wrong.

 

[billio]

Any one got any detail on the crime figures for the 2 sites in Hull and Oxford?

From working around Hull I would guess that unwelcome visitors are quite common.

You can find out at this web-site : http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk

 

[ed1971]

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.

I agree. Peak time rail fares (Before 9:30am weekdays) in Greater Manchester aren't exactly cheap though.

Fares in Lancashire are in many cases simply unaffordable now.

Examples, are:
Wigan to Blackpool off-peak return £13.00. (Approx 39 miles).

Preston to Lytham off-peak return £7.60. (Approx 12 miles).

I used to enjoy travelling by train to these places, but drive to them now.

I also fear that if parking charges were introduced at all stations, then a lot of people may simply drive to their destination and not catch the train at all.

 

[Starmill]

Some places (North Yorkshire, I'm looking at you!) have awful fares. Get out of WY and they are extortionate per mile! And the Whitby line doesn't count as a real service :P

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I also fear that if parking charges were introduced at all stations, then a lot of people may simply drive to their destination and not catch the train at all.

Thinking of two railway stations, Garforth and Lostock, where a substantial number of car parking spaces are made available to those rail travellers commuting into a large city, any car park charges at these two railway stations will not be viewed with much enthusiasm by the rail passengers when the cost of this has to be added to the cost of their rail tickets.

 

[Spaceflower]

Funny how this thread has degenerated into a north vs south rant.

Interesting article though.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Funny how this thread has degenerated into a north vs south rant.

One might equally well say that "normal service has been resumed" noting the frequency this does so occur on certain types of threads on this website....:roll:

 

[David Barrett]

I would not use the word degenerated: it is, given that we live in a highly polarised Disunited Kingdom, the steady state, and has been for almost as long as I would care to remember. One can only look at certian posts earlier on this thread at comments about some other European countries and their devolved systems of government with envy. In the U.K. devolved responsibility A.K.A. "Localism" means vlolunteers running the libraries so that full time staff can be sacked to shave a few mites off the rates. On the other hand any seriuos talk of devolution is met with the usual opposition running newspaper articles terrorising everybody into believing that such a system of governance will cost everybody at least one of their three annual holidays in Benidorm.

 

[edwin_m]

Thinking of two railway stations, Garforth and Lostock, where a substantial number of car parking spaces are made available to those rail travellers commuting into a large city, any car park charges at these two railway stations will not be viewed with much enthusiasm by the rail passengers when the cost of this has to be added to the cost of their rail tickets.

Then again the parking isn't really free, it is paid for either though the existing train fares or (more likely) by taxes. I read somewhere that the cost of providing a parking space is typically £400 per year.

Fair enough if a business case can be made for this on the grounds of reducing traffic congestion in whichever place the person parking would otherwise drive to. But it may be tricky to tell whether this is truly so or simply a subsidy to a less sustainable mode of transport.

 

[LateThanNever]

Compare with Germany where the financiers seem to be a lot more geared up to supporting the rest of the economy, and for example hostile takeovers are virtually impossible.

I think the UK's problem may be more an imbalance towards parasitic over beneficial occupations..

Quite, the idle speculators, futures markets and hedgefunds have a lot to answer for. There is the silo mentality because they did what they did because it was permitted rather than their chief executives thinking for themselves whether it does harm. The money they all earn you might have thought that could be expected of them.... Its very sad that two major areas where Britain seems to excel are financial services and advertising which are both almost entirely parasitic.

 

[northwichcat]

Any one got any detail on the crime figures for the 2 sites in Hull and Oxford?

From working around Hull I would guess that unwelcome visitors are quite common.

According to one newspaper report from 2013 2.58% of people in Hull are victim of one of burglary, robbery and violent crime while in Oxford the figure is 1.43%.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Then again the parking isn't really free, it is paid for either though the existing train fares or (more likely) by taxes. I read somewhere that the cost of providing a parking space is typically £400 per year. Fair enough if a business case can be made for this on the grounds of reducing traffic congestion in whichever place the person parking would otherwise drive to. But it may be tricky to tell whether this is truly so or simply a subsidy to a less sustainable mode of transport.

Indeed so, but my very contention was to highlight this very point that you make in the two examples that I quoted in my earlier posting. An imposition of a parking charge would to be somewhat of a "double whammy" to use a modern phrase that does indeed seem to fit this matter of discussion.

 

[LateThanNever]

I would not use the word degenerated: it is, given that we live in a highly polarised Disunited Kingdom, the steady state, and has been for almost as long as I would care to remember. One can only look at certian posts earlier on this thread at comments about some other European countries and their devolved systems of government with envy. In the U.K. devolved responsibility A.K.A. "Localism" means vlolunteers running the libraries so that full time staff can be sacked to shave a few mites off the rates. On the other hand any seriuos talk of devolution is met with the usual opposition running newspaper articles terrorising everybody into believing that such a system of governance will cost everybody at least one of their three annual holidays in Benidorm.

True in a way (and those same newspapers always conveniently forget that the US has a federal system) . Mind you I think volunteering can often change society for the better and I sometimes wonder if we shouldn't all be obliged to do some voluntary work say for a day a month - might have the advantage of preventing some of the telephone number earners getting too many ideas above their station!

 

[IanXC]

In terms of fares, I think there probably is some scope to increase fares in PTE areas. The balance between the financial cost, and the journey benefits between Road and Rail have changed significantly in recent years, leaving some scope to adjust fares.

A consideration with car parks, thinking of some of the PTE boundary sites mentioned, is that in some areas imposition of charges at large car parks could encourage people to make more sustainable journies. For instance, how many Garforth parkers travel from York? They could be encouraged to travel by bus to York station, and take what are quieter trains to Leeds.

 

[Deerfold]

Mind you I think volunteering can often change society for the better and I sometimes wonder if we shouldn't all be obliged to do some voluntary work say for a day a month - might have the advantage of preventing some of the telephone number earners getting too many ideas above their station!

If you're obliged, doesn't it stop being voluntary work?

Some sort of community work might help but in the current climate I can see it being suggested as a way of making people who do the work now redundant as opposed to getting stuff done that gets overlooked now.

 

[Oscar]

A consideration with car parks, thinking of some of the PTE boundary sites mentioned, is that in some areas imposition of charges at large car parks could encourage people to make more sustainable journies. For instance, how many Garforth parkers travel from York? They could be encouraged to travel by bus to York station, and take what are quieter trains to Leeds.

I agree that that is what should happen, but it requires fares adjustment rather than simply increasing fares and car parking charges.

Unfortunately, this requires great political will in a fragmented industry. The combination of government-set limits to increases to regulated fares and demanding financial targets for TOCs encourages them to stimulate additional (typically leisure) by selling large numbers of Advance tickets, while doing little about the levels at which walk-up fares are set. The fact that different TOCs or other organisations set fares independently, operating costs are split by TOC and in most cases the TOC earns money from the fares it sets makes adjustment difficult. I would prefer fares to be set either nationally and/or by regional authorities covering the whole country which co-ordinate their work closely. I can see that giving the market greater freedom would also allow fares to be matched more appropriately to the market. It would put the focus on economic rather than environmental or social objectives (it would focus on filling seats wherever the railway can offer them rather than creating modal shift from the car).

 

[underbank]

Some sort of community work might help but in the current climate I can see it being suggested as a way of making people who do the work now redundant as opposed to getting stuff done that gets overlooked now.

But there's sooo much that isn't being done, and not just recently either, there've been things that have languished for years, if not decades. I live in a coastal village and we have to organise our own voluntary litter picking on the shore and also throughout the village, for example, as the Council just send their van round to sweep the streets a couple of times a year (as they have for the 10 years I've lived here so nothing new). There has been litter on the nearest motorway sliproad for years - it's NEVER tidied up, I've never seen it clear in the past 30 years I've been using it - you even get to recognise the larger bits of litter from one year to another. (Not that I'd advocate volunteers on the motorway, but it's another example of things that need doing and have been neglected for years.). Current spending cuts aren't the sole reason - there's so much to do that the existing workforce will never be short of work.

 

[LateThanNever]

If you're obliged, doesn't it stop being voluntary work?

Some sort of community work might help but in the current climate I can see it being suggested as a way of making people who do the work now redundant as opposed to getting stuff done that gets overlooked now.

Good point! I really meant unpaid! And I did have in mind "getting stuff done that gets overlooked now" although central government has imposed such draconian cuts on local government (as age uk mentioned yesterday I think) that something is going to have to give. Perhaps we should be 'quantitively easing' the people rather than the banks.

 

[Beveridges]

The North already has the most rundown rolling stock and the slowest and most uncomfortable services. Why make it worse?