You're saying "I want better trains"...

[yorksrob]

How old were the slam-door trains in the south-east before they were all phased out? 40 years? Their age, their poor crash-worthiness and the fact that 10s of people died each year falling from moving trains are legitimate reason to upgrade to new trains I think.

Depends. EPB's and CEP's were 40 - 45 years old when withdrawn. Same with the Thumpers. That said, the VEP's and most of the CIG's were built in 1970 - 74, so only 30 - 35 years. They were all a darn sight more comfortable than a Pacer.

 

[AM9]

Depends. EPB's and CEP's were 40 - 45 years old when withdrawn. Same with the Thumpers. That said, the VEP's and most of the CIG's were built in 1970 - 74, so only 30 - 35 years. They were all a darn sight more comfortable than a Pacer.

Sholdn't this thread be merged with the much bigger 'north v south' one? It's here for those that can't find it:

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=101608&highlight=the+north

Many of the arguments being laboured to death on this thread have been adequately dealt with in more detail at least once in that thread.

 

[DarloRich]

I don’t think anyone disagrees with the northern area requiring more investment in infrastructure and rolling stock – it clearly does – just that a local acceptance of the need to part fund some of the works would help.

Mucho wibble in this thread as usual. Northern's fares aren't cheaper. Some of their 150s are absolutely disgusting.

Sadly for you and your argument, and I know you don’t like this, but they are cheaper in the North. Admittedly not vastly cheaper but cheaper all the same. If you want new trains the government says you have to pay more towards the cost.

It may well do, but the difference isn't enough to justify the "all northern train journeys cost peanuts" excuse to not invest in anything.

That said, I'd have been happy if they'd kept a few 308's in storage to ease the crisis.

No one is saying the fares are "peanuts" just that they are cheaper than in the south.

And whining about new investment isn’t true when the Northern hub works are in progress, TPE north is going to be electrified and Hull wired up. This will all require ne trains and offer better services to other lines. I agree the trains are not new but they are better. It all also offers opportunities for quick win local fill in electrification works if the local authorities have the gumption, financial and public support to go for them. You are going to have to contribute towards the works though through your fares.

 

[fowler9]

Are fares really much more expensive 'down south' than in the north?

It costs £16.30 (anytime return) to get from York to Leeds, which on TPE is around a 20 minute journey of around 25 miles.

I do think it is a bit more expensive down south, from my mates in Weybridge to Waterloo is around £18, from Liverpool to Manchester in the peak is about £18. Liverpool to Manchester is about 10 miles further. These are all rough figures.

 

[yorksrob]

No one is saying the fares are "peanuts" just that they are cheaper than in the south.

And whining about new investment isn’t true when the Northern hub works are in progress, TPE north is going to be electrified and Hull wired up. This will all require ne trains and offer better services to other lines. I agree the trains are not new but they are better. It all also offers opportunities for quick win local fill in electrification works if the local authorities have the gumption, financial and public support to go for them. You are going to have to contribute towards the works though through your fares.

I'm afraid the old "The North pays low fares, so it can't afford new/enough trains" argument is about as hackneyed as the "northern trains cart around fresh air" drivel that the powers that be are so fond of.

As I've asked previously, what have all those rolling stock leasing charges on already purchased rolling stock been paying for if not replacement/additional trains. Scotch mist ?

I've also asked previously, why on earth would Local Authorities stump up for rolling stock again when the clowns in London can force them to flog them off to the money men at the drop of a hat, with no guarantee they'll even stay on their patch ?

 

[Starmill]

Sadly for you and your argument, and I know you don’t like this, but they are cheaper in the North. Admittedly not vastly cheaper but cheaper all the same. If you want new trains the government says you have to pay more towards the cost.

I can pick out fares that cost twice in the North what the same distance costs in the south east. I can also pick out fares that cost half. I'm afraid there is simply no evidence to back up these claims about how much less trains cost 'up north' - nor about the extra that people have to pay that's linked to a superior service in the South East. It's not related to either subsidy or fares. It's simply related to what is dictated by the DfT. No more, no less.

In fact, as a direct result of Northern's new Evening Peak restrictions, I can use this logic to successfully claim that some journeys in Manchester are now more expensive than anywhere else in the whole country. What do you think of that?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Are fares really much more expensive 'down south' than in the north?

It costs £16.30 (anytime return) to get from York to Leeds, which on TPE is around a 20 minute journey of around 25 miles.

Try Wigan to Stockport. £17.50 - and you must return the same day.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

No one is saying the fares are "peanuts" just that they are cheaper than in the south.

Where's your evidence for this? Some off-peak fares from Milton Keynes to London recently went down.

 

[jon0844]

Are the 319s even that bad? They rattle a fair bit at speed but that was all I noticed..

No they're not. They're actually pretty good, although some are in a worse condition than others (but it's mostly cosmetic and easily fixed with a decent refresh).

I've not seen either the 317/7 demonstrator (is it out for people to see?) and never got to see the 321 demonstrator, but I believe that all of the trains of that era (317 - 322) have plenty of years left in them and only need to be gutted on the inside and refitted.

I even think the same for the 313s and 315s to be honest.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The question was posed in the first posting on the thread about the displayed poster, but I really do wonder how many of the passengers on the stations actually give these self-publicity posters more than a cursory glance

We are fortunate to have the Northern Rail Class 323 EMU on our local line.

 

[DarloRich]

I'm afraid the old "The North pays low fares, so it can't afford new/enough trains" argument is about as hackneyed as the "northern trains cart around fresh air" drivel that the powers that be are so fond of.

Not sure quite what all this is about as most of the northern trains I use seem fairly well loaded all day. I certainly have never said they are empty. Far from it.

As I've asked previously, what have all those rolling stock leasing charges on already purchased rolling stock been paying for if not replacement/additional trains. Scotch mist ?

Are you that naive? Profit. That is what you pay the leasing company for. Profit not new trains – leasing companies aren’t there to provide rolling stock, they are there to provide profit for the banks that own them!

I've also asked previously, why on earth would Local Authorities stump up for rolling stock again when the clowns in London can force them to flog them off to the money men at the drop of a hat, with no guarantee they'll even stay on their patch ?

I agree. They won’t till the system changes and they have security of tenure (so to speak)

They COULD buy the stock out right but the costs may well be prohibitive even for a cooperative of local authority groups

I can pick out fares that cost twice in the North what the same distance costs in the south east. I can also pick out fares that cost half. I'm afraid there is simply no evidence to back up these claims about how much less trains cost 'up north' - nor about the extra that people have to pay that's linked to a superior service in the South East. It's not related to either subsidy or fares. It's simply related to what is dictated by the DfT. No more, no less.

In fact, as a direct result of Northern's new Evening Peak restrictions, I can use this logic to successfully claim that some journeys in Manchester are now more expensive than anywhere else in the whole country. What do you think of that?

Can you? That seems terribly hyperbolic. Would they be similar evening peak restrictions imposed in the south for a considerable period of time? I think you don’t know your posterior from your elbow frankly.

Lets looks at some fares on routes I know well using season tickets and any time returns as a point of reference. I have avoided my Euston season ticket as there isn’t a similar comparison with Leeds or Manchester that I can make:

Fenny Stratford – Milton Keynes (4m 12ch) Annual Season - £672
Woodlesford – Leeds (5m 79ch) Annual season - £568

(a similar flow, mainly commuters into a regional centre from an attached commuter village)

Leeds – Manchester (42m 55ch) Annual season via any permitted - £2908
Milton Keynes – Coventry (44m 14ch) Annual season via any permitted - £3744

(not quite a fair comparison as Leeds and Manchester are the two largest economic centers of the north while MK & Cov are not but almost the same trains and just about the same loadings…)

Darlington – Middlesbrough (15m) Annual season £928.00
Bedford – Bletchley (16m 51ch) Annual season £1,148.00
Northampton – MKC (15m 71ch) Annual season £1,792.00

(Fairly similar sized towns if unbalanced in economic performance)

Fenny Stratford – MKC anytime return - £6.60
Woodelsford – Leeds anytime return - £3.40

Leeds – Manchester anytime return - £ 27.60
MKC – Coventry anytime return - £ 34.00

Darlington – Middlesbrough– Anytime return £5.80
Northampton – MKC– Anytime return £15.20
Bedford – Bletchley– Anytime return £10.60

Point to point fares booked in advance vary greatly across the country but fares that are commonly available to the man in the street do seem cheaper in the north

I don’t disagree that new trains and more trains are needed in the north and that the Northern franchise specification has been proved to be poor and not reflective of demand or economic performance. I agree the government SHOULD be funding the majority of the investment in these trains. The fact that they won’t (or cant) means that the passenger has to bear more of the burden. We do that in the south, why should the passenger in north not do the same?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Well that's precious little comfort for me here in West Yorkshire!

The first route to benefit from class 319s arriving in the north west (ie getting cascaded DMUs) will be Todmorden-Burnley.
Doesn't Todmorden count as West Yorkshire?
(I'm aware of historical boundary disputes. )

 

[DarloRich]

It is also worth noting that precious few of these improvements will reach the North East.

 

[yorksrob]

Not sure quirhetorical.
this is about as most of the northern trains I use seem fairly well loaded all day. I certainly have never said they are empty. Far from it.



Are you that naive? Profit. That is what you pay the leasing company for. Profit not new trains – leasing companies aren’t there to provide rolling stock, they are there to provide profit for the banks that own them!



I agree. They won’t till the system changes and they have security of tenure (so to speak)

Not, my opinions, we've had Ministers in the recent past insinuating that trains in the North cart around fresh air.

My question about what were we paying rolling stock charges for was rhetorical. We were told at privatisation that stock leasing charges were to pay for new trains and after twenty years of paying them, it seems there isn’t going to be money to replace our Pacers when they're life expired.

My point is that the system isn't working for the North of England.

 

[DarloRich]

Not, my opinions, we've had Ministers in the recent past insinuating that trains in the North cart around fresh air.

My question about what were we paying rolling stock charges for was rhetorical. We were told at privatisation that stock leasing charges were to pay for new trains and after twenty years of paying them, it seems there isn’t going to be money to replace our Pacers when they're life expired.

My point is that the system isn't working for the North of England.

I agree entirely - the system doesn’t work at all but it seems to especially fail in the north of England.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Who actually makes the decision that says a rail unit is life-expired?

 

[BurtonM]

And on trains older than your 150s/Pacers to boot.

I hardly think comparing Northern's rolling stock to an HST is fair.

 

[Rapidash]

None of this is particularly a Northern issue is it?

The far west (apart from Weymouth) has equally creaking 30 -40 old stock, running around full up, with the only expected relief to come from cascaded DMU's from the Thames Valleys, which themselves will be nearing 30 as well. Though I am thankful for cheap fairs down here (£4.30 for a 25 mile trip? Sold!) some more 23 carriages would be much appreciated!

Given that the North West will be in receipt of: Multiple electrified lines, the stock for them, HS2, the stock for that, the freed up capacity on the WCML and so on within the next 17 years. You've had a rough deal in the past, sure. But, uh, from where I'm standing, your getting your cake, eating it and then getting another cake and so on

Yours sincerely, the peoples of the North East, North Wales, the South West and the Isle of White

 

[387star]

Northern in recent years have really turned thongs around refurbishing some trains to a high standard indeed the whole fleet has seen interior improvements the ex lm 150 are probably the worst in the fleet now?

I hear ex fnw units are now getting new flooring

 

[Andyh82]

Northern in recent years have really turned thongs around refurbishing some trains to a high standard indeed the whole fleet has seen interior improvements the ex lm 150 are probably the worst in the fleet now?

I hear ex fnw units are now getting new flooring

If you think the refurbishments done by Northern are a high standard, I don't think you have seen many others. Such as the job EMT have done on their 158s or looking into past, what Northern Spirit did to the TPE 158s or their own 153s, 156s etc. Northern refurbs are often not much more than a clean and a new seat cover.

I've said before, the government should shut up all us northerners once an for all by buying one batch of new DMUs and sprinkle them across the North. At least if we saw some new trains, there would be less moans compared to now where there are no new trains at all anywhere.

 

[Parallel]

None of this is particularly a Northern issue is it?

The far west (apart from Weymouth) has equally creaking 30 -40 old stock, running around full up, with the only expected relief to come from cascaded DMU's from the Thames Valleys, which themselves will be nearing 30 as well.

Weymouth gets old trains too, in the way of tired 150s/153s from Bristol with FGW, though it does get some nice shiny EMUs too from SWT, on the other hand...

 

[Camden]

London Midland put a load of new 172s on their local lines around the West Midlands not so long ago, and some of the 150s they displaced were sent north.

So, it's not the case that it's only the north that's getting investment. But yes there is a lot of it going on up north right now (terming Manchester, "the north" of course. Newcastle is getting some metro fleet refurbs!)

I don't begrudge it, but I think this is probably a more appropriate forum to pose the question I posed elsewhere which is, with investment going on, high subsidies and old creaking rolling stock, how can HS3 be financially justifiable in this sort of environment when surely it's just going to be adding costs onto an already expensive to run network?

 

[Penmorfa]

Pick a "premium" flow in the South and you can easily beat that - Swindon to Didcot is also about 25 miles and £43 SDR. And on trains older than your 150s/Pacers to boot. Whilst that's particularly extortionate, most commuter flows to London are over £16 at the 25-mile mark.

That sounded an awful lot so I did a check on off peak return, return any time, and that's only £10.80. A vast difference.

 

[anti-pacer]

London Midland put a load of new 172s on their local lines around the West Midlands not so long ago, and some of the 150s they displaced were sent north.

So, it's not the case that it's only the north that's getting investment. But yes there is a lot of it going on up north right now (terming Manchester, "the north" of course. Newcastle is getting some metro fleet refurbs!)

I don't begrudge it, but I think this is probably a more appropriate forum to pose the question I posed elsewhere which is, with investment going on, high subsidies and old creaking rolling stock, how can HS3 be financially justifiable in this sort of environment when surely it's just going to be adding costs onto an already expensive to run network?

LM got lots of shiny new trains, we got what they didn't want. As a Northerner who travels daily on our local network, do you expect me to be grateful for that?

We need NEW trains. We have a TOC covering 3 Northern regions that includes 5 large conurbations. We account for a higher population than London but get an extremely raw deal. We deserve better!

 

[AM9]

LM got lots of shiny new trains, we got what they didn't want. As a Northerner who travels daily on our local network, do you expect me to be grateful for that?

We need NEW trains. We have a TOC covering 3 Northern regions that includes 5 large conurbations. We account for a higher population than London but get an extremely raw deal. We deserve better!

I can see why you need better trains but what justification is there for NEW trains other than personal jealosy.
The population of London is irrelevant, it's the number of passengers that determines the quantity and type of rolling stock. Even if you do push this line on population, London as a city i.e. the London boroughs, has a population somewhere between 7.8 and 8.1 million. London in travel terms covers populations as far as Weymouth on the south coast, Norwich in east Anglia, Peterborough, Nothampton, Oxford and Swindon. I can't calculate the population of those areas that directly affected by travel from those places but other estimates posted here say it's about 20 million.
So what is the population of 'Northen' territory you are including in you claim? Then you tell us just how many of those do or are likely to crowd the 'creaking' rolling stock up there.

 

[Camden]

The populations may be more or less the same, but the size of the region is very large. That will have inevitable knock on effects on passenger densities. I'm not saying the north isn't justified in having better than what it's got, but I am questioning how HS3 could be justifiable. Unless you're going to have a one line that sweeps through the cities and get rid of every other line.

Cascading displaced stock seems the best the area can justify, but I'd suggest parts of it are getting a lot more investment than just that. The noise about old trains seems to me to be more tied up with the campaigning by those already getting a fair wadge, than anything likely to result in results for those parts of the north who currently aren't.

 

[northwichcat]

The populations by region are:
Greater London 8.1 million
South East 8.6 million

North West 7.1 million
Yorkshire & Humber 5.3 million
North East 2.6 million

West Midlands 5.6 million
Scotland 5.3 million

Of course franchise areas don't follow regional boundaries. Northern operate services in both the West and East Midlands, while London Midland operate services in the North West as for East Midlands Trains...

Based on the above figures it doesn't sound unfair for the North West to get more investment than the West Midlands and for Yorkshire & Humber to get a similar level of investment to Scotland.

People make the argument the North needs less investment per head than London and South East because it's less densely populated but then Scotland argues it needs more investment because it's less densely populated. :roll:

 

[AM9]

The populations by region are:
Greater London 8.1 million
South East 8.6 million
East 5.8 million
total 22.5 million

North West 7.1 million
Yorkshire & Humber 5.3 million
North East 2.6 million
total 15 million

West Midlands 5.6 million
Scotland 5.3 million

Of course franchise areas don't follow regional boundaries. Northern operate services in both the West and East Midlands, while London Midland operate services in the North West as for East Midlands Trains...

Based on the above figures it doesn't sound unfair for the North West to get more investment than the West Midlands and for Yorkshire & Humber to get a similar level of investment to Scotland.

People make the argument the North needs less investment per head than London and South East because it's less densely populated but then Scotland argues it needs more investment because it's less densely populated. :roll:

There, I've added to your figures as the 'east' as defined on the wiki page that I used, (I assume you also) counts Essex, Suffolk, Norfolk, Bedfordshire & Cambridgeshire as part of the region. There are significant commuter flows from all of these counties, which means that rail services are scaled (and priced) accordingly. I've not included Northampton which also has a high number of commuters considering it's distance from London.
The lack of knowledge of distances travelled is probably why so many away from the south-east have a jaundiced view of commuter provision. Although the largest numbers of commuters travel from within 20 miles of Central London, a very significant number travel from 50 miles or more away and the inadequacies of the infrastructure require that rolling stock has a level of reliability that doesn't completely shutdown the main transport arteries, e.g. the GEML, ECML, MML, WCML, GWML, SWML. I've left out the BML & the Kent mainlines as they are all pretty well commuter railways now.
If you read the threads on these forums, you can see the chaos that results when just one train fails in the Thameslink core, or close to Clapham Junction or Stratford etc.. Providing reliable stock is cost effective as astronomic costs mount up as soon as the service fails. The stock provided in the London commuter area is not necessarily to everybody's comfort and there are plenty of whinges on UK Rail to confirm this, it is just chosen to provide as continuous servicer as affordable.
Then there are the fares. Without getting into an argument of fares based on a long list of carefully chosen anecdotal examples, compare the fares on the routes that have the 'gold plated' trains that those outside the South-East eye with envy, not the ramshackle stock on lines like the Abbey Flyer, the Bittern and Wherry lines in Norfolk, the Felixstowe flyer & the Bletchley-Bedford line. For these higher fares, commuters still only get a seat if they are lucky or less than 2 square feet if they don't get on at the start of the route.
I know that you and some others have debated on this same-old subject in other threads, but it seems that every 2 or 3 months, another disgruntled member decides to raise the same old complaints thinly disguised under a different thread title and the same reasoned replies have to be posted again. Maybe members should do some reading before they rush to push the 'NewThread' button.

 

[anti-pacer]

I can see why you need better trains but what justification is there for NEW trains other than personal jealosy.
The population of London is irrelevant, it's the number of passengers that determines the quantity and type of rolling stock. Even if you do push this line on population, London as a city i.e. the London boroughs, has a population somewhere between 7.8 and 8.1 million. London in travel terms covers populations as far as Weymouth on the south coast, Norwich in east Anglia, Peterborough, Nothampton, Oxford and Swindon. I can't calculate the population of those areas that directly affected by travel from those places but other estimates posted here say it's about 20 million.
So what is the population of 'Northen' territory you are including in you claim? Then you tell us just how many of those do or are likely to crowd the 'creaking' rolling stock up there.

Personal jealousy? Funny! I tell you what then, let's do a stock swap. You Southerners would have heart failure if a 142 came bouncing into one of your stations. There would be a public outcry, national enquiry, you name it.

Despite southern belief, most of us up here work and pay tax, just like you do down there. Many of us commute to work by rail, just like you do. The difference is, most of us have to travel on trains that you guys down south would be outraged to set foot on.

We need NEW trains, and we deserve them.

 

[Murph]

We need NEW trains, and we deserve them.

You neither need, nor deserve NEW trains (assuming that means brand new). Better trains, more appropriate trains, sure, absolutely. The Pacers do need to be replaced, and the replacements need to be fit for purpose, but that's it, age is utterly irrelevant as long as it's in good condition inside and out.

Demanding "NEW" and claiming you deserve them only damages your case. Brand new trains are no better than properly refurbished trains which have plenty of life left in them. New trains have been known to be worse than proven trains cascaded appropriately, due to teething problems for the first 6-12 months in service.

 

[Oswyntail]

...We need NEW trains, and we deserve them.

Actually no one needs new trains, and saying anyone deserves them is simply emotive guff.
On the other hand, we do not need the smug claptrap from commuters into London, who have done much better in this respect than the rest of the country for as long as I have known it.
What we do need - and need urgently - is a proper assessment of transport needs throughout the UK, not just current, but co-ordinating with a proper economic plan for growth and prosperity for all regions. The major current problem is that the SE economy is overheating and some distribution needs to be made. It is one role of government to oversee and facilitate this, and not only affects the North, but everywhere there is spare productive capacity. A major question is whether, in the meantime, the SE economy needs to be sustained or allowed to grow more, and the answers to tis need to be factored in. This whole issue will have implications for the entire question of transport provision, and needs to be addressed before issues like HS3 or Dawlish diversions. Sadly, the examination is often drowned out by the SE and its insatiable appetite for new infrastructure.

 

[anti-pacer]

You neither need, nor deserve NEW trains (assuming that means brand new). Better trains, more appropriate trains, sure, absolutely. The Pacers do need to be replaced, and the replacements need to be fit for purpose, but that's it, age is utterly irrelevant as long as it's in good condition inside and out.

Demanding "NEW" and claiming you deserve them only damages your case. Brand new trains are no better than properly refurbished trains which have plenty of life left in them. New trains have been known to be worse than proven trains cascaded appropriately, due to teething problems for the first 6-12 months in service.

So you'd be happy with the crap we're saddled with then?