southern bias

[Royston Vasey]

As for routes out of London, yes, many, many journeys with many passengers. I would also agree that, regardless of investment, lines outside London will never be as busy as within it. However, we are talking about spending billions on crossrail while the likes of EMT and FTPE are screaming out for more carriages across the pennines, EMT especially. I also think that London benefits from the large number of termini. During the 60's, termini in the major Northern cities were closed and services rationalised into one (Leeds) or two (Manchester) for example whilst London retained most entry/exit points. This makes life difficult when trying to plan new services, especially since the likes of Leeds and Manchester Piccadilly run close to capacity most of the day, unlike the London termini where services are reduced outside peak hours.

Surely then, investment in a few extra carriages for EMT or FTPE would not be too big a problem compared to building another tunnel under London?

True, but London is a much bigger area; of the ten busiest stations 2006-2007, the latest available, the top 8 busiest in terms of entries are in London and top 9 in terms of exits. The odd one out in both cases is Glasgow Central. Leeds is 13th in both rankings, Manchester Piccadilly 18th in entries, 17th in exits.

Furthermore, most of the 9 London stations in the top 10 are the termini rather than intermediate stops with tube connections like Finsbury Park or the intermediate Thameslink stops which spread entries and exits between slightly smaller stations, away from termini. Data here. My point being that even with other stations taking some load, these termini are still way the busiest on the network

I agree absolutely with the final point, more targetted investment should be done across and at both sides of the Pennines in particular, I know from experience how popular those services are at all times of day. Buying new rolling stock is relatively cheap compared to major infrastructure projects being planned in the South East; and there must be room for both, and investment distributed equitably according to the optimal benefit to the passenger. Difficult to quantify unfortunately.

Just refuting there is an unfair bias here, I think London justifies most of the investment it attracts.

 

[ukrob]

Well the reason is the North's railways, for whatever reason, are comparatively underused. Sure there is a odd peak train, where people are crammed into class 153s and Pacers, but this pails into comparison with 8 or 12 car trains running into central London, packed to the gills. As an example, there is far, far more passengers between say Oxford and Reading, than say Sheffield and Manchester - even though both the former towns are much smaller.

For me, that is where you lost all credibility in this thread. Lets take one of the lines I live on operated by Northern in the Liverpool area. You are lucky to get a seat off peak, and lucky to get on at all at peaktime. If that is your idea of 'comparatively underused' then what is your definition of 'busy' or 'crowded' - is it people hanging onto the roof and sides as your see in India? Maybe that is what you think 'the north' is like.

Anywhere in the UK, whether a train is one carriage or 12 carriages, if it is at 150% capacity, it is at 150% capacity, the length of the train has no relevance to that statistic.

Your example at the bottom of your post fails also. That is very easily explained - there is no spare capacity between Manchester and Sheffield, so more people can not physically use the train!

 

[Mojo]

For me, that is where you lost all credibility in this thread. Lets take one of the lines I live on operated by Northern in the Liverpool area. You are lucky to get a seat off peak, and lucky to get on at all at peaktime. If that is your idea of 'comparatively underused' then what is your definition of 'busy' or 'crowded' - is it people hanging onto the roof and sides as your see in India? Maybe that is what you think 'the north' is like.

Anywhere in the UK, whether a train is one carriage or 12 carriages, if it is at 150% capacity, it is at 150% capacity, the length of the train has no relevance to that statistic.

It has perfect relevance - many trains in the regions (I don't like this terminology "the north," as I feel that the South West and Midlands are similar too) are far less frequent and shorter than those operating into London - of course you've a few exceptions but they are few and far between.

It's rare even during the day to have an empty seat on the local lines around Birmingham - but they are still required to be propped up with external funding. Also, contrary to popular belief, the Integrated Kent franchise will actually receive a subsidy in all years bar the final, probably due to the excessive amount of rolling stock required for the peak services (even that isn't enough) and the comparative lack of use in certain areas when you get outside Greater London.

If I were to decide in what way to invest the limited pot of money, I'd probably devise a formula that takes into account increased modal shift (something which is greater with the regional schemes) with the economic, social and environmental benefits.

 

[ukrob]

Anywhere in the UK, whether a train is one carriage or 12 carriages, if it is at 150% capacity, it is at 150% capacity, the length of the train has no relevance to that statistic.

It has perfect relevance - many trains in the regions (I don't like this terminology "the north," as I feel that the South West and Midlands are similar too) are far less frequent and shorter than those operating into London - of course you've a few exceptions but they are few and far between.

No - look at the maths. 150% is 150% wherever you are in the world.

 

[Mojo]

No - look at the maths. 150% is 150% wherever you are in the world.

In many cases to increase capacity you can just add an extra carriage or two, however in large parts of the country the platforms, electricity and other infrastructure is already at maximum.

I have looked at the maths and 150% of a 2 car train running half-hourly is a hell of a lot less than 150% of a 12-car train running every 10 minutes.

 

[ukrob]

In many cases to increase capacity you can just add an extra carriage or two, however in large parts of the country the platforms, electricity and other infrastructure is already at maximum.

Ah, yes, I keep forgetting that Northern have all these extra carriages sitting around doing nothing

I have looked at the maths and 150% of a 2 car train running half-hourly is a hell of a lot less than 150% of a 12-car train running every 10 minutes.

I think you are missing my point, and therefore we are driving the thread off on a tangent.

If a train is at 150% capacity it is at 150% capacity. There can not be any ifs or buts. If a Class 153 is at 150% capacity it is at 150% capacity. If a 12 car 350 is at 150% capacity it is at 150% capacity.

I would also be impressed if you could show me a 12 car service which runs 6 times per hour which all run at 150% capacity throughout the day... I could name the two car ones. You seem to think that people don't actually matter if they use 2 car trains.

 

[Mojo]

If a train is at 150% capacity it is at 150% capacity. There can not be any ifs or buts. If a Class 153 is at 150% capacity it is at 150% capacity. If a 12 car 350 is at 150% capacity it is at 150% capacity.

And what relevance does that have to this discussion? A train with 100 people on it does not have as many people as a train with 1,000 people on board. Even if a train was only at 90% capacity, it's still possible to be on a more popular and more important route.

I would also be impressed if you could show me a 12 car service which runs 6 times per hour which all run at 150% capacity throughout the day.

There probably aren't any, which is exactly what I said in my previous post, about how there are loads of carriages not being very efficient.

You seem to think that people don't actually matter if they use 2 car trains.

I spent several years and a huge amount of my time campaigning and working hard across an area where the main traction is 2-car pacers and other units, and still to this day am part of the line working group for one of the lines.

 

[whoshotjimmi]

Mojo - the point Ukrob is making about 150% capacity makes a lot of sense and actually bears relevance to this thread quite well.

The thread is about southern bias. If we take a 12 car train running at 150%, it would require an extra 6 cars to make it 100%. A 2 car train at 150% requires 1 extra car.

Bear with me here! The expenditure in the South/London is perfectly justified in order to maintain capacity. The point is that proportionally, money is more readily available in the south. Never was good at Maths but let's have a go!

If a carriage (hypothetically) costs £1m and holds 50 people (i use these figures as the numbers are much easier to work with!), then a southern operator would require 6 cars totalling £6m and dealing with 300 people which is £20k per passenger. A non-london train would require 1 car totalling £1m and dealing with 50 people which is also £20k per passenger.

Obviously, the figures I use are just used to explain a point. Why then is £20k per passenger more likely to be spent in the South than not?

Ukrob also make a very valid point about many non London services being full all day, not just at peak times unlike London.

 

[Mojo]

The thread is about southern bias. If we take a 12 car train running at 150%, it would require an extra 6 cars to make it 100%. A 2 car train at 150% requires 1 extra car.

Which is exactly the problem Metroland and I have already raised. In many areas the capacity problems relate to running short trains where the only constraint to running longer vehicles is rolling stock. In many other areas, particularly in London & South East, but also on other routes in the regions is the physical constraints of the infrastructure.

 

[me123]

Southeastern are getting more electrostars? I thought it was Southern (subleased to FCC)?

Yeah, seemed odd to me. Probably an error on the ever reliable wikipedia.

 

[whoshotjimmi]

Which is exactly the problem Metroland and I have already raised. In many areas the capacity problems relate to running short trains where the only constraint to running longer vehicles is rolling stock. In many other areas, particularly in London & South East, but also on other routes in the regions is the physical constraints of the infrastructure.

It still doesn't explain why London/SouthEast gets proportionally more money to spend!

 

[eezypeazy]

If a carriage (hypothetically) costs £1m and holds 50 people...

No need to hypothecate. On page 10 of this week's Rail Management, Sim Harris, in his analysis of the IEP contract award, suggests that the vehicles will cost £5 million each! Based on, say, 75 seats plus standing passengers, your cost per passenger space isn't £20,000 - it's more like £60,000.

And before anyone complains, yes, I admit I'm comparing apples and oranges. IEP carriages are quite different from regional or commuter trains. And before anyone says IEP is all about benefits to the regions, just remember where these IEP trains will terminate - after all, it could be argued that, thanks to fast trains, London is commutable from Bristol, Birmingham and York... which just adds to the south east's attractiveness to employers, and helps to reinforce the north/south (or, as was pointed out above, quite rightly, the everywhere else/London) divide.

Regards

eezypeazy

 

[Mojo]

It still doesn't explain why London/SouthEast gets proportionally more money to spend!

Using the hard figures, it may get more (but having not looked I do not know), but in proportion to what though? Population, use, economic need, modal split?

It's regional inequality and takes place all over the country. Someone in Leeds may have access to a drug that someone in Sussex doesn't; bus fares are cheaper in Birmingham than in Bristol; someone who goes to a state school in Rutland, on average, does better in school than someone in Portsmouth; hospitals score higher in the Midlands than they do in the South West and council tax is lower in Birmingham than in Bristol.

 

[eezypeazy]

Yes, Mojo, it's regional inequality. But that doesn't mean we should simply sit back and accept it!

We may all be equal, but even the most casual of observers would conclude that the south east, Scotland and Wales appear to be "more equal than others" when it comes to road and rail transport provision. I live in a town with a population of more than 10,000 people, roughly half way between Newcastle upon Tyne and Hexham, another town with not quite 10,000 residents. Yet, despite having raised some of the key players in the birth of the railways almost 200 years ago; despite having some of the lowest rates of car ownership in the UK; despite having some of the highest rates of unemployment in Europe, we are starved of investment, while the more prosperous parts of the south just keep soaking it all up.

Pub quiz question time:

1. Which is the most sparsely populated county in England?
2. Which English county hasn't a single inch of motorway?
3. Which English county is the furthest from London you can get before you reach another country?

Don't waste a stamp sending me your answer on a postcard...

Regional inequality has to be addressed by governments. Probably one of the most successful at this in the post war period was Harold Wilson's Labour government in the 1960s, which, amongst other things, "encouraged" the nationalised industries to locate research and development establishments in the north east and Midlands (British Gas); put the DVLA in Swansea and the Ministry of Pensions in Newcastle; and ensured naval bases went to Scotland. (Er, by "encouraged", I mean, wouldn't stump up the cash otherwise!).

So, where does this government place the order for the IEP trains?

Japan.

'Nuff said.

Regards

eezypeazy

 

[whoshotjimmi]

Using the hard figures, it may get more (but having not looked I do not know), but in proportion to what though? Population, use, economic need, modal split?

It's regional inequality and takes place all over the country. Someone in Leeds may have access to a drug that someone in Sussex doesn't; bus fares are cheaper in Birmingham than in Bristol; someone who goes to a state school in Rutland, on average, does better in school than someone in Portsmouth; hospitals score higher in the Midlands than they do in the South West and council tax is lower in Birmingham than in Bristol.

Maybe that post starts to explain the overriding problem a little better. As Eezypeezy says, we are all equal, but some are more equal than others.

 

[tbtc]

Regional inequality has to be addressed by governments. Probably one of the most successful at this in the post war period was Harold Wilson's Labour government in the 1960s, which, amongst other things, "encouraged" the nationalised industries to locate research and development establishments in the north east and Midlands (British Gas); put the DVLA in Swansea and the Ministry of Pensions in Newcastle; and ensured naval bases went to Scotland. (Er, by "encouraged", I mean, wouldn't stump up the cash otherwise!)

That's a very good point.

Have you see the huge fuss made about Radio Five moving from London to Manchester - as if anywhere outside the M25 is a backwater...

Sadly we live in one of the two most "capital centric" countries in the world (Japan is the other) - everything big and important is in London. Countries like Germany split their investment and benefits around, but the UK tends to keep most of it in the capital.

However, whilst it'd be nice if politicians tackled this "bias", our railways have to live in the real world and allocate their investments and resources based on demand.

As a Scot living in Yorkshire, I've no problem with investment on Crossrail, the East London Line, the Channel Tunnel Rail Link and other "London" projects, as long as we have a fair share too.

The government have spend millions adding an extra lane to parts of the M1 motorway in the East Midlands - that's the money that could have been spent upgrading the Midland Main Line, regardless of train improvements around London - we're picking the wrong battles to fight.

 

[jopsuk]

Sadly we live in one of the two most "capital centric" countries in the world (Japan is the other) - everything big and important is in London. Countries like Germany split their investment and benefits around, but the UK tends to keep most of it in the capital.

that's very much a historical thing- modern Germany is still very much a federal state.

 

[tbtc]

that's very much a historical thing- modern Germany is still very much a federal state.

True, but there's not another European country which is as centralised as the UK (if you ignore a "city state" like Luxemborg, of course!).

It's regrettable that we're so dominated by one city (meaning the economy is very lop sided), but the railways needs to deal with the way the country is (and not the way the country *might* be in an ideal world).

Anyway, we're maybe getting some Pacers from FGW in a year or two - who said there's no investment on Northern Rail?

 

[Metroland]

Maybe that is what you think 'the north' is like.

Well first of all I've lived in the North of England several times and probably have been to more parts of it than you have.

Anywhere in the UK, whether a train is one carriage or 12 carriages, if it is at 150% capacity, it is at 150% capacity, the length of the train has no relevance to that statistic.

Your example at the bottom of your post fails also. That is very easily explained - there is no spare capacity between Manchester and Sheffield, so more people can not physically use the train!

While it is true that its the 'above capacity per train statistic' that counts, especially as far as the passenger is concerned, the point is most of the capacity problems in the north can be solved by adding extra carriages. This is substantially cheaper than building deep underground lines in the soft clay of the Thames basin, hence the current disparity between spending.

Most regional disparities occur because of economic, geographic and historic reasons - often the location of resources, agriculture, land prices, the local labour force, skills and level of education, immigration and emigration, climate, topography and so on. Its not really a straight forward question of improving transport links and things get miraculously improved.

Transport is an 'enabler' and there has to be a number of other factors before you see economic growth in a particular area. Indeed, in some cases improved transport links can make economies worse! For example, labour forces can migrate to larger cities, enabled by cheap and faster links, putting rural areas into poverty. This is why the world's population has tended to urbanise since the industrial revolution. Companies can relocate warehouses and factories to take advantage of cheaper costs elsewhere, actually raising unemployment in an area among certain sectors. To a certain extent this is actually what happened to the North of England, whose finished goods were unable to compete with those abroad because of improved transport like shipping containerisation and the rising cost of the production of minerals.

I don't think anyone disagrees with the premise of targeted spending to improve local infrastructure and employment opportunities. Vast economic disparities between regions or rich and poor is not especially efficient, nor a good building base for a fair economy with opportunity for all. But it is not simply a case of throwing good money here and there, when there are different needs and patterns of urban and industrial development. As it has already been pointed out, per head, the government actually spends the least in the SE and the most in the NE and parts of the NW. So I'm not entirely sure, where you think the conspiracy actually is?

 

[ukrob]

Well first of all I've lived in the North of England several times and probably have been to more parts of it than you have.

Considering you have no idea who I actually am apart from an alias on the Internet, nor know anything about me or where I live, or if my work involves travelling ir not, thats a ridicolous statement, trying to point score

While it is true that its the 'above capacity per train statistic' that counts, especially as far as the passenger is concerned, the point is most of the capacity problems in the north can be solved by adding extra carriages. This is substantially cheaper than building deep underground lines in the soft clay of the Thames basin, hence the current disparity between spending.

Yet there is no funding for that because the money keeps being spend (rightly or wrongly) on a small area around the capital. You are the second person to say "the north can add more carriages". Everyone knows that. The point is that it doesn't happen.

 

[Metroland]

Well then don't make patronising statements, as if everyone from south of Watford never travels north.

There is no money, because most of the money is spent on providing any sort of a train service at all, in fact the highest subsidy per passenger KM in England, apart from the Isle of Wight. If politicians are going to spend the money, they most make the case the money they are spending is value for money. The case for which is not derived from emotive points about spending money elsewhere, it is concluded from the local situation and the current demand in that area. If you don't like this, I have already made suggestions about how that can be turned round.

I'd like to see an improved service, don't get me wrong, but I am only pointing out the facts.

 

[ukrob]

I'd like to see an improved service, don't get me wrong, but I am only pointing out the facts.

As am I.

Nor have I begrudged the south getting money spent on them.

 

[Metroland]

You are not pointing out the facts because you patently don't know what you are talking about. I'm not trying to be rude, but you would do well to do your homework.

Rail investment has always been assessed on a line-by-line basis, based on demand and business cases. There is no conspiracy operating to deny any part of the country less investment than other parts. You might not like this, it might not be what you want to hear, but its how it works. While I realise demand can be increased by investment, that is very much needs to be assessed in the locality rather than running brand new 8 car trains which have a handful of passengers on.

As the government is already paying more of a Northern rail passenger's ticket than virtually anywhere else (and I'm not saying they shouldn't, it actually offers good value for money) people in that area are already getting more help overall, although obviously line-by-line it varies. As they are getting more help, I'm not entirely sure what your beef is.

 

[ukrob]

You are not pointing out the facts because you patently don't know what you are talking about. I'm not trying to be rude, but you would do well to do your homework.

Yes, actually, I am stating facts. Just because they are not facts you have typed, that does not mean that they are not facts. Could you show me where I have put an inaccurate fact? And if you are going to try and nitpick, the word you want it 'blatently'.

 

[90019]

And if you are going to try and nitpick, the word you want it 'blatently'.

Firstly, "Blatantly"
Secondly; Patently - Adverb. In a patent manner; openly, plainly, or clearly. i.e. "A patently false statement."

 

[ukrob]

Firstly, "Blatantly"

Yes, a typo I made.

And your contribution to the topic?

 

[Metroland]

Patently means clearly. You clearly to me don't seem to understand is something is heavily subsidised already (and the main reason for that is loads are lower overall, and for the figures I've seen that is the case for northern) then it does need tend to attract as much investment as something which either pays for itself or provides more of a return for government money. Economics 101.

If the business case is strong, then projects tend to attract more money from either private sources or the government. Or when you operate your personal finances do you just throw money here and there on things you don't need, or are not as needed? Would you be happy for politicians to just throw your taxes away?

I really can't be any clearer than that.

While the take up for the Merseyrail area is good, and produces a TOC operating surplus - and maybe that's because they had a good business case to invest anyway, the same cannot be said for other lines. However, these things are frequently assessed, and should the business case be there, I would find it surprising if the TOCs didn't invest.

I'd like the Northern lines to be the best in the world, but their destiny really does rely on local politicians and local people. Its got nothing, whatsoever, do to with people in the South of England.

 

[ukrob]

Patently means clearly. You clearly to me don't seem to understand is something is heavily subsidised already (and the main reason for that is loads are lower overall, and for the figures I've seen that is the case for northern) then it does need tend to attract as much investment as something which either pays for itself or provides more of a return for government money. Economics 101.

I was assuming you were wanting the word blatantly, which would of course have the same effect in that context .

I have not once mentioned subsidies, therefore you have no idea if I 'understand' them or not. All I have done is pointed out facts. I have not once mentioned how things are financed, therefore I can't possible be wrong about it, or told I don't understand it.

 

[90019]

Yes, a typo I made.

And your contribution to the topic?

Nothing yet, I've decided not to rant much on this, and I felt like being pedantic.

If you really want a contribution, here's my opinion:
the north got newer trains before the south did, up until recently, the south was still running some mk1 body MUs, meanwhile, the north had newer mk3 bodied MUs and Pacers too. Now the south has upgraded stock and has better stuff than the north, compared to before when the north had better.
The north will eventually get newer stock, but it is of a higher priority to replace the mk1 stock running in the south that is going on 50 years old than to repalce pacers, which are only going on 20. The south was running some very old stock that was much in need of replacement, and as such would be deemed more important to replace these before strengthening or replacing trains in the north as there is a much higher demand in the south because the country is so centred around the capital.

 

[ukrob]

If you really want a contribution, here's my opinion:
the north got newer trains before the south did, up until recently, the south was still running some mk1 body MUs, meanwhile, the north had newer mk3 bodied MUs and Pacers too. Now the south has upgraded stock and has better stuff than the north, compared to before when the north had better.
The north will eventually get newer stock, but it is of a higher priority to replace the mk1 stock running in the south that is going on 50 years old than to repalce pacers, which are only going on 20. The south was running some very old stock that was much in need of replacement, and as such would be deemed more important to replace these before strengthening or replacing trains in the north as there is a much higher demand in the south because the country is so centred around the capital.

I agree with all that. And I think we all know that the souths new stock which replaced mk1 stock will be running until the day it is falling apart - just the same as the norths will be. Like I said in an earlier post, I don't begrudge the south at all for having all the new stock as what they had was life expired and some would say dangerous (slam doors, crash worthiness blah blah etc).

Personally, I don't actually care if stock I use is one year old or 30 years old as long as it is does its job, an isn't too overcrowded. I'm not stupid enough to think that I will always get a seat in peaktimes, but without any exageration at all, not actually being able to get on is unacceptable. Especially when the service is half hourly.

Genuine question - which routes in the 'south' have that problem?