Railway Implications of the 2021 Elections

[snowball]

Maybe they would have put back the east bore of Copenhagen tunnel too if the 1970s flyover hadn't been in the way!

However I'm sure the 1970s flyover must be a net benefit overall.

 

[squizzler]

I *very* much doubt it. There might be a bit of noise in a couple of places, but don't forget Birmingham / West Mids, Manchester, Liverpool and others are largely unaffected by this.

And technically the number of people travelling is still much reduced due to Covid - many people are still under a directive from their employers to work from home.

More likely, their in trays will be full of the usual stuff - complaints about planning applications, police numbers, anti-social behaviour, potholes in roads, the state of the local hospital, litter and the multitude of other local issues they get embroiled in.

The state of railway connectivity is a massive deal for regional assemblies, mayors. Note the importance of the Northern Powerhouse Rail and Midlands Engine to discourse of Manchester and West Midlands mayoralties. The AT300 situation will not have done any harm at all by maintaining rail as the hottest issue in transport.

I am slightly surprised that the effective cutting off of the capitals of Wales and Scotland (not to mention Cornwall) in the immediate aftermath of the elections has not been reported as some sort of omen for the future of British unity. I guess the press I read is London Centric (Daily Telegraph) and this is more likely seen as a portent of devolution in the affected nations and regions by independence minded media.

 

[Ianno87]

Maybe they would have put back the east bore of Copenhagen tunnel too if the 1970s flyover hadn't been in the way!

However I'm sure the 1970s flyover must be a net benefit overall.

That was the theme of the 1970s/80s rationalisations. On paper it looks like less track, but the "reduced" layout was often more functional with higher speeds.

 

[Snow1964]

As a direct reply to question in title, I think political effect will be seen in round 3 of reopening your railway when results are announced

I predict (speculation) 60% (by value) of schemes approved will be in newly Conservative areas, with 25% in other marginal areas, and remaining 15% scattered in the geographic gaps (so doesn’t look like any part of England missed out)

 

[Purple Orange]

As a direct reply to question in title, I think political effect will be seen in round 3 of reopening your railway when results are announced

I predict (speculation) 60% (by value) of schemes approved will be in newly Conservative areas, with 25% in other marginal areas, and remaining 15% scattered in the geographic gaps (so doesn’t look like any part of England missed out)

I’d take a slightly different view and say one end of a new/upgraded/re-opened line will be in a Tory held seat, but the other will be in a Labour held seat. The communities that want rail connections are wanting a rail link to their nearest city reinstated and inevitably will include new stations in the Labour areas as well as the Tory areas. The talk of re-opening the Northumberland line and the Leamside line all connect Newcastle, Gateshead, Washington & Sunderland (strong Labour areas) with some of the red wall that fell (but only some).

 

[A0]

The state of railway connectivity is a massive deal for regional assemblies, mayors. Note the importance of the Northern Powerhouse Rail and Midlands Engine to discourse of Manchester and West Midlands mayoralties. The AT300 situation will not have done any harm at all by maintaining rail as the hottest issue in transport.

I am slightly surprised that the effective cutting off of the capitals of Wales and Scotland (not to mention Cornwall) in the immediate aftermath of the elections has not been reported as some sort of omen for the future of British unity. I guess the press I read is London Centric (Daily Telegraph) and this is more likely seen as a portent of devolution in the affected nations and regions by independence minded media.

There's alot of hyperbole in your post which undermines your argument.

The capitals of Wales and Scotland haven't been "cut off" or anything even close to it. There are trains running to and from Edinburgh - LNER are running a pretty regular timetable on that. There are train services from Cardiff heading to Bristol, Portsmouth, Birmingham, Nottingham and Manchester. Plus coaches, plus airlines.

The mayors of Manchester and West Mids (the two biggest areas) are completely unaffected by this. And they are, rightly, far more concerned by issues such as attracting businesses and jobs to their areas, redeveloping parts of their regions etc - a current problem with one type of train won't even be in the top 50 of their concerns let alone a "burning issue".

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 May 2021 ==

As a direct reply to question in title, I think political effect will be seen in round 3 of reopening your railway when results are announced

I predict (speculation) 60% (by value) of schemes approved will be in newly Conservative areas, with 25% in other marginal areas, and remaining 15% scattered in the geographic gaps (so doesn’t look like any part of England missed out)

Which will be because they have the best benefits case realisation, not because of who the MP is. The Public Accounts Committee will scrutinise all spending as will the National Audit Office.

Rail schemes in England have to meet their BCR - we already know the SNP is less concerned by such things though - see Borders Rail.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 May 2021 ==

Maybe they would have put back the east bore of Copenhagen tunnel too if the 1970s flyover hadn't been in the way!

However I'm sure the 1970s flyover must be a net benefit overall.

It absolutely was of benefit - it allowed suburban services to cross from east - west on the approach to Kings X without blocking the fast lines (up or down) which allowed other services to arrive and depart at the same time. The suburban platforms are on the west side of the station hence the need for the flyover. It was the same reason the flyover was put in at Welwyn GC at that time - to allow the then new Moorgate electric services which arrived on the west side of the station to terminate on the loop platform and then leave and get to the London bound slow on the east side without blocking the other lines when crossing. The new Moorgate electric service was also more frequent than the previous DMU services.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

What was this recklessness? Freezing fares was covered by savings elsewhere. As far as I can recall Kahn has been incredibly cautious and not done anything that could be called remotely reckless - in all very disappointing in terms of delivering anything

As I've already pointed out, at a time when financial caution was obviously advisable reversing a policy of raising fares which had proven to be a success constitutes negligence. You refer to savings, a smooth and glib term put about by Khan's publicity team. This so-called saving involved curtailing several bus services with the result that bus patronage in London has gone down markedly and re-financing the trains via a sell-and-lease-back arrangement which will cost more in the long run and will not be a saving at all.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 May 2021 ==

I'm glad you asked that - I was wondering myself!

Other than the fare freeze and introducing the ability to start a second journey within the hour (which seems a pretty logical idea, and probably saves TfL a few quid in terms of allowing them to trim some routes back whilst still allowing passengers to complete the same journeys), I'm struggling to think of much you can really pin on Khan

His predecessor came up with various stunts and expensive proposals that didn't really deliver much (the expense of the bespoke NB4L, the cable car, the "Garden Bridge"), yet people portray Khan as someone who plays fast and loose with public finances... really?

You're over-simplifying the issues. It is quite possible to dislike and despise both Johnson and Khan. It is not a case that that if one was bad, the other must be reasonably good. You need to look into how Khan has tried to re-balance the books and also to ask why, as has been pointed out, Khan has achieved so little during his five years in office.

 

[edwin_m]

Which will be because they have the best benefits case realisation, not because of who the MP is. The Public Accounts Committee will scrutinise all spending as will the National Audit Office.

Rail schemes in England have to meet their BCR - we already know the SNP is less concerned by such things though - see Borders Rail.

It's actually very subjective which schemes go ahead. That's clear right back to Beeching, where closures were less likely in marginal constituencies. But Johnson's record is worse than most on this. I'm pretty sure the Dangleway had no business case, the Garden Bridge project spent enough public money to buy the trains for the Northern Line extension and achieved nothing, and buying an "iconic" bus achieved no obvious benefit for the considerable extra cost. In government there has been the waste of money on ineffective test and trace, and the gifting of contracts to cronies. The Public Accounts Committee normally has a majority from the ruling party.

 

[Mikey C]

It's actually very subjective which schemes go ahead. That's clear right back to Beeching, where closures were less likely in marginal constituencies. But Johnson's record is worse than most on this. I'm pretty sure the Dangleway had no business case, the Garden Bridge project spent enough public money to buy the trains for the Northern Line extension and achieved nothing, and buying an "iconic" bus achieved no obvious benefit for the considerable extra cost. In government there has been the waste of money on ineffective test and trace, and the gifting of contracts to cronies. The Public Accounts Committee normally has a majority from the ruling party.

To take one example, the Borismaster (and removing bendy buses) was a specific promise in his manifesto, and he delivered it. You might not think it was a benefit, others might disagree

And those London examples are nothing to do with marginal constituencies, it's a London Mayor choosing to do things in London. Which is their job, and if you don't like it you vote for someone else

 

[A0]

It's actually very subjective which schemes go ahead. That's clear right back to Beeching, where closures were less likely in marginal constituencies. But Johnson's record is worse than most on this. I'm pretty sure the Dangleway had no business case, the Garden Bridge project spent enough public money to buy the trains for the Northern Line extension and achieved nothing, and buying an "iconic" bus achieved no obvious benefit for the considerable extra cost. In government there has been the waste of money on ineffective test and trace, and the gifting of contracts to cronies. The Public Accounts Committee normally has a majority from the ruling party.

I don't believe there's any reasonable evidence that 'marginals' saw their lines saved under Beeching where safe seats (presumably held by the government) didn't.

The one Beeching closure where there may have been politically machinations occurred under Wilson - the decision to retain the Heart of Wales, but to close the Borders Line. The two were *very* similar in terms of use, costs, population served etc. The HoW survived and it is believed George Thomas lobbied Wilson extensively in support of the HoW which ran through and served several Labour constituencies. It's reasonable to argue either both should have been retained or both closed. The northern end of the Borders line was a Liberal held seat (David Steel), but Dumfries was a Tory / Labour marginal back then.

 

[edwin_m]

To take one example, the Borismaster (and removing bendy buses) was a specific promise in his manifesto, and he delivered it. You might not think it was a benefit, others might disagree

And those London examples are nothing to do with marginal constituencies, it's a London Mayor choosing to do things in London. Which is their job, and if you don't like it you vote for someone else

As people did (but not me, as I don't live there). Not directly related to marginal constituencies, but another example of how political factors come into play in deciding what transport schemes should go ahead.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 May 2021 ==

I don't believe there's any reasonable evidence that 'marginals' saw their lines saved under Beeching where safe seats (presumably held by the government) didn't.

The one Beeching closure where there may have been politically machinations occurred under Wilson - the decision to retain the Heart of Wales, but to close the Borders Line. The two were *very* similar in terms of use, costs, population served etc. The HoW survived and it is believed George Thomas lobbied Wilson extensively in support of the HoW which ran through and served several Labour constituencies. It's reasonable to argue either both should have been retained or both closed. The northern end of the Borders line was a Liberal held seat (David Steel), but Dumfries was a Tory / Labour marginal back then.

How does the Borders line affect Dumfries? It's certainly well outside the present constituency, and I can't imagine any significant place on the Waverley route was ever within its boundary - partly because there weren't any significant places on the southern part of the route.

 

[A0]

As people did (but not me, as I don't live there). Not directly related to marginal constituencies, but another example of how political factors come into play in deciding what transport schemes should go ahead.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 May 2021 ==


How does the Borders line affect Dumfries? It's certainly well outside the present constituency, and I can't imagine any significant place on the Waverley route was ever within its boundary - partly because there weren't any significant places on the southern part of the route.

It would have been the closest railway for the bit of Dumfries-shire around Langholm - I agree, not particularly populous, but it would have doubtless led to a few voters writing to their local MP.

The point I'm making is when you compare the Waverley with HOWL - the two were basket cases of a similar scale, but one ran through Labour consistencies and miraculously got saved, but I think that was exceptional. I can't think of others where the political complexion of the seats had a bearing on the final closure (even unofficially).

 

[MarkyT]

Bib - that is a gross misrepresentation of reality.

Perhaps you'd like to tell us about all the rail improvements and investment which took place during Labour's last term of office ? (Hint, there wasn't much. And they deliberately pushed Railtrack into administration which was irresponsible). TFL, one of Labour's pet projects is a financial basket case and has the financial discipline of an incontinent puppy.

You'll need to provide evidence to support your claim of "Tory disdain" for the railways, and I'll give you a tip, before you try repeating quotes attributed to Margaret Thatcher, do your research and find sources which confirm them - somebody else on these forums didn't do that recently, and had to backtrack when asked for evidence.

If you're talking about me I looked for evidence, found non and admitted I was wrong, that is all. There is no proof on record she expressed the oft repeated statement in public that anyone using public transport over the age of 30 was a failure. However I am certain she was no fan of railways, and I think her early government hoped the industry would just fade into irrelevance and start to contract after the economic and labour difficulties of the early 1980s. Many on the right, particularly the libertarian tendancy, seem to have a US derived visceral hatred of public transport of all kinds. However in UK, at least in recent decades, it can't be denied that more capital has been spent on railway projects during Tory administrations than under labour (old or new). That may be at least partly down to the length of planning and construction timescales which for anything beyond the smallest schemes often exceed the tenure of particular governments.

 

[geordieblue]

However in UK, at least in recent decades, it can't be denied that more capital has been spent on railway projects during Tory administrations than under labour (old or new). That may be at least partly down to the length of planning and construction timescales which for anything beyond the smallest schemes often exceed the tenure of particular governments.

Of course, the Tories have been in government for around 35 of the last 50 years.

 

[Jozhua]

Just because the Tories are somehow worse than New Labour for rail, doesn't mean New Labour was good.

To be honest, even the Greens don't really understand rail that much, outside of a few members of the party.

Ultimately, most of the politicians come from places where rail is already fairly good, or they rarely, if ever, use it.

New Labour did zero growth contracts, the Tories did austerity and in the meantime they shout and yell at each other over the pile of mistakes that they have both played a hand in causing.

That said, the Tories have been in power for a decade now. If they genuinely care about public transport, there is no reason we should have made as little progress as we have.

 

[WAO]

the Tories did austerity

I think that they did GWEP and NWEP as well, even if NR messed up.

WAO

 

[leytongabriel]

I don't believe there's any reasonable evidence that 'marginals' saw their lines saved under Beeching where safe seats (presumably held by the government) didn't.

The one Beeching closure where there may have been politically machinations occurred under Wilson - the decision to retain the Heart of Wales, but to close the Borders Line. The two were *very* similar in terms of use, costs, population served etc. The HoW survived and it is believed George Thomas lobbied Wilson extensively in support of the HoW which ran through and served several Labour constituencies. It's reasonable to argue either both should have been retained or both closed. The northern end of the Borders line was a Liberal held seat (David Steel), but Dumfries was a Tory / Labour marginal back then.

Wasn't the point that the HoW line ran through a good number of highly marginal constituencies, not just that some of them were labour-held?

 

[Ianno87]

I think that they did GWEP and NWEP as well, even if NR messed up.

WAO

Both initiated under Labour in 2009. But the Tories continued them post-2010 (and I think are the ones to be thanked for expanding NWEP to beyond just Liverpool-Manchester as was announced in 2009)

 

[A0]

Wasn't the point that the HoW line ran through a good number of highly marginal constituencies, not just that some of them were labour-held?

The HOWL constituencies (only two really in Wales) weren't marginals - they were "safe" Labour seats with +5000 majorities in the 1950s and 60s, whereas the Waverley's main constituency was marginal, but Conservative / Liberal in those days.

 

[WAO]

Both initiated under Labour in 2009. But the Tories continued them post-2010 (and I think are the ones to be thanked for expanding NWEP to beyond just Liverpool-Manchester as was announced in 2009)

Yes, after 12 years of doing nothing and only months from losing office and not having to find the cash. Lord Adonis also initiated a raft of schemes beyond NR's reduced capacity resulting in the GWEP disaster and the eclipse of UK high speed rolling stock design.

WAO

 

[Bald Rick]

It's actually very subjective which schemes go ahead. That's clear right back to Beeching, where closures were less likely in marginal constituencies. But Johnson's record is worse than most on this. I'm pretty sure the Dangleway had no business case, the Garden Bridge project spent enough public money to buy the trains for the Northern Line extension and achieved nothing, and buying an "iconic" bus achieved no obvious benefit for the considerable extra cost. In government there has been the waste of money on ineffective test and trace, and the gifting of contracts to cronies. The Public Accounts Committee normally has a majority from the ruling party.

I’m not going to dispute any of this, but given current Treasury support for the rail industry, it’s inconceivable that any Restoring your Railway projects without a positive business case will proceed.

How those with a positive case are prioritised is of course a different matter.