Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
That may have been true in the past, but let's look at what Labour are saying now: "I think putting a cap on investment, as the government has, is a false economy. It’s a cap on ambition and a cap on productivity." Keir Starmer yesterday. You can run a tight ship and not impose artificial limits on investment. They are not mutually exclusive.
I agree that's probably what Sunak said. But it's a ridiculous thing to say. HS2 eastern leg is either worth doing or not. If a government is insistent on imposing an annual budget cap on investment spending then build it in phases. Or get a grip on the gross levels of inflation seen in the project. Or redirect from some of the vastly expensive road schemes they are pushing through.
Cancelling the eastern leg and stopping NPR in the middle of the pennines are political choices, not the result of some insurmountable law of nature.
Labour do have a coherent strategy for rail - it was more or less lifted wholesale by the Tories when they announced the formation of GBR (with added sops to the private sector). Have you been following what Tan Dhesi has been saying? He clearly 'gets' rail.
If I may make a general point, there seems to be a pervasive air of resignation in the country - "the Tories are terrible but no one else could do a better job", and it's wrong on two counts. Firstly, it lets the Tories completely off the hook - they are without a shadow of a doubt the worst government in my lifetime and the sooner they are replaced the better. And secondly, it's a view which studiously ignores doing any kind of objective assessment of comparative achievements of Tory and Labour governments over the last 30 years. Of course we can point to some significant failings of any government, but taking an overarching view on economic performance and investment, Labour is clearly streets ahead. But clearly Labour have a significant job to persuade voters of this, if comments on here are anything to go by.
(Note to mods - I appreciate this thread is straying off the original point. Happy for it to be moved to the general discussion sub-forum)
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I was responding to the objection that the Metro mayors aren't getting on with the job of day to day improvements in transport. I was pointing out that they are constrained from doing so by government red tape. And yes you're right, evidently that's due to government bus legislation which still fails to give Metro Mayors in other cities the powers that TfL has over buses. And yes, that clearly is the government's fault. If they had any interest in allowing local leaders to improve local transport they would pass legislation giving Metro Mayors those powers. They could gain cross party agreement to do so allowing the legislation to pass through parliament quickly.
I took your advice and sought out the published views of Tan Dhesi, the Shadow Rail Minister via Google; other search engines are available.....
There was very little of relevance on his website. A letter about horse tethering and another about a bus lane in Slough. Nothing that would suggest that he is spearheading a grand plan for England's rail network. I hope he "gets" rail; if he doesn't then he's not a great choice as Rail Minister!
As for his boss Jim McMahon, he comes across as one of the least impressive members of the Shadow Cabinet, despite having plenty of competition for that title.
Given Starmer's difficulties on HS1, which I do understand because of his constituency, he would have been better advised to let McMahon lead on this. By coming out against IPR (so quickly he can't have actually assimilated it all) he let himself be accused of flip flopping.
If this government had a bottomless pit of money, then HS2b and NPR would both no doubt have been built.
Unfortunately the financial impact of the pandemic has changed the situation for all public services. I disagree fundamentally with your view that the IPR is a dog's breakfast. To me it looks like a reasonable attempt to deliver as much as possible within the financial constraints the UK finds itself in. What would you do differently given the money isn't there to do it all?
Unfortunately the financial impact of the pandemic has changed the situation for all public services. I disagree fundamentally with your view that the IPR is a dog's breakfast. To me it looks like a reasonable attempt to deliver as much as possible within the financial constraints the UK finds itself in. What would you do differently given the money isn't there to do it all?
Yes, usually when enormous amounts of money are spent by govt, they pore over it for ages. When it's war or a pandemic, then the problem is initially unquantifiable, so the human reaction is to panic and all normal financial probity is forgotten. Money was thrown at the problem, made worse by 'people will die' mantra (which they do anyway). This meant that it can now be seen that ridiculous amounts of money have been spent to save a relatively small number of people many of whom might have died anyway UK pop circa 68,000,000 deaths 138,000 or so associated with covid. Of course if any of those who died was a loved one, then it's a personal tragedy, but policy should not be determined by individual heartbreaking stories. The result is spending cannot go on forever and rail has to live within its means now, not 10 years ago.
Shocked at lack of listening. Not integrated, not a plan. Building on Victorian infrastructure. Annoyed, betrayed (stop in Bradford).
How connect Leeds and Sheffield? £100m for (another) feasibility study?
Mitigations for TP. Just a bad week for Boris Johnson? A bad two decades for W Yorkshire
TfN have done all the work – and ignored
Steve Rotheram (Liverpool CR mayor)
If you believed the spin, it does everything we asked for. 6 years putting forward something deliverable and affordable. Expected to be grateful for a sub-optimal proposal.
Liverpool City Region made concessions to get a consensus - now we get a cheap and nasty option
Can have a station if we pay for it ourselves. Didn’t say that for CrossRail… (NB see Burnham below)
Whitehall made it difficult for TfN, and now taking it back in house. No longer co-client, but co-sponsor
Fiddling times for Liverpool-Manchester.
5 and 7 years of economic detriment (by using existing lines)
Possible withdrawal of support for the curtailed scheme (better off without NPR?)!
Trebling amount of trains between L&M ? Nonsense.
Where’s the additional freight capacity for ports (Liverpool / Hull) - especially Liverpool if trade deal with America.
Hull guy
Slide 2 - Hull removed from network…
(Chair: "so’s Chester and North Wales")
Hans Mundry (Warrington)
It's make do and mend
Should have started in the north and taken it south (or start at both ends)
Fast train going past places – no opportunity for those places to grow. Building up timetable problems for the future.
Support each other, particularly Yorkshire.
Mark (business and LEPs)
Connectivity across whole of north
Delays to IRP; uncertainty for business dampens growth
Practical disruption (10 years on main TP route)
Craig Brown (Cheshire East)
Less levelling up, more like levelling off.
Hull & E Yorks LEP - no mention of East Yorkshire
(Jamie Tyne & Wear / Durham / Northumberland guy) PM asked at CBI about investment in Leamside line, replied about south of M62. Whitehall doesn’t understand. Nothing in IRP, full of coulds and shoulds. TFN’s work under threat. Protect union with Scotland, this will promote independence. Get this money devolved to the north.
Liverpool guy (?)
Takes a lot to unify a Geordie and a Scouser. How much infrastructure going into London and the SE? United in anger and disappointment
North Yorks CC (Tory, Don?)
Having a go at prepared rehearsed negative political statements, without seeing technical report
Looking for positives - ECML Digital signalling; longer trains; 140 mph; more train paths
Are these schemes worth taxpayers’ money?
“Red wall Tory” (his words) (Lancs)
Conflicted
Lancashire is gutted for Yorkshire
Why no technical report, needs to be published asap
If TfN is we’re now a “co-sponsor”, TfN needs to sit with DfT to develop it
What good is it my being here on TfN? (reduced role for TfN)
Not scrapping HS2 is a massive win
South Yorks
Deep dismay, can’t overstate the anger
No clarity about Sheffield to Leeds
Andy Burnham (GM mayor)
Motion to plot a way forward from here
Manchester done better than anywhere. Not getting an underground station (unlock potential of central Manchester)
Being asked to pay for stations
Sympathising with other speakers from other places.
Motion takes what’s in the IRP, and how can it be made better?
TfN Board has always emphasised E-W connectivity
Would Board be criticised by future generations for accepting the IRP? Failing on capacity (Marsden-Leeds), failing on disruption (to existing line), failing on connectivity (e.g. Bradford – no more ambition than this?)
Solution imposed without input
Process of mediation, particularly to restore new NPR line via Bradford. “This is not politics; it’s doing what’s right for this part of the world”.
Chair (Gittens, Cheshire West & Cheshire) now adding bits (Sheffield-Leeds; Leamside; Hope Valley; Hull & E Yorks) to a motion not visible to the public but essentially about the core NPR route via Bradford….
Burnham comparing Crossrail (did have local contributions) - no-one’s committing to anything - trying to avoid a shopping list motion. CEO can capture other stuff in the accompanying letter (a statutory request to government). Burnham saying Manchester Airport can’t justify making a contribution on a line only to Marsden.
Late defence of IRP by someone (Nick from DfT; the minister didn't attend): There would be Curzon St – Manchester – Leeds trains; trying to correct various other impressions. Rotheram says that implies there is technical information that TfN Board is not party to.
Motion (whatever it is) passed unanimously.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
OOOH - a crack already?
Transport Minister answering questions on the IRP in the HofC - the £100m for feasibility in Sheffield-Leeds might conclude the eastern leg should be completed to Leeds...
Plus talks about TUPEing TfN staff to the DfT! "TfN was never a delivery body, just to draw up a plan for transport across the north" (which we can then ignore)
Government announces a £96bn investment of governrnment money in rail, principally in the North. Finds HS2 right through to Leeds is bad value, so that money is to be spent on something more worthwhile.
Quango which few have any idea what they do, who have no money and have achieved nothing to date, all spit their dummies out and whinge and whine that they haven't been made top dogs in all this.
Government announces a £96bn investment of governmrnt money in rail, principally in the North. Finds HS2 right through to Leeds is bad value, so that money is to be spent on something more worthwhile.
Quango which few have any idea what they do, who have no money and have achieved nothing to date, all spit their dummies out and whinge and whine that they haven't been made top dogs in all this.
The 'crack' regarding Sheffield to Leeds ties into a local TV piece about people living in Rother Valley constituency celebrating it had been cancelled.
They have now found out the land is still safeguarded. Local MP (a new red waller) has been advised it will take 12-18 months to 'undo' the safeguarding and he believes that is not good enough and wants it done far quicker.
That 12-18 months is long enough form this 'crack' to grow wider.
Unfortunately the financial impact of the pandemic has changed the situation for all public services. I disagree fundamentally with your view that the IPR is a dog's breakfast. To me it looks like a reasonable attempt to deliver as much as possible within the financial constraints the UK finds itself in. What would you do differently given the money isn't there to do it all?
NPR and HS2 eastern leg were years away from start of construction. How is it anything to do with our current financial circumstances? Even if it were, debt only becomes a problem when you have trouble paying it back. The UK is no where near that being an issue.
"The financial constraints the UK finds itself in" implies there is some insuperable economic law limiting infrastructure investment. This is just not the case. The Treasury has set an arbitrary rule that no more than 3% of GDP can be invested in infrastructure. This is essentially tying our own shoelaces together. There is a huge difference between setting a limit on debt incurred through day to day expenditure, which I agree with, and limiting investment, because investment pays for itself in the long term, allows the economy to grow at a faster sustainable rate, and therefore reduces debt levels over time. Other countries have a different view on investment and the advantages they accrue by doing so are plain to see. And that's how we dealt with debt in the past - for example the much larger debt we accrued in WW2 was dealt with by the 20 years of strong economic growth that followed.
In any case, the IPR was not presented as a cost saving - it was presented by the PM and SoS as delivering improvements faster, with more of a focus on local journeys. But when you read the IPR, you find that this just isn't true. The big improvements promised are delivered no quicker than previously, and even small improvements like Leeds-Bradford electrification have ridiculously long delivery timescales. Vague commitments to upgrading the ECML and Leeds-Sheffield seem to overlook the failure of the "let's upgrade existing lines instead" approach when it meets the reality of undertaking engineering work on congested existing lines. We'll end up spending billions for only marginal gains. Meanwhile, failure to build the high speed network in full means that the economic return on the billions invested in the sections which are built is significantly diminished, being held back by the inevitable bottlenecks created on the existing network. And the promise of better local services won't be delivered because existing railway lines will be filled with more and faster intercity services.
What would I do differently? (I disagree that money for investment is anything but artificially constrained, but for the sake of the argument let's say the constraint is genuine). I would build HS2 and NPR in full, in phases as money becomes available. The HS2 eastern leg splits fairly readily into three, possibly four sections. NPR also splits conveniently and logically - spur from HS2 western leg to Liverpool, Manchester to Calder Valley, Calder Valley to Leeds via Bradford, East of Leeds (the latter being best combined with HS2 to York into a single project).
Oh, behave. Why does Liverpool have this complex? I'm from there and I don't get it. There are cities that are treated far worse - as someone else pointed out it's the only city in the UK to have a fully electrified railway from its centre (it's even beaten London to that*), and only one of 3 in England to have a proper underground system (one in 4 in the whole UK). It will receive two HS2 trains per hour which is plenty of capacity given that the "peninsular" location limits its useful hinterland. I just don't get what the problem is.
* Yes I know there are DMU routes that continue beyond the wires, but it still does pretty well in comparison with Manchester, which outside of Metrolink has an appalling local rail network.
Liverpool also does much better than Sheffield which has a slightly higher population but an appalling local train service, and, of course no wires or third rail!
What would I do differently? (I disagree that money for investment is anything but artificially constrained, but for the sake of the argument let's say the constraint is genuine). I would build HS2 and NPR in full, in phases as money becomes available. The HS2 eastern leg splits fairly readily into three, possibly four sections. NPR also splits conveniently and logically - spur from HS2 western leg to Liverpool, Manchester to Calder Valley, Calder Valley to Leeds via Bradford, East of Leeds (the latter being best combined with HS2 to York into a single project).
As far as I understand none of that (build in full) is made theoretically harder by this although the business cases may have reduced for the remaining new build lines. However if your premise that money is essentially unlimited happens to be magically true then that wouldn't matter?
Essentially tfn is a quango, mainly consisting of labour politicians. They produced a couple of alternatives, but focussed on a horrendously expensive NPR which went through the unpromising topography of Bradford.
If you aren't responsible for the expenditure, then of course politically it's a bit like you saying "you can have anything you'd like, money is no object" (because we're not paying for it). Furthermore, it means that anything less than what you've dreamed up can be presented as a kick in the teeth. You knew they weren't on planet earth when they proposed a modification to put a through station in an industrial part of Bradford neither far enough out for park and ride nor near enough to anywhere in the centre people might feel safe to visit.
This plan should be seen as work in progress. Over the next 25 years, some bits may still get cancelled and some bits even added (like Leeds connection). It's fine to have a strategic vision, but delivery times for major rail schemes are so long that changes need to be considered.
Liverpool also does much better than Sheffield which has a slightly higher population but an appalling local train service, and, of course no wires or third rail!
I think just accepting that Liverpool is not hard done by would help more than anything else. Yes, Manchester gets more, but Manchester is England's second or third city in terms of importance (depending if you ask a Brummie or a Manc). Liverpool is far lower down the table in importance, though it'd be hard to say which of it, Newcastle, Bristol, Sheffield or Leeds is highest.
If nothing else Liverpool has Merseyrail, which is not only excellent but eats subsidy like there's no tomorrow, so it already punches above its weight in rail spending. It also has a fully electrified suburban network out of Lime St other than the CLC. The embarrassment that is Manchester's urban rail network doesn't come close.
Essentially tfn is a quango, mainly consisting of labour politicians. They produced a couple of alternatives, but focussed on a horrendously expensive NPR which went through the unpromising topography of Bradford.
If you aren't responsible for the expenditure, then of course politically it's a bit like you saying "you can have anything you'd like, money is no object" (because we're not paying for it). Furthermore, it means that anything less than what you've dreamed up can be presented as a kick in the teeth. You knew they weren't on planet earth when they proposed a modification to put a through station in an industrial part of Bradford neither far enough out for park and ride nor near enough to anywhere in the centre people might feel safe to visit.
This plan should be seen as work in progress. Over the next 25 years, some bits may still get cancelled and some bits even added (like Leeds connection). It's fine to have a strategic vision, but delivery times for major rail schemes are so long that changes need to be considered.
The Office of National Statistics count Liverpool Built-up Area as having a population of 864,000 in 2011, although I think that overstates it somewhat as it include St Helens, Rainford and Ashton-in-Makerfield which are functionally different to "Liverpool", and excludes Kirkby (which isn't). So you could probably knock 130,000 off that number and add on another 20,000 to get 750,000.
Sheffield Built-up Area has a population of 685,000, so smaller, but not massively so, and in the great scheme of things they're much of a muchness.
It's hard to find a figure for Manchester because the ONS don't report it for Manchester proper, but for Greater Manchester (not the Metropolitan County but a separate "Greater Manchester Built-up Area" that doesn't include Wigan but does include Alderley Edge). I'd guess the population of places that people would actually say "I'm in Manchester" would be around the 900,000 - 1,000,000 mark (i.e. including Manchester, Sale, Salford, Eccles, Ashton, Denton, etc but not including Bolton, Oldham, Rochdale and so on).
The grey area in Liverpool's case is Birkenhead (population 88,000) and Wallasey (60,000). If you consider those part of "Liverpool" (which the ONS don't) then Liverpool gets a population of 898,000, so much closer in size to Manchester's core area and quite a bit bigger than Sheffield's.
Using local authority council areas to count population isn't sensible, as these areas are just random lines on a map, which is why the ONS don't use them. Using whole City Regions is also not sensible (outside perhaps London, and then only at a push) because a service being available in e.g. Doncaster or Southport isn't much use to somebody in Barnsley or West Kirby.
Liverpool also does much better than Sheffield which has a slightly higher population but an appalling local train service, and, of course no wires or third rail!
As far as I understand none of that (build in full) is made theoretically harder by this although the business cases may have reduced for the remaining new build lines.
It depends if passive provision is maintained and land set aside (e.g. Leeds HS2 station) remains intact. Decisions on route alignment, e.g. NPR from Manchester to Marsden, will potentially affect the feasibility of building out the full network.
The business cases for building the remaining lines could well be significantly higher because of the huge benefits that would be associated with unblocking bottlenecks - in a similar way to filling in gaps in the electrified network.
That's absolutely not my premise. I've read a bit about Modern Monetary Theory and I'm rather sceptical. I'm saying we should not artificially constrain investment spending, is all. If you want to be considered as acting in good faith in this debate then don't put words in my mouth.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
The scope envisaged in TfN's strategic outline case. You will no doubt be aware that it was ready for publication earlier this year but was delayed at the request of the DfT and is now unlikely to happen. While we don't know the exact details, we do know the scope in broad terms based on public information and options mentioned and rejected in the IPR.
Which is inferior to other tram systems like Manchester and Nottingham.
Our heavy rail is pitiful really and it's an absolute joke that we somehow went from having an electrified line, to not having one for the past 51 years since its closure. It's 2021 for crying out loud!
That set out options, as all strategic outline business cases must do, for those funding the proposal to choose from.
Clearly, you can only actually pursue one option. As is now the case.
The whole raison d’être of TfN was to provide ‘The North’ with a way of deciding locally what option they wanted. It seems to me that they couldn’t agree, so the decision was taken for them.
The whole raison d’être of TfN was to provide ‘The North’ with a way of deciding locally what option they wanted. It seems to me that they couldn’t agree, so the decision was taken for them.
The whole raison d’être of TfN was to provide ‘The North’ with a way of deciding locally what option they wanted. It seems to me that they couldn’t agree, so the decision was taken for them.
They were never allowed their own cash as the DfT insisted on holding the purse strings, but they were charged with developing the case. Which is what they did.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
