Transport for the North - NPR funding stopped

[Bald Rick]

TfN have been very clear what their ask was.

From talking to those involved, I disagree.

 

[CdBrux]

From talking to those involved, I disagree.

Out of interest were TfN tasked with coming up with options (for sure) *that had a BCR >1* or something similar? I guess they weren't which allowed them to do what they did thus contributing towards setting unrealistic expectations in the minds of some / many

 

[urbophile]

Give me the Merseyrail over Supertram any day.

Yes but if you don't live in the vast swathe of the city (ie most of it) not served by it it's not much help. Yes Liverpool has a decent local rail system and the long-distance links aren't too bad. None of which is due to current government policies, and Boris Johnson has made his contempt for the city clear. Unlike the 'red wall' areas , which in any case have been kicked in the teeth with these plans, it's never likely to vote Tory so any benefits we get will be crumbs from the rich Tories' table.

 

[stephen rp]

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: 24 Nov 2021 ==


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.

So the DfT asked TfN to delay publishing the outline case, until they had time to publish the IRP which said you're not getting what you want in the outline case which we stopped you publishing - in case people saw what a good case it was?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Nov 2021 ==

i suspect this thread is skewed by (a) where people live and (b) how they vote. TfN might be "dominated" by Labour city-region mayors, but (albeit after some horse-trading over regiomal v local benefits) NPR had cross-party support (in the North), even from the "regions beyond" like West Cumbria. Local but obviously unviable stuff (e.g. a new line from Mobberley to Manchester Airport) didn't see the light of day.

 

[quantinghome]

i suspect this thread is skewed by (a) where people live and (b) how they vote. TfN might be "dominated" by Labour city-region mayors, but (albeit after some horse-trading over regiomal v local benefits) NPR had cross-party support (in the North), even from the "regions beyond" like West Cumbria. Local but obviously unviable stuff (e.g. a new line from Mobberley to Manchester Airport) didn't see the light of day.

Railways desperately need long term stability on funding and direction, which requires political consensus, at least in terms of broad strategy and nationally significant schemes. For the past 10 years or more, we have had that (give or take), which is quite remarkable given the general state of politics. HS2 and NPR were the high level schemes which allowed regions to work up local transport plans around.

Unfortunately the cuts announced last week were made without consultation or agreement with northern leaders and have therefore removed the long term consensus. That's bound to turn the whole thing into a political football, which frankly is the last thing the railways need.

 

[tbtc]

Railways desperately need long term stability on funding and direction, which requires political consensus, at least in terms of broad strategy and nationally significant schemes. For the past 10 years or more, we have had that (give or take), which is quite remarkable given the general state of politics. HS2 and NPR were the high level schemes which allowed regions to work up local transport plans around

Agreed - I don't think that people appreciated how good the railways had it despite the austerity that other "public services" suffered - we had five year NR Control Periods committing to certain levels of electrification/ upgrades, we had seven(ish) year franchise agreements that promised to maintain minimum services as well as delivering various improvements, we had fares limited to once per year in line with RPI...

...and we had a LOT of complaints about it from enthusiasts/ Unions/ Great British Public

Now the railway has lost that stability, there's no guarantee that previous commitments will ever be honoured (e.g. complaints about apparently reneging at Crewe) or that services won't be cut willy-nilly (the government run railway is now free to abandon routes like Wakefield to Huddersfield, because there's no "contract" any more) - no guarantee that lines will go back to the pre-Covid service patterns that were apparently enshrined in franchise contracts - there's nothing stopping the railway from sliding back to the short term chaos of the 1980s

Maybe we'll eventually look back at the 2010s as some sort of Good Old Days - things may have to get a bit worse before that happens though

 

[mpthomson]

Except TfN knew (e g) that Burnham was unlikely to get his underground station.

And the Eastern leg route was known before Johnson promised to build it.

Oddly in the Commons it was a Tory MP for North Yorkshire bemoaning the loss of the Bradford route.

The old principle may still apply. "How many marginal constituencies does it go through?"

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 Nov 2021 ==


As promised

Transport for the North - Hansard - UK Parliament

Hansard record of the item : 'Transport for the North' on Wednesday 24 November 2021.

hansard.parliament.uk

Constituencies (marginal or otherwise) that it goes through but doesn't stop in will always be against it in its current format.

 

[quantinghome]

Agreed - I don't think that people appreciated how good the railways had it despite the austerity that other "public services" suffered - we had five year NR Control Periods committing to certain levels of electrification/ upgrades, we had seven(ish) year franchise agreements that promised to maintain minimum services as well as delivering various improvements, we had fares limited to once per year in line with RPI...

...and we had a LOT of complaints about it from enthusiasts/ Unions/ Great British Public

Now the railway has lost that stability, there's no guarantee that previous commitments will ever be honoured (e.g. complaints about apparently reneging at Crewe) or that services won't be cut willy-nilly (the government run railway is now free to abandon routes like Wakefield to Huddersfield, because there's no "contract" any more) - no guarantee that lines will go back to the pre-Covid service patterns that were apparently enshrined in franchise contracts - there's nothing stopping the railway from sliding back to the short term chaos of the 1980s

Maybe we'll eventually look back at the 2010s as some sort of Good Old Days - things may have to get a bit worse before that happens though

I'd say that was roughly the case until around 2015. Franchising had always been a bit unstable, but from then on the process became a real mess and created uncertainty, and the government started playing hokey-kokey with enhancement schemes, which together meant many franchise commitments went unfulfilled. People's view on that time will largely depend on where you lived and what trains you use. If you use Chiltern you will have seen major improvements delivered over a long period, whereas cross-country has seen nothing for the best part of two decades.

If things revert to a one year at a time funding approach which bedeviled BR, that will be a big problem. They need to keep to 5 year funding periods (as they do with National Highways) and reinstate enhancements within the overall funding scheme.

 

[stephen rp]

Integrated Rail Plan - Initial Response - Wednesday 24 November 2021, 1:30pm - Transport for the North Webcasting

Integrated Rail Plan - Initial Response - Wednesday 24 November 2021, 1:30pm - Transport for the North Webcasting

transportforthenorth.public-i.tv

 

[Djgr]

Oh, behave. Why does Liverpool have this complex?

Two words Thatcher and Hillsborough. The city will never forgive or forget.

 

[Gareth]

Why bump a week old post? Also, you must know Liverpool is a sore issue for a notable minority on this forum and thus your comment has potential to cause great anxiety and upset.

 

[stephen rp]

It might be a week old but it sent me back to see how many times Liverpool was mentioned in the debate (5) if not in the statement.

Apart from Graham Stringer seeming to think they were replacing with the tunnel through south Manchester with a line on stilts, and Grant Shapps talking about extending "beyond Hull to Newcastle", does this bit make sense from Shapps?:
"The hon. Gentleman makes the important point about why, as he rightly says, we are doing high-speed rail to Marsden, in the west of Yorkshire. The answer is, as I am sure he knows, because that is where the congestion is, coming out of Manchester; that is where the trains are getting stuck because there are not sufficient paths."

 

[riceuten]

Isn't this an inevitable consequence of the Integrated Rail Plan? The last seven years have demonstrated that trying to develop HS2 (nationally) separately from NPR (by TfN) wasn't really working - most obviously around Manchester.

So that is done by removing a key stakeholder ?

 

[CdBrux]

So that is done by removing a key stakeholder ?

Isn't it more a case of re-assigning responsibilities?

 

[Wolfie]

Isn't it more a case of re-assigning responsibilities?

Hmmmm... a career in FCDO may await you....

 

[Dr Hoo]

So that is done by removing a key stakeholder ?

This is a meaningless statement in the context of what I posted (which was

Isn't this an inevitable consequence of the Integrated Rail Plan? The last seven years have demonstrated that trying to develop HS2 (nationally) separately from NPR (by TfN) wasn't really working - most obviously around Manchester.

The IRP mentions Transport for the North/TfN work and ideas dozens of times and, err, integrates them.

As I understand it, 'integration' doesn't mean keeping everything from one particular stakeholder totally unchanged.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I am a tad out of the loop at present, but looking at the thread title, what was the value of the funding that has been stopped.

 

[Bayum]

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?

P. P. P lol. P p.

 

[CdBrux]

Hmmmm... a career in FCDO may await you....

I'm not really made out for the 'D' part...

 

[squizzler]

And the promise of better local services won't be delivered because existing railway lines will be filled with more and faster intercity services

I feel there is little chance of agreeing with many of our fellow contributors here who simply regard this as natural and inevitable. They are stuck in a Beeching era mindset that the rail industry should concentrate only on the biggest flows and ditch everything else onto highway alternatives. If that is the doctrine you still long to it is unsurprising that you would consider the IRP much more to your liking than the TfN blueprint.

Fortunately, beyond rail enthusiasts if a certain age that inhabit this forum, that seems to be yesterday’s thinking. I am quite optimistic that NPR is becoming more inevitable since it is now entwined with Lancashire and Yorkshire aspirations.

 

[quantinghome]

I feel there is little chance of agreeing with many of our fellow contributors here who simply regard this as natural and inevitable. They are stuck in a Beeching era mindset that the rail industry should concentrate only on the biggest flows and ditch everything else onto highway alternatives. If that is the doctrine you still long to it is unsurprising that you would consider the IRP much more to your liking than the TfN blueprint.

Fortunately, beyond rail enthusiasts if a certain age that inhabit this forum, that seems to be yesterday’s thinking. I am quite optimistic that NPR is becoming more inevitable since it is now entwined with Lancashire and Yorkshire aspirations.

I actually do think railways should concentrate on what they do best and not chase after minor traffic flows. But local services in West Yorkshire are NOT minor. Wherever you have line a radiating from Leeds with little or no fast traffic on it, it fills with local passengers pretty readily.

Take the Transpennine route via Huddersfield. If fast Transpennine services didn't exist, or were somehow made to mysteriously disappear somewhere else, then the Leeds-Huddersfield line would easily support the sort of passenger levels seen on the Airedale line, probably a lot more given it serves larger towns than the Airedale line. It's a no-brainer. But it won't happen unless the magical thinking of the IRP is overturned.

 

[HSTEd]

I feel there is little chance of agreeing with many of our fellow contributors here who simply regard this as natural and inevitable. They are stuck in a Beeching era mindset that the rail industry should concentrate only on the biggest flows and ditch everything else onto highway alternatives. If that is the doctrine you still long to it is unsurprising that you would consider the IRP much more to your liking than the TfN blueprint.

The TfN blueprint doesn't deliver that much more useful than the IRP plan.
Indeed about the only big addition that would need to be made is 35km extra track from Marsden to Leeds.

The TfN wanted insane statement stations in Liverpool and Manchester that are of extremely questionable usefulness, and an eastern leg for HS2 which their own plans made pretty much entirely redundant.

(The segment between Toton and Clayton was basically worthless once Meadowhall was axed, at the insistence of Sheffield's local government, and was nothing but an expensive waste of money if NPR is built)

 

[quantinghome]

The TfN blueprint doesn't deliver that much more useful than the IRP plan.
Indeed about the only big addition that would need to be made is 35km extra track from Marsden to Leeds.

'Only' 35km extra track. Except without it, there isn't a hope of creating a proper local metro network in West Yorkshire i.e. 10-15 minute frequency all-stops service. And Bradford remains the worst connected large city in the country.

The TfN wanted insane statement stations in Liverpool and Manchester that are of extremely questionable usefulness, and an eastern leg for HS2 which their own plans made pretty much entirely redundant.

(The segment between Toton and Clayton was basically worthless once Meadowhall was axed, at the insistence of Sheffield's local government, and was nothing but an expensive waste of money if NPR is built)

Couldn't disagree more. The eastern leg would have allowed the MML and ECML to get capacity relief and run far more local and regional services. And provided a far better connection between Midlands and Yorkshire conurbations. It would have solved a huge number of issues.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I am a tad out of the loop at present, but looking at the thread title, what was the value of the funding that has been stopped.

Does anyone have the answer to the question that I raised above?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I don't know the value, but it would have been money for consultancy/surveying/route selection etc, and for producing reports, not for building anything.
Those tasks on new lines now go to HS2 Ltd, plans for upgrades to classic lines go to/stay with NR.
DfT remains the arbiter of what is needed.

 

[8H]

I feel there is little chance of agreeing with many of our fellow contributors here who simply regard this as natural and inevitable. They are stuck in a Beeching era mindset that the rail industry should concentrate only on the biggest flows and ditch everything else onto highway alternatives. If that is the doctrine you still long to it is unsurprising that you would consider the IRP much more to your liking than the TfN blueprint.

Fortunately, beyond rail enthusiasts if a certain age that inhabit this forum, that seems to be yesterday’s thinking. I am quite optimistic that NPR is becoming more inevitable since it is now entwined with Lancashire and Yorkshire aspirations.

Agree with you, it isn’t the 1960’s any longer when there was simply thought to be no alternative to, or any disadvantages in the proliferation of road motor vehicles. Unfortunately we are still planning as though this was the case. In addition there is genuine contempt in the Westminster government for devolved institutions and trade unions. This means that daft decisions will continue to be made centrally ignoring the expertise and knowledge of possible partners. TfN are quite right to tell Westminster that what they have offered is not good enough and to press the UK government to get back into meetings to find solutions through cooperation. The Union Connectivity Review is yet another top down document that failed thus far to ask Scotland and Wales what they would like to see delivered. Classic De Pfeffelian governance by edict. Cooperation and mutual respect are utterly foreign concepts to him and his mates.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Agree with you, it isn’t the 1960’s any longer when there was simply thought to be no alternative to, or any disadvantages in the proliferation of road motor vehicles. Unfortunately we are still planning as though this was the case. In addition there is genuine contempt in the Westminster government for devolved institutions and trade unions. This means that daft decisions will continue to be made centrally ignoring the expertise and knowledge of possible partners. TfN are quite right to tell Westminster that what they have offered is not good enough and to press the UK government to get back into meetings to find solutions through cooperation. The Union Connectivity Review is yet another top down document that failed thus far to ask Scotland and Wales what they would like to see delivered. Classic De Pfeffelian governance by edict. Cooperation and mutual respect are utterly foreign concepts to him and his mates.

If, as you say, there is genuine contempt in the Westminster government for devolved institutions and trade unions, I then find it hard to then follow your comment that TfN are quite right to tell Westminster that what they have offered is not good enough and to press the UK government to get back into meetings to find solutions through cooperation. I think that you have answered your own query.

 

[baza585]

'Only' 35km extra track. Except without it, there isn't a hope of creating a proper local metro network in West Yorkshire i.e. 10-15 minute frequency all-stops service. And Bradford remains the worst connected large city in the country.


Couldn't disagree more. The eastern leg would have allowed the MML and ECML to get capacity relief and run far more local and regional services. And provided a far better connection between Midlands and Yorkshire conurbations. It would have solved a huge number of issues.

If that last statement were true, I think it would have been built. It would have solved one particular issue but not a "huge number".

The proposal does not say the route from Manchester to Leeds won't happen, just that the route won't be chosen now.

If Burnham et al onTfN had been more sensible and less political, they might have had more say.

Instead they chose to grandstand, and ask for fanciful things they were never going to get, so they could whinge.

Sometimes I despair of some of the politicians in my party.......

 

[8H]

If, as you say, there is genuine contempt in the Westminster government for devolved institutions and trade unions, I then find it hard to then follow your comment that TfN are quite right to tell Westminster that what they have offered is not good enough and to press the UK government to get back into meetings to find solutions through cooperation. I think that you have answered your own query.

Can‘t agree with that! The difference is that UKGov is overwhelmingly inclined to dish out orders and will not seek mutually agreeable outcomes. For a difference look at Scotland where SNP cooperate with Greens and Wales where Labour and Plaid will get along together. All TfN are asking for is to be kept included on matters within their physical realm and for the Northern infrastructure and economy to get a settlement that will stimulate its latent potential. Partnership isn’t done by megaphone which is why the UKGov is also making a terrible mess of the post Brexit settlement too.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Can‘t agree with that! The difference is that UKGov is overwhelmingly inclined to dish out orders and will not seek mutually agreeable outcomes. For a difference look at Scotland where SNP cooperate with Greens and Wales where Labour and Plaid will get along together. All TfN are asking for is to be kept included on matters within their physical realm and for the Northern infrastructure and economy to get a settlement that will stimulate its latent potential. Partnership isn’t done by megaphone which is why the UKGov is also making a terrible mess of the post Brexit settlement too.

Any national government will always, by its very nature, take the lead in matters and not be brow-beaten by local government, even though the local government has a shrill and strident voicebox, such as Burnham in Greater Manchester.