HS2 advert - red face!

[Krokodil]

A degree of equity, however I would expect more spending on the basis of who pays most tax, on the basis of ensuring that such (or even higher) a level of tax paying is maintained, and as a reward of such good work.

No you spend more money on the areas which have less developed economies to help them catch up and increase revenues.

 

[JordR]

Ah… those cheaper fares are entirely funded by usage then, and not by TfL being given billions of pounds of taxpayer cash from taxpayers across the country, not just London, because it couldn’t balance the books, whereas if a route in rural Cumbria doesn’t pay its way, Stagecoach are free to drop it like a hot potato? Yup, I can’t see why anyone not living in London might be a bit chippy about that!

I think that was done exceptionally as a result of pandemic drop in usage meaning the fares no longer covered the fixed costs of the network? The national network got similar and all kinds of local subsidies were paid too.

It's probably not ideal that our country is so economically centred on London, but at the moment it is so we need to act with that in mind.

 

[PyrahnaRanger]

How much more tax was paid in Kensington in Chelsea, I wonder, and how much denser is the road network? It’s difficult to compare apples with apples. Ultimately, though, in terms of tax revenues, the rest of the country benefits from London, not the other way around.

You also have to ask why do those “chippy” people keep voting in politicians who prioritise cars over public transport in the regions. A good example relevant to this thread being how the last government, who curtailed HS2, enjoyed significant support in Cumbria in 2019. Similarly, London has largely got what it voted for by (generally) returning Labour MPs and (mostly) mayors who have successfully lobbied central government for good funding for London’s transport network.

Well, Cumbria is more populous (by around 350,000 people) , and council tax is actually higher in Cumbria… around £60 for a band D property, for example.

I don’t think it’s a matter of prioritising cars, just given Cumbria has so little railway infrastructure, and what once existed has been built over, so we can’t afford to rebuild it.

It’s also very unusual that we had so many Tory MPs - it’s normally Labour through and through, a situation I think was only disrupted by Brexit - even so, I think the County and borough councils were still Labour.

 

[TurbineEnginee]

---

The South East England region, excluding London, has a population density not dissimilar to the West Midlands (some sources have it slightly higher). Therefore, by your logic, we should combine its population with that of London (London being geographically in the southeast in the same way as Birmingham is in the West Midlands), into a single metropolitan area. So adding another 10m to London’s total.

Put another way excluding London from the southeast, much of which also has fairly poor public transport, seems more arbitrary than combining Leeds with Liverpool etc.

I was responding to the claim that London is seven times bigger than anything else, which is just not supportable in fact.

Of course, we can keep expanding the boundaries, and the arithmetic will change a bit with each expansion.

If we look at London and the South East, we get about 18 million people, and if we draw a similar area starting somewhere in the Pennines, we get north of 9 million people—still about half the density of the South.

England is densely populated, and the weighting of transport investments should reflect that, not arbitrary political boundaries, like focusing on Birmingham instead of the West Midlands.

Redrawing the Southern boundary and not the Northern boundary doesn’t improve our conclusions.

 

[corfield]

By population density, London has the top 20 districts.

10 of these have double or even triple the density of the most densley populated northern districts: Manchester at 27, Liverpool 34, Nottingham 35, Birmingham at 39(& 43 Sandwell), Blackpool 41, Wolverhampton 44, Hull 45, Cov 49 with London and SE accounting for nearly all the gaps to 50 and beyond (next northern is Salford at 66 at a mere 5th or even less of the top 10 London).

London (and lesser extent the wider SE) has lots of public transport because it has many very highly populated areas all in close proximity to one another. The North & Midlands don’t have the same provision because they are significantly less populated and more spread out.

Fact is the north has a mere 4 of the top 50 (midlands having the same) with Lond & SE 40 odd, which says it all.

List of English districts by population density - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Nov 2024 ==

No you spend more money on the areas which have less developed economies to help them catch up and increase revenues.

Why reinforce failure?

The overwhelming lesson of history is “reinforce success”.

You seem to see this as some sort of civilisation type game where if you put the same building upgrades into every site you get the same growth and results.

Reality doesnt work like that. Areas specialise and agglomoration occurs with scales of economy.

(And interestingly, playing that game at higher levels requires specialisation to avoid wasting resources).

The areas of the west midlands and the north that we see as cities today are the exact result of that process in the past - they grew from villages because the success fo what they had grew more success and so capital flowed in and so on (whilst other areas didnt change or even declined, certainly relatively).

Using your logic we wouldnt have built up that industry in any of them and none would be cities - we’d have diverted all that resource to every single village and hamlet in the kingdom instead trying to make them all equal towns or something, none of which would be large enough to specialise or compete at anything.

Literally no society ever has done that.

I find it curious that some are determined that places which transformed from villages to cities when they met criteria to do well, must be maintained at that status (regardless of cost) even when the situation has changed and they no longer fit that in the modern world. It seems a curiously narrow view of history to try and freeze frame development at a certain point and that if your place makes it into say the premier league at one point, resources must be piled into keep it there - vs sending them to the next place coming up from below…

 

[Krokodil]

Why reinforce failure?

The overwhelming lesson of history is “reinforce success”.

The overwhelming lesson of history is that if you let areas fall behind too far you end up with disenchanted people who will latch onto any passing populist, who usually turns out to be pretty dangerous.

By your logic once the textile mills had left Manchester it should just have been abandoned as a ghost town and all investment chucked into the home of the newly dominant finance sector - London. Ditto Birmingham when the car plants shut.

Mercifully the powers that be decided instead to regenerate these cities by investing in new infrastructure - the plans for HS2 for example encouraged HSBC to move their headquarters to Birmingham.

 

[TurbineEnginee]

---

By population density, London has the top 20 districts.

10 of these have double or even triple the density of the most densley populated northern districts: Manchester at 27, Liverpool 34, Nottingham 35, Birmingham at 39(& 43 Sandwell), Blackpool 41, Wolverhampton 44, Hull 45, Cov 49 with London and SE accounting for nearly all the gaps to 50 and beyond (next northern is Salford at 66 at a mere 5th or even less of the top 10 London).

London (and lesser extent the wider SE) has lots of public transport because it has many very highly populated areas all in close proximity to one another. The North & Midlands don’t have the same provision because they are significantly less populated and more spread out.

Fact is the north has a mere 4 of the top 50 (midlands having the same) with Lond & SE 40 odd, which says it all.

List of English districts by population density - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Nov 2024 ==


Why reinforce failure?

The overwhelming lesson of history is “reinforce success”.

You seem to see this as some sort of civilisation type game where if you put the same building upgrades into every site you get the same growth and results.

Reality doesnt work like that. Areas specialise and agglomoration occurs with scales of economy.

(And interestingly, playing that game at higher levels requires specialisation to avoid wasting resources).

The areas of the west midlands and the north that we see as cities today are the exact result of that process in the past - they grew from villages because the success fo what they had grew more success and so capital flowed in and so on (whilst other areas didnt change or even declined, certainly relatively).

Using your logic we wouldnt have built up that industry in any of them and none would be cities - we’d have diverted all that resource to every single village and hamlet in the kingdom instead trying to make them all equal towns or something, none of which would be large enough to specialise or compete at anything.

Literally no society ever has done that.

I find it curious that some are determined that places which transformed from villages to cities when they met criteria to do well, must be maintained at that status (regardless of cost) even when the situation has changed and they no longer fit that in the modern world. It seems a curiously narrow view of history to try and freeze frame development at a certain point and that if your place makes it into say the premier league at one point, resources must be piled into keep it there - vs sending them to the next place coming up from below…

Summarizing your argument: Because my eight-year-old is more advanced, I should invest less in my four-year-old.

 

[43066]

A better metric would be, how many lane-miles of road are the respective local authorities responsible for maintaining. That could very well go either way, especially if an appreciable amount of the long-distance roads in Cumbria are managed by central government.

Why is that a better metric? The roads in Cumbria are much more lightly used.

Fixed that for you, London is a region too.

It just isn’t, though. Certainly not in the same way as Leeds and Liverpool which as mentioned above have significant green space between then and are completely different cities, but count as one region.

The division of the county into regions is arbitrary and political, as is London’s exclusion from the South East.

Public transport is crap, so everyone drives and elects politicians who promise to make life better for those in cars

In the regions they do indeed. In London fewer people drive (and those who do are still reliant on public transport for many journeys), and they elect politicians who deliver good transport! The cost of doing so more than justifiable based on the economic contribution generated: for example the Elizabeth Line serves London and surrounds but is forecast to add £42bn to the UK economy.

I don’t have any issue with public transport away from London improved - it should be. However I get a sense that many of those making these demands are more interested in seeing things made worse for London than they are in improving things locally for themselves, and it smacks of sour grapes. Especially when people start making suggestions they London is somehow taking resources away from the rest of the country.

No you spend more money on the areas which have less developed economies to help them catch up and increase revenues.

But it’s the people in those areas who have propped up the governments who have failed to invest in public transport. If they continue to do so it’s hard to see how things will ever change.

I think that was done exceptionally as a result of pandemic drop in usage meaning the fares no longer covered the fixed costs of the network? The national network got similar and all kinds of local subsidies were paid too.

It's probably not ideal that our country is so economically centred on London, but at the moment it is so we need to act with that in mind.

Indeed. Contrast that with (say) Northern which is the most heavily subsidised operator.

Well, Cumbria is more populous (by around 350,000 people) , and council tax is actually higher in Cumbria… around £60 for a band D property, for example.

I don’t think it’s a matter of prioritising cars, just given Cumbria has so little railway infrastructure, and what once existed has been built over, so we can’t afford to rebuild it.

Kensington and Chelsea also contributes far more in tax revenues (look at stamp duty on property sales, numbers of high earners etc.), and the road network in that borough is part of the wider London road network and impacts on the boroughs either side. Cumbria by contrast is a sparsely populated rural county.

Cumbria would AIUI have benefited more directly from HS2 but in 2019 elected the government that would curtail it; that is the pattern regularly repeated across much of the country outside the southeast.

If we look at London and the South East, we get about 18 million people, and if we draw a similar area starting somewhere in the Pennines, we get north of 9 million people—still about half the density of the South.

England is densely populated, and the weighting of transport investments should reflect that, not arbitrary political boundaries, like focusing on Birmingham instead of the West Midlands.

But that’s ignoring that cities exist, and a proposal build (say) a metro or an underground system serving Birmingham or Manchester would be specific to those cities. You can’t just ignore that and focus on areas of a certain average population density (especially as London and the south east still “win” on those measures).

Summarizing your argument: Because my eight-year-old is more advanced, I should invest less in my four-year-old.

A false equivalence fallacy: your eight year old doesn’t already heavily subsidise your four year old, neither of them elect their parents etc.

 

[PyrahnaRanger]

A better metric would be, how many lane-miles of road are the respective local authorities responsible for maintaining. That could very well go either way, especially if an appreciable amount of the long-distance roads in Cumbria are managed by central government

Most of Cumbria’s roads are locally managed. The M6, A66 (which they closed a railway for) and around 10 miles of the A69 are “trunk”, and centrally maintained.

Kensington and Chelsea also contributes far more in tax revenues (look at stamp duty on property sales, numbers of high earners etc.), and the road network in that borough is part of the wider London road network and impacts on the boroughs either side. Cumbria by contrast is a sparsely populated rural county.

Looked at house prices in the Lakes lately? From around March/April to October, the lakes can be pretty much gridlocked with tourists from all over the world coming in and bringing money to the country, and the majority of them will either be on organised coach tours or hired cars, because there’s not much chance of getting round by public transport.
Plenty of pictures on social media show the effects of this on Wasdale or Buttermere, for example, and any suggestions that car parks and P&R are built tend to get squashed by well meaning but ultimately not local decision makers such as the LDNPA.

 

[Indigo Soup]

Why is that a better metric? The roads in Cumbria are much more lightly used.

A certain amount of road maintenance activity doesn't depend on traffic levels. A certain amount does, as well.

In either case, the amount of road maintenance required is likely to depend on how many roads there are and how many vehicles drive on them. It won't particularly depend on how many people happen to live there (which favours Kensington) or how much space there is between them (which favours Cumbria).

It just isn’t, though.

Except it is. If you're going to divide the country outside of London (or the South East, or whatever) into bits, there's going to be a bit left over that has London in it. That's a region. Whether you consider that

Trying to define London as separate from 'the Regions' is the kind of thing that exacerbates the belief that London is trying to get one over on the rest of the country.

 

[TurbineEnginee]

Why is that a better metric? The roads in Cumbria are much more lightly used.



It just isn’t, though. Certainly not in the same way as Leeds and Liverpool which as mentioned above have significant green space between then and are completely different cities, but count as one region.

The division of the county into regions is arbitrary and political, as is London’s exclusion from the South East.



In the regions they do indeed. In London fewer people drive (and those who do are still reliant on public transport for many journeys), and they elect politicians who deliver good transport! The cost of doing so more than justifiable based on the economic contribution generated: for example the Elizabeth Line serves London and surrounds but is forecast to add £42bn to the UK economy.

I don’t have any issue with public transport away from London improved - it should be. However I get a sense that many of those making these demands are more interested in seeing things made worse for London than they are in improving things locally for themselves, and it smacks of sour grapes. Especially when people start making suggestions they London is somehow taking resources away from the rest of the country.



But it’s the people in those areas who have propped up the governments who have failed to invest in public transport. If they continue to do so it’s hard to see how things will ever change.



Indeed. Contrast that with (say) Northern which is the most heavily subsidised operator.



Kensington and Chelsea also contributes far more in tax revenues (look at stamp duty on property sales, numbers of high earners etc.), and the road network in that borough is part of the wider London road network and impacts on the boroughs either side. Cumbria by contrast is a sparsely populated rural county.

Cumbria would AIUI have benefited more directly from HS2 but in 2019 elected the government that would curtail it; that is the pattern regularly repeated across much of the country outside the southeast.



But that’s ignoring that cities exist, and a proposal build (say) a metro or an underground system serving Birmingham or Manchester would be specific to those cities. You can’t just ignore that and focus on areas of a certain average population density (especially as London and the south east still “win” on those measures).



A false equivalence fallacy: your eight year old doesn’t already heavily subsidise your four year old, neither of them elect their parents etc.

You’re overthinking this.

We’re talking about transport infrastructure.

Public money should be spent where the public are.

There are half as many up there as down here, so we should spend half as much up there as down here.

That leaves the challenge of extracting value and unless you think people in London are inherently superior (do you?), the answer is to give them the damn money and let them figure it out.

 

[43066]

A certain amount of road maintenance activity doesn't depend on traffic levels. A certain amount does, as well.

In either case, the amount of road maintenance required is likely to depend on how many roads there are and how many vehicles drive on them. It won't particularly depend on how many people happen to live there (which favours Kensington) or how much space there is between them (which favours Cumbria).

And where do the taxes come from the maintain them? Where do the taxes come from the maintain other aspects of infrastructure in Cumbria?

Except it is. If you're going to divide the country outside of London (or the South East, or whatever) into bits, there's going to be a bit left over that has London in it. That's a region. Whether you consider that

It’s a political decision, though, to define regions inconsistently in a way that excludes London from the South East, yet includes Birmingham in the West Midlands. It’s just a sop to make those “regions” sound larger and more important, because the individual cities that make them up are so much smaller than London.

Trying to define London as separate from 'the Regions' is the kind of thing that exacerbates the belief that London is trying to get one over on the rest of the country.

This is the kind of statement that was being referred above to as “chippy”. It’s an odd (and slightly conspiratorial) way to view things. London is a runway success, and a global city, which disproportionately props up the rest of the country, not the other way around! There is an imbalance but, as I keep pointing out, it is the rest of the UK - not London - that has voted in the governments that have continued the status quo.

You’re overthinking this.

We’re talking about transport infrastructure.

Public money should be spent where the public are.

There are half as many up there as down here, so we should spend half as much up there as down here.

This is far too simplistic. I would argue public money should be spent where the greatest economic benefits are. That will naturally favour more populated areas, of course, but doesn’t mean simply spending the same amount per head over the entire population. Those wider benefits are how the business cases for projects such as Thameslink, Crossrail and HS2 are justified. Put another way you wouldn’t suddenly spend more money per head in rural Cumbria (for example) just because of high spending on a flagship project in London.

If politicians in any particular region think they have political support and an economic business case for a major projects what’s to stop them putting the case for funding to central government?

That leaves the challenge of extracting value and unless you think people in London are inherently superior (do you?), the answer is to give them the damn money and let them figure it out.

I have no idea what point you’re even making here.

 

[Indigo Soup]

It’s a political decision, though, to define regions inconsistently in a way that excludes London from the South East, yet includes Birmingham in the West Midlands. [...] This is the kind of statement that was being referred above to as “chippy”. It’s an odd (and slightly conspiratorial) way to view things.

I think we're actually in agreement on this point. If 'the regions' is a phrase that has any meaning at all, then there is a region which includes London and some proportion of southern and eastern England.

What annoys people in northern and western England - and to some extent those in Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland - is when they're told that they're in a fundamentally different category to those who are in London. They aren't. They're just different. Their local economies might be different - but an average working person anywhere in the UK has pretty similar concerns.

And, for what it's worth, this isn't exclusive to London vs. Not-London. There's a similar dynamic between Edinburgh and Not-Edinburgh in Scotland. I get the impression there's a feeling that there are favoured and unfavoured boroughs within London itself.

 

[corfield]

---

Summarizing your argument: Because my eight-year-old is more advanced, I should invest less in my four-year-old.

A better analogy would be if your 4 year old was a musical progidy, you’d be buying (very) expensive instruments and tuition to support that and grow it further to use their potential. You would not do the same for the 8 year old.

The overwhelming lesson of history is that if you let areas fall behind too far you end up with disenchanted people who will latch onto any passing populist, who usually turns out to be pretty dangerous.

Since when has that been a lesson? Let alone “overwhelming”.

Who has let areas fall behind? have they ever caught up? What is this danger populists have caused?

Any examples?

Again, the actual lesson of history and life is to reinforce success - do more of what you are good at / suited to. Dont waste time, effort and money trying to polish a turd. For the north/midlands, there are clearly more things they can do well hence why they still do ok. A lot of that reflects the agglomoration effect on services provision regionally.

Looked at house prices in the Lakes lately? From around March/April to October, the lakes can be pretty much gridlocked with tourists from all over the world coming in and bringing money to the country, and the majority of them will either be on organised coach tours or hired cars, because there’s not much chance of getting round by public transport.
Plenty of pictures on social media show the effects of this on Wasdale or Buttermere, for example, and any suggestions that car parks and P&R are built tend to get squashed by well meaning but ultimately not local decision makers such as the LDNPA.

Not sure that’s the case, I summer holidayed in the west lakes, almost entirely empty and you see the same in the north and far south plus M6 way, so area wise the busy bits are quite small in terms of road miles. The congestion is more UK people in their own cars (and blasted caravans and motorhomes) in my observation.

Public transport up there is actually not bad, I’ve done many walks with bus back for instance.

 

[Krokodil]

A better analogy would be if your 4 year old was a musical progidy, you’d be buying (very) expensive instruments and tuition to support that and grow it further to use their potential. You would not do the same for the 8 year old.

You wouldn't just turn the 8 year old out to fend for themselves.

Since when has that been a lesson? Let alone “overwhelming”.

Who has let areas fall behind? have they ever caught up? What is this danger populists have caused?

Any examples?

Examples of divided countries where dangerous populists have taken advantage of people who are left behind? Try switching on the news once in a while.

Again, the actual lesson of history and life is to reinforce success - do more of what you are good at / suited to. Dont waste time, effort and money trying to polish a turd. For the north/midlands, there are clearly more things they can do well hence why they still do ok. A lot of that reflects the agglomoration effect on services provision regionally.

If you just keep building up London (because it's successful) you will run out of underground space in which to dig tunnels, house prices will become unaffordable (oh look, they have) and London will end up paying the rest of the country to sit on the dole (unless you're planning on cutting that too, and forcing everyone into workhouses).

It's a lot easier to grow the economy of Manchester by 10% than it is to grow the economy of London by 10%. It needs the infrastructure in order to do it.

 

[corfield]

You wouldn't just turn the 8 year old out to fend for themselves.

Certainly not whilst the 8 year old is paying the 4 year old’s nursery fees.

Examples of divided countries where dangerous populists have taken advantage of people who are left behind? Try switching on the news once in a while.

And that’s an “overwhelming lesson of hiatory is it”. Totes convinced.

If you just keep building up London (because it's successful) you will run out of underground space in which to dig tunnels,

Not yet though.

house prices will become unaffordable (oh look, they have)

Things are only worth what people will pay. The prices seem mad but people are clearly paying them.

and London will end up paying the rest of the country to sit on the dole (unless you're planning on cutting that too, and forcing everyone into workhouses).

I think you need to come back up that rabbit hole and take a deep breath in the fresh air.

It's a lot easier to grow the economy of Manchester by 10% than it is to grow the economy of London by 10%. It needs the infrastructure in order to do it.

Manchester GDP = 90 Bn.
London GDP = 560 Bn.

Which one gives more benefit if you grow it by 10%…

Does “easier” mean more, or less, than a sixth of the difficulty?

Are the costs for 10% growth in Manchester also 10% of the costs in London…

Can you see where this is going?


And again, why Manchester? Why not invest in Southport, Barrow and Fleetwood instead of Manchester? Must be easier to get 10% there than in an expensive built up place like Manchester? Must give a better benefit:cost ratio right? Manchester already has intercity rail infrastructure, ring motorway and international airport - they could all have the same if what was there was upgraded.

And so on, why not Garstang, Goosnargh and Grimsargh instead of those large towns with less space for tunnels and so on?

China during the Great Leap Forward built “steel” furnaces in backyards everywhere. The result did not advance China or the backyards and (real) poverty endured. The best defence of this by Mao was that it showed “lots of energy and enthusiasm”.

China since departing from Maoism has built massive centralised steel plants and, well, China’s economic and other advances are pretty common knowledge.

 

[Krokodil]

And that’s an “overwhelming lesson of hiatory is it”. Totes convinced.

There's a long list of populists taking advantage of grievances and pretending that they've got an easy solution, perhaps some group of people everyone can blame. Some of the recent ones are getting rather cosy with that nice Mr Putin. On a smaller scale we've seen a series of riots in depressed parts of the country.

Not yet though.

I understand from posters here that there is room for Crossrail 2, and that's about it in terms of tunnels under Central London.

Things are only worth what people will pay. The prices seem mad but people are clearly paying them.

Charging people many many multiples of their income for a shoebox is not a good idea.

Manchester GDP = 90 Bn.
London GDP = 560 Bn.

Which one gives more benefit if you grow it by 10%…

Which one has more potential for growth?

And again, why Manchester? Why not invest in Southport, Barrow and Fleetwood instead of Manchester? Must be easier to get 10% there than in an expensive built up place like Manchester? Must give a better benefit:cost ratio right? Manchester already has intercity rail infrastructure, ring motorway and international airport - they could all have the same if what was there was upgraded.

You've already said that we shouldn't be chucking fortunes into tiny backwaters. This is why we need to be investing in Britain's second and third cities (which order Birmingham and Manchester come in is up for debate). Do you seriously think that Manchester's existing rail infrastructure is adequate? It's heavily congested and falls apart as soon as a passenger in Darlington sneezes.

Can you see where this is going?

Round in circles because you will keep insisting on piling all investment into London while complaining that the rest of the country doesn't produce anything. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

 

[LYuen]

China during the Great Leap Forward built “steel” furnaces in backyards everywhere. The result did not advance China or the backyards and (real) poverty endured. The best defence of this by Mao was that it showed “lots of energy and enthusiasm”.

China since departing from Maoism has built massive centralised steel plants and, well, China’s economic and other advances are pretty common knowledge.

Meanwhile China is the country that has built high speed rail everywhere, and its effect to boost GDP and enhance regional growth is massive, amid the railway revenue model may not be sustainable.

 

[corfield]

Meanwhile China is the country that has built high speed rail everywhere, and its effect to boost GDP and enhance regional growth is massive, amid the railway revenue model may not be sustainable.

Quite, as HSR has supported elsewhere and why we should be doing it. Sadly our competence at doing it has been beyond horrific. The Victorians would be deeply ashamed of their successors!

Meanwhile the “Beeching was a Monster” eschew HSR in favour of keeping every branch line open and never closing anything. Just weird!


Out of interest, What is the Chinese ‘railway revenue model’ and what is the issue with it?

 

[43066]

What annoys people in northern and western England - and to some extent those in Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland - is when they're told that they're in a fundamentally different category to those who are in London. They aren't. They're just different. Their local economies might be different - but an average working person anywhere in the UK has pretty similar concerns.

Are they actually told that, though? There are different concerns given house prices etc. it always amuses me when people on the regions say they can’t afford to live where they grew up; just try growing up in London in the 90s, versus house prices now! I was fortunate to earn a relatively generous (and non railway related) salary in my early 20s that enabled me to get onto the ladder before it went crazy. Very, very difficult these days for those who don’t either have family help, unless they earn several multiples of the average annual salary.

I probably also agree with you that the gulf between the rest of the UK and London isn’t healthy. I wouldn’t say “it’s London’s fault”, though. I can only refer back to the point I’ve made repeatedly on this thread about successive governments favouring the status quo.

Quite, as HSR has supported elsewhere and why we should be doing it. Sadly our competence at doing it has been beyond horrific. The Victorians would be deeply ashamed of their successors!

A lot of that will be down to the current planning system, and the difficulty of ploughing a new railway through the green and pleasant English countryside, in the 21st century.

Perhaps there’s scope to that to be relaxed somewhat? I wouldn’t like to see the UK down the Chinese route, though.

 

[CastlebarKeith]

This article appeared on BBC News last night. l did see it for long and it was either removed or hidden. I wonder how many others saw it. HAVING GOT RID OF the GREAT CENTRAL, it has been announced (on the BBC last night- article copied below), that is going to cost ANOTHER £100MILLION to build a "bat protection tunnel" near Calvert. (I seem to remember that the GC was closed because it was deemed to be uneconomic, but this is economic or is it cost control madness?? ) > > >
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A special barrier that will be built to protect rare bats will cost £100m, according to the chairman of HS2 Ltd.
Sir Jon Thompson told a rail industry conference the bat protection structure in Buckinghamshire was needed to appease Natural England, as bats are legally protected in the UK. The 1km (0.6 mile) curved barrier will cover the tracks alongside Sheephouse Wood near Calvert in Buckinghamshire, to prevent bats being disturbed by high-speed trains.
Sir Jon said there was "no evidence that high-speed trains interfere with bats".
"We call it a shed," he said. "This shed, you're not going to believe this, cost more than £100m to protect the bats in this wood."
Natural England said it had not required HS2 to "adopt this structure", but its role had been to "comment on whether the proposed mitigations will work". Other more expensive options, including a bored tunnel and re-routing the railway, were considered.
After receiving the green light from Natural England for the design, HS2 Ltd was forced to spend "hundreds of thousands of pounds" on lawyers and environmental specialists because the local council did not approve the work, Sir Jon said.
"In the end, I won the planning permission by going above Buckinghamshire Council's head," he explained.

 

[43066]

This article appeared on BBC News last night. l did see it for long and it was either removed or hidden. I wonder how many others saw it. HAVING GOT RID OF the GREAT CENTRAL, it has been announced (on the BBC last night- article copied below), that is going to cost ANOTHER £100MILLION to build a "bat protection tunnel" near Calvert. (I seem to remember that the GC was closed because it was deemed to be uneconomic, but this is economic or is it cost control madness?? ) > > >
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A special barrier that will be built to protect rare bats will cost £100m, according to the chairman of HS2 Ltd.
Sir Jon Thompson told a rail industry conference the bat protection structure in Buckinghamshire was needed to appease Natural England, as bats are legally protected in the UK. The 1km (0.6 mile) curved barrier will cover the tracks alongside Sheephouse Wood near Calvert in Buckinghamshire, to prevent bats being disturbed by high-speed trains.
Sir Jon said there was "no evidence that high-speed trains interfere with bats".
"We call it a shed," he said. "This shed, you're not going to believe this, cost more than £100m to protect the bats in this wood."
Natural England said it had not required HS2 to "adopt this structure", but its role had been to "comment on whether the proposed mitigations will work". Other more expensive options, including a bored tunnel and re-routing the railway, were considered.
After receiving the green light from Natural England for the design, HS2 Ltd was forced to spend "hundreds of thousands of pounds" on lawyers and environmental specialists because the local council did not approve the work, Sir Jon said.
"In the end, I won the planning permission by going above Buckinghamshire Council's head," he explained.

This is precisely what I had in mind when I wrote my last post!

 

[Western Gaffer]

The HS2 bat shed already has a separate dedicated thread:

The £100m bat shed

This article in the Guardian reports that the HS2 Chairman at the Rail Industry Association conference has today used this example as why HS2 phase 1 is so costly. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/nov/07/cost-of-shed-to-protect-bat-colony-near-hs2-has-topped-100m-chair-says "The cost...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[Bevan Price]

For a short period, before sectorisation, the Liverpool / Newcastle services (but not the other Trans Pennine services) were included as part of Inter City in some publicity material.

 

[Indigo Soup]

Are they actually told that, though?

Yes, because the narrative is 'London' and 'The Regions'. That's a plain statement that 'London' isn't part of 'The Regions', but something qualitatively different.

Opinions may differ on what's different about it (insert stereotypes here), but if there wasn't a perceived difference, there wouldn't be a need to distinguish them.

 

[Krokodil]

Yes, because the narrative is 'London' and 'The Regions'. That's a plain statement that 'London' isn't part of 'The Regions', but something qualitatively different.

Opinions may differ on what's different about it (insert stereotypes here), but if there wasn't a perceived difference, there wouldn't be a need to distinguish them.

Well there was a clear distinction for non-intercity rail services. There was Network South East and Regional Railways (previously Provincial).

 

[TurbineEnginee]

I have no idea what point you’re even making here.

The fact that you “have no idea what point I’m even making” actually is the point.

 

[corfield]

The fact that you “have no idea what point I’m even making” actually is the point.

What you think are pithy statements are in fact quite transparent in demonstrating that you don’t have a point of argument. Hence the other false analogy you made.

 

[GJMarshy]

Liverpool to Manchester was most definitely an inter-city trip, especially in the 1830s! The railway cut journey times from roughly 8 hours by horse and carriage to just 2 by rail. Not long after reduced to 35mins by the early 1900s!

It's indisputably the world's first inter-city locomotive-hauled railway. Any claim otherwise is a falsehood!

 

[TurbineEnginee]

What you think are pithy statements are in fact quite transparent in demonstrating that you don’t have a point of argument. Hence the other false analogy you made.

I made my argument and then encouraged some reflection.

Whether or not that works isn’t up to me.