George Osborne's Autumn Statement

[Clip]

I wonder why the BBC TV trails refer to the "BOTTUM" Statement.

Talking out of it maybe?

 

[HowardGWR]

I am pro rail but realise and accept it's not going to be the solution to every problem, but I'd be interested to know what people think the alternatives to the A303 upgrade could be?

Let them queue. It's a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Just a few days per year - see Bison Fute in France. A few decent computer apps for motorists could educate them to avoid peaks. I still think they would ignore the advice though, they always have. It's the same in France, despite Bison Fute, Beaune and the A6 southwards every weekend in July and August is exactly the same.

If all the proposed stretches were dualled, they will still queue wherever the junction is between north-south and east-west is, and it has been like that for 60 years at least. I can remember them all, Ilchester, Exeter bypass, to name but two. If the A303 and A358 are dualled and connected, they will queue at Taunton M5 on a summer Saturday, guaranteed.

It was the same in the old days with the trains queued up from Taunton.

So I say, don't waste the money, either on rail or road, catering for non-thinking holidaymakers with their ghastly tin boxes, which disfigure beautiful coastlines and change them into shanty towns.

There, that felt better.

 

[LLivery]

I just looked at the National Infrastructure
Plan 2014 (dated today) on the gov website (link https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...902895_NationalInfrastructurePlan2014_acc.pdf )

Seems Southeastern Suburban devolution isn't an idea going away:

the government will provide £2 million between 2014-15 and 2015-16 to support the
development of a comprehensive business case produced jointly by the Department for Transport and
Transport for London, to complete ahead of the next Spending Review; this will be combined with a
full options appraisal of all potential major transport projects in London, including an extension of the
Bakerloo Line to improve connectivity in South East London, and the devolution of South Eastern rail
services to London

You never know, tomorrow George may just say Southeastern suburbs will be LO soon. I think fellow SE London passengers will be disappointed if they think this would mean new trains!

It also talks about Norwich in 90, EWR Bedford to Cambridge, Chesterton station, Dawlish, Northern Hub, Barking Riverside, 20 more stations for Access for all, improving rail access to Ebbsfleet and Electrification but nothing we didn't already know.

Northstowe in Cambridgeshire, will be a new town with 10,000 homes relying on the bus way seems a little stupid. The Bicester Garden City will have a new station though I'm not sure if it will be on the Chiltern or EWR. I would have preferred MK expansion and higher density in the centre - the roads there can certainly handle it and according to MK council many buildings in places like the Conniborrow area will need rebuilding soon anyway.

The government will support the railway industry study, due to report in February 2015,
which is considering the case for including electrification of the following eight routes
in Network Rail’s Control Period 6: Leeds – Harrogate – York, Selby – Hull, Sheffield
– Leeds, Sheffield – Doncaster, East Coast Main Line – Middlesbrough, Sheffield –
Manchester (including the Hope Valley Line), Warrington – Chester, Crewe – Chester.

Northern electrification seems a little promising, would have thought Crewe to Chester should have happened years ago.

 

[northwichcat]

Northern electrification seems a little promising, would have thought Crewe to Chester should have happened years ago.

Until VHF a few years back Virgin only operated 5 trains a day to Chester and they all continued to North Wales, so all electrification would have done is allowed an EMU to operate the Chester-Crewe shuttle.

Once VHF came in Chester-Crewe was looked at but dismissed due to the high number of bridges across the line. Discontinuous electrification was looked at but that was dismissed.

Chester to Warrington Bank Quay would seem sensible if the line is to get 2tph. Question is whether North Wales services would continue to Manchester via Warrington if that happened. If the Mid-Cheshire line gets a semi-fast then that could continue to North Wales with only around a 10 minute increase in journey time.

 

[Hackneyite]

It's unlikely to be mentioned but I think Crossrail 2 is almost a certainty now. Look for that before the general election.

Not that northerners will be happy with that!

 

[Seacook]

I wonder why the BBC TV trails refer to the "OTTUM" Statement.

No doubt in a few years it will be the fall statement.

 

[Busaholic]

If it was such a wonderful and useful main line, why was it closed in the first place? Could it be that most people preferred the coastal route - and still would even if the alternative re-opened?

By the way I am not saying that every main line closure was a good idea - far from it. But I am saying that re-opening Okehampton to Tavistock is a long way down the list of rail priorities - let alone overall national transport priorities.

Did I say it was such a wonderful and useful main line? I was pointing out to a contributor famous for correcting everyone else's (perceived) inaccuracies that it was inaccurate to describe it as a former branch line. The 'coastal' route by the way only includes quite a short stretch by the coast and as that is what has caused all the problems I think many people would be prepared to forego the 'big dipper' experience to get to their destination safely and on time.

 

[hwl]

Updated national infrastructure plan published by HM Treasury this morning:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...902895_NationalInfrastructurePlan2014_acc.pdf

Plenty of updates on a number of Railforum favourite topics
Rail projects from Page 41 onwards

 

[telstarbox]

In brief:

Rail announcements
- Crossrail 2 – see Chapter 5 (Local Transport)
- Norwich in Ninety – the government supports the key recommendations of the Great Eastern Main Line Task Force, including upgraded infrastructure and the latest Rolling Stock. Bidders for the next Anglia Franchise, which will start in October 2016, will be incentivised to submit plans for achieving these recommendations for services to Norwich in 90 minutes and associated benefits along the Great Eastern Mainline
- East West Rail – the government will consider the outputs of the Network Rail study into the East West Rail central section (Bedford to Cambridge) as part of the planning for Control Period 6 (2019-2024)
- Dawlish rail services – the government will support Network Rail in its work to improve the resilience of the railway at Dawlish. Additionally, it will ask Network Rail to examine wider issues surrounding connectivity to and within the South West peninsula. Specifically, Network Rail will consider alternatives to the current mainline route to the South West via Dawlish, including an alternative route via the north side of Dartmoor through Okehampton. This work will feed into Network Rail’s Initial Industry Plan for Control Period 6 (2019-2024)
- Access for all – the government will increase the funding for the Access for All scheme by £60 million between 2015-16 and 2018-19, improving platform access at around 20*stations
- Chesterton Rail Station – as announced by the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister the government will provide £44 million between 2014-15 and 2016-17 to build a new rail station at Chesterton, linked to Cambridge Science Park

 

[muddythefish]

It's unlikely to be mentioned but I think Crossrail 2 is almost a certainty now. Look for that before the general election.

Not that northerners will be happy with that!

I'd be very happy with it - but in view of the billions of public money lavished on London infrastructure already London should pay for it.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

You are with your pathetic selective quoting totally missing any of the other points I made including Crossrail and Electrification of the north west.

Sensible people will understand not every budget can have improvements for both road AND rail. The silly ones will inevitably sit there and weep because they have better ideas in fantasy land to spend the taxpayers money on.

Sensible people would understand that it is only in recent years that rail has had money spent on it but has decades of under-investment to make up.

The silly ones applaud while another £15bn is lavished on roads that inevitably only shift the bottlenecks somewhere else.

Apologies to other members but clip started the name calling and seems to feel the need to insult people he does not agree with.

 

[northwichcat]

Updated national infrastructure plan published by HM Treasury this morning:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...902895_NationalInfrastructurePlan2014_acc.pdf

Plenty of updates on a number of Railforum favourite topics
Rail projects from Page 41 onwards

Electrification will be reported on next year along with HS3. (Just in time for the election )

£448 million for Manchester to spend on transport. 10% will be spent on Metrolink. The breakdown of the rest is unclear but revamped stations and improved bus services are included.

Regarding Crossrail 2

The government welcomes the Crossrail 2 Funding and Financing report, completed by PWC, which was published on 27 November 2014. The proposal to build a second Crossrail line could support regeneration and help London’s transport network to support long term growth by addressing crowding and offering more direct, fast, frequent services that are not available at present. The Funding and Financing report shows that a significant local contribution to the costs of Crossrail 2 is possible, although genuinely private sources of funding are limited. As with all government spending, the government would need to consider affordability and a business case for Crossrail 2 before making a decision to proceed. In response to the report, the government will provide £2 million between 2014-15 and 2015-16 to support the development of a comprehensive business case produced jointly by the Department for Transport and Transport for London, to complete ahead of the next Spending Review. This will be combined with a full options appraisal of potential major transport projects in London, including an extension of the Bakerloo line and the devolution of South Eastern rail services to London.

 

[WatcherZero]

That's old announcement the Metrolink capacity enhancement from the last Local Growth Fund round and other local growth fund schemes.

Times did have one leak today, £200m National Materials Science institute to be based in Manchester with satellite facilities in Liverpool, Leeds and Sheffield. A 'Crick Institute of the North'. Apparently negotiations with private investors went down to the wire.

 

[Bald Rick]

It's unlikely to be mentioned but I think Crossrail 2 is almost a certainty now. Look for that before the general election.

But Crossrail 1 was a nailed on certainty in 1992...

 

[northwichcat]

That's old announcement the Metrolink capacity enhancement from the last Local Growth Fund round and other local growth fund schemes.

You mean the government are re-announcing old schemes to make them look better? :roll:

 

[455driver]

Indeed! After all this Government haven't spent anything at all in infrastructure or pledged to spend anything on infrastructure until just now. Absolutely nothing at all has been spent not a single penny. But as soon as the election starts to crop up the taps suddenly open after four years of nothing. Amazing!

:roll:

I see you noticed that as well!

 

[The Ham]

I'd be very happy with it - but in view of the billions of public money lavished on London infrastructure already London should pay for it.

Like London is already paying for part of Crossrail and paid for a chunk of the Olympics through local taxes? Hang on a minute but that's the plan (see the PWC report which has recently been published).

A lot of people who complain that London is getting lots of investment and cite Crossrail as an example, who then go on to say that [insert region or city of choice] should see a similar level of investment do not also suggest that there should be a local tax to fund it in the same way.

 

[WatcherZero]

Amusing thing in the paper was the cut of the higher band tax rate has backfired spectacularly. According to the Office of National Statistics the amount of people deferring tax and bonuses until after the cut wiped 3% off GDP growth and has led to the absence of a rise in payroll taxes reciepts despite increasing unemployment, meaning the Chancellor has no money for pre-election giveaways without matching cuts.

 

[Wolfie]

Like London is already paying for part of Crossrail and paid for a chunk of the Olympics through local taxes? Hang on a minute but that's the plan (see the PWC report which has recently been published).

A lot of people who complain that London is getting lots of investment and cite Crossrail as an example, who then go on to say that [insert region or city of choice] should see a similar level of investment do not also suggest that there should be a local tax to fund it in the same way.

Yes, that PWC report suggests the London Olympic levy paid by London Council Taxpayers should continue to pay for Crossrail 2. I assume therefore that the metro scheme, which benefits solely London, will be adopted. Why the hell should Londoners pay extra for things which have regional/national benefits as well as the vast tax export which goes on from the city.....

You are right that Manchester, Birmingham or other such cities would howl if similar proposals were made for them... look at the Greater Manchester response to a referendum on a congestion charge like the one in London which raises money for public transport schemes! Far easier to put the begging bowl out and expect London/the South East to pay again!

 

[hwl]

Yes, that PWC report suggests the London Olympic levy paid by London Council Taxpayers should continue to pay for Crossrail 2. I assume therefore that the metro scheme, which benefits solely London, will be adopted. Why the hell should Londoners pay extra for things which have regional/national benefits as well as the vast tax export which goes on from the city.....

london business are the biggest source rather than council tax and many London businesses are reliant on workers who commute from outside London... (especially to keep accommodation costs and hence wage inflation down)

 

[Wolfie]

london business are the biggest source rather than council tax and many London businesses are reliant on workers who commute from outside London... (especially to keep accommodation costs and hence wage inflation down)

That's true in part but the metro option is £7BN cheaper and frankly I as a Londoner would rather settle for that rather than pay more to benefit others who would pay nothing....
https://www.tfl.gov.uk/info-for/med...funding-and-financing-options-for-crossrail-2

 

[northwichcat]

london business are the biggest source rather than council tax and many London businesses are reliant on workers who commute from outside London... (especially to keep accommodation costs and hence wage inflation down)

A lot of London businesses rely on branches around the country or even abroad. The London head offices wouldn't be successful if the company had no presence outside of London.

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

Yes, that PWC report suggests the London Olympic levy paid by London Council Taxpayers should continue to pay for Crossrail 2. I assume therefore that the metro scheme, which benefits solely London, will be adopted. Why the hell should Londoners pay extra for things which have regional/national benefits as well as the vast tax export which goes on from the city.....

You are right that Manchester, Birmingham or other such cities would howl if similar proposals were made for them... look at the Greater Manchester response to a referendum on a congestion charge like the one in London which raises money for public transport schemes! Far easier to put the begging bowl out and expect London/the South East to pay again!

Pay again??? When did Londoners pay for a scheme that wasn't for London's benefit?

For the actual statement my area gets no money what so ever.
I believe that money should be distributed to be evened out so those who need money/investment get it, isn't that what taxes are for?
Is a tunnel really needed under Stonehenge?,

 

[RichmondCommu]

Pay again??? When did Londoners pay for a scheme that wasn't for London's benefit?

Income tax!

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

Income tax!

Everyone pays income tax at the same rate depending on earnings.
London still gets 500 times the transport investment per head than the North East. So you could say the North is paying for London.

 

[Haydn1971]

To be fair, London does actually need a proportionately higher level of transport funding otherwise the place would grind to a halt and a high percentage of people wouldn't get to work - whilst I'm the first to shout we need new stock and investment in the north, I'd also be the first to say that investment needs to be proportionately balanced to ensure people are efficiently moved around whilst ensuring a degree of fairness is applied to quality of provision. I personally find that balance is slightly biased against Northern commuters, but not as extreme as others on here might suggest.

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

Slightly biased?? Where you get that idea from?
You're in Sheffield with Pacers to Rotherham and Barnsley.
Lack of extra capacity through Meadowhall and Dore.
The disused line to Stocksbridge is still gathering dust.

The only investment planned is that stupid tramtrain pilot.
Which is not very costly.

Compare the train service in Sheffield to:
Chatham, Southend, Oxford, Reading and Southampton.
Don't be fooled, the 'Northern Hub' will just help Manchester.

 

[Haydn1971]

As I said, I'm the first to scream more/better stock in the north, however, as a positive we have;
- Relatively new and rather nice Class 185's (albeit not enough for the services run)
- Relatively new Class 390's on Virgin
- Relatively new 220/221/222's on XC & EMT
- From 2018, brand new Class 800/801's

Hence my comment re the poor bias for northern commuters who generally have poor quality rolling stock for short run services, get a poor deal on via inflexible pricing structures, lack of seat reservations, poor quality stations, lack of free or affordable parking, no premium features like first class, wifi, passenger information etc

 

[83G/84D]

Indeed! After all this Government haven't spent anything at all in infrastructure or pledged to spend anything on infrastructure until just now. Absolutely nothing at all has been spent not a single penny. But as soon as the election starts to crop up the taps suddenly open after four years of nothing. Amazing!

:roll:

I was thinking the same, look back in say 10 years and see how many of the pledges the Conservatives have made in the last couple of months have turned into reality. Many wont happen because their either isn't the money, political will or a change of government means schemes are "put on the back burner". The A303 through Stonehenge and further west in the Blackdown Hills has been talked out for many years and nothing has been done and nothing will be done for many more years.

The works will cost a fortune, cause major disruption on the route for years and upset locals and holidaymakers using the routes.

Not to mention the environmental impact.

Once the conservatives get back in power they will renege on a lot of these road and rail improvement proposals.

As usual London, the Midlands and the South East will get all the money and the areas like the South West & North East will get little.

 

[tbtc]

Indeed! After all this Government haven't spent anything at all in infrastructure or pledged to spend anything on infrastructure until just now. Absolutely nothing at all has been spent not a single penny. But as soon as the election starts to crop up the taps suddenly open after four years of nothing. Amazing!

:roll:

True!

At least this thread has evolved from "The Big Bad Government Never Spend Any Money On Railways; It's All Spent On Roads" to "The Big Bad Government Never Spend Any Money On My Local Railway; It's All Spent On London" which I suppose shows a progress of sorts...

I'm not a railway enthusiast and I've never availed myself of the opportunity to travel to Okehampton by rail, hence can't comment on its scenic potential, but I know enough of its history to know it was never a branch line but a main-line railway and could and WILL be so again if there is any common sense.

It was a secondary route, compared to the main line through Dawlish - a branch line in my opinion.

The fact that even those supporting it concede that it'll have to have large chunks of single track suggests that even they accept this.

I am saying that re-opening Okehampton to Tavistock is a long way down the list of rail priorities - let alone overall national transport priorities.

This!

It's a local issue and really not near the top hundred problems that the national railway currently has.

Oh goody! Roads get £15bn nationwide while rail might get a branch line extension - and in the the south east too (no surprise there then).

Who's being silly now ?

::must resist rhetorical question::

This is the five year announcement for roads, like the five year CP5 announcement for rail a couple of years ago.

There wasn't anything in the CP5 announcement about new roads, so I wouldn't feel too hard done by if the Highways Agency's five year strategic business plan doesn't include lots of railway announcements.

Essentially, if the Government announce nothing in rail investment then people on here are going to complain...

...if the Government announce only a few bits of rail investment then people on here are going to roll their eyes and complain about only those areas getting some investment...

...and if the Government announce rail investment everywhere then people are going to say "ah, but it's six months before an election, they are just trying to bribe voters"

There's shed loads of cash being spent on rail projects and now there's shed loads of cash being spent on the roads. What's the problem? It's all good for UK infrastructure. While this country is so in debt, it's amazing that anything is being spent at all. If every household wants to stump up £58k to clear that debt, perhaps we could afford to upgrade the transport infrastructure even more - but I don't think that's going to happen.

Totally agreed.

After we spent previous little on railway investment in the good years, I'm amazed that we are seeing so much now.

(I'm not amazed that people are still complaining one way or the other, of course!)

Let them queue. It's a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Just a few days per year - see Bison Fute in France

See also Okehampton, England?

Northstowe in Cambridgeshire, will be a new town with 10,000 homes relying on the bus way seems a little stupid

In fairness, it'd take many years to build a railway line there.

The Busway is a success by most people's criteria (when I say most people, I don't mean rail enthusiasts who want to solve everything by building railway lines, obviously)

But Crossrail 1 was a nailed on certainty in 1992...

You and your facts ruin the received wisdom that London gets everything it wants straight away (and never sees investments delayed/ cancelled)!

You are right that Manchester, Birmingham or other such cities would howl if similar proposals were made for them... look at the Greater Manchester response to a referendum on a congestion charge like the one in London which raises money for public transport schemes! Far easier to put the begging bowl out and expect London/the South East to pay again!

True re Manchester.

Yet most of the complaining about London biased funding seems to come from around Manchester...

Pay again??? When did Londoners pay for a scheme that wasn't for London's benefit?

Who pays for the million pounds a day needed to subsidised Northern, out of interest?

I believe that money should be distributed to be evened out so those who need money/investment get it, isn't that what taxes are for?

Evening out funding so that everywhere gets the same is different from spending money on the areas that need it most though, very different.

Everyone pays income tax at the same rate depending on earnings.
London still gets 500 times the transport investment per head than the North East. So you could say the North is paying for London.

You are assuming that employment rates are the same across the country and that income distribution is the same across the country (so that every area sees the same tax paid per head of the population)?

But, more importantly, what's the data for the "500 times more"? What period are you basing it on? Rail or all transport funding? Investment or all subsidy?

The disused line to Stocksbridge is still gathering dust

It was never a passenger line to Stocksbridge - it followed the valley from Deeper up to Penistone.

And you're never going to serve Stocksbridge without re-opening Sheffield Victoria, which you aren't going to do for the sake of one or two trains an hour.

Plus a railway station at Stockbridge is going to be a long way from where people live (vertically and horizontally!), meaning you'd need a feeder bus (like the Stagecoach service every ten minutes that currently connects with Supertram for journeys into Sheffield city centre).

There are many bigger priorities, sorry.

 

[Starmill]

True re Manchester.

Yet most of the complaining about London biased funding seems to come from around Manchester...

Regarding this, I think actually most of us on here voted yes to our TIF bid or would have done if eligible. It was a fantastic scheme that would have guaranteed some enhancements immediately without the need to go looking for funding, several of which are now not just unfunded and unplanned but off the table entirely, such as a Goldborne station, platforms at Lostock on the Wigan lines and a few other things. It was a tragic loss that the GMPTA didn't manage to get it through.

I'd go so far as to say that those who voted no have a lot to answer for. Yes there were some slight issues with the way it was conceived and the charge might have been a bit too high, but at the end of the day it was mostly road users rejecting public transport by saying they didn't want to pay for it or switch to using it.

The biggest improvement was Metrolink expansion, and you will note that it has proceeded in full. But now instead of those who damage the environment by driving into Manchester city centre paying for it, Mancunian council tax payers and more importantly Metrolink passengers are paying for it through its very high fares and their fixed RPI+1% increase. Surely you can see the sub-optimality of this? So please don't use it to be cheeky to those of us who will unashamedly stand up for the right of Manchester to a high quality local public transport system.