George Osborne's Autumn Statement

[Clip]

Does anyone have a summary of what was said in relation to railways? BBC News' summary is good on just about everything else but the railways!

#33 had a summary

 

[ainsworth74]

So was that all confirmed then?

 

[Wolfie]

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...

You missed the internecine Northern version...

"The Big Bad Government Never Spend Any Money On My Local Railway; It's All Spent On Greater Manchester" copyright the North-East...

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

TPE don't have any Pacers or even any old trains. The North TPE semi-fasts will replace the Victoria-Huddersfield service, which sees Pacers but other than that I can't think of any relevance to TPE.

Most probably some "high-flyer", not knowledgeable about trains, has seen the few Pacers on the Southport run at Manchester Airport and decided that they were either First TPE or Manchester Metrolink....

 

[WatcherZero]

What was the exact term he used? BBC News have reported Old pacer carriages on Northern Rail and the Trans-Pennine Express replaced with new and modern trains

TPE don't have any Pacers or even any old trains. The North TPE semi-fasts will replace the Victoria-Huddersfield service, which sees Pacers but other than that I can't think of any relevance to TPE.

He refered to TPE and Northern being refranchised and said as a result Pacers would be replaced.

 

[Wolfie]

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.

I agree everything you say. BUT don't then expect other areas of the country, particularly London which has an operating congestion charge, the level of which is I believe significantly higher than that which was proposed for Manchester, to pay to make up for the selfishness of your local motorists as well as for their own transport enhancements.....

Is theer not the big problem that the railway has not learnt that the Treasury expects stringent control of railway costs including on projects and yet again the railway has failed to deliver (NW electrification stages 1 and 2 late and GW electrification well over budget) so it gets no money from the Treasury as the railway cannot be trusted to spend it wisely?

There are two main cost drivers in a service such as the railways, namely current operating costs and investment. You have focussed solely on the latter where there have indeed been problems. However the former is a particular problem in the North as well. You better believe that HMT looks at the whole picture.....

The extra benefits of the Regional option accrue almost totally to people commuting into and visiting London who will have more capacity on the suburban network and in some cases will not need to change to a Tube at the terminus. So although some of the extra money is spent outside the London boundary there are wider benefits to London from a larger workforce, more visitors, and a slight reduction in pressure on inner-city house prices.

If the extra benefits of the regional scheme fall to folk living outside London then let them contribute through their Council Tax too!

 

[AngelicUpstart]

His exact words with regards to Pacer replacement were

And I can confirm today that we will tender for new franchises for Northern Rail and the Trans-Pennine Express – replacing the ancient and unpopular pacer carriages with new and modern trains.

 

[WatcherZero]

I agree everything you say. BUT don't then expect other areas of the country, particularly London which has an operating congestion charge, the level of which is I believe significantly higher than that which was proposed for Manchester, to pay to make up for the selfishness of your local motorists as well as for their own transport enhancements.....

The Manchester one proposed was covering a far larger area than the London C Charge 210km squared within the M60 vs 21 square km of London. The Manchester one was expected to raise £1.3bn over 30 years, the London one raised £1.2bn over ten years with rates five times higher. Therefore just under twice as many people would have been paying the Manchester one vs the London one.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Does anyone have a summary of what was said in relation to railways? BBC News' summary is good on just about everything else but the railways!

Looks like the Spectator published the full text here.

He didn't say much about rail: All I could find was this, which pretty much matches what the BBC reported:

This week we commit billions of pounds to other road and rail improvements across the whole of the North of England.

And I can confirm today that we will tender for new franchises for Northern Rail and the Trans-Pennine Express – replacing the ancient and unpopular pacer carriages with new and modern trains.

 

[Oswyntail]

....If the extra benefits of the regional scheme fall to folk living outside London then let them contribute through their Council Tax too!

Of course, if the benefits accrue to the whole of the UK, then even Londoners should pay.

 

[Wolfie]

£2.50 doesn't sound bad compared to the vast majority of trains fares. I'll happily pay that for the service. Yes it may be full but another will come in a minute. It costs me £1.50 for the bus going to the station. But trains are better than buses, even Pacers as they have more seats.

I don't know where that £2.50 fare comes from and for sure it is not a New York or Paris style flat rate fare. From Jan 15 the cash fare for a Zone 1 trip (even one stop) is £4.80 and the PAYG Oyster figure is £2.30.A bus ride in London will cost £1.50 cash not accepted!

Of course, if the benefits accrue to the whole of the UK, then even Londoners should pay.

Twice! That's the point as you know damn well hence the wink!

 

[fowler9]

I don't know where that £2.50 fare comes from and for sure it is not a New York or Paris style flat rate fare. From Jan 15 the cash fare for a Zone 1 trip (even one stop) is £4.80 and the PAYG Oyster figure is £2.30.A bus ride in London will cost £1.50 cash not accepted!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Twice! That's the point as you know damn well hence the wink!

A bus ride in Liverpool is £2.20. How are liking those apples?

 

[Deepgreen]

His exact words with regards to Pacer replacement were

And I can confirm today that we will tender for new franchises for Northern Rail and the Trans-Pennine Express – replacing the ancient and unpopular pacer carriages with new and modern trains.

So, a new order for a huge tranche of class 139/2s can be expected (identical to the 139/1s but with LED headlights)?!

 

[snowball]

The official document corresponding to the statement is here. Transport is discussed round about page 49 and round about page 86.

2.203 Northern and TransPennine Express rail franchises – The government will publish
the Invitations to Tender for the Northern and TransPennine rail franchises in early 2015, and will
specify a substantial package of upgrades including new services and modern trains in order to
phase out the outdated Pacer trains.

 

[northwichcat]

So, a new order for a huge tranche of class 139/2s can be expected (identical to the 139/1s but with LED headlights)?!

Although, how will those be used to provide 20% more capacity? Maybe by ordering a few hundred of them?

 

[tbtc]

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.

London had a chance to vote for a congestion charge, and they voted for it.

Manchester had a chance to vote for a congestion charge, and they rejected it.

On top of this, London pays additional taxes/levies towards things like Crossrail.

So, all of the complaints that more money is spent in London than in Manchester have to be seen in light of this. If people in London want to pay more money for public transport (through levies and through a congestion charge) then good luck to them.

If anything, Manchester has got a better deal as they got the investment (Metrolink) without having to pay extra taxes/ charges to fund it.

tbtc. The 500 times funding figure was reported by BBC less then a year ago, I'll get the story tonight. You say some areas don't have as many employed and therefor don't raise tax, surely these are the areas most needing of investment to ensure job opportunities.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
'The Institute of Public Policy Research says transport infrastructure spending is £2,500 per head in London compared with £5 per head in the North East.'

This was from a BBC story from June.

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27675069

http://www.ippr.org/news-and-media/...2700-for-london-but-p5-per-head-in-north-east

IPPR North analysis shows transport spending is:

£2731 per head in London
£792 per head in the South East
£311 per head in the East Midlands
£269 per head in the West Midlands
£201 per head in Yorkshire & Humber
£134 per head in the North West
£43 per head in the East
£19 per head in the South West
£5 per head in the North East

So it looks like they are only looking at investment and ignoring the heavy subsidies to rail travel in the North East - a pretty huge thing to ignore when they are only talking about "Transport spend per head".

They are also ignoring the fact that urban areas with dense populations (London) rely on railways a lot more than rural areas where the population is a lot more spread out.

Apples and oranges.

If they were comparing total spend (investment and subsidy) per passenger journey then I'd look at the figures further, but it's a pretty flimsy starting place.

The LSWR line was built as a mainline and stayed that way until it's closure. A line which ran 7 through trains per day from Plymouth to Waterloo and another one to Brighton, with a similar number coming the other way, cannot be described as a branch line, unless you have a rather strange definition of the phrase. For sure the system was run down after the Western region took over and from 1964 onwards it was mostly local traffic but even so through services were still being run to Brighton up until the very day of the lines closure. Sounds a pretty long and extensive branch line to me.

The fact that it was built as a main line is irrelevant - the A6 was once the main road from London to Manchester/Glasgow but nobody is suggesting that it's currently the prime route for such journeys.

As you've admitted yourself, it was a secondary route under British Rail - the fact that it had trains seven days a week and some of them ran a long distance doesn't make it a main line - plenty of branch lines fit that criteria.

Same with the fact that it had some London services - I wouldn't treat Newquay or Lincoln as being on main lines.

There's merit to a line from Tavistock to Bere Alston, but to pretend that a re-opened Okehampton line is a national priority or a main line is disingenuous.

So you're saying it's obvious that EACH Londoner needs 500 times the investment as someone in Newcastle? Why do they? Are Londoners more important? Are they unable to use altrnatives or are poorer??

What alternatives? THere's a motorway standard road passing through central Newcastle, so cars are a viable means of commuting. There's no such alternative to public transport in Newcastle

I completely agree with you on this. I find it incredulous that some posters on this forum seem to be of the opinion that train travel is cheap when clearly it isn't! Walk on fares to London during the peak are ridiculously expensive.

Yes, it's expensive, but with even twelve coach services packed out in the morning rush hour on some lines, there are enough people paying it - I don't see any price cuts happening.

They probably are. But that means little if every time I buy a half pound of butter in Great Wallop in the Myre all the profits go to Sainsbury in London WC. Just because their buyers/directors are in London doesn't prove owt (as they'd say in Bradford, which is where they would go if I bought it in - the much smaller - Morrisons!) so really, as most Head Offices and most of the Government are in the South East, it's an automatic subsidy I fear.

Has Bradford's economy picked up significantly since Morrisons took over Safeway?

Alternatives? More than 3 billion people use London Buses a year! What other alternatives are there?

True - I don't think that people appreciate how highly used buses/ underground/ trains are per head of population in London (as many rail journeys a day as the rest of the UK combined? significantly more bus journeys?)

Public transport in London is needed much more than in other cities (and I say that despite living in Yorkshire).

But why can't Newcastle get just half per head of Loncon funding? That's what I'm saying

Should passengers in London see a 50p subsidy per passenger mile too?

So who is making those companies stay in the South East? Surely office space (in fact it is) is cheaper outside of the SE so why isn't there a huge stampede north?

True - especially in these days of electronic communication - there's no *need* to be based in central London (esp given the higher rents, higher staff wages), yet they are.

I'm of the opinion that public transport should reflect this reality and cater for that demand.

I think there is more acceptance of, but not active enthusiasm for, devolution to some sort of set up based around city regions, for example the Greater Manchester agreement from a few months back. What is comprehensively rejected is regional, it's an artificial construct people have little or no identification with (see complaints that 'south-west' includes Stonehenge from those in Devon & Cornwall who also don't want to have a regional decision making in Bristol). English do not want either another layer of politicians and bureaucracy.

I personally think deals along the lines of GM is a good way to start in order to help get a decent local transport solution.

True, but devolution north of the border isn't to Glasgow or to Aberdeen, it's on a Scotland-wide basis.

Whilst most people in England seem to like the concept of some devolution, they don't want to be "ruled" by a different place - e.g. those in Liverpool won't want rule from Manchester, those in Sheffield won't want rule from Leeds, those in Cornwall won't want Bristol - so where to you draw the line?

The South West has a small population to sustain an extra layer of Government (compared to "Lancashire" / "Yorkshire" / "Midlands") but if you take the urban areas of Bristol/ Bath etc out of it and try to have an assembly for just Devon/ Cornwall then it's going to be pretty tiny (with very little scope to borrow/spend much).

According to Gideon the decrepit Pacers seem to be on the way out in the new Northern!

Pacers to be replaced with "new and modern trains" in next Northern franchise

I think that this is a bit of a vague promise - since the next Northern franchise won't start until 2016 it'll run into the 2020s, so replacing Pacers *during* that franchise isn't much of a commitment - I'd expect them to be gone by then.

The question is whether they could be withdrawn by 31 December 2019 or sooner (less likely IMO).

We'll free up around two hundred 75/90/100mph DMUs in CP5 (e.g. fifty in South Wales, fifty around the Thames Valley, fifty in the Central Belt) - the recent news that ScotRail will take on old HSTs brings the total of "freed up" units closer to 250 (any extra DMUs to Chiltern/ Southern are essentially a rounding error compared to this figure).

So, even with a few bits of capacity enhancement/ couple of newly opened routes (Tavistock, Portishead?) we'll have enough DMUs to replace all 142s (all 143/144s will be harder).

"Replacing Pacers" sounds like a great story, I just don't think that it's quite as simple/ happy/ urgent as the headlines will make it sound.

I agree we have to make what we've got work better with more powers to them, not have more talking shops and bureaucracy - like the mind numbingly abysmal standard of debate in the Scottish Parliament for example!

I'm old fashioned, but I'd rather that we gave existing layers of Government sufficient funding, rather than faffing around with new layers.

For example, Sheffield City Council has lost something like £150 per head of population per year (AFAICR) which means any investment/ discretionary funding has had to end - no money for things like libraries/ free train travel for pensioners/ sports centres/ subsidised buses.

A Regional Assembly/ Sheffield Mayor (or other new layer of Government) sounds popular, but it's all about money - if there's money there then just give it to the existing Sheffield City Council - if there's no new money then we are just introducing a new layer without it being able to achieve anything.

 

[Oswyntail]

....Twice! That's the point as you know damn well hence the wink!

Actually the was because I had just waved the red rag to your bull. Ole!

 

[northwichcat]

We'll free up around two hundred 75/90/100mph DMUs in CP5 (e.g. fifty in South Wales, fifty around the Thames Valley, fifty in the Central Belt) - the recent news that ScotRail will take on old HSTs brings the total of "freed up" units closer to 250 (any extra DMUs to Chiltern/ Southern are essentially a rounding error compared to this figure).

Note at present:
94 x 2 car 142s are set to be withdrawn by the end of 2019. Angel Trains have no plans to keep them in service beyond that and the new final drives Angel are currently fitting to the 142s only have a lifespan of 5-6 years if they remain as intensively used as they are currently.
70 x 1 car 153s aren't set to remain in service in single car formation beyond 2019. Porterbrook haven't ruled out scrapping them, even though most people are suggesting they'll be reformed in to 155s.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The official document corresponding to the statement is here. Transport is discussed round about page 49 and round about page 86.

That's rather more than the actual words used in the Commons.
Looks like the Northern/TPE ITTs have slipped up to 3 months into 2015.
Joining Northern and TPE in the statement about "new services and modern trains" could still mean any "new" trains go to TPE and the "modern" ones to Northern, with the Pacers dropping off the end.

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

tbtc. Do you really think all in the Northeast use Northern rail?
East Coast, TransPennine, Tyne and Wear and Cross Country are used too. Northern rail has less passengers than these others so the 50p rate is not much combined.

Even if everyone in the Northeast used this 50p subsidy train they would have to use it 5,000 times a year each to equal London's investment per head (ignoring London subsidies) Do you really think people do that???

To answer your other question, I have no problen with loss making but essential services being subsidised, in London or anywhere else. That's why subsidies are needed.

 

[northwichcat]

What needs to be remembered is a lot of projects require no operating subsidy once they are set-up but require a grant for hundreds of millions to get set-up. If the hundreds of millions had to be repaid then the services requiring no operating subsidy would suddenly need huge subsidies.

 

[Bletchleyite]

70 x 1 car 153s aren't set to remain in service in single car formation beyond 2019. Porterbrook haven't ruled out scrapping them, even though most people are suggesting they'll be reformed in to 155s.

Presumably 153s could get a derogation from accessibility rules if they are used only for strengthening of a formation consisting of an accessible unit. Or they could be fitted with a big bog, though this would be at the expense of seating capacity. Or even remove the bog.

I can't see any 15x being scrapped any time soon. Even if a 153/155 is a souped-up bogied Pacer.

Neil

 

[northwichcat]

Presumably 153s could get a derogation from accessibility rules if they are used only for strengthening of a formation consisting of an accessible unit. Or they could be fitted with a big bog, though this would be at the expense of seating capacity. Or even remove the bog.

Toilet isn't the only issue.

Here's the full list of 153 issues: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa.../file/203767/class-153-pb-covering-letter.pdf

Apparently the amount of dirt was an accessibility issue! I wonder if it was a Northern 153 they looked at?

 

[muddythefish]

... and so ends the Autumn Statement which contained absolutely nothing new for rail and only a vague promise that Pacers will be replaced at some point in the next Northern franchise (ie, they will still be running into the 2020s).

Thank you Gideon.

 

[fgwrich]

Toilet isn't the only issue.

Here's the full list of 153 issues: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa.../file/203767/class-153-pb-covering-letter.pdf

Apparently the amount of dirt was an accessibility issue! I wonder if it was a Northern 153 they looked at?

Interesting that, Thanks for the link to the letter. It appears they looked over 153335 - that point in time no doubt caked in Crown Points finest Dirt in Anglia Railways / National Express East Anglia hybrid livery. Had one of FGWs 153s been checked over at the time it may have changed this persons review on the fleet somewhat and London Midland have fitted PAs to their fleet so it shows what can in part be done. I wonder what they'll make of the mysterious 153s 'Pink Moulding' / Orange Strip (This is Not a Handle!) though

 

[Iskra]

Toilet isn't the only issue.

Here's the full list of 153 issues: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa.../file/203767/class-153-pb-covering-letter.pdf

Apparently the amount of dirt was an accessibility issue! I wonder if it was a Northern 153 they looked at?

Isn't it to do with the doors having to be visibly a different colour from the rest of the train for people with impaired sight? Dirt could affect that...

... and so ends the Autumn Statement which contained absolutely nothing new for rail and only a vague promise that Pacers will be replaced at some point in the next Northern franchise (ie, they will still be running into the 2020s).

Thank you Gideon.

I'm no supporter of the Conservative party, but I think you're being unfair in your assessment. It's a commitment to replacing them, not a vague promise. And that is significant as it means modified pacers won't happen.

 

[158756]

Isn't it to do with the doors having to be visibly a different colour from the rest of the train for people with impaired sight? Dirt could affect that...

I believe the specific reference to cleanliness was of the contrast between the step board and the vehicle floor, which is reduced if said surfaces are dirty.

I'm no supporter of the Conservative party, but I think you're being unfair in your assessment. It's a commitment to replacing them, not a vague promise. And that is significant as it means modified pacers won't happen.

It's a commitment to encourage bidders to replace them at some point up to the mid 2020s. If the cheapest bid wants modified Pacers for 15 years, there's no indication that it won't happen.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Every company the government owned the British public loved to hate. Royal Mail got right on my nerves sometimes as did British Rail, British Telecom and British Gas for everyone else. However I believe if Thatcher wanted to improve all the companies, she could have. I'm not saying keep everything nationalised, but Mini and Bently being owned by the Germans is frankly wrong. As is Cadburys being owned by Americans (who make awful chocolate).

But why is it wrong? They are making a much better job of manufacturing those cars and increasing sales than we ever did. And of course they've preserved British jobs.

We're proving to the world that we can make really good quality cars that people want to buy and with great efficiency. We're also proving that our management structure was ineffective and that the unions in the 1970's / 1980's were hell bent on destroying our car industry.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Yes, it's expensive, but with even twelve coach services packed out in the morning rush hour on some lines, there are enough people paying it - I don't see any price cuts happening.

The thing is though it's not just commuter routes into London. It's early morning services from places much further a field that are so expensive.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

My view is that the govt of the day from 1979 decided to smash the unions and in the process they unnecessarily destroyed whole swathes of manufacturing which of course had a devastating effect on the north.

At the same time they decided to focus on the service economy and financial services in particular, which were mainly based in the south. The 1980s Big Bang and deregulation of the City accelerated the process.

Anyway, back to Gideon and his Statement and his £15bn spending on roads while I am forced to go to work on a decrepit old Pacer.

Muddy, as a Labour voter I'm sorry to have to say this but the unions smashed themselves and betrayed their members.

 

[muddythefish]

B

Muddy, as a Labour voter I'm sorry to have to say this but the unions smashed themselves and betrayed their members.

The unions were defending workers and their pay and conditions.

In view of events over the past 30 years, which has seen the gap between rich and poor become a yawning chasm, and wages at the top spiral while those at the bottom stagnate, I would say they were correct.

It would be to everyone's benefit (except employers of course) if organised labour made a comeback.

 

[IanXC]

True, but devolution north of the border isn't to Glasgow or to Aberdeen, it's on a Scotland-wide basis.

Whilst most people in England seem to like the concept of some devolution, they don't want to be "ruled" by a different place - e.g. those in Liverpool won't want rule from Manchester, those in Sheffield won't want rule from Leeds, those in Cornwall won't want Bristol - so where to you draw the line?

The South West has a small population to sustain an extra layer of Government (compared to "Lancashire" / "Yorkshire" / "Midlands") but if you take the urban areas of Bristol/ Bath etc out of it and try to have an assembly for just Devon/ Cornwall then it's going to be pretty tiny (with very little scope to borrow/spend much).

There are ways these things can be achieved in different scenarios though, an extra layer of government isn't necessarily inevitable. West Yorkshire Combined Authority is, for instance, made up of elected members drawn from the constituent councils.

Its perfectly plausible that a Cornish Combined Authority could be made up of members drawn from Cornwall Council and Isles of Scilly Council (CAs must have at least 2 councils involved) I don't think there's any reason this could jot be the entire council...