Infrastructure Project Priorities

[ainsworth74]

Whilst matters of North v South can get a bit emotional I'd ask that we refrain from using bad language when attempting to make our points. Many thanks.

 

[tbtc]

Also, your argument is just plain weird...If London's so damn good at raising money, why does it need any public money at all?

Shockingly, we can also raise public money. It's the public subsidy needed to make up costs-such as the £76m out of £250m for Leeds NGT that gets endangered

I think you missed the point I was making. Crossrail is being funded by a lot of private money because London has a private sector big enough to pay for such investment. Please don't pretend that the £16bn is all "public money".

As for the paltry list of 'improvements' you show, yes, we've had some. Which are nothing less than partially undoing some of the horrific atrophying of public Transport in the north.

Okay, moved on from "we can't get any" investment.

Actually "the north" will have a lot more spent on it this decade than most of "the south east' (if you can separate that from "London").

We're coming off of a standing start, when hundreds of miles of urban railway that are now badly needed have been closed

Are they really urgently needed? 70% of peak arrivals in Manchester have spare seats, remember. I wonder what the figure is for London?

 

[RichmondCommu]

Aside from the list of reasons I could give you about why a national economy based solely on London is hugely detrimental, if your problem's overcrowding, I'd suggest a great way of fixing it is getting people to move to/stay in the North.

People choose to move south for reasons other than local transport! Not only that but if people decide to move north they will either stay in London during the week or they will extend their commuting time.

 

[AndyLandy]

I'd suggest a great way of fixing it is getting people to move to/stay in the North.

Absolutely. I could not agree more with that statement. If you can work out how to do this, you should stand for election as Prime Minister. I'd vote for you.

Alas, I don't think throwing large sums of money at the public transport in the area will be enough to cut it.

 

[Class377/5]

As someone weirdly agrees, the north needs is some electrification and new carriages, at relatively low expense.

Yes, but we can't get that money because it's being hoovered up into things like Crossrail. NGT in Leeds might get cancelled for want of £76m from the DfT, despite having a CBR of 3.86. £76m is 0.5% of the Crossrail budget.

While it is true than individually, Crossrail has a higher CBR, that's inaccurately measured against other individual projects. The real comparison that needs to be done is Crossrail 2, on its own, against a £16bn package of improvements for the rest of the country.

Yes, new carriages & wiring would be nice, but there are also some other pretty substantial projects could do with being done (just from West Yorks)

1. Re-quadrupling Dewsbury-Diggle, including station re-openings & openings along the line to increase capacity sufficiently for 6tph Leeds-Manchester and half-hourly Leeds-Huddersfield & Huddersfield-Manchester stopping services.

2. Bradford Crossrail, linking the Airedale & Wharfedale and Caldervale lines, as well as re-opening Low Moor-Thornhill Lees, to provide direct through services from Sheffield & Wakefield to the Spen towns & Bradford

3. Massive station & line re-opening programme across Greater Leeds

4. Leeds city centre improvements-huge concourse upgrade of Leeds City station, plus quadrupling of the Viaduct through Leeds City Centre, and a new station at Marsh Lane.

5. Building of Leeds Tbus not only within Leeds, but connecting out to Bradford & Wakefield to alleviate existing highly congested bus routes.


In addition to this one area, there's a list the length of your arm for expansions to Merseyrail, the T&W, the Metrolink & Midland Metro. We can't get them, because the entire budget is being taken up by Crossrail.

Those projects, taken together, along with a relaxation of planning laws in the North, would facilitate a massive rebalancing away from London that would have hugely beneficial effects.

These "hugely beneficial effect", what are they?

As for your ideas, what the BCR on them? I'd like to compare to those projects you oppose.

 

[dcsprior]

This discussion raises a couple of interesting questions:

First of all railways in the UK attract a large public subsidy. For this, do we expect them to achieve certain social policy aims? For instance:

• Providing an attractive alternative (on cost, comfort, convenience, etc) to less environmentally-friendly modes of transport. It feels like there's been a concious effort to do this in recent years
• Reducing inequalities between different parts of the UK. I don't think I've ever heard this mentioned as something the railways try to do - but that isn't to say that it couldn't/shouldn't be.

Secondly, it's long been said that by various campaigners that upgrading roads to reduce congestion doesn't work, as it just encourages more people to use them therefore increasing congestion. Does the same thing apply to rail:

• The east of Scotland where I live is really not well-served by rail; I believe that even the busiest route (EDB-GLQ) has one train every 15 minutes, everything else is one every 30 mins, and I know few people who use rail for journeys under about 18-20 miles.
• London where I work 3 days a wee is very well served by commuter-rail, underground, DLR, etc. but travelling by train is a far less pleasant experience

Irrespective of the fact that London drives the rest of the economy? For all those towns in the North that rely on public sector jobs; where do you think the money comes from? That’s right the private sector in the South East.

Yes I would agree that the North requires much needed investment but please remember the vital role that London plays in the wider economy.

I don't think its quite as simple as that. Many companies have a presence throughout the UK, but are London-based. Is this a case of money being generated in London and distributed to the rest of the UK (through taxation and public expenditure, as well as people like me who earn our wages in London and spend it elsewhere) or the reverse (as the profits the company makes throughout the UK end up in London)?

 

[HSTEd]

London has something approaching a sixth the population packed into a corner of South East England (infact across the entire South East I think it might even be approaching a fifth or a quarter now).

It is the obvious place for public transport resources to be invested as it escapes the problems brought about by the so called "Rural Transport Problem".
Using BCR type calculations this is inevitable if restrictions are placed upon the resources available, as they are by governments who are concerned about sound bites related to government borrowing.

(In reality, all high BCR projects should be funded using government debt, since they should all generate new government revenues that should offset the cost, rather than simply financing the highest BCR options that can be politically backed. While this would reduce the selection pressure for projects in the South East, it cannot eliminated it for the population density reasons alluded to above).

Unfortunately if you want London-standard publci transport we need to demolish either Manchester-Liverpool or Leeds-Sheffield and concentrate the population from that region into the survivor.
Otherwise busines cases for new projects in London will always be superior.

(There is an exception to this, in the case of New towns and cities in the style of Milton Keynes, trams and underground railways would be feasible since it is far cheaper to build public transport before or at the same time as the stuff around it, in this case using cut and cover and similar techniques without all the disruption payments. It essentially becomes as expensive as it is to build these things in an open field, which is not very.)

 

[MidnightFlyer]

What I'm getting at is, add Skem, the huge Northern Hub plans, Metrolink and NET extpansions, the Todmorden Curve, everything like that together, and you'll see that the North isn't abandoned at all. Now, could you please provide points for the need and affordability of the Bradford CrossRail package please, and why it's much more essential than the Southern equivalent. Cheers.

 

[gimmea50anyday]

70% of peak arrivals in Manchester have spare seats

Do they? Don't think the majority of TPE passengers or staff would agree with that statement. Remember we were promised 4 car 185's but government cutbacks put paid to that possibility, just because a seat is available on the train doesn't mean it's not full and standing, some people dont like to share seats. Not that I am questioning some officialdom figure quoted somewhere to justify some spending cutback etc. but the impression gained from my experience working these trains just doesnt match what the quote says.

now 4 car 350's are coming to west coast work sounds great on paper but there's no real capacity improvement. A 4 car 350 with 20m carriages have just 17 more seats than a 3 car 185 at 23m long!

 

[43074]

What I'm getting at is, add Skem, the huge Northern Hub plans, Metrolink and NET extpansions, the Todmorden Curve, everything like that together, and you'll see that the North isn't abandoned at all. Now, could you please provide points for the need and affordability of the Bradford CrossRail package please, and why it's much more essential than the Southern equivalent. Cheers.

I couldn't agree more with this.

And, don't forget the nationwide project costing £32bn and on it's way to a high speed station in Leeds or Manchester in 2033. By which time all of the Pacers and most of the Sprinters will have been replaced and the 333s on Airedale and Wharfedale lines will be on their last legs. Perhaps the 333s could be replaced by a Bradford Crossrail - it's already electrified from Bradford Forster Square to Leeds and Skipton.

 

[tbtc]

Do they? Don't think the majority of TPE passengers or staff would agree with that statement. Remember we were promised 4 car 185's but government cutbacks put paid to that possibility, just because a seat is available on the train doesn't mean it's not full and standing, some people dont like to share seats. Not that I am questioning some officialdom figure quoted somewhere to justify some spending cutback etc. but the impression gained from my experience working these trains just doesnt match what the quote says

According to http://www.bettertransport.org.uk/files/happiest_commuter_index.pdf - 29.5% of peak arrivals in Manchester (07:00 - 09:59) have more standard class passengers than they have standard class seats.

Therefore I reckon 70% have spare seats. Most of the routes which see passengers standing are ones where the train length could easily be extended without requiring costly infrastructure spending.

Leeds has a bigger problem - half of trains have passengers standing - though it isn't seeing the same amount of investment that Manchester gets. Despite having a better chance of getting a seat, Manchester commuters seem more miserable than Leeds ones (am only quoting the figures!).

The only trains coming into London in the morning peak with spare seats will be the longer distance ones where passengers are priced off by the disparity between peak/ off peak (I think Virgin are the worst for this), in comparison.

 

[gimmea50anyday]

How about capacity & speed enhancements on Huddersfield-Leeds so that we can do a 40 mile journey in less than an hour?

40 miles HUD-LDS? Last time I took a 185 that way think it took 20 mins with a stop at Dewsbury! Either we were doing 225mph or think you meant LDS-MAN!

Personally I think the whole industry has been starved of cash for far too long and cut back too far. Don't think there is one individual on here that would disagree with that. Hs2 is IMHO 30 years late and we should have stopped running 2 car trains 15 years ago. Some areas have no demand because there is no supply, as I have posted here before. Take Northumberland and the cross Lancashire Yorkshire routes. Woodhead, as another example. T&W metro that suddenly stops at St James and doesn't serve the west end of Newcastle. Birmingham metro that was promised so much yet is still one line. There are plenty of examples where money is needed, yet the private railways are all making money out of the transport pot. Cross rail 2 ties in with hs2, but Bradford cross rail has lost it's appeal from the original 1980's plan which was actually to close one of the stations and concentrate all trains on one route into and out of Leeds (iirc). trains are too short and have been for some time. XC and the voyagers introductions the overcrowding was predicted back then but franchise limits wouldn't allow longer trains.

I do believe however, if BR had the subsidy that the private firms enjoy now, we would have a world class railway to be proud of, not the third class railway we do have now. There is no doubt we need more money poured into the industry, but unless some Chinese investor or Arabian prince is willing, there will only be so far we can spread the jam, so those projects that offer the best bcr ratios are going to win, wether anyone thinks Bradford cross rail is better than London cross rail or not!

 

[yorkie]

I would also be very surprised at the 70% spare seats into Manchester at peak times claim. That said, the last time I took a peak train out of Leeds, there were many standing passengers but there were technically one or two spare seats as the seating was of 3+2 style and not many people want to be wedged in. It's better to stand than suffer that. It's different if it's a group of people you know and you're all getting off at the same stop, of course.

Moving on to the lack of investment, I also agree there hasn't been enough infrastructure projects, though a huge amount of cash that goes into the industry appears to be wasted due to the way it is structured and due to various rules and regulations that exist.

As for the BR comparison, let's not go there, please!

 

[gimmea50anyday]

Manchester northern hub will benefit Leeds as the rerouting of trains via Victoria will allow a 5th train across the Pennines. This is expected to be a second TPE service from Newcastle to Liverpool. Train crews are being recruited now at Newcastle and Liverpool and the 185's released by the introduction of the 350's will work the services. XC are also looking at diverting their Doncaster services into Leeds although I don't think pulling out of Doncaster is a good move for XC, they clearly think there is more demand. Preliminary has also been done for the new station entrance and turn backs at micklefield and crossgates are being looked at in order to run more trains through. Platforms 13 and 14 are being proposed to be linked to provide two further through platforms. So it not as though there is no investment in Leeds as there are schemes going ahead.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
BR had its faults, current arrangements have its faults. I am sure there are many threads on here where the differences have been very hotly debated. Somewhere there is an ideal middle ground that takes the best of both, and sadly we are many years away from reaching that point. My crucial words tho is IF and HAD. There will never be a comparison as we will never know! Just my thought!

 

[tbtc]

One point to make that hasn't been touched on yet is that a lot of the public money spent on railways in "the north" is to subsidise fares and to keep certain unprofitable routes running. That doesn't buy any shiny new infrastructure, but it still costs public money.

XC are also looking at diverting their Doncaster services into Leeds although I don't think pulling out of Doncaster is a good move for XC, they clearly think there is more demand

This is a problem on the privatised railway. XC have said that Leeds - Sheffield is the busiest section of route that they run on and so obviously want to run extra trains that way (at the expense of Doncaster).

But that then leaves a gap in Doncaster - York provision (which XC now partly fill due to the speeding up of London - Newcastle/ Edinburgh services which now seldom stop at Donny).

How do you judge XC's desire to make more money out of Leeds against the gaps that they will leave behind?

 

[gimmea50anyday]

As you stated its the gap in service from DON all the way up to Scotland which will require a change at York and the extended journey time running via LDS. If that is where the service demands it then so be it, but more and more XC is evolving into a non London commuter network from the direct long distance non London connection network it was in intercity days where most routes and destinations had at least one direct service a day. Such is the price of progress I guess!

 

[Batman]

Personally I think building Crossrail 2 should be seen as a greater priority that HS2 beyond the West Midlands.

HS2 south of Birmingham/Lichfield will be there to free up capacity on the WCML south of Rugby and therefore has a practical purpose. HS2 to Leeds and Manchester is being done simply to provide minor improvements to journey times so that politicians can say they're 'bridging the north/south divide'. Yes the north needs investment, but a scheme on the scale of HS2 will be a waste when roughly the same amount of cash can be used to pay for crossrail 2, something that will bring real benefits to the countries economic powerhouse and will mean we don't have to worry about Northern and Victoria line peak trains being at 200% capacity by 2040.

And we also need to remember that the country will be in an almost permanent state of bankruptcy from about the mid-2020's, so we have to be very careful about which mega-projects we commit to and be mindful that not many more of them will be able to be built.

 

[Wath Yard]

Although I'm not entirely convinced by the HS2 argument of spreading wealth around the country, I think your CrossRail 2 argument is very flawed.

The UK is quite a large country and cramming all the wealth into one small corner of it is a folly. If infrastructure projects to make other areas more attractive were built then there wouldn't be a need to constantly embalk on hugely expensive projects in London for an ever growing population.

It is only fairly recently that London has become the main economic powerhouse of the country, so it isn't as though things can't change if there is the will.

 

[gimmea50anyday]

The further north hs2 runs, the more benefit it will offer to the whole country in lower journey times and increases in capacity. Talks of extending to Scotland should seriously be considered as well as classic connections to destinations off route as hs1 now does. Brunels billiard table should also be looked at for a hs conversion but this will have to include expansion of the formation to retain the classic route. This could also improve a case for a link from Bristol to Birmingham.

There is so much possibility, of that there is no doubt, but we do need to concentrate on the smaller improvements as well as the big ticket jobs which themselves improve the network as a whole. Where indeed do we draw the line as to viability or not?

 

[RichmondCommu]

The UK is quite a large country and cramming all the wealth into one small corner of it is a folly. If infrastructure projects to make other areas more attractive were built then there wouldn't be a need to constantly embalk on hugely expensive projects in London for an ever growing population.

It's all down to where people want to live and London is a very popular place, especially amongst young proffesionals. People tend to migrate further away from Greater London later on in life but still stay in the SE.

 

[Waverley125]

40 miles HUD-LDS? Last time I took a 185 that way think it took 20 mins with a stop at Dewsbury! Either we were doing 225mph or think you meant LDS-MAN!

Huddersfield-Leeds is part of Manchester-Leeds. It's also got some of the biggest capacity constraints, given the desire for communities along the line to have a regular half-hourly stopper into Leeds, speed restrictions through Morley tunnel, the mooted new station at White Rose Centre, more trains stopping at Cottingley etc.

Leeds-Manchester is 42 mile, the fastest journey is 53 minutes. So that's an average of around, what, 50mph? On an intercity main line that'd pathetic.

Also, for all those saying 'but you're getting electrification of TPE so stop complaining', please let me remind you.

1. It doesn't include Hull

2. It doesn't include Middlesbrough

3. It doesn't upgrade the stock we'll be using, given 350s are what we've got now, but longer.

4. It doesn't increase capacity as is needed to meet all stakeholder demands.

Result? Continued road spending on upgrading the M62 and gridlock in Central Leeds & North Huddersfield.

Let me further remind you that 20 years ago we had 8-coach trains running across the pennines every half hour. Now we have 3 coaches, every 15 minutes. That's a cut of capacity, not an increase.

All that the TPE upgrade does is restore us back to where we were 20 years ago, by completing a project that has been evidently necessary for a decade and more. It is not a project that will, in any way, safeguard against future capacity needs in the north of England.

If anyone would like evidence of this, see the half-done upgrade of Leeds City. No extra platform entrances, no widening the eastern approach, no bringing the old Wellington station back into use.

Result? 10 years after the upgrade, Leeds City is full again.

Manchester Piccadilly is also full, and moving TPE to Victoria will fill that too, unless serious upgrade work is done in East Lancs to bring the Colne-Burnley-Blackburn-Bolton-Salford-Victoria-Rochdale-Burnley loop up to scratch.

So I'll say again, if we were getting:

-Electrification from Leeds to Hull & Middlesbrough, Manchester to Liverpool via Warrington, Manchester to Sheffield, Sheffield to Doncaster & Sheffield to Leeds

-Speed upgrades east of Selby & West of Leeds to reduce Hull-Leeds & Leeds-Manchester journey times

-reinstatement of four lines (dynamic loops) between Diggle & Dewsbury

-stations at Diggle, Longwood & Milnsbridge, Golcar, White Rose Centre, Low Wortley, East End Park, Killingbeck, Copmanthorpe & Dringhouses

that would be an 'upgrade'.

This project is no more than getting back what we had twenty years ago, and to even compare it to spending on infrastructure in the south is not incredibly insulting, but shows a complete ignorance of the actual situation in the north of england.

 

[RichmondCommu]

I don't think its quite as simple as that. Many companies have a presence throughout the UK, but are London-based. Is this a case of money being generated in London and distributed to the rest of the UK (through taxation and public expenditure, as well as people like me who earn our wages in London and spend it elsewhere) or the reverse (as the profits the company makes throughout the UK end up in London)?

You've made some very valid points but the percentage of people employed in the private sector in the SE is much greater than anywhere else in the country. And of course it's private sector jobs that directly contribute to GDP.

 

[Wath Yard]

It's all down to where people want to live and London is a very popular place, especially amongst young proffesionals. People tend to migrate further away from Greater London later on in life but still stay in the SE.

Not really. People move to London for the money and the opportunities. I did so myself and after a while really couldn't be bothered with the hassle and moved away. I know many people who have done the same and many intelligent, successful people who would never move to London no matter how much you paid them.

Just becasue London is where the high paid jobs are now doesn't mean that is where they have to be. Not that long ago before the deindustrialisation of the country the North East, Lancs and Yorks and the Midlands were the economic powerhouses of the country. The world changes and when you look at how a lot of London's wealth is generated the world could change pretty rapidly as far as London is concerned.

 

[RichmondCommu]

People move to London for the money and the opportunities.

Exactly and all too often those oppotunities simply don't exist elsewhere, certainly not for the same financial reward. I've never met anyone who has actually sauid that they enjoy commuting to work but for many its a price worth paying.

Not that long ago before the deindustrialisation of the country the North East, Lancs and Yorks and the Midlands were the economic powerhouses of the country. The world changes and when you look at how a lot of London's wealth is generated the world could change pretty rapidly as far as London is concerned.

Yes I would agree with you but so many of those jobs are never likely to return. For instance ship building and coal mining is finished in this country which has certainly hit the North East. And the employers that have moved in to the area have found it very easy to move away again. The West Midlands has recently had a boost thanks to expansion by Tata Motors and of course there are other examples of recovery.

In terms of London itself than yes I would agree that the world is changing and The City / Canary Wharf is under threat from New York and the Far East. And there are plenty of construction projects on Bishopgate that have been delayed. But there is nothing to sugest that London will no longer be the ecnomic power house of the UK.

 

[Ironside]

The further north hs2 runs, the more benefit it will offer ...

There is so much possibility, of that there is no doubt, but we do need to concentrate on the smaller improvements as well as the big ticket jobs which themselves improve the network as a whole. Where indeed do we draw the line as to viability or not?

Completely agree, high speed rail has to go to Scotland, and in my opionion every region of the uk with a built up area over say 250,000 people. It can't be done all at once because of a lack of cash, and taking on the nimbies one region at a time is the only way to go. This also allows the connecting infrastructure to be built at the same time, so that there are enough people being fed into the high speed network. This also allows the smaller projects to be done at the same time.

 

[tbtc]

Huddersfield-Leeds is part of Manchester-Leeds. It's also got some of the biggest capacity constraints, given the desire for communities along the line to have a regular half-hourly stopper into Leeds, speed restrictions through Morley tunnel, the mooted new station at White Rose Centre, more trains stopping at Cottingley etc.

Leeds-Manchester is 42 mile, the fastest journey is 53 minutes. So that's an average of around, what, 50mph? On an intercity main line that'd pathetic.

Also, for all those saying 'but you're getting electrification of TPE so stop complaining', please let me remind you.

1. It doesn't include Hull

2. It doesn't include Middlesbrough

3. It doesn't upgrade the stock we'll be using, given 350s are what we've got now, but longer.

4. It doesn't increase capacity as is needed to meet all stakeholder demands.

Result? Continued road spending on upgrading the M62 and gridlock in Central Leeds & North Huddersfield.

Let me further remind you that 20 years ago we had 8-coach trains running across the pennines every half hour. Now we have 3 coaches, every 15 minutes. That's a cut of capacity, not an increase.

All that the TPE upgrade does is restore us back to where we were 20 years ago, by completing a project that has been evidently necessary for a decade and more. It is not a project that will, in any way, safeguard against future capacity needs in the north of England.

If anyone would like evidence of this, see the half-done upgrade of Leeds City. No extra platform entrances, no widening the eastern approach, no bringing the old Wellington station back into use.

Result? 10 years after the upgrade, Leeds City is full again.

Manchester Piccadilly is also full, and moving TPE to Victoria will fill that too, unless serious upgrade work is done in East Lancs to bring the Colne-Burnley-Blackburn-Bolton-Salford-Victoria-Rochdale-Burnley loop up to scratch.

So I'll say again, if we were getting:

-Electrification from Leeds to Hull & Middlesbrough, Manchester to Liverpool via Warrington, Manchester to Sheffield, Sheffield to Doncaster & Sheffield to Leeds

-Speed upgrades east of Selby & West of Leeds to reduce Hull-Leeds & Leeds-Manchester journey times

-reinstatement of four lines (dynamic loops) between Diggle & Dewsbury

-stations at Diggle, Longwood & Milnsbridge, Golcar, White Rose Centre, Low Wortley, East End Park, Killingbeck, Copmanthorpe & Dringhouses

that would be an 'upgrade'.

This project is no more than getting back what we had twenty years ago, and to even compare it to spending on infrastructure in the south is not incredibly insulting, but shows a complete ignorance of the actual situation in the north of england.

A few things:

You don't need infrastructure spending to return to eight coach trains on TransPennine

You'll never satisfy "all stakeholder demands" whatever you spend - some stakeholders won't be happy with a four tracked gold plated railway

The fact that you are claiming that electrification plus longer trains isn't actually an upgrade makes it hard to have this debate

I don't think that any project will fully safeguard against future capacity needs

The CP5 announcement was only for things being built in CP5. Hull (etc) will happen, but they can't build everything at once

The fact that Thameslink2000 hasn't been completed suggests that Leeds isn't the only place waiting to get what it wanted a generation ago!

 

[gimmea50anyday]

As stated in one of my posts earlier, a 4 car 350 offers only 17 more seats than a 3 car 185. What TPE needs is 444's with a pan. Lets call them 344's. 5 car. The only station on north route not able to accommodate a 5 car 344 Is Yarm. But extending the platform there will be straightforward. All other stations can easily accommodate 5 cars but a few cannot accommodate 6. These being Chester le street (easy) Warrington central (already extended but not up to modern standard) Liverpool south parkway (difficult). I cannot say for south Milford and brough as I don't sign that route. Electrification wise, as much as standedge has an aspiration to reopen the single bores I don't think there will be enough clearance for the wires but there is no doubt the route needs electrification. Leeds to York should have been done when the ECML was wired, and knowing that leaving gaps makes no sense I cannot see why the wires won't be going up. I think it will be highly likely that once the north west triangle is complete and the wire train makes its way over the Pennines not work fail will be into cp6 where i think we will see the authorisation for Middlesbrough hull and Scarborough to get done. By this point we will most likely see the network franchise totally redrawn

 

[tbtc]

As stated in one of my posts earlier, a 4 car 350 offers only 17 more seats than a 3 car 185. What TPE needs is 444's with a pan. Lets call them 344's. 5 car

TPE are getting four coach 350s for the Manchester - Glasgow/ Edinburgh service as a short term measure, for the simple reason that these can be tagged onto the order for extra LM EMUs.

That's only intended as a short term thing, with proper stock to come later - presumably the same middle/long distance EMUs as would be ordered for the Liverpool - Newcastle axis (and maybe some other similar routes like Manchester - Bournemouth, GEML, MML, who knows).

There are no plans for 350s on the Huddersfield corridor, there are no plans for anything on that route (some have speculated it'll be 365s, but that's just people working out that there may be some 365s spared on the GN at about the same time as the Huddersfield line is wired).

 

[ainsworth74]

(some have speculated it'll be 365s, but that's just people working out that there may be some 365s spared on the GN at about the same time as the Huddersfield line is wired)

And hopefully that bit of speculation will remain just that! Maybe it's just me but unless those 365s get a new interior before arrival I can't help but feel that they would be a relatively significant downgrade for passengers on the route.

 

[Waverley125]

365s would be fine for Leeds-Huddersfield stoppers, and would be a significant improvement on the existing pacers (though there may need to be work in the bays at Huddersfield to accommodate them). On TPE though, they'd be a huge regression.

As for saying TPE isn't an upgrade making it harder to have the debate-it doesn't. It makes it harder to defend the idea that the north's getting a fair deal. In Twenty years we have seen journey times stagnate & capacity decrease. This project is merely restores one facet of what was lost. Moreover, it will, like all other 'major projects' in the north, need to be redone again in 10 years because of the unwillingness to spend what is needed. We have manifest evidence for this in the Piccadilly & Leeds station upgrades, which were half-done and now need doing over.

Furthermore, the idea that economic development necessitates a move away from heavy industry is patently rubbish. Every other significant country in the western world has a heavy manufacturing base, and Britain left the Second world War with a significant advantage in many areas. These, however, were squandered by failing to reform those industries, and, under Thatcher, failing to take a long-term view of the UK's economic situation.

See how North Sea Oil revenues were used to give a tax cut to Tory voters, rather than funding a Sovereign Wealth Fund. Norway's SWF is now financing huge amounts of their welfare system, ours evaporated.

Heavy industry could be revived along the lines of existing industry we continue to be world class in-Aerospace & Pharmaceuticals. However, this needs govt. to make serious & long-term investment in the industries, and to *shock horror* support infrastructure in those areas.

But even if heavy industry can't be revived, that doesn't meaning accepting the current imbalance. London has, as any dominant player in any market situation will, tended towards a monopoly, with the incentives to locate in London as against the North being reinforced by Government investing more in London than elsewhere. Only in London is there a reliable and all-encompassing public transport network. Only in London is there a wide range of easily-accessable cultural & social amenities at all times (or so many have been led to believe).

Lower costs of living and office space are offset by the perceived desirability of London, in both the eyes of employers and employees. Government must change that by engaging in various strategies, one of which is providing much better public transport. It's very little use for me that Huddersfield has a number of desirable homes, if it takes an hour to commute there, and my family doubles its car bill. That's compounded if the public imagination of Huddersfield is a grimy, sooty milltown in Yorkshire which still thinks the mullet is in fashion.

There a huge range of policy options government can pursue, from assisting in the opening of a vast range of cultural amenities in the north (which, to its credit, the previous Labour government did) to improving public transport links.

If I could commute from a nice, cheap house in West Halifax to Leeds in 30 minutes via an electric train, and know that if I did miss it one day, I'd only be 15 minutes late because there was another train then, I'd be far more likely to want to move from London to Halifax.