Infrastructure Project Priorities

[Rational Plan]

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.

1st Industrial production increased in the UK under the Tory government. It's just the number of people employed that fell. Industry is an capital intensive business. In the Western as wages have risen industry has needed to become ever more capitally intensive.

Industrial production fell under a Labour government. But it was them who wanted all the tax revenue from the Banks.

Improving transport will not transform Manchester or Sheffield into industrial power houses. Compared to a lot of third world countries that are massively increasing their industrial production now, they already have far superior infrastructure.

The main complaints from employers is the difficulty in finding recruits who can spell or do maths or a general shortage of engineers or specialists.

One frequent complaint is that the UK training system if fine for churning out car mechanics and hairdressers or aero engineers or biologists but not much good for those skills in between.

Once an industry grows it is very reluctant to move from it's original base as a lot of firms like to be near each other as it provides agglomeration benefits. Such as a wide and deep labour pool (very important if you rely on specialist skill sets), industry contacts and gossip ( very important for innovation) and a strong customer base to sell too.

So London has it's finance, insurance and international business services. The Midlands still has it's automotive specialisation, which has survived the best attempts to destroy it through the Unions and nationalisation and the creation of BMC and then BL.

New technolgy in Britain clusters around the roads to Heathrow and access to international markets and around Oxford and Cambridge.

But to transform the North requires new industries that pay high wages. That means businesses that sell internationally and require highly specialised staff.

They won't simply move there. I don't see being a branch plant location a means to making you rich.

It would be better is they could create new technologies in their own universities and create business from that.


A simpler way for the North to get more investment in it's rail systems would be for the train systems to charge the same per mile as the do in London and the South East, then the TOC's could afford at lot more carriages.

If all those extra carriages filled up then it would be easier to justify spending more on infrastructure.

But choose your poison, low fares or more investment.

 

[Pumbaa]

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 think you're mistaken - South Parkway can take 7

Which is entirely ridiculous - an 8 car 350 can fit with room to spare, but still has to UDS :-x

 

[tbtc]

365s would be fine for Leeds-Huddersfield stoppers

The Leeds - Huddersfield stoppers need something with wide "commuter" doors suited to short dwell times, not medium distance trains

As for saying TPE isn't an upgrade making it harder to have the debate-it doesn't

At the moment I'm trying to discuss the planned infrastructure improvements on TPE with someone who denies that any of them are actually an improvement.

Yes, it would have been nice if all of the CP5 upgrades had been done twenty years ago, but then Londoners probably say the same about "Thameslink2000"

 

[The Ham]

At the moment I'm trying to discuss the planned infrastructure improvements on TPE with someone who denies that any of them are actually an improvement.

Yes, it would have been nice if all of the CP5 upgrades had been done twenty years ago, but then Londoners probably say the same about "Thameslink2000"

It should also be noted that Crossrail 2, which started of life as the Chelsea–Hackney line was drawn up in the 1970's (about 40 years ago) and safe guarded in the 1990's (about 20 years ago), however the original idea for a west to north-east tube line was first proposed in 1901 and was even put before parliament in 1904 before it was killed off.

Also most of the SWT's services into Waterloo during the peak hours are full and standing with little or no chance of lengthening services (as most are already 12 coaches in length) or those that can be will require vast sums of money spent to lengthen platforms to cater for them or will require longer gaps between services to allow for SDO, which again isn't really an option. There is also no spare space for extra paths into or out of Waterloo during the peaks or shoulder peaks and very limited space for extra paths in the short amount of time classed as off peak and they are mostly used to cope with problems caused by minor delays during the peaks.

Yes, if it was easy to get people not to travel to London to work then that would be ideal. However, even where house prices are dramaticly cheaper than an hour away form London, it is difficult to get people to move or invest there. Although I am aware of companies starting to move some of their "unskilled" departments (for instance archiving) well away from London to reduce their costs.

 

[Waverley125]

1st Industrial production increased in the UK under the Tory government. It's just the number of people employed that fell. Industry is an capital intensive business. In the Western as wages have risen industry has needed to become ever more capitally intensive.

Industrial production fell under a Labour government. But it was them who wanted all the tax revenue from the Banks.

Improving transport will not transform Manchester or Sheffield into industrial power houses. Compared to a lot of third world countries that are massively increasing their industrial production now, they already have far superior infrastructure.

The main complaints from employers is the difficulty in finding recruits who can spell or do maths or a general shortage of engineers or specialists.

One frequent complaint is that the UK training system if fine for churning out car mechanics and hairdressers or aero engineers or biologists but not much good for those skills in between.

Once an industry grows it is very reluctant to move from it's original base as a lot of firms like to be near each other as it provides agglomeration benefits. Such as a wide and deep labour pool (very important if you rely on specialist skill sets), industry contacts and gossip ( very important for innovation) and a strong customer base to sell too.

So London has it's finance, insurance and international business services. The Midlands still has it's automotive specialisation, which has survived the best attempts to destroy it through the Unions and nationalisation and the creation of BMC and then BL.

New technolgy in Britain clusters around the roads to Heathrow and access to international markets and around Oxford and Cambridge.

But to transform the North requires new industries that pay high wages. That means businesses that sell internationally and require highly specialised staff.

They won't simply move there. I don't see being a branch plant location a means to making you rich.

It would be better is they could create new technologies in their own universities and create business from that.


A simpler way for the North to get more investment in it's rail systems would be for the train systems to charge the same per mile as the do in London and the South East, then the TOC's could afford at lot more carriages.

If all those extra carriages filled up then it would be easier to justify spending more on infrastructure.

But choose your poison, low fares or more investment.

If your post contained any facts, or you knew anything about British industrial policy since the Second World War, I'd respond. However, you seem to have swallowed the 'stupid northern unionists destroyed their own industry' propaganda.

 

[W230]

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

So let's supply a world class public transport system to these two cities and see how many Londoners (or people from anywhere else in the UK) move there.

 

[gimmea50anyday]

I think you're mistaken - South Parkway can take 7

Which is entirely ridiculous - an 8 car 350 can fit with room to spare, but still has to UDS :-x

It might take 7 350 cars but as they are longer it will only take 5 185 cars, requiring the rear set to be udb.


Hull and Middlesbrough will get wired. Authorisation will come in CP6, by that point most of the existing work will be nearly complete an the leccy wiring train will be somewhere between Leeds and York. Hull will then benefit from electrics to London as well as TPE routes and tpe's northern network will be all electric. (Hopefully!!!)

 

[Pumbaa]

It might take 7 350 cars but as they are longer it will only take 5 185 cars, requiring the rear set to be udb.

Fair enough. Is there a local agreement maybe, or driver/guard communication? I regularly take the 1707/1807 off Piccadilly and alight at South Parkway and have never had an issue alighting.

Although I note P1 is only 124m, P2 is 137m. So a 2x185 *does* fit with all doors on platform 2, it may not be officially allowed to?

I've never caught a 2x185 at P1 though, back in the heedy days of commuting at 0712 (now 0715) it was only a single 185; it's double now though.

Edit: thinking about it, there's a 7/5 stop marker on P2+3. Always wondered what that's about.

 

[Waverley125]

So let's supply a world class public transport system to these two cities and see how many Londoners (or people from anywhere else in the UK) move there.

Funny you should say that...

Maybe if we provided them with high-quality public transport to both national & local centres, the lower house prices & cost of living, as well as office space, would make them preferable places to locate a business to the sky-high prices of the southeast.

And maybe if other government investment was forthcoming we'd see the kind of cultural shift away from attitudes that say that Hull is somewhere nobody wants to live.

It's funny RP wants the North to produce industries from universities. We do, and we produce huge amounts of graduates (Hull & Middlesbrough included). The problem is that they then move away, rather than staying in the area. That's what needs to be rectified, and a good public transport system is necessarily part of that.

Unfortunately there are far too many people who've never been north of Watford who think that since we've got the M62 we're all dandy up here.

 

[Haydn1971]

Move to Hull ? I'm feeling queasy at the thought

People live in the southeast, suffer the transport and high cost of housing because of either a) being born and bred there, or b) getting a much better job than they could up here down there... Either way, what attraction is there to move to Hull, all the nice places in Hull are actually in East Riding

 

[HSTEd]

What we really need is a Shinkansen that makes all these secondary places be sufficiently close to London they can tap into its infrastructural benefits through being commuter dormitories.

100mph+ average speeds even with 20 mile stopping intervals is quite impressive really...

 

[Manchester77]

Not to be rude but you think a Shinkansen is the thing which will solve many railway infrastructure issues for example GEML a Shinkansen from Norwich to London?!

 

[HSTEd]

Not to be rude but you think a Shinkansen is the thing which will solve many railway infrastructure issues for example GEML a Shinkansen from Norwich to London?!

Indeed, can you deny that it would solve many railway infrastructure issues?

Noone would be complaining about GEML journey times or capacity if there were ten trains an hour with average speeds higher than the maximum speed of the current stock, each with 1300 seats would they?

It is just that noone is willing to pay for it as all.

(Might have something to do with the fact that High speed rail infrastructure in Britain seems to cost twice what it does in Japan despite PPP indicating that Japan is more expenisve to build in in Britain... its odd really).

The massive upgrades the network requires have unfortunatley been shown to be insanely disruptive and to run enormously overbudget (the WCRM could pretty much have bought an LGV directly serving all the destinations served by ICWC with money to spare)

 

[YorkshireBear]

Funny you should say that...

Maybe if we provided them with high-quality public transport to both national & local centres, the lower house prices & cost of living, as well as office space, would make them preferable places to locate a business to the sky-high prices of the southeast.

And maybe if other government investment was forthcoming we'd see the kind of cultural shift away from attitudes that say that Hull is somewhere nobody wants to live.

It's funny RP wants the North to produce industries from universities. We do, and we produce huge amounts of graduates (Hull & Middlesbrough included). The problem is that they then move away, rather than staying in the area. That's what needs to be rectified, and a good public transport system is necessarily part of that.

Unfortunately there are far too many people who've never been north of Watford who think that since we've got the M62 we're all dandy up here.

Shall we electryfy the Esk Valley while we are at it?

Middlesborough does not deserve electrfication as it has 1tph there are places much more deserved of it such as the harrogate line. Hull will be done soon so i dont think that needs worrying about. HUll trains are keen and so are Network Rail.

 

[Waverley125]

Shall we electryfy the Esk Valley while we are at it?

Middlesborough does not deserve electrfication as it has 1tph there are places much more deserved of it such as the harrogate line. Hull will be done soon so i dont think that needs worrying about. HUll trains are keen and so are Network Rail.

And you, quite wonderfully, what I've been saying all the way through this.

The metrics used to decide which things get built are self reinforcing

Middlesbrough only has 1 TPE train an hour.

Why?

Because no-one wants to go there

Why?

Because there's nothing there

Why?

Because it's really hard to get to?

Why?

Because Middlesbrough only has 1tph.

A town of 150,000 in a metropolitan area of 350,000 can probably sustain more than 1tph, as Middlesbrough used to do. Probably at least 2tph on TPE and a bi-hourly service to London at least. Hopefully HS2 will release capacity enough for that to happen.

as for 'should we electrify the Tees valley'-probably, yes. While the line to Whitby will not merit it, Bishop Auckland-Darlington-Middlesbrough-Saltburn undoubtedly would. As would the Durham Coast line to Newcastle. Should also look at bringing Durham-Stockton into passenger use to facilitate fast services to Newcastle avoiding the DCL.

 

[tbtc]

Noone would be complaining about GEML journey times or capacity if there were ten trains an hour with average speeds higher than the maximum speed of the current stock, each with 1300 seats would they?

...and the winner for the "rhetorical question of the day" goes to...

A town of 150,000 in a metropolitan area of 350,000 can probably sustain more than 1tph, as Middlesbrough used to do

When was this?

Not so long ago that the line through Yarm was considered for closure, with whatever Middlesbrough - York services there were run via Darlington.

 

[gimmea50anyday]

(Might have something to do with the fact that High speed rail infrastructure in Britain seems to cost twice what it does in Japan despite PPP indicating that Japan is more expenisve to build in in Britain... its odd really)

One way Japan, along with Hong Kong and china have helped keep the costs down is the associated developments of housing, shops and amenities around and especially above the stations the railways built. The income generated from these being piled back into the railway. It's brilliant! Invest in the stations, provide the railway, somewhere to live and shop and even work and people will want to live where they are close to such amenities and excellent transport links.

Of course you have got to spend the money first to make money....

 

[Rational Plan]

If your post contained any facts, or you knew anything about British industrial policy since the Second World War, I'd respond. However, you seem to have swallowed the 'stupid northern unionists destroyed their own industry' propaganda.

No the British government had a major hand in destroying much of it's own industries through nationlisation. Protectionists policies of the 60's 70's insulated british companies from competition which just made them worse.

It's you who seems to think that a few metro networks would suddenly mean that Northern cities would become rich, just because it's easier to commute into Leeds or Sheffield does not mean anyone would move from London. It's already cheaper to live in the North and most people have much easier commutes compared to the South. If you are on a half decent income the life in the North is much better than in the South.

If that is what all it took to rectify the North South divide then the disparities would have solved themselves years ago.

As I said many companies stay in higher cost areas because of the benefits I already mentioned. Sections of there business that don't need to be near all the action can be sent anywhere. It just these days why bother with Huddersfield when such business can go to Delhi or Chengdu instead. The North needs to grow it's own companies and businesses if it wants to prosper, branch plants come and go on company whim.

I'm not saying infrastructure is not important, but from most perspectives the UK's infrastructure is actually pretty good. It's other factors that holds areas back from growing.

 

[Waverley125]

No the British government had a major hand in destroying much of it's own industries through nationlisation. Protectionists policies of the 60's 70's insulated british companies from competition which just made them worse.

It's you who seems to think that a few metro networks would suddenly mean that Northern cities would become rich, just because it's easier to commute into Leeds or Sheffield does not mean anyone would move from London. It's already cheaper to live in the North and most people have much easier commutes compared to the South. If you are on a half decent income the life in the North is much better than in the South.

If that is what all it took to rectify the North South divide then the disparities would have solved themselves years ago.

As I said many companies stay in higher cost areas because of the benefits I already mentioned. Sections of there business that don't need to be near all the action can be sent anywhere. It just these days why bother with Huddersfield when such business can go to Delhi or Chengdu instead. The North needs to grow it's own companies and businesses if it wants to prosper, branch plants come and go on company whim.

I'm not saying infrastructure is not important, but from most perspectives the UK's infrastructure is actually pretty good. It's other factors that holds areas back from growing.

Deary me. You really must stop building straw men.

I've never said that transport is the only thing that is necessary (there's lots more besides where the south gets funded disproportionately). It is however, a necessary part of that regeneration that transport funding is equalised.

It's you that seems to think that industry is beyond saving (despite evidence to the contrary from every other developed country on the planet), and that the north isn't productive. We produce more graduates than London, but they move away. It's that that needs to be countered.

As for 'already having easier commutes'-please, we dealt with this two pages ago. The M1 & M62 are filled to burst, the roads of Leeds & Sheffield are gridlocked every morning and evening rush hour, and owning a car is incredibly expensive. Without adequate alternatives, London becomes relatively cheaper for a vast number of people.

 

[Haydn1971]

As for 'already having easier commutes'-please, we dealt with this two pages ago. The M1 & M62 are filled to burst, the roads of Leeds & Sheffield are gridlocked every morning and evening rush hour, and owning a car is incredibly expensive. Without adequate alternatives, London becomes relatively cheaper for a vast number of people.

To be fair, small sections are full to bursting point and those are in the process of being "fixed" in the short term with managed motorways (a short term solution in my professional opinion).

M62 J26-27 has major tidal peak issues, as does M1 J39-40 in the am peak and J42-41 and J33-32 in the pm peak. The rest of the troublesome parts of the M62 & M1 are as a result of the sections I mentioned - once these are given greater resilience to traffic saturation, the rest will follow nicely.

As for Sheffield and Leeds being gridlocked, that's a very overused term. Gridlock is where junctions cannot clear due to blocking traffic, there are small pockets in both cities, but as for them being gridlocked every morning and evening peak - no, they are far from it, you need a broken down bus at a strategic location for that, which is when things get really nasty.

 

[tbtc]

As for Sheffield and Leeds being gridlocked, that's a very overused term. Gridlock is where junctions cannot clear due to blocking traffic, there are small pockets in both cities

Gridlocked is a term that people mis-use as much as "overcrowded" (which sometimes means "I had to stand" or "I had to sit next to a stranger", rather than the correct definition of "there were an unsafe number of people standing, above and beyond the standing capacity that the vehicle was designed to cope with"). Grinds my gears, that one...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I've never said that transport is the only thing that is necessary (there's lots more besides where the south gets funded disproportionately). It is however, a necessary part of that regeneration that transport funding is equalised

I'd much rather that money was spent on "northern" infrastructure where it could be justified, not just on the basis that "London has a lot of money spent on it, so why can't we have a big pile of money to spend too".

So far you've not convinced me of the necessity of anything like your Bradford Crossrail though.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

Indeed, I've asked for the Bradford Crossrail benefits twice already (and thrice now) and the request has seemingly fallen of deaf ears...

 

[gimmea50anyday]

Indeed, I've asked for the Bradford Crossrail benefits twice already (and thrice now) and the request has seemingly fallen of deaf ears...

The benefit was to reduce bradfords two stations to one and close one of the routes in to Leeds in the process. Thereby cutting costs by reducing the routes and capacity. At least that's what I understood BR wanted to do back in the late 80's early 90's. but this was before electrification of the aire valley route.

Of course I could be mistaken....

 

[Rational Plan]

Deary me. You really must stop building straw men.

I've never said that transport is the only thing that is necessary (there's lots more besides where the south gets funded disproportionately). It is however, a necessary part of that regeneration that transport funding is equalised.

It's you that seems to think that industry is beyond saving (despite evidence to the contrary from every other developed country on the planet), and that the north isn't productive. We produce more graduates than London, but they move away. It's that that needs to be countered.

As for 'already having easier commutes'-please, we dealt with this two pages ago. The M1 & M62 are filled to burst, the roads of Leeds & Sheffield are gridlocked every morning and evening rush hour, and owning a car is incredibly expensive. Without adequate alternatives, London becomes relatively cheaper for a vast number of people.

I'm sorry it's you who is ignorant. People in the South have the longest commute times. People in the South also travel further for work.

I have not written off industry in this country. Transport is not holding back manufacturing in this country. Education, energy prices, environmental laws, planning controls and factors are a lot more important. So the M62 and the M1 are busy have you seen the M25 or M4 or the complete lack of high quality roads in London. If you look at national congestion maps the worst traffic is all around London. Pretty much the same when you look at track utilisation maps.

Transport costs are nothing compared to Housing costs. You mark yourself as a fool if you think London is relatively cheaper to live in because we are getting crossrail or have lots of 8 carriage trains.

 

[SN74LS123N]

If you look at national congestion maps the worst traffic is all around London.

O RLY?

 

[Haydn1971]

O RLY?

A sample of an unvalidated and limited data set.... However, this is a validated and comprehensive data set...

Congestion on non trunk A Roads

Which clearly shows London has the slowest traffic speeds

 

[The Ham]

O RLY?

That report compares % busier at peak times than during non-peak times, which means that if you have a city where there is fairly high levels of off peak traffic (such as London) then it will score lower than one where the off peak traffic levels are lower.

 

[gimmea50anyday]

*ahem* would now be a good time to request completion of the A1 motorway? its only about 6 miles.....

XD


I don't believe everything I read in the daily mail anyway!

 

[Haydn1971]

*ahem* would now be a good time to request completion of the A1 motorway? its only about 6 miles.....

Leeming to Barton ? That's got funding and is in design now.

 

[gimmea50anyday]

Is it? Thought it had been cancelled by government cutbacks. Last i heard they Were meant to continue once they did the dishforth leeming bit so That's good news. personally i dont know why it wasnt done in one go while they had the machinery, staff etc already on site. would have savd a few quid. still, Alnwick to musselbrough really needs to be done aswell to finish the lot, but can't imagine that will ever get done.

Anyway back to topic!

I would also like to know what the plan is behind this Bradford cross rail idea, as I cannot see what benefit it provides. Are we anywhere nearer getting that answered?