Levelling up for the South East

[tbtc]

Are there that many Exeter - London passengers on those services ?

To further expand on TCBC's point, in my experience, there are some good advance fares on that route, but why would they get rid of them on that route but not the GW one when it would likely just exacerbate crowding on the GW route ?

So there's not many people who travel from Exeter to Waterloo, but at the same time there are so many people on that route who'd be put off by equalising the fares with the B&H route that they'd "crowd" it?

(the fact that the B&H swapped HSTs for 260m 802s means that there are more seats now, and nationwide passenger numbers have obviously taken a big hit in recent years, so I'd suggest that there's some capacity to absorb additional passengers)

Restoring Uckfield-Lewes falls into that category.

I am a strong supported of reopening Uckfield to Lewes line

What's this week's justification for re-opening it?

Have we given up on the "diversionary resilience" ideas and the "BML2" proposals?

And there's precious little reason to go to Hertford from Hatfield - it's not got a large number of employers, it has few shops. It simply isn't a traffic destination

This is the problem with these proposals - it's easy to find two places without a direct link but are they sufficiently different to justify travelling from one to the other?

I know I've mentioned it before, but the failure of services between Huddersfield and Halifax/ Bradford/ Wakefield needs to be remembered - on paper they look like big enough places to warrant frequent services but there's not enough reason for many people to leave one for the other - whereas a direct train to Leeds/ Manchester (or even Meadowhall) offers a reason to leave Huddersfield

Hertford and Hatfield both look like big enough places but is there really that much in one that means large numbers would travel between them each day?

Of course that depends what "levelling down" means. More usefully it probably means moving some jobs out of the South East, which isn't necessarily a bad thing if the people are willing to move with them, to cheaper housing and a shorter commute.

The BBC's Salford move was a good example.

You don't need to go to the expense of actually moving jobs - having to pay relocation costs and disrupting your business whilst the transition takes place - risking the loss of several experienced staff who don't want to move hundreds of miles (as happened with some BBC employees) - post Covid you just stop increasing the "London weighting" until "Provincial" wages catch up - no need to pay extra for London staff when a lot of jobs can be done from home most of the week - I had a colleague who left to work for a firm in the South East, which she does from her back bedroom in Hillsborough - you don't need to shock people into a disruptive move, you just slowly stop paying London staff over and above what others get for the same job - and five years later inflation has eroded that premium

(obviously some jobs need to be done in London, so you'd need to continue to pay more than the standard wage to ensure that people could afford to be school teachers etc in London rather than somewhere cheaper, but a lot of office jobs no longer justify paying more for London staff than people doing the same work elsewhere in the country)

 

[JonathanH]

you just slowly stop paying London staff over and above what others get for the same job - and five years later inflation has eroded that premium

Given there are plenty of office jobs where pay no longer increases even before trying to align London and provincial staff, that is going to be difficult. Inflationary increases haven't really been a thing since 2010, if not before, merit only.