North should "take control" of transport

[SamYeager]

Presumably, all the taxes raised in The North would stay in the north, and all the taxes raised in The South would stay in the south...........???

:roll:

Absolutely! It's about time the South West had some decent line enhancements to make up for all the money spent elsewhere in the country!

 

[Bevan Price]

Presumably, all the taxes raised in The North would stay in the north, and all the taxes raised in The South would stay in the south...........???

:roll:

Yes - apart from a contribution that every region would make towards defence, etc. (in proportion to their populations.)

 

[Wolfie]

(In "stirring mode".)

What we need is home rule for "The North" - a federal UK, with each "region" free to decide their own policies, financial arrangements, etc. The central government would just be left to take care of things like defence, foreign policy, etc.

"The North" would then be able to decide its own rail transport policy / investment priorities, without the dead hand of Whiehall (DfT, Treasury, etc.) continually meddling and often favouring "London / South East" when it comes to finance. (I have nothing against London & its residents, but it does seem to get more than a fair share of investment money.)

l agree... just as long as you don't expect London/the South East (take a look at where the majority of the tax take comes from) to fund this utopia...

 

[Wolfie]

Presumably, all the taxes raised in The North would stay in the north, and all the taxes raised in The South would stay in the south...........???

:roll:

If that was so Northern are in the mire given the level of current subsidy...

 

[Wolfie]

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2016/jul/07/london-top-taxpaying-city-uk-report

Yes - apart from a contribution that every region would make towards defence, etc. (in proportion to their populations.)

Sold..

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

Presumably, all the taxes raised in The North would stay in the north, and all the taxes raised in The South would stay in the south...........???

:roll:

There are many different models for federal government. The USA, Germany and Switzerland are all federal nations but with very different ways of managing public finances. And there are federal taxes and local taxes so most money continues to go into a central pot.

The only indicator we have of how it might work for the UK is the Barnett Formula. This has come under increased pressure in recent years for being over generous to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland but no Westminster party leader has yet spoken out against it. Arguably it could be described as producing socialist results as the per capita spending that it affects does give the most generous benefits to the least affluent. So if transport funding was devolved to TfN then it might well find it has a very generous budget available. However at this stage the indications are that TfN is intended to simply be a devolved planning body and the purse strings would still be in the firm hands of the Treasury.

 

[158756]

True for today in 2017. But provides minimal future proofing. When some peak-hour trains need to be longer, and that day will arrive quite soon if growth continues in line with recent trends, then it will result in those trains being unable to stop there due to the issue of fouling the junctions. As such Salford Crescent's role as an interchange station will be somewhat eroded. The fact that longer trains are not already in operation is entirely due to the long-term hangover from the previous Northern franchise having been let on a no-growth basis.

At current growth rates (I find 3% as a figure for the North West, but I seem to recall the Bolton line not doing particularly well) it would take 15 years to move from a full 4 car train to a full 6 car train. It would probably then take a few more years for the system to respond and further lengthen the trains. Plus growth is likely to be less on the busiest peak trains simply because they are full. So at least 20 years before an 8 coach train would be needed. Who knows what might happen in that time. Atherton might be part of Metrolink. Driverless cars might have killed the regional railway. Growth might simply unexpectedly stop just as suddenly as it started in the 90s. It already seems to have slowed in the North.

If longer trains are not running solely because of the previous franchise can anyone answer the question of whether any six car trains are planned via Salford Crescent in the near future?

 

[frodshamfella]

Lumping all of south east England together isn't useful. SouthEastern Metro trains to NW Kent and SE London are grim. 25 years old and never had a refurb. Grayling blocked cascaded trains now in sidings doing nothing after Gibb report suggested it a year or so ago. Other cascades havnt happened going back 5 years. No additional stock for about 12 years.

SE longer distance are much better however. There's massive variations within SE England franchises let alone the country.

Grayling has no desire to invest yet blocks devolution.

Having come from north Kent, I agree they are grim, and less comfortable than the old slam doors, but at least you have long trains, that hardly exists in the north. Merseyrail are still using nearly 40 year old stock, however at last new trains have been ordered.

 

[Gareth Marston]

l agree... just as long as you don't expect London/the South East (take a look at where the majority of the tax take comes from) to fund this utopia...

London and the South East contribute 37% of the UK Gross Added Value on around 25% of the population. Whilst there is undoubtedly a skew with these regions contributing more than average they don't justify the even greater skew with transport expenditure concentrated in them

 

[The Ham]

London and the South East contribute 37% of the UK Gross Added Value on around 25% of the population. Whilst there is undoubtedly a skew with these regions contributing more than average they don't justify the even greater skew with transport expenditure concentrated in them

A lot of the "skew" is to do with Crossrail. However what is often forgotten is that Crossrail is adding 10% of the London underground's current capacity.

For most other regions to add that level of growth would require just extra coaches. In the case of Northern and TAPE that would cost something like £100 million for 40-45 extra coaches.

Also at £15 billion over the circa 9 million people in London means a transport spend of about £1,600 per person. However that doesn't give a true picture as areas outside of London, such as Berkshire and Kent, will also benefit but chances are very little if anything from the Crossrail budget is counted as spend in those regions. Even though they wouldn't be able to benefit without what is being spent in London.

Likewise who benefits from line speed improvements near to London on the MML, probably most likely those from the East Midlands. Yet the spend isn't in the Midlands.

It's all as adds up to regional spending figures have some use but don't show the whole picture.

 

[yorksrob]

The more I hear of Mr Grayling, the more I hope the PM discovers his 'talents' and transfers him to some other lucky department.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

The more I hear of Mr Grayling, the more I hope the PM discovers his 'talents' and transfers him to some other lucky department.

His only "talent" is as a Brexiteer to balance the Leave/Remain numbers in the Cabinet. The man is a pure ideologue and as such should not be allowed anywhere near a ministry. I believe his record speaks for itself.

 

[jayah]

I don't know the population of the entire London region as opposed to Greater London, but I can't think it is more than the 15 million conceded by Grayling as the population of the 'North". Crossrail alone is estimated to cost almost 15 billion. What is the government prepared to spend on 'Crossrail for the North'?

Most of the funding for Crossrail came from London businesses, TfL and the GLA. Only around £5bn of the 15bn from central government.

 

[fowler9]

London and some surrounding areas do provide more tax revenue than other areas of the UK but the more that is spent on infrastructure there the more attractive it makes the region and it just continues the cycle.

 

[The Ham]

London and some surrounding areas do provide more tax revenue than other areas of the UK but the more that is spent on infrastructure there the more attractive it makes the region and it just continues the cycle.

Although What you say is true we do have to be careful.

The most commonly used figures for transport spend per region are based on total transport spend where some or all of the investment come from the public purse. In doing so it means that schemes like Crossrail have the full spend allocated to the total, even though a significant percentage comes from local taxes or local investment (i.e. TfL spending money from its income).

To take this to the extreme to illustrate the point. If the Port of London Automatically spend £1 billion on port facilities but there is a £10,000 grant from a local council to include something that they want. Then as I understand it the current calculation would be for the full £1 billion. As such the perceived cost per person is hundreds of pounds (over the whole of London), yet the actual is measured in pence (for the local council tax payers).

As such the result would look like London was getting significantly more government money, when the reality is that all the investment is private or a small amount of local tax money. It then leads to the perception that London gets all the government money when the reality could be very different.

However there is another problem with that method, which is it doesn't count funding from private money if no public money is used. For instance if a house builder build a new link road to serve their development which provides a route around a town or releases capacity at a junction then that isn't included. Even though that may bring the biggest benefit to a region.

Even tgen any comparisons have to bear in mind the limitations of the calculation .

 

[underbank]

Will this Rail North body/Northern Powerhouse/etc be working in partnership with Merseyside, Greater Manchester, South Yorkshire, West Yorkshire, and Tyne & Wear Passenger Transport Executives?

What about Lancashire and Cumbria??

 

[underbank]

I agree with you about the desperate need for longer trains in the north

Indeed, being stood in a jam-packed single carriage Northern service for a couple of hours on the Cumbrian Coast line isn't a pleasant experience.