Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
What about HS1, which runs between stations in London (St P and Stratford) and it's commuter belt?
If you're discounting the various DLR branches since the 1980s then when was the last time the North got a new railway? Borders, Robin Hood Line, Selby Diversion, Ashington were all former railways/freight lines/extensions for instance.
Discounting Croydon Tramlink means tram systems in the north don't count either.
Any one of the following (all opened since the mid 1980s) would put the developments in any Northern/Midlands city region to shame:-
Thameslink Core
Elizabeth Line
The entire DLR
Jubilee Line Extension
HS1 (SouthEastern High Speed services)
Even the Northern Line Extension cost twice what the entirity of Phase 2 of Nottingham's NET cost.
It's the investment we all see, often frequently reported on the national news, subject to TV documentaries (e.g. the £15billion railway), and yes benefit from when we visit the capital. Yet locally often have to put up with nothing more than infrequent bus services that have been run down over the same period and don't even operate in the evening.
It's pretty damn easy to see how resentment arises.
Investment at the Northern Line Extension scale of the spectrum in any of cities would be pretty damn transformative, and even at the Cable Car level of investment would make a noticeable impact.
There are a few Labour MPs in Bristol and Plymouth areas, but Labour has always been weak in most of South West
EDIT : just checked, Labour made lot of gains last year, now officially 23 (39%) of South West MPs are Labour, as area also includes Swindon area and Bournemouth & Poole. Others are 22 LibDem, 11 Conservative, 1 Green, 1 Independent
Yes but there are many a Labour MP in Devon and Cornwall since last year. They must feel they've been dealt a pretty rough hand on this one. Nothing meaningful transport wise for Devon and Cornwall , whilst yet more money is thrown at the North.
You should really add in Somerset, Wiltshire, Gloucestershire, Dorset (as Government definitions of South West include them). You will struggle to find any rail capital works (outside the WECA Bristol area) in any of the South West. Apart from IETs all the rolling stock is 33-38 years old (24-26 years for 175s, 444s, and XC voyagers),
If I hear one more mention of a north south divide I swear I'll scream! It's very much a south east vs the rest divide, although I'd argue in recent years, spending on transport in the north west has been absolutely none stop.
Yes the population of South West is about 5.5m, about 10% of the England population of 56m. Whatever statistic you choose, will not get anywhere near 10% of Transport spending applying to South West region.
British Rail were very responsive to the need for more London commuting in the late 1980s. Here we had Bishops Stortford-Cambridge electrification in 1987 with Royston-Cambridge following in 1988 and Cambridge-Kings Lynn in 1992.
The Thameslink project dates from the early 1990s and was called Thameslink 2000, but only came to fruition in 2018. Someone else will be able to say when Crossrail was first proposed.
The economic growth was in London. The DLR and Jubilee extension were critical for developing Docklands so that the City could expand out of the Square Mile. Without them lots of financial services would have gone to Frankfurt or Paris instead, with the UK losing lots of economic growth and tax receipts. The north has received huge benefits from taxes on the big international banks.
And one thing that most people forget about HS1 is the key part it played in London winning the 2012 Olympic bid.
It's the investment we all see, often frequently reported on the national news, subject to TV documentaries (e.g. the £15billion railway), and yes benefit from when we visit the capital. Yet locally often have to put up with nothing more than infrequent bus services that have been run down over the same period and don't even operate in the evening.
You also benefit from economic growth in London which these projects assist, which then kick out a lot of tax revenue which subsidises much of the rest of the country.
The Elizabeth line is estimated to add £42bn to the UK economy - would an £19bn investment in other projects around the UK result in the same level of benefit?
That isn’t to say that other projects shouldn’t happen (and part of the problem is that UK infrastructure projects are far more expensive than those elsewhere in Europe for various reasons), but it would make no sense to invest in big ticket projects in the regions that don’t deliver economic benefits - especially as the opportunity cost of doing so might well be more cost effective schemes in London and the south east.
The Thameslink project dates from the early 1990s and was called Thameslink 2000, but only came to fruition in 2018. Someone else will be able to say when Crossrail was first proposed.
Crossrail appeared a genuine proposition in the early 1990s as well, as there was plenty of promotional literature issued, but was never going to happen at that time once the early 1990s recession hit, hence the delay of twenty years. Crossrail 2 seems destined to never happen, but has been an outline plan for almost as long.
Crossrail appeared a genuine proposition in the early 1990s as well, as there was plenty of promotional literature issued, but was never going to happen at that time once the early 1990s recession hit, hence the delay of twenty years. Crossrail 2 seems destined to never happen, but has been an outline plan for almost as long.
Thanks. The key point is that, for both Crossrail and Thameslink, although they have only been delivered recently, their origins are in a very different era.
The economic growth was in London. The DLR and Jubilee extension were critical for developing Docklands so that the City could expand out of the Square Mile. Without them lots of financial services would have gone to Frankfurt or Paris instead, with the UK losing lots of economic growth and tax receipts. The north has received huge benefits from taxes on the big international banks.
And one thing that most people forget about HS1 is the key part it played in London winning the 2012 Olympic bid.
And yes, there's no denying that - yet the rest of the country (outside Manchester /Sheffield/West Midlands) just saw decline of our buses during the same period.
If for every £1 spent in G.London on new infra an additional £1 was spent across the rest of the UK on additional transport infrastructure (still significantly less per head than London) we'd all see the benefits - instead nada. For example if the Elizabeth line had directly seen a tram line in each of our 10 core cities, and handful of projects like the Ashington Line reopening or VLR in Coventry/Trampower in Preston and more rural stations getting some TLC alongside accessibility enhancements it wouldn't be viewed as just London benefitting - again.
Look at the projects London wants currently - using that £1:£1 ratio that could see benefits spread across large parts of the country
Bakerloo Line Extension (£5-8bn) - another 5 - 8 cities getting (additional) tram lines (on the scale of NET Phase 2)
DLR Extension to Thamesmead (£2bn) - 2 to 4 towns/cities getting a VLR or smaller tram scheme
Crossrail 2 (£30bn) - 30 towns and cities getting a tram line/brt
Instead of just London benefitting you spread the same level of investment (£40bn) into our 40 largest urban areas then places like Swindon & Mansfield would be seeing a transformational benefit (yet, per head, would still be receiving less funding than Londoners), and allow out towns and cities to grow and be less reliant on London.
Yes Elizabeth line was part funded from business rates, but locally NET Phase 2 was partially funded from the WPL & PFI the City Council is repaying - it's not a unique thing to expect local government to repay for the infrastructure in one way or another; but given how our local authorities (and TfL) are starved of cash it needs national government to make the upfront capital investment to help grow the economies in our towns and cities.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
You also benefit from economic growth in London which these projects assist, which then kick out a lot of tax revenue which subsidises much of the rest of the country.
Yet, that's something the vast majority of us see the exact opposite of - just a continued running down of our transport networks, towns, cities, health & social care systems.
London gets a, much needed, shiny new thing and we're forgotten about again.
Instead of just London benefitting you spread the same level of investment (£40bn) into our 40 largest urban areas then places like Swindon & Mansfield would be seeing a transformational benefit (yet, per head, would still be receiving less funding than Londoners), and allow out towns and cities to grow and be less reliant on London.
Yet, that's something the vast majority of us see the exact opposite of - just a continued running down of our transport networks, towns, cities, health & social care systems.
London gets a, much needed, shiny new thing and we're forgotten about again.
British Rail were very responsive to the need for more London commuting in the late 1980s. Here we had Bishops Stortford-Cambridge electrification in 1987 with Royston-Cambridge following in 1988 and Cambridge-Kings Lynn in 1992.
The Thameslink project dates from the early 1990s and was called Thameslink 2000, but only came to fruition in 2018. Someone else will be able to say when Crossrail was first proposed.
The economic growth was in London. The DLR and Jubilee extension were critical for developing Docklands so that the City could expand out of the Square Mile. Without them lots of financial services would have gone to Frankfurt or Paris instead, with the UK losing lots of economic growth and tax receipts. The north has received huge benefits from taxes on the big international banks.
And one thing that most people forget about HS1 is the key part it played in London winning the 2012 Olympic bid.
Whilst true this is a bit of a dated argument, as it ignores technological changes which mean that physical location is now far less important going forward.
As well as considerations of economic growth, the government has to consider issues of equity and fairness within the nations of the United Kingdom.
And yes, there's no denying that - yet the rest of the country (outside Manchester /Sheffield/West Midlands) just saw decline of our buses during the same period.
If for every £1 spent in G.London on new infra an additional £1 was spent across the rest of the UK on additional transport infrastructure (still significantly less per head than London) we'd all see the benefits - instead nada. For example if the Elizabeth line had directly seen a tram line in each of our 10 core cities, and handful of projects like the Ashington Line reopening or VLR in Coventry/Trampower in Preston and more rural stations getting some TLC alongside accessibility enhancements it wouldn't be viewed as just London benefitting - again.
Look at the projects London wants currently - using that £1:£1 ratio that could see benefits spread across large parts of the country
Bakerloo Line Extension (£5-8bn) - another 5 - 8 cities getting (additional) tram lines (on the scale of NET Phase 2)
DLR Extension to Thamesmead (£2bn) - 2 to 4 towns/cities getting a VLR or smaller tram scheme
Crossrail 2 (£30bn) - 30 towns and cities getting a tram line/brt
Instead of just London benefitting you spread the same level of investment (£40bn) into our 40 largest urban areas then places like Swindon & Mansfield would be seeing a transformational benefit (yet, per head, would still be receiving less funding than Londoners), and allow out towns and cities to grow and be less reliant on London.
Yes Elizabeth line was part funded from business rates, but locally NET Phase 2 was partially funded from the WPL & PFI the City Council is repaying - it's not a unique thing to expect local government to repay for the infrastructure in one way or another; but given how our local authorities (and TfL) are starved of cash it needs national government to make the upfront capital investment to help grow the economies in our towns and cities.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Yet, that's something the vast majority of us see the exact opposite of - just a continued running down of our transport networks, towns, cities, health & social care systems.
London gets a, much needed, shiny new thing and we're forgotten about again.
What percentage of the finance for both The Elizabeth Line and the Northern Line extension to Battersea was raised in London and not from the national exchequer? How much of the finance for HS2 and the TPU was raised locally? Now the Mayors of Manchester and Liverpool are developing their plans for HS2 to reach their cities, how much are they volunteering to raise themselves from their own areas? How often do the civic leaders in Leeds, Sheffield and Bradford point out that northern England is not just Manchester?
Whilst true this is a bit of a dated argument, as it ignores technological changes which mean that physical location is now far less important going forward.
As well as considerations of economic growth, the government has to consider issues of equity and fairness within the nations of the United Kingdom.
Less important, but not unimportant. Northern Powerhouse (back in fashion) rail allows the generation of a super-city travel-to-work area; similarly Oxford-Cambridge; Worcester-Leicester?
Government has to consider votes; you don't have the votes the don't get to govern.
What percentage of the finance for both The Elizabeth Line and the Northern Line extension to Battersea was raised in London and not from the national exchequer? How much of the finance for HS2 and the TPU was raised locally? Now the Mayors of Manchester and Liverpool are developing their plans for HS2 to reach their cities, how much are they volunteering to raise themselves from their own areas? How often do the civic leaders in Leeds, Sheffield and Bradford point out that northern England is not just Manchester?
This mindset is how a downward spiral starts. The whole point of regional development funding (whether it was EU, Northern Powerhouse, or those reviving Cardiff and London docklands) is to make depressed areas stand on their own two feet again. They then become productive parts of the economy again, rather than having social security be the main source of income.
London may have paid for part of the Lizzy Line, but it also saw immense gains in wealth because of it. The taxpayer spent £19b, but land owners gained £20b in increased wealth.
London may have paid for part of the Lizzy Line, but it also saw immense gains in wealth because of it. The taxpayer spent £19b, but land owners gained £20b in increased wealth.
In what ways was Merseyrail more integrated into mainline rail (other than ticketing which could be done at the stroke of a pen) Merseyrail was / is a self-contained system requiring interchange with other rail services to get beyond its network.
The only “goofed interchange” on the Metro is at Manors, where I suspect it was assumed that the BR station was doomed anyway.
Most cities in the UK would be delighted to have what T&W have got.
Sorry for a slow reply - the fact that mainline trains were able to use the network rather than it being contained as this would have allowed links to Morpeth, MetroCentre / Hexham, Durham and Teesside to be built in but i do acknowledge that it was very much a Tyne and Wear system and things were very different then.
I agree that Manors is botched but at the time the quayside was desolate / dying and the area to the north was not developed until later in the 80s so I guess it was done on the cheap!
Totally agree that most cities would be delighted with their version of the Metro, and it's a fundamentally great system, but I have always felt it could have been even better
The point I was making that was that the "report" is cherry picking data to make a point which people have used to feed their own perceptions.
Look back through the thread and people were saying London and the South East, the report only talked about London as the South East would drag the London number down significantly. However, people appear to have assumed that the report included the South East in the higher spending as it fits a wider view that the South East also gets a significant share of the spending.
It's a nonsense not to count London and the Southeast together, as much of the infrastructure spending in London is also to benefits people commuting in from the counties around London.
This mindset is how a downward spiral starts. The whole point of regional development funding (whether it was EU, Northern Powerhouse, or those reviving Cardiff and London docklands) is to make depressed areas stand on their own two feet again. They then become productive parts of the economy again, rather than having social security be the main source of income.
A fair point, but it also skews the data if the figure for locally-raised finance is included in the headline figure. I would guess that Crossrail has made up at least one-third of all the infrastructure spending in London in the past decade, so the per capita spending figure will be somewhat different if only the central government spending were included. It would still be skewed in London's favour for a lot of the past couple of decades, but the next decade at least will be dramatically different
Whilst true this is a bit of a dated argument, as it ignores technological changes which mean that physical location is now far less important going forward.
This is a fallacy. Microsoft, Google and Amazon are three of the most technologically adept companies in the world, yet they still feel the need to have people physically located in Cambridge.
It is the economic growth that delivers the tax revenue that facilitates the policies that address equity and fairness. Without economic growth there is no money for equity and fairness.
Something to consider is subsidy per public transport user . Which may be higher in the north simply because most drive and with lower population density that's going to happen.
If it wasn't for North West greenbelt and their was a Greater London esque blob in Lancaster, it would be easier to justify London style projects
Less important, but not unimportant. Northern Powerhouse (back in fashion) rail allows the generation of a super-city travel-to-work area; similarly Oxford-Cambridge; Worcester-Leicester?
Government has to consider votes; you don't have the votes the don't get to govern.
The government sees this sort of connectivity as a driver for economic growth, and has allocated significant money to both Transpennine and East West Rail.
4.16 Furthermore, through this SR, the government will fund key, growth-driving major projects that will improve connectivity between cities and towns, including: a. The Transpennine Route Upgrade, for which the government will provide £3.5 billion. This will reduce the journey time for commuters travelling between Manchester and Leeds by a quarter; and, b. Allocating £2.5 billion to progress the delivery of East West Rail, supporting housing developments and unlocking the potential of the Oxford to Cambridge Growth Corridor
This is a fallacy. Microsoft, Google and Amazon are three of the most technologically adept companies in the world, yet they still feel the need to have people physically located in Cambridge.
It is the economic growth that delivers the tax revenue that facilitates the policies that address equity and fairness. Without economic growth there is no money for equity and fairness.
It's a nonsense not to count London and the Southeast together, as much of the infrastructure spending in London is also to benefits people commuting in from the counties around London.
Is this about that article bemoaning how the per capita spend has been much higher in London/ South East over the last decade?
It's a bit of an oversimplification - whilst I'm not saying other areas don't deserve funding (they obviously do), London is at the point where most meaningful interventions are megaprojects like crossrail. Other places can have meaningful enhancements without doing that kind of thing or spending that
This mindset is how a downward spiral starts. The whole point of regional development funding (whether it was EU, Northern Powerhouse, or those reviving Cardiff and London docklands) is to make depressed areas stand on their own two feet again. They then become productive parts of the economy again, rather than having social security be the main source of income.
My experience is companies have realised regular home working causes productivity stagnation or decrease. So many now limiting working from home to 1 or 2 days per week max.
Firms lose mentoring, training, troubleshooting where problems are discussed off record around coffee machines. And have found problems because staff aren't trained to cover when others leave or retire, worse still new staff struggle and dont buy into ethos as no one to physically show them.
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
