"The North Of England Is Getting A Rough Deal" discussion

[AM9]

....
How are the likes of Tesco and Sainsburys treated? HQ’s in the South East but big turnovers elsewhere?

More to the point how are outfits like Amazon UK, Apple UK, Starbucks et al treated, well they don't do any business here do they

 

[HH]

london is prettty distorted, GVA per head of inner london is £127k but for outer london its only 12.3k which is nearly 50% lower than any other Uk region. london is also the highest consumer after Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland consuming 107% per head of national spending average.

Outer London feeds Inner London; those left in the outers include many who are not working or working part time - so yes it is distorted. Average it out and it is still much higher than anywhere else. And it's still the only net contributor (SE is around breakeven IIRC).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

...in my last job I was resident in Yorkshire, the payroll office was in Derbyshire, the tax office in Glasgow, the registered office in EC1 and my staff lived and carried out work throughout the UK. Head office had minimal staffing and my boss based himself in East Anglia. Where’s the value added?

I don't know exactly how they do it, but all companies have to make statistical returns to the government and there are VAT returns to cross check the information. Naturally they won't be 100% accurate, but they certainly won't be based on where the registered office is or where the payroll is carried out.

 

[Deerfold]

I don't know exactly how they do it, but all companies have to make statistical returns to the government and there are VAT returns to cross check the information.

There are for those that are VAT registered. Many small businesses aren't.

Naturally they won't be 100% accurate, but they certainly won't be based on where the registered office is or where the payroll is carried out.

What will they be based on?

I'm a director of a company that is officially based in Lancashire. All the directors live in Yorkshire. The majority of the work takes place in the South East or overseas, paid out of an office in the South East (used to be Ireland). I'd be interested to know how that's allocated.

 

[Grumpy]

I don't know exactly how they do it, but all companies have to make statistical returns to the government and there are VAT returns to cross check the information. Naturally they won't be 100% accurate, but they certainly won't be based on where the registered office is or where the payroll is carried out.

It's some years since I was responsible for a company's VAT, and things may have changed, but there was no way that what we sent off would have given any indication where in the UK individual sales were made. Same VAT account wherever the sales are, not separate ones per Region. If you don't know exactly how they do it, how do you know that it wont be based on where the registered office is?

 

[HH]

You're right; they don't use VAT. It discusses more about their methodology here.

 

[yorksrob]

“Beeching throwbacks”? How quaint, you’ve come up with a nickname for those who don’t share your viewpoint.

I prefer “realists” though

I wasn't referring to anyone in particular, you understand

Agenda?

You’re getting in to conspiracy theory territory again.

Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're not out to get you (or in this case, Northern railway passengers, as the recent consultation and fare changes illustrate

However the maintenance/ technical costs of a section of the WCML will be paid for by potentially dozens of trains each hour (passenger and freight) – which will all add up.

The double track “Little North Western” sees only five passenger trains a day in each direction – which means that its maintenance/ technical costs are having to be taken from a pretty tiny number of services (I can’t remember seeing any freight over it – is there any?).

If you want track access charges to reflect is the level of maintenance on a route, maybe the reverse of your argument is true and the cost of running a service should reflect the total maintenance/ technical costs for that line, divided by the number of trains that serve it?

Maybe, but then again, Network Rail have pretty much just admitted that they have been over charging for the Northern regional railway for years, so probably not.

Northern do run a threadbare service on a few lines that have no other services, which means that all of the costs for those lines are incurred to provide the infrastructure for those infrequent services to run.

Funnily enough, the majority of "parliamentary" services that you are fond of referring to, such as the Brigg and the Knottingly - Goole line and Stockport - Stalybridge are used quite heavily as freight routes, so the true cost of running a passenger service isn't anything like as astronomical as you like to make out. Settle Jnc - Carnforth admittedly doesn't carry much freight, but this service shares the majority of its route with the Settle Carlisle which is a freight corridor, so perhaps we should see the final section to Carnforth as a loss leader, for the greater good of the wider network.

The fact that they’ve been paid for over the years doesn’t automatically mean that they ought to be free now – if it did, there’d be no rented houses over twenty five years old!

Plenty of other TOCs have ex-BR stock (that has similarly been “paid for”) too.

Only a lunatic would design a rolling stock "market" like the one we've got now. The whole point of the system is that whatever the size of the train or the route it is being used on it is still being paid for all of the time, so there should automatically be funding to replace it once its 30 - 40 years is up. The fact that we are having these laughable discussions about whether there is a "business case" to replace life expired rolling stock in the North, merely proves that the ROSCO system isn't working.

Because there are savings to be made?

Because, more importantly, there are better uses for the existing stock? We’ve plenty of lines where people are forced to stand, but we have stock tied up running routes for “one man and his dog” for the sake of keeping a virtually redundant bit of railway open.

You're fiddling with the deckchairs I'm afraid. Having endless debates about whether one piece of thirty year old rolling stock would be better used on one line than another rather misses the more urgent point that the rolling stock market isn't working. Instead of slavishly defending the status quo, why not do something about that bottleneck.

The problem with that metaphor is that it only works if the “rivets” can only go down in number. If there were a finite number of “rivets” (and one which could never be replenished) then fair enough, ever “rivet” is precious. But passenger numbers are going up (and up).

Instead of your “rivets” metaphor, think of the railway as a garden. Various plants are competing for resources (sunlight, soil, water...) and there’s not enough room for all of them to get everything that they want. We are spending too many resources on stagnant bits of the garden, when we could make room for plants with lots of life in them to expand.

If you remove choice of where to travel, you're eventually going to erode the usefulness of the network.

To take your flawed garden analogy, it's not the stations between Middlesbrough and Whitby that are stealing all the nutrients. If they were to close tomorrow, the Whitby branch would still be stuck in an unsatisfactory position starved of the nutrients (investment) because closing those stations wouldn't provide the nutrients to provide the necessary rolling stock to improve the service. Infact, closure of the intermediate stations would cause a loss of nutrients to the route as there would be fewer passengers using it.

There’s theoretically untapped growth on every line in the UK, but that doesn’t mean that meeting that growth is always viable.

We’ve seen around a third more capacity on Northern services over the past decade, yet the “no growth” argument is always trotted out.

Same with the Wales & Borders franchise – it was let on a “no growth” basis, but has seen an increase in trains/ services.

The no growth franchise is an important point because it illustrates the lack of willingness of Government to invest in the Northern Rail area. The current consultation is also a no growth franchise because it is insisting on catering for growth on one part of the network by cutting back on another.

I think that most people can see a station that has little hope of getting decent passenger numbers.

Brigg is never going to have huge numbers, even if you ran a half hourly service from Sheffield to Cleethorpes that way, the low population/ rural area mean it wouldn’t attract significant passenger numbers.

Let go, and let’s focus our efforts/ resources on stations/ lines where passenger numbers are growing!

And how many rural stations has that been said about that are thriving.

Following your twisted logic, the only way you’d accept closing a station would be if that station already had a frequent service (since you can’t close a station that doesn’t have a good service)?

Ah I see, so it's twisted logic to insist that a proposal for closure has some sort of grounding in a realistic assessment of the stations potential rather than a parliamentary service. You really are a disciple of the Doctor.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It also misunderstands (again) what Variable Track Access is paying for. It is not paying for the cost of signalling; that comes from Fixed Track Access. And the wear and tear on LNW per train will be the same as on the WCML.

Perhaps under CP4 the FTAC wasn't spread fairly, but that is not true for CP5. So Northern is no longer hard done by, but still picking up the largest subsidy from DfT.

Well, no, the point is, that the cost of the railway in the North has been over charged as NR have conceded, and this will have fed into the subsidy that has been paid and this will undoubtedly have contributed to the toxic political atmosphere that has led to the lack of investment. CP5 only started this year, so I find it highly unlikely that any reduction of subsidy will have fed into the Department of Transport mindset by now.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

ScotRail is not subsidised by DfT, as I have pointed out numerous times. Holyrood has a completely different attitude to Rail compared to Westminster.

You cannot really compare ATW with Northern either, even if you ignored the effect of the Welsh Assembly. Northern has several of the biggest cities in the UK within its area; the only big city in Wales is Liverpool...

I've seen the loadings for Northern; the only places with heavy traffic are peaks to Manchester & Leeds, with Liverpool noticeably busier than the rest. Take out the big cities and I feel sure that the subsidy per passenger km for the rest would 'beat' Wales.

But by the same token, if you included a few main lines in Northern, its subsidy would go down. I also don't really buy the idea that we somehow can't compare our situation with Scotland and Wales. We regularly compare our railway with others in Europe, so to say we can't with other railways within the United Kingdom is a nonsense. If the Scottish example serves to highlight the backward nature of Westminster policy then so be it.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

This thread has been depressing at times with the constant wallowing in self-pity from some. There have on the other hand been quite interesting dialogues particularly between supporters of various northern interests. Its been quite clear that those in the north can't agree amongst themselves what is really wrong there let alone how it should be fixed.
Then there are the few who regularly chip in with worthless facetious remarks about such things as the 'London Government', (can they really mean the GLA?) or 'London's cast offs' etc. etc..
After 1400 posts, the debate has revealed some important facts that are drowned out by irrelevant drivel and whinges, so effectively, it's just been one long rant.

No worse than the army of clueless Southerners who imagine that their high fares are directly subsidising Northern railway services and fantasise about cuts when in reality they are merely paying for the infrastructure expansion on their patch.

For myself, I agree that investment is needed in the South, but that doesn't mean that the railways of the North should be starved. I make a point of citing the "London Government" because it is clear that Westminster is over powerful and doesn't govern for the benefit of the North (or the South West)
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

My comment is more about the negativity of the debate and the insistence of some to play the broken record. I believe that public transport is the long-term answer to personal travel in most areas of the UK, except maybe the most rural parts. I think that the large investment taking place across the north is a good thing and should continue. The government, to most commentators' surprise have committed to historical levels of investment which once in place will benefit those areas. Some of the posters here are obsessing about not getting brand new trains for these services and claiming that forcing northern passengers to travel in 'London's cast-offs' is tantamount to persecution. That then leads them into yet another tirade of north vs south victimhood.
The fact is that the wires and the civil engineering associated with the current electrification work will be there for many decades. The trains will a) perform much better than the hotch potch of DMU stock currently pressed into service and b) have a finite serviceable life that will drive the TOCs and ROSCOs towards replacement as soon as they start hitting the bottom line, witness the AM4s, 5s and 8s in the '90s.
Like it or not, all investment comes under conditions of meeting certain cost benefit tests and continued insistence on new stock because somebody else has got it will just put brakes on further investment, especially once the election is over. The south-east has had exactly the same treatment over the years, the current position is that the 2 high profile schemes both require uniform fleets for the service to deliver. That can only be met by supply of new trains. That stock may look flashy on the outside but I think there will be more than a few moans about the spartan accommodation of both the 700s and the 345s when they are rolled out. They are fit for moving large numbers of passengers about, they are not luxury saloons for the privileged Londoners.

I don't have a problem with cast-off electric multiple units for the North, such cascades have worked before. My question is, why has it taken twenty odd years for this electrification to happen. Why in the consultation is the North expecting us to sacrifice one service for another, rather than genuinely providing for growth.

You trivialise the anger up here as being about old rolling stock. You may not have noticed, but there is a real threat of cuts, and cuts lead to closures. Don't expect us to be blase about it.

 

[WatcherZero]

As I mentioned 2013/14 rail industrial financials were released by ORR.

Government received a net franchise payment of £40m down from £420m in 2012/13, this is down to three elements, less premium from the direct awards, increased numbers of rail services/strengthening to deal with overcrowding commissioned by PTE's and Crossrail infrastructure spending. Private investment in the railways fell by 10% to £423m (76.2% of this figure is new rolling stock leasing costs, 6.8% is investment in stations, 17% is IT and web systems, there was no private investment in track infrastructure this year), again this is primarily due to direct awards. Government investment rose by £227m to £5,287m, around 2% after inflation. PTE grants were £182m, an increase of £18m. The network grant was £3,453m a £327m fall. Government support for non core projects totalled £1,692m, a £156m increase, of this figure £1.1bn (65%) is government Crossrail spending. Rail freight grants were £17m.

Average increase in ticket prices was 2.7% a real terms fall of 0.1% after inflation. London and South East fares grew by 2.8% and 3.1% in season tickets, Long distance fares rose 2.5%, advance fares rose by 2.3% and regional fares rose by 2.4%. Anytime fares rose by 2.6% and offpeak by 2.1%, together these two ticket types make up 70% of national revenue. Since 2004 Long distance fares have risen by 67.9%, LSE by 58.7% and regional by 57.6%.

Figures per passenger journey
LSE
Fare increase last year 2.8%, real terms change 0%, real terms change since 2004 +15%
Revenue decreased by -1.4% last year, -4.1% fall in real terms revenue, real terms revenue has -6.5% since 2004

Long Distance
Fare increase last year 2.5%, real terms change -0.3%, real terms change since 2004 +21.7%
Revenue increased by +2.9% last year, +0.1% increase in real terms revenue, real terms revenue -7.6% since 2004

Regional
Fare increase last year 2.4%, real terms change -0.4%, real terms change since 2004 +14.2%
Revenue increased by +2.1% last year, -0.7% decrease in real terms revenue, real terms revenue +7.4% since 2004

In London decreases in anytime and off peak fares more than cancelled out increases in season and peak fares causing a net reduction in revenue. Offpeak travel made up 70% of revenues in regional, in LSE the majority of revenue comes from Season tickets.

Scotrail recieved the highest subsidy, £493.8m a 69.7% increase on the previous year, this was due to being profiled over the 5 year control period and it being the last year.

Before inflation:
Scotrail subsidy was 17.5p per passenger km (+6.7p increase per passenger km)
Arriva Trains Wales was 13.1p (+0.98p)
Merseyrail 12.69p (+0.3p)
Northern Rail 7.79p (+0.6p)
TPE 3.7p (+1.1p)
London Overground 3.56p (-1.7p)
London Midland 2.8p (+0.15p)
Southeastern 2.23p (+0.3p)
Crosscountry 1p (+0.4p)
EMT 0.1p (unchanged)
Network Average -0.07p (+0.6p)
C2C -0.4p (+1.3p)
Chiltern -0.4p (-1p)
FGW -1.28p (+1.5p)
Virgin -1.63p (unchanged)
Southern -3.64p (+1.3p)
Greater Anglia -3.68p (-0.3p)
Southwest -5.16p (+0.3p) (highest franchise payment)
FCC -5.27p (-0.1p) (lowest operating costs)


To be honest the ORR figures for trend in rail fares/revenue per passenger were surprising, I didnt expect to see the huge fall in revenue per passenger in London last year or a 15% difference in revenue per passenger trend between LSE and Regional since 2004. The data clearly shows that over the last 10 years operating margins on LSE passengers have been falling while for regional margins have been rising, belying the suggestion that we need to create a trend of faster rises, the evidence shows this has already been occuring for the last 10 years.

 

[Scott M]

Must admit, as someone who lives near newcastle, it always looks to me like northern operate expensive, empty, infrequent services on obscure routes with long out-of-date pacers.

Preferred it when it was transpennine.

At least we have the metro though.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Funnily enough, the majority of "parliamentary" services such as the Brigg and the Knottingly - Goole line and Stockport - Stalybridge are used quite heavily as freight routes, so the true cost of running a passenger service isn't anything like as astronomical as you like to make out. Settle Jnc - Carnforth admittedly doesn't carry much freight, but this service shares the majority of its route with the Settle Carlisle which is a freight corridor, so perhaps we should see the final section to Carnforth as a loss leader, for the greater good of the wider network.

Freight is a matter often overlooked when discussions on matters such as this one are debated.

 

[HH]

Well, no, the point is, that the cost of the railway in the North has been over charged as NR have conceded, and this will have fed into the subsidy that has been paid and this will undoubtedly have contributed to the toxic political atmosphere that has led to the lack of investment. CP5 only started this year, so I find it highly unlikely that any reduction of subsidy will have fed into the Department of Transport mindset by now.

But by the same token, if you included a few main lines in Northern, its subsidy would go down. I also don't really buy the idea that we somehow can't compare our situation with Scotland and Wales. We regularly compare our railway with others in Europe, so to say we can't with other railways within the United Kingdom is a nonsense. If the Scottish example serves to highlight the backward nature of Westminster policy then so be it.

I don't claim to know the DfT mindset, but there has been a changing of the guard and DfT are certainly aware of the Track Access charge situation. I think it's more about what their political masters want.

What Scotland does is different. I'm not saying you can't compare, but you can't compare and pretend that it's like for like. If Westminster followed the Scottish line then the subsidy for Northern would be much larger. Regardless of whether you think that would be money well-spent, you have to acknowledge the truth of that.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Scotrail recieved the highest subsidy, £493.8m a 69.7% increase on the previous year, this was due to being profiled over the 5 year control period and it being the last year.

This is true for most TOCs, if not all. However there is also a large amount for the additional infrastructure works carried out in Scotland, including new stations, Borders, etc.

To be honest the ORR figures for trend in rail fares/revenue per passenger were surprising, I didnt expect to see the huge fall in revenue per passenger in London last year or a 15% difference in revenue per passenger trend between LSE and Regional since 2004. The data clearly shows that over the last 10 years operating margins on LSE passengers have been falling while for regional margins have been rising, belying the suggestion that we need to create a trend of faster rises, the evidence shows this has already been occuring for the last 10 years.

One reason for the above is the growth of the off-peak market in the SE. Off-peak fares, particularly Advance Purchase and other special discounts (e.g. 2 for 1) have been very popular. That the margin has decreased is not necessarily bad news...

 

[ac6000cw]

Before inflation:
Scotrail subsidy was 17.5p per passenger km (+6.7p increase per passenger km)
Arriva Trains Wales was 13.1p (+0.98p)
Merseyrail 12.69p (+0.3p)
Northern Rail 7.79p (+0.6p)
TPE 3.7p (+1.1p)
London Overground 3.56p (-1.7p)
London Midland 2.8p (+0.15p)
Southeastern 2.23p (+0.3p)
Crosscountry 1p (+0.4p)
EMT 0.1p (unchanged)
Network Average -0.07p (+0.6p)
C2C -0.4p (+1.3p)
Chiltern -0.4p (-1p)
FGW -1.28p (+1.5p)
Virgin -1.63p (unchanged)
Southern -3.64p (+1.3p)
Greater Anglia -3.68p (-0.3p)
Southwest -5.16p (+0.3p) (highest franchise payment)
FCC -5.27p (-0.1p) (lowest operating costs)


To be honest the ORR figures for trend in rail fares/revenue per passenger were surprising, I didnt expect to see the huge fall in revenue per passenger in London last year or a 15% difference in revenue per passenger trend between LSE and Regional since 2004. The data clearly shows that over the last 10 years operating margins on LSE passengers have been falling while for regional margins have been rising, belying the suggestion that we need to create a trend of faster rises, the evidence shows this has already been occuring for the last 10 years.

Why is TPE so bad in subsidy terms - it serves 7 of the largest cities (and a major airport) in the UK using modern rolling stock, so it ought to be in the same league as XC financially, but it's much worse (3.7p versus 1p) ? Is it just that people prefer to drive on the M62/M6/A1(M)/M1 instead ?

 

[yorksrob]

As I mentioned 2013/14 rail industrial financials were released by ORR.

Government received a net franchise payment of £40m down from £420m in 2012/13, this is down to three elements, less premium from the direct awards, increased numbers of rail services/strengthening to deal with overcrowding commissioned by PTE's and Crossrail infrastructure spending. Private investment in the railways fell by 10% to £423m (76.2% of this figure is new rolling stock leasing costs, 6.8% is investment in stations, 17% is IT and web systems, there was no private investment in track infrastructure this year), again this is primarily due to direct awards. Government investment rose by £227m to £5,287m, around 2% after inflation. PTE grants were £182m, an increase of £18m. The network grant was £3,453m a £327m fall. Government support for non core projects totalled £1,692m, a £156m increase, of this figure £1.1bn (65%) is government Crossrail spending. Rail freight grants were £17m.

Average increase in ticket prices was 2.7% a real terms fall of 0.1% after inflation. London and South East fares grew by 2.8% and 3.1% in season tickets, Long distance fares rose 2.5%, advance fares rose by 2.3% and regional fares rose by 2.4%. Anytime fares rose by 2.6% and offpeak by 2.1%, together these two ticket types make up 70% of national revenue. Since 2004 Long distance fares have risen by 67.9%, LSE by 58.7% and regional by 57.6%.

Figures per passenger journey
LSE
Fare increase last year 2.8%, real terms change 0%, real terms change since 2004 +15%
Revenue decreased by -1.4% last year, -4.1% fall in real terms revenue, real terms revenue has -6.5% since 2004

Long Distance
Fare increase last year 2.5%, real terms change -0.3%, real terms change since 2004 +21.7%
Revenue increased by +2.9% last year, +0.1% increase in real terms revenue, real terms revenue -7.6% since 2004

Regional
Fare increase last year 2.4%, real terms change -0.4%, real terms change since 2004 +14.2%
Revenue increased by +2.1% last year, -0.7% decrease in real terms revenue, real terms revenue +7.4% since 2004

In London decreases in anytime and off peak fares more than cancelled out increases in season and peak fares causing a net reduction in revenue. Offpeak travel made up 70% of revenues in regional, in LSE the majority of revenue comes from Season tickets.

Scotrail recieved the highest subsidy, £493.8m a 69.7% increase on the previous year, this was due to being profiled over the 5 year control period and it being the last year.

Before inflation:
Scotrail subsidy was 17.5p per passenger km (+6.7p increase per passenger km)
Arriva Trains Wales was 13.1p (+0.98p)
Merseyrail 12.69p (+0.3p)
Northern Rail 7.79p (+0.6p)
TPE 3.7p (+1.1p)
London Overground 3.56p (-1.7p)
London Midland 2.8p (+0.15p)
Southeastern 2.23p (+0.3p)
Crosscountry 1p (+0.4p)
EMT 0.1p (unchanged)
Network Average -0.07p (+0.6p)
C2C -0.4p (+1.3p)
Chiltern -0.4p (-1p)
FGW -1.28p (+1.5p)
Virgin -1.63p (unchanged)
Southern -3.64p (+1.3p)
Greater Anglia -3.68p (-0.3p)
Southwest -5.16p (+0.3p) (highest franchise payment)
FCC -5.27p (-0.1p) (lowest operating costs)


To be honest the ORR figures for trend in rail fares/revenue per passenger were surprising, I didnt expect to see the huge fall in revenue per passenger in London last year or a 15% difference in revenue per passenger trend between LSE and Regional since 2004. The data clearly shows that over the last 10 years operating margins on LSE passengers have been falling while for regional margins have been rising, belying the suggestion that we need to create a trend of faster rises, the evidence shows this has already been occuring for the last 10 years.

Some very interesting statistics - thanks for posting.

Interesting to note that 70% of Regional Railway's revenue is from off peak fares. This rather suggests to me that it is far from the "rich man's toy" that some polititians make out.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I don't claim to know the DfT mindset, but there has been a changing of the guard and DfT are certainly aware of the Track Access charge situation. I think it's more about what their political masters want.

What Scotland does is different. I'm not saying you can't compare, but you can't compare and pretend that it's like for like. If Westminster followed the Scottish line then the subsidy for Northern would be much larger. Regardless of whether you think that would be money well-spent, you have to acknowledge the truth of that.

Whover the policy eminates from, it seems that we still have the same punitive view of the Northern Railway network there has always been only worse. As WatcherZero has illustrated, the funding position of the Northern network is a lot better than has been made out, but if you look at the consultation, the rhetoric (increasingly being forced through as policy) has got worse.

It seems to me that this whole thread is a discussion on policy, so policy differences between Scotland and the rest of the UK are highly relevant to the discussion.

 

[Deerfold]

Interesting to note that 70% of Regional Railway's revenue is from off peak fares. This rather suggests to me that it is far from the "rich man's toy" that some polititians make out.

Of course a lot of off peak fares in the North have restriction 8A or similar.

 

[ac6000cw]

Interesting to note that 70% of Regional Railway's revenue is from off peak fares. This rather suggests to me that it is far from the "rich man's toy" that some polititians make out.

Offpeak travel made up 70% of revenues in regional, in LSE the majority of revenue comes from Season tickets.

Which suggests that the railway system in LSE is rather more important to the 'work' economy of the LSE region than in other parts of the country, since season tickets are normally bought by people who have to use the train to get to/from work.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Why is TPE so bad in subsidy terms - it serves 7 of the largest cities (and a major airport) in the UK using modern rolling stock, so it ought to be in the same league as XC financially, but it's much worse (3.7p versus 1p) ? Is it just that people prefer to drive on the M62/M6/A1(M)/M1 instead ?

Unlike its rail service provision, the motorway network in the Liverpool - Manchester- Leeds area is very good indeed and is very well used, as a viewing of vehicle usage statistics will bear out. The M60 outer orbital motorway around Manchester carries a very high amount of both car and commercial vehicle traffic.

 

[WatcherZero]

Which suggests that the railway system in LSE is rather more important to the 'work' economy of the LSE region than in other parts of the country, since season tickets are normally bought by people who have to use the train to get to/from work.

Yeah the view being that while its always been seen that way around London up North its not been seen as a valid working class travel choice until recently, for the last hundred years while upper middle class were happy to commute in from their houses in Cheshire, the Lake district, etc.. it didnt attract the ordinary working class, making it be seen as a valid travel choice and increasing revenue and ridership means raising standards to an acceptable level that lures people out of their cars, since there isnt the London parking/C Charge financial disincentive to car usage outside the largest city centres. People arent going to make a choice to switch to rail if the user experience is 30 minutes standing on a crowded Pacer. On the plus side there is evidence that that kind of attitude of your housing bang goes further the further you are from a city centre and a premium to proximity to metro stations is starting to take hold.

 

[AM9]

Yeah the view being that while its always been seen that way around London up North its not been seen as a valid working class travel choice until recently, for the last hundred years while upper middle class were happy to commute in from their houses in Cheshire, the Lake district, etc.. it didnt attract the ordinary working class, making it be seen as a valid travel choice and increasing revenue and ridership means raising standards to an acceptable level that lures people out of their cars, since there isnt the London parking/C Charge financial disincentive to car usage outside the largest city centres. People arent going to make a choice to switch to rail if the user experience is 30 minutes standing on a crowded Pacer. On the plus side there is evidence that that kind of attitude of your housing bang goes further the further you are from a city centre and a premium to proximity to metro stations is starting to take hold.

In the context of this thread, then maybe the north hasn't had a rough deal in the greater transport infrastructure sense. The road network, - in particular the motorway network, is far better able to cope with the levels of commuter traffic than London's, even with the M25 being widened to 5 lanes in places! Even if there was capital available to expand London's roads further, there isn't any land available on which to do it. So rail (including the subterranean lines) is the only way to provide more travel capacity. Any legacy lines into and around the metropolitan area that could be revitalised have already been added into the network, so the next stage is to provide new underground lines designed to operate very high density services, where capacity is the primary objective, even if absolute comfort is less than some passenger's expectations.
Assuming that large cities in the regions grow through centralisation, or less-compact sprawling clusters of interdependent towns fill the area, there will come a point where the currently adequate road system not only ceases to be the transport of choice, but like in the south-east, starts to become a barrier to economic functioning, let alone growth. It seems that the government is committed to improving the existing capacity of the rail routes in the north by extensive electrification. This should over time attract some commuters away from the more pointless queuing on motorways to the extent that more comprehensive services will become a necessity.
The intentional dismantling of the traditional industries (particularly in the north) by the government in the '80s has by and large given administrations since then the excuse to invest where the money is being generated, i.e. London and the south-east. That all changed 5 years ago. Not only because the banking system let us down, but also because the one European country that has on it's own ridden the crisis, Germany, retained their industrial base rather than be lured to the virtual economy that finance brought. Provided that the government's change of heart is not just an election wheeze, this investment should sow the seeds for a new age of prosperity in the north.

 

[WatcherZero]

The roads have mostly been good yeah, Manchester for example has an innner and outer ring road. Its only really the route across the Pennines thats really been under invested and can be closed in bad weather particularly for high sided vehicles. The widest stretch of motorway in the country is a stretch of the the M61 near Linnyshaw Moss where the M6, M61, A580 and A666 meet which is 17 side by side lanes. You do get some peak traffic jams on Motorways though, for example over the Manchester Ship Canal at the Thelwall Viaduct, the M6 around Preston, and the M56 near Manchester Airport will be over its rated capacity from next year.

Part of the £15bn transport plan put forward by the One North was asking for all the motorways in the region to be upgraded to managed motorways (i.e. hard shoulder becomes extra operating lane and variable speed limits to maximise throughput) to deal with future projected growth in passengers and freight in particular as is already happening to the M60 J24-27 and 1-4, the M62 J10-12, the M56 J6-8, and the M6 J16-19 and 21a-26.

 

[AM9]

The roads have mostly been good yeah, Manchester for example has an innner and outer ring road. Its only really the route across the Pennines thats really been under invested and can be closed in bad weather particularly for high sided vehicles. The widest stretch of motorway in the country is a stretch of the the M61 near Linnyshaw Moss where the M6, M61, A580 and A666 meet which is 17 side by side lanes. You do get some peak traffic jams on Motorways though, for example over the Manchester Ship Canal at the Thelwall Viaduct, the M6 around Preston, and the M56 near Manchester Airport will be over its rated capacity from next year.

Part of the £15bn transport plan put forward by the One North was asking for all the motorways in the region to be upgraded to managed motorways (i.e. hard shoulder becomes extra operating lane and variable speed limits to maximise throughput) to deal with future projected growth in passengers and freight in particular as is already happening to the M60 J24-27 and 1-4, the M62 J10-12, the M56 J6-8, and the M6 J16-19 and 21a-26.

We have now got a stretch of 'managed motorway' on the M25 now. Its a desperate attempt to push more vehicles down a road without spending much more money. What we have is not the M1 style scheme where the hard shoulder is opened to traffic when the volume is high, there are no breakdowns and the speed limit has been dropped to 50. The M25 stretch runs with trucks on the hard shoulder all the time at NSL until there is a breakdown and then all hell lets loose hoping that nobody shunts the stopped vehicle(s). The main reason that motorways have had lower accident rates than trunk roads is that the hard shoulder always provides a safe refuge for anybody who needs to stop. With this 'improvement', it's an accident waiting to happen.

 

[ac6000cw]

The roads have mostly been good yeah, Manchester for example has an innner and outer ring road. Its only really the route across the Pennines thats really been under invested and can be closed in bad weather particularly for high sided vehicles. The widest stretch of motorway in the country is a stretch of the the M61 near Linnyshaw Moss where the M6, M61, A580 and A666 meet which is 17 side by side lanes. You do get some peak traffic jams on Motorways though, for example over the Manchester Ship Canal at the Thelwall Viaduct, the M6 around Preston, and the M56 near Manchester Airport will be over its rated capacity from next year.

Part of the £15bn transport plan put forward by the One North was asking for all the motorways in the region to be upgraded to managed motorways (i.e. hard shoulder becomes extra operating lane and variable speed limits to maximise throughput) to deal with future projected growth in passengers and freight in particular as is already happening to the M60 J24-27 and 1-4, the M62 J10-12, the M56 J6-8, and the M6 J16-19 and 21a-26.

In the 1950s and 1960s railways were seen as old fashioned and dying (and car ownership was aspirational) so naturally local authorities were clamouring to be connected to the new motorway network - I think Leeds had one of the first urban motorways in the country. I grew up in the Black Country (and have lived in Bradford and Manchester), and Birmingham went very car-orientated in the early 60s (the inner ring road development etc.) - there was little interest in railway services, and most industrial workers lived quite close to where they worked so 'commuting' in the London sense was limited - mostly from leafy north Warwickshire on the ex-GWR lines into Moor Street.

On the other hand, the railways developed and encouraged the 'commuting' lifestyle around London many years ago (until 'Green Belt' planning controls in the 1930s put the brakes on untrammelled urbanisation of the southeast), so the area is far more dependant on public transport than most other urban areas in the UK. Commuting by car in London isn't a realistic option for many people, so in overall transport investment terms you would expect London to the tilted towards public transport. I think some other cities chose a different balance of priorities years ago....

 

[yorksrob]

Which suggests that the railway system in LSE is rather more important to the 'work' economy of the LSE region than in other parts of the country, since season tickets are normally bought by people who have to use the train to get to/from work.

I wouldn't dispute that. Of course, the "work economy" is only a part of the economy.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Yeah the view being that while its always been seen that way around London up North its not been seen as a valid working class travel choice until recently, for the last hundred years while upper middle class were happy to commute in from their houses in Cheshire, the Lake district, etc.. it didnt attract the ordinary working class, making it be seen as a valid travel choice.

There were the "Club" services from Llandudno (LNWR) and from Blackpool (LYR) that were patronised by the Northern businessmen who were "On 'Change" in Manchester.

 

[Jonny]

It would be nice to see a project in London that showed a decent BCR.
The Crossrail Business case was fudged. Financially it's a nightmare. The extra revenue it was forecast to bring in didn't even cover the operating costs, never mind paying back the Capex. It was "justified" on the basis of spurious time savings and reductions in congestion. And of course the time saved by Londoners is considered more valuable than the time saved by the hicks in the provinces.

Funny when people talk about Northern it's all about financial cost, with the User time and congestion savings ignored.

This is exactly why we in the North think that we're getting a poor deal. Any further Crossrail projects should be funded (in terms of capital) by the people and businesses of London*. In fact, making businesses contribute directly to TfL would make them think "Do we really need to be in London?"

* as in the TfL area

 

[HH]

I wouldn't dispute that. Of course, the "work economy" is only a part of the economy.

For most areas it is the major part, especially for Rail. The need to develop leisure travel was one thing TS was after in the tender for ScotRail. It's not an easy task outside travel to major cities, because those tend to be the only destinations where rail holds an edge over the car in terms of convenience.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

This is exactly why we in the North think that we're getting a poor deal. Any further Crossrail projects should be funded (in terms of capital) by the people and businesses of London.

But they are. London pays more than its share of taxes.

 

[Haydn1971]

But they are. London pays more than its share of taxes.

As a proportion of income, you will find that people living in less economically vibrant areas (read anywhere outside of SE England) pay more in taxes.

Always a different perspective

 

[HH]

As a proportion of income, you will find that people living in less economically vibrant areas (read anywhere outside of SE England) pay more in taxes.

That's a red herring, even if true (and I'd need to see some evidence before I accepted that). The issue was whether London was paying for what it was getting, and the answer to that is, "Yes, and more!".

 

[yorksrob]

That's a red herring, even if true (and I'd need to see some evidence before I accepted that). The issue was whether London was paying for what it was getting, and the answer to that is, "Yes, and more!".

London pays because it concentrates the country's political, economic and financial power there. If we had more of a federal set up, it eventually wouldn't have so much of a burden.

 

[ac6000cw]

As a proportion of income, you will find that people living in less economically vibrant areas (read anywhere outside of SE England) pay more in taxes.

Always a different perspective

How come ?

Income Tax is biased to towards taking a higher percentage of higher incomes, NI is proportional, there is no VAT on cold food (and public transport, children's clothing etc.), council tax is roughly related to property values etc. I think that covers the basics of living ?

 

[AM9]

London pays because it concentrates the country's political, economic and financial power there. If we had more of a federal set up, it eventually wouldn't have so much of a burden.

Well that's no benefit to the average commuter who are just employees.
We don't have a federal setup and as long as we have a monarchy it's not really likely. Even if Scotland get their independence, I think that London will continue to trade on its geographical, historical and economic strength rather than setting up a synthetic home of power. Just look at the mess that the BBC has made of their news programmes by moving remote from London.

 

[yorksrob]

Well that's no benefit to the average commuter who are just employees.
We don't have a federal setup and as long as we have a monarchy it's not really likely. Even if Scotland get their independence, I think that London will continue to trade on its geographical, historical and economic strength rather than setting up a synthetic home of power. Just look at the mess that the BBC has made of their news programmes by moving remote from London.

Well, it's true that it will take a very long time for decentralisation of economic and cultural power to come to fruition. However, none of this will take place without a major decentralisation of political power and it is this which needs to happen sooner ratjer than later IMO. The monarchy doesn't really enter into it as with the Commonwealth, it is more than capable of covering different political entities. It is Westminster and Whitehall from which power needs to be decentralised.