Future Network Rail Investment

[LNW-GW Joint]

You conveniently forget the works that are ongoing in CP5, the completion of electrification work, work just completed on north coast route, plus announced commitment to upgrade of the line from Swansea to Pembroke, and the draft CP6 scope of work.

Plus the repeated reinstatements of the Conwy Valley line after flooding.

 

[Olaf]

Plus the repeated reinstatements of the Conwy Valley line after flooding.

I am sure there is a lot I have missed from the above list.

 

[InOban]

A topic covered several times in these forums, acknowledged by DfT and various Governments, and illustrated in data provided by NR and ORR.



Those backing investment in English and Welsh regions including the South West and and North of England.

If ScoGov have overfunded rail, they have grossly overfunded investment in the so-called primary network of trunk roads. And from a government instructed by its parliament to reduce CO2 emissions.

 

[clc]

If ScoGov have overfunded rail, they have grossly overfunded investment in the so-called primary network of trunk roads. And from a government instructed by its parliament to reduce CO2 emissions.

To be fair the money spent on roads was well overdue. Consider that until a few years ago the main intercity route north from Glasgow had traffic lights and 30mph sections, Glasgow-Edinburgh wasn’t even motorway standard at its busiest point and the oil capital of Europe didn’t have a bypass. These gaps in the network had been talked about for decades but were only fixed after devolution.

 

[snowball]

To be fair the money spent on roads was well overdue. Consider that until a few years ago the main intercity route north from Glasgow had traffic lights and 30mph sections, Glasgow-Edinburgh wasn’t even motorway standard at its busiest point and the oil capital of Europe didn’t have a bypass. These gaps in the network had been talked about for decades but were only fixed after devolution.

Scotland has a long-standing record, both before and after devolution in 1999, of spending more on its roads than would be spent on roads with similar traffic levels in England or Wales. As a result, major roads in Scotland are, and have been for many years, of higher standard on average than roads with similar traffic levels in England and Wales. As an example, the A74 between Gretna and Glasgow was fully converted to a motorway by 1999, whereas the A1 in North Yorkshire, with generally higher traffic levels, is only being completed now.

 

[InOban]

It is a characteristic of governments to spend money on a small number of major, highprofile projects rather than a larger number of small local projects. In the case if the roads program, all the significant investment has taken place on 20 strategic priority routes and other roads have been on care and maintenance. It doesn't seem to occur to the planners that the increased traffic generated by the new roads all starts and finishes on minor roads, in which there has been no investment, and indeed cuts to the local authority budgets for their maintenance.

 

[IanXC]

A topic covered several times in these forums, acknowledged by DfT and various Governments, and illustrated in data provided by NR and ORR.

Those backing investment in English and Welsh regions including the South West and and North of England.

Right, so Scotland 'spends too much on its railway' because other Governments and UK bodies say so? At the end of the day the funding available to the Scottish Ministers is determined by the Barnett Formula. If they take, on the basis of their elector's concerns, a democratic decision to spend a greater portion of the available funds on railways than is the case elsewhere, anyone who is saying that is 'wrong', 'unjustified' or 'overspending' is pretty much saying that Devolution is a mistake.

Search and analysis on ORR documents and data. Simples.

So you mean, no, you cannot provide a source?

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Right, so Scotland 'spends too much on its railway' because other Governments and UK bodies say so? At the end of the day the funding available to the Scottish Ministers is determined by the Barnett Formula. If they take, on the basis of their elector's concerns, a democratic decision to spend a greater portion of the available funds on railways than is the case elsewhere, anyone who is saying that is 'wrong', 'unjustified' or 'overspending' is pretty much saying that Devolution is a mistake.

I love Democracy - I just wish the Welsh would do the same and get devolved powers for Transport too. I bet you a month's salary if they did - Cardiff - Swansea sparks would go ahead.

 

[gareth950]

I love Democracy - I just wish the Welsh would do the same and get devolved powers for Transport too. I bet you a month's salary if they did - Cardiff -Newport sparks would go ahead.

The Welsh Labour government has been trying very hard to get the control and financing of Network Rail in Wales devolved, but the Conservatives in Westminster have said a very firm NO.
It's Cardiff - Swansea that has been cancelled.

 

[richieb1971]

The problem with railways is that it cannot attract new customers on its own. It requires commuters to make it profitable and thus needs to make share holders believe such a demand is there before its built.

Build another London away from London, an epicenter of business and trade where say 3 million people will want to commute to within 5-10 years. I can see someone investing in that.

The only (other) political way to make such things happen is to over charge road tax on cars and force people to use other modes of transport.

IF there was a cheaper way to build railways then of course that might be viable too. But £8-12 million per mile will never be paid off in our lifetimes. Its a shame people can't build railways/tram ways/monorails rather cheaply. Because its the only way to take traffic off the roads. At the moment we are only making the roads busier and most towns/cities can't cope the recent Xmas shopping/rush hours that we had recently. I travel 27 miles in 1hr 30 minutes these days. Pretty dire if you ask me.

 

[B&I]

The problem with railways is that it cannot attract new customers on its own. It requires commuters to make it profitable and thus needs to make share holders believe such a demand is there before its built.

Build another London away from London, an epicenter of business and trade where say 3 million people will want to commute to within 5-10 years. I can see someone investing in that.

The only (other) political way to make such things happen is to over charge road tax on cars and force people to use other modes of transport.

IF there was a cheaper way to build railways then of course that might be viable too. But £8-12 million per mile will never be paid off in our lifetimes. Its a shame people can't build railways/tram ways/monorails rather cheaply. Because its the only way to take traffic off the roads. At the moment we are only making the roads busier and most towns/cities can't cope the recent Xmas shopping/rush hours that we had recently. I travel 27 miles in 1hr 30 minutes these days. Pretty dire if you ask me.

Another option would be re-writing planning guidelines to make it impoasible to build anything attracting large numbers of travellers more than walking distance away from a railway station (in towns with operating railway lines).

 

[edwin_m]

Another option would be re-writing planning guidelines to make it impoasible to build anything attracting large numbers of travellers more than walking distance away from a railway station (in towns with operating railway lines).

We should certainly improve the integration of transport and land use planning but it's difficult to get that sort of coverage with heavy rail otherwise there would need to be a station every mile or so and the trains serving them would be very slow. That's one reason light rail is better for a purely urban service, and another reason why we need to look at the whole transport network including buses rather than just focusing on rail.

 

[B&I]

We should certainly improve the integration of transport and land use planning but it's difficult to get that sort of coverage with heavy rail otherwise there would need to be a station every mile or so and the trains serving them would be very slow. That's one reason light rail is better for a purely urban service, and another reason why we need to look at the whole transport network including buses rather than just focusing on rail.

Light rail has a significant role to play, as shown by other countries. Buses, I have more trouble envisaging as anything other than a means of transport of last resort, while so many services (in my experience) continue to travel at about an average 15 mph (even on clear roads, let alone when traffic and road works have their baleful.impact), assuming they operate with any reliability or frequency at all

 

[Olaf]

If ScoGov have overfunded rail, they have grossly overfunded investment in the so-called primary network of trunk roads. And from a government instructed by its parliament to reduce CO2 emissions.

CO2 emissions are being decoupled from the Rail Electrification due to change in policy and time-lines for new projects; not quite there but it is coming.

If anything there has been significant under investment in rods in Scotland and local economies have been suffering for it.

 

[Olaf]

Right, so Scotland 'spends too much on its railway' because other Governments and UK bodies say so? At the end of the day the funding available to the Scottish Ministers is determined by the Barnett Formula. If they take, on the basis of their elector's concerns, a democratic decision to spend a greater portion of the available funds on railways than is the case elsewhere, anyone who is saying that is 'wrong', 'unjustified' or 'overspending' is pretty much saying that Devolution is a mistake.



So you mean, no, you cannot provide a source?

The electorate for one, and the growing problems in other services provided in Scotland due to local Government stage-management.
-

 

[Olaf]

So you mean, no, you cannot provide a source?

I did provide the source.

 

[Olaf]

The problem with railways is that it cannot attract new customers on its own. It requires commuters to make it profitable and thus needs to make share holders believe such a demand is there before its built.

Build another London away from London, an epicenter of business and trade where say 3 million people will want to commute to within 5-10 years. I can see someone investing in that.

The only (other) political way to make such things happen is to over charge road tax on cars and force people to use other modes of transport.

IF there was a cheaper way to build railways then of course that might be viable too. But £8-12 million per mile will never be paid off in our lifetimes. Its a shame people can't build railways/tram ways/monorails rather cheaply. Because its the only way to take traffic off the roads. At the moment we are only making the roads busier and most towns/cities can't cope the recent Xmas shopping/rush hours that we had recently. I travel 27 miles in 1hr 30 minutes these days. Pretty dire if you ask me.

Yes there are quite a few problems.

Roads policies are going through a review and similar practices to those used for rail are being adopted for the Strategic Road Network.

There is a problem. The cost of delivery of future projects on the railways is looking too expensive in some cases vs the returns on road investment. Add to that the under investment in principle roads, growth in traffic (high than that for rail), new technologies, new policies, and changes in usage all within the context of finite funding. Rail accounts for 8% of the estimated trips made each year in the UK; it has been stuck at that level for about a decade (though the sources may use different methodologies) and it may start to decrease with the continued growth in car usage, significant double-figure growth in local commercial distribution, and a trend in declining patronage of rail.

It wont happen for CP6, but changes in priorities are likely to come in the CP7/CP8 time-frame.

 

[IanXC]

The electorate for one, and the growing problems in other services provided in Scotland due to local Government stage-management.
-

So because you say 'the electorate' think this it must be true? I really hesitate to ask, once again, for a proper source/reference for your claims.

I did provide the source.

A vague reference to something being "acknowledged by DfT and various Governments, and illustrated in data provided by NR and ORR" does not represent a source.

You seem implacably opposed to devolution and dissatisfied with the Scottish people having democratic power over their own affairs.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

You seem implacably opposed to devolution and dissatisfied with the Scottish people having democratic power over their own affairs.

I , on the other hand , would go a stage even further still. Grant the Welsh and the North of England power over Transport - full devolve. I have a felling things would then be a little different !

 

[coppercapped]

I , on the other hand , would go a stage even further still. Grant the Welsh and the North of England power over Transport - full devolve. I have a felling things would then be a little different !

The degree of 'difference' would depend entirely on how much money these areas would have to spend on capital enhancements and day-to-day operation and maintenance. I can only assume that there would be a limit on any monies made available by central Government.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

True because of course money does not grow on trees.

 

[B&I]

Yes there are quite a few problems.

Roads policies are going through a review and similar practices to those used for rail are being adopted for the Strategic Road Network.

There is a problem. The cost of delivery of future projects on the railways is looking too expensive in some cases vs the returns on road investment. Add to that the under investment in principle roads, growth in traffic (high than that for rail), new technologies, new policies, and changes in usage all within the context of finite funding. Rail accounts for 8% of the estimated trips made each year in the UK; it has been stuck at that level for about a decade (though the sources may use different methodologies) and it may start to decrease with the continued growth in car usage, significant double-figure growth in local commercial distribution, and a trend in declining patronage of rail.

It wont happen for CP6, but changes in priorities are likely to come in the CP7/CP8 time-frame.

Do you think this growth in road traffic is desirable, and something government should be promoting?

 

[Olaf]

So because you say 'the electorate' think this it must be true? I really hesitate to ask, once again, for a proper source/reference for your claims.



A vague reference to something being "acknowledged by DfT and various Governments, and illustrated in data provided by NR and ORR" does not represent a source.

You seem implacably opposed to devolution and dissatisfied with the Scottish people having democratic power over their own affairs.

You are arguing in circles.

The evidence and reports are there, you will have to some work.

If the investment comes from the local taxes then how that is spent is up to the electorate, but a good proportion of the investments is being subsidised from the rest of the UK to the detriment of rail passengers in other regions. Engage with the numbers.

 

[Olaf]

Do you think this growth in road traffic is desirable, and something government should be promoting?

It is a consequence of the growth in the economy and it is growing faster than rail patronage. Road is the primary means of transport for freight and passenger in the UK and is suffering the same problems of under investment seen on rail 15 years back.

Desirability is not really a major factor either, it is something that has to be taken into account in the funding of new infrastructure to accommodate economic activity.

The Government is also promoting the new MRN.

 

[Rational Plan]

I think I read that the percentage of traffic carried by rail is at new high of 9.6%n(excluding metro systems), it is not much higher in many other countries.

Japan stands at 30.5% modal share. Then the highest in Europe is Switzerland with 17.5% and Austria with 11.5% (must be all those mountains!). We are a smidge higher than France or Germany. Southern Europe hovers around 4% to 6%. Outside Europe and Asia it drops off the cliff, with for example only 0.3% of journeys in the USA (remember no metro useage here).

 

[Olaf]

I think I read that the percentage of traffic carried by rail is at new high of 9.6%n(excluding metro systems), it is not much higher in many other countries.

Japan stands at 30.5% modal share. Then the highest in Europe is Switzerland with 17.5% and Austria with 11.5% (must be all those mountains!). We are a smidge higher than France or Germany. Southern Europe hovers around 4% to 6%. Outside Europe and Asia it drops off the cliff, with for example only 0.3% of journeys in the USA (remember no metro useage here).

The most recent figure quoted by the ORR is 8% - the same as was stated by the EU (Rail Directorate?) about 10 years ago.

 

[Pete_uk]

True because of course money does not grow on trees.

Not now we have started useing plastic notes.

Also, dont forget all the costs involved with running a devolved government.

 

[IanXC]

You are arguing in circles.

The evidence and reports are there, you will have to some work.

If the investment comes from the local taxes then how that is spent is up to the electorate, but a good proportion of the investments is being subsidised from the rest of the UK to the detriment of rail passengers in other regions. Engage with the numbers.

With the greatest of respect, unless you can provide sources to back up your claims, then your argument has no substance.

So your actual issue with Scottish railway spending is the Devolution settlement? Much as you and parts of Whitehall may be in denial about the devolution settlement it is a reality and entirely off topic for this thread!

 

[snowball]

If anything there has been significant under investment in rods in Scotland and local economies have been suffering for it.

Investment in roads in Scotland has been higher per capita than in England for many years, before and after devolution.

 

[Olaf]

Investment in roads in Scotland has been higher per capita than in England for many years, before and after devolution.

I don't disagree - but then I did not make any claim in regard to when it started from.

In fact, there is to be increased spending to address issues with the road network in Scotland.