Publication of Integrated Rail Plan for the North and Midlands

[pc3087L]

On the point about changing at New Street: If the chord is built to allow long-distance trains from the SW to terminate at Moor Street instead, that could have the benefit of removing some of the diesel pollution from New Street. It also potentially frees up a little capacity at New Street - for more local services, perhaps.

On the other hand, the diesels coming down from Derby via Burton will still presumably need to go somewhere - I'm not sure that adding to the pressure at New Street by having them terminate there is a good idea. So maybe those trains will still head somewhere vaguely SW as additional services? To much unknowable at the moment.

By the time any of this is built will there really still be diesels running up and down the XC network? If so, my goodness we really are ****

 

[quantinghome]

So my point is: the amount of money spent on the railways, and therefore the outcome, depends on political preferences (and thus on voter preferences). If a country wont support more than a certain amount of investment, obviously not every wish can be catered for.

This is nothing to do with voter preferences (well, mostly. If more voters valued railways then the government would be more reticent to cut back). The real reason for the cuts is the Treasury's entirely arbitrary rules on limiting investment spending to 3% of GDP and how this works through into a power play between No 10 and No 11 Downing street, as reported here:

Rail cuts are another sign of the Treasury’s bias against the north of England | James Meadway | The Guardian

Key quote:

The instrument the north is suffering under is a crucial detail in the fiscal rule, which sets a 3% of GDP limit on government investment. After decades of underinvestment, this figure is clearly too low – only slightly above government investment today of 2.7% of GDP. Meeting net zero alone will, on estimates by the Institute for Public Policy Research, cost £33bn a year, or about 1.5% of GDP. There is no real economic justification for the 3% limit and none has been offered in public. But it does mean that the Treasury – opposed to investment spending, biased against the north, led by a chancellor predisposed to lower spending – can assert itself against demands for greater spending and borrowing elsewhere in government. It’s an economic loss for the north of England that may yet prove politically fatal for the prime minister. Immediately scrapping the 3% limit would at least help prevent future economic damage.

 

[JamesT]

IRP is not the totality of UK rail investment. Network Rail has been working in 5 year Control Periods for some time with fairly substantial levels of funding (e.g. CP5 for 2014-2019 was £38bn). I’m not sure you can compare two projects like that and extrapolate whether one country is spending more or less overall on rail.

A more important question is why our railways seem to cost so much more to run than comparable European networks so we’re getting much less bang for our buck.

 

[Austriantrain]

there's a pretty consistent pattern that government cares most about what is under its nose, rather than what is hundreds of miles away.

*That* is something common to every government I know, not a UK specifity (see the Austrian government’s inability to motivate people to vaccinate, meaning we are now in another lockdown).

 

[squizzler]

The thing is, UK people don’t want to - they would certainly not accept a Swiss level of spending for rail, at least that is what I suspect - and the UK government obviously as well, because otherwise they would have spent so much more and thought it a vote-winner.

Now there's a thought, let's put it to a national referendum (as part of a package of net-zero measures.

Of course the government would never acquiesce to such at thing, as the public would probably vote yes. Much more useful to our political establishment that referenda are on abstract ideas like the British membership of the EU (which also facilitates divide-and-conquer) than a tangible set of projects.

 

[Austriantrain]

IRP is not the totality of UK rail investment. Network Rail has been working in 5 year Control Periods for some time with fairly substantial levels of funding (e.g. CP5 for 2014-2019 was £38bn).

Of course. But how much of it was for replacement, upkeep and modernization rather than real new build? The Swiss do have to keep their existing railway functioning as well, but it is not included in the sums I mentioned.

 

[MattRat]

But it can`t be done at any price, Network are probably guilty of gold plating everything meaning electrification gets cut back and will only be rolled out en mass when costs are brought down. the onus is on Network Rail to get its house in order.

Like the gold plating of HS2 between London and Birmingham perhaps? Funny how cost cutting only became a thing north of Birmingham......

 

[Glenn1969]

Now there's a thought, let's put it to a national referendum (as part of a package of net-zero measures.

Of course the government would never acquiesce to such at thing, as the public would probably vote yes. Much more useful to our political establishment that referenda are on abstract ideas like the British membership of the EU (which also facilitates divide-and-conquer) than a tangible set of projects.

Would they? I'm worried about mention of precept for WY Mass Transit. When a transport precept/congestion charge was voted on by GM residents they said No. Would the same happen here meaning the planned improvements get scrapped and the Tories can (justifiably?) blame the public?

 

[Austriantrain]

Would they? I'm worried about mention of precept for WY Mass Transit. When a transport precept/congestion charge was voted on by GM residents they said No. Would the same happen here meaning the planned improvements get scrapped and the Tories can (justifiably?) blame the public?

That is what I mean. Every major Swiss rail infrastructure package is put to a referendum and people invariably say yes. So Swiss politicians do indeed know that rail investment is a vote winner.

 

[Ianno87]

Another half done job, just ask the residents of Chippenham and Bath (and maybe Swansea?)

You mean the people of Bath who campaigned against electrification? (But still basically got the same service as the end output)

 

[Mikey C]

If you ask people whether they want more money spent on the NHS, education, social services, railways, roads, armed forces etc, of course they'll say yes

Ask them to pay more taxes to pay for it, and the answer will be less positive.

And for those suggesting more borrowing to "invest", our national debt levels at the moment are horrendous. In June this year the government spent £8.7bn in interest payments. That's one month, imagine what you could do with £8.7bn...

 

[Austriantrain]

I’m not sure you can compare two projects like that and extrapolate whether one country is spending more or less overall on rail.

I once did a rough calculation for an Austrian Forum showing that the amount spent per inhabitant on rail is vastly higher in Austria than in the UK. I will try and see if I can find it again.

EDIT: Found it. It’s about 3 bn EUR per year in Austria. It is higher in the UK (apparently I estimated 7 bn GBP a year, probably not exactly accurate) but not nearly by a factor that would correspond to the difference in population.

(My point then was not a criticism of the UK, rather a defense of it, pointing out how good the output is in relation to investment - it was one of those outside discussions of UK rail, where invariably everyone says how crappy it is and I invariably try to point out how excellent it *really* is).

 

[Starmill]

And for those suggesting more borrowing to "invest", our national debt levels at the moment are horrendous. In June this year the government spent £8.7bn in interest payments. That's one month, imagine what you could do with £8.7bn...

That's your view that it's "horrendous". Personally I think that put debt to GDP ratio is slightly higher than we would like but could rise further without negative consequences. Market rates on gilts suggest that the majority view is closer to mine than yours.

 

[quantinghome]

And for those suggesting more borrowing to "invest", our national debt levels at the moment are horrendous. In June this year the government spent £8.7bn in interest payments. That's one month, imagine what you could do with £8.7bn...

The best way to reduce debt levels is to grow the economy. Cutting investment makes this more difficult. Haven't we learned anything from our experience since 2010?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

That's your view that it's "horrendous". Personally I think that put debt to GDP ratio is slightly higher than we would like but could rise further without negative consequences. Market rates on gilts suggest that the majority view is closer to mine than yours.

You might wish to revise that view if you consider - if my calculations are correct - that £8.7bn in interest payments represents £130 for each person on the UK (67M population) or £270 for each taxpayer (32M taxpayers). And that's just for one month. Over a year, if it was the same every month, that would be £3200 per taxpayer. It would also be something of the order of 10% of total UK Government expenditure. And that's with interest rates at the incredibly and unusually low rate that they've been for the last decade. Imagine how much interest the Government would be paying if interest rates rose to historically more normal levels!

 

[alistairlees]

You might wish to revise that view if you consider - if my calculations are correct - that £8.7bn in interest payments represents £130 for each person on the UK (67M population) or £270 for each taxpayer (32M taxpayers). And that's just for one month. Over a year, if it was the same every month, that would be £3200 per taxpayer. It would also be something of the order of 10% of total UK Government expenditure. And that's with interest rates at the incredibly and unusually low rate that they've been for the last decade. Imagine how much interest the Government would be paying if interest rates rose to historically more normal levels!

Somewhat less than a typical annual season ticket (a frivolous comparison, I know).

 

[Bald Rick]

This could give passengers from Bristol, Cardiff and beyond easy interchange to HS2 at the adjacent Curzon Street station, deliver increased capacity at Birmingham Snow Hill Station

And where does it make any suggestion that this would be at the expense of through trains from the South West to the North? Or have you assumed that yourself?

 

[swt_passenger]

I did wonder if this was going to be the case.

As chances are XC would still be servicing stations which the HS2 services, or other fastest services to major cities, may not serve. As such there could be a reasonable case for retaining XC.

In which case it'll retain (slower) direct services for those few who prefer to use them over changing, however gives the option of changing (which could be changing from the "wrong" XC service) and improving your journey time.

Theres’s been a few assumptions about XC in this thread that appear to have been treated as facts. Running to Moor St (and out again, or through) isn’t actually the same as terminating at Moor St…

 

[takno]

And where does it make any suggestion that this would be at the expense of through trains from the South West to the North? Or have you assumed that yourself?

Unless the plan is to run more trains from the southwest, it's difficult to see how it could mean anything else

Theres’s been a few assumptions about XC in this thread that appear to have been treated as facts. Running to Moor St (and out again, or through) isn’t actually the same as terminating at Moor St…

Through doesn't go anywhere, and out again doesn't go anywhere either unless you build both chords rather than just the one.

In practice I don't think anyone is seriously considering this at all. They've just strapped some west Midlands regional demands onto the package to make it look bigger, and somebody has decided it would be clever to make it look integrated. The chords are there to move Worcester trains out of new street, and to allow a better local service to the new stations on the Camp Hill line

 

[stephen rp]

Is it? TfN certainly made all sorts of proposals and suggestions but there was never a promise from the government to build this.

However, the government did promise to build HS2 East in full, which they have completely gone back on.

I don't recall a manifesto pledge to “build Northern Powerhouse Rail between Marsden and Manchester”. I'm sure it was Leeds.

 

[Austriantrain]

And where does it make any suggestion that this would be at the expense of through trains from the South West to the North? Or have you assumed that yourself?

The IRP - yes, I have read it - doesn’t say. But the assumption is not unreasonable. It would either be a diversion of existing services to Moor Street (which, without additional investment - at least the northwards bordesley chord - , would probably have to terminate there or loop back via Stourbridge) or new, additional services from the SW to Moor Street. The latter is possible, but I think it is more than fair to ask the question when IRP doesn’t give an answer.

 

[Watershed]

I don't recall a manifesto pledge to “build Northern Powerhouse Rail between Marsden and Manchester”. I'm sure it was Leeds.

But NPR was never defined as a new-build railway all the way. One of TfN proposals certainly involved that, but the part-new, part-upgrade approach that the IRP is backing is compatible with the promises the government made.

Leeds still has every reason to be p*****d off, as the journey time to London and particularly Birmingham will be much longer than was promised. But not in respect of NPR.

 

[Bald Rick]

Unless the plan is to run more trains from the southwest, it's difficult to see how it could mean anything else

Some posters have automatically jumped to conclusions, shall we say.

The latter is possible, but I think it is more than fair to ask the question when IRP doesn’t give an answer.

Fair to ask the question, yes. But not fair to automatically assume that through services will not continue.

 

[Starmill]

The IRP - yes, I have read it - doesn’t say. But the assumption is not unreasonable. It would either be a diversion of existing services to Moor Street (which, without additional investment - at least the northwards bordeley chord - , would probably have to terminate there or loop back via Stourbridge) or new, additional services from the SW to Moor Street. The latter is possible, but I think it is more than fair to ask the question when IRP doesn’t give an answer.

We really don't know do we. It could involve 1tph Plymouth - Birmingham Moor Street in place of services to Manchester, and 1tph Plymouth - Scotland via Newcastle. 1tph Cardiff Central - Birmingham Moor Street also sounds realistic.

 

[JonathanH]

We really don't know do we. It could involve 1tph Plymouth - Birmingham Moor Street in place of services to Manchester, and 1tph Plymouth - Scotland via Newcastle. 1tph Cardiff Central - Birmingham Moor Street also sounds realistic.

Pretty sure there wouldn't be two XC services in every hour beyond Exeter regardless of where they terminate further north.

Essentially, the railway is never going to run more frequent services on any given stretch of line beyond those which it ran in March 2020, other than where there is new investment, so changes are about switching destinations of services, not adding to them.

 

[Bald Rick]

I don't recall a manifesto pledge to “build Northern Powerhouse Rail between Marsden and Manchester”. I'm sure it was Leeds.

I may be mistaken, but neither the PM nor Government has ever said they would build a new line all the way from Manchester to Leeds, or via Bradford, or into Liverpool. What they did say is that they would build Northern Powerhouse Rail between Manchester and Leeds. And so it is. NPR is just a badge.

I’m no spokesperson for (even a fan of) this Government, but in NPR terms they are making a huge commitment that is consistent with their long term objectives.

 

[stephen rp]

Big long term rail projects are a great thing for politicians to announce, as the serious work and money is years/decades down the line

Indeed that's part of the problem, it's very easy to announce something, to over promise, only to subsequently revise the plans and get slaughtered.

Especially if they do it to win elections.

 

[MattRat]

I may be mistaken, but neither the PM nor Government has ever said they would build a new line all the way from Manchester to Leeds, or via Bradford, or into Liverpool. What they did say is that they would build Northern Powerhouse Rail between Manchester and Leeds. And so it is. NPR is just a badge.

I’m no spokesperson for (even a fan of) this Government, but in NPR terms they are making a huge commitment that is consistent with their long term objectives.

Well it's easy to meet commitments to a project no one knows what it's truly about, becuase there's no real way to fail bar doing nothing....

 

[Class83]

Like the gold plating of HS2 between London and Birmingham perhaps? Funny how cost cutting only became a thing north of Birmingham......

This is absolutely the case, the route inside the M25 is almost entirely tunnelled, there is a 10 mile tunnel through the Chilterns, but if Liverpool wants a captive HS2 station, which would require 2-3 miles of tunnel, or Manchester wants a through station and NPR tunnel out to the east that costs too much. In London and the South East no cost was spared, in the North people are expected to get by with reused existing lines and an urban viaduct.

 

[stephen rp]

Whilst "hardly any of the general population care about rail" is a common trope made by forum contributors who want to try and convince us of their worldly savvy, the impression I get in the media is that in this instance the forum is a lot more blasé than the representatives of the regions and cities that are concerned. Although on one level these contributors might be right - there are probably a lot of people both sides of the Pennines who do not care for trains and railways at all but are now staunch backers of the rail building programme since it became a regional identity issue.

Naturally as a rail forum we want to talk about trains and railways, and thus perhaps fail to notice how totemic the rail programme has become to the aspirations of Northern England. If the slogan "levelling up" was not an invitation to have such aspirations, I don't know what is. The truncation of the programme has thus been subsumed into a broader narrative of political sleaze and dishonesty.

This video from a Yorkshire based political commentator typifies this view.

Good question in the video, "Why deliver on a promise if you can make the same promise in 2010, 2015, 2017 and 2019, and not deliver so you can make the promise at the next election?"