• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (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!

Is rail REALLY that bad in the North?

Status
Not open for further replies.

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
29,178
Location
Fenny Stratford
Ah, It's obvious. It's the boundless superiority complex and sense of entitlement of some people who live in the south of England, and their apparent belief that those of us who arw dull enough to remain up north should simply accept how things are without question. Those are the vital factors I've missed justifying why expenditure on rail down there per head is many times what it is in the north.

I feel a proper banana now.

What on earth are you talking about you? The needs of the two areas are vastly different. Are you really unable to identity why that is and why the requirements for spending and the targets of that spending are different?

There is one rather obvious issue that even you should have spotted. There are less people working in the north and that means less people travelling. I hate to say that having lived most of my life in the north east ( and being very proud of where I come from) but it is true. That's why I and many others no longer live there. And I will point out that when you get down here and see and join the hordes travelling you start to understand a little bit of the issue. I felt the same as you when I lived in Darlo. I changed my mind after a couple of months into Euston every morning)

Those that do work in the north, travel shorter distances by train. Milton Keynes to London is about 50 miles. I suspect there aren't many people commuting into Leeds from 50 miles away. The train from Milton Keynes is, at peak hours, often a full 12 car train. Do you think you need a 12 car train from Castleford to Leeds? It is also worth noting that London commuting starts a lot further out than Milton Keynes. How far out does bulk commuting to Leeds end? York? Wakey? Donny? Vast numbers of people have to be conveyed longer distances. That means, longer trains, longer platforms, more tracks, more junctions etc ( that doesn't make it right - i would rather spend a shorter time on the train and live closer to work but it simply isnt possible down here. In Darlo i lived a 5 minute walk from the office.) and that costs money

Those that do commute by train in the north do so in a much more compact peak period than in London. The numbers of trains involved is smaller ( although those trains are both too full and too small). Taking Leeds > Castleford as an example between 0700 & 0830 there are 5 trains to Leeds. I pick those hours as they seem sensible to allow you some sleep but be in work before 0900. There is an 0644 that gets you into Leeds just after 0700 if you want to add that one. I don't think that is enough trains but comparing that to Bletchley> Euston there are 12 trains in that period. Most of those trains will be 8 or 12 car trains ( the southern ones are 5 cars) Using Milton Keynes > Euston for the same time scale produces more as there are Virgin trains to add to the mix. It is also worth nothing that the "commuting hours" into and out of London start much earlier than Leeds or Manchester.

Lets look at the numbers using the stations. Leeds is the 13th busiest station in the country with Manchester the 16th. Millions of people use those stations but the numbers travelling while big are not of the same order as into London. That's the issue. The trains are very busy, of a very poor quality and the services inadequate. We could provide infrastructure to accommodate 12 car trains into these stations ( in theory) but it would be wasted money. That money spent in London delivers a return in a much shorter period. The money needs to be target not on blanket "we must have more" type arguments but where it can improve services.

Another point ( that I know posters here don't like) is the level of fares. They are cheaper in the north. Could paying a bit more be a way to increase the monies available for investment? Should we not contribute a part of the money needed to allow for the services we want to see?

I completely agree more and better spending is needed on the infrastructure in the north. I am a regular user of the trains in both areas so want to see them improved. However, that isnt going to be at the level in London and the SE. To deliver that level of investment would be wasted. Do we need 12 car infrastructure between Leeds & Castleford? I doubt it. Do we need an electrified mainline between Newcastle and Liverpool ( and especially Leeds & Manchester) with longer, faster and better trains. We most certainly do. Do we need targeted investment to improve the commuter journeys into Leeds and Manchester and Newcastle? Certainly. Is that level of spending going to be the same as London? I doubt it.

Personally I would devolve budgetary control ( and increase the block grant) to the regions and let them decide on what to spend the money. The local politicians and administrators will know the challenges and the solutions better than central government. I would even let a devolved authority raise its own additional funding to invest more money via contributions from local business or property development, borrowing or other sources such as local taxation. Is that not the best way to get the money spent on things that might make a difference and increase the level of money available?
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

AM9

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2014
Messages
14,191
Location
St Albans
What makes the rest of the country so different from the south east that it cannot expect an equivalent standard of rail provision, once adjustment has been made for population density?

'Population density' is irrelevant, it's (paying) passenger density/volume that matters. So what other factors are ther implied in your 'equivalent standard of rail provision'?
 

B&I

Established Member
Joined
1 Dec 2017
Messages
2,484
I think looking at the population density of the country, and using a roughly equal level of spending per head of population, is a sensible means to start any discussion of expenditure on public transport. Has it occurred to any of the proponents of the status quo that the reason for much greater railway use in the south east (apart from decades of government policy encouraging its growth at the expense of the rest of the country) might be because, for some time, much more has been spent there, so the service provided is therefore much better? Of course people will travel by train when it is frequent and there are lots of seats. Up here, where neither is generally the case, people cram onto roads instead. If there is no attempt to encourage demand outside the south east by providing better services, this situation will remain forever.
 

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
29,178
Location
Fenny Stratford
I think looking at the population density of the country, and using a roughly equal level of spending per head of population, is a sensible means to start any discussion of expenditure on public transport. Has it occurred to any of the proponents of the status quo that the reason for much greater railway use in the south east (apart from decades of government policy encouraging its growth at the expense of the rest of the country) might be because, for some time, much more has been spent there, so the service provided is therefore much better? Of course people will travel by train when it is frequent and there are lots of seats. Up here, where neither is generally the case, people cram onto roads instead. If there is no attempt to encourage demand outside the south east by providing better services, this situation will remain forever.

So you favour the build it and they will come approach then? OK. Where will they work? That is the issue. Fewer people work and those people travel shorter distances in the "north"

BTW - I certainly am not suggesting the status quo. I am simply suggesting a level of realism missing from many posters view points.
 

B&I

Established Member
Joined
1 Dec 2017
Messages
2,484
So you favour the build it and they will come approach then? OK. Where will they work? That is the issue. Fewer people work and those people travel shorter distances in the "north"

BTW - I certainly am not suggesting the status quo. I am simply suggesting a level of realism missing from many posters view points.


I have no doubt that this is a long-term process, and that it will require changes in areas of this country's life other than the railways. However, nor am I a believer in the 'because it is' approach to everything in this country these days, whether it is applied to the railways or anything else.

When the country's third biggest urban area had commuter lines served by 2 2-car railbuses per hour, as I experienced just this morning, and when roads around all the major northern cities are continually crammed, I think there is a long way to go towards adequate provision. I say this, even allowing for current differences in population density, economic activities and employment levels
 
Last edited:

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
29,178
Location
Fenny Stratford
I have no doubt that this is a long-term process, and that it will require changes in other areas of this country's life. However, nor am I a believer in the 'because it I'd approach to everything in this country these days, and I think it applies to the railways as much as anything else. When the country's third biggest urban area had commuter lines served by 2 2-car railbuses per hour, as I experienced just this morning, and when roads around all the major northern cities are continually crammed, I think there is a long way to go towards adequate provision, even allowing for current differences in population density, economic activities and employment levels

We also have to find a way to encourage many more high quality well paid jobs to be created or relocated. Of course, the infrastructure will help attract those jobs but i am not sure it will act as a catalyst for the kind of change we need in isolation. That's one of the reasons i would like to see the money in the hands of a local combined transport authority.
 

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
9,668
Location
Baildon, West Yorkshire
We also have to find a way to encourage many more high quality well paid jobs to be created or relocated. Of course, the infrastructure will help attract those jobs but i am not sure it will act as a catalyst for the kind of change we need in isolation. That's one of the reasons i would like to see the money in the hands of a local combined transport authority.

This is something I agree with, there needs to be more in the way of devolution for things like this, letting an area-wide (in this case the North West / Yorkshire / North East) body consult with all local stakeholders to look at what needs prioritising in order to best grow the local economies. And whilst putting infrastructure in is not as you say the only catalyst needed, but it will go some way to making future growth possible.
 

B&I

Established Member
Joined
1 Dec 2017
Messages
2,484
We also have to find a way to encourage many more high quality well paid jobs to be created or relocated. Of course, the infrastructure will help attract those jobs but i am not sure it will act as a catalyst for the kind of change we need in isolation. That's one of the reasons i would like to see the money in the hands of a local combined transport authority.


I do agree with that. DfT control seems in general to be a recipe for obfuscation and dither. More local bodies would, hopefully, have a better idea of local needs too.
 

Carlisle

Established Member
Joined
26 Aug 2012
Messages
4,121
This is something I agree with, there needs to be more in the way of devolution for things like this, letting an area-wide (in this case the North West / Yorkshire / North East) body consult with all local stakeholders to look at what needs prioritising in order to best grow the local economies. And whilst putting infrastructure in is not as you say the only catalyst needed, but it will go some way to making future growth possible.
Wasn’t there a failed referendum in 2004 for a north east regional assembly? where the majority thought it was largely pointless funding an extra layer of government to probably spend ages holding endless debates , consultations risk assessments and enquiries etc etc etc, so until the UK improves its ability to actually make meaningful projects happen sooner or even at all, we may as well just stick with the status quo we’ve got now .
 
Last edited:

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
29,178
Location
Fenny Stratford
Wasn’t there a failed referendum in 2004 for a north east regional assembly? where the majority thought it was largely pointless funding an extra layer of government to probably spend ages holding endless debates , consultations risk assessments and enquiries etc etc etc, so until the UK improves its ability to actually make meaningful projects happen sooner or even at all, we may as well just stick to the status quo we’ve got now .

Yes there was. However i am not suggesting that but rather the creation of a TfN ( Transport for North) type body
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,527
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Yes there was. However i am not suggesting that but rather the creation of a TfN ( Transport for North) type body

I'm not sure how useful that is when "the North" is a disparate area, just like "the South". I think it would be more effective to simply expand the PTEs a bit - they know their own cities well - and they could collaborate on some things.
 

B&I

Established Member
Joined
1 Dec 2017
Messages
2,484
I'm not sure how useful that is when "the North" is a disparate area, just like "the South". I think it would be more effective to simply expand the PTEs a bit - they know their own cities well - and they could collaborate on some things.


They've an important role to play. I'd like to see them expanded in area, so that the whole country is covered by them. Some sort of TfN body is still needed, though, to co-ordinate PTEs generally, and deal with projects affecting larger areas, like NPR.
 

aylesbury

Member
Joined
3 Feb 2012
Messages
622
Simple more people in the south do commute long distances in far greater numbers than the north its a simple fact of life and they need more trains but the north does need upgrades and new stock.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

PR1Berske

Established Member
Joined
27 Jul 2010
Messages
3,025
Simple more people in the south do commute long distances in far greater numbers than the north its a simple fact of life and they need more trains but the north does need upgrades and new stock.
But this view drill down to the very core of the argument, and perhaps why the argument is so circular. Why has the north suffered so much for so long? Is it entirely because of the distance travelled for commuting? I doubt it.
 

AndrewE

Established Member
Joined
9 Nov 2015
Messages
5,063
Simple more people in the south do commute long distances in far greater numbers than the north its a simple fact of life and they need more trains but the north does need upgrades and new stock.
Aren't the size of the commuter area and the numbers travelling simply the consequence of the jobs available and the money on offer in London?
Since the closure of the Regional Development boards (or whatever they were called) the govt. has been able to ignore the regions and just blame the market for inequalities. I wonder how bad it will have to get before employers vote with their feet and set up elsewhere in the country? Don't bother answering, the question is rhetorical as we see lots of big employers still setting up in the middle of "the Big Wen."
 

B&I

Established Member
Joined
1 Dec 2017
Messages
2,484
Aren't the size of the commuter area and the numbers travelling simply the consequence of the jobs available and the money on offer in London?
Since the closure of the Regional Development boards (or whatever they were called) the govt. has been able to ignore the regions and just blame the market for inequalities. I wonder how bad it will have to get before employers vote with their feet and set up elsewhere in the country? Don't bother answering, the question is rhetorical as we see lots of big employers still setting up in the middle of "the Big Wen."


And continuing to direct the lion's share of public transport investment towards getting people in and out of London is effectively public subsidy for those employers' decisions
 

Olaf

Member
Joined
29 Mar 2014
Messages
1,054
Location
UK
I think looking at the population density of the country, and using a roughly equal level of spending per head of population, is a sensible means to start any discussion of expenditure on public transport. Has it occurred to any of the proponents of the status quo that the reason for much greater railway use in the south east (apart from decades of government policy encouraging its growth at the expense of the rest of the country) might be because, for some time, much more has been spent there, so the service provided is therefore much better? Of course people will travel by train when it is frequent and there are lots of seats. Up here, where neither is generally the case, people cram onto roads instead. If there is no attempt to encourage demand outside the south east by providing better services, this situation will remain forever.

Fortunately there are more suitable skill people people than yourself directing investment.

I suggest you are probably better employed elsewhere rather than wasting so much effort on something that is beyond your grasp.
 

Olaf

Member
Joined
29 Mar 2014
Messages
1,054
Location
UK
We also have to find a way to encourage many more high quality well paid jobs to be created or relocated. Of course, the infrastructure will help attract those jobs but i am not sure it will act as a catalyst for the kind of change we need in isolation. That's one of the reasons i would like to see the money in the hands of a local combined transport authority.

Comparisons with London are a distraction.

For Manchester and Leeds they need to be making the comparisons with their peers in Europe and be looking to see what they do well and take that away from them. Transport infrastructure is a factor, but it is not a main driver of economic growth.
 

Olaf

Member
Joined
29 Mar 2014
Messages
1,054
Location
UK
I'm not sure how useful that is when "the North" is a disparate area, just like "the South". I think it would be more effective to simply expand the PTEs a bit - they know their own cities well - and they could collaborate on some things.

Yes. To a degree, TfN and it's high profile proposals are a distraction from those on lower incomes located in city regions that would benefit the most from improved efficiencies intra-urban transport services.
 

B&I

Established Member
Joined
1 Dec 2017
Messages
2,484
You are the one making the slander accusation - I suggest you are the one that needs to provide the evidence.


Whom exactly was I slandering? Is it now slander to express any criticism of how the country is run?
 

AndrewE

Established Member
Joined
9 Nov 2015
Messages
5,063
I have one but the hills are a killer lol
Dare I say that getting used to cycling up them might in fact be a life-saver? It's a lot easier when you go the other way too.
More seriously, I learnt in Bristol that sometimes it is possible to find a convenient contouring route which makes life a lot easier than taking the obvious car route.
 

Olaf

Member
Joined
29 Mar 2014
Messages
1,054
Location
UK
Re the OP; What do the most recent Customer Surveys indicate? Merseyrail scores highly, as does c2c. What are the aggregate scores?
 

B&I

Established Member
Joined
1 Dec 2017
Messages
2,484
Fortunately there are more suitable skill people people than yourself directing investment.

I suggest you are probably better employed elsewhere rather than wasting so much effort on something that is beyond your grasp.


But if I didn't spend so much time on here, how would I live without the pearls of wisdom dispensed from great movers and shakers like yourself, taking 5 minutes off running the country to enlighten us poor plans on obscure web fora, and reminding them how dangerous it can be to have opinions of their own which have not been dictated to them by such members of the international elite as yourself?
 

B&I

Established Member
Joined
1 Dec 2017
Messages
2,484
Comparisons with London are a distraction.

For Manchester and Leeds they need to be making the comparisons with their peers in Europe and be looking to see what they do well and take that away from them. Transport infrastructure is a factor, but it is not a main driver of economic growth.


The transport infrastructure of Manchester or Leeds would be regarded as a matter of shame if either of them was located in most other western European countries. So I thoroughly support our cities taking their cue from other, better-run countries.
 

Abpj17

Member
Joined
5 Jul 2014
Messages
1,007
Comparisons with London are a distraction.

For Manchester and Leeds they need to be making the comparisons with their peers in Europe and be looking to see what they do well and take that away from them. Transport infrastructure is a factor, but it is not a main driver of economic growth.

That would be useful, but difficult because the UK is an island.

A common example is the industrial region in the North of France, which includes Lille. Lille has a great integrated transport network. And the canny mayor got a eurostar station on the line between London and Paris, and London and Brussels. Unfortunately, such cunningness is a little more difficult on an island with much higher population density.

NB: population density is relevant. It's not a bad proxy for the number of potential passengers and working/leisure travel. The UK is simply most densely populated than say France or Germany. The 'north' also has more difficult geography to route tracks around/through than much of the south east of the UK. My impression is also that the lower the population density, the less efficient/more expensive trains are as a form of public transport.
 

Olaf

Member
Joined
29 Mar 2014
Messages
1,054
Location
UK
That would be useful, but difficult because the UK is an island.

A common example is the industrial region in the North of France, which includes Lille. Lille has a great integrated transport network. And the canny mayor got a eurostar station on the line between London and Paris, and London and Brussels. Unfortunately, such cunningness is a little more difficult on an island with much higher population density.

NB: population density is relevant. It's not a bad proxy for the number of potential passengers and working/leisure travel. The UK is simply most densely populated than say France or Germany. The 'north' also has more difficult geography to route tracks around/through than much of the south east of the UK. My impression is also that the lower the population density, the less efficient/more expensive trains are as a form of public transport.

You would probably take such factors into account in selecting comparable conurbations - I suspect such steps would filter out Lille.
 

Olaf

Member
Joined
29 Mar 2014
Messages
1,054
Location
UK
The transport infrastructure of Manchester or Leeds would be regarded as a matter of shame if either of them was located in most other western European countries. So I thoroughly support our cities taking their cue from other, better-run countries.

So now you are knocking Local Officials in the UK again. Hmm.

Transport is not the determining factor in making the successful peer cities what they are - their success is more to do with attitudes towards work and self-reliance.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top