Election 2019 - promises

gazzaa2 said:

I don't see how cheaper fares/getting more people out of their cars solve much when the trains are already full to bursting.

Click to expand...

It creates a situation where the addiction to increasing road transport can be addressed by diverting at least some money from general taxation into other more sustainable transport systems.

AM9 said:

It creates a situation where the addiction to increasing road transport can be addressed by diverting at least some money from general taxation into other more sustainable transport systems.

Click to expand...

Potentially but in the meantime people can't even get on trains in the peaks.

mawallace said:

Thought I would start a thread re the manifesto promises.

First off, Greens:-

Making travelling by public transport cheaper than travelling by car, by reducing the cost of travelling by train and bus. Coach travel will also be encouraged, with new routes for electric coaches provided across the country.

Creating a new golden age of train by opening new rail connections that remove bottlenecks, increase rail freight capacity, improve journey times and frequencies, enhance capacity in the South West,
Midlands and North, and connect currently unconnected urban areas.
We would also look, where possible, to re-open closed stations. These rail improvements will benefit
from funding switched from the damaging HS2 scheme, which we will cancel .

Electrifying all railway lines that connect cities, improving punctuality.

Creating a government-owned rolling stock company which would invest in a fleet of new electric
trains to run on newly electrified lines

Giving responsibility for running short-distance passenger rail franchises to councils, or groups of
councils that come together to work on local transport. This will give local communities a greater say in the running of the rail services they rely on. We will bring all railways back into public ownership over ten years.

Ensuring good railway connections with all ports to enable more freight between ports and inland terminals to be carried on rail. We will invest in additional freight routes resulting in the majority of long-distance freight switching from road to rail.

Scrapping the doomed HS2 rail line. The funds freed up will be spent on more effective sustainable public transport options, as part of the Green New Deal. This will enable an increase in rail capacity in regions that desperately need more investment, including the creation of three electrified rail lines running from Liverpool and Manchester to Sheffield, Hull and the Tees Valley.
These three newly electrified lines will run through Bradford and Leeds, creating new rail hubs in the heart of Yorkshire.

Capital cost: - £12.2 billion

Click to expand...

As much as I'd like to support the Green's policy to promote more rail use, sadly I simply cannot. For a start, simply diverting the planned HS2 budget will not get a similar value for their aspirations. Moving a single project budget to multiple ones means that you increase your overall overheads for things like design, planning & consultation, as each project will require their own design & planning. And that's not to mention that the HS2 budget spans three decades, and that it is not all available right now. This would add more problems in trying to allocate budgets that might not have been released for HS2 for 10 years, and committing them to projects that need them much sooner. Put simply it wouldn't happen, and that money would be watered down & eventually spent elsewhere.

The other problem they have is in reconnecting all the major ports back to the network & for more to be carried on the rails. We already see the myriad of problems freight has in this country on the rail network. It needs massive infrastructural improvements & capacity increases before you could even begin to hope to carry the amount of freight that would make a difference. Coupled with their commitment for electrification, new lines across the North, moving "short distance" (which isn't defined as far as I can see) to local controls & buying back all the rolling stock, and well the money from HS2 would only be a fraction of what they would really need. Plus dropping HS2 leaves an even bigger capacity problem for North <> South travel, meaning that the sorts of improvements mooted would take longer, cause more disruption, and thus cost a great deal more again.

In short, it is at best naïve, and naïve is not what we need.

JonathanH said:

It is entirely consistent with a green agenda.

Long distance travel, however it is done, is often unnecessary and is rarely a matter of necessity. Short distance commuting to a workplace can be seen as essential for people's livelihoods.

As a case in point, operating a frequent maximum length all-stations service on each route, with metro-type trains, at the most frequent timetable possible, would provide plenty of local connectivity for local commuting. Forget about the long distance trains.

This favours short distance travel at the expense of long distance travel making people think about the sustainability of travelling long distances.

Click to expand...

A lovely aspiration, with one rather large, fundamental problem. This would require a more equal spread of employment opportunities across the country which there simply isn't. People will continue to travel long distances to commute, to visit friends / family & for leisure. So you can't forget about the long distance journeys, because if you do more will be taken by road, defeating the whole object.

And this is part of the problem with the sustainability debate. People tend to focus on one or two facets of modern life, and demand they be cut regardless of logistics, whereas the real solution is far more complex & doesn't involve any virtue signalling "quick wins". Our environmental issues are complex, long lasting, and there are no "quick wins" that will make any real difference this century. But that is for a separate debate.

The Labour Manifesto is out: https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Real-Change-Labour-Manifesto-2019.pdf

The Transport section is curiously generic and low key.
It looks like the same for rail as in 2017:
- central public sector management,
- take back franchises when they expire ,
- rolling electrification programme,
- full HS2 including to Scotland.

Also will "end driver only operation" - so the union reps got their oar in
No particular promises on fares or services, just "simpler" and "more affordable" fares.
Will implement Crossrail for the North (but no definition of what that means)

There's no real feel for the massive infrastructure investment programme they are talking about generally.
Nothing about nationalising rolling stock, or ending private open access or freight.
Nothing about the structure of the industry.
Nothing about devolution.

It all has the feel of "waiting for the Wiliams report" about it.
I also get the feeling that rail is by no means at the sharp end of Labour priorities if they get elected.
Proposals in other sectors seem more radical and urgent.

LNW-GW Joint said:

Nothing about nationalising rolling stock, or ending private open access or freight.

Click to expand...

BBC asked about ROSCOs and the comment that came back was they they had no immediate plans to nationalise as it would cost a lot to do...

Bantamzen said:

So you can't forget about the long distance journeys, because if you do more will be taken by road, defeating the whole object.

Click to expand...

...Or domestic air, however much the Greens might like to 'flight shame' these travellers. If domestic flights were effectively banned or priced out via tax means on corridors where HS2 could offer an alternative, then we're into some major problems with capacity if the high speed routes are not built. Long distance rail fares will HAVE to rise to choke off demand and that in turn will re-incentivise driving even if the journey times are now very unattractive due to the volumes of traffic. It's also regular longer distance road journeys that will be most difficult to decarbonise. The Greens attitude to HS2 is completely absurd and actually threatens to work against their own broader aims, in transport and generally. Although I'm very ecologically minded (I don't drive at all for instance), I cannot lend my support to such amateurish populist posturing. Oh and I hope you're also listening Boris as I've seen mention in one paper today that you have stated 'we might not build HS2'. Depends if it's all really a fanatically libertarian coup of course in which case you'll definitely cancel it, specifically because it threatens oil sales, but I always take a very large metaphorical pinch of salt with anything you say of course...

LNW-GW Joint said:

Also will "end driver only operation" - so the union reps got their oar in

Click to expand...

How would that work? I could understand having on board supervisor type roles on every train but guards might be a step too far on some of the routes where they haven't been in place for 25 years.

Conductors on buses as well?

MarkyT said:

Long distance rail fares will HAVE to rise to choke off demand and that in turn will re-incentivise driving even if the journey times are now very unattractive due to the volumes of traffic.

Click to expand...

Plenty of ways to restrict car use for long journeys as well. Higher fuel duty, road pricing by black box, rationing fuel, lower speed limits, all possible

LNW-GW Joint said:

The Labour Manifesto is out: https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Real-Change-Labour-Manifesto-2019.pdf

The Transport section is curiously generic and low key.
It looks like the same for rail as in 2017:
- central public sector management,
- take back franchises when they expire ,
- rolling electrification programme,
- full HS2 including to Scotland.

Also will "end driver only operation" - so the union reps got their oar in
No particular promises on fares or services, just "simpler" and "more affordable" fares.
Will implement Crossrail for the North (but no definition of what that means)

There's no real feel for the massive infrastructure investment programme they are talking about generally.
Nothing about nationalising rolling stock, or ending private open access or freight.
Nothing about the structure of the industry.
Nothing about devolution.

It all has the feel of "waiting for the Wiliams report" about it.
I also get the feeling that rail is by no means at the sharp end of Labour priorities if they get elected.
Proposals in other sectors seem more radical and urgent.

Click to expand...

I agree that it's all very vague.

Andy McDonald's recent interview in RAIL gave a lot more away.

Interpreting what he said, the plans would appear to spell the end for ScotRail, TfW, Merseyrail and London Overground. DRS would take on expanded role to compete with the other freight operators and while ROSCOs would not be bought out, all new rolling stock would be directly procured by "BR Mk 2".

DOO is surely a purely political sop for which they can be accused of micromanaging as much as the current incompetents in charge. What McDonald said was that while new technology that demonstrably improves the running of the railways it shouldn't be used as an excuse to get rid of jobs. My interpretation of that is that they object to DOO, but not necessarily DCO.

On buses it's even more vague and appears to build on the Tories' Bus Services Act by extending franchising powers to all councils rather than a select few, while reversing the ban on councils setting up their own bus companies.

All of the above is my interpretation and I might be completely wrong.

The Labour Manifesto is the biggest work of fiction since the musings of Jules Verne were first published, a complete waste of everybody’s time. The idea that only high-earners will be affected by higher taxation is so laughable, that I can only conclude that they take the electorate for fools.

I have no doubt that the Conservatives will produce a similar shambles. I thank the Labour party for their attempt to completely insult everybody’s intelligence and will ensure my vote goes elsewhere. Or I might just draw some form of obscenity on my ballot paper and be done with it.

JonathanH said:

How would that work? I could understand having on board supervisor type roles on every train but guards might be a step too far on some of the routes where they haven't been in place for 25 years.

Click to expand...

I believe the report says no further DOO not ending it.

Ferret said:

Or I might just draw some form of obscenity on my ballot paper and be done with it.

Click to expand...

Actually if you did that, your vote would likely still count.

matt_world2004 said:

I believe the report says no further DOO not ending it.

Click to expand...

The wording in the manifesto is 'end driver only operation'.

matt_world2004 said:

I believe the report says no further DOO not ending it.

Click to expand...

This is the para from the manifesto (page 20):

Labour will deliver improvements for
rail passengers by bringing our railways
back into public ownership, using
options including franchise expiry. This
will enable us to make fares simpler and
more affordable, rebuild the fragmented
railways as a nationally integrated
public service, cut the wastage of
private profit, improve accessibility for
disabled people, ensure safe staffing
levels and end driver-only operation.

Click to expand...

stevekp said:

Actually if you did that, your vote would likely still count.

Click to expand...

That’s brilliant!

HS2 to Scotland is clearly an SNP sop, though the original project in 2009 did intend to link Scotland from what I remember.

Just how difficult will it be to build through the mountainous terrain in Cumbria and southern Scotland?

Does the WCML north of Preston have capacity constraints like the route HS2 is intended to relieve?

Would it make more sense to upgrade that part of the WCML, or do the logisitics of upgrading an existing line make it a non-starter?

158756 said:

The wording in the manifesto is 'end driver only operation'.

Click to expand...

I don't think that's going to be technically possible across a lot of the network the best that can be hoped for it platform assisted dispatch at a every station with doo services.

matt_world2004 said:

I don't think that's going to be technically possible across a lot of the network the best that can be hoped for it platform assisted dispatch at a every station with doo services.

Click to expand...

o the poor person who does this at Roydon

BigCj34 said:

HS2 to Scotland is clearly an SNP sop, though the original project in 2009 did intend to link Scotland from what I remember.

Just how difficult will it be to build through the mountainous terrain in Cumbria and southern Scotland?

Does the WCML north of Preston have capacity constraints like the route HS2 is intended to relieve?

Would it make more sense to upgrade that part of the WCML, or do the logisitics of upgrading an existing line make it a non-starter?

Click to expand...

The WCML North of Preston is pretty full as it is, and whilst I'm not an expert on this, I doubt there are many significant speed improvements to be had without a new alignment.

Given the number of tunnels already on the route I'd think there would be quite a few more if HS2 were to be built to Scotland. I'm sure it is technically possible to build a high speed surface route through Cumbria and southern Scotland, but the inevitable opposition to building in a national park would make at least one tunnel likely in Cumbria.

Has a business case ever been done for Golborne to Scotland?

JonathanH said:

Plenty of ways to restrict car use for long journeys as well. Higher fuel duty, road pricing by black box, rationing fuel, lower speed limits, all possible

Click to expand...

Collectively that all sounds a little too North Korean to attract mass public support in what’s supposedly one of the worlds oldest democracies.

If DOO is to be reversed for National Rail routes, what about all the TfL lines (Overground and Underground for example), what's the difference?

158756 said:

The WCML North of Preston is pretty full as it is, and whilst I'm not an expert on this, I doubt there are many significant speed improvements to be had without a new alignment.

Given the number of tunnels already on the route I'd think there would be quite a few more if HS2 were to be built to Scotland. I'm sure it is technically possible to build a high speed surface route through Cumbria and southern Scotland, but the inevitable opposition to building in a national park would make at least one tunnel likely in Cumbria.

Has a business case ever been done for Golborne to Scotland?

Click to expand...

It was looked at during the initial HS2 route sift with HS2 running to Preston (running through the centre of Wigan borough rather than re-joining the WCML at Golborne and with a parkway station near Hindley and a new out of town station on the edge of Preston re-joining the WCML just north) being promoted as an optional extra for the governments consideration in the final route report. However the economics even back then didn't really stack up, its a long way with not a lot of population enroute and so not a lot of extra revenue to be generated.

What NR/HS2 have been looking at (and what Labour might be more realistically looking at) was rather than a wholly new route a series of interventions to cut journey times such as a Shap bypass and Carstairs junction improvement.

The proposal to allow local authorities greater say in local rail services makes me despair every time I hear it. Here in Norfolk the chimps in the local council can't even run the roads properly let alone run a railway. Only they can build a ring road that isn't actually a ring that was millions over budget and if you have ever driven on it makes you wonder what substance whoever designed the roundabouts was on.
On another note, I actually read some campaign material that can through my door this week. This particular gentleman will campaign for the East Dereham to Norwich railway to be reopened and introduce a direct rail link to Cambridge from Dereham!

Mikey C said:

If DOO is to be reversed for National Rail routes, what about all the TfL lines (Overground and Underground for example), what's the difference?

Click to expand...

I'm guessing that Overground would be taken off TfL anyway and given to BR Mk 2 so they can resume running down the North London line.

lordbusiness said:

The proposal to allow local authorities greater say in local rail services makes me despair every time I hear it. Here in Norfolk the chimps in the local council can't even run the roads properly let alone run a railway. Only they can build a ring road that isn't actually a ring that was millions over budget and if you have ever driven on it makes you wonder what substance whoever designed the roundabouts was on.
On another note, I actually read some campaign material that can through my door this week. This particular gentleman will campaign for the East Dereham to Norwich railway to be reopened and introduce a direct rail link to Cambridge from Dereham!

Click to expand...

Then there's the lunatic (Tory) mayor of Cambridge who wants an underground railway between Peterborough and Cambridge.

Goldfish62 said:

Then there's the lunatic (Tory) mayor of Cambridge who wants an underground railway between Peterborough and Cambridge.

Click to expand...

He should join the forum and post it in "Speculative Ideas"

Carlisle said:

Collectively that all sounds a little too North Korean to attract mass public support in what’s supposedly one of the worlds oldest democracies.

Click to expand...

So democracies don't have rules and laws?

Ferret said:

The Labour Manifesto is the biggest work of fiction since the musings of Jules Verne were first published, a complete waste of everybody’s time. The idea that only high-earners will be affected by higher taxation is so laughable, that I can only conclude that they take the electorate for fools.

I have no doubt that the Conservatives will produce a similar shambles. I thank the Labour party for their attempt to completely insult everybody’s intelligence and will ensure my vote goes elsewhere. Or I might just draw some form of obscenity on my ballot paper and be done with it.

Click to expand...

So it's all just about tax? Nothing else matters? The health service? The army of homeless? The education system?

ChiefPlanner said:

"Losing Track" - An insiders story of Britain's Railway Transformation from British Rail to the Present Day- just published ISBN 978-1- 78955- 667 -4 (New Generation Publishing)

I commend Chapter 7 - "Franchises get off the ground - some fly , some crash and burn"

Highly , highly recommended - I have "sold" , at least 4 copies to other old railway lags (all retired) , and they have equally enjoyed the book. Splendid read and very focused / non - emotional, fact based.

Click to expand...

Only £4.99 for Kindle version. Haven't read it yet but thanks for the recommendation.

Ferret said:

The Labour Manifesto is the biggest work of fiction since the musings of Jules Verne were first published, a complete waste of everybody’s time. The idea that only high-earners will be affected by higher taxation is so laughable, that I can only conclude that they take the electorate for fools.

I have no doubt that the Conservatives will produce a similar shambles. I thank the Labour party for their attempt to completely insult everybody’s intelligence and will ensure my vote goes elsewhere. Or I might just draw some form of obscenity on my ballot paper and be done with it.

Click to expand...

Tax me more and I spend less. So my gardener works less. I don’t bring in tradesmen as much, window cleaner get less, I spend less in shops and restaurants, I don’t change my cars ad often, I spend less on holidays. Do it too much and my sons private education goes. So another burden upon the State. All those people providing services will see less money in their pockets and have less for themselves and their families. The Labour Party just want to take from the workers to fund those who want life handed to them. And someone else to pay for it

Djgr said:

So democracies don't have rules and laws?

Click to expand...

Yes they do ,but given a choice I doubt people living in areas without good public transport would activity vote in large numbers for politicians promoting draconian reductions in car use without viable alternatives .