Calder Valley line improvement works

[Railwaysceptic]

Because the magic money tree only sheds its leaves South of the Watford Gap.

Wrong, as are most of these anti-London posts. The platforms on the line between Barking and Gospel Oak have been refurbished or extended only enough to accept four car trains, even though many of the original platforms are long enough for six car trains.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Wrong, as are most of these anti-London posts. The platforms on the line between Barking and Gospel Oak have been refurbished or extended only enough to accept four car trains, even though many of the original platforms are long enough for six car trains.

It wasn't an anti-London post, it was a pro-northern one. I'm not arguing that London doesn't need investment, just that we deserve more than just scraps from the big table.

Also, finding an exception to a rule doesn't invalidate the rule: just like how the old "what about the 333s!" argument doesn't invalidate complaints about Pacers.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

It wasn't an anti-London post, it was a pro-northern one. I'm not arguing that London doesn't need investment, just that we deserve more than just scraps from the big table.

Also, finding an exception to a rule doesn't invalidate the rule: just like how the old "what about the 333s!" argument doesn't invalidate complaints about Pacers.

I think we disagree less than you realise. The big difference is that we in London and the Home Counties don't begrudge other parts of the country whatever improvements they get, nor do we suggest that our problems are caused by disproportionate investment in, say, Scotland. What I notice again and again is that several people in Yorkshire and Lancashire have this fixation that all their railway problems could be solved if they had investment on the same scale as sometimes happens in the London area, yet fail to notice that it is their politicians who accept short trains and platforms, dirty stations and infrequent services but gleefully allow 50 billion plus to go on just one project that will do nothing for most people in their neck of the woods. That 50 billion could have financed a complete transformation of railway services in Lancashire and Yorkshire.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Though saying "London doesn't begrudge investment in other regions" smacks a bit of "let them eat cake!"

That's the problem of having such a centralised economy and political system though. Munich and Dortmund don't suffer at Berlin's expense because Germany hasn't put all it's eggs in one basket.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

Though saying "London doesn't begrudge investment in other regions" smacks a bit of "let them eat cake!"

That's the problem of having such a centralised economy and political system though. Munich and Dortmund don't suffer at Berlin's expense because Germany hasn't put all it's eggs in one basket.

It has nothing to do with "let them eat cake" or a centralised economy. If, when the HS2 Bill was being debated in the House Of Commons, all your local M.P.s had stood up and said they would vote against it but they wanted the same sum for longer platforms, new and longer trains, stations refurbishment plus a new build, fast Manchester to Leeds railway, no-one in London would have resented it.

 

[deltic08]

That's the problem of having such a centralised economy and political system though. Munich and Dortmund don't suffer at Berlin's expense because Germany hasn't put all it's eggs in one basket.

Or in Spain putting all their Basques in one exit.

 

[hwl]

It has nothing to do with "let them eat cake" or a centralised economy. If, when the HS2 Bill was being debated in the House Of Commons, all your local M.P.s had stood up and said they would vote against it but they wanted the same sum for longer platforms, new and longer trains, stations refurbishment plus a new build, fast Manchester to Leeds railway, no-one in London would have resented it.

The current rule is that London funds at least 50% see Crossrail, Crossrail 2 (precepts on Council tax, business rates, developer funding). The same level of local funding requirement isn't seen in the rest of the country, if there was more local funding element elsewhere there would be lots more happening outside London. (I'm not suggesting 50% for outside London but at least some would ensure local buy in and additional funds).

 

[bbrez]

It has nothing to do with "let them eat cake" or a centralised economy. If, when the HS2 Bill was being debated in the House Of Commons, all your local M.P.s had stood up and said they would vote against it but they wanted the same sum for longer platforms, new and longer trains, stations refurbishment plus a new build, fast Manchester to Leeds railway, no-one in London would have resented it.

Is anyone really resenting London's investment? I think you'll find people in the north are resenting the fact they're not seeing the same level of investment, which is completely different. FYI, London will receive £4155 of investment in transport per head, Yorkshire will receive only £844.

So while it's greatly appreciated that there are improvements on the Calder Valley line of line speed and platform lengthening to allow for more capacity to reduce overcrowding, the fact is that we're still subjected to 35 year old buses on freight wagons and part of the capacity solution is the transfer of 30 year old DMU's.

 

[deltic08]

Is anyone really resenting London's investment? I think you'll find people in the north are resenting the fact they're not seeing the same level of investment, which is completely different. FYI, London will receive £4155 of investment in transport per head, Yorkshire will receive only £844.

So while it's greatly appreciated that there are improvements on the Calder Valley line of line speed and platform lengthening to allow for more capacity to reduce overcrowding, the fact is that we're still subjected to 35 year old buses on freight wagons and part of the capacity solution is the transfer of 30 year old DMU's.

Well said.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

Is anyone really resenting London's investment? I think you'll find people in the north are resenting the fact they're not seeing the same level of investment, which is completely different. FYI, London will receive £4155 of investment in transport per head, Yorkshire will receive only £844.

So while it's greatly appreciated that there are improvements on the Calder Valley line of line speed and platform lengthening to allow for more capacity to reduce overcrowding, the fact is that we're still subjected to 35 year old buses on freight wagons and part of the capacity solution is the transfer of 30 year old DMU's.

If you trawl back through various threads, you'll come across numerous posts expressing resentment of railway investment in London and the Home Counties. Curiously, they all seem to come from Yorkshire and Lancashire. They never seem to come from Cornwall or Tyneside, from Wales or Scotland.

The investment per head is usually a fraudulent argument because it compares apples with oranges. To repeat a point I've made before, the correct comparison should be either total central Government funding for all forms of transport divided by the population or total central Government funding for railways divided by the number of railway passengers. This brings us back to my earlier point: your complaints should be with your local politicians. It is they who decide that much of the investment goes into roads, trams and buses.

 

[bbrez]

If trawl back through various threads, you'll come across numerous posts expressing resentment of railway investment in London and the Home Counties. Curiously, they all seem to come from Yorkshire and Lancashire. They never seem to come from Cornwall or Tyneside, from Wales or Scotland.

The investment per head is usually a fraudulent argument because it compares apples with oranges. To repeat a point I've made before, the correct comparison should be either total central Government funding for all forms of transport divided by the population or total central Government funding for railways divided by the number of railway passengers. This brings us back to my earlier point: your complaints should be with your local politicians. It is they who decide that much of the investment goes into roads, trams and buses.

It's not really a fraudulent argument though is it? More than half of the UK's transport investment is in London. Is it needed? Most definitely. Do we resent London? No. Do we resent that we;re not getting anywhere near the same level of funding? YES!

You take the Yorkshire region as a whole across a long-term time frame and the funding inequality is going to be huge. We have two transpennine routes in the Calder Valley line and Standedge route that in reality aren't fit for purpose. The inter-connectivity within West and South Yorkshire is dreadful and Leeds is still the biggest city in Europe without a mass transport system.

And local politicians have little to no say on investment in rail upgrades. My local council is also the 7th worst funded in the country from central government, I suspect that transport is not at the forefront of their minds when they're cutting back bin collections and social care is the biggest issue going.

All people up north want is long-term investment to create a better transport network. I repeat, it's great to see that the Calder Valley is getting some much needed TLC, it's great that capacity is improving. But getting on a refurbished Class 150 with crap leg room and a few electronic boards rather than a pacer isn't good enough.

 

[deltic08]

The investment per head is usually a fraudulent argument because it compares apples with oranges. To repeat a point I've made before, the correct comparison should be either total central Government funding for all forms of transport divided by the population or total central Government funding for railways divided by the number of railway passengers. This brings us back to my earlier point: your complaints should be with your local politicians. It is they who decide that much of the investment goes into roads, trams and buses.

How is comparing transport spend per head like comparing apples and oranges?

It has been worked out that we have been short changed by £59billion in the North irrespective of spend elsewhere and we would like it back please as there are many rail reinstatement campaigns in North, West, South and East Yorkshire alone where it could be used. At £59billion there would be £50billion remaining for infrastructure upgrades.

One route desperately in need of attention is between Whitehaven and Workington. Single track with 20 and 30mph slacks is not good enough. The cliffs need sorting and the route straightening even if it means building out into the sea. Target time should be under one hour from Carlisle.

One bonus on this line is the end of Pacers soon!

 

[Spartacus]

How is comparing transport spend per head like comparing apples and oranges?

Quite, even without London's 50% contribution and assuming local authorities contribute zero, which isn't the case, London still receives more than twice the investment per head that Yorkshire does.

Anyway, any more Calder Valley news before we talk more about London than the Pennines? Could do with a pint and a walk up the upper stretch of the Calder valley soon....

 

[Calderfornian]

Hebden platforms are finished, big holes where the lifts will go and more CCTV put in.

 

[thejuggler]

London gets more because it can easily demonstrate to Treasury (who write the rules on proving the case) the cost benefit.

i.e. spend £100 in London and the benefit is at least £200 a score of 2. Spend £100 in a poor northern city and you may get £50, a score of 0.5. Anything less than 1 isn't generally considered for funding, apart from many schemes in London!

Its called the 'Matthew Effect'. The Treasury system of how they calculate cost benefit has been seen as damaging to the UK as a whole.

 

[deltic08]

London gets more because it can easily demonstrate to Treasury (who write the rules on proving the case) the cost benefit.

i.e. spend £100 in London and the benefit is at least £200 a score of 2. Spend £100 in a poor northern city and you may get £50, a score of 0.5. Anything less than 1 isn't generally considered for funding, apart from many schemes in London!

Its called the 'Matthew Effect'. The Treasury system of how they calculate cost benefit has been seen as damaging to the UK as a whole.

So with a BCR of 3.61 why are'nt we having electrification on the Harrogate Loop?

 

[thejuggler]

Because Harrogate isn't in London.

 

[JamesT]

So with a BCR of 3.61 why are'nt we having electrification on the Harrogate Loop?

Has anywhere had electrification approved since the report with that BCR?
Aren’t we still waiting to see what enhancements might be approved for the next period?
The first news report I can see talks about it being considered for CP6. If it’s not included then there might be something to ask.

 

[matacaster]

The real issue is that London gets more investment because there are more people there now and its predicted growth. There couldn't be more people there though without frequent and capacious trains. Because London is seen as a magnet for foreigners and people who want to 'get on', they predict and provide - hence crossrail 2 etc. Unhappily, the better transport the investment in London transport brings causes yet MORE people to gravitate to London. Until jobs and investment are spread more fairly around the country, London will suck up the vast majority of the rail transport budget. Londoners complain about a train service with 12 coach train and 10 minute frequency, up north we get a 2 car pacer every hour or sometimes 2 hourly.

This is precisely why I don't expect HS2 to actually get north of Birmingham unless they expect people from Manchester and Leeds to commute to London. HS2 is a commuter route to London. Northern Powerhouse is a sop to northerners and will quietly die as unnecessary once the transpennone upgrade is complete.

 

[superkev]

Northern Powerhouse is a sop to northerners and will quietly die as unnecessary once the transpennone upgrade is complete.

Hmm. Northern powerhouse. Lots of suits with no money.
K

 

[Tractor37]

With the new signalling with more capacity due in Oct I wonder if the under utilised hugely expensive Low moor station will gain trains from the Calder valley at some point.

The line is closed for four days over the penultimate weekend in October for all the new signalling to go live between Wortley tunnel and Eastwood and from December more Calder Valley (Man Vic) services will be calling at Low Moor.

 

[Sceptre]

If trawl back through various threads, you'll come across numerous posts expressing resentment of railway investment in London and the Home Counties. Curiously, they all seem to come from Yorkshire and Lancashire. They never seem to come from Cornwall or Tyneside, from Wales or Scotland.

The investment per head is usually a fraudulent argument because it compares apples with oranges. To repeat a point I've made before, the correct comparison should be either total central Government funding for all forms of transport divided by the population or total central Government funding for railways divided by the number of railway passengers. This brings us back to my earlier point: your complaints should be with your local politicians. It is they who decide that much of the investment goes into roads, trams and buses.

I've definitely seen people in the North East complain about Northern Rail and the lack of investment too. And let's be honest, the South Lancashire–Western Yorkshire axis should be complaining; it's 2018, and we're still ferrying around ten million people on rolling stock that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad thought in 2003 was too torturous for the people of Tehran. We should not be routinely be subjecting commuters in the country's second/third-largest metropolitan area to elderly two-car rolling stock.

(Also, you know, transport is devolved, and Scotland seems to be doing better for it than England)

Also, whilst local councils are responsible for roads and light transport on paper, there needs to be cooperation from DafT which is simply not forthcoming. There was a story out of Labour conference last week in which Judith Blake said that Leeds Council need Whitehall approval to do something as simple as paint white hatchings, and the saddest part of that is that it's eminently believable.

Back on topic, though, I've noticed they've started work at Brighouse, extending the platforms a little further towards Mirfield.

 

[superkev]

The line is closed for four days over the penultimate weekend in October for all the new signalling to go live between Wortley tunnel and Eastwood and from December more Calder Valley (Man Vic) services will be calling at Low Moor.

That's good. May use low moor a bit if the car park dosent soon get full like the other Calder valley stations.
K

 

[Railwaysceptic]

How is comparing transport spend per head like comparing apples and oranges?

It's very simple. In London most people travel to work by train and use railways for leisure pursuits too. In other parts of the country a far larger percentage of people travel to work by road. Therefore when London invests in transport infrastructure, it spends most of the money on rail while other parts of the country invest far more in road based transport.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

Quite, even without London's 50% contribution and assuming local authorities contribute zero, which isn't the case, London still receives more than twice the investment per head that Yorkshire does.

What investment? Money handed out by the Treasury or all the money including that raised locally? Investment in what? Railways or transport infrastructure in general? Per head of what? Total population in a given area or people using railways in that same area?

 

[Sceptre]

It's very simple. In London most people travel to work by train and use railways for leisure pursuits too. In other parts of the country a far larger percentage of people travel to work by road. Therefore when London invests in transport infrastructure, it spends most of the money on rail while other parts of the country invest far more in road based transport.

Rail isn't a local authority matter, whereas roads are. All funding decisions for rail in England are taken by the DfT, even in London, hence why the Croxley rail link stalled.

The real reason, which is pretty obvious but incredibly cynical, is there are a lot more marginal seats in the London commuter belt than there are in Lancashire or Yorkshire.

 

[driver_m]

It's very simple. In London most people travel to work by train and use railways for leisure pursuits too. In other parts of the country a far larger percentage of people travel to work by road. Therefore when London invests in transport infrastructure, it spends most of the money on rail while other parts of the country invest far more in road based transport.

Err.. You can't spend money if it isn't given to you. No one up here accepts that two of our biggest cities in the North are connected by two single lane passes that regularly shut over winter, and the two equivalent railway lines are hamstrung by a si for lead junction and the other by being shut in 1981 . The Ormskirk bypass to connect Southport to the Motorway network and vastly improve Ormskirk has been on the back burner since the Domesday book. The main road to the North East from Yorkshire still isn't a full Motorway. This and many other complai ts to our elected representitives get ignored and patronised by the people in charge in your corner of the country. It was your corner of the country try that tried to force Liverpool to decline, I, like many other Northerners do not begrudge London a penny in investment. After all, it's the reason I have a job, but what we do not like is being fobbed off and patronised by people from the South East telling us what we should do, when we already have. The funding is unequal, end of. Liverpool Merseyrail network and Glasgow suburban network are the two best systems used outside the capital used in the same way as London for work and pleasure. But London would not really accept an artificial buffer stop on the main line to Brighton placed some enroute like at Hunts Cross would it?? Face it. We are hugely underfunded because various politicians have no reason to help . Labour takes the North for granted, and always looks after Scotland, (fat lot of good that's done them) and the Tories always just look after the Home Counties and the Midlands. Live up here for a bit and you'd I derstand our point of view .

 

[deltic08]

The main road to the North East from Yorkshire still isn't a full Motorway.

It was the last time I used it.

 

[driver_m]

It was the last time I used it.

So why is it called the A1 then in parts? And the rest of it is the A1(M). It's either a full motorway or it isnt. Anyway, that's taking it way off topic. The Calder Valley should be getting exactly the same improvements as the main TP route via Standedge .

 

[Eric]

The new platform extension at Hebden Bridge looks great.