Diesel trains should be banned from terminating at trainshed/subsurface stations

[zwk500]

There have been plans for MKC-Marylebone, yes, though it was dropped later. Who knows if it'll come back if the line does get built.

There's a big difference between the blue-sky suggestions when business cases are still being put together, and serious plans.

One problem with that idea would be that if there was WCML disruption several Pendolinos and 12-car 350s' worth of people would try to cram onto a 3-car DMU once an hour, which wouldn't be pretty. It's the same reason why in disruption they never shout about the Marston Vale being an option.

Quite understandable.

Why else would you consider improving the Princes Risborough branch? Aylesbury to EWR services are still possible without improvement of that section, there is a suitable junction at Calvert.

It's one thing for somebody to say in a strategy meeting 'Oh, we could run services to MK from all over Bucks'. It's quite another to actually ask the questions about how feasible it truly is. It's then another matter entirely to seriously contemplate putting up the money to fix the problems identified.

 

[AM9]

It is integrated in the TfL contactless zones, so I don't think that was the primary issue.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 18 Oct 2021 ==


Removing Chiltern from the Aylesbury line and taking all of the revenue, unless Chiltern decided to run 2tph through to London via the Princes Ris branch to claw back some of the revenue and sold specific Route: Via Wycombe advances. In that case, most of the revenue would still go to TfL, Chiltern would save a lot of money not having to lease the Class 165 and staff the services.

Capacity would be released at Marylebone for more very profitable long distance services to Oxford and the West Mids, they could expand their use of cheap Advances to take in more of that market off the WCML and GWML operators, plus there would be additional revenue from services to MKC via Aylesbury when EWR Phase 2 opens. They could even be given the EWR concession as compensation for loss of revenue.

In the end, both LUL and Chiltern are commercial concerns, they should do what's best for them commercially and that would be the transfer of the Aylesbury via Harrow line to LUL and the operation of EWR by Chiltern.
The remainder of staff not TUPEd to LUL could be used to plug staff shortages elsewhere on the Chiltern network, even a handful of trained drivers and revenue staff would defo be useful to Chiltern without the bane of the Aylesbury line operation. The decline in season ticket purchase and commuting patterns does not make this as good as it was for Chiltern anyway.

All this enthusiasm for releasing capacity into Marylebone is forgetting that:

a) the last opportunity to switch over from the Chiltern up fasts to the Met up fasts is just south of Harrow-on-the Hill. So the Chltern lines from there to Neasden would be unused, after which the ex-High Wycombe traffic would take over to Marylebone​

​

b) if a decision to provide a new crossover south of Wembly Park was provided it would involve a grade separated link because the Up Met is now on the far eastern side of the formation.​

​

c) even if that expense was agreed, the two track railway that is the Met lines into Baker Street would then be carrying it's current load plus additional Met trains carrying what is the non-stop passenger load from beyond Amersham currently running into Marylebone.​

Your little bit of crayon work would not only cost TfL dearly in both trains and infrastructure, - it would also overload the line from at least Wembley to Baker St. TfL couldn't buy that, even for a few more fares.

 

[AlastairFraser]

It's one thing for somebody to say in a strategy meeting 'Oh, we could run services to MK from all over Bucks'. It's quite another to actually ask the questions about how feasible it truly is. It's then another matter entirely to seriously contemplate putting up the money to fix the problems identified.

It was identified in the Outline Business Case for Phase 2 produced in 2019 (here: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/requ...S OBC Final FOI word.pdf?cookie_passthrough=1), so it was seriously considered as a key part of making the line successful.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 18 Oct 2021 ==

All this enthusiasm for releasing capacity into Marylebone is forgetting that:

a) the last opportunity to switch over from the Chiltern up fasts to the Met up fasts is just south of Harrow-on-the Hill. So the Chltern lines from there to Neasden would be unused, after which the ex-High Wycombe traffic would take over to Marylebone​

​

b) if a decision to provide a new crossover south of Wembly Park was provided it would involve a grade separated link because the Up Met is now on the far eastern side of the formation.​

​

c) even if that expense was agreed, the two track railway that is the Met lines into Baker Street would then be carrying it's current load plus additional Met trains carrying what is the non-stop passenger load from beyond Amersham currently running into Marylebone.​

Your little bit of crayon work would not only cost TfL dearly in both trains and infrastructure, - it would also overload the line from at least Wembley to Baker St. TfL couldn't buy that, even for a few more fares.

How would it overload it? Surely the brand new CBTC system was designed for more than 16tph? The Thameslink core takes more than that in the morning peak and that has the added complexity of the many different routes from which services access the Core. 2tph services added should not overload the system, peak extras could remove the 2tph Watford to Aldgate and vice versa.

 

[zwk500]

It was identified in the Outline Business Case for Phase 2 produced in 2019 (here: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/627440/response/1556843/attach/4/WS OBC Final FOI word.pdf?cookie_passthrough=1), so it was seriously considered as a key part of making the line successful.

Unless I'm missing something (p.26):

2.57 The Preferred Route and Train Services:
...This confirmed a preferred TSS Option introducing services on three new service across the EWR Phase 2 network; 2 trains per hour (tph) Oxford to Milton Keynes, 1tph Oxford to Bedford and 1tph Milton Keynes to Aylesbury.

Suggests Princes Risborough was not a 'key part' of making the line successful

Then a little later (p26-27):

Discounted TSS Options
2.59 Aylesbury to London Marylebone via High Wycombe. ... As timetable work has progressed, it has been demonstrated that there are significant challenges with linking the West Coast and Chiltern mainlines, where pathing opportunities are limited, made more difficult by the relatively slow 40mph single track section between Princes Risborough and Aylesbury.

This does not read like somebody really wanted to make it work.

I've scanned through the rest of the report and there's nothing to suggest it was still being actively considered at the SOBC stage. Instead it was an option they had to test to demonstrate it didn't work. They've just said 'possibly not never'.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Nothing is happening to the Risborough branch. You won't be running EWR on what is north of Aylesbury Vale Pwy either without a lot of work.

I know the idea to improve the branch was dropped earlier on, that's why I worded it consider!
OK, that's a fair comment, but it would not bring in the majority of revenue when giving the EWR concession to Chiltern. Oxford to MK/Bedford and eventually Cambridge would far outweigh the revenue from operating the Aylesbury line that CR would lose.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Oct 2021 ==

Unless I'm missing something (p.26):

Suggests Princes Risborough was not a 'key part' of making the line successful

Then a little later (p26-27):

This does not read like somebody really wanted to make it work.

I've scanned through the rest of the report and there's nothing to suggest it was still being actively considered at the SOBC stage. Instead it was an option they had to test to demonstrate it didn't work. They've just said 'possibly not never'.

I think there is some sort of confusion here, I meant that Aylesbury to MK was considered to be a key part of EWR by the EWRC in the SOBC.

Evidently, as there is currently a path from London to Aylesbury via Princes Risborough to run the 1tph via Princes Risborough to Aylesbury service, that service could be extended to MK via Aylesbury Vale Parkway to provide the envisaged 1tph from Aylesbury to MK.
Improvement of the Princes Risborough branch was considered to provide additional London to MK via Aylesbury capacity, but discounted due to cost rather than technical infeasibility.

 

[zwk500]

I think there is some sort of confusion here, I meant that Aylesbury to MK was considered to be a key part of EWR by the EWRC in the SOBC.

Ah, I think the confusion is because you were responding to my response to your question about the Prince's Risborough Branch. I agree entirely that Aylesbury-MK was seen as a key part of EWR. However that is not going to make a difference on removing diesel from covered environments, hence why I thought you'd moved back to London-EWR services. Given the size of the markets and potential for importing delay between either line, I think operating the Aylesbury-MK service as an extension of any additional service will be seen as a risk disproportionate to the benefit. So removing diesel from Marylebone is independent on anything that happens or doesn't happen with EWR.

Personally, for Chiltern I'd go for bi-modes with a modular facility so the genset can be swapped out as the wires go up stage by stage. We might even be able to swap battery packs in for more zero-carbon karma. Aren't Hitachi already trying this with IETs in Devon?

 

[AlastairFraser]

Ah, I think the confusion is because you were responding to my response to your question about the Prince's Risborough Branch. I agree entirely that Aylesbury-MK was seen as a key part of EWR. However that is not going to make a difference on removing diesel from covered environments, hence why I thought you'd moved back to London-EWR services. Given the size of the markets and potential for importing delay between either line, I think operating the Aylesbury-MK service as an extension of any additional service will be seen as a risk disproportionate to the benefit. So removing diesel from Marylebone is independent on anything that happens or doesn't happen with EWR.

Personally, for Chiltern I'd go for bi-modes with a modular facility so the genset can be swapped out as the wires go up stage by stage. We might even be able to swap battery packs in for more zero-carbon karma. Aren't Hitachi already trying this with IETs in Devon?

Yes, the issue is stock cost when the new stock has plenty of life left in it and there is no foreseeable date for CML electrification. That's why I suggested transferring the Aylesbury via Harrow line to make that order a little smaller and remove the requirement for new stock to have tripcocks, an expensive and time consuming modification.
In an ideal world, I'd replace the lot with 2 fleets - tri mode modular as you suggest for the suburban services and a set of Mark 5a coaches for the intercity/Oxford services with a Class 88 at the front, perhaps with a traction battery or short section of wires for the 88 to get out of Marylebone to start with. The latter part may be a good plan for the meanwhile, it requires little infrastructure spending and you might be able to run a faster service with a loco than the majority of the services being run by DMUs currently.

 

[Bald Rick]

Removing Chiltern from the Aylesbury line and taking all of the revenue, unless Chiltern decided to run 2tph through to London via the Princes Ris branch to claw back some of the revenue and sold specific Route: Via Wycombe advances. In that case, most of the revenue would still go to TfL, Chiltern would save a lot of money not having to lease the Class 165 and staff the services.

But the line would still need rolling stock and staffing; ultimately the cost would be broadly the same whether it was Chiltern staffing it or LU. So no cost saved.

Capacity would be released at Marylebone for more very profitable long distance services to Oxford and the West Mids, they could expand their use of cheap Advances to take in more of that market off the WCML and GWML operators,

Are the Oxford / WM services profitable?

And even if they are, is it desirable to offer lower prices to tempt passengers of other routes that are also funded by us taxpayers? It seems like a recipe for lower revenue.

Same costs + lower revenue does not make a sensible commercial proposition.

 

[Mikey C]

Yes, the issue is stock cost when the new stock has plenty of life left in it and there is no foreseeable date for CML electrification. That's why I suggested transferring the Aylesbury via Harrow line to make that order a little smaller and remove the requirement for new stock to have tripcocks, an expensive and time consuming modification.
In an ideal world, I'd replace the lot with 2 fleets - tri mode modular as you suggest for the suburban services and a set of Mark 5a coaches for the intercity/Oxford services with a Class 88 at the front, perhaps with a traction battery or short section of wires for the 88 to get out of Marylebone to start with. The latter part may be a good plan for the meanwhile, it requires little infrastructure spending and you might be able to run a faster service with a loco than the majority of the services being run by DMUs currently.

Chiltern use the loco sets because of a shortage of Turbostars. I imagine they'd be happy to run their entire operations with 168s if they were available

 

[BayPaul]

How would it overload it? Surely the brand new CBTC system was designed for more than 16tph? The Thameslink core takes more than that in the morning peak and that has the added complexity of the many different routes from which services access the Core. 2tph services added should not overload the system, peak extras could remove the 2tph Watford to Aldgate and vice versa.

But why would TfL want to use extra capacity that they have very expensively created at London taxpayers expense to serve areas outside London. As I understand it almost all of the Core Subsurface network is already 24tph in the peak (and I believe planned to go to 32tph), not 16 - with the services that terminate at Baker Street 'matching' with H&C line trains out of Edgeware

 

[WideRanger]

All this enthusiasm for releasing capacity into Marylebone is forgetting that:

a) the last opportunity to switch over from the Chiltern up fasts to the Met up fasts is just south of Harrow-on-the Hill. So the Chltern lines from there to Neasden would be unused, after which the ex-High Wycombe traffic would take over to Marylebone​

​

b) if a decision to provide a new crossover south of Wembly Park was provided it would involve a grade separated link because the Up Met is now on the far eastern side of the formation.​

​

c) even if that expense was agreed, the two track railway that is the Met lines into Baker Street would then be carrying it's current load plus additional Met trains carrying what is the non-stop passenger load from beyond Amersham currently running into Marylebone.​

Your little bit of crayon work would not only cost TfL dearly in both trains and infrastructure, - it would also overload the line from at least Wembley to Baker St. TfL couldn't buy that, even for a few more fares.

What if the stoppers between Wembley Park and Harrow were taken over by the Jubilee Line? Would that help?

 

[AM9]

What if the stoppers between Wembley Park and Harrow were taken over by the Jubilee Line? Would that help?

I doubt it, they already have a load of Stanmore branch passengers and expect to pick up all of the Neasden to West Hampstead passengers. Not much chance of increasing the Jubilee service as the headways are almost at the limit through central London.
I was talking about the Met. slows which serve every station between Moor Park and Northwood Hills, and have to distribute drop passengers at Wembley and Finchley Road. Also the current Met. fasts wouildn't be able to get to the Finchley road platforms.

 

[AlastairFraser]

But the line would still need rolling stock and staffing; ultimately the cost would be broadly the same whether it was Chiltern staffing it or LU. So no cost saved.


Are the Oxford / WM services profitable?

And even if they are, is it desirable to offer lower prices to tempt passengers of other routes that are also funded by us taxpayers? It seems like a recipe for lower revenue.

Same costs + lower revenue does not make a sensible commercial proposition.

For Chiltern it is lower costs. TfL doesn't pay any revenue to the Treasury anyway and I don't think they should be making any kind of profit off the railways - every single penny should be plumbed back into investment.
Oxford and the WM services are very popular, every time I've been on them, there's been a decent loading.
All rail project should be in my mind funded by an interest free loan from the taxpayer if anything, not a direct subsidy for most TOCs, except where the line is socially neccesarry.
The railway should be run as a cost effective and green method of travel for everybody, not withstanding the facts that more services on the cheaper Ldn to Bham line would attract more passengers off the M40.

 

[Bald Rick]

TfL doesn't pay any revenue to the Treasury anyway and I don't think they should be making any kind of profit off the railways - every single penny should be plumbed back into investment.

Treasury doesn’t make any kind of profit off the railway. It puts in about £1bn a month at present, and that doesn’t include HS2 or Crossrail.

 

[A S Leib]

What if the stoppers between Wembley Park and Harrow were taken over by the Jubilee Line? Would that help?

I doubt it, they already have a load of Stanmore branch passengers and expect to pick up all of the Neasden to West Hampstead passengers. Not much chance of increasing the Jubilee service as the headways are almost at the limit through central London.
I was talking about the Met. slows which serve every station between Moor Park and Northwood Hills, and have to distribute drop passengers at Wembley and Finchley Road. Also the current Met. fasts wouildn't be able to get to the Finchley road platforms.

I think eight or twelve tph terminate at Wembley Park or Willesden Green; could they be extended, or would the drop from 16 tph at Northwick Park and Preston Road be too much?

 

[BayPaul]

I think eight or twelve tph terminate at Wembley Park or Willesden Green; could they be extended, or would the drop from 16 tph at Northwick Park and Preston Road be too much?

This does seem to be going down the usual Railforums rabbit hole of more and more complicated 'solutions' to solve a very minor problem, that probably doesn't actually exist at all. I think it's reasonable to say that this proposal, which, as I understand it involves the Jubilee Line (which is already very overcrowded) taking over some of the Met Line services (involving a build of new trains, which would be considerably smaller and less comfortable than the S8 stock they replace, as well as considerable infrastructure work to connect the lines appropriately), in order to free up capacity on the Met to send two additional trains to Aylesbury, involving either 4th rail electrification extension through the countryside (which probably wouldn't be allowed) or fitting batteries to a large number of S8 trains, which probably don't have space for them...

All to avoid running 2tph into a newly electrified Marylebone as dual-voltage bimode/BEMU trains, that don't really use line capacity, as the pinch-points come further north with the interaction between stoppers and long-distance trains.

 

[AM9]

This does seem to be going down the usual Railforums rabbit hole of more and more complicated 'solutions' to solve a very minor problem, that probably doesn't actually exist at all. I think it's reasonable to say that this proposal, which, as I understand it involves the Jubilee Line (which is already very overcrowded) taking over some of the Met Line services (involving a build of new trains, which would be considerably smaller and less comfortable than the S8 stock they replace, as well as considerable infrastructure work to connect the lines appropriately), in order to free up capacity on the Met to send two additional trains to Aylesbury, involving either 4th rail electrification extension through the countryside (which probably wouldn't be allowed) or fitting batteries to a large number of S8 trains, which probably don't have space for them...

All to avoid running 2tph into a newly electrified Marylebone as dual-voltage bimode/BEMU trains, that don't really use line capacity, as the pinch-points come further north with the interaction between stoppers and long-distance trains.

Thanks for that rain check. I was getting bored with the 'dancing on the head of a pin' arguments being pushed to solve a problem that can so easily be fixed in ways that have already been suggested. This is yet another case of the desperate need for a 'universal MU' spec.. In this case there would need to be a 3/4 rail mode and an OLE mode. Just that would be alll that was necessary to run Chiltern trains cleanly out as far as Amersham, (and Chesham if so desired). The Met loading gauge is generous enough not to impose any constraints on 23m stock provided they only go down the GC tunnel at Finchley Road . What happens north of Amersham would then be a NR issue so the trains could if necessary be bi-mode versions of whatever is used onn the main High Wycombe line. There would be virtually no impact on LU Met infrastructure, (maybe a very minor impact on signalling immunity) and the acceleration performance of the new trains would make interlacing Met and Chiltern services at Harrow and north of Moor Park easier.

 

[Bletchleyite]

To be fair the main reason for wanting the Aylesbury out of Marylebone is capacity - even with the recent extra platforms the station is really a bit busy to work smoothly. It isn't just about stock.

 

[Ken H]

To be fair the main reason for wanting the Aylesbury out of Marylebone is capacity - even with the recent extra platforms the station is really a bit busy to work smoothly. It isn't just about stock.

and Baker St 'Main Line' platforms are quiet?

 

[30907]

All to avoid running 2tph into a newly electrified Marylebone as dual-voltage bimode/BEMU trains, that don't really use line capacity, as the pinch-points come further north with the interaction between stoppers and long-distance trains.

The peak service in normal times is 4tph not 2 - but provided Marylebone can cope with the traffic (including longer trains as necessary) I agree it's not a priority.

 

[172007]

I suspect all this Chiltern should be in a separate thread. The Chilterns are an issue, one reason is the franchise was up in December and I am not sure if they have a 5 year management contract yet or will get one in December. It may be the Chilterns continue unaltered for 5 years to see what the true "new normal" actually looks like before new traction, work practices etc come into play.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I suspect all this Chiltern should be in a separate thread. The Chilterns are an issue, one reason is the franchise was up in December and I am not sure if they have a 5 year management contract yet or will get one in December. It may be the Chilterns continue unaltered for 5 years to see what the true "new normal" actually looks like before new traction, work practices etc come into play.

It would certainly make sense to let things settle before deciding on procurement of new stock.

 

[Wolfie]

I think that TfL would baulk at funding extensions to LU services well outside GLA land just to bring wealthy areas like Buckinghamshire into a cheap fares zone. It being an operational convenience for NR wouldn't have the same sway as Crossrail to Reading does.

Absolutely; not only TfL but London council tax payers. NR would have to sweeten the pot significantly.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Oct 2021 ==

It is integrated in the TfL contactless zones, so I don't think that was the primary issue.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 18 Oct 2021 ==


Removing Chiltern from the Aylesbury line and taking all of the revenue, unless Chiltern decided to run 2tph through to London via the Princes Ris branch to claw back some of the revenue and sold specific Route: Via Wycombe advances. In that case, most of the revenue would still go to TfL, Chiltern would save a lot of money not having to lease the Class 165 and staff the services.

Capacity would be released at Marylebone for more very profitable long distance services to Oxford and the West Mids, they could expand their use of cheap Advances to take in more of that market off the WCML and GWML operators, plus there would be additional revenue from services to MKC via Aylesbury when EWR Phase 2 opens. They could even be given the EWR concession as compensation for loss of revenue.

In the end, both LUL and Chiltern are commercial concerns, they should do what's best for them commercially and that would be the transfer of the Aylesbury via Harrow line to LUL and the operation of EWR by Chiltern.
The remainder of staff not TUPEd to LUL could be used to plug staff shortages elsewhere on the Chiltern network, even a handful of trained drivers and revenue staff would defo be useful to Chiltern without the bane of the Aylesbury line operation. The decline in season ticket purchase and commuting patterns does not make this as good as it was for Chiltern anyway.

Your "commercial concerns/operators" line seems to have completely missed the events of the last 18 months. Given that HMG/HMT is propping up both the TOCs and TfL why in God's name would it wish to increase fare competition/reduce rail revenues. Indeed all of the indications going forward with GBR are that the exact opposite will occur.

 

[bussnapperwm]

Wouldn't it make sense (for the Chiltern via the Met service) to aquire new S8 stock and just extend the 4th rail to Marylebone/Aylesbury Vale Parkway (so that service is retained) rub under the Chiltern brand, and try and get OHLE+4th rail for the Marylebone end through to Leamington (so to cover XC under the wires to Reading from Coventry), so the BiModes can be used through to Brum/Kiddy?

 

[Wolfie]

Wouldn't it make sense (for the Chiltern via the Met service) to aquire new S8 stock and just extend the 4th rail to Marylebone/Aylesbury Vale Parkway (so that service is retained) rub under the Chiltern brand, and try and get OHLE+4th rail for the Marylebone end through to Leamington (so to cover XC under the wires to Reading from Coventry), so the BiModes can be used through to Brum/Kiddy?

Good luck on finding a ROSCO to fund rolling stock which could only be used on one line or, doubtless with significant mods required, London Underground. That assumes also that Bombardier could and would build more S8s and for a sensible price.

 

[BayPaul]

Wouldn't it make sense (for the Chiltern via the Met service) to aquire new S8 stock and just extend the 4th rail to Marylebone/Aylesbury Vale Parkway (so that service is retained) rub under the Chiltern brand, and try and get OHLE+4th rail for the Marylebone end through to Leamington (so to cover XC under the wires to Reading from Coventry), so the BiModes can be used through to Brum/Kiddy?

I would have thought the simplest (partial electrification) solution would be to electrify OHLE from Marylebone - High Wycombe & Harrow, then either run a long extension lead to Amersham and an OHLE extension from there to Aylesbury Vale, or run OHLE all the way to Aylesbury Vale, keeping the 4th rail in place. According to BaldRick there are a lot fewer issues combining 4th rail with OHLE on the same track than 3rd rail with OHLE (because in 3rd rail the return current is via the tracks. Then build / cascade a fleet of electric trains to Chiltern for the suburban services (either just 25kV, or dual voltage 4th rail), replacing the 165s

At a similar time, electrify the Snow Hill suburban lines out to Leamington. Once this is done, replace the DMUs from these lines with new / cascaded EMUs. At this point, introduce a new fleet of long-distance trains for the Marylebone - Birmingham, Oxford, Stratford and Ayslebury via Princes Risborough routes to replace the remaining fleet. As the non-electrified distance would only be around 100km from Leamington to High Wycombe, it may be that Battery EMUs are practical for the distance, if not, then extend the electrification to Banbury so that XC can also take advantage of it when they get a bi-mode fleet, and the distance for the batteries to cope with will only be 60km

 

[AlastairFraser]

Treasury doesn’t make any kind of profit off the railway. It puts in about £1bn a month at present, and that doesn’t include HS2 or Crossrail.

In the middle of a pandemic, you're being facetious.

 

[greyman42]

Ideally, we should be looking at banning diesel trains from terminating in trainshed/subsurface stations as climate change and air quality are hot political potatoes at this moment in time, and will be for a while.

From north to south, the aforementioned types of stations from north to south I can think of are as follows:

Inverness (partial), Aberdeen (partial), Glasgow Central and Queen Street, Edinburgh Waverley, Newcastle Central, Carlisle, Leeds, Preston, Liverpool Lime Street, Manchester Pic Platforms 1-12 and all of Victoria, Chester, Crewe, Birmingham New Street and Snow Hill, Norwich, Stansted Airport (I believe this is in a tunnel), all London mainline terminal stations, and any others I may have missed.

You missed York, but the amount of diesels using the station will be reduced when bi-modes are able to change over on the move in the Church Fenton. area. These will not be terminators though.

 

[Bald Rick]

In the middle of a pandemic, you're being facetious.

End of a pandemic. It was rather more in the middle. Pre pandemic it was about £0.7bn a month, excluding HS2.

 

[AlastairFraser]

End of a pandemic. It was rather more in the middle. Pre pandemic it was about £0.7bn a month, excluding HS2.

Does this include major investment projects and how much does it compare to road spending? Suspect it is small change compared to the roads budget.