Is rail REALLY that bad in the North?

[Gareth Marston]

It is a point that in the North, you could get a lot of "bang for your buck" just by lengthening trains and platforms, and you don't even have to build a load of massive tunnels. This was what TPE tried to do by ordering four carriage trains, rather than three carriage ones. Unfortunately, it was the DfT that stopped this.

Even without extending all platforms, SDO can allow a lot of services to be lengthened. The question is, with the new trains coming in in the North and the old ones being retired, will there be enough capacity increase.

Yes, the London stations deal with greater overcrowding, but the solutions are very expensive. In the North (and elsewhere in the UK) they needn't be as much.

Here , here away from central London 75% of issues can be solved by relatively simple orders of extra carriages.

 

[B&I]

It is a point that in the North, you could get a lot of "bang for your buck" just by lengthening trains and platforms, and you don't even have to build a load of massive tunnels. This was what TPE tried to do by ordering four carriage trains, rather than three carriage ones. Unfortunately, it was the DfT that stopped this.

Even without extending all platforms, SDO can allow a lot of services to be lengthened. The question is, with the new trains coming in in the North and the old ones being retired, will there be enough capacity increase.

Yes, the London stations deal with greater overcrowding, but the solutions are very expensive. In the North (and elsewhere in the UK) they needn't be as much.

This is one of the most irritating aspects of this whole debate. Huge improvements could be made to the most popular lines in the north by spending comparatively small amounts on adequate rolling stock. Yet it has taken years to get to the point where any more is going to be procured.

 

[B&I]

I would agree with that statement, but so many threads on the differences between South-East vs North (or elsewhere) rail budgets and expenditure seem to gravitate to a per head of resident population, frequently referring to the regular IPPR proclaimations. As has been illustrated in this and other threads, the spemd level per head is irrelevant (other than as a news media attention-grabbing headline) as the railways in different regions are at very different stages of saturation which requires solutions with very differing costs. That is in addition that the sheer numbers of passengers are wildly different and a 'per resident' figure is meaningless as a greater proportion of the adult population travels both to work by any mode in London.

Simple way to solve that: move jobs out of London, starting with tens of thousands of civil servants. That'll save on the eye-watering cost of building new infrastructure in an already-teeming city. Will also solve the issue of subsidy to out-of-London Dogs by giving them more passengers. Sadly not an issue for the railways alone.

 

[TheDavibob]

In London to get to 240 million passengers you just need to look at the three biggest strains (Waterloo, Victoria and Liverpool Street) to get to a similar number of passengers from stations outside London and the Southeast you'd need about 15 (Glasgow Central, Leeds, Manchester Piccadilly, Edinburgh Waverly, Glasgow Queen Street, Liverpool Central, Liverpool Lime Street, Cardiff Central, Cambridge and Bristol TM which is 10 strains and gets you to about 200 million and then each station after that is less than 10 million passengers, meaning probably 5 more stations but could be one less or a few more to get to 240 million).

Quick point -- I think you missed Birmingham New Street? Which is not an insignificant contribution.

Purely non-London stations requires 10 stations to reach just shy of 240 million (i.e. up to Liverpool Lime Street, including Gatwick, Reading and Brighton). Excluding the latter three (and thus probably Cambridge as well, though it makes no odds) requires 11 (up to Temple Meads).

 

[47802]

This is one of the most irritating aspects of this whole debate. Huge improvements could be made to the most popular lines in the north by spending comparatively small amounts on adequate rolling stock. Yet it has taken years to get to the point where any more is going to be procured.

True to a point, but a lot of the Rail Infrastructure in the North is clapped out and in some cases inadequate and needs significant modernisation to provide reliable and more frequent services. You can see on Electrification program between Blackpool and Preston the massive amount of Infrastructure work and re-signalling that is being carried out as well as actually stringing some wires up, and has also been mentioned on the Cumbrian Coast while the unreliable Loco Hauled trains are part of the problem, the clapped out Infrastructure and single line working over parts of the route are also an issue.

 

[AM9]

Simple way to solve that: move jobs out of London, starting with tens of thousands of civil servants. That'll save on the eye-waterunf cost of building new infrastructure in an already-teeming city. Sadly not an issue for the railways alone.

So commit to an eyewaterunf(?) cost of moving tens of thousands of civil servants away from the centre of government into infrastructure build somewhere else just to see what the net benefit or loss might be on infrastructure costs in London is a rather brave (as in stupid) strategic decision. A large proportion of civil servants in the south-east are probably quite happy to stay in their existing homes and in contact with the world-class city that is London. Because London is so important in the eyes of the world, the fact that improving the infrastructure is higher is part of the deal, as is the enormous tax revenue from the financial and stock markets. Nope, it 'aint gonna happen so we must address the real needs of regions outside the home counties' transport infrastructure (rather than some strange concept of 'fairness' based on cherry-picked numbers). As yorksrob, Gareth Marston and indeed yourself have noted, it would involve comparatively little cost to address the low hanging fruit of improvements. That could be done without risking the nation's cashcow that is London, out of spite.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

The London housing market is also grossly distorted by foreign money buying property for investment purposes, based on the free market which applies and experience of the supply/demand curve.

For the past few years, certainly, but inflation in the London housing market has been going on from at least the late 1960s.

 

[B&I]

True to a point, but a lot of the Rail Infrastructure in the North is clapped out and in some cases inadequate and needs significant modernisation to provide reliable and more frequent services. You can see on Electrification program between Blackpool and Preston the massive amount of Infrastructure work and re-signalling that is being carried out as well as actually stringing some wires up, and has also been mentioned on the Cumbrian Coast while the unreliable Loco Hauled trains are part of the problem, the clapped out Infrastructure and single line working over parts of the route are also an issue.

All of that's true. I referred to improved rolling stock because it could be done in a matter of months, comparatively cheaply, and would bring substantial immediate benefits.

 

[B&I]

So commit to an eyewaterunf(?) cost of moving tens of thousands of civil servants away from the centre of government into infrastructure build somewhere else just to see what the net benefit or loss might be on infrastructure costs in London is a rather brave (as in stupid) strategic decision. A large proportion of civil servants in the south-east are probably quite happy to stay in their existing homes and in contact with the world-class city that is London. Because London is so important in the eyes of the world, the fact that improving the infrastructure is higher is part of the deal, as is the enormous tax revenue from the financial and stock markets. Nope, it 'aint gonna happen so we must address the real needs of regions outside the home counties' transport infrastructure (rather than some strange concept of 'fairness' based on cherry-picked numbers). As yorksrob, Gareth Marston and indeed yourself have noted, it would involve comparatively little cost to address the low hanging fruit of improvements. That could be done without risking the nation's cashcow that is London, out of spite.

Funny how quickly these arguments boil down to 'London's brilliant, suck it up peasants'.

Are you seriously saying that the cost of housing civil servants in offices outside London would be more than the cost of keeping them there? Are you also arguing that the cost of additional transport and other infrastructure needed to.facilitate larger workforces in provincial cities would be greater than the cost of building the extra infrastructure we are continually told London needs (and which, we are continually told, is much more expensive to provide in London than it would be anywhere else) ? As pointed out here with tedious regularity, lots more people could travel by train in the provinces if they were only extended to 12 carriages.

I dare say if you asked a substantial number of the people who work in London whether they'd like to trade high house prices and / or extraordinarily long commutes for life in a provincial city, they'd probably be pretty keen. After all, it's difficult to enjoy the benefits of a 'world class city' TM if you're spending most of your time commuting to and from Hemel Hempstead, and most of your money on a house there. But clearly all if that is less important than allowing some other people to go flattering their own egos because they happen to live or work in a 'world class city' TM.

 

[The Ham]

Quick point -- I think you missed Birmingham New Street? Which is not an insignificant contribution.

Purely non-London stations requires 10 stations to reach just shy of 240 million (i.e. up to Liverpool Lime Street, including Gatwick, Reading and Brighton). Excluding the latter three (and thus probably Cambridge as well, though it makes no odds) requires 11 (up to Temple Meads).

Thanks. However the main point stands you need significantly more stations (at least 3 times the number) to get to that 240 million passengers figure.

 

[The Ham]

Simple way to solve that: move jobs out of London, starting with tens of thousands of civil servants. That'll save on the eye-watering cost of building new infrastructure in an already-teeming city. Will also solve the issue of subsidy to out-of-London Dogs by giving them more passengers. Sadly not an issue for the railways alone.

Figures below taken from https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentan...rsonnel/bulletins/civilservicestatistics/2017

There's about 415,000 civil servants in the UK, about 19% of whom work in London.

Assuming that they all work full time and all use the trains to get to work if they were to ALL be moved out of London then it would reduce passenger numbers by about 37 million passengers a year or about 15% of the passenger numbers of the three largest London stations.

In comparison Crossrail will add 10% capacity to the London tube network, plus that provided by Thameslink.

As such it could save the need for one or two major projects in London, but it's unlikely to make a significant difference to the overall amount of government spend on rail in London.

 

[47802]

Funny how quickly these arguments boil down to 'London's brilliant, suck it up peasants'.

Are you seriously saying that the cost of housing civil servants in offices outside London would be more than the cost of keeping them there? Are you also arguing that the cost of additional transport and other infrastructure needed to.facilitate larger workforces in provincial cities would be greater than the cost of building the extra infrastructure we are continually told London needs (and which, we are continually told, is much more expensive to provide in London than it would be anywhere else) ? As pointed out here with tedious regularity, lots more people could travel by train in the provinces if they were only extended to 12 carriages.

I dare say if you asked a substantial number of the people who work in London whether they'd like to trade high house prices and / or extraordinarily long commutes for life in a provincial city, they'd probably be pretty keen. After all, it's difficult to enjoy the benefits of a 'world class city' TM if you're spending most of your time commuting to and from Hemel Hempstead, and most of your money on a house there. But clearly all if that is less important than allowing some other people to go flattering their own egos because they happen to live or work in a 'world class city' TM.

Well indeed I can think of a few Londoners who have come up to peasant land having got loads of money for their stupidly overpriced houses, and then have loads of money to play with having bought a nice cheap peasant land house, and contrary to popular beliefs there are some modern shops and the odd decent restaurant up here, and most of the cobbled streets and horse and carts have gone!

 

[B&I]

Figures below taken from https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentan...rsonnel/bulletins/civilservicestatistics/2017

There's about 415,000 civil servants in the UK, about 19% of whom work in London.

Assuming that they all work full time and all use the trains to get to work if they were to ALL be moved out of London then it would reduce passenger numbers by about 37 million passengers a year or about 15% of the passenger numbers of the three largest London stations.

In comparison Crossrail will add 10% capacity to the London tube network, plus that provided by Thameslink.

As such it could save the need for one or two major projects in London, but it's unlikely to make a significant difference to the overall amount of government spend on rail in London.

1. It's a start, in terms of making better use of railway infrastructure
2. This number of jobs spread around provincial cities will provide a direct boost to their economies
3. Among the many delusions from which we suffer in this country is the delusion that our freewheeling, buccaneering private sector does not suck heavily at the teat of the state. Move those civil servants out of London and you will see a lot of support industries moving with them.

 

[yorksrob]

I would agree with that statement, but so many threads on the differences between South-East vs North (or elsewhere) rail budgets and expenditure seem to gravitate to a per head of resident population, frequently referring to the regular IPPR proclaimations. As has been illustrated in this and other threads, the spemd level per head is irrelevant (other than as a news media attention-grabbing headline) as the railways in different regions are at very different stages of saturation which requires solutions with very differing costs. That is in addition that the sheer numbers of passengers are wildly different and a 'per resident' figure is meaningless as a greater proportion of the adult population travels both to work by any mode in London.

Well, spend per head of population isn't the whole story, but it isn't irrelevant. London is larger than other cities and people have to travel further, so you would expect spend per head to be higher - but not to the extent of the disparity between London and the North East for example.

 

[yorksrob]

This is one of the most irritating aspects of this whole debate. Huge improvements could be made to the most popular lines in the north by spending comparatively small amounts on adequate rolling stock. Yet it has taken years to get to the point where any more is going to be procured.

Indeed. The famous "no growth" franchise is a perfect example of the mindset that has left areas of the country behind.

 

[yorksrob]

True to a point, but a lot of the Rail Infrastructure in the North is clapped out and in some cases inadequate and needs significant modernisation to provide reliable and more frequent services. You can see on Electrification program between Blackpool and Preston the massive amount of Infrastructure work and re-signalling that is being carried out as well as actually stringing some wires up, and has also been mentioned on the Cumbrian Coast while the unreliable Loco Hauled trains are part of the problem, the clapped out Infrastructure and single line working over parts of the route are also an issue.

You need to separate out "clapped out" from "inadequate". We know that track and modern signalling only lasts 40-50 years, so will need to be replaced when clapped out, just to maintain a 'steady' state. This sort of renewal shouldn't be equated to large infrastructure improvements such as Crossrail etc.

 

[anti-pacer]

This link shows Yorkshire being shafted yet again, in terms of all transport projects.

https://www.placenorthwest.co.uk/ne...p-between-london-and-regions-set-to-increase/

 

[AM9]

Well, spend per head of population isn't the whole story, but it isn't irrelevant. London is larger than other cities and people have to travel further, so you would expect spend per head to be higher - but not to the extent of the disparity between London and the North East for example.

It should be spend level per passenger/driver to be correct. That spend level is directly affected by the type of work needed to expand capacity/improve resilience etc., which owing to the current usage of the infrastructure is wildly different between the south-east and much of the rest of the country. As B&I says in his post #512, "This is one of the most irritating aspects of this whole debate. Huge improvements could be made to the most popular lines in the north by spending comparatively small amounts on adequate rolling stock." I am saying that such investment should be made as in national terms, that is the 'low hanging fruit' referred to above. The capacity of some routes could be doubled simply by extending the shorter platforms to allow longer trains. Every time that I have travelled in the north (west) lines I am shocked by the continuing reliance on 3 or even two-car trains calling at platforms that can just about accommodate them. The fix seems to be to run more trains where there aren't adequate paths thereby creating ludicrous delays with overcrowded trains having tedious dwells. That is the sort of problem that needs to be fixed first, relatively easy to do at most locations, then make trains suitable for the expected loads by extending them.
The situation down south is totally different. As mainline commuter route traffic has reached maximum capacity, more has been added by increasing platform lengths to 160m (8-cars), or even 240m (10/12 cars), and adjusting signalling and track formations to permit longer trains to run efficiently on them. Those lines are at the maximum practical capacity* so the only way of addressing increasing demand is to widen formations with more tracks, (rarely viable with land pricies even if any is available), or provide new routes. Doing nothing is not an option as a proportion of passengers will take to the already overloaded roads. Since the car boom started, the south-east has had far less investment in roads (per user) than particularly the north west, West Yorkshire and the north-east, and many of the capital's roads are creating pollution levels well over WHO maxima, so the government cannot just ignore that situation.
*For high density railways, 240m is about the maximum length train that can effectively operate. Even if the platforms allowed, longer trains would produce longer dwells, and longer transit times through junctions. Then there is the problem of locating stabling areas for them. So trains are designed to maximise capacity within existing lengths. Just look at some of the posts complaining about class700s on here.

 

[yorksrob]

It should be spend level per passenger/driver to be correct. That spend level is directly affected by the type of work needed to expand capacity/improve resilience etc., which owing to the current usage of the infrastructure is wildly different between the south-east and much of the rest of the country. As B&I says in his post #512, "This is one of the most irritating aspects of this whole debate. Huge improvements could be made to the most popular lines in the north by spending comparatively small amounts on adequate rolling stock." I am saying that such investment should be made as in national terms, that is the 'low hanging fruit' referred to above. The capacity of some routes could be doubled simply by extending the shorter platforms to allow longer trains. Every time that I have travelled in the north (west) lines I am shocked by the continuing reliance on 3 or even two-car trains calling at platforms that can just about accommodate them. The fix seems to be to run more trains where there aren't adequate paths thereby creating ludicrous delays with overcrowded trains having tedious dwells. That is the sort of problem that needs to be fixed first, relatively easy to do at most locations, then make trains suitable for the expected loads by extending them.
The situation down south is totally different. As mainline commuter route traffic has reached maximum capacity, more has been added by increasing platform lengths to 160m (8-cars), or even 240m (10/12 cars), and adjusting signalling and track formations to permit longer trains to run efficiently on them. Those lines are at the maximum practical capacity* so the only way of addressing increasing demand is to widen formations with more tracks, (rarely viable with land pricies even if any is available), or provide new routes. Doing nothing is not an option as a proportion of passengers will take to the already overloaded roads. Since the car boom started, the south-east has had far less investment in roads (per user) than particularly the north west, West Yorkshire and the north-east, and many of the capital's roads are creating pollution levels well over WHO maxima, so the government cannot just ignore that situation.
*For high density railways, 240m is about the maximum length train that can effectively operate. Even if the platforms allowed, longer trains would produce longer dwells, and longer transit times through junctions. Then there is the problem of locating stabling areas for them. So trains are designed to maximise capacity within existing lengths. Just look at some of the posts complaining about class700s on here.

Ah well, air pollution is a hot topic in the cities outside of London as well.

I agree there's a lot that can be done through lengthening, but spend level per passenger/driver is also nowhere near the whole storey as this is to a large extent, dependant on previous lack of investment. It's at the end of a very long running negative feedback loop.

It's also all very well saying that improvements can be made through smaller investments, but someone still needs to make those investments. Up until very recently, this wasn't happening.

 

[Hadders]

Simple way to solve that: move jobs out of London, starting with tens of thousands of civil servants. That'll save on the eye-watering cost of building new infrastructure in an already-teeming city. Will also solve the issue of subsidy to out-of-London Dogs by giving them more passengers. Sadly not an issue for the railways alone.

With the best will in the World London doesn't compete with Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds etc. for jobs but with Paris, New York, Berlin, Toyko etc. London will always attract top talent from across the UK and beyond because of its status as a World City, which other UK Provincial Cities won't do.

 

[Dentonian]

With the best will in the World London doesn't compete with Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds etc. for jobs but with Paris, New York, Berlin, Toyko etc. London will always attract top talent from across the UK and beyond because of its status as a World City, which other UK Provincial Cities won't do.

Just like Pyongyang doesn't compete with Chongjin and Hamhung

 

[AM9]

... It's also all very well saying that improvements can be made through smaller investments, but someone still needs to make those investments. Up until very recently, this wasn't happening.

Which I agree isn't right. The train length issue in the north is a sheer waste of a line's capacity which should be addressed. The railway in the south-east has also been starved of investment to the extent that trains running into Victoria, Waterloo, London Bridge and Blackfriars are regualrly delayed by ageing track and signal equipment failures. Just look at the cost of closing Waterloo, the busiest station in the UK, for a month to extend a few platforms and adjust ancient track and signalling. Northern routes do not have a monopoly of neglected infrastructure. Lime Street is now getting similar attention.

 

[B&I]

With the best will in the World London doesn't compete with Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds etc. for jobs but with Paris, New York, Berlin, Toyko etc. London will always attract top talent from across the UK and beyond because of its status as a World City, which other UK Provincial Cities won't do.

Even if any of that was true, why does it require civil servants to be in London?

 

[Chester1]

So commit to an eyewaterunf(?) cost of moving tens of thousands of civil servants away from the centre of government into infrastructure build somewhere else just to see what the net benefit or loss might be on infrastructure costs in London is a rather brave (as in stupid) strategic decision. A large proportion of civil servants in the south-east are probably quite happy to stay in their existing homes and in contact with the world-class city that is London. Because London is so important in the eyes of the world, the fact that improving the infrastructure is higher is part of the deal, as is the enormous tax revenue from the financial and stock markets. Nope, it 'aint gonna happen so we must address the real needs of regions outside the home counties' transport infrastructure (rather than some strange concept of 'fairness' based on cherry-picked numbers). As yorksrob, Gareth Marston and indeed yourself have noted, it would involve comparatively little cost to address the low hanging fruit of improvements. That could be done without risking the nation's cashcow that is London, out of spite.

I am a civil servant and there are many jobs and secondments I would like to apply for but can't because they are in London. Its not just that London has a disproportionate amount of civil servants but that the grades are increasingly London centric the higher up they are. Many civil servants live in London because its the main or sometimes only option for career advancement. What you have described as stupid is in fact government policy (on a smaller scale and at a slow pace). In March the next phase of rebalancing the civil service locations will be published, probably with more relocations from central to outer London and the rest of the UK. The government has also promised that the 20 or so new agencies created after brexit will be headquartered outside of London.

With the best will in the World London doesn't compete with Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds etc. for jobs but with Paris, New York, Berlin, Toyko etc. London will always attract top talent from across the UK and beyond because of its status as a World City, which other UK Provincial Cities won't do.

That is only true of genuinely global companies. The reality of London in 2017 is that it is pushing against the capability of its infrastructure and geography and its rail problems are only one example. I have lived in London and would probably again if it was much cheaper but my disposable income and financial is so much better in Greater Manchester that the thought is laughable. An average house price of £584,000 is insane and should make Londoners would can't afford to buy a bit less smug about "their" city.

 

[yorksrob]

Which I agree isn't right. The train length issue in the north is a sheer waste of a line's capacity which should be addressed. The railway in the south-east has also been starved of investment to the extent that trains running into Victoria, Waterloo, London Bridge and Blackfriars are regualrly delayed by ageing track and signal equipment failures. Just look at the cost of closing Waterloo, the busiest station in the UK, for a month to extend a few platforms and adjust ancient track and signalling. Northern routes do not have a monopoly of neglected infrastructure. Lime Street is now getting similar attention.

True, but by the same token the signalling infrastructure at Victoria, London Bridge and Waterloo wasn't particularly old by network standards, it was just due for renewal. The area around Waterloo was re-done in the mid 1980's-early 90's, and the current renewals include significant train lengthening anyway.

 

[davehsug]

I am a civil servant and there are many jobs and secondments I would like to apply for but can't because they are in London. Its not just that London has a disproportionate amount of civil servants but that the grades are increasingly London centric the higher up they are. Many civil servants live in London because its the main or sometimes only option for career advancement. What you have described as stupid is in fact government policy (on a smaller scale and at a slow pace). In March the next phase of rebalancing the civil service locations will be published, probably with more relocations from central to outer London and the rest of the UK. The government has also promised that the 20 or so new agencies created after brexit will be headquartered outside of London.



That is only true of genuinely global companies. The reality of London in 2017 is that it is pushing against the capability of its infrastructure and geography and its rail problems are only one example. I have lived in London and would probably again if it was much cheaper but my disposable income and financial is so much better in Greater Manchester that the thought is laughable. An average house price of £584,000 is insane and should make Londoners would can't afford to buy a bit less smug about "their" city.

And yet at the same time, they're closing cheap to run local offices in the agency I work in & forcing people to move to Manchester or Birmingham, (not an option unsurprisingly on AA or AO pay), where they won't find ordinary admin staff like me, prepared to work for less than £17,000. This is supposed to save money. Even if I was a higher grade & much as I enjoy train travel, I wouldn't want to travel to Manchester 5 days a week!

 

[AM9]

True, but by the same token the signalling infrastructure at Victoria, London Bridge and Waterloo wasn't particularly old by network standards, it was just due for renewal. The area around Waterloo was re-done in the mid 1980's-early 90's, and the current renewals include significant train lengthening anyway.

Age isn't as important as suitability for use. There was OLE hardware in use on GEML tracks right up into the 21st century that was purchased in LNER days and installed in 1949 for 1500VDC use. Nobody said replace it with new because it is older than the Wharfedale line kit.
If NR doesn't keep critical parts of the network reliable, there are large (by any TOC's standards) delay penalties. That ultimately affects the investment all over NR's patch. The Waterloo work was one of the few remaining opportunities to increase capacity on the cheap (relatively). An alternative might have been to add another pair of slow lines to Clapham or even further. Far more expensive, even more than the worst case impact of current delay trends.

 

[Chester1]

And yet at the same time, they're closing cheap to run local offices in the agency I work in & forcing people to move to Manchester or Birmingham, (not an option unsurprisingly on AA or AO pay), where they won't find ordinary admin staff like me, prepared to work for less than £17,000. This is supposed to save money. Even if I was a higher grade & much as I enjoy train travel, I wouldn't want to travel to Manchester 5 days a week!

Its not the most thought through strategy I agree! AAs will always be local. AOs are on £16,500 to £20,500 outside of London depending on the department. Many are willing to commute a bit for the latter end of the pay scale, certainly for EO and HEO jobs. The creation of the government property agency this April might help dispersing civil service jobs. The move towards multi department hubs doesn't require moving jobs to the major cities, well connected towns / small cities like Crewe, Warrington, Wigan and Preston should be able to support a couple of thousand civil service jobs each. Places like Blackburn and Burnley could too with a bit of infrastructure investment.

 

[The Ham]

1. It's a start, in terms of making better use of railway infrastructure
2. This number of jobs spread around provincial cities will provide a direct boost to their economies
3. Among the many delusions from which we suffer in this country is the delusion that our freewheeling, buccaneering private sector does not suck heavily at the teat of the state. Move those civil servants out of London and you will see a lot of support industries moving with them.

1) it's unlike that you could get ALL the civil serves out of London for the subject train that there's a need for dinner to be running things in London for London.
2) partly covered above, but also the region with the second largest number (12.4%) of civil servants is the North West so there's already a significant number of civil servants elsewhere. Could there be more in, say, the North East where there's 6.9%? Probably yes, but then the English distribution of civil serves does appear to broadly follow regional population. One other notable exception is the South East where is lower that the comparable population, however when paired with London these tend to be back to broadly (of still slightly high) following the population figures.
3) there's about 80,000 civil servants in London this compare with 5.8 million jobs in London (therefore 1.3% of jobs in London), of they all moved out some of those 5.8 million jobs would move with them but not very many.

One final point I got to 15% of the passengers of the the busiest stations in London assuming every civil servant traveled by train into those stations on a daily basis. This level of reduction wouldn't be possible because:
A) some people are part time and so the reduction wouldn't be as big
B) some people would be required to still be in London to run things for London and so the reduction wouldn't be as big
C) there's more than 3 major stations in London and so the reduction wouldn't be as big
D) is fairly likely that not everyone goes by train and so the reduction wouldn't be as big
E) the a logic in having some key functions in an area where about 25% of the population resides in that region or the neighboring one where there's good transport links between the two and so the reduction wouldn't be as big

 

[al78]

So commit to an eyewaterunf(?) cost of moving tens of thousands of civil servants away from the centre of government into infrastructure build somewhere else just to see what the net benefit or loss might be on infrastructure costs in London is a rather brave (as in stupid) strategic decision. A large proportion of civil servants in the south-east are probably quite happy to stay in their existing homes and in contact with the world-class city that is London. Because London is so important in the eyes of the world, the fact that improving the infrastructure is higher is part of the deal, as is the enormous tax revenue from the financial and stock markets. Nope, it 'aint gonna happen so we must address the real needs of regions outside the home counties' transport infrastructure (rather than some strange concept of 'fairness' based on cherry-picked numbers). As yorksrob, Gareth Marston and indeed yourself have noted, it would involve comparatively little cost to address the low hanging fruit of improvements. That could be done without risking the nation's cashcow that is London, out of spite.

Problem is, sooner or later you have to accept the fact that there is only a finite amount of land, and it is mathematically and physically impossible to have infinite growth with finite resources, so at some point it will not be possible to cram more people into one small corner of the country. Of course no-one wants to face this fact (even though denying reality doesn't change reality), instead preferring to carry on regardless and let some future generation deal with the resultant mess. Bog standard carry on regardless and dump the costs on someone else.