Is rail REALLY that bad in the North?

[ashworth]

I completely agree with all those who have made the point that nowhere in the north can come anywhere near comparing with London at peak times. The hoards of commuters that travel in and out of London each day cannot be compaired with any other city in the uk but only with other world cities.

However, what always amazes me when I’m in London or other parts of the Sourth East are the large numbers of long trains of 8 carriages or more, running around at high frequency off peak, carrying very few passengers. This is not just in the middle of the day but also at weekends, especially Sundays. Long trains are running at such regular intervals to destinations like East Grinstead, Tattenham Corner, Epsom Downs, Caterham etc, carrying fresh air. Even longer distance trains, again of 8 or more carriages, especially around the Kent Coast, I have found very lightly loaded off peak and at weekends outside of the holiday season. I do understand that they need all that capacity at peak times and so the trains are sometimes left in the same formation all day.

Now compare this with services outside of London running between major cities like Sheffield or Leeds to Manchester with only 2 or 3 carriages. It’s unelievable that Cross Country are running between major cities with 4 and 5 carriage trains when even on a Sunday somewhere like East Grinstead get 2tph probably with 8 carriages on each train.

Yes, I agree London and the South East in the peak is so completely different from the north and cannot be compared. However, off peak i think it’s very unfair that on many routes you can almost have a complete carriage to yourself when in the north even off peak we are squashed into 2 or 3 carriages sometimes on quite major routes.

 

[The Ham]

I completely agree with all those who have made the point that nowhere in the north can come anywhere near comparing with London at peak times. The hoards of commuters that travel in and out of London each day cannot be compaired with any other city in the uk but only with other world cities.

However, what always amazes me when I’m in London or other parts of the Sourth East are the large numbers of long trains of 8 carriages or more, running around at high frequency off peak, carrying very few passengers. This is not just in the middle of the day but also at weekends, especially Sundays. Long trains are running at such regular intervals to destinations like East Grinstead, Tattenham Corner, Epsom Downs, Caterham etc, carrying fresh air. Even longer distance trains, again of 8 or more carriages, especially around the Kent Coast, I have found very lightly loaded off peak and at weekends outside of the holiday season. I do understand that they need all that capacity at peak times and so the trains are sometimes left in the same formation all day.

Now compare this with services outside of London running between major cities like Sheffield or Leeds to Manchester with only 2 or 3 carriages. It’s unelievable that Cross Country are running between major cities with 4 and 5 carriage trains when even on a Sunday somewhere like East Grinstead get 2tph probably with 8 carriages on each train.

Yes, I agree London and the South East in the peak is so completely different from the north and cannot be compared. However, off peak i think it’s very unfair that on many routes you can almost have a complete carriage to yourself when in the north even off peak we are squashed into 2 or 3 carriages sometimes on quite major routes.

To start with let me say I do think that there is a need for longer trains elsewhere, however my experience of the Southeast doesn't always tally with yours off peak.

I agree that at certain points on a journey on some routes you can join a train that is lightly loaded. However, there are loads of trains that aren't 8+ coaches off peak and loads of trains where there's people standing.

There's a train I used to get from Woking to Farnborough (Portsmouth Harbour via Basingstoke, so not serving any cities for quite a while when I was in it and from Woking it's quicker to go via Guildford to get to Portsmouth) that off peak was 4 coaches and there were often people standing on it. That was at about 15:30 and didn't (as far as I recall) have any (if it did it wasn't many) school children using it.

I did often find that trains were fairly quiet towards the end of their routes. However often it would be hard to spilt such trains if they were more than one unit, as often at the last major station (i.e. one with staff and an easy turn back option) the train would still be fairly busy and/or splitting would have potentially caused delays to following services. This is especially true of the metro services.

I would suggest that most such services so only tend to run at 2tph (so not high, but I do admit better than some comparable locations would get elsewhere), the train that somewhere like Waterloo gets a lot of services is that they are serving a lot of locations. Some of the best frequencies (or soon to be best frequencies) are to places like Reading and Portsmouth, with a lot of other places (i.e. Southampton, Basingstoke, Woking, etc.) Only really getting good frequencies because the trains go elsewhere.

Often the reason that quiet routes still get 4 coach trains is that is the smallest unit size that the southeast TOC's tend to have and so it's cheaper to provide that than have a micro fleet of shorter trains.

 

[PR1Berske]

I love this idea that Manchester is not in a "time acceptable" distance from London, it's already connected directly and takes about 2½ hours! HS2 won't get to Manchester for a decade or more, as it is.

I've always said and will always believe that money should be spent *at source*. For ordinary people trying to commute across Manchester, money needs spending *now* on local schemes and modern rolling stock, not on another line into London Euston.

 

[AM9]

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.

This one small corner of the country extends from the south coast westwards as far a Bournemouth/Poole, westwards as far as Bristol and northwards to include much of East Anglia and the midlands. So it already covers over 1/3 of England, - hardly a small corner. It's also the part of the UK with better weather prospects and better connections with the rest of Europe and beyond. Unless plans like the Highland clearances are instigated by a totalitarian government, any noticeable change would take at least a generation. Meanwhile, the UK still needs to pay its way, so destabilising the infrastructure of a major provider of that income would be too much of a risk for the 20+ million population it involves to vote for. Also, despite all this talk of the south-east being 'full', London and its environs is still one of the greenest world cities.

 

[yorksrob]

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.

Any comparatively intensively used signalling system (barring traditional mechanical, which can more or less be patched up forever) has a design life after which it's components will begin to fail. I've seen nothing to suggest that those recently upgraded in South London were kept beyond that.

 

[yorksrob]

I completely agree with all those who have made the point that nowhere in the north can come anywhere near comparing with London at peak times. The hoards of commuters that travel in and out of London each day cannot be compaired with any other city in the uk but only with other world cities.

However, what always amazes me when I’m in London or other parts of the Sourth East are the large numbers of long trains of 8 carriages or more, running around at high frequency off peak, carrying very few passengers. This is not just in the middle of the day but also at weekends, especially Sundays. Long trains are running at such regular intervals to destinations like East Grinstead, Tattenham Corner, Epsom Downs, Caterham etc, carrying fresh air. Even longer distance trains, again of 8 or more carriages, especially around the Kent Coast, I have found very lightly loaded off peak and at weekends outside of the holiday season. I do understand that they need all that capacity at peak times and so the trains are sometimes left in the same formation all day.

Now compare this with services outside of London running between major cities like Sheffield or Leeds to Manchester with only 2 or 3 carriages. It’s unelievable that Cross Country are running between major cities with 4 and 5 carriage trains when even on a Sunday somewhere like East Grinstead get 2tph probably with 8 carriages on each train.

Yes, I agree London and the South East in the peak is so completely different from the north and cannot be compared. However, off peak i think it’s very unfair that on many routes you can almost have a complete carriage to yourself when in the north even off peak we are squashed into 2 or 3 carriages sometimes on quite major routes.

Yes, this bears out my experience. The only line in the South East area where I seem to experience heavy overcrowding in the off-peak period is the Marshlink service - and that's because it suffers from provincial style stock and timetable limitations.

 

[AM9]

Any comparatively intensively used signalling system (barring traditional mechanical, which can more or less be patched up forever) has a design life after which it's components will begin to fail. I've seen nothing to suggest that those recently upgraded in South London were kept beyond that.

- which is exactly why some infrastructure and trains are renewed more frequently in the south-east than elsewhere. Their usage is often at a completely higher level. The cost of not replacing kit in a timely manner is astronomical in terms of service disruption, knock-on damage/failure, public safety etc. A single train failure (caused by the train/infrastructure/staff/passenger(s)) can start to dely tens of thousands within a few minutes on any one of the mainline routes into London. Of course delays also occur elsewhere, but the cost to everybody are just too great to risk in the SE.

 

[AndrewE]

- which is exactly why some infrastructure and trains are renewed more frequently in the south-east than elsewhere. Their usage is often at a completely higher level. The cost of not replacing kit in a timely manner is astronomical in terms of service disruption, knock-on damage/failure, public safety etc. A single train failure (caused by the train/infrastructure/staff/passenger(s)) can start to delay tens of thousands within a few minutes on any one of the mainline routes into London. Of course delays also occur elsewhere, but the cost to everybody are just too great to risk in the SE.

...and we are told to stop whingeing if we point out that you get a second-class service if you live outside the southeast!
If some of these people who think that lines into London are so important that they trump all other priorities tried travelling in and out of Liverpool, Manchester or Leeds at peak times then they might change their minds. It's such a shame that the 2 houses of Parliament aren't being temporarily decanted to Manchester and Leeds while their building is being refurbished!

 

[The Ham]

...and we are told to stop whingeing if we point out that you get a second-class service if you live outside the southeast!
If some of these people who think that lines into London are so important that they trump all other priorities tried travelling in and out of Liverpool, Manchester or Leeds at peak times then they might change their minds. It's such a shame that the 2 houses of Parliament aren't being temporarily decanted to Manchester and Leeds while their building is being refurbished!

If you exclude long distance passenger numbers (which makes up less than 10% of part numbers) then the numbers of rail passengers by sector is about 25% regional and 75% London and the Southeast.

As such it's not surprising that just two regions have a higher level of infrastructure spend than the others.

As has been pointed out before, much of the big ticket items in terms of infrastructure spend is required to provide the required extra capacity. Whilst increased subsidy costs is what is required to lengthen trains, which is the main bugbear of travellers, within the North rather than big new projects (although the latter is still also needed).

As such calling for a equal spread of infrastructure spend won't result in what most people want, which is longer trains.

If you are arguing for longer trains then you need to include the total net government spend (i.e. including any TOC premium to the government) in working out how fair the rail spend is around the country and not just looking at infrastructure spend.

 

[AndrewE]

If you exclude long distance passenger numbers (which makes up less than 10% of part numbers) then the numbers of rail passengers by sector is about 25% regional and 75% London and the Southeast.

As such it's not surprising that just two regions have a higher level of infrastructure spend than the others.

As has been pointed out before, much of the big ticket items in terms of infrastructure spend is required to provide the required extra capacity. Whilst increased subsidy costs is what is required to lengthen trains, which is the main bugbear of travellers, within the North rather than big new projects (although the latter is still also needed).

As such calling for a equal spread of infrastructure spend won't result in what most people want, which is longer trains.

If you are arguing for longer trains then you need to include the total net government spend (i.e. including any TOC premium to the government) in working out how fair the rail spend is around the country and not just looking at infrastructure spend.

I was pointing out that we have just been told that it is considered unacceptable for the railway to fall down in the southeast, so maintainance is done to prevent it, whereas by implication it doesn't matter so much if regional city rail commuting is stitched up by failures!

 

[frodshamfella]

I completely agree with all those who have made the point that nowhere in the north can come anywhere near comparing with London at peak times. The hoards of commuters that travel in and out of London each day cannot be compaired with any other city in the uk but only with other world cities.

However, what always amazes me when I’m in London or other parts of the Sourth East are the large numbers of long trains of 8 carriages or more, running around at high frequency off peak, carrying very few passengers. This is not just in the middle of the day but also at weekends, especially Sundays. Long trains are running at such regular intervals to destinations like East Grinstead, Tattenham Corner, Epsom Downs, Caterham etc, carrying fresh air. Even longer distance trains, again of 8 or more carriages, especially around the Kent Coast, I have found very lightly loaded off peak and at weekends outside of the holiday season. I do understand that they need all that capacity at peak times and so the trains are sometimes left in the same formation all day.

Now compare this with services outside of London running between major cities like Sheffield or Leeds to Manchester with only 2 or 3 carriages. It’s unelievable that Cross Country are running between major cities with 4 and 5 carriage trains when even on a Sunday somewhere like East Grinstead get 2tph probably with 8 carriages on each train.

Yes, I agree London and the South East in the peak is so completely different from the north and cannot be compared. However, off peak i think it’s very unfair that on many routes you can almost have a complete carriage to yourself when in the north even off peak we are squashed into 2 or 3 carriages sometimes on quite major routes.

Yes I agree i've travelled on long trains out of Charing Cross or London Bridge in the middle of the day with plenty of space.

 

[Severn40]

I have had the same experience of lightly loaded trains in the South East during off peak periods as well.

I somehow suspect policy is not going to fundamentally change unless something more radical is done such as moving the DfT and the DCLG permanently to Liverpool or somewhere similar. The DfT's business case process (WebTAG) is flawed based around population flows and business journey time which reinforces investment into areas that are already prospering. The same guidance is much more vague when it comes to the wider impacts (although there have been improvements in recent years) and consideration of sustainable modes. London and the South East also benefits from more integrated public transport in the capital which reinforces demand for rail services. The nearest comparator to London in this regard, perhaps, is Northern Ireland.

 

[AM9]

I was pointing out that we have just been told that it is considered unacceptable for the railway to fall down in the southeast, so maintainance is done to prevent it, whereas by implication it doesn't matter so much if regional city rail commuting is stitched up by failures!

If single event failures that could delay say 30000 people en-route to their work, (which is not atypical on the main routes into London when a major stoppage occurs) that means that 0.1% of the UK workforce is unproductive. If you consider that most of those passengers woud be on higher salaries (owing to the higher cost of living in the south-east), that means a proportionally larger hit on the tax going to pay for the entire country's services etc..
Now if a similar hit on the nation's income occurred elsewhere, be it on rail or even road, you can bet that the government would try to ease the pain on where it hurt their reputations the most. Does the north have such magnified impacts when normal disruption occurs?

 

[Goldie]

I have had the same experience of lightly loaded trains in the South East during off peak periods as well.

I somehow suspect policy is not going to fundamentally change unless something more radical is done such as moving the DfT and the DCLG permanently to Liverpool or somewhere similar. The DfT's business case process (WebTAG) is flawed based around population flows and business journey time which reinforces investment into areas that are already prospering. The same guidance is much more vague when it comes to the wider impacts (although there have been improvements in recent years) and consideration of sustainable modes. London and the South East also benefits from more integrated public transport in the capital which reinforces demand for rail services. The nearest comparator to London in this regard, perhaps, is Northern Ireland.

Commuting from New Cross to Cannon Street in the morning rush a few years ago usually involved a seat and a nice view of the Thames. By comparison my commute from Flixton to Manchester Deansgate was all about a lot of angry, disappointed Mancunians trying to squeeze themselves into a two carriage Pacer at twice the acceptable density. People - including me - regularly got left behind on the platform. Sometimes I'd get to the ticket office to be told that the train just wasn't running. That's the key difference between rail transport in the South East and the rest of the country in a nutshell: In the North, the government and the train operating companies have for years believed that total inadequacy is acceptable. For years, there wasn't even the most basic of plans for dealing with increasing demand. In the South East, inadequacy is unacceptable; the need to invest to keep pace with demand is generally accepted; and somebody generally has a plan ready to direct that investment.

 

[B&I]

This one small corner of the country extends from the south coast westwards as far a Bournemouth/Poole, westwards as far as Bristol and northwards to include much of East Anglia and the midlands. So it already covers over 1/3 of England, - hardly a small corner. It's also the part of the UK with better weather prospects and better connections with the rest of Europe and beyond. Unless plans like the Highland clearances are instigated by a totalitarian government, any noticeable change would take at least a generation. Meanwhile, the UK still needs to pay its way, so destabilising the infrastructure of a major provider of that income would be too much of a risk for the 20+ million population it involves to vote for. Also, despite all this talk of the south-east being 'full', London and its environs is still one of the greenest world cities.

Do you ever wonder whether Britain might 'pay its way' better if much of the country outside the southeast had not been turned into an economic wasteland?

 

[B&I]

If single event failures that could delay say 30000 people en-rote to their work, (which is not atypical on the main routes into London when a major stoppage occurs) that means that 0.1% of the UK workforce is unproductive. If you consider that most of those passengers woud be on higher salaries (owing to the higher cost of living in the south-east), that means a proportionally larger hit on the tax going to pay for the entire country's services etc..
Now if a similar hit on the nation's income occurred elsewhere, be it on rail or even road, you can bet that the government would try to ease the pain on where it hurt their reputations the most. Does the north have such magnified impacts when normal disruption occurs?

This is an extremely dangerous situation, where so many people of such incomparable value to the nation's economy can be taken out of action by the failure of a single stretch of line. To avoid economic catastrophe, we had better spread some of those workers out around the network.

 

[otomous]

I completely agree with all those who have made the point that nowhere in the north can come anywhere near comparing with London at peak times. The hoards of commuters that travel in and out of London each day cannot be compaired with any other city in the uk but only with other world cities.

However, what always amazes me when I’m in London or other parts of the Sourth East are the large numbers of long trains of 8 carriages or more, running around at high frequency off peak, carrying very few passengers. This is not just in the middle of the day but also at weekends, especially Sundays. Long trains are running at such regular intervals to destinations like East Grinstead, Tattenham Corner, Epsom Downs, Caterham etc, carrying fresh air. Even longer distance trains, again of 8 or more carriages, especially around the Kent Coast, I have found very lightly loaded off peak and at weekends outside of the holiday season. I do understand that they need all that capacity at peak times and so the trains are sometimes left in the same formation all day.

Now compare this with services outside of London running between major cities like Sheffield or Leeds to Manchester with only 2 or 3 carriages. It’s unelievable that Cross Country are running between major cities with 4 and 5 carriage trains when even on a Sunday somewhere like East Grinstead get 2tph probably with 8 carriages on each train.

Yes, I agree London and the South East in the peak is so completely different from the north and cannot be compared. However, off peak i think it’s very unfair that on many routes you can almost have a complete carriage to yourself when in the north even off peak we are squashed into 2 or 3 carriages sometimes on quite major routes.

It’s a question of logistics. The units that are only needed in the peaks have to go somewhere off peak. Thus you need stabling space, train paths to get the empty units to that space, and drivers to work them. To say nothing of the extra requirements generated in signalling, planning, dispatching, shunting that accumulates over a day, the driver being the most visible link in that chain. You also need platform time and space to detach units in the morning, reattach in the evening, and then the whole process starts again - drivers, paths etc. It would be wasteful to deploy resources just for these purposes, as there is a limited time window to achieve it anyway. Say you can’t detach and work empties to depots until 10-11am. They’re needed again by about 3-4pm, so there won’t be much of the day left to do all of that. And even if the paths etc were available, it’s creating extra delay risks by sacrificing what capacity exists. They certainly wouldn’t have long trains off peak if they could achieve it!

 

[fowler9]

I live by West Allerton which uses the Cheshire Lines route to Manchester. During the peak trains are normally single units and are full and standing. On a Sunday the route goes to 1 tph but is normally 2 units. It does get pretty good loadings during the day on Sunday to be honest but during the peak they really could do with that capacity.

 

[AM9]

This is an extremely dangerous situation, where so many people of such incomparable value to the nation's economy can be taken out of action by the failure of a single stretch of line. To avoid economic catastrophe, we had better spread some of those workers out around the network.

Well that's not going to be very popular if jobs are created in the north and then filled with southerners who push your house prices up with the profits from their London sales. I suppose the north could act as an overflow for the south when we need to export some of our excess traffic pollution. There are more roads to drive on up there. It's making it more difficult to enjoy the better weather down here.
Everybody should be very careful of what they wish for.

 

[The Ham]

I live by West Allerton which uses the Cheshire Lines route to Manchester. During the peak trains are normally single units and are full and standing. On a Sunday the route goes to 1 tph but is normally 2 units. It does get pretty good loadings during the day on Sunday to be honest but during the peak they really could do with that capacity.

That's kind of the point, yes your trains are full and standing, but there's no point throwing money at infrastructure costs as all that needs to happen is the trains need to be longer (and given it happens on Sunday we can assume that it would mostly be possible on the current infrastructure during the week, possibly some work might be needed at the termini if it can't cope with that many longer trains).

As such as a country we could double capacity on this line for a close to £0 infrastructure cost and yet there would still be complaints that there wasn't an equal amount of infrastructure spend across the country. Even though the trains on that line were no longer full and standing.

However, it could still end up costing the country more through reduced premiums or increased subsidies (at least until passengers numbers grew to cover the extra costs of the extra units).

In comparison the line out of Waterloo would need something like £20 billion to increase capacity by 50% in the form of needing Crossrail 2, new junctions at Woking and Basingstoke and increased platforms capacity at Woking and Guildford.

Even to increase capacity on the Basingstoke stoppers and the Alton by 25-50% in the peaks between Woking and Basingstoke/Alton would cost several billion by building the southern access to Heathrow (although this would also benefit other lines too) and even then that would require extra works on the Alton line to provide a loop. It would also mean the switching off one service from Basingstoke to Alton so people from places like Farnborough although they would have more trains overall there would be fewer going to London.

 

[AM9]

That's kind of the point, yes your trains are full and standing, but there's no point throwing money at infrastructure costs as all that needs to happen is the trains need to be longer (and given it happens on Sunday we can assume that it would mostly be possible on the current infrastructure during the week, possibly some work might be needed at the termini if it can't cope with that many longer trains).

As such as a country we could double capacity on this line for a close to £0 infrastructure cost and yet there would still be complaints that there wasn't an equal amount of infrastructure spend across the country. Even though the trains on that line were no longer full and standing.

However, it could still end up costing the country more through reduced premiums or increased subsidies (at least until passengers numbers grew to cover the extra costs of the extra units).

In comparison the line out of Waterloo would need something like £20 billion to increase capacity by 50% in the form of needing Crossrail 2, new junctions at Woking and Basingstoke and increased platforms capacity at Woking and Guildford.

Even to increase capacity on the Basingstoke stoppers and the Alton by 25-50% in the peaks between Woking and Basingstoke/Alton would cost several billion by building the southern access to Heathrow (although this would also benefit other lines too) and even then that would require extra works on the Alton line to provide a loop. It would also mean the switching off one service from Basingstoke to Alton so people from places like Farnborough although they would have more trains overall there would be fewer going to London.

Maybe the north's capacity problems could be easily fixed with class 345/700 style trains. They can keep up on the mainline at 100mph, have fantastic acceleration, have massive capacity, (a four-car version could carry about 120 seated passengers and another 350 standing including PRM provision), - there could even be a diesel version. There wouldn't be any need for platform extension so it would just mean waiting for Bombardier/Siemens to tack them onto the existing production runs. Then they can enjoy 'new trains' just like the south-east.

 

[yorksrob]

That's kind of the point, yes your trains are full and standing, but there's no point throwing money at infrastructure costs as all that needs to happen is the trains need to be longer (and given it happens on Sunday we can assume that it would mostly be possible on the current infrastructure during the week, possibly some work might be needed at the termini if it can't cope with that many longer trains).

As such as a country we could double capacity on this line for a close to £0 infrastructure cost and yet there would still be complaints that there wasn't an equal amount of infrastructure spend across the country. Even though the trains on that line were no longer full and standing.

However, it could still end up costing the country more through reduced premiums or increased subsidies (at least until passengers numbers grew to cover the extra costs of the extra units).

In comparison the line out of Waterloo would need something like £20 billion to increase capacity by 50% in the form of needing Crossrail 2, new junctions at Woking and Basingstoke and increased platforms capacity at Woking and Guildford.

Even to increase capacity on the Basingstoke stoppers and the Alton by 25-50% in the peaks between Woking and Basingstoke/Alton would cost several billion by building the southern access to Heathrow (although this would also benefit other lines too) and even then that would require extra works on the Alton line to provide a loop. It would also mean the switching off one service from Basingstoke to Alton so people from places like Farnborough although they would have more trains overall there would be fewer going to London.

But our point is, yes it is comparatively easy, but it should have been done decades ago, and it hasn't been. And with the forthcoming rolling stock changes in the North, will we see that step change in capacity, and will there be enough new seats to replace the old ones withdrawn and boost capacity, or will track access charges, leasing costs, platform lengths etc encourage TOC's just to cram as many people on the new/cascaded trains instead.

The fact that the 153's are seemingly being discarded before we see how the new order pans out is already setting alarm bells ringing for me.

 

[ashworth]

But our point is, yes it is comparatively easy, but it should have been done decades ago, and it hasn't been. And with the forthcoming rolling stock changes in the North, will we see that step change in capacity, and will there be enough new seats to replace the old ones withdrawn and boost capacity, or will track access charges, leasing costs, platform lengths etc encourage TOC's just to cram as many people on the new/cascaded trains instead.

The fact that the 153's are seemingly being discarded before we see how the new order pans out is already setting alarm bells ringing for me.

I also don’t think it’s going to be much better and is again not taking into account much future growth. The very fact that the new trains ordered for the Northern Connect services are once more a mixture of only 2 or 3 carriage trains. When I originally read that more 2 carriage trains had been ordered I just thought here we go again. A mixture of 3 and 4 carriage trains would have been a bit more encouragement.

Moving slightly out of the north. There still does not seem to be any immediate plans to boost capacity on EMT local services. Single overcrowded 153 trains are still running throughout Lincolnshire and Derby to Crewe.

 

[yorksrob]

I also don’t think it’s going to be much better and is again not taking into account much future growth. The very fact that the new trains ordered for the Northern Connect services are once more a mixture of only 2 or 3 carriage trains. When I originally read that more 2 carriage trains had been ordered I just thought here we go again. A mixture of 3 and 4 carriage trains would have been a bit more encouragement.

Moving slightly out of the north. There still does not seem to be any immediate plans to boost capacity on EMT local services. Single overcrowded 153 trains are still running throughout Lincolnshire and Derby to Crewe.

Agree on all counts.

The former Thameslink units now operating in the north west are four carriages and by all accounts have been a roaring success, but without further electrification this will be difficult to replicate. Perhaps the flex offers hope.

I agree that with EMT there needs to be far more emphasis on capacity and timetabling of their local services.

 

[B&I]

That's kind of the point, yes your trains are full and standing, but there's no point throwing money at infrastructure costs as all that needs to happen is the trains need to be longer (and given it happens on Sunday we can assume that it would mostly be possible on the current infrastructure during the week, possibly some work might be needed at the termini if it can't cope with that many longer trains).

As such as a country we could double capacity on this line for a close to £0 infrastructure cost and yet there would still be complaints that there wasn't an equal amount of infrastructure spend across the country. Even though the trains on that line were no longer full and standing.

However, it could still end up costing the country more through reduced premiums or increased subsidies (at least until passengers numbers grew to cover the extra costs of the extra units).

In comparison the line out of Waterloo would need something like £20 billion to increase capacity by 50% in the form of needing Crossrail 2, new junctions at Woking and Basingstoke and increased platforms capacity at Woking and Guildford.

Even to increase capacity on the Basingstoke stoppers and the Alton by 25-50% in the peaks between Woking and Basingstoke/Alton would cost several billion by building the southern access to Heathrow (although this would also benefit other lines too) and even then that would require extra works on the Alton line to provide a loop. It would also mean the switching off one service from Basingstoke to Alton so people from places like Farnborough although they would have more trains overall there would be fewer going to London.

There has to come a time to accept that pouring so many people into one, already overcrowded, part of the country is unsustainable. The continued growth of the south east is not a natural phenomenon. It is being subsidised by the immense amounts which have to be spent on transport@, housing and other infrastructure. As you point out, there is huge scope for increasing train travel up north using cheaper and simpler projects (albeit idiotic penny pinching means that we are still being expected to copy with diesel trains with insufficient capacity). If the country's economic development was properly balanced, we could use that potential capacity to move a lot more people by rail without having to spend as much overall in improvements

 

[B&I]

Well that's not going to be very popular if jobs are created in the north and then filled with southerners who push your house prices up with the profits from their London sales. I suppose the north could act as an overflow for the south when we need to export some of our excess traffic pollution. There are more roads to drive on up there. It's making it more difficult to enjoy the better weather down here.
Everybody should be very careful of what they wish for.

I would have expected most of these jobs to be filled by people who actually come from.thr provinces, and who must trek south these days in search of work, part of the great British economic migration. But yes, it is a downside that a few total berks may end up coming north, along with the vast majority of lovely people who are actual natives of the south.

 

[Bantamzen]

That's kind of the point, yes your trains are full and standing, but there's no point throwing money at infrastructure costs as all that needs to happen is the trains need to be longer (and given it happens on Sunday we can assume that it would mostly be possible on the current infrastructure during the week, possibly some work might be needed at the termini if it can't cope with that many longer trains).

As such as a country we could double capacity on this line for a close to £0 infrastructure cost and yet there would still be complaints that there wasn't an equal amount of infrastructure spend across the country. Even though the trains on that line were no longer full and standing.

However, it could still end up costing the country more through reduced premiums or increased subsidies (at least until passengers numbers grew to cover the extra costs of the extra units).

In comparison the line out of Waterloo would need something like £20 billion to increase capacity by 50% in the form of needing Crossrail 2, new junctions at Woking and Basingstoke and increased platforms capacity at Woking and Guildford.

Even to increase capacity on the Basingstoke stoppers and the Alton by 25-50% in the peaks between Woking and Basingstoke/Alton would cost several billion by building the southern access to Heathrow (although this would also benefit other lines too) and even then that would require extra works on the Alton line to provide a loop. It would also mean the switching off one service from Basingstoke to Alton so people from places like Farnborough although they would have more trains overall there would be fewer going to London.

Increasing train lengths as is happening will help, however to say no money is needed for infrastructure is inaccurate to say the least. For a start a lot of the stations soon to be served by the new stock cannot handle anything more than one unit, or at best 2*2 or 1*2 + 1*3 car units. So platform lengthening is going to have to take place if for no other reason that future-proofing. And then you've got routes like the Trans-Pennine. A relatively slow route, soon to be used by mixture of true intercitys, semi-fasts, and skip-stoppers. Pathing these services is going to be a major headache for planners, and even with the extra 40% (?) capacity that TP will soon be delivering, it doesn't given begin to scratch the surface of the congestion problems between the North's cities and towns.

For example the other evening a single, albeit serious accident on the M62 effectively shut down the roads for many miles around and left commuters facing delays of 2,3 even 4 hours. And this is becoming increasingly common, the major routes are at breaking point. Such is the nature of the transport network in the North (and to be fair probably in other areas too), it takes very little to bring the job to a complete standstill. So even if the extra TPE capacity is used by those currently in their cars, it will still leave very serious congestion and need for further capacity increases. And sooner or later the transport infrastructure is going to need serious investment, be it by road, rail or both, there simply isn't any getting away with it. From an efficiency point of view, it is better to consider improvements to existing alignments, maybe even new ones as the road equivalents will be equally as difficult and expensive, maybe more. This decision has been put off for too long by successive governments, with the latest put-offs being highlighted by the various electrification options being mooted.

 

[AM9]

I would have expected most of these jobs to be filled by people who actually come from.thr provinces, and who must trek south these days in search of work, part of the great British economic migration.

So you expect thousands of people currently employed in the south-east to just stay put with their large mortgages whilst their jobs move north. Dream on. I know that much of the provinces don't have the same attractions as the south-east but needs be and if those people are deliberately put into unemployment by government policy, (as you seem to be advocating), they will grit their teeth and move up to where their jobs go, or take jobs there that others might have been eyeing.

But yes, it is a downside that a few total berks may end up coming north, along with the vast majority of lovely people who are actual natives of the south.

That statement says a lot about your problem. I don't care what (non-illegal) terms you may use on me but calling people you don't know anything about "total berks" sounds to me that you have a big chip on your shoulder about the north vs. other regions. It really doesn't help a discussion like this so please try and stay rational and polite.

 

[The Ham]

For clarification, I'm not saying that there shouldn't be more infrastructure spend in the North. I'm saying that given where we're at to increase capacity in the North is likely to be cheaper than in the South as the cheap schemes (longer trains and platform lengthening) can be done in the North whilst for many lines in the South this has already been done and therefore new lines would be required.

I'm also saying that TOTAL rail spend (including TOC funding) should be considered as the last years funding for TPE was something like £163 million whilst SWR's was -£138 million.

As that would mean that when comparing the two over a 10 year period there could be a zero spend on new infrastructure for TPE whilst spending £3 billion on new infrastructure for SWR and the total level of government support would be the same.

 

[B&I]

For clarification, I'm not saying that there shouldn't be more infrastructure spend in the North. I'm saying that given where we're at to increase capacity in the North is likely to be cheaper than in the South as the cheap schemes (longer trains and platform lengthening) can be done in the North whilst for many lines in the South this has already been done and therefore new lines would be required.

I'm also saying that TOTAL rail spend (including TOC funding) should be considered as the last years funding for TPE was something like £163 million whilst SWR's was -£138 million.

As that would mean that when comparing the two over a 10 year period there could be a zero spend on new infrastructure for TPE whilst spending £3 billion on new infrastructure for SWR and the total level of government support would be the same.

That's a fair point, so long as it's recognised that even the smaller amounts of spending which could solve a lot of problems in the short term are not yet forthcoming. Perhaps if TPE had a sufficient number of vehicles, if the service wasn't so slow, and if there was better local public transport connecting to it, more people would use it, and it would require less subsidy.