• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Should Crossrail 2 trump trans-Pennine and HS2b investment?

Status
Not open for further replies.

AndrewE

Established Member
Joined
9 Nov 2015
Messages
5,072
Don't know whether this should go in "Infrastructure" or "Speculation" but here goes:

Having been warned for pointing out in a Crossrail 2 thread that there other conurbations and regions suffering serious congestion and consequently loss of business, yet are seeing their catching-up rail investment cut back, I thought I would re-open the debate on how Londoners have the brass neck to look for ever-improving heavy rail infrastructure, while a simple trunk route like Liverpool to York is not considered worthy of even full electrification?

Don't tell me that it is because London is where business is and taxes are paid because a) it's not true and even if it is to some extent b) there is a chicken-and-egg situation taking business out of the provincial regions.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Legolash2o

Member
Joined
27 Sep 2018
Messages
601
Doesn't Crossrail get funded by business and London itself rather than the government?
 

AndrewE

Established Member
Joined
9 Nov 2015
Messages
5,072
Doesn't Crossrail get funded by business and London itself rather than the government?
London businesses make their money out of all of us, and "London itself" gets a colossal amount of business rates from parliament and Westminster (by which I mean the civil service.) The rules have been changed so that business rates get kept in the area that collects them, which is why Kensington and Chelsea can afford to levy almost zero council tax, yet with Westminster, have the best road surfaces I have seen in the UK.

It's like the coal-mine / slate mine / steel works owners building mansions all over London out of the profits from distant exploitative employment again.
 

GreatAuk

Member
Joined
16 Jan 2018
Messages
60
Doesn't Crossrail get funded by business and London itself rather than the government?
I don't think it's yet clear exactly how Crossrail 2 will be funded, but last I heard the government was providing half the capital and TfL/the mayor would have to fund the rest.

I guess one key difference with 'the North' is that there is no equivalent body to TFL (transport for the North doesn't have the same role TFL does)
 

Railwaysceptic

Established Member
Joined
6 Nov 2017
Messages
1,408
I thought I would re-open the debate on how Londoners have the brass neck to look for ever-improving heavy rail infrastructure, while a simple trunk route like Liverpool to York is not considered worthy of even full electrification?
The point you have overlooked is that Londoners are not like you. They don't have an "us against them" mentality and they don't demand improvements at the expense of the rest of the country. Nothing in the argument for Crossrail 2 is based on denying other parts of the country their own railway projects. Crossrail 2 - if it goes ahead - will be financed to a great extent by London alone.
 

AndrewE

Established Member
Joined
9 Nov 2015
Messages
5,072
The point you have overlooked is that Londoners are not like you. They don't have an "us against them" mentality and they don't demand improvements at the expense of the rest of the country.
They don't need one - they get the cream anyway! Free public transport pass at 60? Children free up to age 11, is it?
Nothing in the argument for Crossrail 2 is based on denying other parts of the country their own railway projects. Crossrail 2 - if it goes ahead - will be financed to a great extent by London alone.
Except that it won't.
 

si404

Established Member
Joined
28 Dec 2012
Messages
1,267
Doesn't Crossrail get funded by business and London itself rather than the government?
The Elizabeth Line was roughly thirds between business levy, TfL/GLA funding and DfT funding.

As Crossrail 2 will have much more effect on Network Rail infrastructure - especially de-congesting (big gains for west Surrey/north Hants and West Anglia), and because TfL has little money, I'd imagine the split would be more weighed towards the DfT on that project.

---

The lobbying group tied the much-needed-already capacity upgrade for onwards travel at Euston to the HS2 phase 2b project - that if HS2 reaches Leeds, then CR2 is needed - so that will work the other way: no HS2 to Leeds = no CR2. And I cannot see Parliament/Government approving that while not approving onwards travel improvements at the provincial locations on HS2 unless it is completely politically tone deaf (oh, wait...)

And it's always funny that Scotland (richer than non-Southern England) has been spending bucketloads of UK-raised money on road and rail improvements for years and doesn't get attacked like London does even for wholly London-funded projects. The problem isn't really London, nor Scotland, but that the best proposals for devolution in provincial England have been "if you centralise these local government functions in this regional body, we in Westminster will allow you this very small power that we currently do and to set up a few lobbying groups that we'll ignore".
 

Ken H

On Moderation
Joined
11 Nov 2018
Messages
6,272
Location
N Yorks
maybe thats cos government spending isnt equal across regions
Old graph - sorry - but I think its still about the same
Spending_graph_v2.PNG
 

NSEFAN

Established Member
Joined
17 Jun 2007
Messages
3,504
Location
Southampton
maybe thats cos government spending isnt equal across regions
Old graph - sorry - but I think its still about the same
Spending_graph_v2.PNG
It would be interesting to compare that with the average tax collected per person in each of those regions, given wages are also different in each one.
 

deltic

Established Member
Joined
8 Feb 2010
Messages
3,201
The chances of Crossrail 2 going anywhere in the foreseeable future is very remote - DfT are looking for London to pay half the cost up-front and the scheme continues to be descoped. Major rail schemes have zero credibility with government at the moment. Thameslink and northern electrification re-timetabling fiasco; Crossrail late and over budget; virtually if not all electrification schemes late, overbudget and being descoped; HS2 already late and over budget and possibly at risk of being descoped; East-West rail costs escalating and chances of getting to Cambridge diminishing by the day; and transpennine upgrade costs escalating, being descoped and the impact of disruption causing serious concern.

If you were SofS for Transport or the Chancellor you wouldnt want to touch a major rail scheme with a bargepole.

Imagine the scene is the SofS office in Horseferry Road

2019 Promoter "SofS we propose to upgrade anyline to somewhere, cost is going to be £1bn and it will radically improve services to A, B, C, D and E and boosts the economy by £3bn, opening in 2024" SofS A "great idea get on with it"

2022 SofS B "how thats upgrade doing" Promoter "going great guns we should start in a couple of years time" SofS B "great, still costs £1bn and when you say a couple of years time you still mean finished by 2024?" Promoter "yes -- (mumbles out of earshot) give or take a £1bn and a year or two"

2024 Promoter "SofS, that upgrade we promised one of your predecessors, well its still on track to open in 2027, cost is still £3bn and we have redesigned it so it improves services to A, B, and C " SofS C "WTF - but you said it was on time and budget!" Promoter "well there were a few unexpected issues we came across" SofS C "get out of here and come back with a scheme that costs £1bn" Promoter rushing for door "we have already spent more than that"

2026 Promoter "Good news SofS by descoping the scheme to vegetation clearance between A and B we have reduced costs to £2bn and will complete the works by the end of the year" voices off "SofS your interview on the Today programme about that rail enhancement is on in 10 minutes" sounds of swearing, screaming and a gunshot are heard from SofS D's office
 

AndrewE

Established Member
Joined
9 Nov 2015
Messages
5,072
And it's always funny that Scotland (richer than non-Southern England) has been spending bucketloads of UK-raised money on road and rail improvements for years and doesn't get attacked like London does even for wholly London-funded projects. The problem isn't really London, nor Scotland, but that the best proposals for devolution in provincial England have been "if you centralise these local government functions in this regional body, we in Westminster will allow you this very small power that we currently do and to set up a few lobbying groups that we'll ignore".
I imagine that Scotland avoids criticism because most of the country benefits. Lots of improvements have happened in the Central Belt already (where most of the population is) but improvements are planned elsewhere too - and the "7 Cities" branded "new" HSTs also demonstrate commitment round the country.
 

AndrewE

Established Member
Joined
9 Nov 2015
Messages
5,072
Except for, of course, the large part of the country that is south of Hadrian's Wall!
I meant "most of that / their country benefits... (and wherever I go in Scotland I am likely to benefit.)
 

AndrewE

Established Member
Joined
9 Nov 2015
Messages
5,072
But the same can be said for London.
The Scottish investment seems to be benefitting most of their country, whereas London (or the "inner" ends of the routes terminating there) seems to hoover up the lion's share of English investment.
 

Chester1

Established Member
Joined
25 Aug 2014
Messages
3,972
I think the OP jumps the gun. We only have newspaper reports to support any threat to HS2 phase 2b and they are often wildly inaccurate. The £3bn budget for upgrading Standedge line has not been touched, there is speculation whether electrification between Stalybridge and Huddersfield will be included. I can see why ECTS might be prioritised over electrification on this section. Crossrail 2 has been offered 50% central government financing via loans, not grants, which is a huge difference.
 

Chester1

Established Member
Joined
25 Aug 2014
Messages
3,972
I bet the DfT will end up coughing up £10bn of the total.
They have already coughed up a shedload of cash for crossrail and Thameslink upgrade

Thameslink was a NR funded project. Crossrail 2 would be TfL funded. How much central government expenditure has there been on Crossrail? I mean actual expenditure not loans? Financing gets offered to other cities too. Metrolink extensions are funded on a similar basis for instance. I agree too much is spent on London infrastructure but I don't include central loans within that.
 

si404

Established Member
Joined
28 Dec 2012
Messages
1,267
yeah. crossrail, thameslink and northern line to battersea really help me. I live nearly 200 miles away.
And HSTs linking 7 cities, the closest of which are about 400 miles from me really help me. Ditto the EGIP, etc...

Incidentally, Crossrail, Thameslink and Northern Line to Battersea don't help me either and I live just over 10 miles away from the closest station on one of those routes (in a nearby big town, where, neither being inside London - though typically treated as part of it when it comes to investment - the bus from my mid-sized town to it runs every two hours, or I can change between two hourly buses. And that's my PT options, and it's not cheap. I say this to explain that I'm jealous of London's transport too).

Clearly that Scottish investment (UK money given out by the Scottish Government) doesn't help the whole country - ie the UK. Nor does that London investment (a mix of local taxes and income from fares given out by the GLA and UK money given out by the UK Government). But if Scotland is a 'country', then London is functionally likewise its own 'country' rather than part of some 'country' of 'England' that functionally doesn't exist in the parameters of infrastructure funding (other than within the Barnett formula) - or anything much other than sports!

By 'country', when referring to Scotland, what seems to being meant by AndrewE is 'devolved region', rather than the sovereign state that ceased to exist by the 1707 Act of Union. London is a devolved region too (and effectively a different 'country' in a non-literal way, like Scotland is - here's a Londoner saying it in 2012, here's a provincial saying it earlier this year and there's loads more where that came from. If you want historical precedence then there's the notion, preserved in 1066 and 1215, that the City of London has a different legal status than the rest of England).
The Scottish investment seems to be benefitting most of their country
Except for most of the ~90% of the population of the country south of Hadrians Wall. Just as the London investment benefits most of their country, except for most of ~85% of the population outside the M25.

Unless, by country you mean 'devolved region' (as you seem to be), in which case I totally agree, but the same is true for both devolved regions, so there's no reason why Scotland doing it is alright, but London doing it isn't.
English investment.
What's English investment? It literally doesn't exist - Scottish investment only exists because that devolved region gets a block grant of UK investment that they can spend on what they want. 'English investment' is UK investment without a middle man as there's a terrible lack of devolution outside of NI, Wales, Scotland and London.

Because we're talking UK money, none of these regional stuff benefits the whole country. Scotland and London have both invested to the benefit of their whole region, but there's about 80% of the population of the country that don't live in either region!

I have no problem with these devolved regions existing and investing in infrastructure - I want more of that for the bits of the UK that lack it. I just don't get this double standard where Scotland investing UK money on rail projects is fine, but London investing UK money on rail projects (part funded by fares and local taxes) isn't.
 

kaiser62

Member
Joined
10 Sep 2011
Messages
43
Location
Suffolk
Don't know whether this should go in "Infrastructure" or "Speculation" but here goes:

Having been warned for pointing out in a Crossrail 2 thread that there other conurbations and regions suffering serious congestion and consequently loss of business, yet are seeing their catching-up rail investment cut back, I thought I would re-open the debate on how Londoners have the brass neck to look for ever-improving heavy rail infrastructure, while a simple trunk route like Liverpool to York is not considered worthy of even full electrification?

Don't tell me that it is because London is where business is and taxes are paid because a) it's not true and even if it is to some extent b) there is a chicken-and-egg situation taking business out of the provincial regions.

Where you say "don't tell me that", given you are wrong, I think someone should do just that. Further, when you say "it's not true" I beg to differ, on the basis that a fact based discussion will more likely lead to the correct answer, rather than indulging in supposition and cynicism.

If you would care to check with independent and authoritative sources you can see that the London metropolitan area does generate a very significant amount of money both in absolute terms and as a percentage of GDP. I quote "London produced in 2016 about £408 billion or $524 billion[13], over 22% of UK GDP, while the economy of the London metropolitan area—the largest in Europe—generates about 30 per cent of the UK's GDP (or an estimated $669 billion in 2005)"

Now, if you were a government minister (or for that matter a CEO of a major plc), you could be forgiven for choosing to invest money into things that make the country (or your company) more money. Investment decisions that are made are usually based on making the most money not just some money. Making these decisions doesn't make you evil, a 'fat cat', a 'Southerner' or anything else apart from logical.

I'd like to point out that I happen to believe that that the railways nationally have been under-invested by governments of all political persuasions for decades (including the north) and at long last we are addressing that issue. If we are to have a proper debate on where resources should be directed, sticking to the facts might get us somewhere, whereas bigotry very likely will result in the argument being dismissed as senseless ranting.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,070
Currently, there is zero chance of Crossrail 2 being ahead of HS2 Phase 2b. The latter is in the Parliamentary queue before the former. Similarly, Transpennine Upgrade is in design, and will be well into implementation before Crossrail 2 is through Parliament.

With respect to ‘where the money goes’, it comes down to the same old things:

1) identify the problem
2) identify different alternatives to solve the problem
3) assess the alternatives to identify which gives the best value (bang per buckj
4) that’s it.
 

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
17,882
Location
Reston City Centre
I imagine that Scotland avoids criticism because most of the country benefits. Lots of improvements have happened in the Central Belt already (where most of the population is) but improvements are planned elsewhere too - and the "7 Cities" branded "new" HSTs also demonstrate commitment round the country.

Scotland has decided that the best place for infrastructure investment is in the biggest urban areas - hence hundreds of miles of single track electrification around Edinburgh/ Glasgow plus new lines in the Central Belt since privatisation (Larkhall, Airdrie to Bathgate, Alloa, Tweedbank) - all around the main two cities.

If this thread is about "infrastructure investment" then pretty much all of the Scottish spend goes in the most heavily populated regions - just like England - just like Wales (where most of the infrastructure investment under the new W&B franchise will be on the Valley Lines), just like the north of England spent best part of a hundred million pounds in its biggest city (Ordsall Chord) rather than spreading things around evenly. Nothing unique about London.

The fact that Aberdeen and Inverness will see their modern Turbostars to the Central Belt replaced by 1970s HSTs might be seen as an improvement (certainly to enthusiasts) but that's not an infrastructure improvement, just switching rolling stock (interestingly the GRW HSTs aren't seen as "London cast-offs" in the way that other trains cascaded away from London services are dismissed).

But, as ever in such threads, infrastructure investment is only one type of spending. Most TOCs around London require very little operational subsidy (some are profitable, others only require very little subsidy which may only relate to the rural fringes or the services at anti-social hours). Northern, on the other hand, required a lot of subsidy. So every million pounds of subsidy spent on operational subsidy is a million pounds that could have been spent on infrastructure. All the lightly used lines, the stations with only a handful of passengers, the upkeep of routes that only see a minimal service... that's costing us a lot of money each year, a lot of money that isn't being spent on infrastructure.

Look at the diagram on page eight here: http://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/22982/rail-finance-statistical-release-2015-16.pdf

...or a year later "Northern received the largest subsidy in 2016-17 at £279 million" >> http://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/25757/rail-finance-statistical-release-2016-17.pdf

...or all of this article: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uk...ern-rail-services-cost-commuters-1-billion.html ("Northern rail services cost commuters £1 billion - Passengers on eight of the 11 lines serving southern parts of Britain put £917 million to the Government purse to subsidise train lines").

So, if you want to spend hundreds of millions of pounds on infrastructure in northern England each year then we could try saving that money by doing something about spending hundreds of millions of pounds in subsidy each year, rather than complaining about London.

Or, if you want to have the same infrastructure spend everywhere then does that mean London gets the same subsidy per passenger mile on all services (which would presumably mean some juicy fare cuts)? Can't have it both ways...
 

Railwaysceptic

Established Member
Joined
6 Nov 2017
Messages
1,408
I bet the DfT will end up coughing up £10bn of the total.
They have already coughed up a shedload of cash for crossrail and Thameslink upgrade
You have failed the challenge. I said London would pay a large part. I did not say London would pay for all of it.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,070
I bet the DfT will end up coughing up £10bn of the total.

Probably about right. And London will pay for the rest, up front (ie without extending their borrowing).

Genuine question, because I don’t know, but how much are the transport authorities in the north going to chip in for the projects up there? Or does it all come from central Government?
 

Railwaysceptic

Established Member
Joined
6 Nov 2017
Messages
1,408
Probably about right. And London will pay for the rest, up front (ie without extending their borrowing).

Genuine question, because I don’t know, but how much are the transport authorities in the north going to chip in for the projects up there? Or does it all come from central Government?
A very good question, which will be studiously ignored by those who relish conflict between Londoners and primitive tribalists in northern England.
 

LeeLivery

Established Member
Joined
13 Jul 2014
Messages
1,462
Location
London
Don't know whether this should go in "Infrastructure" or "Speculation" but here goes:

Having been warned for pointing out in a Crossrail 2 thread that there other conurbations and regions suffering serious congestion and consequently loss of business, yet are seeing their catching-up rail investment cut back, I thought I would re-open the debate on how Londoners have the brass neck to look for ever-improving heavy rail infrastructure, while a simple trunk route like Liverpool to York is not considered worthy of even full electrification?

Don't tell me that it is because London is where business is and taxes are paid because a) it's not true and even if it is to some extent b) there is a chicken-and-egg situation taking business out of the provincial regions.

Of course, we as Londoners are going to ask for more, our concern is our city, not the North East, et al. Successive governments have failed to develop regional economies in England & Wales since 70s. That's not us in London taking your business away.

Londoners don't look at infra improvements as instead of something up north. It's not Londoners not thinking the TransPennine shouldn't be electrified, it's the government. Many may think Westminster represents London, but it really feels like a different world. You ask someone in London whether Birmingham, Manchester or Newcastle should have a Metro/extension we aren't going to say no. I can think of at least 20 big projects in the English regions I'd build tomorrow if I could.

In London, there's also a capacity problem; the population is growing and London is 20% of the economy. Standing at the London end of the platform at Clapham Junction in the peaks, I'm always impressed at the sheer number of trains managed. But that shows a problem. Our transport, like the north, is bursting at the seems. However, you put a 12 car train on in the north, you'll get no standing passengers, on Thameslink/South West/Southern you still aren't guaranteed a seat. Often that's why it's more pressing, projects will pay for themselves quickly and attract more private investment than they will in Yorkshire. Is it fair? No. But it's until recently, it was the midlands and north refusing to have devolution, who's very job it is to fight for their region. It doesn't take a genius to work out a totally centralised government 300 miles away and a local authority that has hardly any power isn't going to be the best for local interests.

At the end of the day, Londoners are bored of the increasing anti-London sentiment. First, it was you must blame the EU for Westminster's failures, now it's the in thing to blame London. The blame should point firmly at politicians and voting habits, not Londoners who'd rather have cheaper pints than worry about northern rail.

Edit: For HS2, London - Manchester should be the top priority. I say build it all at once.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top