"The North Of England Is Getting A Rough Deal" discussion

[HSTEd]

London pays because it concentrates the country's political, economic and financial power there. If we had more of a federal set up, it eventually wouldn't have so much of a burden.

A federal setup is impractical in a country this size.

You would end up with 'race to the bottom' business tax regimes - this is not the US where states can be hundreds of miles across.
Shopping centres would be over state lines.

I once attempted to divide England up into approximately 'Wales-population' units, but most of them ended up too small - you could drive across most of them in an hour or two and london ended up twice the size of any of the others (the nearest competitors were historical Yorkshire and Lancashire).
The UK is too small for anything but a centralised, unitary state and I think its time people accepted this and moved on.

 

[pemma]

council tax is roughly related to property values etc.

Very roughly, which is why people like Martin Lewis say some people need to challenge the council tax band their property is in. Also it can vary between areas, council tax in West Yorkshire is much cheaper than council tax in Cheshire even when you make for like for like comparisons.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

As a proportion of income, you will find that people living in less economically vibrant areas (read anywhere outside of SE England) pay more in taxes.

Always a different perspective

Before the last election the Conservatives were arguing that it's unfair to have a 50p tax rate.

On the hand the Lib Dems were arguing it's unfair that many low earners and people with only part time jobs are paying Income Tax at all.

The people arguing in favour of the high level of investment in London & the South East compared to other areas are making a similar argument to the Conservative one, while the people arguing for more investment in the North are making an argument similar to the Lib Dem one.

 

[yorksrob]

A federal setup is impractical in a country this size.

You would end up with 'race to the bottom' business tax regimes - this is not the US where states can be hundreds of miles across.
Shopping centres would be over state lines.

I once attempted to divide England up into approximately 'Wales-population' units, but most of them ended up too small - you could drive across most of them in an hour or two and london ended up twice the size of any of the others (the nearest competitors were historical Yorkshire and Lancashire).
The UK is too small for anything but a centralised, unitary state and I think its time people accepted this and moved on.

First of all, the UK isn't a unitary state anyway and isn't going to be again any time soon, so that door's closed. Secondly, West Germany wasn't vastly greater in terms of population or geography, yet thrived for many years with a federal system of Government. In fact, many developed states have federal institutions. The problem here is that we're wedded to the historical idea of County England, although sadly the old shire fall betweed two stalls as being too big for local government, but way too small for effective regional government.

 

[HSTEd]

First of all, the UK isn't a unitary state anyway and isn't going to be again any time soon, so that door's closed.

It is a unitary state to a greater degree than almost any other advanced economy apart from France.
And if Scotland really does vote for independence the state turns into what amounts to a unitary state with a handful of attached dependencies.
Even now the non unitary components are a rounding error on the side of Unitary England.

Secondly, West Germany wasn't vastly greater in terms of population or geography, yet thrived for many years with a federal system of Government.

Germany has always been (Con)federal since the creation of feudalism - it has however been drifting steadily towards unitary government over a period of years. It only escaped this for so long by being cut off from its historical and cultural capital (Berlin) - but even now the power of the state governments are being steadily eroded by an interventionist Berlin Government.
It is just a matter of time.

In fact, many developed states have federal institutions.

Yes, they pretend to be federal, but the power of the regional governments is steadily being eroded - just look at the US where the Federal Government uses funding blackmail to usurp the power of the states (especially with regards to things like drinking ages), and has packed the Federal Judiciary so it can misuse the Interstate Commence Clause to give it the power to do almost anything it wants.
Even strongly Confederate Switzerland is now a largely unitary state where the central government has gutted the cantons.

The problem here is that we're wedded to the historical idea of County England, although sadly the old shire fall between two stalls as being too big for local government, but way too small for effective regional government.

And there is no historical regions of sufficient size over large parts of the country. People won't accept "Regional Government #13" in place of their traditional county and district councils. You could probably manage historical Yorkshire and Lancashire but that only accounts for ten million people in total.
Myself I think we should just go entirely to district size unitary authorities and eliminate separate county tiers entirely.

 

[yorksrob]

r.e. HSTed

Point 1

I'd say Scotland and N Ireland have as much self goverment as states in most federal countries and even if they don't, the level of autonomy that they do have would still do very nicely for England, thankyou very much.

Points 2 and 4

So you concede that the difference between West Germany isn't one of practicality, rather one of history. I believe that the future is for us and our descendents to decide. Afterall, who, forty years ago would have thought that the Celtic home nations would have as much autonomy as they have now.


Point 3

There will be tensions between levels of Government in any federal set up. The states in the US and the lander in Germany still have a lot more autonomy than us.

Our regions might need some tinkering, but I've no doubt that Yorkshire could step up to the mark.

 

[HSTEd]

I'd say Scotland and N Ireland have as much self goverment as states in most federal countries and even if they don't, the level of autonomy that they do have would still do very nicely for England, thankyou very much.

Autonomy for whoom from whoom?
The UK Government is so dominated by English Representatives that it is essentially an English government.
The Northern Irish Representatives are roughly evenly split between the major parties and don't normally do anything that could bring down a government.
Meanwhile, despite Tory rantings, there has not been a recent election result that would have been changed significantly by Scotland being independent - you would have the same government we have now.
And Wales is so small that it has little impact on anything.

So you concede that the difference between West Germany isn't one of practicality, rather one of history. I believe that the future is for us and our descendents to decide. Afterall, who, forty years ago would have thought that the Celtic home nations would have as much autonomy as they have now.

No, a traditional German federal system is now impractical in Germany - it is just slowly realigning towards to the unitary model. Just because it is less far down this path than us (due to institutional and cultural inertia) does not mean that we can go back to that model reasonably.
And considering Northern Ireland has been self governing virtually since 1922 apart from the Troubles causing problems, and the Scottish had just voted on a devolution referendum in the 70s that was rejected by a tiny majority - I imagine people would not have been too surprised by the level of devolution that has occurred in recent years.

There will be tensions between levels of Government in any federal set up. The states in the US and the lander in Germany still have a lot more autonomy than us.

This is a result of historical inertia and is slowly being crushed - the US states have an advantage that it is not normally possible for the entire population of a state to commute across state lines - they are far larger and thus the damaging 'edge effects' of changes in taxation become less significant.
The rise of online shopping is likely to increase this effect as distribution centres for deliveries can be located near motorways in the most tax efficient locations.

Our regions might need some tinkering, but I've no doubt that Yorkshire could step up to the mark.

Assuming people will even go in for Yorkshire, which everyone not in Leeds is likely to see as Leeds boosters attempting to make off with all the development money they could keep themselves.
Would York or even Sheffield submit to what amounts to permanent rule from Leeds (due to census voting)?
Or Liverpool submit to permanent and eternal rule from Greater Manchester?

 

[HH]

Personally I'd like to see more devolution on a regional scale, and surely public transport is going that way. I don't see how this means more money for the North though. They certainly could, like Scotland, choose to spend more of their taxes on rail, but that is not guaranteed. They might spend less...

 

[yorksrob]

Point 1

These points would indeed have great relevance if we did have a unitary state, as the overbearing dominance of England was what drove the Celts to press for greater autonomy, however, quoting the relative voting strengths of the home nations in Westminster does not in any way alter the reality that those countries control far more of their affairs than they would do under a unitary state. Neither does it alter the fact that none of those states would democratically choose to be in a unitary state with England again because they are doing fine as they are.

Point 2 and 3.

Perhaps the US and Germany will become a centralised unitary state like England. I'll believe it when I see it.

Point 4

Leeds is very large and has a tendency to be overpowering. This is why a federal system including an assembly would give a more even voice across Yorkshire, as opposed to at present where the biggest kid on the block makes the most noise.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Personally I'd like to see more devolution on a regional scale, and surely public transport is going that way. I don't see how this means more money for the North though. They certainly could, like Scotland, choose to spend more of their taxes on rail, but that is not guaranteed. They might spend less...

Fair point and one to be wary of. I can only counter that by saying that where the Regions have been given more responsibility for transport in the past, as with the PTE's, they have tended to take it more seriously than Central Government.

 

[Haydn1971]

Personally, I'd prefer to see a centralised national model that fairly apportioned improvements, maintenance, rolling stock, ticketing and staff across the whole transport spectrum, competition occurs once every decade on bids, that's a failure, tying areas into decade long franchises prevents innovation from service providers and the current system is too easy to manipulate to a party agenda.

The One North is a great idea but it falls flat on it's face in that it's pushing for localised spending using an argument that it is being put at a disadvantage by localised spending in the SE - whilst I'd potentially benefit from £15Bn of investment if I stay where I am now, why should "The M62 Corridor" benefit over say South Wales, The Midlands, The West Country, The Borders, or whatever area shouts that it's being disadvantaged.

 

[HSTEd]

Personally I'd like to see more devolution on a regional scale, and surely public transport is going that way. I don't see how this means more money for the North though. They certainly could, like Scotland, choose to spend more of their taxes on rail, but that is not guaranteed. They might spend less...

Then why are the public transport powers of Northern PTEs being usurped by a more centralised agency?
And tax differentials are impractical when its entirely feasible for most of the population of the north to go shopping outside it.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Leeds is very large and has a tendency to be overpowering. This is why a federal system including an assembly would give a more even voice across Yorkshire, as opposed to at present where the biggest kid on the block makes the most noise.

Except by any reasonable proportional or constituency based voting scheme the Leeds Metro area representatives would be almost able to outvote everyone else combined.
They would be able to concentrate almost all resources on their own schemes. Especially once you consider the fact that the opposition to this would be split amongst numerous factions - all of which have almost nothing in common.

And what powers would you give these assemblies? Welsh level powers just turn them into expensive super-councils and Scottish level powers would cause all sorts of economic and transport problems with integration issues.

 

[yorksrob]

Then why are the public transport powers of Northern PTEs being usurped by a more centralised agency?
And tax differentials are impractical when its entirely feasible for most of the population of the north to go shopping outside it.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Except by any reasonable proportional or constituency based voting scheme the Leeds Metro area representatives would be almost able to outvote everyone else combined.
They would be able to concentrate almost all resources on their own schemes. Especially once you consider the fact that the opposition to this would be split amongst numerous factions - all of which have almost nothing in common.

And what powers would you give these assemblies? Welsh level powers just turn them into expensive super-councils and Scottish level powers would cause all sorts of economic and transport problems with integration issues.

Thats not the case. Yorkshire has a large number of big metropolitan areas that together make up a greater population than Leeds. In an assembly, theres no guarantee that all of Leeds would vote the same way. Some parts might make common cause with Harrogate and others with Bradford, however in the end, they would hammer out a common position in relation to London.

Why not powers such as the Welsh Assembly ? What are these “integration issues“ on the railway, that are over and above the integration issues that we have on the railway in England as a result of fragmentation already?

 

[HSTEd]

Thats not the case. Yorkshire has a large number of big metropolitan areas that together make up a greater population than Leeds. In an assembly, theres no guarantee that all of Leeds would vote the same way. Some parts might make common cause with Harrogate and others with Bradford, however in the end, they would hammer out a common position in relation to London.

Relation to London is not the problem - the problem is that the only urban area likely to be able to even attempt to challenge Leeds for dominance of the assembly would be Sheffield.
Sheffield and Leeds metros (and almost all of their respective metros will vote for things on their doorstep in preference to something in York or the wilds of the Yorkshire coasts) would likely make a deal to split infrastructure funding between Leeds Trolleybus/Tram and the Sheffield Supertram.
This is just like the current arrangement with my own county - where Lincoln makes off with all the money and we get nothing.

Why not powers such as the Welsh Assembly ? What are these “integration issues“ on the railway, that are over and above the integration issues that we have on the railway in England as a result of fragmentation already?

The integration issues in terms of lack of coordination on transport upgrades and the like - at least with our current system we can be sure we won't end up with Betuweroute-esque style debacles where a line is built on one side but doesn't actually connect to anything.
The railway is only a small fraction of the issues - you will have to accept motorway upgrades that stop mysteriously at the borders of the region, all sorts of horrid things like that.

People are always glib about regionalism until they realise what it means - a postcode lottery of the type that people always rail against.

 

[HH]

Then why are the public transport powers of Northern PTEs being usurped by a more centralised agency?
And tax differentials are impractical when its entirely feasible for most of the population of the north to go shopping outside it.

On your first point it's no good asking me, it certainly wasn't my decision! However I think that the idea is that together they will have a stronger voice.

As for the tax, I wasn't suggesting differentials; I was suggesting that there is more devolved power over how some of that money is spent, like it is in Scotland. Oddly though there doesn't seem to be a great appetite for it in Wales.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Only a lunatic would design a rolling stock "market" like the one we've got now. The whole point of the system is that whatever the size of the train or the route it is being used on it is still being paid for all of the time, so there should automatically be funding to replace it once its 30 - 40 years is up. The fact that we are having these laughable discussions about whether there is a "business case" to replace life expired rolling stock in the North, merely proves that the ROSCO system isn't working.

In BR days, before privatisation reached the agenda, rolling stock replacement was just as fraught.
Networkers replaced 45-year-old Southern EMUs of ancient design.
The DfT/Treasury imposed rules like 2-for-3 on replacement orders (based on higher productivity of new stock).
Specifications/vehicle numbers were cut to meet the budget available.
BR procurement was equally as opaque as today, leading to two totally different builds of Networker from Adtranz and MetCamm.
The Pacers were ordered in an attempt to obtain low-cost Regional DMUs.
Class 155s wouldn't operate as 2-car sets so were split to form 153s - BR improvisation at its best.
Electrification was generally on the basis of using cascaded stock.
Inter-city services generally got the new stock, based on a better business case.
What's changed?

 

[AM9]

In BR days, before privatisation reached the agenda, rolling stock replacement was just as fraught.
Networkers replaced 45-year-old Southern EMUs of ancient design.
The DfT/Treasury imposed rules like 2-for-3 on replacement orders (based on higher productivity of new stock).
Specifications/vehicle numbers were cut to meet the budget available.
BR procurement was equally as opaque as today, leading to two totally different builds of Networker from Adtranz and MetCamm.
The Pacers were ordered in an attempt to obtain low-cost Regional DMUs.
Class 155s wouldn't operate as 2-car sets so were split to form 153s - BR improvisation at its best.
Electrification was generally on the basis of using cascaded stock.
Inter-city services generally got the new stock, based on a better business case.
What's changed?

Nothing really, although you wouldn't think so by the number of complaints here.

 

[yorksrob]

In BR days, before privatisation reached the agenda, rolling stock replacement was just as fraught.
Networkers replaced 45-year-old Southern EMUs of ancient design.
The DfT/Treasury imposed rules like 2-for-3 on replacement orders (based on higher productivity of new stock).
Specifications/vehicle numbers were cut to meet the budget available.
BR procurement was equally as opaque as today, leading to two totally different builds of Networker from Adtranz and MetCamm.
The Pacers were ordered in an attempt to obtain low-cost Regional DMUs.
Class 155s wouldn't operate as 2-car sets so were split to form 153s - BR improvisation at its best.
Electrification was generally on the basis of using cascaded stock.
Inter-city services generally got the new stock, based on a better business case.
What's changed?

I didn't specifically mention BR, however, I do think that it would be better to have a system of workshops linked to the UK railway system churning out rollinc stock as a way of doing things. I appreciate that the EPB's were long in the tooth by the end (although a darn sight more comfortable than any modern suburban train, but thats a different argument) but I don't think the post privatisation rolling stock system passes muster.

Yes, the EPB's were old, but on the eve of privatisation, the west a.nd central suburban routes of the Southern had new stock, most of the NSE routes out of Kings Cfoss, Euston and Liverpool Street had new units, most of the VEPs and CiGs frankly werent life expired, the diesel routes out of Paddington and Marylebone had had Turbos. The Inter xity routes had mainky 125's, 225's and mk 3's that weren't that old and the regional routes had had a comprehensive influx of 14x and 15x s.

Sorry, but at any time in history we can point to old rolling stock, but during the 1980's and 1990's there was clearly a decent plan to turn over stock and the manufacturing base to deliver it.

I simply don't believe that this is the case in this day and age, where pacer repmlacement is unlikely and we have to rely on foreign powers to provide our trains.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I could add electrification. At least BR managed electrification. What was it the privatised railway managed in its first 20 years ? A few miles of diversionary route on the WCML if I recall.

 

[HH]

Electrification is provided by NR, which is state-owned...

 

[yorksrob]

Electrification is provided by NR, which is state-owned...

State owned or not, neither NR nor railtrack have been anywhere as successful as the unified BR model at electrification. This may improve with further wet-nursing from central Government.

 

[Starmill]

I could add electrification. At least BR managed electrification. What was it the privatised railway managed in its first 20 years ? A few miles of diversionary route on the WCML if I recall.

Crewe to Kidsgrove. Absolutely pathetic. I think that was all that they got done between privatisation and Paisely Canal.

 

[yorksrob]

Crewe to Kidsgrove. Absolutely pathetic. I think that was all that they got done between privatisation and Paisely Canal.

Yes, that's the one.

 

[Bald Rick]

The first main line electrification post privatisation (1996) was the Willesden City Goods lines in 1999. Admittedly not very long at all.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Crewe to Kidsgrove. Absolutely pathetic. I think that was all that they got done between privatisation and Paisely Canal.

In Scotland they reopened Larkhall and Airdrie-Bathgate with 25kV AC after the Scottish Ministers were put in charge of ScotRail and Network Rail in Scotland.

 

[pemma]

The Pacers were ordered in an attempt to obtain low-cost Regional DMUs.

While the Pacers were ordered for services which came under the 'Regional Railways' branding they were intended for the short services with Sprinters being used on the longer services. So you'd expect the likes of Liverpool-Wigan to be Pacer operation and Southport-Manchester to be Sprinter operation, originally that was the case but these days the reverse quite often applies.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Crewe to Kidsgrove. Absolutely pathetic. I think that was all that they got done between privatisation and Paisely Canal.

The "industry" didn't want electrification before about 2006.
Railtrack/Network Rail said it only added complexity and was another interface to fail.
The SRA said people didn't care if their trains were electric or diesel (and couldn't tell the difference if the interiors were the same).
TOCs with short franchises knew that any electrification scheme would not deliver before their time was up, and would cause disruption while it was done.
So they ordered new diesels which pushed back the date of wiring decisions (the last significant one of these was the Birmingham Snow Hill lines and 172s).
DfT said just wait till next year when hydrogen cell engines would make expensive electrification redundant.

Kidsgrove-Crewe wiring was not a commercial scheme, it was a by-product of the WCRM project to give a diversionary electric route south of Crewe during the time Crewe-Stafford was closed for upgrading.

The North London line upgrade (DC to AC conversion and connection to the West London line) was also completed after privatisation (1996).
It was a BR scheme largely driven by the abortive Eurostar NoL project.
It also allowed electric Clapham Jn-Willesden Jn HL-Stratford trains to run.

 

[HH]

State owned or not, neither NR nor railtrack have been anywhere as successful as the unified BR model at electrification. This may improve with further wet-nursing from central Government.

The point is that it is and was a largely government decision. Now electrification is all the rage again. Plus they're looking at battery trains. No-one likes diesels any more, including the ROSCOs.

I'd also like to point out that the BR model is never going to exist again, government is much more intrusive on everything these days, so harking back to it is a waste of time.

 

[yorksrob]

The point is that it is and was a largely government decision. Now electrification is all the rage again. Plus they're looking at battery trains. No-one likes diesels any more, including the ROSCOs.

I'd also like to point out that the BR model is never going to exist again, government is much more intrusive on everything these days, so harking back to it is a waste of time.

Well, of course if the industry had no overall strategic sense of direction, it has to be a Government decision because there's no one else to take it.

However, rather than getting into a discussion about the privatised railway's record (or lack of one) on electrification, my main point is that Northern Rail services pay handsomely for rolling stock leasing costs, yet when when we need new stock to cope with growth, the cupboard is bare. The system isn't working for the North.

 

[HH]

Well, of course if the industry had no overall strategic sense of direction, it has to be a Government decision because there's no one else to take it.

However, rather than getting into a discussion about the privatised railway's record (or lack of one) on electrification, my main point is that Northern Rail services pay handsomely for rolling stock leasing costs, yet when when we need new stock to cope with growth, the cupboard is bare. The system isn't working for the North.

If you're talking about the rolling stock leasing system, then it isn't working very well for anyone, except the ROSCOs. That was also a government decision.

Nevertheless, Northern pays a low amount for its rolling stock compared to other franchises (and so it should do).

The way the franchise system works, if Northern is to get better rolling stock then it either has to be specified in the ITT (by the government) or make a solid business case. With DfT seeming to want to move away from giving section 54 assurance, that's going to be a difficult job.

I'm sure you could make a business case for new rolling stock on a few services; the trouble is that the more different types of rolling stock that you have, the more your costs go up, because they're less efficient to maintain. That makes it even harder to make a positive business case, because your 'fixed' costs go up as well (fixed is relative), unless you replace an entire fleet (or more than one).

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

No-one likes diesels any more, including the ROSCOs.

There is the current matter that concerns private motor vehicles with diesel engines which appears to have raised its head over the matter of emissions. Do any rail-based diesel rolling stock fall into the same category of concern?

 

[AM9]

There is the current matter that concerns private motor vehicles with diesel engines which appears to have raised its head over the matter of emissions. Do any rail-based diesel rolling stock fall into the same category of concern?

Whilst most public transport is designed so that its emmissions per passenger fall within acceptable limits, it's inevitable that with so much in the news about private car originated PM10 health risks that motorists will try to include anybody else in the blame game. In London, there have already been complaints about buses and other commercial vehicles with their perceived contribution to the local level of pollution.
There is a specific health issue with diesel rail services at stations that are not completely in the open as large volumes of fumes tend to hang between platforms. Similarly, at terminal and interchange stations where trains often wait for connecting services or for timetable recovery, the levels of omissions from a number of idling engines of several hundred HP can be considerable. As an interim, we may see severe restrictions on the amount of time that stock is allowed to spend in such places as New Street or Temple Mills.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

There is a specific health issue with diesel rail services at stations that are not completely in the open as large volumes of fumes tend to hang between platforms. Similarly, at terminal and interchange stations where trains often wait for connecting services or for timetable recovery, the levels of omissions from a number of idling engines of several hundred HP can be considerable. As an interim, we may see severe restrictions on the amount of time that stock is allowed to spend in such places as New Street or Temple Mills.

Would York, with its enclosed curved platforms that fall inside the train shed (ignoring platforms 9, 10 and 11) be a similar example to the two stations that you quote above.