I think most of the objections to cascaded rolling stock relate to originally being promised something much newer e.g. the 319s and 322s arriving when previously new rolling stock (both DMUs and EMU) were included in the CP4 for delivery by December 2012 and the North finishes up with rolling stock that the South and Scotland no longer requires instead of new stock.
How many complaints were there when Northern got old 158s (and mainly used them to replace 156s in Yorkshire) or when TPE got 170s from SWT? The only complaints I've heard about 170s are a lack of carriages and the door layout, when the same thing applies to the newer 185s
There's "promises" and then there are "promises".
However I think that it's worth comparing the reaction in "the north" to getting cascaded stock from elsewhere.
I don't remember many complaints about getting nine modern 170s from SWT (but then SWT were getting some 1980s DMUs to replace them, so there wasn't the idea that "the north" was getting "southern cast-offs, since "the north" was getting the younger stock).
I don't remember many complaints about getting three modern 180s from FGW (but then FGW were getting some 1970s HSTs to replace them, so there wasn't the idea that "the north" was getting "southern cast-offs, since "the north" was getting the younger stock).
However, when "the north" is getting cascaded stock due to "the south" getting brand new trains, the chip-on-the-shoulder attitude seems to come to the fore.
TBH, I don't worry about a train's history when I consider whether it's suitable for the journey today or not. I doubt that many people on a 185 from Sheffield to Nottingham in a couple of years time will be worrying that they are "Transpennine cast-offs ("why should Chesterfield get Huddersfield's rejects" etc) - but the fact that some trains are moving from the M25-zone to the M62-zone seems to agitate a few people!
We've heard so many times here the word 'promised' in relation to services/stock in the future. The north is not unique in this , i.e. When I moved back to the Home Counties over 20 years ago, we were 'promised' the Thameslink 2000 upgrade. There was no mention of the GN link but the promise just didn't happen for nearly 15 years. Similarly, Crossrail was being 'promised' since the nineties but look how long that has taken.
I'm sure that this is just an aspect of the process relating to major public investment, being massaged for the benefit of politicians, particularly when approaching general elections. Investment budgets are touted each year, including those projects previously authorised and sometimes actually underway. There is no evidence that the North suffers any more than elsewhere, contrary to some of the selective chronicles quoted here.
Agreed - the more time that has passed, the "200 carriages" announcement becomes stretched and stretched so that I've seen people claim that it was "200 trains", I've seen people claim that they were all new carriages, I've seen people claim that it was a net increase of 200 carriages, I've seen people attribute the figure to "the north" (rather than shared elsewhere in England too)... it was a suggestion many years ago (rather than a manifesto commitment or a cast iron guarantee.
To put it into a nutshell:-
Large chunks of Northern Rail area are being electrified, so the logical thing would be to order new EMUs for them No London and the South East get the new EMUs and Northern receive their cast offs.
As I said. Put it in a nutshell, short and to the point. I notice you are from the South East. Matter closed so far as I'm concerned and no more arguments, please.
Large chunks of Northern Rail area are being electrified, based on the savings made by taking on cascaded EMUs (that are not suitable for the automatic-operation through the Thameslink core that the 700s can achieve).
Matter closed?
London has had the existing underground system to supplement its general railway facilities for a very long period of time.
An interesting point.
London's infrastructure (both in terms of rail and road) has changed relatively little over the last few generations. There have been some big schemes (Jubilee Line extension) and some local hot spots (DLR, Tramlink), but I reckon that a tourist who last visited London in the "swinging sixties" could navigate their way around the modern capital reasonably well with their 1960s A-Z and their 1960s Tube Map.
The same period has seen some huge changes in the same decades - I don't fancy driving round central Manchester/ Leeds etc with a 1960s road map (given the inner-city motorways and dual carriageways that have cut chunks through the landscape) - there was obviously no 1960s Metrolink map because such a system of long distance trams did not exist back then.
So whilst London has the "existing underground system" to rely upon, it's had that system for a long time and tries to deal with huge passenger numbers without the kind of supply-increases that it has needed. Thankfully Crossrail will be a big help to demand on the Central Line and the northern side of the "Circle".
But are South Eastern commuters really paying "premium" fares, or are they just paying for the very large infrastructure improvements taking place down there (such as Crossrail and Thameslink)
I think that, in focussing on fares between two "northern" places and fares between two "southern" places, we are missing the point that southern passengers tend to be paying most of the cost of their journeys, whilst those in "the north" pay slightly under half the cost of their journeys (with the rest made up in local/central subsidies).
Since the staffing costs on a two coach Pacer aren't going to be much less than the staffing costs on a DOO twelve coach EMU (and diesel fuel for the Pacer is going to cost more per passenger than the electricity), one is clearly a lot less efficient.
If it makes you feel better, during one of the programmes on the Parliament channel's Beeching night, there was an interview with a Heath era transport minister who mooted the point as to why his constituents in Richmond North Yorkshire (thich had just lost its train service in 71 I think ?) should be subsidising wealthy commuters on the then, heavily subsidised south eastern network. I guess what comes around goes around.
I don't know about boundary changes over the years, but William Hague's Richmond constituency does include Northallerton train station
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richmond_(Yorks)_(UK_Parliament_constituency)
Have any excuses come up yet for North Thameside getting 17 brand new trains? Surely the 319's have years of life left in them and would be just the job
There's a big difference between a newly electrified line with a poor business case (where passengers pay under half the true cost of their journeys) getting cascaded EMUs to a fairly profitable line (where the TOC are paying a premium to operate the service) getting cascaded EMUs.
Which of the two examples do you think has the better case for getting brand new EMUs?
Your attitude sums up perfectly my reasons for not contributing to this thread. Most people don't want reasoned arguments, just the opportunity to reinforce their biased thinking, north or south.
Sadly I think that the evidence on this thread is proving you right
I'm not sure what this ever-increasing list of fares for specific journeys from both sides of the Watford Gap is supposed to prove. Everyone on this Forum knows full well that the fares system is so labyrinthine and convoluted that quoting individual fares and season ticket prices is fairly meaningless. It's not difficult to find two sets of fares of similar distance that 'proves' that train travel is cheaper in the North, or South - or in the East, West, Scotland, Wales or Timbuktu. It would require a good deal of time on NRE and a spreadsheet before producing any figures that are statistically meaningful
Agreed
A quick flick through some of the comments on this thread is kind of depressing. The conversations tend towards re-enforcing some of the prejudices that employers have against employing people from some of the provinces. No wonder that many jobs go overseas because of the better work attitudes.
I don't see any evidence to support the OP's assertion, but there is a lot of ill-informed opinion.
To be pedantic, when I started this thread, I was trying to sit on the fence, rather than take one side or the other