Transport for the North - NPR funding stopped

[NoRoute]

In terms of Northern Powerhouse Rail / HS3, it was a mistake in the first place to give this to a regional body. Indeed there is disquiet in the government that nationally important strategic transport is outside their control in the devolved governments of Wales, Scotland and NI as is, so the idea of handing over something of this importance to the country to be controlled by Metro Mayors is unsurprisingly something they'd want to re-consider.

But then doesn't TfL have control over nationally important transport infrastructure projects in London?

And when we are focussing on transport projects in the North and Midlands, or in Scotland, Wales, NI, the regional bodies are closer to the area and know it better, with more concern for its long term success than decision makers quite removed from the issues, located down in London.

 

[HSTEd]

And when we are focussing on transport projects in the North and Midlands, or in Scotland, Wales, NI, the regional bodies are closer to the area and know it better, with more concern for its long term success than decision makers quite removed from the issues, located down in London.

The decision makers in the rich bits of Manchester or Leeds or wherever are little less removed from the actual transprot issues than the ones in London!

At least the ones in London won't gut schemes because the benefits accrue to the wrong side of an entirely arbitrary and invisible line on a map.

England is too small for "regional" control of long distance transport infrastructure, the trains or cars or whatever simply move too fast.

 

[NoRoute]

The decision makers in the rich bits of Manchester or Leeds or wherever are little less removed from the actual transprot issues than the ones in London!

Clearly they are much closer to the action, they live in the region, they travel through it, have relatives living there. It's self evident, that people living in an area, seeing it every day have a better understanding than someone who is hundreds of miles away, with any understanding limited to an abstraction, high level data and reports.

At least the ones in London won't gut schemes because the benefits accrue to the wrong side of an entirely arbitrary and invisible line on a map.

But they do, we're having this debate because of the persistent bias against investment into UK regions and the prioritisation of the area immediately surrounding the present decision makers. I don't see anyone suggesting that decision making over London's transport should be moved to Manchester to remove any bias, I doubt anyone believes people in the North have more competency to know what is best for Londoners. It seems strange to suggest that anyone in London should best appreciate what is needed in a region.

England is too small for "regional" control of long distance transport infrastructure, the trains or cars or whatever simply move too fast.

We're talking about regional transport, links between regional cities in the North and Midlands, where the knowledge sits within the region. Unfortunately though the money sits in London.

 

[HSTEd]

Clearly they are much closer to the action, they live in the region, they travel through it, have relatives living there. It's self evident, that people living in an area, seeing it every day have a better understanding than someone who is hundreds of miles away, with any understanding limited to an abstraction, high level data and reports.

No, they live, travel and have relatives living in tiny portions of it.

They have effectively no interaction with the bulk of the region, because this region is not a coherent structure with homogenous lived experiences.

But they do, we're having this debate because of the persistent bias against investment into UK regions and the prioritisation of the area immediately surrounding the present decision makers.

All the leaders at TfN, which is and will always be defacto under the control of a handful of metro mayors, desire is to replace one set of distant overlords with themselves.

TfN projects that did not divert essentially all benefits to the residents of the metro mayor areas were killed to ensure that they could not compete for the resources available.

Even now we have Burnham ranting in the press because he is not being given billions for his enormous statement station complex that is of questionable actual operational value.
Or billions to avoid having some of his prime devleopment land have to be near a railway - after all that is an experience that only worthless peasants should suffer!

 

[snowball]

Indeed there is disquiet in the government that nationally important strategic transport is outside their control in the devolved governments of Wales, Scotland and NI as is,

Attempts by Boris Johnson to reclaim devolved power over transport for the UK government may yet help to hasten the fragmentation of the union.

 

[domcoop7]

Attempts by Boris Johnson to reclaim devolved power over transport for the UK government may yet help to hasten the fragmentation of the union.

Why? If you're pro Indy, the UK government wanting to ensure the transport network works coherently isn't going to bother you.

Ditto if you're pro Union. And for those floating or unsure, the vast, vast, vast majority of people neither know nor care who funds or plans roads, ports, or railways. *If* they do care, it's likely to be about what tickets are available on what train, or which bus goes where, or what potholes have been fixed. None of which the UK government will be interested in. (well the tickets on trains thing maybe, through GBR, but the franchises in Scotland and Wales will still be under devolved government control and that's what most people see).

 

[snowball]

Why? If you're pro Indy, the UK government wanting to ensure the transport network works coherently isn't going to bother you.

The Scottish Government loathes the Union Connectivity Review as conducted, and I imagine the Welsh government does too.

For example, Johnson has indicated his intention of forcing the construction of the M4 Newport southern bypass, which the Welsh government has rejected. Such actions, if they go ahead, could lead to a constitutional crisis. Plaid Cymru, the SNP and others in favour of devolution would rightly portray it as an attempt to undermine devolution and impose colonial rule.

If you doubt the strength of feelings, see for example this letter, which I posted at the time in another thread. It's from the Scottish transport minister to the UK transport minister prompted by the interim report of the Union Connectivity Review. It didn't attract much attention on here because the thread got moved to "Other transport".

Link to text of letter:

https://www.transport.gov.scot/media/49505/letter-to-grant-shapps-mp.pdf

Quote from letter as required by forum rules:

24 March 2021

Dear Grant,

UNION CONNECTIVITY REVIEW – INTERIM REPORT

Further to our call on 8 March, when we discussed the publication of the UK Government
Union Connectivity Review Interim Report, I am writing to you to set out why the Scottish
Government disagrees with the premise of the Review; the way in which it was established;
the lack of consideration given to the role of the devolved administrations in relation to
transport investment; and the ways in which the UK Government could use its role to
improve transport connectivity to Scotland, without encroaching on devolved powers.

PRINCIPLE OF THE REVIEW

The UK Government established the UCR without meaningful discussion, set the scope and
dictated the terms of reference. You have not sought to work with the devolved
administrations and we expressed this to you in our joint letter dated 16 September 2020.
Despite your reply in October, we have little confidence in your willingness to work with us in
a collaborative way. If it was the UK Government’s intention to genuinely address a missing
piece of transport connectivity, the Review would have considered in detail the transport
investment planning the Scottish Government has done to date and continues to undertake,
and would have focussed on those areas where the UK Government have powers rather
than encroaching into areas of devolved responsibility.

There is no evidence in the UCR interim report to support the UK Government’s assertion
that the purpose of the Review is to fill a gap in transport investment which exists due to
each of the devolved nations having an inward facing focus. . The reality is, the Scottish
Government does consider outward connectivity within our own investment decision making,
to either invest within our own responsibility or further the case for investment in areas which
are not devolved to Scotland, based on evidence.

I re-iterate my comments that this Review, along with powers the UK Government has given
itself through the Internal Market Act and initiatives such as the Levelling Up Fund, are
moves to undermine devolution. The Review seeks to dictate funding priorities to the
Governments of the three devolved nations and attempts to bypass our decision-making
powers. Without meaningful involvement of the 3 devolved nations, the Review has little
legitimacy.

UK STRATEGIC TRANSPORT NETWORK

The primary outcome of the Interim Report appears to be the emerging recommendation for
a new UK Strategic Transport Network. The methodology set out in the report for
considering a Strategic Transport Network and assessing potential enhancements to that
network is lacking in detail, however and is not consistent with the approach taken in
Scotland. Our approach takes into account a wider range of factors, including safety,
wellbeing, social inclusion, rural considerations and high level strategic objectives, including
Scotland’s world leading climate change targets. These strategic, environmental and
transformational objectives look beyond the quantified benefit-cost ratio, and have been
emphasised in Scottish transport appraisal for some time, a change your Interim Report
highlights, has only recently been made by HM Treasury.

It is not for the UK Government to determine what constitutes a strategic road in Scotland,
that is for the Scottish Government to decide. The Scottish Government requires assurances
that a UK strategic network is not another way to undermine devolution.

INVESTMENT IN SCOTTISH TRUNK ROADS

The Report, in its interest in the A1, M74/M6 and A75, fails to recognise that Transport
Scotland has already completed two separate preliminary studies, namely the Borders
Transport Corridors Study and South West Scotland Transport Study as precursors to the
ongoing second Strategic Transport Projects Review (STPR2). These two studies, which
are extensively evidenced and have been published for some time, identified the A1 and A75
routes as potential candidates for future transport investment. In the case of the A1, the
potential investment would effectively complete the dualling between Edinburgh and the
border; and in the case of the A75 the potential investment was for a series of targeted road
and safety improvements.

Alongside the publication of the Report you announced £20 million for the development of
some schemes, albeit in advance of the final conclusions of the UCR. One of those
schemes mentioned was the A75. Given Transport Scotland is already undertaking this
work it is not clear why you chose to reference this in the press release associated with the
fund and instead stated we agreed to work together on this, which is untrue. Future
decisions on the investment in Scottish strategic roads will be taken by the Scottish
Government and we are identifying that through STPR2.

AVIATION

The Scottish Government is acutely aware of the importance of air connectivity between
Scotland and the rest of the UK, particularly in relation to routes where rail is not yet a strong
alternative for business travel. While the Scottish Government believes domestic aviation
will recover more quickly than international aviation post-Covid, we do not believe that every
route previously operated will restart. I will be happy to discuss further the suggestions that
Public Service Obligations may be a feature in restoring connectivity where there is a
demonstrable need for a particular route and where it may be unlikely that the route will
restart on a fully commercial basis.

I welcome the fact that the report notes the significance of the Scotland-Heathrow (LHR)
routes. While our reliance on LHR for international connectivity has reduced as we have
helped Scotland’s airports secure many more direct international routes, good connectivity
with LHR remains an essential part of our transport infrastructure. We have been clear that
domestic capacity needs to be protected as LHR expands and the market recovers.

RAIL

The main mass transit mode between Scotland and England, in terms of passengers and rail
freight, relies on two increasingly overloaded rail arteries (the West Coast and East Coast
mainlines). It is imperative that we find solutions to deliver greater capacity on these routes
to ensure longer-term economic sustainability and connectivity. Accordingly, I want the UK
Government to accelerate and expand HS2 to Scotland, via the West Coast and East Coast,
potentially by means of dynamic bypassing of the existing lines as a credible and affordable
strategy in addressing modal shift and emissions reduction, as well as improving capacity
and connectivity. Also, to reiterate the agreement UK and Scottish Ministers have already
made to identify options that could reduce the Anglo-Scottish rail journey time to a 3 hour
target, rather than the 3 hour 38 minute journey time achieved by the baseline HS2 Anglo-
Scottish service specification.

It is imperative that all nations and regions of Britain benefit from the sustainable growth and
prosperity that HS2 will deliver both in its construction and its implementation. I look forward
to a commitment from your Government to commence design and development activity to
deliver infrastructure that provides greater rail capacity throughout the routes of the West
Coast and East Coast corridors.

With regard to strategic rail freight, I have long argued, for rail freight to achieve its economic
potential and our environmental objectives, the rail network requires all of its routes to
Britain’s container ports to be electrified. The same issue now holds true in respect of
connectivity to all the newly designated Freeports. Accordingly, I would welcome your
commitment to address infill electrification on port routes as a matter of urgency.

FIXED LINK TO NORTHERN IRELAND

In the Interim report, you have set out that a feasibility study on a fixed link between Great
Britain and Northern Ireland will now commence, and do so with little rationale for why this
may be needed in the first place, therefore going against the advice of your own review and
HM Treasury - that firstly Government should look at the strategic case for investment. As I
have stated, just because it may be possible to construct, it does not mean it is necessary.

ENGAGEMENT

Finally, I would emphasise my disappointment that the Interim UCR Report was shared with
my officials and I just hours before publication and that you wished to discuss the outcomes
with me before receiving. This is indicative of the approach the UK Government have been
taking to the Review and encapsulates the disrespect for the role of the devolved
administrations in setting transport priorities for all of the UK. I have consistently indicated
my willingness to work constructively with the UK Government. All devolved administrations
have agreed that there is a need to address the historic underfunding of transport
infrastructure and to promote growth in all parts of GB and NI. Our processes for identifying
transport investment priorities are not undertaken in isolation and are in place to allow
assessment of cross-government spending priorities across a whole host of other portfolios.
Example of this are the Infrastructure Investment Plan and the approach to Comprehensive
Spending Reviews.

Clarity is needed from the UK Government, on when and if sufficient capital funding will
made available to allow decisions on infrastructure priorities to be taken by each devolved
government. Despite the Chancellor announcing a £27bn real terms increase in UK capital
expenditure since 2019-20, the Scottish Government’s capital budget was cut by over 5% in
the UK Spending Review for 2021-22, exacerbated by the announcement ahead of the UK
Budget that the levelling up fund would not provide consequentials for the devolved
administrations.

Transport infrastructure investment should focus on projects that improve lives, boost our
economy, support communities and work towards Net Zero. That is how we are planning
Scotland’s future transport infrastructure investment through the second Strategic Transport
Projects Review.

 

[Wolfie]

The Scottish Government loathes the Union Connectivity Review as conducted, and I imagine the Welsh government does too.

For example, Johnson has indicated his intention of forcing the construction of the M4 Newport southern bypass, which the Welsh government has rejected. Such actions, if they go ahead, could lead to a constitutional crisis. Plaid Cymru, the SNP and others in favour of devolution would rightly portray it as an attempt to undermine devolution and impose colonial rule.

If you doubt the strength of feelings, see for example this letter, which I posted at the time in another thread. It's from the Scottish transport minister to the UK transport minister prompted by the interim report of the Union Connectivity Review. It didn't attract much attention on here because the thread got moved to "Other transport".

Link to text of letter:

https://www.transport.gov.scot/media/49505/letter-to-grant-shapps-mp.pdf

Quote from letter as required by forum rules:

The Scottish Government loathes the Union Connectivity Review as conducted, and I imagine the Welsh government does too.

For example, Johnson has indicated his intention of forcing the construction of the M4 Newport southern bypass, which the Welsh government has rejected. Such actions, if they go ahead, could lead to a constitutional crisis. Plaid Cymru, the SNP and others in favour of devolution would rightly portray it as an attempt to undermine devolution and impose colonial rule.

If you doubt the strength of feelings, see for example this letter, which I posted at the time in another thread. It's from the Scottish transport minister to the UK transport minister prompted by the interim report of the Union Connectivity Review. It didn't attract much attention on here because the thread got moved to "Other transport".

Link to text of letter:

https://www.transport.gov.scot/media/49505/letter-to-grant-shapps-mp.pdf

Quote from letter as required by forum rules:

Absolutely. Look too at the way the current incumbent of BoZo's previous post is treated.

Most people in London, who have past experience of him in power, loathe and despise him.

 

[BrianW]

The DfT has removed NPR from Transport for the North, which will now be developed by the DfT. Looks like a classic Whitehall powergrab.



Labour attacks ‘Whitehall power grab’ over northern rail policy | Transport policy | The Guardian

The Secretary of State for Transport clearly had little 'respect' for 'Transport for the North': he made two mentions of it in his speech, neither was particularly complimentary:

Integrated Rail Plan: North and Midlands - Hansard - UK Parliament

Hansard record of the item : ' Integrated Rail Plan: North and Midlands' on Thursday 18 November 2021.

hansard.parliament.uk

It never will be missed ...

EDIT- The two mentions were not in his actual speech, but one in response to a question from the Member for Keighley; the other in response to the member for Thirk & Malton

 

[quantinghome]

The Secretary of State for Transport clearly had little 'respect' for 'Transport for the North': he made two mentions of it in his speech, neither was particularly complimentary:

Integrated Rail Plan: North and Midlands - Hansard - UK Parliament

Hansard record of the item : ' Integrated Rail Plan: North and Midlands' on Thursday 18 November 2021.

hansard.parliament.uk

It never will be missed ...

Do you understand the history here? TfN was promised to the north so that decisions about transport in the north could be made in the North, by the North, for the North.

TfN was never given the devolved power from Whitehall to do this, which insisted keeping hold of the purse strings and decision making.

Despite that TfN has pushed for transport investment in the north as mush as it could do, but clearly that was too much for Whitehall to cope with.

 

[Wolfie]

Do you understand the history here? TfN was promised to the north so that decisions about transport in the north could be made in the North, by the North, for the North.

TfN was never given the devolved power from Whitehall to do this, which insisted keeping hold of the purse strings and decision making.

Despite that TfN has pushed for transport investment in the north as mush as it could do, but clearly that was too much for Whitehall to cope with.

Can we be clear here. "Whitehall" is generally used to refer to the Civil Service. "Westminster" is generally used to refer to the national political class. I strongly suspect that it is the latter not the former who have issues - see what the devolved governments have to say....

 

[quantinghome]

Can we be clear here. "Whitehall" is generally used to refer to the Civil Service. "Westminster" is generally used to refer to the national political class. I strongly suspect that it is the latter not the former who have issues - see what the devolved governments have to say....

Referring here to Whitehall as the Treasury, Dft, their civil servants and ministers. The Treasury in particular are a bunch of control freaks and a massive hindrance to our economic potential.

 

[YorksLad12]

Can we be clear here. "Whitehall" is generally used to refer to the Civil Service. "Westminster" is generally used to refer to the national political class. I strongly suspect that it is the latter not the former who have issues - see what the devolved governments have to say....

Slightly disagree. Once "Whitehall" has a thing (say, rail franchising) then it is reluctant to let go, but it was a "Westminster" policy. It didn't want to share responsibility for the Northern & TPE franchises with Rail North Ltd. - to the extent that if there had been any leak of the winning bids we locally would have got it in the neck, not DfT officials. And we had 26 points of failure, RNL and 25 local transport authorities.

(That said, it was obvious to the industry who had won, as the other bidding teams had been wound down.)

 

[Wolfie]

Referring here to Whitehall as the Treasury, Dft, their civil servants and ministers. The Treasury in particular are a bunch of control freaks and a massive hindrance to our economic potential.

Based on 30 years plus worth of "Whitehall" Civil Service experience (never HMT or DfT) HMT will always seek to retain control. Mind you, the post-COVID books almost certainly look bloody grim.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The west midlands devolution solution previously was to split LM/WMT into two, with the WM Mayor taking on the local service portfolio (WMR), with DfT retaining the longer distance services (Avanti/LNWR/XC and HS2).
A similar split in the north would put Northern and metro services with TfN, and Avanti/TPE/XC services (including HS2 and NPR) with DfT.
As ever, there are services which don't easily fit into one camp or the other, notably "Northern Express" and other longer-distance regional services.

GBR did not figure in the IRP document or the ensuing discussion, but its Regions are bound to have borders with the devolved authorities (and each other).
In fact, had GBR existed, it would have had a part to play in the IRP announcement.
The "single controlling mind" would surely have had something to say.
Messrs Hendy and Haines have been silent so far...

 

[BrianW]

Can we be clear here. "Whitehall" is generally used to refer to the Civil Service. "Westminster" is generally used to refer to the national political class. I strongly suspect that it is the latter not the former who have issues - see what the devolved governments have to say....

The UK government has little real interest in 'regional government'. What became of 'localism'? The then Secretary of State Eric Pickles, having ben educated at Leeds Polytechic and then Leader of Bradford City Council is now Lord Pickles of nowhere. He made no contribution to the debate in the House of Lords introduced by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport, the Baroness Vere of Norbiton. This response may be of interest:

Baroness Pinnock (LD)
(LD)

I have a little quiz for the Minister. I am sure she will be able to come up with the right answer, but here goes. Which city has half a million people, considerable deprivation, a train service that takes over 20 minutes at just over 30 miles an hour to go nine miles to take people to jobs and connect them to the rest of the country and where 74% of jobseekers give poor transport links as a major barrier to getting on in life? Having named the city—and I am sure the Minister will be able to—perhaps she will, since she is so excited about the integrated rail plan, be able to confirm that that city is going to have its brand- new railway station which will give it the connectivity it needs and deserves.

Baroness Vere of Norbiton(Con)

My Lords, I have failed. I hear from behind me Halifax.


Noble Lords


Bradford!

Rail Infrastructure: North of England - Hansard - UK Parliament

Hansard record of the item : 'Rail Infrastructure: North of England' on Thursday 18 November 2021.

hansard.parliament.uk

Norbiton is in The North, north of Surbiton in the Royal Boorough of Kingston-upon-Thames

ps Sorry for the difficulties in cutting-and-pasting ;-(

 

[NorthernSpirit]

TfN is supposed to be implementing a ticketing scheme for the whole North of England, but the Metro Mayors aren't interested as they all have their own ideas and legacy historical ticket schemes. Again, if you were the government, would you keep throwing money endlessly at a talking shop that is no closer to a ticketing scheme now in 2021 than it was in 2015, despite having had millions handed to it each year since then (£9 million in 2020/21 alone)?

The problem, in my view, is that George Osborne (who was the leading light in setting up), despite being an MP for a North of England constituency, didn't have the first clue about the region. He is on record as saying words to the effect of "TfL in London has Oyster cards and is making plans for Crossrail, so we'll set up TfN and they'll do the same in the North". But "the North" is not a homogeneous entity. (And when he said "the North", he really meant Liverpool-Manchester-Bradford-Leeds-Sheffield-Doncaster").

What I would do is as suggested by @Bletchleyite - make it a PTE, or more precisely, I'd make it a PTA. And remove the overall planning functions of the smaller transport areas in both City Regions and County Councils. The local authorities and city regions would still get a say and sit on the committees (just as district councils get representation in Combined Authority areas, and councillors themselves sit on the transport committee in the County Councils). The Combined Authorities would become the executive delivery arms in their areas (i.e. what the PTE used to do), and in the shire county areas, the new authority can set up a delivery arm if it wishes (or needs to), or expand the areas of the Combined Authority delivery arms.

So in my plan, for example, "where do we want a new road", "should we fund re-opening this line", "should we open this station", "this is what ticketing zones we're going to have" would be for Transport for the North to decide. "We need to clean these bus-stops", "we're letting a tender for the number 30 to go round the Westside Estate" or (in Greater Manchester) "we're monitoring the performance of Go North West in their four year franchise for Bolton bus routes" would be handled by e.g. Merseytravel, or Bee Network, or Transport for North Yorkshire as local delivery arms.

I'd scrap the idea of PTE's, Combined Authorities and Metro-Mayors and simply replace it with a basic County Council style Passenger Transport Unit (PTU) that would come under the county's Joint Services board and is administered out of the county's County Hall (South Yorkshire's case would be Barnsley town hall). This way any local transport based projects can be agreed on locally before sharing and agreeing with ideas and plans with another PTU e.g. cross boundary rail travel, boundary stations, cross boundary rail season tickets, rovers and rangers, etc. Its a lot better when it done locally as the focus is much much better.

It'd save millions from the start and there'd be no need for a Transport for the North when its only focusing on the core, metropolitan centres and not out in the shires as it really should.

 

[tbtc]

Who'd have thought that creating yet more levels of Government would be more about allowing Westminster to deflect blame for bad decisions, making various parts of the "north" argue between themselves, whilst Central Government get to look like the good guys for writing the cheques?

The sadly predictable result of our Government's handling of policy - dumping all the responsibility for bad news on other people - but I guess we can expect even more layers of devolved representation over the next few years - anything to keep Teflon Johnson looking good

Really, we'd be better having a Yorkshire'n'Humberside organisation rather than an overall "north" one - given that "Lancashire" is getting most of what it realistically needs from the current set up (despite the predictable complaints from Burnham - the problem is that, whatever you spend in Manchester will still upset the Skyscraper City types who have a list of a hundred projects they want completing before breakfast)

Cross-border transport in Yorkshire can be poor in places, so there's room for improvement, plus there's the issue that a number of the busier stations in North Yorkshire are essentially part of the Leeds commuter belt (Skipton, Harrogate, Knaresborough)

Plus, Yorkshire'n'Humberside is bigger than Scotland, (bigger than Wales and Northern Ireland combined) - population stats from https://www.statista.com/statistics/294729/uk-population-by-region/ - so that's a bit enough area for people to focus on without trying to balance all of the competing wish lists of northern cities

Sheffield insisted on a central station which was at variance to everyone else who wanted meadowhall

The narrative on the Forum seems to be that silly Sheffield asked for too much and it's their own stupid fault that they aren't getting a city centre station on the main line

I'd have preferred a station at Meadowhall (with several services per hour both north and south) to just having one "High Speed" train per hour - I can appreciate that topography makes Sheffield hard to serve without spending billions and that we aren't as important as Manchester is in the Government's eyes - fair enough - maybe it's my local antennae making me a bit prickly at any apparent criticism but I feel it's worth pointing out that what Sheffield wanted was little different to what Nottingham and Derby wanted (but people on here seem to excuse Nottingham and Derby for preferring a handful of city centre stops to a more frequent service stopping at Toton, whilst criticising Sheffield for being too demanding when they did the same)

As I say, I'm maybe just being a bit too defensive as I live here, but it feels like we are being damned for demanding city centre stops whilst Nottingham and Derby are being praised for rejecting Toton

 

[Dr Hoo]

As I say, I'm maybe just being a bit too defensive as I live here, but it feels like we are being damned for demanding city centre stops whilst Nottingham and Derby are being praised for rejecting Toton

My take on the 'Sheffield' argument (as someone who has only lived vaguely near the city for a few years) is that the original Meadowhall concept seemed to offer reasonable accessibility to much of South Yorkshire - Barnsley, Rotherham, Doncaster - as well as Sheffield itself. It seemed rather selfish to demand a dedicated station originally at the Victoria site that might have helped regenerate a few derelict acres but had zero connectivity with anywhere else. The later 'loop' through Midland at least restored connectivity to a fair degree.

It is less obvious that the Toton/Derby/Nottingham changes have so much of a downside to other nearby towns of a reasonable size. For instance it was never really clear how well Loughborough or Mansfield would have linked to Toton whereas Meadowhall was 'oven ready'.

 

[YorksLad12]

As I say, I'm maybe just being a bit too defensive as I live here, but it feels like we are being damned for demanding city centre stops whilst Nottingham and Derby are being praised for rejecting Toton

The thought occurs that The Powers That Be are (would have been) quite happy for Sheffield's high-speed passengers to have to first take a train from Sheffield to Meadowhall, but insist that Londoners should be able to travel from Euston rather than first taking a train to Old Oak Common...

Yes, I realise that Sheffield Station has issues, that's why Sheffield was passed by in the first place on the Old Road - but I was always in favour of centre-to-centre travel. The whole point of the railway is that it isn't an out-of-town aeroport service.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The thought occurs that The Powers That Be are (would have been) quite happy for Sheffield's high-speed passengers to have to first take a train from Sheffield to Meadowhall, but insist that Londoners should be able to travel from Euston rather than first taking a train to Old Oak Common...

Yes, I realise that Sheffield Station has issues, that's why Sheffield was passed by in the first place on the Old Road - but I was always in favour of centre-to-centre travel. The whole point of the railway is that it isn't an out-of-town aeroport service.

I think the thing you miss here is that the vast, vast majority of InterCity traffic in the UK is not city to city but rather from a suburb of another town or city to central London and back. Thus stations outside the centre are vastly more convenient for most people in provincial cities to drive or take a taxi to (as most of them do), but because more or less everyone is going to central London, OOC would be a faff. This is demonstrated by how "unofficial Parkways" like Stockport and Runcorn do well.

 

[185]

TfN is just an expensive talking shop, with no decision making powers, wouldn't even be noticed if abolished.

Hear hear... I believe this is the primary reason that the funding was pulled - doesn't do anything, duplicates several other Qango roles (PTEs, regulators etc).

TfN were asked to make a simple approach to a train operator regarding missing trains.... which they refused / couldn't be bothered / blamed someone else / felt they were too important ...no love loss from me, and many others.

 

[tomuk]

Just clarify the funding for TfN as a whole hasn't been pulled. The funding for further development of NPR has been stopped. These responsibilities have passed to Network Rail for the upgrades east of the Pennines and HS2 Ltd for the new line in the west. Other funding was removed earlier for contactless ticketing, project got nowhere, which is now a DfT lead scheme covering the North and Midlands.

 

[WatcherZero]

Project completed a trial in Liverpool and Yorkshire and it was when they asked for the money (I think it was £200m) for a full rollout across the entire region that it got cancelled by Westminster as they thought they could do it cheaper themselves.

 

[Class 170101]

Can we be clear here. "Whitehall" is generally used to refer to the Civil Service. "Westminster" is generally used to refer to the national political class. I strongly suspect that it is the latter not the former who have issues - see what the devolved governments have to say....

I am afraid I expect its both rather than one or the other. Neither like giving up control.

In fact, had GBR existed, it would have had a part to play in the IRP announcement.
The "single controlling mind" would surely have had something to say.
Messrs Hendy and Haines have been silent so far...

Hendy and Haines have probably kept silent because they were instructed to by Grant Shapps I expect.

 

[childwallblues]

To my mind TfN have concentrated too much on potential "high" speed expensive projects and have completely neglected their day job in improving the life of the daily user trying to get into the big cities.

Quite agree.

 

[unlevel42]

My take on the 'Sheffield' argument (as someone who has only lived vaguely near the city for a few years) is that the original Meadowhall concept seemed to offer reasonable accessibility to much of South Yorkshire - Barnsley, Rotherham, Doncaster - as well as Sheffield itself. It seemed rather selfish to demand a dedicated station originally at the Victoria site that might have helped regenerate a few derelict acres but had zero connectivity with anywhere else. The later 'loop' through Midland at least restored connectivity to a fair degree.

It is less obvious that the Toton/Derby/Nottingham changes have so much of a downside to other nearby towns of a reasonable size. For instance it was never really clear how well Loughborough or Mansfield would have linked to Toton whereas Meadowhall was 'oven ready'.

Despite Meadowhall being in many ways the best site in many ways I would have expected my Council to be "selfish".
You can't pass up opportunities like this.
Your error is the assumption that a Victoria/Nunnery station "...might have helped regenerate a few derelict acres...", far from it.
The former City Centre was historically based around the old markets, law court, town hall,exchange etc.
The immediate area would also have included Ponds Forge, Wicker, Hyde Park, Saville Street, Spital Hill, Bridgehouses, Millsands, Shalesmoor etc. areas that are desperate for investment.

Secondly Meadowhall is not easily accessible to the majority of business users, commuters and leisure travellers.
Simply put the money and growth is in western half of the city which has very much poorer links with Meadowhall.
I do believe that the Council thought that there was enough money around so that a fall back position of better links across the City to Meadowhall.
Furthermore the idea that Sheffield Council could influence HS2 or any railway decision making is ludicrous and much of the comments on here fail to recognise the highly politically motivated and at times very nasty and personal local campaigns by the opposition parties and environmentalists at the time.

 

[CdBrux]

I think the thing you miss here is that the vast, vast majority of InterCity traffic in the UK is not city to city but rather from a suburb of another town or city to central London and back. Thus stations outside the centre are vastly more convenient for most people in provincial cities to drive or take a taxi to (as most of them do), but because more or less everyone is going to central London, OOC would be a faff. This is demonstrated by how "unofficial Parkways" like Stockport and Runcorn do well.

I don't disagree, however if you want the various E Midland and northern city centres to become more of a 'desitination' than today do you not need to make them more accessible which having *only* a parkway station would not do, infact it would do the opposite? Thus giving them a chance to develop vs always have a heavy outward flow. And hence the issue of the eastern leg, there was no sensible design that could do that for all of Nottingham, Derby or Sheffield. The new design does this with the obvious drawback of Leeds, York and further north and to tbc impact on capacity on MML north.

 

[quantinghome]

To my mind TfN have concentrated too much on potential "high" speed expensive projects and have completely neglected their day job in improving the life of the daily user trying to get into the big cities.

Perhaps they realise the two issues are inextricably linked.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don't disagree, however if you want the various E Midland and northern city centres to become more of a 'desitination' than today do you not need to make them more accessible which having *only* a parkway station would not do, infact it would do the opposite? Thus giving them a chance to develop vs always have a heavy outward flow. And hence the issue of the eastern leg, there was no sensible design that could do that for all of Nottingham, Derby or Sheffield. The new design does this with the obvious drawback of Leeds, York and further north and to tbc impact on capacity on MML north.

I don't entirely disagree with that either - and one good thing about these new plans are serving Sheffield and Nottingham city centres directly. However, I was more making the point that Parkway stations are also important - it would for instance be serious folly not to build the Manchester Airport one.