Rail improvements on hold

Caporegime
Joined
22 Jun 2004
Posts
26,684
Location
Deep England
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-33270586

Surprised there hasn't been a thread on this already. So for all the talk of a 'Northern Powerhouse', the two rail improvement schemes that would have affected the North* have been shelved, while the Great Western Line scheme, which services London, is saved. Plus ca change...

Does this mean that long-suffering Northern commuters are no longer getting the old shabby Thameslink trains? Normally that would be a blessing if they weren't already using trains that are half busses.

*I know the map seems to indicate they're shelving a Sheffield to London line, but the text says they're shelving the electrification of the line between York and Sheffield.

#ToriesGonnaTory
 
Last edited:
Says a lot about England when London is happier to link directly with Cardiff than let the marauding hordes of Mancs make their way to the capital city. Northlings. Savages.
 
Ah yes the line that connects Oxford to London is saved, pure hilarity.

/ggToryvoters /dashofsarcasm

Because it's already under construction :confused:

Fairly obvious that if you have to delay some projects you don't pick the ones that have got as far as physical infrastructure being installed!

Feel free to pretend it's some sort of nasty Tory conspiracy, though, if that suits your agenda better.

Says a lot about England when London is happier to link directly with Cardiff than let the marauding hordes of Mancs make their way to the capital city. Northlings. Savages.

No idea what this is supposed to mean either, you can already reach the capital from Manchester via electric train in just over 2 hours. How does electrifying the route to Cardiff mean what you've said :confused:
 
Result of reclassification of Network Rail, it just can no longer borrow money to fund network upgrades, which is a direct result of the Governments decision last year.

NR has had to reprioritise which routes to electrify over the next 5 years and which routes to fund after, Great Western won, probably because they are almost out to Reading already.

It's not very exciting, just a bit embarrassing the government is putting blame anywhere when the problem has been known about for a while.
 
I just heard on the radio that the reason NR are so poo is that they lost a lot of brainpower when they moved everyone into their massive HQ in Milton Keynes, demanding everyone moved within a certain area or begone. The boffins begont.
 
This will teach the North not to vote Commie Labour in future

It really is amazing - do people genuinely think that the government just sits about trying to think up new ways to deliberately annoy people it's perceived not like to and deliberately benefit it's friends? I know it's the common thing to say, but... really?

IMHO any of the governments we've had have genuinely tried to do the right thing for the country - with an obvious bias towards what they feel is the right thing to do based on the core beliefs of each party.
 
This was only 4 years ago...
IPPR North analysis shows transport spending is:

£2731 per head in London
£792 per head in the South East
£311 per head in the East Midlands
£269 per head in the West Midlands
£201 per head in Yorkshire & Humber
£134 per head in the North West
£43 per head in the East
£19 per head in the South West
£5 per head in the North East
 
I don't understand what the issue with that? As the UK's largest and most densely populated city London is obviously going to have specific transport needs which do not mirror those of, say, the South West. It's perhaps a bit on the high side (Though it included the spending on the olympics) but London is ALWAYS going to have more spent on public transport, surely?

I live in the South West and if the government decided to build a high quality underground metro system in my city it would benefit very few people. Whereas the same thing in London has a completely different effect. I can quite easily drive into the centre of the city with very little hassle as can most other people which reduces the need for high frequency ultra-mass transit solutions. You can't do the same thing in London, so it needs different transport policy.
 
[TW]Fox;28229616 said:
I don't understand what the issue with that? As the UK's largest and most densely populated city London is obviously going to have specific transport needs which do not mirror those of, say, the South West. It's perhaps a bit on the high side (Though it included the spending on the olympics) but London is ALWAYS going to have more spent on public transport, surely?.

I can see your point. And I am not expert at rail at all but surely if expenditure was the same per head then the density of London would ensure it got that extra money? Also would the logistics of the extra distances needing to be covered balance the cost of building in a congested area. In which case why isn't the expenditure per head of a more even level.

There is also the case that the lack of infrastructure, and that is directly caused by such a discrepancy, is resulting into the London centric mechanic that is raising costs there. And of course how much of this was attributable to the wasteful Olympics.

Just some thoughts from someone who know nothing about trains other how to catch one and how to drive them in Rail Simulator!
 
The reason why the expenditure per head isn't level is because London has a couple of MAJOR infrastructure projects ongoing, which cost an absolute fortune, and nowhere else in the UK does. Down here in the South West for example other than fixing Dawlish we've had no major rail infrastructure projects in decades. Why? Well, because on the whole, we probably don't really need anything right now, at least nothing that would actually credible and achievable.

Any sort of infrastructure development in London is expensive to do, hence the high levels of per capita spending.
 
But if those MAJOR projects had been diverted away from London we could boost the economies of other regions? You say you don't need anything but if you did would it not boost investment in the area (I don't know the area so genuine question) although I am guessing this would be more pertinent to the Midlands and the North etc.

I'll openly admit I don't like the London centric thing we have going on. No other country that I can think of places it government, financial, cultural, sporting, and basically everything else centres in one city. It's really stupid.
 
It really isn't stupid, uk is tiny, smaller than most us states.
and no it wouldn't boost economy significantly. Not compared to London.
It's far more expensive to upgrade infrastructure in a heavily populated area, than to build new on farm land. Although you still get everyone opposing it, not in my back yard *******.

I don't get the hate towards London. Uk economy is uk economy, everyone in the uk still benefits from the wealth.
I think a lot of people think they would be better off, you wouldn't for the most part living costs and house prices would increase if your local area started to do well.
 
I can't see how building a mass-transit system like Crossrail in say Plymouth would make much difference to anything? It isn't a particularly congested city and it doesn't really have mobility issues.

Whereas the Crossrail scheme in London will have obvious economic benefits given how strained the transport system is into and out of the capital city.

no other country that I can think of places it government, financial, cultural, sporting, and basically everything else centres in one city. It's really stupid.

France with Paris?

Brussels with Belgium?

New Zealand with Auckland?

Czech Republic with Prague?

Ireland with Dublin?

If these are not big enough countries what about Russia with Moscow...

Quite a lot of countries have a main focal city - countries like Germany where the financial centre is several hundred miles from the seat of government are surely more unusual and that's how it is largely because of the split into East and West Germany and subsequent reunification. Berlin didn't build a financial centre as it was strangled by the Iron Curtain, so Frankfurt got it.
 
Last edited:
It really isn't stupid, uk is tiny, smaller than most us states.
and no it wouldn't boost economy significantly. Not compared to London.
It's far more expensive to upgrade infrastructure in a heavily populated area, than to build new on farm land. Although you still get everyone opposing it, not in my back yard *******.

I don't get the hate towards London. Uk economy is uk economy, everyone in the uk still benefits from the wealth.
I think a lot of people think they would be better off, you wouldn't for the most part living costs and house prices would increase if your local area started to do well.

Hmm, where did I say I hated London? Some may not me - worked there for years.

Do you seriously think eg rebuilding Wembley was a good idea at the cost it took when there was a better site with links for the whole country by the NEC?

It's a bit of a false argument you use there - yes people benefit from the wealth generated in London but that doesn't mean given the same chance that wealth couldn't be created elsewhere.

House prices may well rise but then the London market may well be artificially raising everything anyway - that is an assumption.
 
Back
Top Bottom