Rail improvements on hold

[Glaucus]

A project that the public spent less than 20% on and even a large part of that was national lottery.

NEC isn't that great for transport, and isn't nearly as easy to reach from the continent.

There's a reason London is based where it is. It's in the prime location.

 

[[TW]Fox]

NEC isn't that great for transport

You are joking, right? It's right beside a major international airport, a large railway station on the West Coast Main Line just over an hour from London and directly beside a Motorway!?

How much more great for transport do you want to go - I don't agree with his general point but for transport links the NEC is excellent.

 

[Glaucus]

A motorway that is jammed, and it's not as easy as London is it. Straight across the ferry and into London, straight across the tunnel and into London.
Multiple and bigger airports in London. Transport in nec might be fine, but it's not at the same level as London.

 

[Xordium]

NEC isn't that great for transport, and isn't nearly as easy to reach from the continent.

It's got an airport right next to it. A motorway network that links all over the country right next to it. It's 10 minutes by train to the second city it's 75 minutes by train to the centre of the capital. It's got an abundance of space for parking. It's smack bang in the middle of the country. Kings X to Euston takes 5 minutes walk ...

 

[Xordium]

/snip

Fair points Fox but I could easily list a load of ones that don't do it that way but then I stupidly said I couldn't think of one when I quite clearly could. Should have thought about that one some more eh!

As a broad point though I still would like to see investment pushed away from London to other parts of the country eg Wembley etc.

 

[doodah]

I expect a few more broken manifesto pledges to follow suit. And they expect us to believe HS2 will be delivered on time and on budget !

 

[leaskovski]

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.

It's like an episode of GoT

 

[Tunney]

New Zealand with Auckland?

Not the best example. New Zealand has always invested in other cities. Wellington is the capital and money was rushed to Christchurch when it was needed.

Even France is a bad example. The high-speed TGV service runs all the way down to Marseilles. It already branches out to Belgium and it will run toSpain by 2020.

 

[Stumble Bum]

NEC isn't that great for transport

As someone who lives right by the NEC I had quite the chuckle at this

 

[scorza]

Not the best example. New Zealand has always invested in other cities. Wellington is the capital and money was rushed to Christchurch when it was needed.

Even France is a bad example. The high-speed TGV service runs all the way down to Marseilles. It already branches out to Belgium and it will run toSpain by 2020.

Indeed, and they're also building a new direct HS line from Tours to Bordeaux which will be of enourmous benefit to the citizens of these cities. It'd be like Britain building a HS line from Newcastle to Liverpool - unthinkable to the civil service as it wouldn't go through London.

 

[[TW]Fox]

Indeed, and they're also building a new direct HS line from Tours to Bordeaux which will be of enourmous benefit to the citizens of these cities. It'd be like Britain building a HS line from Newcastle to Liverpool - unthinkable to the civil service as it wouldn't go through London.

Yes, unthinkable because it doesn't go through London. Not because the level of demand and the complexity of the engineering doesn't warrant it, but because it doesn't go through London.

This is why we have so many high speed lines that do go through London.

Oh wait. Just one. And it took us YEARS to even finish it. And it only goes to Europe.

 

[lokiss]

As someone who lives right by the NEC I had quite the chuckle at this

Rye smile over my morning coffee wondering what would be the importance of closer links to continental Europe for the national stadium.

 

[scorza]

Yes, unthinkable because it doesn't go through London. Not because the level of demand and the complexity of the engineering doesn't warrant it, but because it doesn't go through London.

This is why we have so many high speed lines that do go through London.

Oh wait. Just one. And it took us YEARS to even finish it. And it only goes to Europe.

Spoken like a true short-sighted British civil servant. Yes there's not much demand for travel between Liverpool and Newcastle at the moment because travelling between these two cities takes so long and is pretty unpleasant. If you could travel between them in say, ~90 mins rather than the 3.5 hours it takes at the moment then you'd see in increase in trade between the two cities.

The demand probably isn't there between BDX and TRS at the moment either but the French take the view that they want people to take the train rather than drive everywhere to invest in infrastructure projects like this to create demand.

 

[Amp34]

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 problem is the same project in two locations would. Cost vastly different amounts. Take building a new tube station. The materials cost about the same and rental of equipment cost about the same, but to buy an acre of land in in the centre of Manchester (for example) will cost orders of magnitude less than buying the same size plot just off Oxford street in London... Then there's the increase in salaries for those working in London. There are just two examples, I'm sure there are lots more as to why a similar project would cost more in London than elsewhere.

 

[Amp34]

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.

The problem is that, much like Heathrow, you have to consider whether a short journey for a third of the population over rules a long journey by most.

Yeah, Wembley (and Heathrow) is not great to get to if you live up north, where Birmingham would be better, but it is within about an hours commute for a third of the countries population (people in the South East). Stick it in Birmingham and the number of people within an hours trip would decrease significantly. Unfortunately, due to population density disparity it makes more sense to stick stuff in the south East as you'll have less overall miles spent on average getting to it.

 

[Xordium]

The problem is that, much like Heathrow, you have to consider whether a short journey for a third of the population over rules a long journey by most.

Yeah, Wembley (and Heathrow) is not great to get to if you live up north, where Birmingham would be better, but it is within about an hours commute for a third of the countries population (people in the South East). Stick it in Birmingham and the number of people within an hours trip would decrease significantly. Unfortunately, due to population density disparity it makes more sense to stick stuff in the south East as you'll have less overall miles spent on average getting to it.

I'd actually dispute what you are saying there. I think you are missing the hassle of actually getting to Wembley even from inside London. As for the distances then yes if it takes longer for a 1/3 over 2/3 then I think that seems fair. Moreover, my journey time from the North East Birmingham to Central London is one hour - it used to take me over that when I lived in East London and worked in Central London.

I think if are you going to make claims like that in that last sentence then you either need to demonstrate it's truth or realise that we may not believe it. Do you have a breakdown for who is actually interested in attending such events and where they come from - I highly doubt that - so what you've posted there as a "fact" is pure conjecture.

The problem is the same project in two locations would. Cost vastly different amounts. Take building a new tube station. The materials cost about the same and rental of equipment cost about the same, but to buy an acre of land in in the centre of Manchester (for example) will cost orders of magnitude less than buying the same size plot just off Oxford street in London... Then there's the increase in salaries for those working in London. There are just two examples, I'm sure there are lots more as to why a similar project would cost more in London than elsewhere.

Yes, I've acknowledged that and also identified that centralisation amplifies this effect and therefore is hardly a justification.

 

[Glaucus]

Rye smile over my morning coffee wondering what would be the importance of closer links to continental Europe for the national stadium.

Oh I don't know, maybe the international matches and events that are held there.

You can't honestly say NEC has better transport than London.
In top of that who wants to spend the weekend in Birmingham. It's a hell hole. London there's a shed load of other things to do.

 

[Xordium]

You can't honestly say NEC has better transport than London.
In top of that who wants to spend the weekend in Birmingham. It's a hell hole. London there's a shed load of other things to do.

Having lived in both cities I'd strongly disagree with you. Plenty of stuff to do in both. London has some things Birmingham has but then Birmingham has easy access to some things you can't get in London. That's personal preference.

Also I don't think anyone has stated that the NEC has better transport links than London. They've stated it has excellent transport links - something you seem blissfully unaware of to others' amusement - and arguably better transport links than Wembley.

 

[MichaelAwkward]

Yeah, Wembley (and Heathrow) is not great to get to if you live up north, where Birmingham would be better, but it is within about an hours commute for a third of the countries population (people in the South East). Stick it in Birmingham and the number of people within an hours trip would decrease significantly.

I don't think that's a valid argument. The population of the SE/London is roughly 16 million. The population of regions within an hour of the NEC includes parts of the NW, SW, EM, WM, Wales, and London. I think that's probably more than 16 million.

I also agree with the poster who made the point that demand for transport in some parts of the country is lower than in London and the SE precisely because of chronic underinvestment. Anyone who's travelled from Manchester to Leeds by train knows how badly that journey needs upgrading and would rather drive instead.

There's no easy solution though without a time machine to go back several decades to correct bad decisions.

 

[Six6siX]

It's amazing how short sighted people are. Yes, some projects have been shelved. No, its not a slight to the 'north'. Yes there is a good reason for it.

What's the point in carrying on delaying project deadlines year after year and wasting money? That will just cause more problems and we'll have even more people complaining about delays and broken promises by the 'evil tory government' and how they 'don't care about the north'.

Not only is the Great Western project massive (and benefits a lot more people than just Londoners btw - it goes all the way out to Swindon, Bristol, Gloucester and beyond), it's in full swing and it's importance is paramount when it comes to Crossrail. The West London remodeling is a precursor to Crossrail which is desperately needed to ease overcrowding and provide much needed east-west transport links.

Crossrail (and associated projects) are also important for future works such as HS2 (which is another, entirely different argument but people who are complaining about this news are probably the same people who are complaining about the expenditure and uselessness of HS2). The rail systems in this country are behind the times because they are being held back but tons of legislation and unwillingness to invest in technology properly.

The bottom line is that the infrastructure works and resignalling projects need to prioritise the key areas that are strategically important to future plans for development. The effect will filter down (eventually) and through things like Crossrail and HS2 taking away the strain from other services, it will allow them to be upgraded and in turn provide more capacity and more modern systems. It will take time. But the money simply needs to be used more effectively and throwing it out left right and center to loads of projects at the same time, into a resource thin industry where deadlines are already difficult to meet because of the workload, is pointless. The whole operation needs to be streamlined and I agree with the decision that's been made from that point of view.