I think that is too blanket a statement.
Its not all the people in the north that have a problem, just the stupid ones.
Rail improvements on hold
- Thread starter scorza
- Start date
I think that is too blanket a statement.
Its not all the people in the north that have a problem, just the stupid ones.
Soldato
I think the reaction is more down to the fact that Osborne and others have been trying to big up the "Northern Powerhouse" idea for the past few years with devolution, investment and now this happens. Without transport upgrades, it'll be harder for Manchester, Leeds, etc, to develop further.
Soldato
Definitely a contributing factor in perception but realistically, whilst I do agree it needs addressing (and upgrades will come eventually!) I wouldn't go as far as to say all industry will cease to develop and there will be no more jobs in the north.
I lived in Sheffield for most of my life and know a lot of people in a multitude of industries in Sheffield, Leeds, Bradford etc who commute on various routes and do just fine 'up north'.
Yes it could be better, but so could 90% of the country - yet it is only 'the north' that seems to have a chip on their shoulder about it!
I'm sorry but one hour from NE Birmingham to Central London? Either you go by helicopter or you need to be caught by the police... It's about 130 miles! It takes about 2 hours, or 90 minutes by train from central Birmingham.
As for how difficult it is to get to Wembley, I work in central London and commute past it daily, I know exactly how "difficult" it is to get to... I'd agree that some parts of London are not well serviced by public transport and it takes longer than it should to get from A-B, it's one of the reasons I loath going anywhere SW... Wembley isn't one of them though,it has two major tube lines going past it, which service plenty of major train stations (kings cross, Waterloo and Euston from memory, most arrivals into London won't even need to change tubes).
You're also forgetting that over half the population within an hour of Wembley are not in London, they are in the commuter towns around it, with easy, fast access to London, but journeys of 2-4 hours to get to Birmingham. As an example it takes 2 hours by car to get from North Herts to Birmingham, but 20 minutes to Central London. For those living in Kent, Surrey and Middlesex it's the same or more, yet again much less to get into London.
You can make up travel times all you want, doesn't make it a fact.
As we are talking about a national stadium I'm making the assumption that interest is going to be broadly universal throughout the country. If you have information that points to the North (for example) being far more interested and likely to go then I'm all ears. This whole thread is assumption and generalisation, very few of us have hard facts,it is GD after all...
Last edited:
It's something I would really like to know tbh, we are all guessing to certain extents on travel time. There must be a public study somewhere that shows this information as even geographic extent can't really be used. As an example using my example of North hertfordshire, 20 minutes to London by train but to get to Birmingham you would have to go into London and then out again.
Soldato
Is that the result of the Beeching cuts or has there never been a route directly to the West? Madness.
Alternatively I go from Lichfield Trent Valley and pick the specific trains that do that journey ...
No idea. It is silly, on the other hand you can get to Edinburgh in less than 5 hours so that's a positive!
So not Birmingham then, and a specific town a fair distance from it.
Leeds is completely screwed. It has no mass transport system and outrageous levels of air pollution. To get to Manchester you have to either brave the M62 (constantly gridlocked) or get a train which takes 50 minutes to travel 45 miles.
The complete shock.....
Source
I know it's from a few years ago but I don't think it makes that much of a difference and they are blocking subsequent years/reports which I presume means the outlook doesn't improve. I really do not like the Tories considering making FOI requests harder, there is no excuse for less transparency and accountability. They have already backtracked a little on the time savings for HS2 (didn't they slow local services for HS1 to make it look better?) and the economic contribution it brings which dissipates day by day when the cost will inevitably keep rising. £85bn, that's how much I think it will cost. Where did I get this figure from? Made it up, seems no less accurate than their methodology.
I see as HS2 as something we need, wrapped up in a vanity project and will be done the modern British way - wildly over budget and late.
Source
I know it's from a few years ago but I don't think it makes that much of a difference and they are blocking subsequent years/reports which I presume means the outlook doesn't improve. I really do not like the Tories considering making FOI requests harder, there is no excuse for less transparency and accountability. They have already backtracked a little on the time savings for HS2 (didn't they slow local services for HS1 to make it look better?) and the economic contribution it brings which dissipates day by day when the cost will inevitably keep rising. £85bn, that's how much I think it will cost. Where did I get this figure from? Made it up, seems no less accurate than their methodology
.I see as HS2 as something we need, wrapped up in a vanity project and will be done the modern British way - wildly over budget and late.
That's spending per head so would take into account population density, astounding I know.
Not what I meant at all.
Populate areas for a start need more mass transit and so have more spent on them.
Secondly heavily populated areas, land costs more, less cheap farmland and more substantial buildings that have to be purchased and knocked down. Or you go tunnelling that is extremely expensive.
So again what a surprise, heavily populated areas have more spent on them per head.
But lets ignore facts and go government hates the north, despite south west being down the bottom as well, then post some utterly pointless figures.
Caporegime
That's it, bugger the north.
Well, I for one, am not coming to London.
Well, I for one, am not coming to London.
Rofl, did you even read what's it about, how is delaying and possibly shelving electrification (they're taking summer to reassess costs and time scales) going to affect the north. Diesel trains aren't going to suddenly stop.
Only reason they haven't stopped the southern line, is it's already under construction.
You're basically proving my point, the money would be far more cost effective if more of it was spent in the North, you might see a shift in population density if that happened as well.
It is funny that they just happened to start the electrification of the lines linking London with Reading before the project had to be unfortunately cancelled as well. Just a set of unfortunate circumstances that happen to affect no one in government.
Soldato
Drive to Milton Keynes and get the train from there?
I'm really not.
So you disagree that increased funding to improve cities other than the holiest and apparently only city in the UK would see increased investment?
Nope where did I say that?
I'm saying it makes most sense to spend most money in mass transport in London and greater London area, it's the most populated area in the uk and as such needs such transport systems.
That not to soya no where else shouldn't get any funds or projects.
But you can't quote expenditure per head and then think it actually means anything, other than makes total sense.
Last edited:
Anyone with a sense of objectivity would see that other areas of the country have probably been neglected a compared to London. Yes there are good reasons why London has more money spent on it, but proportionally it's had that as well as the rest. I mean common sense suggests that if land is so much more expensive then you should look at developing other areas.