Road, Rail & Access

[Aceshigh]

It's difficult to convey the sense of utter betrayal re electrification of Leeds Manchester.

It becomes worse when yoiu also find they pulled the plug on Picadilly expansion.

When they do this however

http://news.sky.com/story/crossrail...orthern-england-electrification-cuts-10959829

Anger levels are off the richter scale!

It's inexplicable that MAG indulged this ragbag apology of a politician just 3 days ago!

 

[Dobbo]

Possibly for the road and rail thread, but it's hard to tell what is going on.

On the face of it, it's effectively a scrapping of the Northern Hub, but the government is so weak right now that any decision they take is hardly worth the paper it's written on.

 

[Dobbo]

Just seen how big the London > rest of UK spending gap is!

And here is the visual of that gap...

View attachment 5646

 

[Aceshigh]

The problem is there is little point having a 55m ...or is it 45m capacity airport if the surrounding infastructure is Dickensian!

Don't forget this WASNT investment on the eyewatering scale of projects in London eg
The Elizabethan Line
Heathrow
Or Crossrail 2

3bn would probably have fixed it !

The only good thing is the absolute sense of outrage from Liverpool to Leeds!

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co...s-london-uncertainty-manchester-tory-13379224

 

[Land23R]

Apart from the understandable raging reaction from the North on the policy aspects, I was beginning to think it was just crass politics on the part of Grayling, oblivious to what his kick for the North and promise of support for Crossrail 2 within 3 days would provoke. However, hasn't Parliament finished for the long summer break with Cabinet Ministers off on their hols., the PM walking in Austria and Civil Servants at the DfT no doubt behind the barricades?

Interesting that it was mentioned on the BBC Breakfast headlines with the reporter, Chris Mason indicating it would be an issue raised when MPs return in the Autumn. And I concluded what devious politics it was from Grayling, because the timing has all the hallmarks of being carefully planned in advance. Good news for London and bad news for the North (and other regions) but with a nice long break for the justifiable anger in the North to hopefully, from his point of view, subside.

Of course, another theory would be that he's being as hypocritical to the London Mayor as it would seem he's been to the Mayors in the North by reneging on commitments, and £30bn won't be forthcoming for Crossrail2. Mention of requiring 50% of the up front costs whatever that means.

 

[Yawner]

I think it's more a reflection of the state of politics at the moment. There is massive pressure to give public sector workers pay rises. They want to find the money somewhere and probably see this spending reversal as the path of least resistance.

 

[Coathanger16]

Of course, another theory would be that he's being as hypocritical to the London Mayor as it would seem he's been to the Mayors in the North by reneging on commitments, and £30bn won't be forthcoming for Crossrail2. Mention of requiring 50% of the up front costs whatever that means.

It's the same deal that was used for Crossrail 1. Half the funding for the project was paid for by businesses that would benefit from it - i.e. whilst Crossrail cost £15bn, government only funded £7.5bn, with London businesses paying the other half.

For many years now the regions have almost continuously been demanding investment in infrastructure outside the SE (remember infrastructure in the SW is just as bad if not worse than in the North!). This latest news would suggest that this approach doesn't work.

I can't help but feel that if Northern businesses and Councils worked together and drew up a plan for say a "Northern Crossrail", with those Northern businesses pledging to fund half of the funds, government would be much more likely to listen and invest the rest.

The other point I'd like to raise is with that graphic re spending per head. Whilst London is clearly more than anywhere else, remember that the "population" of London swells (I've heard doubled before) with the amount of commuters travelling in everyday, not to mention tourists and visitors.

I've said it before on one of the BHX threads if not here, complaining about things won't lead to change. Highlighting whats wrong and proposing a viable alternative (and with that I don't mean just "spend more in the regions") will be more likely to get a result we want. Whilst its not wrong for Andy Burnham to criticize the government over this, what if anything has he proposed? Just telling government they need to invest in the North won't work.

At the end of the day, its all about returns, and whether we like it or not, every £1 spent in London & the SE will likely get a better return on it that £1 spent elsewhere. Or at least that's the assumption politicians have, in which case the regions need to prove it wrong.

 

[Coathanger16]

Also, perhaps these latest comments would be better placed in the Road & Rail Access or General thread?

 

[Land23R]

Coathanger16, I think you are misrepresenting the situation.

Burnham isn't just asking for money. One of the reasons for the anger is that Grayling a and therefore the government appear to be reneging on commitments made in 2015. HS3 (or whatever it's correct name now) and the Northern Hub are specific projects. In fact, they could be regarded as the North's equivalent of Crossrail.

The expansion of Piccadilly with additional through platforms links in with those projects by for example the Ordsall Chord to facilitate extra paths for trains to Manchester Airport by way of new services and additional frequencies.

As for spend in London, I'm not sure everyone is saying that all the regions should get exactly the same as London. It's the amount of the disparity which is so contentious. And Grayling's comment that Crossrail distorts the figure is laughable. Point made. Foot, oneself and shooting come to mind!

"whilst Crossrail cost £15bn, government only funded £7.5bn" Gosh, only £7.5bn. But I do take your point about business making at least some contribution.

Incidentally, you will be aware that MAN's £1bn investment for the TP is coming wholly from private investment.

 

[Coathanger16]

I get your point, but as I understand it "HS3" hasn't been scrapped, its just that the route won't now be electrified, The trains to be used would still offer more seats than now and there would still be a time saving between Northern cities, perhaps not as much as previously stated, but still better than now.

As somebody highlighted previously, I largely suspect the reason for these cuts is that the money will be used elsewhere for a more high profile case. Ask people if they'd rather have £1bn spent on railways or the NHS, and I expect most would opt for the latter (I'm not saying that's what has happened for a fact).

You're frustration seems to be centered around the fact that the previous government promised to invest in Northern rail, and this new government is going back on that. That's the problem with politics and is a prime example demonstrating why politicians shouldn't be making the decisions when it comes to infrastructure. I can't help but feel though as this government has announced its commitment to Crossrail 2, if the next government came in and went back on that pledge you wouldn't be bothered.

MAG's a private company, so them investing £1bn of private investment in the TP is as it should be. Interestingly, HAL is a private company and many on here complain that the government is helping to fund the surface access for expansion. Is the problem that HAL is a private company and therefore the government shouldn't be offering funding, or that HAL is getting financial help from the government whilst MAN isn't? Whichever it is, the general feeling I get from posters is that LHR shouldn't be getting money from the government, but MAN should.

I'm not saying there isn't an bias in spending on infrastructure, but this issue comes up time and again, and to me it just sounds like a bunch of people moaning about how unfair it all is. What's interesting is that even with all this investment being spent in London & the SE, whilst the trains may be of a better quality, they're still just as pack if not more so than those in the North.

 

[Aceshigh]

So shall we scrap HS2 , Crossrail 2 and give THAT to the NHS?

This is money that his colleagues ALREADY promised, that is the point. We are used to getting crumbs but having indicated that electrification is mandatory it's absurd that this should be tossed away.

Even some Tory MPs are questioning Graylings sanity.

In respect of additional platforms at Piccadilly , this is a no brainer. These were a necessary part of the Ordsall Chord to actually make the damn thing work! AND it is a benefit to all of the N WEST not just Manchester!

I'm sure the NW would happily pay its way but we need an initial leg up first to create the environment to generate the funds.

Your phraseology indicates we are demanding massive subsidies. This is complete poppycock. The cost of transformational investment in the North would be the low billions, compare this to the monstrous amounts given to London projects!

Have a look at rail news ;
Thameslink
Bank Underground
Waterloo
Docklands
Elizabethan line
And now crossrail 2

It was only last month the Thames Gateway got the go ahead, £5bn.

And talking of begging bowls, what of Heathrow £12bn?

Fine if Heathrow gets zero then
Manchester gets zero
But if Heathrow gets £12bn
How about say a modest £1bn
for the NWEST ?

He annouced this on the last day Parliament sat before the recess, the stench from Westminster is all consuming.

 

[Land23R]

Well said Aceshigh, and thanks for helping to reassure me that I'm not just a Northerner with his cloth cap and his begging bowl out.
I was beginning to wonder if it was me.

Grayling has asked National Rail to review the project for platforms 15 & 16 at Piccadilly. Anyone care to hazard a guess at what that means?? No? How about, "I'm not going to approve this, so you should take another look and then tell me it's cancelled. Your decision of course and apologies if you get the flak". If National Rail were to review it and go back to Grayling with "Good News Chris - we've reviewed it and reckon we can save £1m so will submit the revised application shortly". Any suggestions as to Grayling's reaction?

 

[Jerry]

I think the problem with infrastructure funding and planning in the UK is that any government can spend money in the South East but there is no guarantee for the rest of the country that they'll get money. Something like the Barnet formula which guarantees so much money to the devolved administrations if extra money is spent in England may be the way forward. So if Crossrail 2 costs £35 billion then say 30% of that amount should be given to the regions as an extra. Another problem is that every government has it's own vision!

 

[EGCC_MAN]

OK. I've deliberately waited 24 hours before commenting on Agent Grayling's statement yesterday. This offers the twin advantages of allowing my anger to subside somewhat, and also (hopefully) allows me to compose more reasoned commentary with a cool(er) head. Our Transport Secretary does appear to have embarked upon a one-man mission to ensure that Mr Corbyn becomes our next Prime Minister, though! But I'll try to steer away from party-political commentary as much as possible.

So, removing the politics, what has actually happened? (And what hasn't). Firstly, some clarification. The line which will not now be fully-electrified is the Manchester-Huddersfield-Leeds line. Note that this is NOT the same thing as HS3. This existing route via Huddersfield accommodates a fully-subscribed six trains per hour in each direction under present arrangements ... there is little (no?) scope to increase this further. Under HS3/NPR, the proposal is to construct a further new-build (more direct) high-speed line (partially tunnelled), which will radically reduce East-West journey times and increase capacity between Liverpool and Newcastle (over the Manchester-Leeds bottleneck section). Earlier thoughts of four-tracking the Huddersfield route have effectively been discarded due to the logistical complexity and ending up with such an indirect (curvy) route upon completion. The existing cross-Pennine lines (Huddersfield route and Calder Valley) remain critical for local stopping-service and freight provision. Paths on both routes are fully-subscribed already. Accommodating future growth is the problem. And this growth is vital to the economic contribution of the North to UKplc.

So, the announcement yesterday relates to not fully electrifying the Huddersfield route. It is not in itself a cancellation of plans for HS3/NPR which is a separate proposal (although how inclined Grayling might now be to fund that is another matter entirely). If he is on a political mission to dismantle Osborne's NPH legacy he might just find he has completely eliminated all the Tories' marginal seats in the North at the same time! And his party didn't have a large majority to squander last time I looked?

Anyway ... the Manchester-Huddersfield-Leeds line ... just how bad is the damage? Well, maybe all is not lost. What has been ditched so far is the plan to electrify the entire route. However, the main perceived advantage of electrification here is the reduction in carbon emissions from Diesel operations ... this plays well to the Green lobby. But in terms of journey-times it is a different story. This particular route comes with lots of curves and complex low-speed junctions. It is the remodelling of these which will primarily deliver faster journey-times. Electric trains can't be leveraged to their full-speed potential on this winding route anyway. So the real investment priority on this route needs to be improving line-speeds by completely re-engineering slow sections / junctions, and enabling the running of (much) longer trains by extending station platforms where required. The one thing Grayling's advisers are right about is that the technology of bi-mode trains (which combine electrified and non-electric running capability) has advanced markedly. There is some merit to the argument that the cost of electrifying the most geographically-challenging sections of the line is no longer justified given the impressive capability of the new bi-modes. On such a curvy route, electrics can't shave much off journey-times anyway. So what we do need to protect is funding for re-engineering slow-running sections and complex junctions, and enabling works to accommodate longer trains along the whole Liverpool to Newcastle route. Grayling needs to be pinned to the wall on this. And the new-build sections enabling HS3/NPR must be prioritised ahead of Crossrail 2 also.

Far more damaging than non-electrification (in my opinion) is the apparent intention to shelve the addition of through-platforms 15 & 16 at Manchester Piccadilly Station. Currently, the two through-lines at Manchester Piccadilly represent one of the most critical bottlenecks on the entire UK rail network. At a cost of around £200m, construction of these two extra through-platforms will allow for the pathing of around five extra trains per hour each way along the constrained section by cutting spacing from one train per four minutes to one train per three minutes along this route. I'm sure that some rail-purist can finesse my numbers slightly, but the crucial underlying point stands. The ability to run an extra five trains each way per hour for an investment of approximately £200m is absolutely huge. And it is reasonable to expect that a number of those extra five trains will terminate at Manchester Airport. This initiative, above all, must not be axed. Grayling should be shipped off to a Siberian Gulag if he fails us on this.

More to follow on related discussions later.

 

[EGCC_MAN]

So if Crossrail 2 costs £35 billion then say 30% of that amount should be given to the regions as an extra.

But I hope that 30% is to each English region (North / Midlands / South-West) and not shared out between all of them!

 

[Jerry]

Depends on what's agreed. With Barnet its a specific formula which I think is based on population size I think and different variables. It's not perfect but it does mean if England spends more on the NHS then the other nation's get extra money for their NHS. You could put in place that for every pound spent on infrastructure in London then a pound has to be spent outside of London and put it into some sort of infrastructure pot which projects like say electrification or upgrading of the trans-pennine or electrification of the mainline between Cardiff and Swansea can apply.

 

[Coathanger16]

So shall we scrap HS2 , Crossrail 2 and give THAT to the NHS?

Ask the general public and they'd probably say yes. But then again, look at the last couple of times government has let the public decide - do they really know whats best for them in the long run. As I understand it, the government either has plans or is investigating selling HS2 once it is complete. If it does so, it will either recoup the cost of either the whole scheme, or a significant part of it, meaning the final cost to the taxpayer will be much less than the figures quoted to build it.

I apologize if I come across as being a London "sympathizer" - I'm a Midlander and the Midlands generally gets overlooked on more occasions than the North. At least the government is aware of and is pursuing projects in the North, so when the North doesn't get something it wants, you can appreciate why we down in the Midlands might get a bit miffed as we're getting next to nothing from Government. That's not a moan, but an observation.

I don't like Mr Grayling much myself, but I do wonder how much his and his predecessors hands were tied by Government and the Treasury with regards to funding projects.

With regards to the latest news, re electrification, I'd direct you to EGCC_MAN's post on the Road, Rail & Access Issues thread, essentially highlighting that electrifying that particular route wouldn't actually provide much benefit, whilst highlighting what issues need to be addressed to improve the situation.

I think what is becoming clearer more and more now, is that government doesn't have enough money to be funding all these infrastructure projects, and that the private sector needs to be more involved - they will after all benefit from it.

More money needs to be spent on infrastructure - not just road & railways, but homes & broadband as well. Airports are largely privately owned and the owners should therefore pay for expansion. The exception to this is if work on certain airports was part of a national policy. E.g. if the government decided to massively expand an existing airport to make it a national hub, I wouldn't expect that airport to fund all the costs of it.

How many MP's are there across the "Northern Powerhouse"? The "Midlands Engine"? The South West? If these MP's banded together and pushed for a Barnet Style system for infrastructure spending across the UK, the government would find it hard to ignore.

 

[EGCC_MAN]

A couple of points on the state-funding debate. The contentious issue here is the grossly-inequitable distribution of state-funding for national infrastructure projects over the last 50 years. Nobody is arguing that London and the SE should be excluded from state-funding; simply that other regions should be far more included. London and the SE are not the only regions with pressing needs. We can all vouch for that. Also, projects in the London area have been costed at staggeringly high levels ... in some instances this raises questions concerning taxpayer value-for-money. The LHR R3 support works are a good example of this as is Crossrail 2. But that is a different discussion.

I would add a caveat to the argument that £1 spent in London is worth more than £1 spent elsewhere. Success breeds success. Part of the reason for London's acceleration away from the rest of the UK is their ability to leverage the innate advantage of what has already been spent on them by the taxpayer. At a state-funding level, there is also an argument for pump-priming transport infrastructure in regions which have been left to rot to give them a fighting chance to recover. There are extensive social benefits to this as well as direct economic ones.

Next, I take issue with the assertion that state-funding should not be allocated to a project at a privately-owned airport (be it LHR, MAN or anywhere else). To illustrate this with a real-world example, I put forward the shelved proposal to expand Manchester T3. From a MAG balance-sheet perspective (as a private company motivated by profit), adding (say) twenty stands here is a guaranteed loss-maker. Through no fault of MAG, the land required for this lies above a major hub for public utilities which would cost them a prohibitive sum to relocate. Also, that same land generates one of MAN's most lucrative existing revenue streams ... premium car parking right next to the terminals. Meanwhile, those stands - if constructed - would be used primarily by low-paying no-frills carriers. So for MAG as a profit-driven private company there is no viable business case for proceeding with T3 expansion.

But here is the problem. Accommodating the extra based aircraft which those additional stands would enable implies substantial benefits to the wider economy of the North of England. But those tangible benefits body-swerve MAG's own bottom-line and instead boost outside interests. And this is where the argument justifying state-funding comes into play. If public funds were allocated to relocate the utilities hub (not MAG's fault it is there) and to help MAN construct alternative premium parking releasing the extended T3 footprint, then it would become viable for MAG to build the T3 extension. And this makes possible the benefits which would flow to the wider region in consequence. Taxpayer funding is not there to increase the private company's profits. But it is there to bridge the gap between the strategic public interest and the expenditure which MAG can viably justify inhouse from it's perspective as a profit-driven enterprise.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

It's just the North. Last November the government axed electrification between east of Bath and Bristol, Oxford-Didcot, Henley and Windsor branches. This month electrification between Cardiff and Swansea has been axed.

They've already spent many tens of millions on lowering track and making other modifications for electrification on sections that now won't see it. Last year the main line through Bath was closed for six weeks for work in the Box Tunnel and other nearby locations.

Grayling is saying that between Bristol and Bath (two of the most polluted cities in the country) the trains can't run at very high speed so nothing will be lost, except more sh*t being throw into the atmosphere when the bi-modes are running under diesel power. The same speed restriction applies to the last/first few miles in to and out of Paddington yet that is being electrified. Bristol remains easily the largest city in Britain without any electrification of its railways and a massive area to the south-west right down to Cornwall is in the same boat.

The whole transport saga shows yet again that governments adopt a suck-it-and-see approach. If they think the taste isn't to their liking they abandon despite massive amounts of public money already having been expended.

 

[EGCC_MAN]

It's just the North

Typo Alert - I presume you meant to say: it isn't just the North??? Good post, anyway. Tory MP's in marginals across regional England must despair at Grayling's bungling.