Well more than eight carriages this is the new rolling stock. Electric stuff. A lot bigger than the train it replaced

reopening branch lines

You think that would be cheaper than HS2? And it would do nothing for mainline capacity. It would just allow more people easier access to the main lines which are already full.

It ALL needs doing.

Also, Scotland is topographically different because it has its two major cities of similar stature and I’m guessing most of its population at either side of an easily navigated lowland stretch of land. England doesn’t have to major cities, it has one that dwarfs everywhere else, and the rest of the development is spread about the place in clumps. ‘The North’ of England should have a similar setup, yes, but there are hills in the way which is why it’s geographically harder which has changed the history of development.

It’s easy to point to other countries and say ‘why aren’t we like that?’ Well, history and geography often play a part.

Crazylegs – googling says you are right but I thought I counted more than 8 before I gave up. anyway 560 seats is still a lot Edit – are the carriages longer?

Molgrips – of course it could be done across the north of england – its just no one will make the invenstment. The lines are already there. Spendingthe money would create far greater benefits on smaller lines that don’t go to London/

Remember 4 Glasgow / Edinburgh lines and one of them has alternate routes. One of these is newly opened ( well a few years now) and we also have the Borders railway, Alloa Branch all reopened and soon the leven branch will be reopened.

there is zero reason why this could not be done across the north of England. When was the last new line opened in the north of England? there are far more people in the leeds to liverpool area than in the central beltof Scotland. Why are they still running pacers?

I still think it’s more complicated than you think.

The really ludicrous fares are to and from London. Why? Because demand is so high, and so many people (like me) are on expenses so the cost can be borne. So it’s possible that these high fares are required to pay off the investment. Or perhaps they are envisaging competing with airlines, and I think most of the flights are to and from London. Or Edi/Gla.

Fares are pretty equal by distance aren’t they? ie a train from Cardiff to Nottingham is about the same as a train from CDF to LON. Actually cheaper to get to London.

Molgrips – its really not. Its just as decisions are made in londonthats where the improivements get made! Its that simple. London sucks huge sums of money up in subsidy that the notrth of England does not get. Why do we have investment in rail in scotland – cos the scottish government does it. Eff all investment in the noth of england. The money being wasted on HS2 would mean a decent rail service all over the north of England. Far more bang for your buck.

Billions literally invested in Rail in scotland – but still £13.30 return edinbugh glasgow. But cross pennines is still running 40 year old pacers that do 45 mph – when we have 100 mph electric trains

Its out of sight out of mind and no one important lives there. Its disgusting to wast all that money to make commutting from the midlands to london possible when you still cannot get any sort of decent train transpennines

The government spends more money on transport projects for Londoners than on those for the rest of the country combined, a think tank says.

The Institute for Public Policy Research North says £2,700 is spent per person in London compared with £5 per head in the north-east of England.

https://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/resource/taken-ride-how-uk-public-transport-subsidies-entrench-inequality

there is zero reason why this could not be done across the north of England. When was the last new line opened in the north of England? there are far more people in the leeds to liverpool area than in the central beltof Scotland. Why are they still running pacers?

Complete lack of investment.
Pretty much Victorian infrastructure, coupled with Beeching cuts.
Terrain – it’s insanely hilly, it’s gritstone so very hard to tunnel through.
Population – that corridor from Manchester to Leeds is very narrow, it’s got canals, bridges, valleys, hills and roads and a lot of small towns / big villages in the way.
Complete lack of investment.
Complete lack of investment.

Many (if not most) of the stations are at least partially non-compliant with DSA regs. Many stations are simply not long enough for any more than a 4-carriage Sprinter. Even Leeds doesn’t have a platform long enough for the new 6-carriage 195s. It should have by now but Failing Grayling ordered a “review” of it 5 years ago. Naturally it came back saying it was far and away the best option. Which is why he binned it. **** idiot.

So while there are a few new 195s on the line from Manchester up to the Lakes, they can’t fit on the Manchester to Leeds corridor.

Can more modern trains not run on the lines that are there? thats the most expensive bit I would have thought.

Err, I’m often a tourist & London is one of the last places I want to go!

My apologies that should have read “the international tourist”. The savvy amongst us go elsewhere as London tends to be over-priced and poorly served for the money expected.

The business I work for could sell many more holidays to foreign, incoming tourists but the cost of decent hotels in London is prohibitive when compared to the rates on offer from the web sellers.

To get a rate we need to sell in excess of 50 room nights but to sell this number we need a rate. Our clientele don’t want Travelodge but don’t want to pay the rates we can offer once taxes are added to the package.

The government spends more money on transport projects for Londoners than on those for the rest of the country combined, a think tank says.

Population density is higher in London than elsewhere. The problem of moving all those people around is huge. London is simply not possible without all that transport infrastructure.

I’m not sure that life as a commuter in London is any easier than life as a commuter in the North.

Err, I’m often a tourist & London is one of the last places I want to go!

But surely the transport infrastructure is so wonderful with all that money spent on it that it’s a great place to go?

In France, a lot of money is spend on big infrastructure, and bigger lines. Smaller lines are shut down and coaches are used instead.
The TGV is great.

When infrastructure is done right, it works.
The millau viaduc attracted 1 million visitors before it opened. And people still stop and visit now.
Its design fits perfectly in the area.

Can more modern trains not run on the lines that are there? thats the most expensive bit I would have thought.

Why put a 100mph train on a line where the speed limit (because of the bends in the tracks) is only 60mph? The more local services would never have time to reach that sort of speed anyway beofre they had to stop at the next station. And this is the problem with attempting to run high-speed rail on “regular” lines – too many stations – it’s like racing away from the traffic lights, getting up to 40mph and then slamming the brakes on again for the next set.

Actually, I’m being slightly harsh – the Manchester to Leeds line is rated at 100 / 110 mph and that’s run by TransPennine Express using mostly refurbished 185s (which are actually pretty good).

The Train Operating Companies don’t own the trains, they lease them off Rolling Stock Operators (ROSCOs). Network Rail manage the lines and the stations (except the stations are usually then sub-let to the operators).

A franchise is somewhere in the region of 6-10 years (depending – I know MerseyRail and I think one of the Scottish ones(?) is much more long term) but the life of a train is about 30-35 years (unless it’s a Pacer where it can be physically forced to go on forever, like whipping an exhausted donkey…).

So it’s not really up to the TOCs what trains they run. Network Rail have to put in place the infra to make sure the trains can run (and they’re wholly dependent on Government funding), the TOC is running to the terms of it’s franchise (which is another Government negotiation) and you end up in a sitation where the Government has said to NR, “no you can’t have any money to modernise that line” and they’ve said to Northern “just run a service and by the way you’re getting almost no subsidy from us”.
So Northern need to raise fares to pay for it, they can’t run more modern trains cos they don’t fit on the line and NR can’t do anything about it.

Ta. Its good to know more

Technically you can squeeze more trains onto the same congested lines BUT it will require a massive investment in TELECOMS/signalling (ERTMS), which is “in cab signalling” via a two layer GSM-R “cellular” system.  The system does away with much of the line side signalling and uses in cab indications controlled via radio network from a regional operating centre.  This can work out the speeds and stopping distances of the trains and creates a “moving block” sections for trains meaning you a not dependant on the fixed distances between line side signals.

It is hideously expensive and has a few problems, namely that 4G systems crap all over 1/2 the GSM-R frequencies we use and its getting worse as more and more 4G is rolled out.  The other problem is that crowded areas like London suffer from frequency allocation issues as there are so many lines in radio siting distance that we start getting frequency clashes with different lines interfering with each other (we have a limited number of frequencies available).  Pesky bodies of water like the Channel, The Thames and The Clyde also cause issues as well.

This is only on a GSM-R network for voice comms, not for ERTMS which would require double the number of fixed stations….

tjagain

Member

Crazylegs – googling says you are right but I thought I counted more than 8 before I gave up. anyway 560 seats is still a lot Edit – are the carriages longer?

The longest running at the moment are 7 carriages. I believe they might get a little longer once Queen St has been extended. I get the feeling you’ve been looking at an unconnected train

But surely the transport infrastructure is so wonderful with all that money spent on it that it’s a great place to go?

I love using public transport in London. Tap of an Oyster card here, use of my Santander Cycles key there and I can get anywhere. Train, bus, tube, DLR, bike. It all just works and to be able to get around London all day for about £8 capped is incredible.

And then I come back up north and it costs £9 single to do a 30 min journey from the centre of Manchester to mine on a 2-carriage Pacer.

Mashr – nope – all the one train. I accept it may only have been eight carriges but it was effing huge. It was both ways yesterday

I am going to have to catch it again today across to Glasgow and back as I left a bag on the train and its in lost property at queens street – warra plonker. I’ll count it properly and take pics if its another huge one

take pics if its another huge one

It ha to go thru some tunnnels as well 😉

I stand corrected, seems they are doing 8 carriages now. I’ve somehow managed to miss them coming through

Mashr – nope – all the one train. I accept it may only have been eight carriges but it was effing huge. It was both ways yesterday

23m a carriage.
Sprinters are 20m
Pacers are 15m

God I’m sad.*

*Although I do actually work in rail transport now so it’s kind of my job…

Population density is higher in London than elsewhere. The problem of moving all those people around is huge. London is simply not possible without all that transport infrastructure.

A higher population density isn’t a reason for a higher transport subsidy per head. If anything, economies of scale and the closeness of huge numbers of people to whichever station you upgrade should mean that London gets less per head than other regions.

The thing that really bugs me is the “you should be grateful that we’re investing loads of money in London. London is the most productive part of the UK which means they pay the taxes that let you have your job seekers allowance”. As if there’s no link between massive, sustained investment in [public] transport infrastructure, (which has happened nowhere in England except London) and productivity. And as if someone in the North/South-West/East/middle of England should be grateful for their £72 a week when, with London-scale investment spread more evenly, the rest of England could be a much more prosperous place and that person could have an actual real productive job rather than stagnating on JSA.

The laws around public transport regulation stop the rest of the UK having a fair go too, the Oyster comment above demonstrating it well. In the Midlands, one or two bus companies now let you pay by contactless card, but it doesn’t link up with what I might pay for on the trains, and if I get a Network West Midlands bus on the way out and a Diamond bus on the way home, I pay the full single price for each ticket. If I was in London each bus might actually be operated by a different company but they’re both controlled by TfL and I’d pay whatever the TfL maximum day fare is regardless of how many buses and trains I use.

Northern are currently withdrawing Pacers, and introducing new trains and re vinyling and upgrading older trains from the ROSCO,S and good old Transport for Wales are getting old tube trains, with ford transit Diesel engines underneath and running em on the Wrexham- Bidston ,Chester- Crewe and LLandudno to Blaenau Festiniog routes.

At least Merseytravel are buying brand new trains, that they will own, to replace class 507 and 508 emu,s.

Lets upgrade trains and routes to scotlandshire, and across the Pennines, as well as to south wales and Shropshire

A higher population density isn’t a reason for a higher transport subsidy per head. If anything, economies of scale and the closeness of huge numbers of people to whichever station you upgrade should mean that London gets less per head than other regions.

No I disagree. When they put trams into Manchester, they re-used a load of old lines, it was easy. Compare that with Crossrail – there simply wasn’t the space to do anything other than dig a massive tunnel under the entire city. Manchester doesn’t even need anything similar because you can walk from Victoria to Picadilly in 15 mins.

you should be grateful that we’re investing loads of money in London

Who’s saying that? I’m simply saying that your area, like mine, is further down the pecking order.

As if there’s no link between massive, sustained investment in [public] transport infrastructure, (which has happened nowhere in England except London) and productivity

Of course there is, but that’s not why London is so prosperous. The prosperity came first, THEN the infrastructure followed. It’s not an accident that London has so much money entrenched in it, it’s historical. Whereas Manchester and Cardiff and most other places were simply boom towns that have subsequently suffered collapse. It’s all in the history.

Now, I don’t agree with any of this. The whole country should have investment. I’m just explaining why, in this Tory-run land, the North doesn’t get investment – it’s not quite the reasons you think.

I agree that the North (and Wales) is under-funded, and needs infrastructure spending. However, your suggestion that the poor places in the UK are only poor because of lack of infrastructure spending is over-simplistic in my opinion and ignores the historical and economic complexities. You cannot simply spend enough money and make another London – t’s just not like that in the UK.

That said – money needs to be spent. But the result won’t be like London.

Sitting here in a nice new ttain doing 100mph on the way to Glasgow I cannot help think that this is what northern England needs not HS2
£13.30 return for 45 miles each way. 42 mins. Free wifi

You know the interesting thing about that @tjagain – the original design / remit was for a sub 35 minute journey time between Edinburgh and Glasgow. However the cost for that was over £1bn. So the Scottish Government (using their devolved powers and the fact that they can decide how money gets allocated / spent) knocked it back to a 42 minute journey time which dropped the cost to a much more reasonable £600m – allowing £400m of spending on other related stuff like regional links to that trainline.

Sadly that doesn’t happen in England because Government and DfT are in charge of budgets and if they give you £1bn for a railway line, it has to be spent on the railway line. Not roads, cycle paths, bus routes etc linking to it, not regional rail routes tied into the big shiny new one. It’s an awful funding mechanism which is part of the reason the North is so deprived of integrated transport.

follows with interest, friend from school has just taken up a high level job with HS2 – interesting times ahead for her!