Chancellor welcomes the work of the big 5 Northern Cities:
I have long said that there is no doubt that when the cities of the North work together real change can happen. We have seen this with the LA7, the proposals of the Adonis Report, and now this report.
The report can be found here:
http://www.manchester.gov.uk/downloads/download/5969/one_north
It is genuinely great news that the five cities in the north of England have come together with one aim, to improve their economic prosperity by working together. Manchester, Liverpool, Newcastle, Sheffield and Leeds have responded to a challenge set them by the Chancellor, and Sir David Higgins, the head of HS2, to begin competing more effectively with London.
There is no doubt that the Cities of northern England are powerful individually but better as one force.
This report and the progress made will ensure we are competitive and prosper in the global economy, and this investment in infrastructure will improve the links between all the major northern cities. The government have listened and built on the success of City Deals and devolved funding. The Local Authorities are now working together ever more closely and this can only be a good thing.
Among the many major successes proposed are a new rail line using faster trains between Newcastle and the Darlington area designed to save 10 minutes journey time, plus speeding up and making more reliable services to London from Newcastle on the East Coast mainline before HS2 is completed; this coupled to the measures to enhance and grow our regions roads and airport are good things.
The Journal report is here: http://www.thejournal.co.uk/news/north-east-news/15bn-plan-revolutionise-transport-newcastle-7561727
Showing posts with label East Coast Mainline. Show all posts
Showing posts with label East Coast Mainline. Show all posts
Wednesday, 6 August 2014
Wednesday, 28 May 2014
A return to British Rail? Labour plans to renationalise trains - what are the consequences?
Post war British Rail saw a dramatic long term decline in rail use: this characterised the whole post war nationalised industry experience. Getting rid of British Rail has resulted in three key things:
- increased investment in the trains and its infrastructure
- allowed competition to improve services
- doubled the number of rail journeys by rail users.
Ask any train professional and they all say the same. The state has a poor long term record of running railways. British Rail was a disaster.
Where are we now?
All the track, signals, train pathway timetabling and stations are owned by a monopoly business largely financed by taxpayers and entirely owned by taxpayers. The train companies lease trains and run services over the nationalised tracks under strict controls from the Rail regulator and the Transport Department. They have to conform to five year centralised plans, and they gain near monopoly rights to use given regional track systems. The only element of competition in the whole thing is the competition for the franchises. The majority of the revenue to sustain Network Rail comes in the form of taxpayer financed subsidy.
When the railways were privatised a two tier structure was set up. There was a privatised monopoly track owner, and regional monopoly train franchise holders. This greatly limited the amount of competition introduced by privatisation, but even this limited competition administered a shake up and reversed .
Nationalisation plans by Labour:
Today the East coast mainline franchise is run as a nationalised monopoly, and Labour is looking at doing the same for some of the other franchises as they expire were they to win the next election. That would be a good way to stop the modest cost and price competition we currently enjoy and would help limit innovation. For four decades a fully nationalised and integrated monopoly industry presided over large cash losses for taxpayers, high and rising fares, declining train usage, little innovation and poor service levels. Why would a future completely nationalised BR be any different?
Simple question: are we all prepared to pay more to run the new British Rail? And will it be better. I know of no person who works in the rail industry who supports a return to British Rail. Labour is clueless as to how to pay for this, and naïve to expect a better service.
Fares for commuters on crowded routes into our main cities are too high and service levels not good enough. Too many cross country and mainline express trains fail to attract nearly enough paying passengers, whilst a limited number of trains and routes beyond the commuter lines suffer from overcrowding. We need more innovation, not less, more competitive pressure to do more for less as the airlines have done, new thinking on how to improve service and allow more of us more of the time to choose the train for our travel. That requires a more competitive industry with more private capital and management, not a return to BR days. Where challenger railway companies have been allowed they have helped lower prices and improve the range and quality of services.
- increased investment in the trains and its infrastructure
- allowed competition to improve services
- doubled the number of rail journeys by rail users.
Ask any train professional and they all say the same. The state has a poor long term record of running railways. British Rail was a disaster.
Where are we now?
All the track, signals, train pathway timetabling and stations are owned by a monopoly business largely financed by taxpayers and entirely owned by taxpayers. The train companies lease trains and run services over the nationalised tracks under strict controls from the Rail regulator and the Transport Department. They have to conform to five year centralised plans, and they gain near monopoly rights to use given regional track systems. The only element of competition in the whole thing is the competition for the franchises. The majority of the revenue to sustain Network Rail comes in the form of taxpayer financed subsidy.
When the railways were privatised a two tier structure was set up. There was a privatised monopoly track owner, and regional monopoly train franchise holders. This greatly limited the amount of competition introduced by privatisation, but even this limited competition administered a shake up and reversed .
Nationalisation plans by Labour:
Today the East coast mainline franchise is run as a nationalised monopoly, and Labour is looking at doing the same for some of the other franchises as they expire were they to win the next election. That would be a good way to stop the modest cost and price competition we currently enjoy and would help limit innovation. For four decades a fully nationalised and integrated monopoly industry presided over large cash losses for taxpayers, high and rising fares, declining train usage, little innovation and poor service levels. Why would a future completely nationalised BR be any different?
Simple question: are we all prepared to pay more to run the new British Rail? And will it be better. I know of no person who works in the rail industry who supports a return to British Rail. Labour is clueless as to how to pay for this, and naïve to expect a better service.
Fares for commuters on crowded routes into our main cities are too high and service levels not good enough. Too many cross country and mainline express trains fail to attract nearly enough paying passengers, whilst a limited number of trains and routes beyond the commuter lines suffer from overcrowding. We need more innovation, not less, more competitive pressure to do more for less as the airlines have done, new thinking on how to improve service and allow more of us more of the time to choose the train for our travel. That requires a more competitive industry with more private capital and management, not a return to BR days. Where challenger railway companies have been allowed they have helped lower prices and improve the range and quality of services.
Monday, 28 April 2014
HS2 Bill to be debated for 2 days in the Commons: I support it
Train usage has doubled in the last 20 years and we simply do not have the capacity to cope on existing lines. Yes that is right - we as a nation take twice as many train journeys as we did when the service was nationalised British Rail. But, on any interpretation, our rail network is bursting at the seams, and our train operators are struggling to provide the service and capacity that we now expect from our train service. That is the context which HS2 needs to be judged within.
To those who say that we could improve our rail network simply by upgrading existing lines I would say two things: if you accept that you need new rail capacity you might as well build a good train line. Secondly, upgrading existing lines is very expensive, very slow, and does not produce the long term benefits of a second line. Look at the cost and problems of West Coast Mainline upgrading.
Every large infrastructure project from the M25, HS1 or whatever has its doubters and heavyweight opponents. Only the famous Humber Bridge has failed to reap the benefits. Indeed the original builders of the railways faced opponents of the construction of the West Coast Mainline and East Coast Mainline in the 19th century.
In 1832 Parliament rejected the initial bill [for the West Coast Mainline] because some people objected. They argued that canals and rivers were all you'd ever need for long-distance travel, anyway. Indeed, our case for change is even more stark today; we are a country in a global race for jobs, investment and infrastructure. At the start of 2007, China didn't have a single high speed rail line. Today it has over 6,000 miles in service. By 2015 that will be 11,000 miles, while we have just 67 miles, from London to Kent and the Channel Tunnel. All the Northern Local Authorities and the NECC back the project, and whilst Ed Balls and some North East MPs are against, we cannot rail [forgive the pun] against this country's lack of infrastructure and then get upset when it costs money and takes time.
We in the North have still got to ensure that the details of the Northern extensions to Newcastle and beyond are worked through properly. But on the fundamental principle of the need for HS2 I am satisfied and I will vote for it in the division lobbies this week. Certainly our grandchildren will look back in wonder at those who opposed the M25, HS1 + HS2 and ask what planet were you on? The world is changing. We need to change with it.
To those who say that we could improve our rail network simply by upgrading existing lines I would say two things: if you accept that you need new rail capacity you might as well build a good train line. Secondly, upgrading existing lines is very expensive, very slow, and does not produce the long term benefits of a second line. Look at the cost and problems of West Coast Mainline upgrading.
Every large infrastructure project from the M25, HS1 or whatever has its doubters and heavyweight opponents. Only the famous Humber Bridge has failed to reap the benefits. Indeed the original builders of the railways faced opponents of the construction of the West Coast Mainline and East Coast Mainline in the 19th century.
In 1832 Parliament rejected the initial bill [for the West Coast Mainline] because some people objected. They argued that canals and rivers were all you'd ever need for long-distance travel, anyway. Indeed, our case for change is even more stark today; we are a country in a global race for jobs, investment and infrastructure. At the start of 2007, China didn't have a single high speed rail line. Today it has over 6,000 miles in service. By 2015 that will be 11,000 miles, while we have just 67 miles, from London to Kent and the Channel Tunnel. All the Northern Local Authorities and the NECC back the project, and whilst Ed Balls and some North East MPs are against, we cannot rail [forgive the pun] against this country's lack of infrastructure and then get upset when it costs money and takes time.
We in the North have still got to ensure that the details of the Northern extensions to Newcastle and beyond are worked through properly. But on the fundamental principle of the need for HS2 I am satisfied and I will vote for it in the division lobbies this week. Certainly our grandchildren will look back in wonder at those who opposed the M25, HS1 + HS2 and ask what planet were you on? The world is changing. We need to change with it.
Wednesday, 11 November 2009
East Coast Mainline - Join the Public Debate
East Coast Main Line comes back under public control from this Friday. Fortunately staff will keep their jobs. It is expected the route will be run by the government until mid-2011, with any profit being returned to the public purse. The key question is where do we go from here?
Anyone who has used the line recently will know the service is cramped, late and very expensive. But is the Government best at running a train service? The problem is surely the price the government made the operator pay = £1.4 billion - which clearly gets passed on to the long-suffering passenger, as the train company tries to recoup its outlay.
The unions are campaigning hard for this to be the opportunity to take the route permanently into public ownership.
Bob Crow is quoted as saying - "This is the second privatisation failure on the East Coast route following on from the GNER collapse."
Lawrence Marshall, of the Capital Rail Action Group, said keeping the East Coast Main Line in public hands would help provide a useful comparison with the rest of the network.
He said: "My view is that the franchise should be left with the government and not put back out to tender. If there is money to be made on this franchise, and presumably there is given the amount of interest when National Express took over, then why not let the public purse have the money."
ASLEF is organising a meeting concerning the East Coast Mainline entitled "Public or Private Future?" ASLEF describe how they, the rail unions, want to build "a progressive Labour policy on the issue before the next election". For progressive I suspect it will read state-owned but let us see.
The local meeting is planned in Newcastle on Thursday 17th December.
Anyone who has used the line recently will know the service is cramped, late and very expensive. But is the Government best at running a train service? The problem is surely the price the government made the operator pay = £1.4 billion - which clearly gets passed on to the long-suffering passenger, as the train company tries to recoup its outlay.
The unions are campaigning hard for this to be the opportunity to take the route permanently into public ownership.
Bob Crow is quoted as saying - "This is the second privatisation failure on the East Coast route following on from the GNER collapse."
Lawrence Marshall, of the Capital Rail Action Group, said keeping the East Coast Main Line in public hands would help provide a useful comparison with the rest of the network.
He said: "My view is that the franchise should be left with the government and not put back out to tender. If there is money to be made on this franchise, and presumably there is given the amount of interest when National Express took over, then why not let the public purse have the money."
ASLEF is organising a meeting concerning the East Coast Mainline entitled "Public or Private Future?" ASLEF describe how they, the rail unions, want to build "a progressive Labour policy on the issue before the next election". For progressive I suspect it will read state-owned but let us see.
The local meeting is planned in Newcastle on Thursday 17th December.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)