Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Josquius]

I've no issue with some road projects and think the Welsh governments approach of blocking basically all road upgrades or new roads is not helpful. But they also have issues - for example one of the projects they'll invest in is the dualling of the A1, first proposed in 1990. Promised and scrapped numerous times.

I meant the road projects they're talking about shouldn't be done rather than no roads anywhere ever.

Another is Bradford train station - announced by George Osborne, scrapped by Boris Johnson in 2021, reinstated by Liz Truss in 2022, scrapped by Rishi Sunak in 2022, reinstated by Rishi Sunak in 2023.

Yes. Its mad that one. From all I've seen the idea of a single station on a through line in Bradford seems to make so much logical sense, and they had the perfect opportunity to get it built with that site being derelict for a while...but didn't.
I've briefly passed through the southern Bradford Station once and its quite a joke of a bus stop terminal.

Broadly agree on it being the Tories fault - but I think one big criticism I would make of Labour with HS2 was that it was positioned as being about "high speed" rail rather than capacity. From what I've read that appraoch, which I think was a conceptual flaw started under Brown (possibly Lord Adonis or Geoff Hoon). I read a piece about the proposal put together by the team behind HS1 (delivered on budget and on time) - and apparently at some point under Adonis the Transport Department became fixated on speed and some projection someon had done that each minute of journey time reduced would create £600 million of economic value (can't help but think - and Tamas was right and I was wrong on this - about the behavioural scientists on covid coming up with some projection that guides policy but turns out to be bs).

The Tories are on the hook for implementation but that framing and focus on speed was really important. The other big impact aside from framing is that again apparently the Transport Department became fixated on speed so the route is designed to hit 400kmh which is very high speed, given that we're a small island. It requires basically a straight line which cuts through countryside areas like the Chilterns, which is why about 60% of the route is in cuttings or tunnels (which is a lot more expensive). Apparently the initial proposal was to build it next to the M40 to minimise environmental and planning concerns - but that could only hit speeds of 200-300kmh. The other recommendation which I've always thought should have been done is starting the building in Manchester and Leeds - that's where most of the economic benefit is in cbrs prepared by the civil service (and, cynically, I think if something finishes in London it will finish; if it starts in London it might not). Obviously they're an interested party but it seems fairly coherent (they also attacked the model of delivery and the budget not being made available to bidding parties, which meant everyone inflated their bids).

The speed element has been overblown for sure, but I wouldn't agree that its entirely unnecessary.
I get why they went with it- piggy backing off the success of HS1, trying to keep the progressive outward looking vibes of the noughties going by pointing out the UK was falling behind other countries in railways with our old hat tech, etc...
Though its opponents have profited off the high speed angle, I can't think of how it could have been framed in a way that would work better for the general public- a vital expansion improvement for the WCML just doesn't vibe and would really have people balking at the price vs. something new.

As for 400mph...from what I understand the cost difference for making a standard railway vs. a high speed one was so minimal as to not be worth considering.

The tunnels and cuttings in the Chilterns stuff should have been taken as an early warning of the burn the country down approach the opponents were taking and that some planning head smashing was needed before just trying to barrel ahead.
I have no doubt if they'd gone with the M40 route you'd just see a different flavour of the same shit doing much the same thing.
I've never really seen that argument in the wild I must say though, more commonly I saw the batty one of reopening the Grand Central Line or 'just' expanding existing lines. ()

The other recommendation which I've always thought should have been done is starting the building in Manchester and Leeds - that's where most of the economic benefit is in cbrs prepared by the civil service (and, cynically, I think if something finishes in London it will finish; if it starts in London it might not). Obviously they're an interested party but it seems fairly coherent (they also attacked the model of delivery and the budget not being made available to bidding parties, which meant everyone inflated their bids).

The trouble there is that isn't where the line is so vitally needed. It was that Birmingham-London stretch where capacity was so insanely overburdened.
The economic benefits for Manchester and Leeds were in having the final connection to London rather than a link to Birmingham- though a better connection between the two of them, which wasn't in the plans, I believe could do even better.
Politically perhaps easier to get done. Though they would have to sharply step up the timetable from what they were doing. IIRC they had problems getting supplies even for the project as it was, thanks in part to cross rail, which sadly reduces the possibility for building from both ends- but again points to underlying problems with getting any project done.

The other slightly mad thing is that because of the scaling back of Euston changes and I think current plans to terminate in Royal Oak, even if it were completed it couldn't operate at full capacity because there isn't enough platform space at the London end. It takes a very special type of incompetence to end up spending tens of billions of pounds on a high speed rail that connects Birmingham to London zone 3

An issue to be sure. But as you say since this is a London problem they'll find a spare few billion to work out a solution :p

[garbon]

I thought there was already a plan for the Elizabeth line to connect with the rump terminus of HS2?

[Sheilbh]

It was all Adonis, Shelf. He really pushed the poject.

Interesting - I always thought he was quite a good Transport Secretary so was hoping to pin the blame on Hoon

The issue with it being high speed is not primarily positioning, it's design and cost. THe requirements for high speed mean that the line had to be straight with very limited/gradual gradations in levels. THat meant no flexibility in design and vastly higher costs that would have been the case with a 150 mph railway, which would have delivered virtually the same benefits (and still could for phase 2 if there was a redesign).

Totally agree on it having big practical impacts.

But I think the framing of it as being about speed does have an impact with people balking at very large expense (in part, driven by the focus on speed) to shave a few minutes off journey times between big cities. My understanding is the real benefit is that the West Coast Main Line is running at capacity - moving the inter-city trains onto HS2 would free it up hugely and allow for more and better local, stopping services.

My understanding is that was the primary argument from a practical perspective for HS2 all along - but the DfT became focused on speed which was a secondary benefit. I think it is always a bit of a problem if your public argument justifying a project and the thing you focus on as the priority, is totally different from what you're actually trying to fix.

The Euston leg hasn't been cancelled (but has been postponed for two years).

Thanks - wasn't sure what was going on with Euston.

I thought there was already a plan for the Elizabeth line to connect with the rump terminus of HS2?

It will - I think that's one bit of the plan that has kept relatively consistent (although it's not a terminus, or designed to receive as many terminating trains as Euston so to begin with there will be a reduced service). My understanding is the initial proposal was that HS2 would stop at Heathrow and then go into St Pancras so it could be an interchange for the airport and Eurostar.

Over time that shifted to Old Oak Common (in West London and on Crossrail so able to connect to Heathrow) and Euston (which is close-ish to St Pancras). I'm not fully sure why those choices changed but once they did it stuck.

I've never really seen that argument in the wild I must say though, more commonly I saw the batty one of reopening the Grand Central Line or 'just' expanding existing lines. ()

Yeah I don't know how full and accurate it is - and it is from someone who led a proposal that as rejected, so they're partisan.

But I think the points they apparently made are interesting. They said that Euston is basically too small compared to St Pancras (plus, apparently "terminus" stations are generally seen as less useful now and being phased out in Europe, so the preference should have been for hub through-stations so the added connection to HS1 and Eurostar would be a bonus). That the route should broadly follow the M40 to minimise environmental impacts. That a 400kmh target is too fast for an island our size but would require an absolutely straight track (including going through the Chilterns), more tunnels and more high spec design than a track for trains going 300kmh. Also that it should have been delivered differently (using the HS1 structure as a model) and that there should have been transparency about the budget at the bidding stage to avoid padding. As I say this guy's team was basically fired from the project and replaced, so take it with a pinch of salt - but a lot of those suggestions/decisions do seem a large part of why it's been so high cost and difficult.

My understanding is this was the initial approach that government was planning to take - but apparently they then became fixated on speed and this calculation of an extra £600 million economic benefit for every minute taken off the journey. But also that route was partly tied to expanding Heathrow, which the Tories (both Cameron and Johnson as Mayor) plus the Lib Dems all hated. Apparently some combination of those two factors is what caused that design to be dropped and the current one to be adopted.

The tunnels and cuttings in the Chilterns stuff should have been taken as an early warning of the burn the country down approach the opponents were taken and that some planning head smashing was needed before just trying to barrel ahead.

Yes but it does go through the widest part of the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. I think that is the area where it has to run through a tunnel because there's a statutorily designated and protected landscape that requires conservation that it goes through.

I don't doubt there'd always be opposition and running it next to a motorway would also face challenges, but I think it would be easier to shrug them off than running it through an AONB. Given the challenges we have re-developing, say, car parks or derelict farm buildings that should have possibly given more pause than it did.

Also can't help but think of the road expansion around Stonehenge. I don't know why British transport projects seem so committed to going straight through very protected environments, which means they need to go underground at enormous expense and it takes decades to even approve them at enormous expense

The trouble there is that isn't where the line is so vitally needed. It was that Birmingham-London stretch where capacity was so insanely overburdened.
The economic benefits for Manchester and Leeds were in having the final connection to London rather than a link to Birmingham- though a better connection between the two of them, which wasn't in the plans, I believe could do even better.
Politically perhaps easier to get done. Though they would have to sharply step up the timetable from what they were doing. IIRC they had problems getting supplies even for the project as it was, thanks in part to cross rail, which sadly reduces the possibility for building from both ends- but again points to underlying problems with getting any project done.

I don't think that's right. Birmingham needs it too, but I think where the capacity issues were a real pinch point is the Crewe/Wigan/Warrington/Manchester area - because you've got inter-city trains (including Manchester, Liverpool etc to Scotland and Wales as well as London), freight and local trains all operating on the same tracks which are sometimes prett small. So moving a big chunk of intercity onto a separate line frees up that railway junction up quite a lot.

[mongers]

I don't get governments obsession with speed, other than for tomorrows headlines, it's almost like the politicans deciding on transport strategy rarely use rail themselves?

Back inthe real world, in May, the last time I bothered to keep note, I did just over 1200 miles and the on train time* was a bit over 30 hour, so that's an average of exactly 40 mph.

That was a mixture of mainline and local trains and with a bit of luck and a tail wind the trip to Cardiff can average in the low 50s, whilst the mainline Paddington to Bristol can average a huge 75-80mph. :gasp:


* 20+ seperate trains

[Tamas]

If you think this island is small try driving London to Leeds even on the (pretty nice) motorways, is all I am saying. :p there is no such thing as too fast in getting from a to b.

[Josquius]

I don't get governments obsession with speed, other than for tomorrows headlines, it's almost like the politicans deciding on transport strategy rarely use rail themselves?

Back inthe real world, in May, the last time I bothered to keep note, I did just over 1200 miles and the on train time* was a bit over 30 hour, so that's an average of exactly 40 mph.

That was a mixture of mainline and local trains and with a bit of luck and a tail wind the trip to Cardiff can average in the low 50s, whilst the mainline Paddington to Bristol can average a huge 75-80mph. :gasp:


* 20+ seperate trains

I mean speed does matter to most to some extent.
If you work in central London you're going to aim to live somewhere with good connections to central London rather than in a house in the middle of nowhere as the amount of time it takes you to get to work is important.
Likewise if you're setting up a business the closer it is in terms of travel time to customers/suppliers/whatever the better.
We don't all have the luxury of infinite time that you do :p

There's always the debate of how much the speed is worth- in Japan I'd often take the slower trains because they cost half as much. But it certainly isn't without value.

[garbon]

I'd say Euston is just close to St Pancras. No ish about it.

[Josquius]

A completely shocking and unexpected development on this funding redistribution.

https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/fury-government-u-turns-fairytale-27848664

Fury as Government U-turns on 'fairytale' pledge to reopen Leamside Line after just 24 hours
The restoration of the mothballed railway line was included in an initial list of projects in Rishi Sunak's Network North programme, but has already been removed

The Government has U-turned on its commitment to reopen the Leamside railway line, just 24 hours after making the massive announcement.

A restoration of the mothballed line, which runs from Pelaw in Gateshead to Tursdale in County Durham, was included in initial announcements about the 'Network North' programme revealed by Rishi Sunak on Wednesday. The Prime Minister pledged to invest in hundreds of transport projects around the North and Midlands, using £36bn he says will be saved by scrapping the northern leg of HS2.

But, just a day later, all reference to reopening the Leamside Line has been removed from the Network North website and the promise seemingly abandoned. Speaking to the Local Democracy Reporting Service on Thursday lunchtime, roads minister Richard Holden confirmed that the Government was simply "committed to looking into" the Leamside Line project.

[Sheilbh]

Separately just saw the story on the Guardian about the Rutherglen and Hamilton West byelection which is today.

Labour are thinking they could win. This is a seat that Labour held in 2017 but then the SNP won it by ten points in 2019, which Labour now think they might be able to overturn. That would be a huge result in Scotland which is one of the most important general election battlegrounds, plus further indication of the decline of the SNP after 16 years in office.

But it feels very undercovered given that it's potentially an important sign for the next election (Labour's route to a majority gets a lot easier if Scotland's in play) and about the politics in one of the devolved nations. I know I always complain about this but it feels again like an example of the extent to which the national press just really doesn't cover quite a lot of the country. I feel like I've read more about the Mid-Bedforshire byelection which isn't happening for another fortnight.

I also think because of the lack of coverage there's just no local political context in the national press about what's going on in Scotland (or Wales, or Northern Ireland). I think it's an annoying problem and I know some papers are (rightly) trying to get more reorters in the North - the Guardian and FT have done this - but feel like we could also do with more reporting from the other devolved nations.

[Richard Hakluyt]

The press behaves as if Manchester was Ultima Thule so their minds would boggle if they ever discovered that they were slightly less than halfway to Rutherglen when they got to Manchester 

[Sheilbh]

And it's even south of the Central Belt

[Sheilbh]

Separately polling by main media consumption and the Tories only have the lead with readers of the Mail. They're 2% ahead of Labour among Mail readers.

Even the Telegraph has 41% planning to vote Labour v 32% for the Tories

See how it turns out at the election, but Telegraph readers voting Labour feels very end of days for the Tories.

[Josquius]

Separately just saw the story on the Guardian about the Rutherglen and Hamilton West byelection which is today.

Labour are thinking they could win. This is a seat that Labour held in 2017 but then the SNP won it by ten points in 2019, which Labour now think they might be able to overturn. That would be a huge result in Scotland which is one of the most important general election battlegrounds, plus further indication of the decline of the SNP after 16 years in office.

But it feels very undercovered given that it's potentially an important sign for the next election (Labour's route to a majority gets a lot easier if Scotland's in play) and about the politics in one of the devolved nations. I know I always complain about this but it feels again like an example of the extent to which the national press just really doesn't cover quite a lot of the country. I feel like I've read more about the Mid-Bedforshire byelection which isn't happening for another fortnight.

I also think because of the lack of coverage there's just no local political context in the national press about what's going on in Scotland (or Wales, or Northern Ireland). I think it's an annoying problem and I know some papers are (rightly) trying to get more reorters in the North - the Guardian and FT have done this - but feel like we could also do with more reporting from the other devolved nations.

We get far more from Scotland than we do the north I believe.

Labour has been recruiting heavily for people from the north to head there to door knock. I wonder how that would work out for them. English telling people what to do.

[Richard Hakluyt]

Good result from Rutherglen :

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-67024848

Hopefully Scottish separatism is dying and we can concentrate on the important task of destroying the oligarchical and public school interests that are ruining this country.

[Sheilbh]

Yeah 25% swing, going from an SNP majority of 5,000 to Labour majority of 9,000. Plus the Tories lost their deposit

I think that's worse for the SNP than polls are currently indicating and there may be a local element given that the MP was ultimately recalled by voters because of her covid breaches. I suspect voters get angrier if they have to actually recall someone who should have had the decency to resign. But - and you can't do this from a byelection etc etc - if Scotland had a similar swing Labour would be on about 40 Scottish MPs and the SNP and Scottish Tories would be level pegging on 7...

Latest poll on independence I saw had 60% for "no" (though it swings around and I think this is one where there's very different results by different pollsters which is always a concern). One other point is I've started to see SNP associated people starting to talk about "federalism" rather than full independence.

Again it's really difficult to generalise because 2007 was the first time the change of government in Holyrood and 2010 the first in Westminster since devolution, so it's all still fairly new. But I wonder if that wil be the trend of SNP and Tories rising together v Labour as the main swing.

Edit: Also interesting that the new Labour MP  left the party for part of Corbyn's leadership over anti-semitism.