[eltonioni]

You've got to smile.

[rikur_]

@eltonioni you could apply for one of your own .... https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/tr ... -1-9792262 ..... park it in a field somewhere, and do nostaga trips to recreate 'that time we broke down just outside Hathersage?'

[LowNSlow1]

Some interesting things here https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/hs2-exhume-thousands-brummies-who-15328366 and here https://www.railengineer.co.uk/2019/04/04/unlocking-the-benefits-of-hs2/

It seems like the timelines on the HS2 website haven't been updated in a while: https://www.hs2.org.uk/timeline-2b/

[rikur_]

A small milestone for those suffering Pacer trains in the north .... the first one to retire, retires today.
Unit 142005 went into service on 20 February 1987 and has travelled over 3 million miles in 32 years.
Obviously the bigger milestone will be when the last one retires, 101 more to go. (6 more are retiring next week)

[PaulB]

What are they being replaced with?

[rikur_]

What are they being replaced with?

It's a complex cascade... but in summary:
Longer distance routes are getting 101 brand new trains built by CAF: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-48770078. 10 of these are already in daily use on routes between Doncaster and Leeds, and Manchester/Liverpool to Cumbria.
This allows a cascade of existing stock to urban and inter-urban routes.
Plus:
16 "Turbostar" fully refurbished 3-car multiple units cascaded (mostly from ScotRail) - these used to run Scotland's intercity routes.
12 class 319 4-car units, of which 8 are being converted to bi-mode (electric/diesel)
Various cascaded Sprinter/15x series stock.
All non-new stock has either had, or will get, a full refurbishment (whole new interior, including USB/power sockets and wifi.

[Paul_Sengupta]

[kanga]

What are they being replaced with?

'replacement 'bus services' ?

[Sooty25]

As always I'm painfully late to the party, but this is from the start of the thread....

Nonetheless, simplistically, the economic aims for the North are underpinned by improving connectivity - this will give individuals more choice about where they work, and will give employers access to a wider pool of potential employees. Kids growing up in Salford today should be able to consider working in Liverpool, Leeds or Sheffield without transport being a major impediment to those decisions.

and I think this logic is fundamentally flawed. Putting infrastructure in place to enable people to travel relatively long distances to work is wrong. The effort should be put into creating employment in those areas that need it. One of the other problems is, when the infrastructure breaks down, nobody gets to work and nothing gets done.

I see it now in my home town. We have high un-employment, poor travel links both road and rail, and the only decent work is 30 miles away in Norwich, which at peak times can take 75-90 minutes to drive. The rail link relies on two very old river swing bridges that break down on a regular basis. Yet we have swathes of dormant industrial land with harbour frontage, that our "house mad" local authority wants to just build houses on.

We need better, more logical, planning all round.

[romille]

As always I'm painfully late to the party, but this is from the start of the thread....

Nonetheless, simplistically, the economic aims for the North are underpinned by improving connectivity - this will give individuals more choice about where they work, and will give employers access to a wider pool of potential employees. Kids growing up in Salford today should be able to consider working in Liverpool, Leeds or Sheffield without transport being a major impediment to those decisions.

and I think this logic is fundamentally flawed. Putting infrastructure in place to enable people to travel relatively long distances to work is wrong. The effort should be put into creating employment in those areas that need it. One of the other problems is, when the infrastructure breaks down, nobody gets to work and nothing gets done.

I see it now in my home town. We have high un-employment, poor travel links both road and rail, and the only decent work is 30 miles away in Norwich, which at peak times can take 75-90 minutes to drive. The rail link relies on two very old river swing bridges that break down on a regular basis. Yet we have swathes of dormant industrial land with harbour frontage, that our "house mad" local authority wants to just build houses on.

We need better, more logical, planning all round.

I struggle to understand the logic behind encouraging people to travel great distances to find work and it appears to be in conflict with the UK's aspiration to become carbon neutral.

[JoeC]

I think the connectively that the north would benefit from is not necessarily about travelling to work but companies/people being able to physically connect and meet other companies to grow collaboration and industries. This will then boost local employment.

The new all lanes running M1 can get me to York in just over an hour - 60 miles
To get to Manchester by car takes an hour and a half - to go 40 miles!

Train to Mankychester 51 minutes
Train to York 49 minutes!

[rikur_]

and I think this logic is fundamentally flawed.

I struggle to understand the logic behind encouraging people to travel great distances to find work and it appears to be in conflict with the UK's aspiration to become carbon neutral.

This has been a very live debate in the development of Northern Powerhouse plans.
I'm not sure that anyone really understands the full answer.
I certainly see the conflict between lifestyle and environmental objectives that we aspire to vs the theoretically proven catalysts for economic growth and social mobility.

The economic models that treasury use to approve infrastructure investment assume significant benefits of economic agglomeration based on pretty convincing historic data. Of course there are several potential flaws with that approach, for example new technologies may negate the need for people to physically work in the same place; different sectors of the economy react differently; and I suspect there are significant differences in personal expectations (e.g. travelling 90 minutes to work is not the cultural norm in Manchester suburbs in the same say that it is in e.g. Surrey or Sussex).

This isn't a new phenomena. You can compare and contrast the economic development of towns that lost their railways in the Beeching era vs those that didn't and it's a pretty compelling story. Another factor worth noting is the amplifying effect. Only a relatively small proportion of the workforce may take-up the opportunities of longer distance commuting, but the economic stimulus that they bring benefits those who still choose to work locally.

[kanga]

HS2 decisions delays in London hold up extension to Birmingham Metro. Obviously, London considerations must come first

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-b ... m-49345192

[PaulB]

.... and now the whole project is being reviewed

The government is launching a review of high-speed rail link HS2 - with a "go or no-go" decision by the end of the year, the Transport Secretary Grant Shapps has said.

It will consider whether and how the project to connect London, the Midlands and northern England should proceed.

Billions have already been spent, but Mr Shapps refused to rule out scrapping it entirely.

He said it was "responsible" to see whether the benefits really "stack up"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49420332

[eltonioni]

[mugsgame]

Prediction; HS2 to be started in the north, combined with HS3, land in London already bought to be sold off at a healthy profit, the rest of the land put into business regeneration schemes under the control do local Labour controlled councils
+ Tory votes in the north
+ Tory votes in the south.
+ Lord Andrew Adonis actually explodes

[/mugsgame]