SkyscraperCity banner

881 - 900 of 6699 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
92 Posts
Back to HS3. I think it is a great idea and much needed. The north is very densely populated and the trains are slow. I have little idea about routes, some can be upgrades to existing routes others can be new track. The government they will surely screw it up badly or cancel it but this is what I expect / want from HS3:
Manchester to
Manchester airport - 10 mins
Leeds - 30 mins
Sheffield - 30 mins
Liverpool - 30 mins
Bradford - 30 mins
Preston - 30 mins
Nottingham - 60 mins
Hull - 90 mins
Grimsby - 90 mins
Middlesbrough - 90 mins
Sunderland - 120 mins

Newcastle - 120 mins

I would want to see exactly the same times from Manchester airport to these towns and cities too!

For trains to Liverpool I would expect them to take the same time as the to Manchester/Manchester airport time + 30 mins, with the exception being Preston to Liverpool in 30 mins.

I would expect Leeds to Sheffield to be 30 mins and Leeds to Nottingham to be 60 mins (neither of these will be possible with the current design of HS2). I would like 2 trains per hour on most of these routes at this speed to make a usable service.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
92 Posts
Isn't Liverpool to Manchester going to be about 30 mins post electrification? More than 2tph as well
I imagine so, but Liverpool to Manchester airport isn't nor is Liverpool to any of the other destinations! With HS3 we want direct trains that travel quickly from Liverpool to Hull, Grimsby, Nottingham, Newcastle, not to mention cities en route such as Leeds and Sheffield
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
15,377 Posts
And that's what Transport for North are looking at delivering, improved rail services and improved road connections.

For once the northern authorities have the power to determine their own priorities.

We, in the north, have the power to elect those to make those decisions.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
741 Posts
I would expect Leeds to Sheffield to be 30 mins and Leeds to Nottingham to be 60 mins (neither of these will be possible with the current design of HS2).
Really? Check the HS2 journey times. The journey times you want are provided, even allowing for a change at either Meadowhall or Toton.
 

·
Letting off the happiness
Joined
·
5,855 Posts
Really? Check the HS2 journey times. The journey times you want are provided, even allowing for a change at either Meadowhall or Toton.
As someone who frequently travels to/from and changes at Meadowhall for the train to Sheffield, HS2's figures for how long the connection to Sheffield will take are wildly optimistic.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,111 Posts
I can see where you're coming from but it's really no difference from the current system of commissioning groups, or the previous system of Primary Care Trusts commission services. They were all unrelated and responsible for commissioning on a geographic basis.
It's not a like for like replacement of those structures, it's a far more radical and complicated project.

We know that there's going to be a real terms cut in health spending over the next 5 years. Without radical service reconfiguration that means cuts to services. The fact that the councils have accepted the powers means that they must be prepared to undertake those reforms. Indeed the whole process has been sold as increasing the local NHS's ability to innovate and integrate services and budgets. As long as the correct structures and safeguards are put in place by the DoH and NHS England then this should produce results in Manchester, but it will mean quite major changes to how health is delivered in the county. The problem for adjacent areas is that they won't have the capacity to change their services in the same way to fit in, with negative impacts to their budgets and patient outcomes.

Let's go back to my Stepping Hill hypothetical example. Let's say that geriatric inpatients from the Goyt Valley use beds at Stepping Hill. If Greater Manchester uses its pooled health and social care budget to deliver more of this type of care in the community, that presents a problem for North Derbyshire Clinical Commissioning Group because the latter won't have the budget to provide integrated care in the areas where patients would previously have travelled to Stockport. The CCG then has a choice of sending its patients elsewhere (which will be unpopular), commissioning its own inpatient beds (expensive) or paying Stepping Hill to keep offering beds to its patients at an increased cost (because as numbers using them go down unit costs will probably rise).

It's akin to the problems of living just outside one of the PTE areas. Inside the transport authority has a duty to serve and subsidise the transport needs of communities within its boundaries, but cross the line and costs increase and service levels decline, and quite dramatically. That's the problem of asymmetric devolution of powers generally. Look at HS2 where Manchester's enhanced powers and funding mechanisms mean that it's been able to influence the route of the line in a way that Sheffield, Nottingham and Liverpool are unable to. I agree with nerd that this is probably a step in the right direction, I just would like a bit more clarity about whether and when other areas will be allowed the same privileges.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,328 Posts
We know that there's going to be a real terms cut in health spending over the next 5 years. Without radical service reconfiguration that means cuts to services. The fact that the councils have accepted the powers means that they must be prepared to undertake those reforms. Indeed the whole process has been sold as increasing the local NHS's ability to innovate and integrate services and budgets. As long as the correct structures and safeguards are put in place by the DoH and NHS England then this should produce results in Manchester, but it will mean quite major changes to how health is delivered in the county. The problem for adjacent areas is that they won't have the capacity to change their services in the same way to fit in, with negative impacts to their budgets and patient outcomes.
I seriously doubt we will ever see a real terms cut in the NHS, its political suicide. Even a real terms funding freezer would be rash. We might see some cute manoeuvring on care budgets though as these are locally administrated but even that would be brave.

The best solution would be local funded NHS and care all handled by one local authority.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,111 Posts
I seriously doubt we will ever see a real terms cut in the NHS, its political suicide. Even a real terms funding freezer would be rash. We might see some cute manoeuvring on care budgets though as these are locally administrated but even that would be brave. The best solution would be local funded NHS and care all handled by one local authority.
If inflation wasn't so low we'd be seeing it now. Any spending increase below inflation is a real terms cut. Indeed given that we have an increasing and ageing population it's probably a cut anyway despite low inflation because need is increasing faster than resources.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,328 Posts
If inflation wasn't so low we'd be seeing it now. Any spending increase below inflation is a real terms cut.
Well thats all a little circular isn't it? Inflation is low but spending is outstripping it. I can not see any sense your argument here.

Now symantically a better point to support your argument might be that inflation in the health services is higher than seen by the general population. Try that one :). It has some legs too as the biggest costs to the NHS (medical professionals, medical supplies and medical equipment) are all increasing at a higher rate than inflation and NHS funding. The NHS squeezes money from other areas to pay the increasing costs in these area. Although this too is somewhat tricky as the NHS are the only significant buyers so effectively their buying priorities are the rate of inflation in this 'market' (its not a market as there is really only one customer).


EDIT:
You cheeky monkey, you edited your post under me ;-) You are right about the aging population too. Perhaps a better rate to measure the funding increase would be linked to life expectancy. But thats flawed too as the more you fund the NHS the more life expectancy will be.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,111 Posts
Well thats all a little circular isn't it? Inflation is low but spending is outstripping it. I can not see any sense your argument here. Now symantically a better point to support your argument might be that inflation in the health services is higher than seen by the general population. Try that one :). It has some legs too as the biggest costs to the NHS (medical professionals, medical supplies and medical equipment) are all increasing at a higher rate than inflation and NHS funding. The NHS squeezes money from other areas to pay the increasing costs in these area. Although this too is somewhat tricky as the NHS are the only significant buyers so effectively their buying priorities are the rate of inflation in this 'market' (its not a market as there is really only one customer). EDIT: You cheeky monkey, you edited your post under me ;-) You are right about the aging population too. Perhaps a better rate to measure the funding increase would be linked to life expectancy. But thats flawed too as the more you fund the NHS the more life expectancy will be.
The point is that going forward real terms cuts (even if not absolute cuts) are inevitable, which means the NHS will have to do more with less. If the council's in GM don't want to preside over service reductions they will have to introduce different (more cost effective) models of delivery.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,243 Posts
That's the problem of asymmetric devolution of powers generally.... I agree with nerd that this is probably a step in the right direction, I just would like a bit more clarity about whether and when other areas will be allowed the same privileges.
Well it's not just Manchester City Region that has a 'devo deal' amongst English Regions. Sheffield City Region also secured one just before Xmas, though it seems to have hardly been reported. It has far fewer powers.

So currently in the UK you have devolved national government to different degrees in Scotland, Wales and NI; but none in England. You have devolved city region government to very different degrees in Greater London, Manchester CR and Sheffield CR, and a host of other City Regions still in negotiation for a devo deal of their own - Leeds CR (or are they calling it West Yorks Combined Authority now?) seemingly head of the queue with North East CA not far behind.

You even have different governance structures within these Combined Authorities. Manc CA has agreed to move to an elected mayor in exchange for its new powers; Sheffield CA refused (possibly one of reasons it got only 'devo nano') and is sticking with a cabinet.
Within the combined authorities themselves you still have the original local authorities who may themselves have an unelected CEO plus Leader of The (elected) Council or an elected Mayor (such as Liverpool City or Doncaster MBC). These CAs also extend beyond urban areas and MBCs into adjoining rural / semi-rural catchments which still often have two-tier local government at County Council and District Council level each delivering different aspects of a service.
Then within the areas covered by some of these Combined Authorities or City Regions you often have City Region LEPs, lead by the private sector.


Basically the who devolution and governance of the UK and Provincial England in particular is increasingly asymmetric and must be very difficult for outside investors to understand / navigate through - surely quite off-putting. Not to mention how inefficient so many tiers of bureaucracy must be and potential for things to go wrong by 'falling between stools' or through lack of joined-up planning!:eek:hno:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,591 Posts
Discussion Starter #895 (Edited)

Which leads to another Yorkshire Post story that probably has more in it:
On March 6 1965, the railway between Grosmont and Rillington, near Malton, was closed by British Railways under the infamous Beeching cuts of the 1960s which saw lines and stations closed. It was reopened by a group of dedicated volunteers in 1973 as the North Yorkshire Moors Railway (NYMR).

Now fifty years on from the Beeching closure the NYMR is preparing to hold a special event tomorrow to officially mark the completion of a second platform at Whitby Station which has allowed it to increase the number of trains it operates to the coast.

http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/main-topics/general-news/full-steam-ahead-for-line-which-survived-beeching-1-7138904


.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
15,377 Posts
Labour are worrying me on HS2 and HS3, Chris Leslie just on 5Live talking about the government focusing to much infrastructure investment on roads and the railway instead more should go on housing apparently.

In my mind given the housing shortage is most acute in the south east that may well mean a Labour government maybe not proceeding with HS2 and HS3 that northern business and politicians desire but instead invest in housing in the south east.

Worrying.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,243 Posts
Labour are worrying me on HS2 and HS3, Chris Leslie just on 5Live talking about the government focusing to much infrastructure investment on roads and the railway instead more should go on housing apparently. In my mind given the housing shortage is most acute in the south east that may well mean a Labour government maybe not proceeding with HS2 and HS3 that northern business and politicians desire but instead invest in housing in the south east. Worrying.
Housing shortages might be most acute in the South East but there's plenty of housing investment needed oop north in bringing existing stock up to a habitable standard.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
15,377 Posts
Seems this is the long term plan by the Tories to make a come back in the north.

Labour in contrast seem to want to build more houses in the south instead.
 
881 - 900 of 6699 Posts
Top