Here’s a hard task. Let’s try to make sense of what is happening about Northern Powerhouse Rail or whatever it is being called next. For make no mistake, the Government are in a pickle over this and it will be very difficult for ministers to worm their way out of it.
We were supposed to be getting an announcement about the future of Northern Powerhouse Rail at last month’s Labour party conference. It was bigged up by none other than Rachel Reeves, the Chancellor, with suggestions that it would form the centrepiece of Keir Starmer’s speech. There were lots of rumours and briefings that this would be the good bit of news for conference delegates to take away. Then on the Friday before the conference, I found myself on BBC Radio Five Live explaining that Labour had dropped any suggestion there would be an announcement and that the whole thing had been kicked into touch again. I was not complimentary about the dithering and rather likened it to Rishi Sunak’s disgraceful ditching of the northern section of HS2 at the 2024 Conservative Party Conference which happened to be in Manchester where the railway was supposed to terminate. I mused about whether Labour was now ditching its plan for the Liverpool to Manchester high speed line which is, supposedly the centrepiece of Northern Powerhouse Rail. I mentioned, too, that Andy Burnham, the mayor of Manchester, who was suddenly being interviewed in depth in The New Statesman and, I think fatally, the Daily Telegraph would not be pleased. And indeed I will return to that point.
So Northern Powerhouse Rail did not get a mention in conference. That perhaps was fortunate for the delegates because not many would quite understand what it is
In fact trying to get a handle on what exactly is Northern Powerhouse Rail is like trying to darn socks wearing boxing gloves. The concept was first set out by George Osborne – remember him, and note he was a Cheshire MP which is part of the story - more than a decade ago when the world was a completely different place. HS2 was going to be Y shaped serving both sides of the Pennines and it would be open by now or at least very soon. Don’t laugh.
So what prompted the U turn which given it was all about a speech that did not happen and the focus in Manchester was on Labour v Reform did not get much attention in the press? Well enter, stage right, Andrew Gilligan and a pamphlet he wrote for the Policy Exchange thinktank which remarkably had a foreword from Reform leader Richard Tice which gave the report added heft given Reform’s poll high standings.
Now it may be a coincidence, but Labour’s scrapping of the announcement came within days of the publication of Gilligan’s report. It also was made in the midst of Burnham’s now apparently stalled campaign to take Starmer’s job. I am not a believer in double coincidences. The combination of these events clearlyb led Labour policy strategists to put a hold on the announcement, preventing Burnham from getting any political benefit from it and reflecting the need for more thought before committing yet more billions. Moreover, much of what Gilligan wrote in the report makes sense. The thrust of his argument is one that I have often made. What the North needs is not better links with London and the rest of the country – both Leeds and Manchester already have excellent train services that take barely more than two hours to reach the capital – but better connections within the region. Gilligan makes this argument very cogently suggesting that the money would be better spent ona Crossrail for the North West, something incidentally Burnham has promoted.
The most cogent point made by Gilligan who is a bit of a railway geek who knows his junctions and turnouts, is that the key part seems of Northern Powerhouse Rail seems to have morphed into a new Liverpool – Manchester, again enthusiastically supported by Burnham and his fellow mayor, Steve Rotherham (who despite his name represents Liverpool). In his report, Gilligan points out that this new line would head south from Liverpool in a seven mile tunnel and then run on a viaduct, costing billions and delivering not very much. It is a legacy of when HS2 was going to reach the north west, and then would branch out separately towards Manchester and Liverpool. As he points out, there is no need for what is a third line between the two great cities. Yes, the exicting services could be expanded and speeded up but actually even the present best timing of just over half an hour is not that bad.
All this leaves Labour with a dilemma. They have to show they are doing something for the North. In fact, whisper it not, but the massive Transpennine Route Upgrade which is well underway represents a significant improvement for trains between the two Roses. Manchester has the best tram network by far in the whole country, though again Gilligan is right to say that it is a shame that its growth has somewhat stalled recently.
Nevertheless, Labour needs a good northern story which can’t cost tens of billions given that HS2 is eating up £7bn per year already. So here’s a plan. Improve the clogged up sections of the West Coast Mainline such as around Stafford and Stockport, with incremental schemes that are well-targeted and be carried out done without new legislation. Forget HS2 or HS2 light, and new high speed lines. Focus on the local and the possible, and scrape up the money in bits and pieces, rather than seeking billions for mega schemes that will never get funded. It may be a difficult sell in the short term, but bread now is better than cake never.
National Railway Museum slog
I’m reading a book called Breakneck whose author Dan Wang characterises the difference between America and China as being the result of the fact that while the US is ruled and domnated by lawyers, China’s rulers and ethos are engineers. He cites the contrast between the high speed rail projects in China between Beijing and Shanghai, and California between San Francisco and Los Angeles. Both started in 2008 and while the Chinese one was carrying millions of passengers within four years, the line in California may be partially completed in the early 2030s between two cities nowhere near either intended terminal.
I was musing about this while walking to the National Railway Museum in the midst of storm Amy in early October. The rail was literally blowing at me sideways and consequently I got soaked. Now those of you who have visited the museum in the past will wonder why I got wet given it used to be a short walk from the station. Well, massive work is being carried out to modernise the museum amid what will be a completely new part of York. Therefore to reach the museum means walking alongside the refurbished Station Hall, past the old sidings and then coming into the site from the northern side. But there is actually a door that could be used obviating the need for this half a mile walk. When I asked why it was not being used, I was told that the council had stopped it because it meant that the doors would open outwards onto a cycle lane and therefore had created the long route around the site. The Museum staff have been inundated with complaints and are clearly unhappy that visitors, often elderly or pushing children in buggies are being inconvenienced. They begged me to write about it to help unblock the process of opening up a more convenient route.
I realise this is a trivial example but it is all part of the same pattern, the loss of any ‘can do’ culture in the face of the three Rs - endless rules, regulations and restrictions.
Thanks for your continued support - please consider giving a gift subscription
Click here: https://transportnews.substack.com/subscribe?gift=true