Part 1 - The imbalance in rail infrastructure investment between London and the rest of the country

The UK has the highest regional inequality of any advanced OECD country (McCann, 2016, pp.65), with the imbalance in rail infrastructure investment between the regions contributing to this inequality and being symbolic of how different parts of the country have been treated differently. For me this inequality became apparent when I took the train from Colchester in Essex, to Sheffield in South Yorkshire. My journey involved going via London, as the rail network has been historically designed around London, with 70% of train journeys involving London (Dispatches, 2019). In doing so I saw the new trains for Crossrail in operation (see picture). Crossrail is a brand-new railway in London, which so far has cost £17.6 billion (Crossrail, 2019).

The new Crossrail trains for London

The inequality in investment between London and the rest of the country became apparent as I headed North. Unlike the train I took into London, the train I took to Sheffield was a diesel train, as the Government had cancelled the plan to electrify the railway to Sheffield in 2017 (28 June 2018, HC 582, para 21). The inequality between London and the rest of the country though is best represented by the presence of Pacer trains. For any commuter in the North, the sight of these trains causes a feeling of dread (see picture).

The hated Pacer train

They were built in the 1980s and were only intended to have a maximum lifespan of 20 years. Yet in 2019 they continue to run on railways in the North of England, South West England and in Wales (Kelly, 2016). They have become a highly visible symbol of how parts of the country have been left behind. Transport Secretary, Chris Grayling (2017), former Prime Minster David Cameron (Merrick, 2014) and former Chancellor George Osborne (2014) have all highlighted that the Government is going to replace them. Despite their commitments it has been reported that civil servants have sought to delay their replacement (The Economist, 2017). Even though as the Mayor of Manchester, Andy Burnham has argued ‘travelling on Pacers would not be allowed in Surrey’ (Dispatches, 2019).

The Transport Select Committee (28 June 2018, HC 582, para 47) identified that there has been a spending gap between London and the rest of the country in rail spending, with London receiving a larger share. Their explanation of the imbalance in rail investment was that the ‘decision making processes and systems of scheme appraisal currently work against regions outside London’ (Ibid, pp.4). As part of their oral evidence, Paul Plummer, Chief Executive of the Rail Delivery Group, stated that ‘appraisal is driven by what the infrastructure can do to generate real economic growth’ (29 January 2018, HC 582, Q82). Therefore, how policymakers understand the economy and how infrastructure investment can promote growth affects decisions.

This striking inequality between the investment that London has been given compared to the rest of the country, is grossly unfair with certain parts of the country being symmetrically ignored. This series of blog posts seeks to explain why London has been favoured by the Government and what needs to change for this situation to be rectified. It shall be argued that the reason why the imbalance continues is that the ideas that policymakers in Government hold and the narratives that Government use, have shaped how Government views the UK economy and how rail infrastructure investment can be used to maximise national growth. These ideas and narratives consist of: The North-South divide narrative; the narrative of London being a global city and the narrative of agglomeration economics. All have been accepted by decision makers and have become embedded in Government thinking, this is because they reflect the experiences of policymakers who work and live in London.

This investigation formed part of my undergraduate dissertation, but I have decided to publish my arguments through this blog. So that those who believe that the current situation cannot continue, can use my findings to help them challenge the injustice that exists between London and the rest of the country in rail infrastructure investment.

References:

• Crossrail. (2019) ‘Funding’, Crossrail. [online] Available at: http://www.crossrail.co.uk/about-us/funding [Accessed 30/05/2019]

• Dispatches. (2019) HS2: The Great Train Robbery, Dispatches. [TV Programme] 11/02/2019. Available at: https://www.channel4.com/programmes/dispatches/on-demand/69215-001 [Accessed 13/02/2019]

• Grayling, C. (2017) ‘Government invests in northern transport infrastructure’, GOV.UK. [online] 22/09/2017. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/government-invests-in-northern-transport-infrastructure [Accessed 15/02/2019]

• Kelly, J. (2016) ‘Pacers: The train that the UK has struggled to get rid of’, BBC News. [online] 07/03/2016. Available at: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-35725299 [Accessed 27/10/2018]

• McCann, P. (2016) The UK Regional- National Economic Problem. London: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group

• Merrick, R. (2014) ‘Cameron vows to rid North of decrepit Pacer trains’, The Northern Echo. [online] 07/11/2014. Available at: https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/11586359.cameron-vows-to-rid-north-of-decrepit-pacer-trains/ [Accessed 14/04/2019]

• Osborne, G. (2014a) ‘Chancellor: “We need a Northern Powerhouse”’, GOV.UK. [online] 23/06/2014. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/chancellor-we-need-a-northern-powerhouse [Accessed 24/09/2018]

• The Economist. (2017) ‘Does London get a better deal than the regions?’, The Economist. [online] 29/07/2017. Available at: https://www.economist.com/britain/2017/07/29/does-london-get-a-better-deal-than-the-regions [Accessed 25/09/2018]

• Transport Select Committee. (2018) Oral evidence: Rail Infrastructure Investment, 29 January 2018, HC 582, 2017-19

• Transport Select Committee. (2018) Rail Infrastructure Investment, 28 June 2018, HC 582, 2017-19