[jcollins]

Originally Posted by John55

Presumably this is because Warrington Borough Council (or Cheshire CC) successfully lobbied the DfT to have this put in the franchise back in 2003/4. There will be nothing to stop something similar happening if the new body is negotiating the franchise with the new TOC.

No the TPE franchise requirement included improvements for all TPE managed stations in PTE areas or not, including a requirement for step free access to all platforms. So Warrington Central and Hull got the same type of benefits as Huddersfield and Manchester Airport stations. Stations that remained under FNW/ATN management and subsequently went on to Northern missed out, although some have had improvements but not to the same high level as the TPE managed stations.

Cheshire CC stopped controlling Warrington and Halton under John Major's government.

[Waverley125]

Originally Posted by tbtc

...in which case you need to get people in North Yorkshire/ Derbyshire/ Cheshire/ Lancashire to pay for the PTEs - plus there's the democratic issue of those from the "rural" counties paying for PTEs controlled by "metropolitan" areas that they have no control over (see also the Wales & Borders franchise being controlled by politicians in Cardiff Bay who the people of Shropshire/ Cheshire etc have no control over).

One "super PTE" or nothing.

You don't have to cover every area within a geographical region

for instance you can bring the york & Harrogate lines entirely with WYPTE, and make York station the cut-off point, similarly for Selby on the Hull line.

[tbtc]

Originally Posted by Waverley125

You don't have to cover every area within a geographical region

for instance you can bring the york & Harrogate lines entirely with WYPTE, and make York station the cut-off point, similarly for Selby on the Hull line.

So would Harrogate tax payers pay for West Yorkshire's PTE? Or would all North Yorkshire tax payers pay for it? Even those in Whitby? Or would Harrogate people get PTE coverage for free (and therefore be subsidised by those in poorer parts of West Yorkshire)?*

[John55]

Originally Posted by tbtc

...in which case you need to get people in North Yorkshire/ Derbyshire/ Cheshire/ Lancashire to pay for the PTEs - plus there's the democratic issue of those from the "rural" counties paying for PTEs controlled by "metropolitan" areas that they have no control over (see also the Wales & Borders franchise being controlled by politicians in Cardiff Bay who the people of Shropshire/ Cheshire etc have no control over).

One "super PTE" or nothing.

Why is this so difficult. Cheshire and Derbyshire seem to be able to survive with some train services provided largely by and for TfGM and Merseytravel so why cannot West and North Yorkshire sort things out equally well under whatever arrangements come about.

[jcollins]

Originally Posted by John55

Why is this so difficult. Cheshire and Derbyshire seem to be able to survive with some train services provided largely by and for TfGM and Merseytravel so why cannot West and North Yorkshire sort things out equally well under whatever arrangements come about.

Having a surviving and a thriving train service is not the same thing.

One of the busiest train lines through Cheshire is the Crewe to Hartford stretch of the WCML. Now look at how good the local connections are on that line.

* Crewe-Warrington 1tph non-stop
* Winsford-Liverpool <1tph despite Winsford getting more passengers than PTE area station Rose Hill Marple with 2tph to Manchester.
* Winsford/Hartford to Warrington (direct) - not possible.

Helsby to Ellesmere Port, the Middlewich branch and Chester to Runcorn all have the potential for successful regular services yet they either get no service or a token service.

[sprinterguy]

Originally Posted by LNW-GW Joint

We could call it the Lancashire & Yorkshire franchise and pretend the last 100 years never happened...

Conveniently forgetting the North Eastern sphere of operations and the Cumbrian services Which, given that Nexus would only be a junior partner in this proposed new structure and that Cumbria has no PTE prescence, runs the risk of becoming the case; with Heaton remaining what is seemingly it's own self-organised, well run, satellite operation that is relatively untouched by the wider goings on of whichever company is in charge of the local rail services at the time.

As there are only a handful of Northern services that remain within PTE areas, it is likely that across the "core" Northern region, through Yorkshire and Lancashire, the benefits of investment in services, principally in new rolling stock, will also trickle down to benefit those stations outside of PTE areas. However, infrastructure improvements, such as station upgrades or the provision of better live travel information at stations, may not translate so well beyond the borders of the senior PTE partners, and this proposed structure does seem to me to run the risk of "hoarding" the majority of the funding available within the areas covered by the three core PTEs, with other areas being delivered a pittance.

In essence, this proposed arrangement could serve to make the voices of the PTEs louder and those of the other areas in the Northern franchise quieter. I guess that it is unlikely that such doom mongering predictions are any more likely to come to pass under this proposed structure than under the current Northern franchise, but we will just have to wait and see.

[LNW-GW Joint]

Originally Posted by sprinterguy

Conveniently forgetting the North Eastern sphere of operations and the Cumbrian services Which, given that Nexus would only be a junior partner in this proposed new structure and that Cumbria has no PTE prescence, runs the risk of becoming the case; with Heaton remaining what is seemingly it's own self-organised, well run, satellite operation that is relatively untouched by the wider goings on of whichever company is in charge of the local rail services at the time.

As there are only a handful of Northern services that remain within PTE areas, it is likely that across the "core" Northern region, through Yorkshire and Lancashire, the benefits of investment in services, principally in new rolling stock, will also trickle down to benefit those stations outside of PTE areas. However, infrastructure improvements, such as station upgrades or the provision of better live travel information at stations, may not translate so well beyond the borders of the senior PTE partners, and this proposed structure does seem to me to run the risk of "hoarding" the majority of the funding available within the areas covered by the three core PTEs, with other areas being delivered a pittance.

In essence, this proposed arrangement could serve to make the voices of the PTEs louder and those of the other areas in the Northern franchise quieter. I guess that it is unlikely that such doom mongering predictions are any more likely to come to pass under this proposed structure than under the current Northern franchise, but we will just have to wait and see.

Yes, sorry, I was not trying to ignore the northern tier.
I think the franchise model described is not a lot different to the Wales & Borders setup with the Welsh Government operating the franchise on behalf of DfT (including the Marches counties in England).
In the Northern case there would hopefully be more scope for service improvements and parallel infrastructure/rolling stock investment, but it doesn't look as though the consortium will have much budget freedom.
After all, it's still general UK taxpayers' money, not local taxes.
NR and ORR will still be funded by DfT.

[John55]

Originally Posted by jcollins

Having a surviving and a thriving train service is not the same thing.

One of the busiest train lines through Cheshire is the Crewe to Hartford stretch of the WCML. Now look at how good the local connections are on that line.

* Crewe-Warrington 1tph non-stop
* Winsford-Liverpool <1tph despite Winsford getting more passengers than PTE area station Rose Hill Marple with 2tph to Manchester.
* Winsford/Hartford to Warrington (direct) - not possible.

Helsby to Ellesmere Port, the Middlewich branch and Chester to Runcorn all have the potential for successful regular services yet they either get no service or a token service.

You misunderstood my point perhaps because I expressed myself too briefly. I wasn’t referring to train services surviving but local authorities surviving with their finances and dignity intact.

There seems to be some kind of fixation amongst one or two people with the strict boundaries of the PTE/ITA or local authority areas. While these are important they don’t completely dominate the actions of the bodies concerned.

To illustrate this the Merseyrail service from Liverpool and Birkenhead to Chester is far superior to anything that has ever run before. This is largely due to the Merseyside PTE/ITA, which has over the last 30 years electrified the line and progressively improved the service. This has been done with the active participation of Cheshire CC (now Chester and West Cheshire) who contributed to the various schemes but as a junior partner. In the most recent change about 18 months ago when the service was increased from 2 to 4 trains/hour off peak the controversial aspect of the change was the intension to run the additional trains non stop from Hooton to Chester. This was changed after pressure from Chester and WC despite the impact that might have to punctuality and probably against the preference of Merseytravel. This demonstrates to me that bodies can work well to work out acceptable solutions.

I have no idea how the 4 trains per hour off peak was financed but presumably Merseytravel, Merseyrail, the DfT and C & WC spent quite some time working out some sort of deal to make it work.

I believe TfGM similarly work with Derbyshire CC (or whatever body now exists in the Peaks) on the Manchester to Hadfield and Glossop service.

[jcollins]

Originally Posted by John55

the controversial aspect of the change was the intension to run the additional trains non stop from Hooton to Chester. This was changed after pressure from Chester and WC despite the impact that might have to punctuality and probably against the preference of Merseytravel.

I suggest you look at the timetable - alternate trains DO run Hooton-Chester non-stop.

One of the proposals was for half of the 4tph between Chester and Liverpool to run Chester to Birkenhead non-stop, which would have been of greatest benefit to Chester-Liverpool passengers. However, Merseytravel said that wouldn't go ahead because it would provide an inconsistent timetable and would use extra resource without providing 'much benefit'.

Another was to turn the Ellesmere Port service in to a 15 minute Hooton shuttle, which Cheshire CC weren't keen on.

However, you're bringing up two lines where there is a small amount of PTE involvement beyond the PTE boundary. If you look at other lines a lot of the PTE benefits don't even go out to the PTE boundary, for instance look at Hazel Grove to Middlewood, Altrincham to Hale and Horwich Parkway to Blackrod.

[Pumbaa]

Originally Posted by jcollins

I suggest you look at the timetable - alternate trains DO run Hooton-Chester non-stop.

No they don't. Alternate trains skip Capenhurst, but all call at Bache.

[WatcherZero]

Lets put it this way, at the moment the Dft is the one that makes the decisions and assumes the liability, every authority has to apply for funding to them and it favours London and the South East projects. In the future a group of PTE's and local authorities that have volunteered to assume liability will be making the decisions however they now have direct experience and local knowledge. For the big authorities this change is huge, for the smaller authorities its business as usual. They will still be able to take proposals for local infrastructure or service enhancements forward with the same local money they had before (the local authority rail grant isnt going anywhere). They would still gain the improvement of a seat at the table being a part of the discussions which they wernt when the Dft ran things and governed from afar, they just wont gain the power to vote on how the budgets spent that they dont have now unless they are willing to assume a proportional share of the risks and costs involved.

[John55]

Originally Posted by jcollins

I suggest you look at the timetable - alternate trains DO run Hooton-Chester non-stop.

One of the proposals was for half of the 4tph between Chester and Liverpool to run Chester to Birkenhead non-stop, which would have been of greatest benefit to Chester-Liverpool passengers. However, Merseytravel said that wouldn't go ahead because it would provide an inconsistent timetable and would use extra resource without providing 'much benefit'.

Another was to turn the Ellesmere Port service in to a 15 minute Hooton shuttle, which Cheshire CC weren't keen on.

However, you're bringing up two lines where there is a small amount of PTE involvement beyond the PTE boundary. If you look at other lines a lot of the PTE benefits don't even go out to the PTE boundary, for instance look at Hazel Grove to Middlewood, Altrincham to Hale and Horwich Parkway to Blackrod.

I think you may have been misled by the late change in service pattern which was not included in the National Rail timetable for Dec 2010. The enhanced service has always run with alternate trains missing Capenhurst but all trains stopping at Bache.

I don't think the idea of fast trains from Birkenhead to Chester was ever a serious likelihood as so much traffic on the line is from the intermediate stations. Even if half the 3m/year passengers at Chester use Merseyrail that is still less than Bromborough and Port Sunlight combined and there are plenty of other busy stations. In the early/mid seventies a limited stop service was tried between Liverpool & Southport which didn't last as there were no stations with exceptional passenger numbers to make it worthwhile. I am sure the same thing would happen between Birkenhead and Chester as my experience is of a great deal of "churn" of passengers on the route even when the trains are full and standing throughout the journey.

I am not sure were the small involvement of Merseytravel in the Chester and Ellesmere Port lines comes from but Merseytravel do hold the franchise which strikes me as quite a big involvement!

I wasn't trying to say anything about the overall involvement of PTE/ITAs in railways across the whole of the northwest I was trying to illustrate that cross border co-operation is alive and well and that there is nothing to stop this developing throughout the potential new Northern franchise.

[eps200]

Originally Posted by jcollins

Having a surviving and a thriving train service is not the same thing.

One of the busiest train lines through Cheshire is the Crewe to Hartford stretch of the WCML. Now look at how good the local connections are on that line.

* Crewe-Warrington 1tph non-stop
* Winsford-Liverpool <1tph despite Winsford getting more passengers than PTE area station Rose Hill Marple with 2tph to Manchester.
* Winsford/Hartford to Warrington (direct) - not possible.

Helsby to Ellesmere Port, the Middlewich branch and Chester to Runcorn all have the potential for successful regular services yet they either get no service or a token service.

There are separate problems here though.

Crewe Warrington is on a hugely busy mainline section.
same for winsford
The other part has the issue of falling through the gaps. Ellesmere port to helsby should be handed to merrseyrail while Chester to Runcorn really wants the halton curve sorting out so it can go Chester, Runcorn, Liverpool. Preferably with an opposing timetable to Chester, Birkenhead, Liverpool basicly compensating for the lack of a fast service.

I don't see a major issue with splitting much of the local stuff in cheshire between Mersey rail and TfgM

[WatcherZero]

Your right, probably makes sense to give the Liverpool services on the City Line to ATW and end them in Warrington and leave it upto the Welsh to decide, Merseytravel would then only have to worry about its self contained 3rd rail services. Maintains the status quo of City Line services being out of Merseytravels control and keeps them out of the hands of those dasterdly foreigners wot dont speke proper like.

[jcollins]

Originally Posted by John55

I think you may have been misled by the late change in service pattern which was not included in the National Rail timetable for Dec 2010. The enhanced service has always run with alternate trains missing Capenhurst but all trains stopping at Bache.

Yeah you're right I only checked the times for Capenhurst before posting and assumed Bache was the same. However, it does appear that in the evening Chester has more trains than Bache according to the Merseyrail website.

Originally Posted by eps200

I don't see a major issue with splitting much of the local stuff in cheshire between Mersey rail and TfgM

I do as the majority of the lines in Cheshire go to Liverpool and Manchester or both but there's some lines with poor or no service which don't go to Liverpool or Manchester but have real potential but Merseytravel and TfGM aren't really going to be that interested in.

Plans for a direct service between Hartford and Warrington were first submitted by CT and have subsequently been submitted by LM more than once. However, a lack of PTE support has meant the plans haven't progressed as much as other proposals.