Rail services to be included as part of Bee Network: how should this be achieved?

[barbette165]

But then what happens when Liverpool City Region want Merseyrail branding on the City Line trains, and Lancashire CC want their own branding too....

A train has two sides.

 

[Bletchleyite]

A train has two sides.

It's all yellow anyway!

But yes, Merseyrail's final 50x livery is unusual (unique?) in being different on each side.

 

[misar]

The amount of hostility to the Bee proposal in this thread seems bizarre as is the confusion over what is required for it to function. Coming back yet again to the TfL model, extending TfL's contactless/Oyster scheme to London's rail commuter lines has involved no rebranding of trains at all.

There have been some references to London Overground and its branding but that was a completely separate initiative. It has been extremely successful in creating a major new and well-used surburban network from mostly almost defunct lines, stations and services scattered around London. I have no idea whether similar scope exists around Manchester but if TfGM could also achieve a branded network similar to the Overground you would expect rail enthusiasts to welcome it rather than worrying that contactless will increase the use of some trains.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

People here have very short memories! Strathclyde orange and black units ended up all over the place and nobody got terribly exercised over it...

I remember people commenting many years ago that on some of the local services from Manchester Piccadilly on the Marple route had units from far afar complete with information notices inside about the area where these units had come from.

 

[Djgr]

The amount of hostility to the Bee proposal in this thread seems bizarre as is the confusion over what is required for it to function. Coming back yet again to the TfL model, extending TfL's contactless/Oyster scheme to London's rail commuter lines has involved no rebranding of trains at all.

There have been some references to London Overground and its branding but that was a completely separate initiative. It has been extremely successful in creating a major new and well-used surburban network from mostly almost defunct lines, stations and services scattered around London. I have no idea whether similar scope exists around Manchester but if TfGM could also achieve a branded network similar to the Overground you would expect rail enthusiasts to welcome it rather than worrying that contactless will increase the use of some trains.

I'm afraid most people can't see the big picture and only focus on the impact for their journey on the Onetwentythree from Carshalton Beeches.

 

[Ant158]

GMPTE liveried 150136 at Whalley Station
GMPTE and Merseytravel liveried Regional Railways trains did run regularly to places like Clitheroe in the 1990s, though not under franchise.

If the disconnect between metrolink and Northern Trains in terms of ticketing is anything to go by, franchised rail services in Manchester will just make current cross border / mode journeys more difficult. Places that were converted to Metrolink were wiped off the national rail network in terms of ticketing.

 

[edwin_m]

GMPTE liveried 150136 at Whalley Station
GMPTE and Merseytravel liveried Regional Railways trains did run regularly to places like Clitheroe in the 1990s, though not under franchise.

If the disconnect between metrolink and Northern Trains in terms of ticketing is anything to go by, franchised rail services in Manchester will just make current cross border / mode journeys more difficult. Places that were converted to Metrolink were wiped off the national rail network in terms of ticketing.

Bringing local rail into the Bee Network will integrate it with Metrolink and bus fares, but I guess it remains to be seen if that also involves taking it out of the national ticketing system. Because most of the Bee Network rail routes will continue outside the network area, I would guess that through rail fares will continue to be available even for stations only served by Bee Network trains.

 

[TUC]

Mention of "Rochdale Stopping Services" implies it won't be valid on the Calder Valley trains that are first stop Rochdale*, also operated by Northern. So barring other operators won't do what they are seeking to achieve. Strong branding to distinguish the "Bee services" from the others might address this, but probably implies a dedicated fleet in Bee livery which must then be confined to a specific set of diagrams.

*and the term is open to wilful interpretation "this train stops at Rochdale, so it's a Rochdale stopping service"...

It is a nonsense approach in terms of customer satisfaction and confusion. Why would anyone find it acceptable to say 'I'll have to let that train to Manchester go past and wait 15 minutes for the next one because my ticket isn't valid on ones that have come in from West Yorkshire?'

 

[Bletchleyite]

It is a nonsense approach in terms of customer satisfaction and confusion. Why would anyone find it acceptable to say 'I'll have to let that train to Manchester go past and wait 15 minutes for the next one because my ticket isn't valid on ones that have come in from West Yorkshire?'

I think people are reading too much into the wording of this.

It'll be one of two things:

1. All Northern services to Rochdale;
2. Local stations to Rochdale but not Rochdale itself.

Both of those are easy to understand.

 

[TUC]

I think people are reading too much into the wording of this.

Reading too much, or PTEs yet again not being very good at clear communication?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Reading too much, or PTEs yet again not being very good at clear communication?

An element of both.

 

[infobleep]

Indeed, that one is a bit inconsistent. Within the area covered it is valid on all operators that were formerly divisions of Network South East - so it includes Great Western (as that includes the former Thames Trains franchise) and Greater Anglia (Great Eastern and WAGN), but not EMT.

This also means, as I discovered recently, that even on an inter city service to Devon, if you have a Travelcard or Over 60 Oyster you can use a ticket from the Zone 6 boundary rather than pay from Paddington. You can do that on Thameslink, but not EMT or LNER.

However the Network Rail Card is valid on LNER services I believe, even though the Gold Card isn't.

 

[Bletchleyite]

However the Network Rail Card is valid on LNER services I believe, even though the Gold Card isn't.

Yes, the two have diverged somewhat into separate products with quite different rules.

 

[infobleep]

That must be very recent. Only six months ago I was stopped at St Pancras EMT platforms for doing just that, on arrival from Luton Airpor Parkway.

I've not independently verified this but it's possible they wre wrong.

I think people are reading too much into the wording of this.

It'll be one of two things:

1. All Northern services to Rochdale;
2. Local stations to Rochdale but not Rochdale itself.

Both of those are easy to understand.

1 I understand but 2 sounds like you can get on at any local station, so long as you only travel to the last stop before Rochdale itself.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I've not independently verified this but it's possible they wre wrong.

1 I understand but 2 sounds like you can get on at any local station, so long as you only travel to the last stop before Rochdale itself.

Yes, the scheme not including Rochdale but only the stations up to it (mainly to/from Manchester but technically between any of the stations). It's just a pilot after all; pilots tend to be done in smaller, lower-volume situations.

 

[norbitonflyer]

I've not independently verified this but it's possible they wre wrong.

My Over-60 Oyster card was rejected at the EMT ticket gate at St Pancras, (even though there was a reader) so I had to "seek assistance". It was then i was told it was only valid on Thameslink.

Bringing local rail into the Bee Network will integrate it with Metrolink and bus fares, but I guess it remains to be seen if that also involves taking it out of the national ticketing system. Because most of the Bee Network rail routes will continue outside the network area, I would guess that through rail fares will continue to be available even for stations only served by Bee Network trains.

It shouldn't do. NR fares are still available on all Overground and Elizabeth Line services, as well as TOC-operated services within Greater London.

The analogy should be with the Croydon Tramlink. Services and fares on the ex-BR sections of that are not part of National Rail.

Integrating the fares does not necessarily mean making them the same. TfL bus and tram fares are not the same as Tube fares, and they are not the same as all NR fares between the same points. e.g there are three different fares between Richmond and Charing Cross, depending whether you use District Line, SWR/SER, or SWR/Northern Line.

 

[JBuchananGB]

They could start by making some fares available onto the Metrolink.

https://www.brfares.com/!!fares?orig=SOP&dest=QMH&period=20240303

 

[Hadders]

Just to clear up a few myths on ticketing in this thread:

Boundary Zone tickets can be used on any appropriate operator unless specified on the ticket. So a BZ6 to Bedford is valid on EMR, BZ6 to Stevenage is valid on LNER, BZ6 to Milton Keynes is valid on Avanti etc. The only operator routed BZ ticket I'm aware of is BZ6 to Peterborough which is routed Thameslink & Great Northern Only.

Contactless is valid on EMR to Luton Airport Parkway. I also understand that LNER are involved in negotiations to accept it at Stevenage as part of Project Oval phase 2. GWR accept contactless between Reading and Paddington.

 

[TUC]

But then what happens when Liverpool City Region want Merseyrail branding on the City Line trains, and Lancashire CC want their own branding too....

That used to happen when PTEs previously had greater control over local rail operations.

It was just accepted as a fact of life that trains with West Yorkshire Metro livery would appear in Greater Manchester, or vice - versa.

 

[domcoop7]

The amount of hostility to the Bee proposal in this thread seems bizarre as is the confusion over what is required for it to function. Coming back yet again to the TfL model, extending TfL's contactless/Oyster scheme to London's rail commuter lines has involved no rebranding of trains at all.

There have been some references to London Overground and its branding but that was a completely separate initiative. It has been extremely successful in creating a major new and well-used surburban network from mostly almost defunct lines, stations and services scattered around London. I have no idea whether similar scope exists around Manchester but if TfGM could also achieve a branded network similar to the Overground you would expect rail enthusiasts to welcome it rather than worrying that contactless will increase the use of some trains.

Well that's because Burnham's announcement isn't clear.

If what he was announcing was "TfGM will provide a dual ticketing system so that contactless can be used on trains, and will put train timetables on our 'Bee Network' app, and will vinyl 'Bee Network' logos on some local stations", then I agree, some reactions are over the top, and all the posts on this thread saying "what's the problem?" are right.

But he didn't say that. He said there will be a trial of the contactless payments on two routes by 2025. He also said that "eight train lines will be part of the new local transport network by 2028." Not just contactless ticketing, but the lines themselves will be run by the Bee Network.

This is then getting into speculation, because that doesn't mean anything. But logical analysis suggests that if it involves negotiating with the Treasury and the DfT, and is more than just a contactless fares system, and the lines will be "part" of the Bee Network then it has to be one of two things. Either firstly, it is just the same as what I said above (contactless payments, with some vinyl logos) and it's just typical politicians' hype printed verbatim by the local news outlet. Or, secondly, there will be something greater than that ranging from powers to direct the service up to actually running them themselves (a la Merseyrail or London Overground).

It's only reasonable and fair to consider the downsides of giving control of (some) of a regional rail network to a local authority that operates in just part of the said region.

Merseyrail, for example, don't allow the use of barcode e-tickets - to justify staffing stations. Do we want to see the same on the Bee Network Rail lines?

If TfGM decide they don't want to accept National Rail tickets at all, like Metrolink, do we want to see that?

If TfGM decide they want to procure their own trains (like Merseyrail) because of evil far-right banks or whatever, and these are electric only or battery electric, do we want to see trains curtailed at Wigan Wallgate or a few stops after because they can't travel to the end anymore?

If TfGM decide that on their integrated network that when a line is out of action there's no need for a substitute bus service or for the railway to provide taxis for a late cancellation because they think people should just use the bus, are we fine with that?

If there's a choice between a Southport to Oxford Road or a Wigan North Western to the Airport but they can't run both, is it good that TfGM get to decide which one runs (inevitably the latter, because Southport voters don't get a say whereas Wigan voters do)?

If TfGM have to split revenue between their own services and TPE is it a good idea to let them ban their tickets from use on TPE so they keep more revenue but passengers have less choice?

If TfGM, because their Mayor needs to pander to the unions, gets told every station needs five staff between 5:00am and 1:30am, and every train needs four guards "for safety", should we let them hugely increase ticket prices for services they now run, but which are outside the areas where their voters live, in order to pay for it? Or have them demanding Central Government emergency funding each year, TfL style, so that everyone in the country pays for it?

Upthread someone suggested Burnham should get the power to levy payroll taxes and land value taxes because that's what Germany does. Given that the vast majority of people paying those payroll taxes and land value taxes do not use trains, and the medium term effect would be to encourage people who work in Manchester CIty Centre to buy and rent houses near railway stations further afield and get subsidised for doing so, it is a good idea to demand people pay money to TfGM so that TfGM can indirectly price them out of being able to buy or rent in their own local area?

 

[sprunt]

That's not speculation, it's scaremongering.

 

[Djgr]

Well that's because Burnham's announcement isn't clear.

If what he was announcing was "TfGM will provide a dual ticketing system so that contactless can be used on trains, and will put train timetables on our 'Bee Network' app, and will vinyl 'Bee Network' logos on some local stations", then I agree, some reactions are over the top, and all the posts on this thread saying "what's the problem?" are right.

But he didn't say that. He said there will be a trial of the contactless payments on two routes by 2025. He also said that "eight train lines will be part of the new local transport network by 2028." Not just contactless ticketing, but the lines themselves will be run by the Bee Network.

This is then getting into speculation, because that doesn't mean anything. But logical analysis suggests that if it involves negotiating with the Treasury and the DfT, and is more than just a contactless fares system, and the lines will be "part" of the Bee Network then it has to be one of two things. Either firstly, it is just the same as what I said above (contactless payments, with some vinyl logos) and it's just typical politicians' hype printed verbatim by the local news outlet. Or, secondly, there will be something greater than that ranging from powers to direct the service up to actually running them themselves (a la Merseyrail or London Overground).

It's only reasonable and fair to consider the downsides of giving control of (some) of a regional rail network to a local authority that operates in just part of the said region.

Merseyrail, for example, don't allow the use of barcode e-tickets - to justify staffing stations. Do we want to see the same on the Bee Network Rail lines?

If TfGM decide they don't want to accept National Rail tickets at all, like Metrolink, do we want to see that?

If TfGM decide they want to procure their own trains (like Merseyrail) because of evil far-right banks or whatever, and these are electric only or battery electric, do we want to see trains curtailed at Wigan Wallgate or a few stops after because they can't travel to the end anymore?

If TfGM decide that on their integrated network that when a line is out of action there's no need for a substitute bus service or for the railway to provide taxis for a late cancellation because they think people should just use the bus, are we fine with that?

If there's a choice between a Southport to Oxford Road or a Wigan North Western to the Airport but they can't run both, is it good that TfGM get to decide which one runs (inevitably the latter, because Southport voters don't get a say whereas Wigan voters do)?

If TfGM have to split revenue between their own services and TPE is it a good idea to let them ban their tickets from use on TPE so they keep more revenue but passengers have less choice?

If TfGM, because their Mayor needs to pander to the unions, gets told every station needs five staff between 5:00am and 1:30am, and every train needs four guards "for safety", should we let them hugely increase ticket prices for services they now run, but which are outside the areas where their voters live, in order to pay for it? Or have them demanding Central Government emergency funding each year, TfL style, so that everyone in the country pays for it?

Upthread someone suggested Burnham should get the power to levy payroll taxes and land value taxes because that's what Germany does. Given that the vast majority of people paying those payroll taxes and land value taxes do not use trains, and the medium term effect would be to encourage people who work in Manchester CIty Centre to buy and rent houses near railway stations further afield and get subsidised for doing so, it is a good idea to demand people pay money to TfGM so that TfGM can indirectly price them out of being able to buy or rent in their own local area?

The trouble with all of these debates about whether such things should be driven at a national or local level is the current lack of a functioning and competent government at Westminster.

 

[norbitonflyer]

Just to clear up a few myths on ticketing in this thread:

Boundary Zone tickets can be used on any appropriate operator unless specified on the ticket.

Contactless is valid on EMR to Luton Airport Parkway.

I had a boundary Z6 return to Luton Airport Parkway (bought at West Hampstead), using my Over-60 Oyster to get to the boundary.
Returned to St Pancras on an EMR 360 and was stopped at the barriers and told it wasn't valid.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I had a boundary Z6 return to Luton Airport Parkway (bought at West Hampstead), using my Over-60 Oyster to get to the boundary.
Returned to St Pancras on an EMR 360 and was stopped at the barriers and told it wasn't valid.

New thread created in Fares: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/over-60-oyster-and-boundary-zone-tickets.265145/

 

[norbitonflyer]

But this thread is about GM ticketing, not London. Boundary zone tickets do not exist.

Discussion is about how GM might deal with similar issues, learning from London's experience

 

[misar]

Well that's because Burnham's announcement isn't clear.

If what he was announcing was "TfGM will provide a dual ticketing system so that contactless can be used on trains, and will put train timetables on our 'Bee Network' app, and will vinyl 'Bee Network' logos on some local stations", then I agree, some reactions are over the top, and all the posts on this thread saying "what's the problem?" are right.

But he didn't say that. He said there will be a trial of the contactless payments on two routes by 2025. He also said that "eight train lines will be part of the new local transport network by 2028." Not just contactless ticketing, but the lines themselves will be run by the Bee Network.

This is then getting into speculation, because that doesn't mean anything.

The Manchester Evening News writer presumably heard Burnham's announcement first hand and emphasised the plan to bring forward contactless payments on eight train lines using the existing Bee Network facility. You are speculating about every conceivable problem which could possibly arise if TfGM might have further ambitions for an integrated transport network.

I have pointed out several times that if TfGM do have such ambitions they would find TfL an excellent role model because it has successfully avoided or overcome virtually every speculative "issue" raised in this thread. That includes expanding its own contactless scheme to incorporate more rail operators than pass through GM and separately building a branded rail network (London Overground) and a major tram line from largely defunct existing infrastructure.

 

[infobleep]

Well that's because Burnham's announcement isn't clear.

If what he was announcing was "TfGM will provide a dual ticketing system so that contactless can be used on trains, and will put train timetables on our 'Bee Network' app, and will vinyl 'Bee Network' logos on some local stations", then I agree, some reactions are over the top, and all the posts on this thread saying "what's the problem?" are right.

But he didn't say that. He said there will be a trial of the contactless payments on two routes by 2025. He also said that "eight train lines will be part of the new local transport network by 2028." Not just contactless ticketing, but the lines themselves will be run by the Bee Network.

This is then getting into speculation, because that doesn't mean anything. But logical analysis suggests that if it involves negotiating with the Treasury and the DfT, and is more than just a contactless fares system, and the lines will be "part" of the Bee Network then it has to be one of two things. Either firstly, it is just the same as what I said above (contactless payments, with some vinyl logos) and it's just typical politicians' hype printed verbatim by the local news outlet. Or, secondly, there will be something greater than that ranging from powers to direct the service up to actually running them themselves (a la Merseyrail or London Overground).

It's only reasonable and fair to consider the downsides of giving control of (some) of a regional rail network to a local authority that operates in just part of the said region.

Merseyrail, for example, don't allow the use of barcode e-tickets - to justify staffing stations. Do we want to see the same on the Bee Network Rail lines?

If TfGM decide they don't want to accept National Rail tickets at all, like Metrolink, do we want to see that?

If TfGM decide they want to procure their own trains (like Merseyrail) because of evil far-right banks or whatever, and these are electric only or battery electric, do we want to see trains curtailed at Wigan Wallgate or a few stops after because they can't travel to the end anymore?

If TfGM decide that on their integrated network that when a line is out of action there's no need for a substitute bus service or for the railway to provide taxis for a late cancellation because they think people should just use the bus, are we fine with that?

If there's a choice between a Southport to Oxford Road or a Wigan North Western to the Airport but they can't run both, is it good that TfGM get to decide which one runs (inevitably the latter, because Southport voters don't get a say whereas Wigan voters do)?

If TfGM have to split revenue between their own services and TPE is it a good idea to let them ban their tickets from use on TPE so they keep more revenue but passengers have less choice?

If TfGM, because their Mayor needs to pander to the unions, gets told every station needs five staff between 5:00am and 1:30am, and every train needs four guards "for safety", should we let them hugely increase ticket prices for services they now run, but which are outside the areas where their voters live, in order to pay for it? Or have them demanding Central Government emergency funding each year, TfL style, so that everyone in the country pays for it?

Upthread someone suggested Burnham should get the power to levy payroll taxes and land value taxes because that's what Germany does. Given that the vast majority of people paying those payroll taxes and land value taxes do not use trains, and the medium term effect would be to encourage people who work in Manchester CIty Centre to buy and rent houses near railway stations further afield and get subsidised for doing so, it is a good idea to demand people pay money to TfGM so that TfGM can indirectly price them out of being able to buy or rent in their own local area?

I am reminded of the term, "Project fear".

 

[riceuten]

Creating a TfL style system in Greater Manchester does make sense and I would imagine a Labour DfT would back it.

It makes sense in most urban conurbations and beyond. The fact Stagecoach fought so hard against it made me doubly convinced. I suspect whether you like what Burnham has done or is proposing depends very much on your politics and personal view of the Metro Mayor

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Creating a TfL style system in Greater Manchester does make sense and I would imagine a Labour DfT would back it.

I was unaware that political parties had staffing arrangements of their own party members at the Department of Transport when being the political party in power. When was the first year that this occurred and who were in power then?

 

[Elecman]

The DaFT civil servants will do what their Political Masters instruct them