Is rail REALLY that bad in the North?

[Moonshot]

So if revenue targets are being missed there are not as many passengers being carried or they are making shorter journeys. Either way - there is more room on the trains. What's everyone complaining about?

Indeed The relevant forumite does do a lot of complaining about Knutsford

Clearly however there are some who are a bit more clued in - inclding those who actually travel on trains either as staff or commuters every day. Think I actually cover more rail miles in one day than some do in a year !!

 

[Bletchleyite]

If there was a Huddersfield-Leeds S-Bahn style service then it would probably be similar to Altrincham to Manchester on Metrolink. Passengers travelling that far wouldn't be impressed if they had to stand for the entire journey.

They can be impressed or unimpressed, but standing on short-distance commuter journeys is the case in many places.

The problem with TPE is the IC traffic. It's precisely the reason (well, one reason) the MKC commuters were partly taken off VT. But because the North's network is multicentric, pick up/set down restrictions can't solve it.

 

[pemma]

So if revenue targets are being missed there are not as many passengers being carried or they are making shorter journeys. Either way - there is more room on the trains. What's everyone complaining about?

There is certainly not more room on the Northern services I use - the chance of getting a seat is decreasing year on year.

If revenue targets are being missed it is likely to be because of the following:
1. Arriva expecting higher growth than was realistic.
2. More ticketless passengers getting past Guards/RPI
3. Industrial action. Northern get less passengers on strike days due to fewer services and they have to compensate season ticket holders.

 

[Bletchleyite]

1. Arriva expecting higher growth than was realistic.

My money is on that one.

 

[pemma]

They can be impressed or unimpressed, but standing on short-distance commuter journeys is the case in many places.

Huddersfield-Leeds is around 20 minutes. If you made it a very frequent all stops service it would probably take around 30 minutes, which is longer than the 20 minutes target which DfT set.

The problem with TPE is the IC traffic. It's precisely the reason (well, one reason) the MKC commuters were partly taken off VT. But because the North's network is multicentric, pick up/set down restrictions can't solve it.

Agreed.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Huddersfield-Leeds is around 20 minutes. If you made it a very frequent all stops service it would probably take around 30 minutes, which is longer than the 20 minutes target which DfT set.

True. Though would it end up full and standing throughout? I doubt it, particularly not if it was run as a 4-car set with 3+2 seating, e.g. a pair of 150/2s.

 

[pemma]

True. Though would it end up full and standing throughout? I doubt it, particularly not if it was run as a 4-car set with 3+2 seating, e.g. a pair of 150/2s.

I would hope if that was seriously considered that it would be an electric service.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I would hope if that was seriously considered that it would be an electric service.

If it was an electric service there wouldn't be a capacity issue as we could just throw the huge number of spare EMUs at the problem and run an 8-car EMU fast service just ahead of the TPE.

 

[Senex]

They can be impressed or unimpressed, but standing on short-distance commuter journeys is the case in many places.

The problem with TPE is the IC traffic. It's precisely the reason (well, one reason) the MKC commuters were partly taken off VT. But because the North's network is multicentric, pick up/set down restrictions can't solve it.

But "Verkehrsverbund" fares (in this case West Yorkshire Metro) v. "big railway" fares could.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But "Verkehrsverbund" fares (in this case West Yorkshire Metro) v. "big railway" fares could.

Yes, good point.

 

[AndrewE]

Leeds-Manchester ... too often unpleasantly over-filled). [also] standing in First from Durham on a Newcastle starter and once the same from Manchester Airport on a train starting there...
that standard of overcrowding is not acceptable to passengers making lengthy journeys...

Senex, take the prize for the understatement of the year! I would say that when westbound long-distance travellers with onward connections to make get left behind at Leeds then we lose any chance of public support for investment, as in their minds "Rail just fails to deliver."

Never mind that some front-line staff are as embarrassed as the punters are disappointed, or that politicians might claim (again) that they are investing millions in transport in the North. Rail has let them down and I am afraid that half of them would support motorway upgrades and more express coach services if they were to be canvassed by a polling organisaton.

 

[AndrewE]

But "Verkehrsverbund" fares (in this case West Yorkshire Metro) v. "big railway" fares could.

Hence my suggestion that the overcrowded trains (probably limited to some evening peak services westbound out of Leeds, and maybe Manchester too) have a restriction that stops local passengers preventing access to long distance trains by those travelling further afield .

It was quite common on the continent 20, 30 or 40 years ago, when long distance international trains that were part of an hourly internal cycle were restricted for local traffic in the evening peak. I'll see if I can dig out an example.

 

[6Gman]

As an infrequent user of TPE I would agree with the overcrowding issue. I also have great sympathy for the comparisons between London and the North of England, however what is lacking from an outsiders viewpoint is a body that lobbies for the North in the same way as the Mayor and London assembly does. That puts the North at an immediate disadvantage.

Longer trains would improve the situation greatly. Surely that cant be that difficult to do.

Not difficult.

Expensive.

Who pays?

 

[daodao]

Hence my suggestion that the overcrowded trains (probably limited to some evening peak services westbound out of Leeds, and maybe Manchester too) have a restriction that stops local passengers preventing access to long distance trains by those travelling further afield .

It was quite common on the continent 20, 30 or 40 years ago, when long distance international trains that were part of an hourly internal cycle were restricted for local traffic in the evening peak. I'll see if I can dig out an example.

I have a reprint of a 1910 Bradshaw timetable, which has many examples of trains which state "local passengers are not carried between X and Y on this train". A similar restriction could apply on selected trains today, with RPIs on board from time to time to impose penalty fares on short-distance travellers with tickets just valid from X to Y.

 

[SamYeager]

Not difficult.

Expensive.

Who pays?

Well obviously not the North! :roll: They just want squillions spent on them until they match what's spent in the "London" although I've not heard of any proposals for additional funding such as that done by TfL.

There does seem an attitude in the North that it's only them that have been hard done by. :roll: If I seem uncaring it's because I don't see that many proposals to improve the service in the SW other than the bare minimum required for electrification and even that's being cut back and deferred.

 

[Bantamzen]

Well obviously not the North! :roll: They just want squillions spent on them until they match what's spent in the "London" although I've not heard of any proposals for additional funding such as that done by TfL.

There does seem an attitude in the North that it's only them that have been hard done by. :roll: If I seem uncaring it's because I don't see that many proposals to improve the service in the SW other than the bare minimum required for electrification and even that's being cut back and deferred.

I'm sorry but that is just not true, and again this is not a North vs South debate. Please go back and read the thread again. Nobody is asking for a like-for-like system. What we are asking for is a level of investment that matches growth and better provides what the region needs.

 

[ashworth]

There does seem an attitude in the North that it's only them that have been hard done by. :roll: If I seem uncaring it's because I don't see that many proposals to improve the service in the SW other than the bare minimum required for electrification and even that's being cut back and deferred.

It does also concern me that all the references to the Northern Powerhouse and HS3 seem so Manchester and Leeds centred. I hope it won't end up that those who shout the loudest get the improvements whilst other areas of the country continue to be overlooked and neglected.

There seems to be this continual comparisons between spending in London and certain areas of the North but what about areas like the East Midlands and perhaps Sheffield can be included as an add on to that area. EMT have had no new trains during the current franchise and I am not sure if there are any plans for new trains, certainly away from the MML route, for the new franchise. I must add that unlike Northern, Stagecoach EMT have made a fantastic job of refurbishing old 153, 156 and 158 trains.

The new Northern franchise has included lots of new trains especially for the Northern Connect services. The new West Midlands franchise has plans for lots of new trains even though after Central Trains was split up the West Midlands got much better stock than the East Midlands and subsequently London Midland got lost of new trains but EMT got nothing. There seems to be no plans currently for anything to replace the EMT local stock. The cancellation of the MML electrification also has been another lack of investment in the East Midlands although I do believe we are eventually to get new bimode trains.

 

[47802]

It does also concern me that all the references to the Northern Powerhouse and HS3 seem so Manchester and Leeds centred. I hope it won't end up that those who shout the loudest get the improvements whilst other areas of the country continue to be overlooked and neglected.

There seems to be this continual comparisons between spending in London and certain areas of the North but what about areas like the East Midlands and perhaps Sheffield can be included as an add on to that area. EMT have had no new trains during the current franchise and I am not sure if there are any plans for new trains, certainly away from the MML route, for the new franchise. I must add that unlike Northern, Stagecoach EMT have made a fantastic job of refurbishing old 153, 156 and 158 trains.

The new Northern franchise has included lots of new trains especially for the Northern Connect services. The new West Midlands franchise has plans for lots of new trains even though after Central Trains was split up the West Midlands got much better stock than the East Midlands and subsequently London Midland got lost of new trains but EMT got nothing. There seems to be no plans currently for anything to replace the EMT local stock. The cancellation of the MML electrification also has been another lack of investment in the East Midlands although I do believe we are eventually to get new bimode trains.

Good grief the new EMT franchise is still in its early stages of development as yet, EMT doesn't have a large fleet of Pacers to deal with yes it has some 153's which will have to be dealt with but its Nothing like the Northern Pacer issue, and both Sheffield, Worksop, Lincoln and Nottingham etc will benefit from Northern's new Connect Service, it always strikes me that EMT is kind of luxury compared to Northern yes they have capacity issues like Northern, but most of their Sprinter fleet is much better condition internally than Northern, and their 158's have had a proper refurb unlike Northern 158's.

 

[pemma]

Well obviously not the North! :roll: They just want squillions spent on them until they match what's spent in the "London" although I've not heard of any proposals for additional funding such as that done by TfL.

There does seem an attitude in the North that it's only them that have been hard done by. :roll: If I seem uncaring it's because I don't see that many proposals to improve the service in the SW other than the bare minimum required for electrification and even that's being cut back and deferred.

And you've just highlighted one of the big problems. People keep saying 'North.' The North is not one region and neither are all local services in the North provided by Northern. (Northern also provide local connections in the north Midlands.)

The South West region stretches from Isles of Scilly to Gloucestershire, Swindon and Bournemouth. It's population is 5.29 million. The North West only covers the western side of the North from Cheshire to Cumbria and it's population is 7.05 million - and that's just one of three regions in the 'North.' So the South West sees trains like 450s, 458s, 165s and 166s on local services and will soon see brand new 387s. It's not just old 150s and the number of 150s used will decrease as more are cascaded to Northern and replaced with more modern stock.

I also wouldn't be surprised if the next GWR franchise sees new train orders to supplement the improvements being made by the current franchise. The next franchise will start soon before when the next General Election is scheduled and there are a lot of marginal seats in the GWR franchise area.

 

[pemma]

I have a reprint of a 1910 Bradshaw timetable, which has many examples of trains which state "local passengers are not carried between X and Y on this train". A similar restriction could apply on selected trains today, with RPIs on board from time to time to impose penalty fares on short-distance travellers with tickets just valid from X to Y.

You mean like this

I think the modern equivalent of that is an operator specific restriction applying from certain stations.

 

[backontrack]

Well obviously not the North! :roll: They just want squillions spent on them until they match what's spent in the "London" although I've not heard of any proposals for additional funding such as that done by TfL.

There does seem an attitude in the North that it's only them that have been hard done by. :roll: If I seem uncaring it's because I don't see that many proposals to improve the service in the SW other than the bare minimum required for electrification and even that's being cut back and deferred.

Maybe you've not been to the North - because you don't seem to understand the state of transport there.

Actually, while we're at it, can we stop referring to the North as one homogenous unit, please guys? It's made up of different regions with different characters, different towns and different accents. It's really not the same...things won't be able to improve until we can get everyone to realise that Cumbria and Durham, East Yorkshire and West Yorkshire, Merseyside and Manchester, Northumberland and Newcastle, Sheffield and Skipton are all unique areas and are all different from each other, and all have slightly different needs but at the same time share some underlying problems caused by lack of investment. It's not all homogenous or identikit; if you live in Preston, someone in the deeper dales of the Lake District will see you as a sooner or southerner. Rant over.

 

[aylesbury]

Totally agree the North is a unique diverse part of England as indeed is the south east and west.

But the politicians and the press class them as homogeneous areas. The North has been starved of investment indeed the franchise was let as a no-growth one but has prospered no thanks to DAFT.

If I lived in one of the areas affected by curtailment of electrification I would be very upset. Even in the seventies, rail was a poor relation with regard to new trains and as the decades passed it has got worse.

Northern Powerhouses will need to benefit the highest numbers of people, hence Manchester Leeds are the main areas tasked.

Looking at HLO6 from NR, not much is going to be done overall in the UK except more roads and new houses. Rail infrastructure is a long way down the list.

Welcome to Britain in the 21st century!

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Huddersfield-Leeds is around 20 minutes. If you made it a very frequent all stops service it would probably take around 30 minutes, which is longer than the 20 minutes target which DfT set.

When did Northern get this new stock that can cover Huddersfield to Leeds in only 10 minutes longer than the TPEs despite making 6-7 intermediate calls? I wish someone had told me, as I've been needlessly wasting my time on 144s!

 

[AM9]

... Actually, while we're at it, can we stop referring to the North as one homogenous unit, please guys? ...

Actually, the OP of this thread referred to 'the North' in the title:

Is rail REALLY that bad in the North?

and he opened his post with the statement:

I keep reading all these negative stories about rail in the North, but is it really all that bad?

So everybody who has made comments abouth the north are just following the subject of the OP. Interestingly, many of the 'grass is greener on the other side' comments refer to 'London', 'the south-east', or even just 'the south' as though each of those soubriquets refer to homogenous areas of transport adequacy and investment.

 

[Bletchleyite]

So everybody who has made comments abouth the north are just following the subject of the OP. Interestingly, many of the 'grass is greener on the other side' comments refer to 'London', 'the south-east', or even just 'the south' as though each of those soubriquets refer to homogenous areas of transport adequacy and investment.

I don't think it's too bad a comparison, really.

North:

- web-like network of relatively slow services connecting a large number of dispersed but large conurbations, with some barely-adequate city services and a few high quality, high intensity services like Merseyrail, Metrolink and the Newcastle Metro etc. In many ways very similar to Switzerland or the Netherlands.

- Later-built motorway network also web-like, emphasizing that this does typify the transport demand.

- Funding difficulties due to economic situation being weaker.

- Large rural areas with low economic activity, but also large, sprawling conurbations where most work is located.

- Journeys typically relatively short (local) and multi-centric.

- Overcrowding issues due primarily to short trains.

South East (I think a better term than South, because from about Bournemouth west the South West is more like the North in railway terms):

- Primarily radial network of relatively fast or high-intensity services.

- Uni-centric - network is primarily geared up to London commuting and tourism.

- Funding more available due to high economic activity in London.

- Primarily rural and prosperous due to farming being added to by income from London commuters

- No real conurbations outside London, but large numbers of small to medium sized towns strung out along railway lines.

- Journeys typically longer and quicker (with one end being London) giving a high fares income per hour of journey time, which makes staff costs easier to cover. Local travel on trains confined really to smaller areas, bus, car and bike primarily used for local travel.

- Some areas of deprivation mainly in towns, but economy means these are not as difficult to address as in the North.

- Much more like France in rail topography and usage terms.

- Overcrowding issues, where they exist, are mainly due to infrastructure constraints.

I think they're fair "common characteristics" of each area in a transport sense?

 

[AM9]

I don't think it's too bad a comparison, really.

North:

- web-like network of relatively slow services connecting a large number of dispersed but large conurbations, with some barely-adequate city services and a few high quality, high intensity services like Merseyrail, Metrolink and the Newcastle Metro etc. In many ways very similar to Switzerland or the Netherlands.

- Later-built motorway network also web-like, emphasizing that this does typify the transport demand.

- Funding difficulties due to economic situation being weaker.

- Large rural areas with low economic activity, but also large, sprawling conurbations where most work is located.

- Journeys typically relatively short (local) and multi-centric.

- Overcrowding issues due primarily to short trains.

South East (I think a better term than South, because from about Bournemouth west the South West is more like the North in railway terms):

- Primarily radial network of relatively fast or high-intensity services.

- Uni-centric - network is primarily geared up to London commuting and tourism.

- Funding more available due to high economic activity in London.

- Primarily rural and prosperous due to farming being added to by income from London commuters

- No real conurbations outside London, but large numbers of small to medium sized towns strung out along railway lines.

- Journeys typically longer and quicker (with one end being London) giving a high fares income per hour of journey time, which makes staff costs easier to cover. Local travel on trains confined really to smaller areas, bus, car and bike primarily used for local travel.

- Some areas of deprivation mainly in towns, but economy means these are not as difficult to address as in the North.

- Much more like France in rail topography and usage terms.

- Overcrowding issues, where they exist, are mainly due to infrastructure constraints.

I think they're fair "common characteristics" of each area in a transport sense?

I agree with all of that. The problem is that many from outside the south-east just see the multi-million expenditure which is needed to provide for two-thirds of all non-intercity rail travel as 'unfair'. So we get new rolling stock engineered mainly for route capacity. Just look at the criticism in these forums about class 700s, class 387s, even class 345s - much more to come about them when their novelty wears off and users depend on them. You'd think that these new trains were worse than pacers.
From an enthusiast's point of view, the north is much more interesting, but for commuters, as you say, the continued running of 2 & 3-car MUs is just unsustainable with the limited options for additional paths. In the south-east, that lesson was learnt decades ago*. If the northern network concentrated on running decent length trains (with platform lengthening where necessary) the passenger experience would drastically improve. Then when their system was really maxed out, (even at 8-cars) there would be a case for serious infrastructure investment.
Instead we keep hearing the "we want 'new' trains just like the south-east" often laced with well hackneyed comments about the Government only caring about London.
* The main exception that I can see is the 5/6-car limit on LO.

 

[pemma]

When did Northern get this new stock that can cover Huddersfield to Leeds in only 10 minutes longer than the TPEs despite making 6-7 intermediate calls? I wish someone had told me, as I've been needlessly wasting my time on 144s!

It was a hypothetical scenario (highlighted by the use of the word 'if') due to the number of posters saying about barring Huddersfield passengers from North TPE services. Huddersfield-Leeds is supposed to be electrified.

 

[Bantamzen]

I agree with all of that. The problem is that many from outside the south-east just see the multi-million expenditure which is needed to provide for two-thirds of all non-intercity rail travel as 'unfair'. So we get new rolling stock engineered mainly for route capacity. Just look at the criticism in these forums about class 700s, class 387s, even class 345s - much more to come about them when their novelty wears off and users depend on them. You'd think that these new trains were worse than pacers.
From an enthusiast's point of view, the north is much more interesting, but for commuters, as you say, the continued running of 2 & 3-car MUs is just unsustainable with the limited options for additional paths. In the south-east, that lesson was learnt decades ago*. If the northern network concentrated on running decent length trains (with platform lengthening where necessary) the passenger experience would drastically improve. Then when their system was really maxed out, (even at 8-cars) there would be a case for serious infrastructure investment.
Instead we keep hearing the "we want 'new' trains just like the south-east" often laced with well hackneyed comments about the Government only caring about London.
* The main exception that I can see is the 5/6-car limit on LO.

The problem however is in those platform lengthening, as in there are an awful lot of platforms that will need lengthening even just for 5 or 6 car operations, and in some cases even 4. And with lengthening comes the need at some stations for infrastructural changes to allow lengthening. Of course an interim solution would be to use SDO on units where available, or even lock out units that will overhang. But the reality will always be that the fewer the doors, the longer the dwell times, the fewer paths you can create. And not only that, but where stoppers mix with semi-fasts and express service along 2 track sections pathing becomes even more problematic.

This is why no one solution will work as a magic bullet and why like it or not improving the situation dramatically will take time and money. Simple "sticking plaster" solutions may offer some short term relief, but are not the be all and end all as they have been in the past.

 

[AM9]

The problem however is in those platform lengthening, as in there are an awful lot of platforms that will need lengthening even just for 5 or 6 car operations, and in some cases even 4. And with lengthening comes the need at some stations for infrastructural changes to allow lengthening. Of course an interim solution would be to use SDO on units where available, or even lock out units that will overhang. But the reality will always be that the fewer the doors, the longer the dwell times, the fewer paths you can create. And not only that, but where stoppers mix with semi-fasts and express service along 2 track sections pathing becomes even more problematic. ...

As I said in my post, "In the south-east, that lesson was learnt decades ago" by which I meant, there was a long and continuous programme (which is still going on) to maximise the length of platforms so that optimal length trains can be run. Yes it does involve infrastructural investment including track alterations, moving signals, altering station and other road/rail bridges, even altering station access arrangements, but it has to be done to get any real capacity improvement in the service where there aren't multiple relief tracks or continuous wide formations to double up capacity.
On many of the routes that I've travelled on up north, the biggest difference I saw was the amount of unused track, wide gaps between platforms, and generally unused space within the railway land. That just isn't there in the south-east as the big sale of valuable land has meant that the railway is usually just two or four tracks wide with minimal embankments or retaining walls. Platforms are squeezed in between the fences and road bridges making it difficult and disruptive to extend them. If as it seems, prosperity in the northern cities picks up, this land will becoma too valuable to leave under utilised, so it may become built-on and lost forever to the railway. It's beginning to look like that on the southern approaches to Manchester, and I suspect Leeds as well.
My local line, Thameslink has recently lengthened most of the main MML platforms to accommodate 12x20m cars, (reckoned by some to be the optimum for high volume commuter traffic). Expanding Kentish Town's platforms was considered just too difficult so the Metro service that stops there is limited to 8-car units. That tied in with another constraint, the shorter platforms on the Sutton loop, but by investing in the (despised by some), class 700 trains that even at that 8-car length have a peak capacity of over 1000 passengers. If even more capacity is required, the bullet will need to be bitten to either extend the 'difficult' ones, move stations completely or build completely new lines from scratch. None of those would get funded fast just because 'it's London'.

 

[The Ham]

The problem however is in those platform lengthening, as in there are an awful lot of platforms that will need lengthening even just for 5 or 6 car operations, and in some cases even 4. And with lengthening comes the need at some stations for infrastructural changes to allow lengthening. Of course an interim solution would be to use SDO on units where available, or even lock out units that will overhang. But the reality will always be that the fewer the doors, the longer the dwell times, the fewer paths you can create. And not only that, but where stoppers mix with semi-fasts and express service along 2 track sections pathing becomes even more problematic.

This is why no one solution will work as a magic bullet and why like it or not improving the situation dramatically will take time and money. Simple "sticking plaster" solutions may offer some short term relief, but are not the be all and end all as they have been in the past.

I would argue that the need to lengthen platforms depends on the use that the station gets compared with the length of the train stopping there.

There are lots of stations in the South East (mostly over 45 minutes from London) that can't take 8 coach trains, some that struggle with more than 4. Now because this stations see relatively low passenger usage then having only the front 4 coaches of a 8, 10 or 12 coach train open doesn't cause too many delays (mostly due to being able to walk between units). As anyone for those stations make sure they are in the right coaches will in advance of the station as they get told before they get on as well as on the train.