Mersey & Gtr Manchester calls for Arriva to lose Northern franchise

[option]

But who would operate something like the CLC?

(I suppose a traditional bus-style "joint operation" could be used)

The other danger is that that leaves a "Lancashire, Cumbria and Yorkshire rural branch lines" franchise which would be ripe for death by a thousand cuts.

Well a good starting position might to be to carve a franchise area focused on the area covered by the Liverpool City Region and Manchester Metro mayors

If you mean the CLC lines, then they are within the Liverpool/Manchester metro area anyway.

Or do you mean some services would cross the boundary & so not have an obvious operator?
WMTrains services go beyond the TfWM/Centro area, & that works.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If you mean the CLC lines, then they are within the Liverpool/Manchester metro area anyway.

Oh, you're suggesting a single operator for both? I can't see the two Mayors finding that acceptable; they will want their own piece of the pie.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Or do you mean some services would cross the boundary & so not have an obvious operator?
WMTrains services go beyond the TfWM/Centro area, & that works.

"wmtrains" is a traditional franchised operation with two brands, though - a bit more like Northern though not quite as big.

Talking of Northern, with TPE removed perhaps the RRNW/RRNE split should come back. We didn't have the War of the Roses for nothing!

 

[JohnB57]

- Too many services to Manchester Airport, there are other airports such as Liverpool John Lennon Airport, Leeds Bradford International Airport, Robin Hood Airport and Humberside. So what's special about Manchester Airport?

It has a railway station?

 

[Gareth]

I'd prefer a large West Coast franchise with Virgin, WMT, North West half of Northern and the TPE North West Routes.

North West would have its own identity like WMT, with input from the local authorities in the area.

 

[option]

"wmtrains" is a traditional franchised operation with two brands, though - a bit more like Northern though not quite as big.

Talking of Northern, with TPE removed perhaps the RRNW/RRNE split should come back. We didn't have the War of the Roses for nothing!

I meant the actual West Midlands Railway part, that brand & set of services go beyond the TfWM borders
Or Merseyrail that make it outside of Liverpool, to Chester.

Oh, you're suggesting a single operator for both? I can't see the two Mayors finding that acceptable; they will want their own piece of the pie.

They could have a big say in a bigger pie...

 

[Andyh82]

The Northern franchise is too big

Most of the other TOCs have a clear focus

London TOCs mainly focus on travel in and out of London

West Midlands Trains has Birmingham as it’s main focus

East Midlands Trains has Nottingham/Derby as it’s main focus, TfW mainly has South Wales, GWR regional has Bristol

Northern has Leeds, Sheffield, Manchester, Liverpool and Newcastle all competiting to be their major focus, they have to deal with 5 PTEs, umpteen city mayors, rural, urban, you name it.

Northern is like if they merged SWR, Southern and South Eastern into one operator, far too big to deal with.

They should split it down the middle again, with the detached North East services separated out as a third part, either on its own, or if LNER gained local services with Great Northern, they could gain North East locals as well.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'd prefer a large West Coast franchise with Virgin, WMT, North West half of Northern and the TPE North West Routes.

North West would have its own identity like WMT, with input from the local authorities in the area.

Much as I have relatively little time for FirstGroup, the fully integrated "everything out of that London terminus and everything related to it" approach used on GWR does appear to really work quite well, to the extent that anything FirstGroup does works. That said, GWR doesn't have anything like the city networks you have in the North West.

I do wonder if TfGM/Merseytravel should take on the more self-contained lines themselves - for instance, the Hadfields and Marples could be operated as Metrolink even if they were 25kV EMUs or DMUs, and similarly Liverpool-Wigan-Preston, Ormskirk-Preston and a Kirkby-Wigan shuttle as Merseyrail, and perhaps the two ends of the CLC similarly. Then that leaves the rest a bit more like what GWR has - a combination of InterCity and connecting regional and regional expresses.

 

[muz379]

- Not enough paths, some services should join and split at certain stations e.g Leeds, Barnsley, Goole, Doncaster, Man Vic and Preston.

Not sure there is the capacity at Leeds ,Man Vic or Preston for attaching and dividing trains in the fashion expected . Especially at Vic with through platform space already at a premium one slight delay to one portion of the train could have a huge knock on effect .

- Too many services are routed via Bradford Interchange and the six trains an hour through Huddersfield. Why not have some services running via Brighouse which would help spread the services across two main routes between Leeds and Manchester, even routing one via Wakefield could replace the current Castleford to Huddersfield shuttle.

I do think that the "Northern Connect" branded Leeds to Chester should be run via Dewsbury calling limited stops , then have the stopper that already does the Leeds-Southport . Replacing the lost via Halifax train with a Rochdale to Bradford Interchange all stops making use of the east facing bay at Rochdale at peak times it could be extended into and out of Leeds .

- Too many services to Manchester Airport, there are other airports such as Liverpool John Lennon Airport, Leeds Bradford International Airport, Robin Hood Airport and Humberside. So what's special about Manchester Airport?

To be fair it is the location with 4 west facing bays in the Manchester area to turn back for routes that way , the other places being Oxford road , Stalybridge and Stockport so is ideal for turning services back without messing about shunting at Piccadilly , and there is a train crew depot there for TPE so I dont think we will be seeing any going back on the number of services to the airport .Of course out of the airports you just mentioned Manchester is also the one with the biggest list of destinations and thus passenger numbers , it is the only one with two runways and multiple terminals so it should be obvious why out of all the airports in the region it is the main airport destination .

- Various Combined Authorities, simply scrap them and let the local councils deal with buses/trams and the railway part hived off to Rail North or placed under a new brand e.g. Network North.

Im not sure this would make a whole heap of difference , even if you deal with a body like transport for the North all councils have representatives in that body so there will still be competing interests .

 

[option]

Obviously the Northern franchise is large and should be merged with that of TransPennine and manage the whole network the same way as Network South East was - is the only way.

- Various Combined Authorities, simply scrap them and let the local councils deal with buses/trams and the railway part hived off to Rail North or placed under a new brand e.g. Network North.

That's not how things are going, & nor should they. That was the old, & partly current, system, & it simply doesn't work.
The combined authorities are growing in number, & powers.
Which council would take on Metrolink, or Merseyrail, or Metro?

An entire 'Northern' operation is not localised enough to get investment from local transport bodies, nor is it big enough to do an NSE (930 stations, control over infrastructure, more geographically dense network, more similarity between services, likely profitable)

 

[158756]

I happen to disagree with the idea that reduced frequency will solve anything even if trains are longer. 5 trains an hour at least are needed Leeds- Manchester and Leeds- Bradford- Halifax if you want to avoid overcrowding and eliminate standing. Train lengthening will only get you so far because a reduced frequency for the same number of passengers does nothing to increase capacity and may well stifle growth and force people to consider driving

Reducing from 5 to 4tph wouldn't help, and they can't be at even intervals anyway because of all the branches and stopping patterns. 5tph to 2tph with the same number of carriages in total would instantly solve overcrowding because demand would collapse.

I do think that the "Northern Connect" branded Leeds to Chester should be run via Dewsbury calling limited stops , then have the stopper that already does the Leeds-Southport . Replacing the lost via Halifax train with a Rochdale to Bradford Interchange all stops making use of the east facing bay at Rochdale at peak times it could be extended into and out of Leeds .

You can't just add extra trains to the Dewsbury route without reducing the TPE service, and going that way doesn't necessarily make that much sense - however you route it the fastest way from Leeds to Manchester will always be TPE, and you lose the passengers from Bradford and Halifax.

Why a Rochdale to Bradford stopper? Missing out the two biggest destinations on the route. At the western end especially it would be pointless.

 

[Glenn1969]

Will the planned Transpennine quadrupling Huddersfield to Thornhill Junction allow Northern to introduce extra services? I know Brighouse area passengers would like a faster service to Leeds and the Northern TSR includes a new Calder Valley Liverpool service.

 

[Andrew32]

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/business/northern-rail-operator-faces-end-of-the-line-cqggh9vsd


Northern rail operator faces end of the line

John Collingridge
June 2 2019, 12:01am, The Sunday Times

The viability of the rail operator Northern is being investigated amid growing expectation that it will be the next train franchise to be renationalised.

The operator of last resort (OLR), a government arm that takes over ailing rail routes, is understood to be conducting due diligence on Northern, which has been hit by strikes, delays and last year’s timetable chaos.

Last week, city leaders from the north of England called for the vast franchise — which stretches from Liverpool to Hull and from Middlesbrough to Nottingham — to be taken back into state hands.

The OLR already runs the East Coast line, renationalised last year when Stagecoach and Virgin gave back the keys after overbidding for the right to run the route.

Northern’s finances are widely thought to be unsustainable. The German giant Arriva won the franchise in 2016 with a pledge to reduce its reliance on state subsidy. However, it has been beset by problems and bosses have tried to renegotiate the contract with the Department for Transport (DfT)....

 

[Djgr]

Interesting to read in today's press about government plans to take Northern's franchise away.

Clearly not everyone is as positive about the TOC as the contributors to this thread.

 

[Glenn1969]

I haven't seen or heard anything saying that and can't find anything online even on Google search

 

[Djgr]

I haven't seen or heard anything saying that and can't find anything online even on Google search

There's a thread on here- starts "End of the line for Northern"!

 

[Glenn1969]

I don't see it happening and the DfT responded to the Metro mayors' letter categorically denying there was any prospect of the franchise being revoked. That may well be because the DfT has no interest in the North when push comes to shove

 

[northernchris]

Not really surprising given Arriva have tried to renegotiate the terms and not all of the factors are within their control. However, Northern is a complex franchise and I'm not convinced renationalising will see any improvements

 

[quantinghome]

Replacement with a concession let by transport for the north would be a sensible solution, with city region transport authorities given a signficant role.

 

[Meerkat]

Surely it would need splitting up before devolution?

Still convinced TfN is a divide and conquer by the DfT/Treasury - force northern authorities into a structure almost certain to set them at each other’s throats.

 

[Andyh82]

Is there any more to this than the story a few days ago that the Liverpool and Manchester mayors wanted this to happen?

 

[Andyh82]

If it was nationalised what realistically could happen in the short or even medium term? All the issues people have with Northern would still exist.

 

[squizzler]

It seems churlish not to allow them at least the honour of introducing their new rolling stock, as with VTEC and its Azumas (although the latter was a DfT project at least.)

 

[yorkie]

To avoid this thread becoming a thread for speculative ideas, please post any ideas/suggestions for service changes/improvements in this thread: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/ideas-to-simplify-the-northern-rail-network.183660/

 

[158756]

It seems churlish not to allow them at least the honour of introducing their new rolling stock, as with VTEC and its Azumas (although the latter was a DfT project at least.)

The new trains are late and contributing to the problems. That is Arriva's fault - they should have managed the contract better and had an alternative ready to go if they knew there was a risk of late delivery.

 

[ainsworth74]

That is Arriva's fault - they should have managed the contract better and had an alternative ready to go if they knew there was a risk of late delivery.

How could they have managed the contract better and what alternative do should they have utilised?

 

[158756]

How could they have managed the contract better and what alternative do should they have utilised?

CAF should have been better incentivised for prompt delivery, and the trains should have arrived ready to use, not with design errors preventing them entering service. I don't know any obviously available alternatives - Arriva are the ones taking hundreds of millions of pounds for presiding over this mess, they should have found one, poached some stock from elsewhere, funded the 319 conversion, something. If they bring no additional expertise to the table there's no reason not to nationalise it.

 

[Glenn1969]

Yes but isn't some of the reason for the late introduction of the trains down to NR's bungling of the NW electrification? Arriva and CAF can't be blamed for that. As a Northerner I think nationalisation would take us back decades due to Governments being unwilling to invest in the North

 

[Bertie the bus]

Yes but isn't some of the reason for the late introduction of the trains down to NR's bungling of the NW electrification?

Absolutely not, no. There is going to have to be a bit of a rejigging of 3 and 4 car 331 diagrams due to the Airedale platform lengthenings happening later than planned but Network Rail are in no way responsible for these units not yet being in service.

 

[DarloRich]

The new trains are late and contributing to the problems. That is Arriva's fault - they should have managed the contract better and had an alternative ready to go if they knew there was a risk of late delivery.

How could they have managed the contract better and what alternative do should they have utilised?

CAF should have been better incentivised for prompt delivery, and the trains should have arrived ready to use, not with design errors preventing them entering service. I don't know any obviously available alternatives - Arriva are the ones taking hundreds of millions of pounds for presiding over this mess, they should have found one, poached some stock from elsewhere, funded the 319 conversion, something. If they bring no additional expertise to the table there's no reason not to nationalise it.

It is almost as if posters here think contracts are a new idea! I bet the contract has all kinds of damages for late delivery built in. You can enforce them all you like. It wont get your train delivered any sooner which is the big issue here!