• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Financial Difficulty at Northern?

Status
Not open for further replies.

AM9

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2014
Messages
14,191
Location
St Albans
I think Northern has really pushed away the bread and butter that is the commuters and it's a terrible mistake. Large numbers of passengers arriving at predictable times, willing to pay much higher fares than young people like me, using their railcard to get a cheap off peak to go see their mates or nip to the shops.

What these passengers really need is reliability and space during peak times. Perhaps some messing round with train lengths and nabbing some cars off trains going back against the flow at peak times. At the very least, making sure no short forms will be going into at 7/8am or out of at 5/6pm Manchester or other major cities.

The states heavily gears their systems around commuters. The Long Island Railroad in NY state literally only flows one way in the mornings and evenings, only now they are adding extra tracks will a reverse flow exist. Obviously, this is not at all the UK way of doing things, but my point is a bit more thought being put in to catering to these spikes in demand could make a massive difference.

Commuters are bread and butter and if you treat them nicely enough, they might use the train for leasure as well ;)
Commuters are not bread and butter revenue. Relying on the revenue from their fares to pay for the scale of infrastructure and rolling stock required to prevent mutinies by masses of angry commuters is not a way to profitability. Commuters are not willing to pay much higher fares, and with the majority of them using season tickets, do not pay higher fares. Indeed, the normal fare paid on annual season tickets is about the same as off-peak walk-up tickets ant they travel on trains that some times only make one or two return journeys per day. Many staff are required to operate the service for 2-3 hours per morning and evening peaks requiring complicated shift working if wasteful levels in the intervening hours are to be avoided. Unless there is sufficient patronage to fill at least some trains between the peaks, subsidies would have to rise dramatically, even above current Northern levels. In the US and some other car-centric nations, the governments have grudgingly acknowledged that accommodating ever increasing tidal commmuter volumes on public roads cannot be tolerated. They are prepared to commit considerable levels of public funds maintaining financially inefficient peak-only suburban rail systems. So far, the UK has managed to keep a rail system that the general public sees as an asset for off-peak and importantly optional leisure travel. The revenue for that travel helps to defray the massive costs of subsidising commuter's fares.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

AMD

Member
Joined
6 Dec 2017
Messages
604
Commuters are not bread and butter revenue.
An example of this comes straight from the book 'The Network SouthEast Story' - in 1982/83 the London & South East sector required a subsidy of £322m (in 1983 prices!) because it was a commuter network. The book continues to describe how the network was developed driving off peak travel as one of the key planks of the plan to reduce the subsidy profile, and as we know the railways in the south east are overall in the profitable end of the spectrum now.
 

Jozhua

Established Member
Joined
6 Jan 2019
Messages
1,856
Commuters are not bread and butter revenue. Relying on the revenue from their fares to pay for the scale of infrastructure and rolling stock required to prevent mutinies by masses of angry commuters is not a way to profitability. Commuters are not willing to pay much higher fares, and with the majority of them using season tickets, do not pay higher fares. Indeed, the normal fare paid on annual season tickets is about the same as off-peak walk-up tickets ant they travel on trains that some times only make one or two return journeys per day. Many staff are required to operate the service for 2-3 hours per morning and evening peaks requiring complicated shift working if wasteful levels in the intervening hours are to be avoided. Unless there is sufficient patronage to fill at least some trains between the peaks, subsidies would have to rise dramatically, even above current Northern levels. In the US and some other car-centric nations, the governments have grudgingly acknowledged that accommodating ever increasing tidal commmuter volumes on public roads cannot be tolerated. They are prepared to commit considerable levels of public funds maintaining financially inefficient peak-only suburban rail systems. So far, the UK has managed to keep a rail system that the general public sees as an asset for off-peak and importantly optional leisure travel. The revenue for that travel helps to defray the massive costs of subsidising commuter's fares.

Yeah, fair enough, point well made.

I definitely think off-peak travellers are an important part of the network, but one that currently Northern doesn't serve terribly badly now the strikes at weekends have ended...

I think what I was trying to convey, or what point I will make now is that Northern has really mistreated commuters recently and that they do still must represent a good amount of the revenue they bring in. Just a bit more consideration of peak times and ensuring short forms, etc aren't being jammed through areas like Piccadilly 13/14 at 5.30pm would likely improve things for that segment of the market.

But yes, US commuter rail systems, even in areas where they are very popular get large subsidies. Metra in Chicago is about 50/50 fares/subsidy.
 

hwl

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2012
Messages
7,354
An example of this comes straight from the book 'The Network SouthEast Story' - in 1982/83 the London & South East sector required a subsidy of £322m (in 1983 prices!) because it was a commuter network. The book continues to describe how the network was developed driving off peak travel as one of the key planks of the plan to reduce the subsidy profile, and as we know the railways in the south east are overall in the profitable end of the spectrum now.
NSE also increased fares by 130% on average during its existence...
Comparing London to Leeds/Manchester some of the equivalent fares into London are 80% higher on a /mile basis.

The big difference between Northern and NSE is peak train length so the 2 examples aren't directly comparable.
 

Clip

Established Member
Joined
28 Jun 2010
Messages
10,822
I think what I was trying to convey, or what point I will make now is that Northern has really mistreated commuters recently and that they do still must represent a good amount of the revenue they bring in.

Generally they wouldve already had a lot of commuters money at the start of the year and the only effect would ve been those with weekly/monthly and its very hard to get the information about how many are sold in each category
 

Jozhua

Established Member
Joined
6 Jan 2019
Messages
1,856
NSE also increased fares by 130% on average during its existence...
Comparing London to Leeds/Manchester some of the equivalent fares into London are 80% higher on a /mile basis.

The big difference between Northern and NSE is peak train length so the 2 examples aren't directly comparable.

Yeah peak train lengths are significantly longer in the South East, one non-stop train I got at rush hour from Guildford into London still had seats available and no-one was standing!
 

hwl

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2012
Messages
7,354
Yeah peak train lengths are significantly longer in the South East, one non-stop train I got at rush hour from Guildford into London still had seats available and no-one was standing!
That is a rarity
1 or 2 staff on a 12 car train is a very different cost base to 2 staff on a 2 or 3 car unit.
 

Killingworth

Established Member
Joined
30 May 2018
Messages
4,812
Location
Sheffield
Yeah, fair enough, point well made.

I definitely think off-peak travellers are an important part of the network, but one that currently Northern doesn't serve terribly badly now the strikes at weekends have ended...

However, random cancellations on Sundays have certainly not ended. They are a major deterrent to building up 7 day travel by train in the western side of the franchise. People travel 7 days a week. Deprive them of a reliable service for leisure on one day and it kicks back to use on the other 6. Providing trains in an afternoon is fine to get home, but if there's no train in the morning I'll use the car or not go at all. And the same applies for future potential journeys.
 

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
17,882
Location
Reston City Centre
I am not sure where these mythical longer trains are

You mean like the eighty metre 319s, the sixty nine metre 170s, the replacement of thirty metre Pacers by forty metre 150s due to the influx of Sprinters from ScotRail/GWR etc (permitting Pacers to be doubled up on other diagrams)... there have certainly been increases in the length of trains on a number of lines.

With respect, hiding unremunerative lines in big franchises fools everyone. It's why we don't have this issue with such lines on Great Western and East Anglia, both of which have plenty of long routes with two carriage trains

Compare the number of GWR/GA services run by two coach trains to the number of Northern services run by two coach trains... Northern clearly has a much bigger percentage of its franchise taken up by such short services... "hiding" those services inside a franchise that also included TPE would still leave them sticking out like a sore thumb... can't hide these things, however much some people may wish to pretend that you can.

If a 2-car train is already carting fresh air around, adding carriages will just increase costs further without increasing revenue! As I understand it, @tbtc was suggesting that a lot of the quieter Northern lines carry so few passengers that farebox revenue cannot cover the marginal operating costs at current frequencies, whatever the length of train.

On the other hand, if frequency is cut to reduce costs, more passengers will forsake the railway and revenue will fall further, in a downward spiral....

Agreed - and it's a difficult one to manage - if you cut the Colne branch (average passenger loading on the hourly service is thirtysomething) down to bi-hourly then that may still see average passenger loadings comparable with a bus because a significant number of passengers will be turned off a less frequent service... but if you doubled the frequency (assuming there were sufficient loops/ stock/staff etc - I'm talking hypothetically) then there's no guarantee that passenger numbers would go up by much.

Personally, I don't think that the costs of heavy rail (two members of staff spread between thirty passengers, signalling costs, infrastructure maintained to much higher standard than light rail...) is appropriate for a number of the lines that Northern serves.

That may be because passenger numbers didn't rise at all? They fell, by 2%... Northern 18-19 results will probably show a larger fall.

Sorry for not being clear - I was going on my experience of the lines where Northern have increased the supply of seats (e.g. 170s replacing 158s from Sheffield to Hull/ Bridlington) or increased the frequency (e.g. Sheffield to Worksop/Retford)... the "huge untapped demand" that some people like to talk of doesn't seem to have translated into significantly busier services just yet. Early days, I guess, but presumably Northern were expecting a certain boost in passenger numbers from some of the improved services by now.

The point is that tha vast majority of Northerns routes aren't carting fresh air around. If the routes which currently have overcrowded two carriage units, had longer trains, they might stand a chance of generating some more revenue to help support quieter lines.

How many Northern services are "overcrowded" (and how many of these are off-peak) and how many are carrying round so few passengers that they could be accommodated by a minibus?

The commuting peak in "Northern" area is much shorter than in London & SE so typically each train can only do one peak flow direction service in the rush hour at best. The much longer peak in L&SE means more full loads per day are carried on each unit so the economics are better

Good point - plus Northern have the difficulty of a messy network without one simple "hub" (compared to ex-NSE franchises) - so it's not as simple as bulking out a handful of services a day.

The solution for many Northern commuter routes is to get electrifying - this would shave 15-20% of stopping service journey times (making the train more attractive) and mean that you get more services run per unit per day improving the economics

True (although some of the people keen to shave 20% off journey times to make them more attractive are the people who dismiss HS2 on the grounds that "getting to Birmingham twenty minutes faster" doesn't help anyone). Not a dig at @hwl , just a general point about how differently some people see different types of market.

1 or 2 staff on a 12 car train is a very different cost base to 2 staff on a 2 or 3 car unit.

Agreed - the economics of a thirty metre Pacer compared to a two hundred metre (plus) EMU make a huge difference.

Sadly, the approach in northern England has been to cram the network full of short trains, instead of maintaining frequencies but running longer services, because we have this obsession with everywhere having a direct link to everywhere, hence the messy network of services run by short trains (that becomes very unreliable the moment anything goes wrong).

Someone needs to wean northern England off this addiction (it's the same with TPE etc too).
 

Jozhua

Established Member
Joined
6 Jan 2019
Messages
1,856
At the end of the day, if you want a reliable, frequent, fast service you have to be willing to pay for it.

To maintain the current level of service reliably, Northern need to recruit many more staff, carry out maintenance more frequently and top up their order of 195's/331's. All of this costs money and the DfT is eager to reduce subsidies.

To run a reliable, low subsidy service, Northern needs to cut back on the amount of direct services and run branch lines as shuttles to a nearby station in say a reasonably populated town with good connections to IC services (e.g. The Windermere Branch)

The amount of services through the Castlefield Corridor needs to be cut too, unless the investment in 15/16 is to be made.

If so, I propose chopping the Crewe to Liverpool Lime St service in two and having the stopping Liverpool Section go from either Oxford Road bay or Manchester Victoria. The crewe section can start/end at Piccadilly. The Llandudno service can also start/end at Manchester Victoria instead of running to the Airport. Oxford Bay is also available ;)

Basically end the madness of anywhere to anywhere, but in reality it being so unreliable a change or two probably wouldn't be the end of the world.

It's the triangle of rail service:

-Low Costs (either in subsidy and/or end user.)
-Reliability
-Frequent/Fast/Comfortable service

Pick two.
 

Meerkat

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2018
Messages
7,420
As nationalisation is apparently so great Northern should just put up fares to drive demand down, like BR would.
 

Jozhua

Established Member
Joined
6 Jan 2019
Messages
1,856
As nationalisation is apparently so great Northern should just put up fares to drive demand down, like BR would.

What are you talking about, nationalisation would instantly result in an improved service with zero increased running costs to the passengers or taxpayer... ;)

I'd argue overambitious tenders for the existing infrastructure by the DAfT and lobbying by local interests to get their connections to Manchester Airport or other various places is at least partly to blame for the current mess.

Honestly, seeing how poorly the government tries to tender infrastructure projects such as electrification, etc with their flood or famine tactics, I wouldn't want them anywhere near everyday operations!
 

Jozhua

Established Member
Joined
6 Jan 2019
Messages
1,856
However, random cancellations on Sundays have certainly not ended. They are a major deterrent to building up 7 day travel by train in the western side of the franchise. People travel 7 days a week. Deprive them of a reliable service for leisure on one day and it kicks back to use on the other 6. Providing trains in an afternoon is fine to get home, but if there's no train in the morning I'll use the car or not go at all. And the same applies for future potential journeys.

Very true, I just use this to claim delay repay on the rest of my journey when doing long distances! Actually kind of a celebration when it happens because I get 12 quid back for Northern failing on the last couple of miles.

Ok... This definitely explains why they're not profitable :lol:
 

Starmill

Veteran Member
Fares Advisor
Joined
18 May 2012
Messages
23,224
Location
Bolton
Some of the ex PTE area fares are extremely low on a /mile basis, this needs to be looked at...
I think this is a myth. The Off Peak fares in Greater Manchester were doubled in 3 years between 2015 and 2018. Fares in the afternoon "peak" including the contra-flow are very uncompetitive.

The off peak fares are now higher than the tramway in most cases (where the reverse used to be true in nearly all cases), and Metrolink offers a far superior service for reliability and frequency, in all cases (sometimes Northern have the superior journey time, but only by a few minutes).

The other crucial point is that the train fare is often more expensive than driving. Lets say a couple who live in Westhoughton are going to the cinema on a Friday afternoon in Manchester, leaving on the 1601. You can park right on the edge of the city centre for £2. If you're buying a cinema ticket, you can potentially park right in the city centre, in a secure multi-storey for that price. What's the price of the train? £18.80 for both. In other words, the full whack commuter rate that would be charged to someone going in on the busiest train in the morning and coming back from town on one of the busiest in the evening. That fare is hopelessly uncompetitive.

What demonstrates most clearly that local fares are horribly uncompetitive is that Northern have brought back half price tickets after 1830 in an attempt to get a few more people onto their trains. Just as used to exist before 2014.
 

hwl

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2012
Messages
7,354
I think this is a myth. The Off Peak fares in Greater Manchester were doubled in 3 years between 2015 and 2018. Fares in the afternoon "peak" including the contra-flow are very uncompetitive.
The rest of the comparison was with reference to London and South East made several comments later in clarification.

"Comparing London to Leeds/Manchester some of the equivalent fares into London are 80% higher on a /mile basis.."

I actually did the numbers about 4 months ago (mainly peaks), I'll dig them out when I get a chance. It isn't a myth, but Northern are obviously working on increasing some of them.
 

Starmill

Veteran Member
Fares Advisor
Joined
18 May 2012
Messages
23,224
Location
Bolton
I actually did the numbers about 4 months ago (mainly peaks), I'll dig them out when I get a chance. It isn't a myth, but Northern are obviously working on increasing some of them.
Commuter fares haven't gone up very much at all. There was one year in Greater Manchester where there were no increases in Season and Anytime fares whatsoever. This is in line with the Northern franchise agreement, which aims to have Off Peak fares set at about 85% of the Anytime fare. Of course, in the South East, the cheapest ticket is normally more like 50% of the Anytime fare.
 

Meerkat

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2018
Messages
7,420
The other crucial point is that the train fare is often more expensive than driving. Lets say a couple who live in Westhoughton are going to the cinema on a Friday afternoon in Manchester, leaving on the 1601. You can park right on the edge of the city centre for £2. If you're buying a cinema ticket, you can potentially park right in the city centre, in a secure multi-storey for that price. What's the price of the train? £18.80 for both. In other words, the full whack commuter rate that would be charged to someone going in on the busiest train in the morning and coming back from town on one of the busiest in the evening. That fare is hopelessly uncompetitive.

Sounds like there needs to be a parking tax
 

Eccles1983

On Moderation
Joined
4 Sep 2016
Messages
841
I think this is a myth. The Off Peak fares in Greater Manchester were doubled in 3 years between 2015 and 2018. Fares in the afternoon "peak" including the contra-flow are very uncompetitive.

The off peak fares are now higher than the tramway in most cases (where the reverse used to be true in nearly all cases), and Metrolink offers a far superior service for reliability and frequency, in all cases (sometimes Northern have the superior journey time, but only by a few minutes).

The other crucial point is that the train fare is often more expensive than driving. Lets say a couple who live in Westhoughton are going to the cinema on a Friday afternoon in Manchester, leaving on the 1601. You can park right on the edge of the city centre for £2. If you're buying a cinema ticket, you can potentially park right in the city centre, in a secure multi-storey for that price. What's the price of the train? £18.80 for both. In other words, the full whack commuter rate that would be charged to someone going in on the busiest train in the morning and coming back from town on one of the busiest in the evening. That fare is hopelessly uncompetitive.

What demonstrates most clearly that local fares are horribly uncompetitive is that Northern have brought back half price tickets after 1830 in an attempt to get a few more people onto their trains. Just as used to exist before 2014.


In reality they set off for Manchester, spend upwards of one hour is traffic outside the city, then park a car then walk.

Then they limit the options on enjoying a drink or two. They also then have to walk out of the city to find the car they paid 2 pounds to park with the risks attached to that.

Then another 30-40 mins drive home.

If you are going to compare costs then obviously car is cheaper (if you take initial purchase, tax and insurance out of the equation)

But the time difference and lack of drinking flexibility is an underplayed card.
 

Jozhua

Established Member
Joined
6 Jan 2019
Messages
1,856
Sounds like there needs to be a parking tax

Manchester does seem to have surprising low public transportation usage for it's size...at least compared to other UK cities. The parking around the city seems to be slowly disappearing in favour of new developments, so perhaps this will change. I don't think a tax is needed, but the council shouldn't protect parking either ;)

In response to Starmill, isn't there a Two Together Railcard that would bring it down to around £12.40? Obviously you'd have to be looking at doing this sort of thing with your other half frequently enough to get your £30 worth!

Also you have the option of going out for a meal and not worrying about that pesky drink drive limit if you want a drink, or two, or three... 8-)
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,540
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Manchester does seem to have surprising low public transportation usage for it's size...at least compared to other UK cities.

Go there, use it and consider why that might be.

Clue: apart from Metrolink (which does have its issues, particularly overcrowding - all the trams really need to be 4-"car" all the time - it's also expensive because it doesn't receive an operating subsidy) it's a load of absolute and utter rubbish.
 

Starmill

Veteran Member
Fares Advisor
Joined
18 May 2012
Messages
23,224
Location
Bolton
In my opinion parking ought to be restricted almost to zero in the city centre and taxed in the surrounding areas. But I also take the view that if people are going to travel there by rail instead, it needs to offer:
- Reliability
- Adequate capacity
- Good value for money

Much of the time it offers none of these things in Greater Manchester. On some routes, frequency (1tph or even less) is also insufficient. On Sundays it's even worse, and of course some stations still have no service.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,540
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
- Adequate capacity

This one is the absolute key. There is no excuse for overcrowding on routes which are only overcrowded because of the persistence in operating silly little short DMUs. Get the trains to at least 6 x 23m in length and then we can start talking about what else is needed. There should not be a single train shorter than 80m operating on Castlefield, ever.

You can't blame people for driving when they will, if they go by train, be crammed into a train that is only too short because of a lack of rolling stock.

I go on about my S-Bahn-Manchester idea a lot - but it really is very much needed - Merseyrail style train lengths and frequencies on Greater Manchester's suburban routes, even if for now they are DMUs (like the transformation of the Snow Hill Lines using 172s).
 

Starmill

Veteran Member
Fares Advisor
Joined
18 May 2012
Messages
23,224
Location
Bolton
In response to Starmill, isn't there a Two Together Railcard that would bring it down to around £12.40?
This is a classic enthusiasts response. Most people don't have a Two Together Railcard, and don't know they're available. What nearly everyone has is a car.
 

Jozhua

Established Member
Joined
6 Jan 2019
Messages
1,856
Go there, use it and consider why that might be.
I live in Manchester and yes, I know exactly why. I can mostly get away with things being unreliable though, living a 30/40 minute walk from the city centre.

Buses are overpriced, trams don't go anywhere near where I live and trains are inconvenient/unreliable.

Then we haven't got into the terrible, unsafe conditions for people walking and cycling anywhere but the city centre.

The city is a bit more spread out as well compared to others making the last mile issue definitely a thing.

The point I was getting across that, looking purely at population, it is lower than it should be.
 

philthetube

Established Member
Joined
5 Jan 2016
Messages
3,749
At the end of the day, if you want a reliable, frequent, fast service you have to be willing to pay for it.

To maintain the current level of service reliably, Northern need to recruit many more staff, carry out maintenance more frequently and top up their order of 195's/331's. All of this costs money and the DfT is eager to reduce subsidies.

To run a reliable, low subsidy service, Northern needs to cut back on the amount of direct services and run branch lines as shuttles to a nearby station in say a reasonably populated town with good connections to IC services (e.g. The Windermere Branch)

The amount of services through the Castlefield Corridor needs to be cut too, unless the investment in 15/16 is to be made.

If so, I propose chopping the Crewe to Liverpool Lime St service in two and having the stopping Liverpool Section go from either Oxford Road bay or Manchester Victoria. The crewe section can start/end at Piccadilly. The Llandudno service can also start/end at Manchester Victoria instead of running to the Airport. Oxford Bay is also available ;)

Basically end the madness of anywhere to anywhere, but in reality it being so unreliable a change or two probably wouldn't be the end of the world.

It's the triangle of rail service:

-Low Costs (either in subsidy and/or end user.)
-Reliability
-Frequent/Fast/Comfortable service

Pick two.

This is largely what northern does, Colne to Preston, Middlesbrough Whitby, Skipton Leeds etc., longer services tend to run through to avoid terminating at busy stations.
 

158756

Established Member
Joined
12 Aug 2014
Messages
1,426
For all that people on here excuse problems by citing "untapped demand" and "sparks effects" and all of that, it looks like passenger numbers haven't always risen fastly enough to warrant the increase in frequency (or longer trains) that Northern has introduced in the last year or two.

The passenger numbers on the Bolton line during the electrification works suggest that if a "sparks effect" does indeed exist, it is strongly negative. Is a 4 car 319 actually cheaper to lease and operate than a 2 car sprinter, or has the investment both increased costs and reduced income? Numbers on the Chat Moss line look better, but are nowhere near doubling along with capacity.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,818
Location
Yorks
Commuter fares haven't gone up very much at all. There was one year in Greater Manchester where there were no increases in Season and Anytime fares whatsoever. This is in line with the Northern franchise agreement, which aims to have Off Peak fares set at about 85% of the Anytime fare. Of course, in the South East, the cheapest ticket is normally more like 50% of the Anytime fare.

And of course, many, what could reasonanly be called 'daytrip' journeys in the North, don't even have an off peak equivalent, let alone the various discounts that are available in the London and South East area at all.

Even if one or two PTE inner city fares are 'astonishingly cheap' it's really not representative of the situation within the PTE's even, let alone the North as a whole.

The Two Together railcard cited by @Jozhua isn't much use to anyone who isn't joined at the hip to someone else. The Network card provides the generosity of extending a discount to an unspecified travelling companion, but the Two Together railcard doesn't even allow this as both travellers have to be those named.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,818
Location
Yorks
The passenger numbers on the Bolton line during the electrification works suggest that if a "sparks effect" does indeed exist, it is strongly negative. Is a 4 car 319 actually cheaper to lease and operate than a 2 car sprinter, or has the investment both increased costs and reduced income? Numbers on the Chat Moss line look better, but are nowhere near doubling along with capacity.

The "sparks effect" doesn't traditionally take place during electrification, rather afterwards when the improved service is up and running, not during the upheavel of electrification itself.

The Bolton electrification suffered from a prolonged period of implementation upheaval which merged into a lot of other industrial relations/staffing issues. There was never going to be a "Sparks effect" until that lot was sorted.
 

158756

Established Member
Joined
12 Aug 2014
Messages
1,426
The "sparks effect" doesn't traditionally take place during electrification, rather afterwards when the improved service is up and running, not during the upheavel of electrification itself.

The Bolton electrification suffered from a prolonged period of implementation upheaval which merged into a lot of other industrial relations/staffing issues. There was never going to be a "Sparks effect" until that lot was sorted.

It'll need a massive rise just to recover the damage the works did, never mind getting anywhere near filling a 319. The improved service to achieve this consists only of consistently 4 coach trains rep!acing the randomness before, with minimal decrease in journey times and at certain stations actually a reduction in frequency compared to when the works started.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top