TFGM press release: Mayor Andy Burnham reveals plans for Bee Network rail to boost passenger numbers and drive Greater Manchester’s growth

[Horizon22]

Is Greater Manchester's approach not essentially the same approach as that of the development of London Overground, which has been pretty transformational in results?

Sure, if they have a stack load of money for new rolling stock and station renovations.

 

[RHolmes]

I can’t help but notice that there is a repeated (intentional?) number of stations that fall under the current TfGM network but aren’t listed for the Bee Network under the latest press release.

Mossley and Greenfield are two such stations with a fairly frequent service, Denton and Reddish South less so

This seems to imply that longer distance cross-boundary stopping services won’t form part of the Bee Network but ones such as Warrington to Oxford Road or Southport to Stalybridge will

 

[zephyr6]

How have other PTEs over the years done this?

 

[alanbur]

I do find the insular nature of how these Mayors tend to operate is really not helping people who live near the edge of their arbitrarily defined patch. To have subsidised transport to a town 30 miles (and 2 changes of train) away in one direction yet have to pay through the nose to get to a neighbouring town a handful of miles away because it happens to be across a political border seems not to be doing anybody any favours.

Errmm... that's exactly what Burham is addressing here, and he's fixing the most egregious example in the area first, I can't fault him for that. Glossop is 15 miles east of Manchester, there are around 600,000 train journeys a year to/from Manchester. Despite that, because it's in Derbyshire the administrative area is East Midlands (Mayor in Nottingham). Glossop is actually north of many places in Greater Manchester. Our buses have just gone Bee network, the trains are next.

There's a heated debate going on locally, the government's abolition of two-tier local authorities means High Peak borough council is going. Conservative Derbyshire County Council want an UberDerbyshire, our Labour MP wants us to join Greater Manchester. Based on the economy of the area, he's right and DCC are abysmal, with the "Northern Wastes" being pretty much ignored by them, but who knows what will happen.

But either way, public transport in Glossop is shortly going to be GM public transport, even though it's not in GM.

(correction: only public transport to/from GM has gone Bee Network)

 

[daodao]

.... Our buses have just gone Bee network, the trains are next.

.... But either way, public transport in Glossop is shortly going to be GM public transport, even though it's not in GM.

Only 2 bus services to Glossop (237, 341) have joined the Bee Network; other bus services serving it are commercial or tendered/subsidised in the traditional way (by Derbyshire CC, with some contribution from TfGM for route 394).

The only effective way for TfGM to take control of rail-based transport is by Metrolink conversion; heavy rail services cannot easily be separated from Network Rail or run by a local franchisee, unlike Merseyrail or the (South Wales) Valley Lines.

 

[alanbur]

I can’t help but notice that there is a repeated (intentional?) number of stations that fall under the current TfGM network but aren’t listed for the Bee Network under the latest press release.

Mossley and Greenfield are two such stations with a fairly frequent service, Denton and Reddish South less so

Eh? Mossley, Greenfield, Denton & Reddish are all mentioned in the press release, in the 2nd phase of the plan.

Only 2 bus services to Glossop (237, 341) have joined the Bee Network; other bus services are commercial or tendered/subsidised in the traditional way.

Yeah, I should have been more precise and say buses in/out of GM.

The only effective way for TfGM to take control of rail-based transport is by Metrolink conversion; heavy rail services cannot easily be separated from Network Rail or run by a local franchisee, unlike Merseyrail or the (South Wales) Valley Lines.

Except of course that's exactly what they are going to do, they are bringing heavy rail into the Bee network - there's no mention of converting the Glossop line to Metrolink (although it seems it will still be Northern providing it?). As I remember there was an earlier proposal to convert the line to trams, the problem was that the overall passenger capacity of the line would have gone down rather than up, so it seems to have been dropped.

 

[daodao]

Except of course that's exactly what they are going to do, they are bringing heavy rail into the Bee network - there's no mention of converting the Glossop line to Metrolink (although it seems it will still be Northern providing it?). As I remember there was an earlier proposal to convert the line to trams, the problem was that the overall passenger capacity of the line would have gone down rather than up, so it seems to have been dropped.

If Northern Rail are still providing the heavy rail services in Greater Manchester, most of which are "cross-boundary", then TfGM can only exert limited control over them as part of the Bee network, similar to the Merseyrail "City line". This in contrast to the greater control that is possible in Merseyside with the self-contained "Northern" and "Wirral" lines, or with the wholly segregated Metrolink network.

 

[slipdigby]

Hmm, from reading that is does appear it will still be Northern providing the infrastructure. The integrated ticketing etc will be an improvement, but some of the people on the local Facebook groups are doing backflips because they think it means NoMoreNorthern, I think they are going to be very disappointed.

Network Rail/GBR Infrastructure Manager to provide the infrastructure, Northern (and/or whatever business units provide passenger rail services in the future) will continue to provide services.

I expect they'll portion off a designated pool of Sprinters and CAFs specifically for Bee Network operations and "yellowing"

Not possible with the current fleet.

The important parts are the integrated ticketing and fare caps, not the livery. But none of that's much use if Northern are still in charge, the Piccadilly - Glossop line is just about one of the worst for cancellations, even by Northern's atrocious standards. On 28 Dec for example, 40% of the services were cancelled. Yes, you read that right, 40%.

Everyone's assuming that Northern will be "fixed" by 2027 as promised. Brave.

There will be a 'Bee-ification' of the stations listed in the press release as well. What is not clear is what the arrangements will be at stations outside Gtr. Manchester (e.g. Handforth, Wilmslow, Alderley Edge) which are served by the lines to be taken over. Glossop and Hadfield are outside G.M. as well, but they are listed.

Quirks of railway administrative geography, no logic to it.

Not just the stations - how will cross-boundary services be affected? If they want more frequent services within GM, will that consume paths currently needed for existing cross boundary services.

Note presumably deliberate reference to later trains and weekends rather than a blanket frequency increase.

Hmm, call me cynical but I can't see this being anything other than a rebranding with new train liveries, new station signs and new staff uniforms but the same old unreliable Northern Rail services.

Politics in action.

I can see Burnham going further and looking to take over operation himself in the manner of Merseyrail. Just need to go a step at a time.

(Obviously TfGM already does that by conversion to Metrolink)

To deliver a Merseyrail standard system, you'd have to build a similarly segregated system. Basically Metrolink Big Bang x10, and 20 years and 9 figure sums as a minimum

Is Greater Manchester's approach not essentially the same approach as that of the development of London Overground, which has been pretty transformational in results?

Only through being gifted an underutilised network, plus some major capital investment.

I would guess all trains, as it is the stations which will be "Bee-ified" and tghere will, in gereal, be no way of knowing what train was used to get between two such statoins

Yes.

Didn't London Overground essentially take over whole lines of services which are largely self-contained and pump a load of money into extra staff and replacing the trains?
Are either of those things possible for Manchester? Bee Network services are going to have to interoperate with other operator's services and the press release doesn't appear to mention lots of money for the other things.

Absolutely true.

It will be interesting to see how they divide Northerns current fleets

They won't.

Sure, if they have a stack load of money for new rolling stock and station renovations.

And a city centre tunnel, and mass grade separation, etc. etc.

Except of course that's exactly what they are going to do, they are bringing heavy rail into the Bee network - there's no mention of converting the Glossop line to Metrolink (although it seems it will still be Northern providing it?). As I remember there was an earlier proposal to convert the line to trams, the problem was that the overall passenger capacity of the line would have gone down rather than up, so it seems to have been dropped.

But the point is that "bringing heavy rail into Bee Network" is a deliberately vague statement - Northern will still be operating the services with the same industrial relations issues, life expired rolling stock and failing Network Rail infrastructure. What's fundamentally likely to change about the major underlying issues?

Slip

 

[alanbur]

If Northern Rail are still providing the heavy rail services in Greater Manchester, most of which are "cross-boundary", then TfGM can only exert limited control over them as part of the Bee network, similar to the Merseyrail "City line". This in contrast to the greater control that is possible in Merseyside with the self-contained "Northern" and "Wirral" lines, or with the wholly segregated Metrolink network.

I think that's the real concern here, the Transport For The North group, chaired by Burnham, shout at Northern on a regular basis, with zero effect - so the omens are not good.

Within the last week Burnham has said he wants full control of Northern, presumably because he knows that without that it's difficult to really hold people's feet to the fire. He's also said he thinks sorting rail will be easier than the buses, we'll see. But the Bee bus changes have improved things, extending that to the trains with capped fairs and integrated ticketing would be a big improvement, even under dismal Northern's control. However the elephant in the room is service reliability - the MAN-GLO line has been so abysmal in recent times that many people have simply stopped using it - nobody from the Royston Vasey end of the line wants to risk going into Mordorchester if they don't know they can get back out again.

 

[mangad]

It's not long ago that many of these lines were being touted for Metrolink conversion using tram-trains. If, at the very least, train services aren't increased, this isn't going to be revolutionary. Simpler tickets using fare zones will help, but you've got lines like the Hyde Loop line to Rose Hill that currently have have a pathetic 3 trains every 2 hours, a a next to useless evening service and nothing at all on Sundays. London Overground showed very clearly the transformational power of simply having a 15 minute frequency. Metrolink has - since day 1 - shown the transformational power of an even more frequent service. Now I don't know how you achieve it in Greater Manchester with the current infrastructure, but a better rail service is going to need a lot more than yellow painted trains.

Incidentally the lack of ring fencing of rolling stock reminds me of travelling many years ago, on a Merseyrail branded Pacer that was running the Sheffield to Manchester stopping service...

 

[slipdigby]

I think that's the real concern here, the Transport For The North group, chaired by Burnham, shout at Northern on a regular basis, with zero effect - so the omens are not good.

Burnham chairs Rail North Committee, TfN is a standalone organisation chaired by Lord McLoughlin.

Within the last week Burnham has said he wants full control of Northern, presumably because he knows that without that it's difficult to really hold people's feet to the fire.

Classic playing to the gallery. He's attempting to look proactive by asking for something he knows he can't have and doesn't actually want.

Solving Northern's problems requires large sums of money and/or some difficult political decisions to be made. This is a way of continuing to apply pressure at the relevant ministerial levels to get this sorted.

 

[alanbur]

Burnham chairs Rail North Committee, TfN is a standalone organisation chaired by Lord McLoughlin.

Ah, I wondered what the relationship was between those two, my bad. Although I think having two apparently overlapping organisations sort of illustrates the problems...

Classic playing to the gallery. He's attempting to look proactive by asking for something he knows he can't have and doesn't actually want.

Solving Northern's problems requires large sums of money and/or some difficult political decisions to be made. This is a way of continuing to apply pressure at the relevant ministerial levels to get this sorted.

Sure, whatever - if that's what it needs to get the mess sorted out, more power to him. I'd be interested to hear where money needs to be applied in the case of Northern, all I can see is the endless cancellations which are almost entirely due to staffing issues, issues which are still there despite the recent settlement, which apparently didn't come with any commitments from the recipients?

 

[Rail Ranger]

It will cost serious money to have Sundays inside the working week for conductors because it would entail recruiting a lot more staff.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Ah, I wondered what the relationship was between those two, my bad. Although I think having two apparently overlapping organisations sort of illustrates the problems...

Sure, whatever - if that's what it needs to get the mess sorted out, more power to him. I'd be interested to hear where money needs to be applied in the case of Northern, all I can see is the endless cancellations which are almost entirely due to staffing issues, issues which are still there despite the recent settlement, which apparently didn't come with any commitments from the recipients?

View attachment 173296

Of course the top two are the same thing, they just realised they don't have crew the day before for the dishonest and nonsensical "a short notice change to the timetable" excuse to be wheeled out. That's quite marked.

 

[Meerkat]

Is Greater Manchester's approach not essentially the same approach as that of the development of London Overground, which has been pretty transformational in results?

Are all the stations staffed, as LO became?

There's a heated debate going on locally, the government's abolition of two-tier local authorities means High Peak borough council is going. Conservative Derbyshire County Council want an UberDerbyshire, our Labour MP wants us to join Greater Manchester. Based on the economy of the area, he's right and DCC are abysmal, with the "Northern Wastes" being pretty much ignored by them, but who knows what will happen.

This is the lunacy of rushing to new structures without changing borders. Basing who controls transport etc on Saxon (or earlier!) boundaries rather than changing them to match modern socio-economic facts is crazy. It’s a rushed bodge job, highlighted by places like Glossop - how often do Glossop residents go to Derby?

 

[alanbur]

Of course the top two are the same thing, they just realised they don't have crew the day before for the dishonest and nonsensical "a short notice change to the timetable" excuse to be wheeled out. That's quite marked.

I think it's even worse than that, I haven't done a detailed analysis of the data yet but from a quick look it appears it's often the same services week-after-week that get cancelled, so they know well before the day before they can't run them, they just aren't telling passengers. It looks like they are P-coding stuff after the 10pm cutoff as well. Northern appear to be cynically gaming the system, they don't seem to give a stuff about the massive levels of uncertainty and inconvenience that causes passengers.

This is the lunacy of rushing to new structures without changing borders. Basing who controls transport etc on Saxon (or earlier!) boundaries rather than changing them to match modern socio-economic facts is crazy. It’s a rushed bodge job, highlighted by places like Glossop - how often do Glossop residents go to Derby?

Derby City has it's own council, Derby County Council runs the rest, is based in Matlock and is close to bankrupt. The Borough council that Glossop's in is High Peak, which includes Buxton, Chapel, Glossop & New Mills, it's the Borough councils that are disappearing. To answer your question about Glossop - Derby trips, virtually never, and certainly not by public transport. The west side of High Peak is a de facto part of GM, our transport, healthcare, further education etc is overwhelmingly GM-based. Glossop for example is the 2nd busiest station in Derbyshire, all to/from GM. Of 14 stations in High Peak, 12 are dominated by trips to/from Piccadilly. From a logistical point, it makes zero sense for us to be associated with Derbyshire County Council, let alone being administratively part of the East Midlands. But I expect logic will have little to do with the decisions...

 

[slipdigby]

Ah, I wondered what the relationship was between those two, my bad. Although I think having two apparently overlapping organisations sort of illustrates the problems...

Doesn't help that Rail North Committee is hosted at TfN's offices, and that they share other services/staff! Agree its a mess.

Sure, whatever - if that's what it needs to get the mess sorted out, more power to him. I'd be interested to hear where money needs to be applied in the case of Northern, all I can see is the endless cancellations which are almost entirely due to staffing issues, issues which are still there despite the recent settlement, which apparently didn't come with any commitments from the recipients?

It will cost serious money to have Sundays inside the working week for conductors because it would entail recruiting a lot more staff.

Basically this. Plus even more money to sort out full industry problems like life expired fleets, targeted renewal of problematic infrastructure, improving operational and climate resilience, ad infinitum.

 

[nr758123]

Classic playing to the gallery. He's attempting to look proactive by asking for something he knows he can't have and doesn't actually want.

Solving Northern's problems requires large sums of money and/or some difficult political decisions to be made. This is a way of continuing to apply pressure at the relevant ministerial levels to get this sorted.

Yes, it's about applying pressure. Andy Burnham generally knows when to speak out in order to have maximum impact.

 

[alanbur]

It will cost serious money to have Sundays inside the working week for conductors because it would entail recruiting a lot more staff.

Will it though? The are already running a Sunday service (well, sort of) for which they already have to pay staff, so how much new recruitment would actually be needed? Yes, some obviously, but "a lot more"?

 

[The exile]

The only effective way for TfGM to take control of rail-based transport is by Metrolink conversion; heavy rail services cannot easily be separated from Network Rail or run by a local franchisee, unlike Merseyrail or the (South Wales) Valley Lines.

If they can split off and convert to Metrolink, then they can split off and operate as Heavy rail (probably simpler as that doesn’t preclude longer-distance services using the same tracks ) Whether that is desirable is a completely different matter.

 

[Rail Ranger]

Will it though? The are already running a Sunday service (well, sort of) for which they already have to pay staff, so how much new recruitment would actually be needed? Yes, some obviously, but "a lot more"?

Yes a lot more because if a conductor is rostered to work on a Sunday as part of his or her working week he or she will not be working on another day during the week so additional staff will be needed to cover those days.

 

[alanbur]

Yes a lot more because if a conductor is rostered to work on a Sunday as part of his or her working week he or she will not be working on another day during the week so additional staff will be needed to cover those days.

Adding Sundays is ~17% more staff days, likely much less if people continue doing overtime and as I understand it, just needed for conductors. Hardly "a lot more".

 

[slipdigby]

If they can split off and convert to Metrolink, then they can split off and operate as Heavy rail (probably simpler as that doesn’t preclude longer-distance services using the same tracks ) Whether that is desirable is a completely different matter.

From a practical perspective, all the low hanging fruit has already been split off bar possibly Glossop and Atherton. How do you deal with the rest, and what does it achieve?

Sundays is 14% more staff days, and likely much less if people continue doing overtime. Hardly "a lot more".

Someone will be along shortly to give full chapter and verse on why this isn't quite a reliable assumption, however I'll also point out that 14% of a big number is still quite a big number. Northern's staff costs per pax km is already top 3 in the country (ORR), any increase on top of that is a major political ask in the current climate.

 

[Blackpool boy]

Plus even more money to sort out full industry problems like life expired fleets, targeted renewal of problematic infrastructure, improving operational and climate resilience, ad infinitum.

thats pretty much across the whole industry though and not quite so unique to the north. Sort out getting enough staff for the trains to run should be the first priority imo

 

[alanbur]

Northern's staff costs per pax km is already top 3 in the country (ORR), any increase on top of that is a major political ask in the current climate.

Why is that?

 

[slipdigby]

thats pretty much across the whole industry though and not quite so unique to the north. Sort out getting enough staff for the trains to run should be the first priority imo

Don't disagree with your prioritisation, but my reason for stating the other bits is that that these issues preventing a day to day reliable railway haven't gone away since 2018 (or whenever your baseline for what was considered acceptable), and in many cases have got worse.

Why is that?

Two main reasons. Firstly any policy driven additional spend has to run up against the long standing perception in certain influential circles (HMT) that the railway is catastrophically poor value for money, and Northern is close to the bottom of the heap in that regard. Secondly, there hasn't been much evidence to suggest that the policy of reducing discretionary spending commitments has changed direction under the Reeves chancellorship. I'd argue that the immediate post-election bump for drivers could be seen as a politically expedient bit of stall setting, anything more significant that changes T&Cs or hard wires significant additional resource spend by bringing Sundays inside has been kicked into the long grass.

 

[generalnerd]

I think this will be decently successful. The real purpose will probably be integrated fares and a fully integrated system. Also, by the time this gets into the swing of things, northern probably won’t exist anymore.

 

[mangad]

I think this will be decently successful. The real purpose will probably be integrated fares and a fully integrated system. Also, by the time this gets into the swing of things, northern probably won’t exist anymore.

No, it will be Great British Railways (Northern Division) or something

 

[LYuen]

Realistically we should expect this to be like Liverpool's City Line or West Yorkshire Metro - TFGM fare but services managed by TOCs.
WY MetroTrains is doing okay thanks to Leeds station being an adequate hub station

 

[Bletchleyite]

Realistically we should expect this to be like Liverpool's City Line or West Yorkshire Metro - TFGM fare but services managed by TOCs.
WY MetroTrains is doing okay thanks to Leeds station being an adequate hub station

In essence he's just recreating a modern version of the original 1970s Passenger Transport Executive concept. And good on him for it too - the concept was the right one and should never have been messed with.