Government considering splitting Northern into North West and North East franchises from March 31

tbtc · 26 Dec 2019

E100 said:
I don't think splitting the franchise is the magic bullet to this problem. Investment in infrastructure (platform 15/16) and some additional frontline staff to give some resilience are

Not a magic bullet, but the majority of the problems that the franchise has are "west side" - that's where the staffing problem is greatest (both on board trains and also revenue collection at stations), that's where the infrastructure isn't capable of accommodating all of the increased service levels, that's where reliability problems seem most pronounced, that's where weekend services seem most disrupted.

I'm not saying that there aren't staffing problems/ reliability issues etc around Sheffield - I'm not saying that the grass is greener over here (after all we are the ones stuck with Pacers (whilst the "west side" got first dibs on the 195s) - but you could run a fairly functioning "east side" TOC without it being dragged down by the "west side" - maybe put the "west side" in a form of Special Measures until things are sorted out.

The "east side" is more manageable - most services terminate at Leeds/ Sheffield so there's not the same complicated interworking that devils things in Lancashire (I'm not convinced that Nottingham - Leeds - Lincoln is a very reliable service and seems to be suffering a lot at the moment, but things aren't as bad as elsewhere.

You could split it up and do the traditional capitalist thing of "privatise the profits, nationalise the losses" - it gives the impression that you are taking action and giving local control - you might even be able to work at DOO on the "east side" easier than the more militant (?) "west side"? I'm not saying I agree with this, just that it might be easier for Our Glorious Leaders to employ a bit of Divide And Rule?

Plus, there's the bonus that, instead of blaming "London", sufficient "west side" people will be quick to pin the blame on "Manchester" and/or "Liverpool" for the problems - it's usually fairly easy to get people to feel that the "other" city is to blame for them not getting their fair share.

RailUK Forums

Carlisle · 26 Dec 2019

Neither mayor so far has demonstrated they’ve a particularly detailed understanding of the workings & needs of their local railways generally ,other than publishing grand wish lists of projects that are decades away from fruition (if ever), and appear happy to assume a role as mere puppets for the RMT whenever they thinks it suits them

Bantamzen · 26 Dec 2019

Minister "We need to be seen to be doing something about the railway network in the North. There's no new money, in fact our budget needs to squeeze subsidies further and take more revenue. But we need something quick."

Whitehall "Well the standard practice in the public sector when things are melting down and there is no financial backing is to reorganize, change the name & a few bodies at the top."

Minister "Does it work?"

Whitehall "No, but it distracts the proles long enough for us to find a scapegoat, and to prepare for the next review when things get worse."

Typical public sector bluster, don't actually own the problem, just reorganize, rename, remake mistakes. The network needs real investment, not tinkering with branding.

mde · 26 Dec 2019

Bantamzen said:
Typical public sector bluster, don't actually own the problem, just reorganize, rename, remake mistakes. The network needs real investment, not tinkering with branding.

It reads just like a "Yes Minister" plot line though…

jizzer · 26 Dec 2019

It might be more hassle than it's worth.
The work would be relatively easy to split, Leeds to Chester could sit with Manchester Victoria who sign the whole route but Leeds traincrew dont sign the Chester bit as far as I am aware and Leeds Blackpool could sit with Leeds who sign the whole route.
Resourse planning currently is all done from York
Train planning, traincrew diagrams and wages are all done from Manchester I believe.
The control offices are not too bad as would need to appoint a few more duty control managers as only 2/3 work from Manchester ROC at the moment and some customer service roles in control are based in York.
The people who make these decisions rarely care of the difficulties of carrying out the orders and the chaos it can cause

Bantamzen · 26 Dec 2019

mde said:
It reads just like a "Yes Minister" plot line though…

That's because "Yes Minister" was closer to the truth than it's writers could have ever known, or maybe they did know....

wolfman · 26 Dec 2019

MalaiseForever said:
It says in the article the government are unwilling to commit to funding infrastructure improvements. So what is the point? With no infrastructure improvements it is only going to get worse. Absolute joke.

So much for Bworis ending the north south divide then.

DarloRich · 26 Dec 2019

Mathew S said:
Yep, plays both ways. But however you look at it, if you're the Tories, doing something is better than doing nothing.

That said, whatever they do I woild be very surprised if AB doesn't win again in Greater Manchester. And even more surprised if he lost to the Tories.

i bow to your local knowledge. I hope Burnham wins as i quite like him. I expect Houchen to win in Tees Valley even though he hasn't seemingly done much except buy the airport! Plus there seems to be a bit of a kerfuffle about the selection of the labour candidate with NEC involvement.

The rest of the north east is a bit of hotchpotch. "North of the Tyne" has a Labour metro Mayor but the rest of the area doesn't have such a mayor as there is no corresponding "south of the Tyne" area.

Dspatula · 26 Dec 2019

I wonder what happens to the 195s if there’s split, given they’re mainly on former north east routes, but the depot is at Newton Heath the main north west DMU depot.

LNW-GW Joint · 26 Dec 2019

wolfman said:
So much for Bworis ending the north south divide then.

There's still the £2.7 billion NPR budget for CP6 of which we know little detail, which is mostly for work east of Huddersfield.
DfT keep not revealing what wider plans NR has put to them (eg remodelling Stalybridge).
I doubt the "big spend" promised in the election has any shape to it yet, might know more in Javid's budget on Feb 6.

GRALISTAIR · 26 Dec 2019

LNW-GW Joint said:
I doubt the "big spend" promised in the election has any shape to it yet, might know more in Javid's budget on Feb 6.

I do agree that realistically everything is speculation until this date. This is when we get meat on the bones I feel.

TT-ONR-NRN · 26 Dec 2019

Dspatula said:
I wonder what happens to the 195s if there’s split, given they’re mainly on former north east routes, but the depot is at Newton Heath the main north west DMU depot.

Are they? From memory they work Manchester to Barrow, Manchester to Windermere, Manchester to Liverpool fasts and Chester to Leeds at the moment, don’t they? Apart from the lattermost that’s all very much Western?

yorksrob · 26 Dec 2019

It's pointless unless central Government can be made to get on with the infrastructure improvements.

It sounds like rebranded austerity.

Glenn1969 · 26 Dec 2019

It's completely pointless without the infrastructure works.

MalaiseForever · 26 Dec 2019

yorksrob said:
It sounds like rebranded austerity.

Spot on. Shift the blame onto local government without giving them any resource or funding for improvements.

Glenn1969 · 26 Dec 2019

And if they do split my guess would be NE stays with Arriva and NW is given to Burnham and Rotheram. But as I said earlier there can't be any improvements without the infrastructure

Mathew S · 26 Dec 2019

Glenn1969 said:
And if they do split my guess would be NE stays with Arriva and NW is given to Burnham and Rotheram. But as I said earlier there can't be any improvements without the infrastructure

One of the points that TfGM are always very keen to make about Metrolink is that it is entirely self-financing. By which they mean that even repayment of the loans which have paid for the expansion of the network is funded through passenger revenue.
I'm speculating somewhat here, but I imagine the ambition of the Mayors in taking on responsibility for rail would be to apply the same model and fund necessary infrastructure improvements through the budget they would then control. It would mean close working with Network Rail, but there's no logical reason that couldn't happen - I mean, if you were to go to Network Rail and offer to fund, for example, two extra platforms at Man Picc I imagine they'd be delighted.
As I said, speculation, but that's the model I've always imagined Greater Manchester in particular wanting to go for.

PR1Berske · 26 Dec 2019

Mathew S said:
One of the points that TfGM are always very keen to make about Metrolink is that it is entirely self-financing. By which they mean that even repayment of the loans which have paid for the expansion of the network is funded through passenger revenue.
I'm speculating somewhat here, but I imagine the ambition of the Mayors in taking on responsibility for rail would be to apply the same model and fund necessary infrastructure improvements through the budget they would then control. It would mean close working with Network Rail, but there's no logical reason that couldn't happen - I mean, if you were to go to Network Rail and offer to fund, for example, two extra platforms at Man Picc I imagine they'd be delighted.
As I said, speculation, but that's the model I've always imagined Greater Manchester in particular wanting to go for.

Possible.
I wonder about Greater Manchester though. If it gets everything it wants what about the rest of "TfN- land"?

I'd wait to see if this story gains any traction. It's not mirrored on other sites yet.

Class 170101 · 26 Dec 2019

MalaiseForever said:
It says in the article the government are unwilling to commit to funding infrastructure improvements. So what is the point? With no infrastructure improvements it is only going to get worse. Absolute joke.

I don't see how changing from Arriva to DOR or another operator will solve this problem. The politicians on both sides need to stop scoring points of each other and make things better for those that they are supposed to serve!

Mathew S · 26 Dec 2019

PR1Berske said:
I wonder about Greater Manchester though. If it gets everything it wants what about the rest of "TfN- land"?

There are a couple of potential ways of doing it, from having rail governed by a regional (e.g. TfNW) body, through to more local, but co-operative, specification of services with specific cross-border provisions (this, interestingly, is what TfGMs proposal for bus franchising would do).

PR1Berske said:
I'd wait to see if this story gains any traction. It's not mirrored on other sites yet.

And might never be. I don't know what convinced the Telegraph to write about it, I can only assume they've received some information that isn't in general circulation yet. Certainly I've had the date confirmed to me by someone in a position to know, and I've been hearing rumours about the planned split for months now. David Brown himself confirmed some time ago that DfT had asked Arriva to prepare a plan for an early end to the franchise and a transition to a management contract, for example.
However, at the end of the day, the railways are waaaaay outside my journalistic remit. I try to keep in touch with things and - as far as I know - there's no hard evidence to confirm anything. So, while I've heard from multiple people that something like what's written about in the Telegraph is being planned, it's difficult to know what, if anything, will actually happen, especially with a new Government.

Mogster · 26 Dec 2019

Mathew S said:
One of the points that TfGM are always very keen to make about Metrolink is that it is entirely self-financing. By which they mean that even repayment of the loans which have paid for the expansion of the network is funded through passenger revenue.
I'm speculating somewhat here, but I imagine the ambition of the Mayors in taking on responsibility for rail would be to apply the same model and fund necessary infrastructure improvements through the budget they would then control. It would mean close working with Network Rail, but there's no logical reason that couldn't happen - I mean, if you were to go to Network Rail and offer to fund, for example, two extra platforms at Man Picc I imagine they'd be delighted.
As I said, speculation, but that's the model I've always imagined Greater Manchester in particular wanting to go for.

Metrolink works over a compact area, the routes are high volume money makers. It’s drivers are paid 30% less than Northern’s drivers and the trams are single crew DOO.

Northern has trains crewed by 2 people, their drivers are paid 30% more than the Metrolink drivers. Northern covers high volume routes like Bolton and Stockport to Manchester but also has Wigan - Southport, Wigan - Kirkby, the Cumbria coast line and branches to Glossop and Hadfield.

I wish Burnham the best of luck in making Northern’s West of Pennines railways profitable... In the meantime refusal of the government to fund rail infrastructure improvements in the centre of Manchester is disturbing.

RealTrains07 · 26 Dec 2019

Mathew S said:
There are a couple of potential ways of doing it, from having rail governed by a regional (e.g. TfNW) body, through to more local, but co-operative, specification of services with specific cross-border provisions (this, interestingly, is what TfGMs proposal for bus franchising would do).

It makes sense having a local body in control considering thats what happening with WMR, as they are not doing too well either at the moment under a private company.

Plus considering is also in the new governments manifesto to have more regional railways in local body control.

JonathanH · 26 Dec 2019

TT-ONR-NRN said:
Are they? From memory they work Manchester to Barrow, Manchester to Windermere, Manchester to Liverpool fasts and Chester to Leeds at the moment, don’t they? Apart from the lattermost that’s all very much Western?

Plus Manchester Victoria to Leeds, Blackpool North to York, Leeds to Lincoln and Leeds to Nottingham - the latter two very much on the Eastern side.

D365 · 26 Dec 2019

TT-ONR-NRN said:
Are they? From memory they work Manchester to Barrow, Manchester to Windermere, Manchester to Liverpool fasts and Chester to Leeds at the moment, don’t they? Apart from the lattermost that’s all very much Western?

I've seen a number of 195s turn up in Sheffield recently; they're definitely in use in South Yorkshire:

JonathanH said:
Plus Manchester Victoria to Leeds, Blackpool North to York, Leeds to Lincoln and Leeds to Nottingham - the latter two very much on the Eastern side.

Dspatula · 26 Dec 2019

TT-ONR-NRN said:
Are they? From memory they work Manchester to Barrow, Manchester to Windermere, Manchester to Liverpool fasts and Chester to Leeds at the moment, don’t they? Apart from the lattermost that’s all very much Western?

I would argue that Barrow/Windermere to Manchester airport and Liverpool to Manchester Airport are the only true west side routes. I believe that Barrow needs either 5 or 6 units and Liverpool is a minimum of 3 and a maximum of 6.

Chester to Leeds is an extension of Leeds, Bradford and Manchester which is a former east side route. The other 195 routes are Blackpool to York, Leeds to Nottingham and Leeds to Lincoln. As well as in the future Sheffield to Hull and a possible Liverpool to Leeds via Bradford which is another extension of an east side route.

Glenn1969 · 26 Dec 2019

Blackpool is a major destination and Bradford and Halifax in particular get a raw deal in terms of lack of express service provision and a limited range of direct destinations given how much usage they get and the population numbers they serve. But again infrastructure investment and electrification is required after the Transpennine Upgrade is completed

Sir Felix Pole · 26 Dec 2019

Mogster said:
Metrolink works over a compact area, the routes are high volume money makers. It’s drivers are paid 30% less than Northern’s drivers and the trams are single crew DOO.

Northern has trains crewed by 2 people, their drivers are paid 30% more than the Metrolink drivers. Northern covers high volume routes like Bolton and Stockport to Manchester but also has Wigan - Southport, Wigan - Kirkby, the Cumbria coast line and branches to Glossop and Hadfield.

I wish Burnham the best of luck in making Northern’s West of Pennines railways profitable... In the meantime refusal of the government to fund rail infrastructure improvements in the centre of Manchester is disturbing.

Metrolink is also self-contained, vertically-integrated and wholly under the control of TfGM. The huge expansion programme has been well-managed, on-budget and often well ahead of schedule. Partnering with Network Rail is an entirely different matter, who often seem to be strangers to good project management and cost-control - it would be a huge risk for TfGM and Andy Burnham to take. I can see an acceleration of tram-train proposals with their lower operating costs, however, and perhaps a transfer of some infrastructure TfW style to TfGM. Obvious candidates are the Atherton line, Glossop/Hadfield, Rose Hill/Marple and possibly Warrington CLC.

StephenHunter · 26 Dec 2019

Dspatula said:
I wonder what happens to the 195s if there’s split, given they’re mainly on former north east routes, but the depot is at Newton Heath the main north west DMU depot.

Will probably stay there then, but be allocated to the NE franchise.

LNW-GW Joint · 26 Dec 2019

One of the organisational issues is that the current Northern and TPE networks don't fit well with Network Rail's regions/routes.
One stated aim of rail rationalisation is to better match the TOCs with NR, closer to the old BR Regions and even LMS/LNER splits.
NR has a strict NE/NW split which is close to the Pennine watershed, and follows the intended control boundary between the two ROCs - Manchester and York.
The old RRNE and RRNW didn't match that very well, with RRNE working to Liverpool and Blackpool.
On top of that the TP upgrade is largely in the hands of NR LNE route, as far as Stalybridge.
It's not easy to devise a split structure which makes a lot of sense for both TOCs and NR.
The Big 4 had it right when the LMS had lines west of Leeds, and the LNER east of Leeds (plus the Woodhead route and the CLC on to Liverpool).
It's where the radial management system based on London, and the national system based on Scotland and now also Wales, breaks down completely.

Bletchleyite · 26 Dec 2019

NoMorePacers said:
I could've sworn that the Arriva Trains Northern timetables I have had the South TPE (Manchester-Sheffield-Cleethorpes) line in them.

All of TPE was in RRNE all the way from privatisation to the Northern/TPE split. You may be thinking of the CT Liverpool-Norwich services?

Government considering splitting Northern into North West and North East franchises from March 31

Veteran Member

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member