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

Tomos y Tanc · 27 Dec 2019

Mathew S said:
Whilst Liverpool has a well-developed suburban rail network, there is little scope - and little reason - to further expand longer distance services. Perhaps add in more Glasgow services, yes, and I agree the second fast train per hour to London is a good idea as part of WCP. But none of those enhancements are relevant here anyway. And, there simply isn't the infrastructure to put in any other additional longer distance services, even if there was capacity at Lime Street to operate them from.

While I take your general point, there are some additional long distance services that would be viable from Lime Street. I am sure TfW's plans for direct services along the north Wales coast and to Wrexham, Shrewsbury and Cardiff along the Marcher line will prove popular when they're introduced in 2022. I suspect direct services from Bristol and the south west of England would also generate traffic although there are some obvious capacity issues involved.

The 'West Coast Main Line' really is something of a misnomer as it's nowhere near the west coast until it reaches Manchester. It's sometimes forgotten that a full 30% of the combined populations of England & Wales live within fifty miles of the border between the two countries and that long distance direct train services within that region are scarce to say the least.

RailUK Forums

Peter Bonner · 27 Dec 2019

RealTrains07 said:
The news it seems is spreading unlike what was previously thought

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...l-operator-Northern-two-public-ownership.html

The daily mail has add nothing new unfortunately, almost an identical copy to the telegraph, no surprise there

Identical probably means that the story was either a leak to selected papers or a planted story.

Mogster · 27 Dec 2019

Mathew S said:
Which would see a mass exodus, in the short term at least, from rail to car; something all those involved are dead set against. For years, people have been promised more frequent services, and faster services. While I sympathise with the fact that running fewer trains will reduce some of the problems that exist at the moment, you can't cut very much without dramatically reducing the convenience of travelling by rail which, at the end of the day, is most important. If there isn't a train going where people want to go, at the time they want to travel, a great number of travellers won't even consider the railway for that journey, or any similar journeys in future.

This isn't a question of running less frequent, or longer trains; rather it needs to be about getting the investment in place to create a robust and reliable network on which longer trains can operate fast and frequently.

Yes. Many posters on here don’t seem to understand that their evangelical fervour for the railways isn’t shared by most of the travelling public. For most it’s a simple choice of a train being available at a certain time, perceived as reliable, and a station being convenient for their home and destination. Any of those factors can mean daily car use rather than the railway.

zuriblue · 27 Dec 2019

Peter Bonner said:
Identical probably means that the story was either a leak to selected papers or a planted story.

Or the Mail just lifted it from the Telegraph. They’ve got a habit of doing that, in fact they’re getting sued over it in Australia.

Purple Orange · 27 Dec 2019

Camden said:
When you first posted, you said that you joined up, irked, purely to reply to my comment, in which i stated and proved (via ORR stats, not "fake news" as you have inferred) that this should be either split further with a large proportion devolved to liverpool, or run from liverpool in its entirety.

So I'm pleased to hear you're on board with that.

I am glad you stated it was ORR, because it was interesting to find the table in the link below, which for a numbers nerd like me is quite interesting.

https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/stati.../regional-rail-journeys-north-west-table-156/

Take 2017-18 data, there was 134m train journeys (excluding metro link) originating in the North West, of which 95m journeys started and ended within the north west. This number is essentially the market the western side of the Northern franchise is competing for.

The interesting bit is the third table, which splits the 95m by sub-region (N.b. that it double counts journeys to reflect start and end points so the overall total comes to 191m, which correlates with the numbers in your link). 96m journeys started in Merseyside and ended either within Merseyside or within the wider NorthWest region. Merseyrail reports circa 60m exits and entries, so the Merseyside market for other local/regional rail is roughly 36m exits and entries.

Slightly different in Greater Manchester, where there are 58m entries/exits for Northern to compete for. Granted, that information does not state how much the TPE or EMR share of these numbers are, and Wigan/Warrington to Carlisle are also counted as at regional level, but Manchester to Buxton is not included in the 95m journeys stated at the top.

For reference, Metrolink quotes circa 44m entries and exits, which for all intents and purposes serves the same function for Manchester as the tube does for London, the Metro for Newcastle and Merseyrail for Liverpool.

exile · 27 Dec 2019

Tomos y Tanc said:
While I take your general point, there are some additional long distance services that would be viable from Lime Street. I am sure TfW's plans for direct services along the north Wales coast and to Wrexham, Shrewsbury and Cardiff along the Marcher line will prove popular when they're introduced in 2022. I suspect direct services from Bristol and the south west of England would also generate traffic although there are some obvious capacity issues involved.

The 'West Coast Main Line' really is something of a misnomer as it's nowhere near the west coast until it reaches Manchester. It's sometimes forgotten that a full 30% of the combined populations of England & Wales live within fifty miles of the border between the two countries and that long distance direct train services within that region are scarce to say the least.

Sounds like a "fake news" statistic there. Source?

Tomos y Tanc · 27 Dec 2019

exile said:
Sounds like a "fake news" statistic there. Source?

Sorry to disappoint you. Not fake at all. The figures are taken from a House of Commons Select Committee report linked below.

"1. The 160 mile border between Wales and England is often described as "porous". This is understandable. 90% of the Welsh population lives within 50 miles of the English border. 30% of the combined English and Welsh population—some 16 million people—live within 50 miles of the border. As a result, there is a huge degree of travel between England and Wales throughout the year, be it commuters, business people, freight or leisure seekers. Some 138 million journeys take place each year on roads and trains across the border, an average of 2.6 million journeys each week.[1] These are primarily centred on two transport corridors between South Wales and the South of England, and North Wales and North West England."

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmwelaf/95/9504.htm

Class 170101 · 27 Dec 2019

js1000 said:
Keep local politicians out of it and don't let the DfT devise unworkable Train Service Requirements. Let Network Rail do it.

Sorry but absolutely not. NR are not commercially minded. Watch early and late services disappear just so they can maintain the track without paying compensation to TOCs as the trains previously payable are instead removed.

HSTEd · 27 Dec 2019

Class 170101 said:
Sorry but absolutely not. NR are not commercially minded. Watch early and late services disappear just so they can maintain the track without paying compensation to TOCs as the trains previously payable are instead removed.

That's exactly what a commercially minded operator would do.
This way of doing things saves them a lot of money

Class 170101 · 27 Dec 2019

JonathanH said:
There are loads of infrastructure issues which mean longer trains are not feasible in the short term, not least at Deansgate, Oxford Road and the Airport.

Replacing a half hourly four car train with an hourly eight car train simply isn't possible on most of the routes in Manchester.

And it will simply drive demand away. People want frequent and regular services that the network isn't capable of sustaining. However the above suggestion simply isn't vaible now. Just as Virgin Cross Country what happened when they went to a half hourly frequency with short trains.

Class 170101 · 27 Dec 2019

HSTEd said:
That's exactly what a commercially minded operator would do.
This way of doing things saves them a lot of money

Late evening services make other services more viable earlier in the day. For example going out later will take an early evening contra peak train to a city centre and return home late that evening. If the trains didn't run late the early evening service wouldn't be used.

HSTEd · 27 Dec 2019

Class 170101 said:
Late evening services make other services more viable earlier in the day. For example going out later will take an early evening contra peak train to a city centre and return home late that evening. If the trains didn't run late the early evening service wouldn't be used.

And how does that improve Network Rail's commercial position?
So far you have just described why a commercially minded TOC would want those services.

Class 170101 · 27 Dec 2019

HSTEd said:
And how does that improve Network Rail's commercial position?
So far you have just described why a commercially minded TOC would want those services.

The point being NR doesn't want those services so it forces the TOC to withdraw them. As I recall the 23:30 Kings Cross to Leeds nearly went this way as NR just cared about maintenance access not the income from track access charges.

HSTEd · 27 Dec 2019

Class 170101 said:
The point being NR doesn't want those services so it forces the TOC to withdraw them. As I recall the 23:30 Kings Cross to Leeds nearly went this way as NR just cared about maintenance access not the income from track access charges.

It is highly likely that the cost of maintenance charges dwarfs the track access charges from the last few trains.
So tolerating the loss of those charges for a reduced maintenance charge due to a more relaxed maintenance schedule is likely a good commercial decision.

This is what happens when you have a privatised railway.

Carlisle · 27 Dec 2019

js1000 said:
Still can't see any good reason to split the franchise. However could it be to potentially re-open the DOO proposal? Splitting it would stop sympathy strikes on the other side so to speak. As others have mentioned, would this affect the east-west split of the 195/331s?

Was there originally any serious proposal on the cards to introduce completely new crew diagrams once DCO had been introduced, that it’s thought would’ve addressed many of the current issues? Or would it have made very little difference anyway ?

Class 170101 · 27 Dec 2019

HSTEd said:
It is highly likely that the cost of maintenance charges dwarfs the track access charges from the last few trains.
So tolerating the loss of those charges for a reduced maintenance charge due to a more relaxed maintenance schedule is likely a good commercial decision.

This is what happens when you have a privatised railway.

But thats the point. NR was accused of NOT being customer focussed. Something Andrew Haines (the new NR MD) said he would address.

HSTEd · 27 Dec 2019

Class 170101 said:
But thats the point. NR was accused of NOT being customer focussed. Something Andrew Haines (the new NR MD) said he would address.

You didn't say customer focussed.
You said commercially minded.

Llama · 27 Dec 2019

Carlisle said:
Was there originally any serious proposal to introduce completely new crew diagrams once DCO been introduced, that would’ve addressed many of the current issues? Or would it have made very little difference anyway ?

That's not a question that can be answered on face value as things have never got anywhere near DCO being introduced, there are too many variables.
However there have been crew diagram changes which have made no difference to the issues irrespective of the fact that DCO hasn't been introduced.

The Ham · 27 Dec 2019

js1000 said:
The problem is the Northern franchise has healthy peaks into cities like Manchester but a lot of the routes are simply not profitable off-peak and don't warrant anything more than a carriage or two. This isn't abnormal but it's very pronounced on the Northern franchise and running 6 empty carriages around all day isn't viable. The new 195/331s are notable for the 2+2 seating with tables which have been built with increasing off-peak leisure and business travellers where there is a perceived gap in the market that the previous Northern franchise failed to exploit.

In which case it would be possible to reduce the 8 coach trains down to 4 during the off peak.

squizzler · 27 Dec 2019

In my opinion - as admittedly non native of the Northern Franchise area - splitting the franchise is far too sensible a suggestion for it to come to pass. After all the Pennines do provide a literal watershed down which to split the two halves of the franchise area, allowing for both halves to be more manageable in size and headquartered closer to the market they serve. Of course it would be desirable for a larger operator to bridge the divide and provide a more strategic intercity service overlaying the two regional operators. Perhaps a good name for this strategic operator might be along the lines of 'Trans Pennine Express?

Class 170101 · 27 Dec 2019

HSTEd said:
You didn't say customer focussed.
You said commercially minded.

oops. However aren't TOCs (and FOCs) NR customers and should be their commercial focus?

LNW-GW Joint · 27 Dec 2019

Bantamzen said:
But how do you have competition on such limited infrastructure? Answer, you don't. The whole concept of competition on the rails was a lie to sell the idea of privatisation.

Competition mostly comes when a franchise is rebid with an open ITT.
A franchise is by definition a limited monopoly, for 7-10 years mainly.
It's coming EU-wide, and the monopoly operators are having to respond.
The solution is for them to bid to run services in someone else's patch, as at Northern (Arriva v Abellio = DB v NS, and DB won).
There's plenty of secondary competition on some routes (eg Liverpool-Manchester is UK v NS v DB).

Nicholas Lewis · 27 Dec 2019

HSTEd said:
It is highly likely that the cost of maintenance charges dwarfs the track access charges from the last few trains.
So tolerating the loss of those charges for a reduced maintenance charge due to a more relaxed maintenance schedule is likely a good commercial decision.

This is what happens when you have a privatised railway.

NR isnt private and shouldn't have to concern itself with striking this balance over access charges. The Williams review will hopefully reset them as an enabler of outcomes such that operators can the run the services that are required, be it for commercial need but more sensibly what the regions want. There will always be a balance between capacity and reliability but let the regions own that outcome not NR constrain them.

Carlisle · 27 Dec 2019

Llama said:
That's not a question that can be answered on face value as things have never got anywhere near DCO being introduced, there are too many variables.
However there have been crew diagram changes which have made no difference to the issues irrespective of the fact that DCO hasn't been introduced.

Ok thanks for the reply

jayah · 27 Dec 2019

yorksrob said:
Getting the Castlefield corridor to a fit for purpose state is not a waste of money. 15 and 16 would do a lot to alleviate the problem of trains arriving at unusual times.

Wasting money is a waste of money.

Building extra platforms on 15/16 would not begin to solve the problems in that corridor even before the inevitable increase in services that will inevitably be rammed through.

That is why an actual solution is needed such as going from North to South via a tunnel. If it can be done from the Airport to Ardwick, why not?

ForTheLoveOf · 27 Dec 2019

LNW-GW Joint said:
But FNW quickly retrenched when they discovered a big black hole in the books.
They were on life support by the end and all investment stopped.

The black hole really only existed because it was one of the last franchises to be let, and so (as came to happen again in the latter part of this decade) bidders were making crazy offers just to get hold of franchises, to satisfy shareholders' demands. NWT's (as was) bid could never have worked, despite the substantial growth the rail industry saw in the first years of private ownership. There are loads of accounts of this in books by the swathe of ex BR managers that decided to leave the industry upon privatisation.

jayah · 27 Dec 2019

Mogster said:
Yes. Many posters on here don’t seem to understand that their evangelical fervour for the railways isn’t shared by most of the travelling public. For most it’s a simple choice of a train being available at a certain time, perceived as reliable, and a station being convenient for their home and destination. Any of those factors can mean daily car use rather than the railway.

I am afraid simple matter of fact is that the infrastructure cannot support the current timetable.

The latter must be changed because in the short term the former can't.

Chester1 · 27 Dec 2019

The Ham said:
I do wonder if it would be better to create a service pattern which resulted in a few direct services, but mostly focus on a few long trains (8+ coaches, ideally EMU's) running through Manchester with those places which then lose their direct services then getting a more frequent service.

For instance place A sees 2tph running as 3 coach trains running through to Manchester. This is changed so that is sees 1tph with 8 coaches and 2tph to a junction where they connect with a more frequent service info Manchester, with the shuttle run as 2tph.

Repeat this with places B and C and the capacity through Manchester goes from 18 coaches per hour to 24 coaches per hour, whilst local stations see an increase from 2tph to 3tph. There's still direct services for those who need it, but there's higher frequency for those who are willing to change trains.

It would also mean that people are now likely to get on the next train out of Manchester and then change trains further out, which could reduce platform load problems.

Ideally you'd end up with a few less services, maybe by connecting two services which currently run into Manchester and run them to each other instead with a connection to good high frequency, high capacity services into Manchester.

However not being local to the area I wouldn't know if such a setup would work and would defer to those with local knowledge (which I feel many would like the DfT to do).

Oxford Road and Salford Crescent are limited to 6 coaches. The former would be resolved by the much delayed rebuild. Salford Crescent would be difficult to rebuild on the same site because the island platform is sandwiched between two junctions and a major road bridge. The transfer of additional 323s presents an opportunity to make 2 x 323s the standard for Liverpool-Manchester stopper (which should go to Victoria not Crewe) and Blackpool - Hazel Grove.

Gareth · 27 Dec 2019

Tomos y Tanc said:
The 'West Coast Main Line' really is something of a misnomer as it's nowhere near the west coast until it reaches Manchester.

Until it reaches Liverpool, surely?

Djgr · 27 Dec 2019

Gareth said:
Until it reaches Liverpool, surely?

Yes. I'm still looking for Manchester's beaches.

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

Member

RailUK Forums

Member

Member

Member

On Moderation

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

On Moderation

Established Member

On Moderation

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member