Combined transport authority in the north

[HST43257]

Not quite sure what I'm asking here, but this stems from Bee Network discussions about trains running beyond boundaries?

At face value, I'm just talking about Transport for the North, but really I'm saying - why can't the various Yorkshire and North West (and maybe north East) authorities team up to effectively take over Northern but everyone gets a say rather then just Manchester? Bit of integration and working together between areas might do some good, even if it feels like rocket science to some.

 

[The exile]

Bit of integration and working together between areas might do some good, even if it feels like rocket science to some.

And there you have it. Too much of local politics is about doing down everyone else or saying that the only success is getting 100% of what you wanted (meaning that others got nothing) Too many projects don’t get off the ground because town A thinks that town B is getting the better of the bargain (as opposed to seeing the benefit that will also accrue to them)

 

[Ianigsy]

Indeed, one of the reasons why Metrolink succeeded and Leeds is still trying to get off the ground 30 years later is that from the start, Metrolink had the buy-in of neighbouring councils because the likes of Bury and Trafford also got something out of it.

The PTE system works against a city like Leeds, which has overtaken its neighbours in the last 50 years. A Leeds-only project means having to find some pork in the barrel for the other districts of West Yorkshire .

 

[HSTEd]

In this vein you also have schemes like HS2, where Sheffield demanded that South Yorkshire lose its proper HS2 station at Meadowhall to ensure that it retained its local dominance over the likes of Rotherham or Barnsley. Of course that decision essentially destroyed the business case for the eastern portion of HS2 in its entirety and no one got anything.

 

[Djgr]

I would rather split Northern into two-west and east of Pennines.

Not sure that Liverpool has any closer economic or social links with the likes of Leeds and Sheffield than it has with North Wales.

 

[HST43257]

I would rather split Northern into two-west and east of Pennines.

Not sure that Liverpool has any closer economic or social links with the likes of Leeds and Sheffield than it has with North Wales.

But that gives one of Leeds and Manchester entire control of Calder Valley services, for example, surely? Wouldn’t be ideal as each would try to get it their own way rather than any sort of mutual compromise

 

[The exile]

I would rather split Northern into two-west and east of Pennines.

But with a person / body that has the power to knock heads together to force cooperation on East - West routes

 

[Djgr]

But that gives one of Leeds and Manchester entire control of Calder Valley services, for example, surely? Wouldn’t be ideal as each would try to get it their own way rather than any sort of mutual compromise

You have to have boundaries somewhere and Northern is too big and sprawly.

 

[HST43257]

You have to have boundaries somewhere and Northern is too big and sprawly.

So can GM and WY, for example, not run a “joint venture”

 

[Djgr]

So can GM and WY, for example, not run a “joint venture”

Perhaps look at how local areas run trains in Germany where there is some cross over at the boundary.

But I think that our experience of "amorphous mass" (Chester to Chathill) Northern is management from miles away is not the answer. Local services need local management committed to and knowledgeable about the local area they are serving.

 

[HSTEd]

But I think that our experience of "amorphous mass" (Chester to Chathill) Northern is management from miles away is not the answer. Local services need local management committed to and knowledgeable about the local area they are serving.

The problem with that is that you end up with arbitrary termination points to services, which ends up negatively affecting the whole.

For example, discussions of Metrolink tram trains to Marple or Rose Hill Marple only (even though Strines station is in Greater Manchester), leaving this awkward little shuttle between Marple and New Mills that will be useless to everyone. Or branch lines on Merseyrial that terminate short of a major traffic centre, again producing awkward branches in the middle that are a pain for everyone.

Local Management musn't be used as an excuse for parochialism. But this then leads to the problem of services being controlled by politicians that are in no way responsible to the people using the service. See the Metropolitan Line as an obvious example.

 

[WAB]

But that gives one of Leeds and Manchester entire control of Calder Valley services, for example, surely? Wouldn’t be ideal as each would try to get it their own way rather than any sort of mutual compromise

They could be taken into TPE?

I think local politicians are incapable of working together for the common (transport) good. It needs bribery for the different areas (like in Manchester) or it needs a powerful transport authority (London). The easiest area to take into local control would be the north-eastern part of Northern, if the two combined authorities could be persuaded to play nicely. 35 units, and no neighbouring combined authorities to care enough about their trains being controlled by a different area's authority.

 

[Djgr]

The problem with that is that you end up with arbitrary termination points to services, which ends up negatively affecting the whole.

For example, discussions of Metrolink tram trains to Marple or Rose Hill Marple only (even though Strines station is in Greater Manchester), leaving this awkward little shuttle between Marple and New Mills that will be useless to everyone. Or branch lines on Merseyrial that terminate short of a major traffic centre, again producing awkward branches in the middle that are a pain for everyone.

Local Management musn't be used as an excuse for parochialism. But this then leads to the problem of services being controlled by politicians that are in no way responsible to the people using the service. See the Metropolitan Line as an obvious example.

Political boundaries didn't stop the electrification of the Wirral line from Hooton into Cheshire and there is a lot of cooperation between Merseytravel (Liverpool City Region) and the Welsh government. And so boundaries aren't insurmountable.

There are basically three societal choices to run these things: local politicians, national politicians or businesses.

Unfortunately we don't have a functioning and competent UK government at the moment and so that's not an option.

Left to their own devices businesses tend to lead to individuals waltzing off with cash to buy another island or castle with the community stuffed (see Thames Water for classic example).

So that leaves the local politicians, who are as answerable or unanswerable as the first two choices.

 

[The exile]

Perhaps look at how local areas run trains in Germany where there is some cross over at the boundary.

But I think that our experience of "amorphous mass" (Chester to Chathill) Northern is management from miles away is not the answer. Local services need local management committed to and knowledgeable about the local area they are serving.

At least in the past, Germans used to cite the way transport (didn’t) work(ed) across their authority boundaries as a prime example of how not to do things!

 

[Ben427]

In this vein you also have schemes like HS2, where Sheffield demanded that South Yorkshire lose its proper HS2 station at Meadowhall to ensure that it retained its local dominance over the likes of Rotherham or Barnsley. Of course that decision essentially destroyed the business case for the eastern portion of HS2 in its entirety and no one got anything.

That's absolute rubbish

The BCR for the Eastern leg was the highest of any of the legs even with the updated Sheffield option (the main issue with is that Sheffield station and city in general would need huge amounts of work doing to cope with the extra trains)

The cancellation of the eastern leg was nothing to do with BCRs

 

[Sad Sprinter]

A combined Northern Transit Authority seems like it would segue into Northern Devolution. Something which I see will want to be replicated across England. But surely the current woes of Northern and TPEX wouldn't actually be helped by any sort of devolutionary measure?

 

[Djgr]

surely the current woes of Northern and TPEX wouldn't actually be helped by any sort of devolutionary measure?

Because?

 

[Meerkat]

Isnt it a bit patronising to talk about 'the north' likes it can be treated like one blob? Does Newcastle really have shared interests with Manchester, other than "not London, grrr Westminster"?
I reckon that if you blob it all together then they will spend more time arguing with each other over allocations than with London*, and rubbish projects will get the go ahead as a salve for that. I think expansions of the current PTEs are the correct size, and they can then co-operate where necessary. A TfN is just another level of bureaucracy and jobs for the middle class meeting attenders and power point pirates.

As an example of the pointlessness there is a Transport for the South East - no I don't see the point, and no I don't see what real shared interest there is.
Because they need to keep their cushy jobs and not offend any partners the strategic plan includes a huge list of schemes including absolute lunacy like building more railways on the Isle of Wight!

* I know I am cynical but I am sure the creation of TfN was intended to make the northern areas argue with each other rather than spend that energy demanding money from central government. I am not sure if this counts as divide and rule or not.....

 

[Bletchleyite]

Isnt it a bit patronising to talk about 'the north' likes it can be treated like one blob?

"The North" probably not. Someone from Manchester is far more likely to go to Birmingham or London than Newcastle, though to some extent there's a stronger connection with the Leeds/Sheffield area and a fairly reasonable amount of trans-Pennine commuting in both directions.

"The North West", almost certainly. While there are strong emotional allegiances, particularly with regard to Liverpool and Manchester, in reality the triangle of Liverpool-Manchester-Preston (and probably Chester to an extent too, and maybe vaguely extend to Blackpool) act largely as a single entity a bit like the West Midlands. People live in one bit and commute to/visit another bit all the time. Yet because there are two separate city regions/PTEs/whatever they are now, and that chunk of Lancashire where there's basically no coordination of public transport at all, the connectivity between them isn't as good as it could be.

The only difficulty is how you avoid accusations of bias in favour of Manchester (despite Manchester having markedly inferior public transport to Liverpool).

Similarly, it seems a bit odd that you have two "PTEs" on the east side, South and West Yorkshire - those are so closely connected that they should really be one.

If anything the whole City Region thing has made sorting this out harder as the PTEs, rather than just concentrating on transport, have become part of something politically a bit wider.

 

[WAB]

"The North" probably not. Someone from Manchester is far more likely to go to Birmingham or London than Newcastle, though to some extent there's a stronger connection with the Leeds/Sheffield area and a fairly reasonable amount of trans-Pennine commuting in both directions.

"The North West", almost certainly. While there are strong emotional allegiances, particularly with regard to Liverpool and Manchester, in reality the triangle of Liverpool-Manchester-Preston (and probably Chester to an extent too, and maybe vaguely extend to Blackpool) act largely as a single entity a bit like the West Midlands. People live in one bit and commute to/visit another bit all the time. Yet because there are two separate city regions/PTEs/whatever they are now, and that chunk of Lancashire where there's basically no coordination of public transport at all, the connectivity between them isn't as good as it could be.

The only difficulty is how you avoid accusations of bias in favour of Manchester (despite Manchester having markedly inferior public transport to Liverpool).

Similarly, it seems a bit odd that you have two "PTEs" on the east side, South and West Yorkshire - those are so closely connected that they should really be one.

If anything the whole City Region thing has made sorting this out harder as the PTEs, rather than just concentrating on transport, have become part of something politically a bit wider.

Yes, the local rail network can easily be divvied up into north-west, Yorkshire, and north-east. Getting politicians within each of these areas to agree to work together, on the other hand, is quite difficult. In London, this was achieved by the LPTB being given a high level of power independent of politicians, and the local authority issues were sorted in the long run by the top-down creation of Greater London.

 

[Djgr]

Isnt it a bit patronising to talk about 'the north' likes it can be treated like one blob? Does Newcastle really have shared interests with Manchester, other than "not London, grrr Westminster"?
I reckon that if you blob it all together then they will spend more time arguing with each other over allocations than with London*, and rubbish projects will get the go ahead as a salve for that. I think expansions of the current PTEs are the correct size, and they can then co-operate where necessary. A TfN is just another level of bureaucracy and jobs for the middle class meeting attenders and power point pirates.

As an example of the pointlessness there is a Transport for the South East - no I don't see the point, and no I don't see what real shared interest there is.
Because they need to keep their cushy jobs and not offend any partners the strategic plan includes a huge list of schemes including absolute lunacy like building more railways on the Isle of Wight!

* I know I am cynical but I am sure the creation of TfN was intended to make the northern areas argue with each other rather than spend that energy demanding money from central government. I am not sure if this counts as divide and rule or not.....

The North is a concept developed by those who live and work in the South East honeypot.

I remember being told by my bank that as the Liverpool branch had now closed to go to the Newcastle one instead. Bless!

If the whole of the United Kingdom is included then Liverpool would barely be in the Midlands, more likely the top end of the South!

 

[Meerkat]

"The North" probably not. Someone from Manchester is far more likely to go to Birmingham or London than Newcastle, though to some extent there's a stronger connection with the Leeds/Sheffield area and a fairly reasonable amount of trans-Pennine commuting in both directions.

"The North West", almost certainly. While there are strong emotional allegiances, particularly with regard to Liverpool and Manchester, in reality the triangle of Liverpool-Manchester-Preston (and probably Chester to an extent too, and maybe vaguely extend to Blackpool) act largely as a single entity a bit like the West Midlands. People live in one bit and commute to/visit another bit all the time. Yet because there are two separate city regions/PTEs/whatever they are now, and that chunk of Lancashire where there's basically no coordination of public transport at all, the connectivity between them isn't as good as it could be.

The only difficulty is how you avoid accusations of bias in favour of Manchester (despite Manchester having markedly inferior public transport to Liverpool).

Similarly, it seems a bit odd that you have two "PTEs" on the east side, South and West Yorkshire - those are so closely connected that they should really be one.

If anything the whole City Region thing has made sorting this out harder as the PTEs, rather than just concentrating on transport, have become part of something politically a bit wider.

I think its important for administration to match the cultural areas - where people feel they belong. If lumping Manchester and Liverpool together breaks that it will cause more problems than it solves. I dont see why they can't concentrate on their own city regions and then co-operate on the cross border stuff (with central arbitration if necessary).
Its just as bad for Yorkshire - it sounds like there is already grumpiness between Sheffield/Doncaster/Rotherham and Bradford/Leeds as it is so adding even more in will just make it dysfunctional.
Its funny seeing the reactions of proud Republic of Yorkshire types when you ask "including Hull and Middlesbrough right?"

 

[The Mercian]

Yes, the local rail network can easily be divvied up into north-west, Yorkshire, and north-east. Getting politicians within each of these areas to agree to work together, on the other hand, is quite difficult. In London, this was achieved by the LPTB being given a high level of power independent of politicians, and the local authority issues were sorted in the long run by the top-down creation of Greater London.

I’d thoroughly agree with this in terms of TfN being split into 3. Whilst trans Pennine links are important the linking of Liverpool, Manchester and Lancs to West Mids and London is just as important.

 

[Neptune]

You have to have boundaries somewhere and Northern is too big and sprawly.

Do you think GWR, Scotrail, TfW rail, LNER, Avanti and XC are too big and sprawly too? Some of these cover much larger areas than Northern.

But I think that our experience of "amorphous mass" (Chester to Chathill) Northern is management from miles away is not the answer. Local services need local management committed to and knowledgeable about the local area they are serving.

Northern has offices in York (main HQ), Manchester, Newcastle, Sheffield and Preston. They are responsible for their own operating area individually whilst as a collective ensuring that there is cross co-operation where necessary. How much more local do you want it?

This idea that northern is entirely operated from some remote ivory tower run by people without a clue of what their patch looks like is somewhat wide of the mark.