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

[Purple Orange]

But do the people of Alderley Edge want a service to Southport? And why do the people of Southport want to go to Piccadilly? Surely there is nothing to be gained. And if it is the airport, they need to change so why not make the change before reaching Manchester, at Bolton say?

 

[King Lazy]

I haven’t had time to read this entire thread however I can’t see that this idea will do anything to solve Northern’s problems.

I base this on the following.

As a Northern employee I remember a “Northern 90” performance challenge being set under the old Serco-Abellio franchise.

Employees got a radio controlled watch and advice and instructions aimed at improving performance to 90%ppm.

This challenge was met and they later came up with “Challenge 94” aimed at hitting 94%ppm. This one was not successful but performance was still quite good.

Given that Northern ppm was within 5 minutes on tightly timed routes and Northern trains are generally bottom of the pile regulation wise I thought it was a good result. Many times we’d leave Preston or Lancaster 5mins late waiting for the 10min ppm services to head out in our path.

This was also done on a full-scale Northern franchise which hasn’t changed particularly in route coverage save for picking up a couple of relatively small TPE depots (Barrow/Blackpool) who also used to run their trains fairly well when the Long distance services allowed.

So it clear to me that the geography or size of the franchise isn’t a hinderance to good performance. It is more likely a combination of decisions made around the various parts of the new franchise and infrastructure constraints.

As an example. As a regular user of Northern and TPE services towards Barrow I could never remember Airport/Barrow services terminating short at Wigan.

Recently I’ve seen it a few times. I suspect adding Wigan Wallgate crews onto ex TPE diagrams that used to be relatively self contained has led to this when a Wigan crew is unavailable. Add in that Wigan Wallgate, I believe, book on under Lime Street while Barrow and Blackpool book on under Blackpool I believe the problem is that if the Lime St DSM in charge of Wigan crew realises he has a Man Vic-Lime St uncovered is he going to call his counterpart at Blackpool to see if they need ‘his’ spare man to cover a Barrow?

Barrow TPE crews on hearing that they were being TUPE’d to Northern believed they would operate the Airport ‘connect’ services and the ex-Northern link would stick to Cumbrian Coast, Morecambe and locals to Lancaster/Preston. Instead it has become a massive hash where some days a 195 will turn up with an ex-Northern driver who only signs to Preston while an ex-TPE man with route knowledge of Chat Moss/Chorley and Westhoughton is on a 156 to Lancaster. These being services that rarely were cancelled for traincrew issues.

Since 2016 we’ve seen all Barrow crews from both links undertake 158 training. Try and find a 158 up there now. Surely given both links signed 156s (as a hangover from TPE borrowing them it would’ve made more sense to keep 156s on them until 195s were ready). But the industry wanted 90mph trains as the 185s were going so a depot learnt a whole new train that they already don’t use.

And the difference over a full run isn’t as great as might be thought...just as 185s running at 75/80 over Bolton don’t lose much (or usually anytime over a 100mph 350).

If the problem was geography then why did the Serco-Abellio, no growth franchise hit 90+ppm and make some improvement yet since 2016 everything had degraded. My view is over-complexity of diagramming/timetabling/training/infrastructure etc. Splitting the franchise will not assist with most of that.

I won’t even start on rail user groups insistant on keeping the same services that they’ve had for 50yrs. Leeds Morecambe for example. I remember being at Morecambe many times and while there is use I don’t believe it is enough to insist on a direct train. If you canvassed the residents of Morecambe (a relatively sizeable town) and asked where they’d head to do some big city shopping or a night out I suspect Manchester would be way ahead of Leeds. As a guard I remember many more people on the second trip to Lancaster in a morning (where destinations asked for ranged across the country) buying Manchester and NW tickets that Leeds/Yorkshire.

I’d love to see the Bentham line thrive but the obsession with through trains in my eyes simply hinders capacity. Yes people can still have a day out but no Student between Skipton and Wennington is going to look to Lancaster (for many of them the nearest large area) for work/study by train as they’d can’t get there at a sensible time!

 

[Bletchleyite]

But do the people of Alderley Edge want a service to Southport? And why do the people of Southport want to go to Piccadilly? Surely there is nothing to be gained

The university is a significant destination, for what it's worth. Generally if you ask people they would prefer Picc than Vic, hence BR's approach to things. Maybe they should have 4-tracked Castlefield and built 15/16 in the early 90s...

 

[Glenn1969]

The Mail article is a direct copy of the Telegraph article - "senior sources told The Telegraph" being a giveaway

 

[Glenn1969]

I'm sure they should have done the work 30 years ago. Unfortunately instead they deemed Northern to be a no growth franchise when it was first privatised. I really hope the powers that be don't make us wait the 15 years until NPR before things improve. This split would just paper over the cracks

 

[yorkie]

But do the people of Alderley Edge want a service to Southport? And why do the people of Southport want to go to Piccadilly? Surely there is nothing to be gained. And if it is the airport, they need to change so why not make the change before reaching Manchester, at Bolton say?

If anyone wishes to propose any changes to the current service patterns, this is absolutely welcome but please use the following thread (or create a new thread if appropriate): https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...ises-how-would-you-do-it.197322/#post-4352058

 

[Starmill]

It irks me that it seems impossible to make sensible decisions wherever Manchester is concerned, nor even discuss facts without being the recipient of paranoid chest beating.

This sounds like something you've just made up to me.

 

[Starmill]

and so in no way accept a Manchester and the rest view of the North West rail network

Again, I don't understand where the behaviour which inspires this complaint is grounded.

 

[jayah]

Shall we try to be sensible? I would hope for better industrial relations under a different leader. However, sorting out terms and conditions is so much harder than many here will admit.

Infrastructure spending on the scale required to fix the issues under debate in, say, Manchester can only come from central government. That would be the central government many will now feel need to "reward" northern voters for voting Tory in the recent election. Lets see if they do.

Why do you think IR are a function of the company? How many TOCs from SWR to MR find themselves variously in industrial action over the role of the Guard?

How many strikes do we see on state run LUL?

How many TOCs have managed to get Sunday in the working week?

Who runs Northern, state or private and whether is broken up, merged back into TPE or rebranded as L&Y is neither here nor there.

The management of human resources is one key factor and at the moment the incredibly restrictive practices prevent anyone making a good job of it.

The unions are too powerful, the agreements too restrictive and said unions are too willing and able to use the passenger and local economy as bargaining chips in their political and industrial warfare.

Infrastructure, I am against wasting yet more money on palliative interventions the Piccadilly / Deansgate corridor that simply move the same congestion to the next junction. Short term there need to be considerably fewer and longer trains.

Longer term I think you need a tunnel to allow access from Bolton / Huddersfield to the Airport without creating serial flat junction conflicts. HS2 shows the sort of ambition needed with their Airport - Ardwick affair, just it is in the wrong place.

 

[jayah]

But do the people of Alderley Edge want a service to Southport? And why do the people of Southport want to go to Piccadilly? Surely there is nothing to be gained. And if it is the airport, they need to change so why not make the change before reaching Manchester, at Bolton say?

Through services are more efficient and create new opportunities e.g. Stockport to Southport.

But short term yes there are too many trains trying to cross between North and South and the timetable pruning shears are needed before the service will work.

 

[JonathanH]

Short term there need to be considerably fewer and longer trains.

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.

 

[jayah]

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.

Very many of them are not even 4 cars.

 

[Mathew S]

Its ORR stats and completely like for like.

No, of course it doesn't contain your tram figures. It doesn't contain your bus or bike figures either.

FYI, if you were to lump on top tram passenger numbers, Manchester would still come up short on both counts, including per person by half across an area twice the size of Liverpool.

It irks you that control of something important should be carried out by an organisation or area that does it well, vs one which has no track record of successful rail concession running and which has low rail passenger numbers?

It irks me that it seems impossible to make sensible decisions wherever Manchester is concerned, nor even discuss facts without being the recipient of paranoid chest beating.

Liverpool suffers, and always will, because it is a transport cul-de-sac. The reason the network centres around Manchester, Leeds and, to a lesser extent, York, is that those are the places from where it's logical to make connections to a wide variety of other destinations.

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.

There are a small number of places where the ME network could be grown to (Skem, and arguably Shotton) but I think more than that is pushing it.

Whether the people of Liverpool like it or not, the future expansion of the North West England rail network, and the major passenger flows, center on Manchester, not Merseyside.

 

[Mathew S]

Infrastructure, I am against wasting yet more money on palliative interventions the Piccadilly / Deansgate corridor that simply move the same congestion to the next junction. Short term there need to be considerably fewer and longer trains.

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.

 

[Mathew S]

there must be some sort of source for the story

I don't know who the Telegraph source is, but I would put money on a certain PUS within the DfT who is exceptionally crap at keeping their mouth shut.

As for whether it's true or not, well, the version of the split story I've heard is different from what's in the Telegraph, both make sense, and it's possible things have moved on since I last looked into it (the railways are way beyond my remit).

However, an early end to the franchise, with a direct award to Arriva to run all or part of it, is something I would take to the bank.

 

[js1000]

Through services are more efficient and create new opportunities e.g. Stockport to Southport. But short term yes there are too many trains trying to cross between North and South and the timetable pruning shears are needed before the service will work.

The longer 'through' services in May 2018 also bring staffing difficulties - can't believe it but the Liverpool to Crewe via Manchester Airport service is entirely non-existent today due to staff shortages. Not a single stopping service today on a route which serves 30 stations.

Doubt that would happen with pre-May 2018 arrangement with Piccadilly to Airport/Crewe shuttle and Liverpool to Stalybridge via Victoria. Once you start adding more than one staff changeover on rail services which require both a driver and a guard cancellations and problems will undoubtedly increase.

This has been the case for 18 months now and the service has deteriorated. Same can be said of Southport-Alderley Edge and Blackpool-Manchester Airport/Hazel Grove 'through' services.

 

[The Ham]

Is it really an issue? Aren't many of the journeys from the places you mention into the key population centres of Greater Manchester and Liverpool City Region anyway?

You mean in same way which there's many places around the South East which want to travel into London.

Now whilst this can mean that orbital routes are fairly few and far between, this is now to do with the building of the lines rather than the operation of the services.

 

[DarloRich]

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.

A very sensible post. Thank you. Many here seem to concentrate on the trains or the minutiae of timetbale structures and miss the human angle.

 

[The Ham]

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).

 

[Mogster]

The university is a significant destination, for what it's worth. Generally if you ask people they would prefer Picc than Vic, hence BR's approach to things. Maybe they should have 4-tracked Castlefield and built 15/16 in the early 90s...

Definitely, but then that’s around the time the Northern franchise was being awarded on a no growth basis...

The new merged Manchester Royal Infirmary campus employs over 20,000 people now.

The last figures I saw there are more than 50,000 people working on or near to the Oxford Road corridor. That’s going to increase as there are huge building projects going on, although there are huge building projects all over Manchester. 8.5m people use Oxford Road station for access to S Manchester every year that’s incredible bearing in mind the complete dump the place is.

 

[yorksrob]

I haven’t had time to read this entire thread however I can’t see that this idea will do anything to solve Northern’s problems.

I base this on the following.

As a Northern employee I remember a “Northern 90” performance challenge being set under the old Serco-Abellio franchise.

Employees got a radio controlled watch and advice and instructions aimed at improving performance to 90%ppm.

This challenge was met and they later came up with “Challenge 94” aimed at hitting 94%ppm. This one was not successful but performance was still quite good.

Given that Northern ppm was within 5 minutes on tightly timed routes and Northern trains are generally bottom of the pile regulation wise I thought it was a good result. Many times we’d leave Preston or Lancaster 5mins late waiting for the 10min ppm services to head out in our path.

This was also done on a full-scale Northern franchise which hasn’t changed particularly in route coverage save for picking up a couple of relatively small TPE depots (Barrow/Blackpool) who also used to run their trains fairly well when the Long distance services allowed.

So it clear to me that the geography or size of the franchise isn’t a hinderance to good performance. It is more likely a combination of decisions made around the various parts of the new franchise and infrastructure constraints.

As an example. As a regular user of Northern and TPE services towards Barrow I could never remember Airport/Barrow services terminating short at Wigan.

Recently I’ve seen it a few times. I suspect adding Wigan Wallgate crews onto ex TPE diagrams that used to be relatively self contained has led to this when a Wigan crew is unavailable. Add in that Wigan Wallgate, I believe, book on under Lime Street while Barrow and Blackpool book on under Blackpool I believe the problem is that if the Lime St DSM in charge of Wigan crew realises he has a Man Vic-Lime St uncovered is he going to call his counterpart at Blackpool to see if they need ‘his’ spare man to cover a Barrow?

Barrow TPE crews on hearing that they were being TUPE’d to Northern believed they would operate the Airport ‘connect’ services and the ex-Northern link would stick to Cumbrian Coast, Morecambe and locals to Lancaster/Preston. Instead it has become a massive hash where some days a 195 will turn up with an ex-Northern driver who only signs to Preston while an ex-TPE man with route knowledge of Chat Moss/Chorley and Westhoughton is on a 156 to Lancaster. These being services that rarely were cancelled for traincrew issues.

Since 2016 we’ve seen all Barrow crews from both links undertake 158 training. Try and find a 158 up there now. Surely given both links signed 156s (as a hangover from TPE borrowing them it would’ve made more sense to keep 156s on them until 195s were ready). But the industry wanted 90mph trains as the 185s were going so a depot learnt a whole new train that they already don’t use.

And the difference over a full run isn’t as great as might be thought...just as 185s running at 75/80 over Bolton don’t lose much (or usually anytime over a 100mph 350).

If the problem was geography then why did the Serco-Abellio, no growth franchise hit 90+ppm and make some improvement yet since 2016 everything had degraded. My view is over-complexity of diagramming/timetabling/training/infrastructure etc. Splitting the franchise will not assist with most of that.

I won’t even start on rail user groups insistant on keeping the same services that they’ve had for 50yrs. Leeds Morecambe for example. I remember being at Morecambe many times and while there is use I don’t believe it is enough to insist on a direct train. If you canvassed the residents of Morecambe (a relatively sizeable town) and asked where they’d head to do some big city shopping or a night out I suspect Manchester would be way ahead of Leeds. As a guard I remember many more people on the second trip to Lancaster in a morning (where destinations asked for ranged across the country) buying Manchester and NW tickets that Leeds/Yorkshire.

I’d love to see the Bentham line thrive but the obsession with through trains in my eyes simply hinders capacity. Yes people can still have a day out but no Student between Skipton and Wennington is going to look to Lancaster (for many of them the nearest large area) for work/study by train as they’d can’t get there at a sensible time!

Exactly where are you suggesting the Bentham line should terminate, if not Morecambe or Lancaster ?

 

[yorksrob]

Why do you think IR are a function of the company? How many TOCs from SWR to MR find themselves variously in industrial action over the role of the Guard?

How many strikes do we see on state run LUL?

How many TOCs have managed to get Sunday in the working week?

Who runs Northern, state or private and whether is broken up, merged back into TPE or rebranded as L&Y is neither here nor there.

The management of human resources is one key factor and at the moment the incredibly restrictive practices prevent anyone making a good job of it.

The unions are too powerful, the agreements too restrictive and said unions are too willing and able to use the passenger and local economy as bargaining chips in their political and industrial warfare.

Infrastructure, I am against wasting yet more money on palliative interventions the Piccadilly / Deansgate corridor that simply move the same congestion to the next junction. Short term there need to be considerably fewer and longer trains.

Longer term I think you need a tunnel to allow access from Bolton / Huddersfield to the Airport without creating serial flat junction conflicts. HS2 shows the sort of ambition needed with their Airport - Ardwick affair, just it is in the wrong place.

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.

 

[js1000]

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.

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.

 

[Camden]

No, it just irks me that these days facts and figures presented in the public domain need to be taken with a pinch of salt and fact checked, when those who publish these stats should be open and honest about the figures. Sorry if my question upset you. I assume that you are from and/or live in north London, so does it really matter to you that much?

Concerning Northern rail or whatever it becomes, I’m not fussed either way where it is run from, as long as decision making is made in the region the service is provided, as opposed to London.

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.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Definitely, but then that’s around the time the Northern franchise was being awarded on a no growth basis...

No, I meant BR in the 1990s! Not the last Northern franchise. The FNW franchise was awarded on growth, it brought in the Class 175s and proposed London services etc.

 

[Bletchleyite]

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.

The length of the train really isn't the main cost, particularly if it's an EMU. Thameslink run 12-car trains round all day without anything like the demand to fill them, as do LU. The approach is taken because it saves more money in not having to do shunting etc.

TBH, I was surprised Merseyrail's stock order wasn't for longer fixed formations with no doubling up at all.

But anyway, all we are asking for is established South East practices around Manchester and Liverpool, not rocket science.

 

[Camden]

I fear the cycnical political understory here may be correct, a great way to push things onto the Labour mayors. If the Gov has refused to commit to infrastructure improvements this would seem to add to that fear and Arriva will be doing to right thing in walking away.

I am not sure I see the merit in a split. If taken from Arriva there is no reason the same affect cannot be achieved by having an operational split as happens to some extent now anyway. If Manchester/NW is the real problem then why not add resource into fixing - setting up some specialist problem solving teams etc. Manchester is not a mess because it is being operated alongside a better functioning east side.

I am actually quite attracted to the idea of Merseyrail taking over an element of services to allow it to develop the City Line properly, ideally completing the link into the underground.

Merseyrail seems to be run pretty well. There is clearly lots that a west side operating company could learn from it and it would be good to see Liverpool become a recognised centre of excellence for regional railway management.

The City Lines being transferred to Liverpool (similar for Newcastle) was their condition for agreeing to not get in the way of Rail North. Rail North would have seen Manchester and Leeds jointly take more control of their own local services.

Little did they (Liverpool) know that Rail North would effectively be setting the political settlement for a new entity - TfN.

It makes sense for Liverpool to take the lead on this, at least for the original settlement.

I predict the alternative will be continued degraded services, fare restructures that underwrite Manchester, and eventually the abolition of Merseytravel/rail, being subsumed into some "regional" one city centric unaccountable non-entity.

I'm not sure that solidarity means that much versus the pound in your pocket, and I don't think the phrase has any meaning at all in most parts of the north, from what I've observed over the years!

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

No, I meant BR in the 1990s! Not the last Northern franchise. The FNW franchise was awarded on growth, it brought in the Class 175s and proposed London services etc.

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 London services were entire fantasy.

 

[irish_rail]

The longer 'through' services in May 2018 also bring staffing difficulties - can't believe it but the Liverpool to Crewe via Manchester Airport service is entirely non-existent today due to staff shortages. Not a single stopping service today on a route which serves 30 stations.

Doubt that would happen with pre-May 2018 arrangement with Piccadilly to Airport/Crewe shuttle and Liverpool to Stalybridge via Victoria. Once you start adding more than one staff changeover on rail services which require both a driver and a guard cancellations and problems will undoubtedly increase.

This has been the case for 18 months now and the service has deteriorated. Same can be said of Southport-Alderley Edge and Blackpool-Manchester Airport/Hazel Grove 'through' services.

This is so true (about increasing staff changeover on route adding to delays and poor performance). First seem particularly prone to it, and by the sound of it it is now more common in arriva land too. Even trqnspennine drivers at Liverpool I believe only sign as far as Leeds, when logically you would have them going right through to Newcastle to prevent the need to change the driver on route. It only needs one link in the chain to be missing or delayed and the whole chain falls apart.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The London services were entire fantasy.

The Airport ones were perhaps ahead of their time (though not totally mad, LNR are considering reinstating them).

The Victoria ones were actually profitable at the end and were fine in the days of the WCML having spare paths - it was a lack of paths in the move towards the modern regular interval service that killed them. Nowadays we'd consider a 2-car DMU a waste of space on the WCML, but when there was plenty of space it was no less viable than a couple of National Express coaches.