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

[Bletchleyite]

The TPE services were formally part of the FNW and ATN franchises. They were split off into a separate TPE franchise when FNW & ATN became one franchise.

FNW/RRNW never operated any services branded TransPennine Express at any point.

What they did do was operate the NorthWest Express services (Blackpool, Barrow, Windermere) which later were moved into TPE and were always a poor fit in my view.

 

[Robertj21a]

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.

Certainly, looking at the efficiency and cost effectiveness of Network Rail/Northern/heavy rail vs TfGM/Metrolink there's no competition. Long live the tram !!

 

[Bletchleyite]

agreed! THe issues around Manchester & Leeds will not be fixed by different stickers on the trains.

No, but "divide and conquer" is a solid approach to something big that has major problems (a fair description of Northern).

 

[tbtc]

You said bring them back to TPE when they were never in TPE in the first place. The Calder Valley has never had a TPE type service because it is considered to be too slow to be included and would need linespeed improvements

West Yorkshire - Bradford was run by the raspberry coloured 158s in Northern Spirit days and part of the "trans-pennine" sub-brand of the franchise - appearing on the same leaflets - though back then some of the services were to/from Scarborough and other destinations beyond York.That's back when places like Sunderland were also on the "trans-pennine" map.

In the same way, a number of places used to be served by cross-country services, but didn't make it into the stand alone XC franchise.

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.

Certainly, looking at the efficiency and cost effectiveness of Network Rail/Northern/heavy rail vs TfGM/Metrolink there's no competition. Long live the tram !!

It's a shame that the "heavy rail" people seem to be ignoring the success that "light rail" has had and seem to have no interest in learning - e.g. Metrolink works is because they have a good frequency on all branches but don't waste capacity by trying to ensure that (e.g.) Bury has a through service to each one of Eccles/ Altrincham/ East Disbury/ Airport/ Ashton - but they probably realise that it'd be wasteful trying to give everywhere direct service each hour to the Airport and that it's much better to have simpler frequencies from each branch into the centre (and the few passengers who require along distance journey can easily change).

 

[HSTEd]

Fairly transparent political move.

They will give the NW to Liverpool and Manchester with no additional money, then flood the North East with money under a new private franchise.
This will ensure the transport options offered to their new heartlands in the North east will improve and thus they will vote for them later, and give them sticks to beat the Labour mayoralties with.

Honestly, TfGM should convert most local railways in Manchester and it's environs to tram operation anyway.
Running half hourly short trains on urban routes does noone any favours.

 

[JonathanH]

they probably realise that it'd be wasteful trying to give everywhere direct service each hour to the Airport and that it's much better to have simpler frequencies from each branch into the centre (and the few passengers who require along distance journey can easily change).

There is no hope of having simpler frequencies into the centre of Manchester and not running the trains out the other side as there is not enough capacity to terminate all the desired trains from the four corridors - CLC, Chat Moss, Atherton, Bolton in central Manchester.

Even Metrolink doesn't attempt this - nearly everything runs through.

 

[Djgr]

It is but one step, but a necessary step, in the right direction.

Northern is too unwieldy and only makes sense to London civil servants who think Chester-le-Street is near Chester.

(174 miles by car seeing as you ask!)

 

[HSTEd]

There is no hope of having simpler frequencies into the centre of Manchester and not running the trains out the other side as there is not enough capacity to terminate all the desired trains from the four corridors - CLC, Chat Moss, Atherton, Bolton in central Manchester.

Even Metrolink doesn't attempt this - nearly everything runs through.

That is not what he's suggesting.

He is proposing that branches be paired up and run through simply.

 

[Deepgreen]

If there is any substance to this, it is simply the government (who just do not care about the railways per se, only deferring problems) trying to deflect attention by seeming to take action. Further splitting of the network can only lead to less cohesion and strategic planning capabilities. On top of this, with the diminishing number of possible franchisees in the market (hugely so post-Brexit), who will be able to take on an extra TOC while still fulfilling the supposed competition requirements? Without HMG investment, who will be willing to put the amount of money in that's needed to bring rail operations in the north of England up to anything like a reasonable standard?

 

[Bertie the bus]

I mean this is a touch conspiracy theory but I can imagine that a newly created "TfN Rail" could be tasked with running services from the Mayoral offices.

I agree, leaving the east side in private hands and nationalising the troubled west side does seem a little far fetched when the article states the government will be comparing proposals put forward by Arriva and OLR. I can't quite see OLR saying please give us the disaster area that is the west side but we don't want the bits to the east of the Pennines which seem to work quite well.

 

[Agent_Squash]

I desperately hope that the Cumbria-Manchester services can go back to TPE if the east/west split goes ahead. If they go to a Manchester and Liverpool mayor dominated North West franchise the improvements we’ve just gained are near certain to be the first to be sacrificed. And I doubt either of them have heard of the Cumbrian Coast.

 

[Glenn1969]

And if the West side is given to Burnham and Rotheram what happens to areas outside the City Regions like Preston, Blackpool, Lancaster, Barrow, Carlisle, Chester, Crewe and Macclesfield?

 

[HSTEd]

And if the West side is given to Burnham and Rotheram what happens to areas outside the City Regions like Preston, Blackpool, Lancaster, Barrow, Carlisle, Chester, Crewe and Macclesfield?

Well Chester already recieves more Merseyrail trains than Northern Rail trains, so I wouldn't worry.

 

[tbtc]

There is no hope of having simpler frequencies into the centre of Manchester and not running the trains out the other side as there is not enough capacity to terminate all the desired trains from the four corridors - CLC, Chat Moss, Atherton, Bolton in central Manchester.

Even Metrolink doesn't attempt this - nearly everything runs through.

Oh, I agree with you, I'm just comparing the Metrolink model (run good balanced frequencies from each branch into the city centre) with the Northern Rail model (run unbalanced services from each branch which cause congestion in central Manchester because we think that an hourly cross-Manchester link - e.g. Rochdale to Wigan or Stockport to Bolton or whatever is more important than a good simple frequency into central Manchester).

So if you are on the tram from Rochdale, you have five departures per hour, a nice simple twelve minute frequency (every six minutes from Shaw etc) into central Manchester.

If you are on the *train* from Rochdale you've got five departures per hour, but look at the westbound timings:

• xx:09 - Wigan
• xx:18 - Clitheroe
• xx:25 Victoria
• xx:39 - Wigan
• xx:50 Chester

...so gaps of nine/ seven/ fourteen/ eleven/ nineteen minutes (three services within thirty one minutes and then big gaps) - that's not much use for typical passengers just wanting a train to Victoria (and therefore the first train after a long gap - like the xx:09 - will get a disproportionate amount of passengers and therefore be busier than the others) - most passengers will just want a train into the nearest big city (the numbers wanting to go from Rochdale to Chester, Clitheroe and Wigan will be in a minority) but we are lumbered with it because of the obsession with running through trains to a variety of destinations.

It'd be better to have four well spaced trains per hour from Rochdale that all run through to one destination (e.g. Wigan/ Southport) but The Powers That Be like the vanity of being able to show a range of through services, it makes them feel important if they can have many destinations (because only the everyday passengers are going to be bothered about practical things like an unbalanced timetable or unreliable trains caused by the fact that you're importing delays from several different other corridors)

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Nobody ever mentions Transport for the North, the people who are supposed to be in charge of the current franchise operation (with DfT) and are supposed to be preparing to let the next one.
Where are they? Forever invisible and seemingly ineffective. They are based in Leeds.
Theoretically, Andy Burnham and Steve Rotheram and the other mayors are supposed to be part of the TfN management team.

"No new funds" is part of the austerity mantra and has not yet been repealed/replaced.
Even then it will compete with nurses/police/social care and all the other priorities promised by the Tories (and everybody else) in the election run-off.
Then there's Williams and HS2 decisions in the offing...

The much lauded Metrolink, by the way, is operated by foreign-owned fat cats Keolis Amey for TfGM.
I also seem to remember a spell of great anguish and service disruption/delay during the recent major upgrades, now conveniently in the past.

 

[Glenn1969]

TfN have wanted local control for some time but they don't have the same level of devolved power as TfL do so have to go cap in hand to Whitehall for funding. Yorkshire also don't have a devolution deal because West Yorkshire and York refused to bow to pressure for an elected Mayor

 

[Roast Veg]

This is a winner from a PR perspective. Public perception is that "Northern" is a woeful way to travel, and most of the public are not fully aware of franchise handovers. If Northern ceases to exist by name, then a fair number of potential passengers may well change their habits and start taking the train.

 

[Djgr]

And if the West side is given to Burnham and Rotheram what happens to areas outside the City Regions like Preston, Blackpool, Lancaster, Barrow, Carlisle, Chester, Crewe and Macclesfield?

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?

 

[bobbyrail]

And if the West side is given to Burnham and Rotheram what happens to areas outside the City Regions like Preston, Blackpool, Lancaster, Barrow, Carlisle, Chester, Crewe and Macclesfield?

Personally i think that the mayors of Liv and Man will be given joint powers over a reduced North western area, so their area would end at Preston, Blackburn, Rochdale and Stalybridge in the north of the area and with everything south of these areas like Crewe, Chester, and as far as Chinley on the southern part staying with them. I can see it being called something like TFML (Transport for Manchester & Liverpool) although the two will argue over whose name should be first. All other western areas like Blackpool, Lancaster, Carlise etc would go to the operator of last resort along with the east after 6 months the gov will tell everyone how they have turned things around and are currently in the process of negotiations for a new franchisee under the new system that will be brought in after the current reports have been made public. The east side will then become a beacon for the new franchise model and can expect very heavy government support and cash to ensure it is a success.

 

[js1000]

Really don't really see what splitting the Northern franchise will achieve. Simply another needless layer of complication. Another party to blame.

There is a stronger argument for combining both Northern and TPE into one super-franchise:

- Economies of scale in terms of staff resourcing and administration
- Collaborative timetabling between faster/slower services. I'm sure Northern would love TPE to make some additional stops at select commuter stations which are not particularly well served since the May 2018 timetable change but an ORCATs raid makes that impossible as there is no incentive to do so.
- TPE relatively healthy subsidy levels/passenger growth to help Northern's service improve and reduce the subsidy on that franchise.

Transport for the North getting 'greater powers' would be a nonsense. The May 2018 timetable scythed many reliable services up in favour of longer, 'direct' services which has detrimentally affected punctuality/cancellation levels. TftN were very much for this change and are part of the problem not the solution.

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

 

[Robertj21a]

Nobody ever mentions Transport for the North, the people who are supposed to be in charge of the current franchise operation (with DfT) and are supposed to be preparing to let the next one.
Where are they? Forever invisible and seemingly ineffective. They are based in Leeds.
Theoretically, Andy Burnham and Steve Rotheram and the other mayors are supposed to be part of the TfN management team.

"No new funds" is part of the austerity mantra and has not yet been repealed/replaced.
Even then it will compete with nurses/police/social care and all the other priorities promised by the Tories (and everybody else) in the election run-off.
Then there's Williams and HS2 decisions in the offing...

The much lauded Metrolink, by the way, is operated by foreign-owned fat cats Keolis Amey for TfGM.
I also seem to remember a spell of great anguish and service disruption/delay during the recent major upgrades, now conveniently in the past.

Why does it matter who operates Metrolink ?

 

[Camden]

Personally i think that the mayors of Liv and Man will be given joint powers over a reduced North western area, so their area would end at Preston, Blackburn, Rochdale and Stalybridge in the north of the area and with everything south of these areas like Crewe, Chester, and as far as Chinley on the southern part staying with them. I can see it being called something like TFML (Transport for Manchester & Liverpool) although the two will argue over whose name should be first. All other western areas like Blackpool, Lancaster, Carlise etc would go to the operator of last resort along with the east after 6 months the gov will tell everyone how they have turned things around and are currently in the process of negotiations for a new franchisee under the new system that will be brought in after the current reports have been made public. The east side will then become a beacon for the new franchise model and can expect very heavy government support and cash to ensure it is a success.

As i commented months ago when the TfGM prospectus for rail was published, this is already in the bag for someone. Rightly or wrongly, certain people in Manchester get to find out everything that is happening long before anyone else.

I also said, though, that it would be completely inappropriate for rail services to be run from/for Manchester, or control even shared equally with them.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cb60dBQXIAAZUkk?format=jpg&name=small

For decades, the Liverpool region has produced the lion's share of passengers and revenue.

If control of this goes to ill-qualified Manchester, fares will rise in Liverpool and profits from Liverpool will be used to pay for train service improvements in Manchester. Probably while services in Liverpool themselves become less focused.

Immediately this forum jumped on the notion of this north western set up being run from Manchester, as if that's just natural.

Yet it is Merseytravel that have the experience of rail concession letting, govern the area with by far the highest level of train use in the north, and have the track record of working with neighbours to mutual interest (as opposed to own).

If nothing else, the Merseyrail City Lines should be ripped out of Northern and devolved to Liverpool. Although I would argue they should be entrusted to run it all.

 

[krus_aragon]

Isn't there a Rail Review in the works that may have a bearing on this?

 

[Senex]

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.

The Big Four simply inherited the systems of the companies from which they were created by the forced amalgamations that formed them (though, to be fair, these amalgamations were very similar to some that had been proposed by the railway companies just before the Great War and rejected at that time by the politicians). That did indeed mean that the LNER got to Liverpool over the CLC, and also to Chester and just into North Wales! It also meant that the LMS on former L&Y lines got not only east of Leeds (Goole) but also to the famous end-on junction in a ploughed field north of Doncaster, down to the South Coast over the S&D, and into Ireland. And there were many other examples.
It was only under BR that there was an atempt to impose a strict geographical division as the years after nationalisation went by. Remember the doctrine of "penetrating lines" that marked one stage in the development? Unfortunately but for obvious reasons the eventual shape of the regions represented a very strong focus on the mains lines leading out of London and fitted in very badly with the east/west focus of a lot of routes in the north as well as with the NE/SE routes, the North-and-West route, and so on. As you note, Network Rail has moved back to this sort of radial organisation, and it fits in very badly with quite a few service-groups, especially those in the north. Maybe the Business Sectors arrangement (better defined) had it right after all?

 

[bobbyrail]

Isn't there a Rail Review in the works that may have a bearing on this?

The current franchise system is supposedly being looked into by the government, hence the time frames that i have put in my post above at post #79
I don't think any new franchises will be awarded before the far end of 2020, with those becoming operational in 2021.

 

[Confused52]

In a way this does make some sense but we also have to see that Network Rail has played a major part in the disaster too. The infrastructure congestion report makes this clear: no strategic control of services through the corridor because of disparate signalling centres and methods; permitting uncontrolled traffic to offer a 100% capacity load to the corridor; not building a centre turn-round to reduce the capacity loss due to the CLC at Oxford Road; massively incompatible loads and uncontrollable delays without the capacity to recover (each overload just reflects into further delays on return journeys that can only be removed by cancellations. What the report does not admit is that the cancellations that NR cause also result in crew changes beyond those planned in the first place.

Then we have the perfect storm of new trains and training at the same time as Pacer withdrawal causing an enormous spike in changes the crew diagrams as well as the day’s leave fiasco. Most of this is not really down to Northern per-se but is a consequence of the previous difference in Terms and Conditions which are being exploited at an awkward time.

The NR report makes it clear that there will have to be service reductions and it is equally obvious that the Ordsall Chord will need to have reduced use. There is a problem that the public hear the noise from Andy Burnham and Co and wrongly think they are part of the solution rather than part of the problem, but I suspect that will now change.

Splitting the franchise would allow the government to apply the draconian changes needed to fix the IR problems, a problem mentioned in the radio interview by David Brown but not widely reported, mainly in the West. It is possible that DOR are being used to validate the cost proposals by Arriva to keep them honest rather than to actually create an operation. However it is also clear that DOR could take over the West and, acting as the government, could sort out problems in the West in a more robust way the Arriva may choose to.

As for investment that will be as part of NPR and I expect that to be used to explain why the TPE operation will be different in the future.

 

[Bertie the bus]

I also said, though, that it would be completely inappropriate for rail services to be run from/for Manchester, or control even shared equally with them.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cb60dBQXIAAZUkk?format=jpg&name=small

For decades, the Liverpool region has produced the lion's share of passengers and revenue.

That graph is totally meaningless in the context of this discussion. It includes Merseyrail ridership Whether you like it or not and whether you live in Manchester or not, Manchester is the centre of regional services in the North West. Then you have places like Preston and Liverpool which are the centres of a much smaller network.

 

[Mogster]

Certainly, looking at the efficiency and cost effectiveness of Network Rail/Northern/heavy rail vs TfGM/Metrolink there's no competition. Long live the tram !!

For medium/short journeys and street running yes, great.

For longer journeys they ride terribly, have a maximum of 4 small cars, are slow and have no bogs... Ask the users of Thameslink if they’d like their heavy rail replaced by trams... Anyway, I don’t see how the suggested huge expansion of Metrolink will be paid for if central government doesn’t cough up. I think Burnham has said this.

 

[jayah]

Without any investment in infrastructure by central government the issues wont be fixed. This suggestion is simply a way of transferring the problems to the metro mayors with a hope of using this as a weapon to unseat them. If the mayors push back about the hand over of control they will be painted as preventing the issue being fixed. This isn't designed to fix any problems but to deliver more Tory control of the north via winning the Mayoral races.



agreed! THe issues around Manchester & Leeds will not be fixed by different stickers on the trains.



Agreed - although Houchen the ( shamefully) Tory Tees Valley mayor has been very vocal recently about the poor service form both Northern and TPE. He also wants control of the trains

A dose of accountability for these Mayors would be welcome. The problems won't be fixed by moaning about Westminster, Elites, Bankers or their other favoured tropes.

Do they back strong unions going on strike holding everyone to ransom over Sundays, Rest Days and DOO? Are they prepared to make tough choices to compress their service aspirations into the envelope of physical infrastructure?

And will the penny ever drop that without unlimited infrastructure spending money, they are trying to run far too many small trains on crowded lines?

 

[DarloRich]

A dose of accountability for these Mayors would be welcome. The problems won't be fixed by moaning about Westminster, Elites, Bankers or their other favoured tropes.

Do they back strong unions going on strike holding everyone to ransom over Sundays, Rest Days and DOO? Are they prepared to make tough choices to compress their service aspirations into the envelope of physical infrastructure?

And will the penny ever drop that without unlimited infrastructure spending money, they are trying to run far too many small trains on crowded lines?

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.