How a new, re-nationalized railway could be created and how existing TOCs could be integrated.

[YorkRailFan]

And how would it be answerable to current local authorities, or Transport North East, would it cover all buses as well, or would they be kept separately?

It would cover all buses as well for easier integration for operations and passengers. It would work closely with Transport North East.

 

[Gwr12345]

It would cover all buses as well for easier integration for operations and passengers. It would work closely with Transport North East.

But Transport NE doesn't cover the Tees Valley, or Whitby.

 

[YorkRailFan]

But Transport NE doesn't cover the Tees Valley, or Whitby.

They would closely work with Transport NE for the area which Transport NE covers.

 

[Gwr12345]

They would closely work with Transport NE for the area which Transport NE covers.

What about the Whitby to Metrocentre services, Bishop Auckland to Saltburn etc?

 

[randyrippley]

I do think your plan for Liverpool-Norwich is great, especially as the 170s/158s which operate it are tired and aren't meant to operate a service as long and as busy as this.

That's exactly what the 158s were built for

 

[YorkRailFan]

That's exactly what the 158s were built for

I have no issue with 6-8 carriage 158s, but 4 carriages (2 between Nottingham and Norwich) is just miserable.

 

[WAB]

I suggest you go and have a chat with the locals of Aughton Park, Town Green, Little Sutton, Overpool, Capenhurst and Bache, and ask them what they think about that and whether they'd prefer a DMU once an hour and nothing on Sundays as they'd likely otherwise get were it not for the Liverpool City Region taxpayer.

I think the second word would be "off".

But this is more than a few stations in a Lancashire district - this would mean one Combined Authority having control of its services vested in a neighbouring Combined Authority. I doubt the West Yorkshire taxpayers would be happy to subsidise South Yorkshire, and I doubt South Yorkshire would appreciate more regional power being consolidated in Leeds.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But this is more than a few stations in a Lancashire district - this would mean one Combined Authority having control of its services vested in a neighbouring Combined Authority. I doubt the West Yorkshire taxpayers would be happy to subsidise South Yorkshire, and I doubt South Yorkshire would appreciate more regional power being consolidated in Leeds.

If they're going to be that parochial, then they deserve a DMU an hour and nothing on Sundays.

 

[WAB]

If they're going to be that parochial, then they deserve a DMU an hour and nothing on Sundays.

I do think there is a point to be made about lack of representation, though. Given that the whole point of the exercise is local control, it would seem counterproductive for S. Yorks residents to have even less representation on the body which controls their railways. Time for OneYorkshire imo.

 

[Manutd1999]

Yorkshire is a difficult one, especially as there is so much crossover between the West and South Yorkshire Combined Authorities.

One answer could be to have only a small subset of services devolved to the CAs, alongside a larger "regional" operator which is controlled contrally.

Alternatively, the different CAs and councils could agree to form a single rail entity, jointly controlled, which operated all local services within the wider Yorkshire area. The regional operator would be limited to the Transpennine routes and some other outliers (e.g. Leeds-Nottingham)

I would prefer the second approach, but it would rely heavily on effective cooperation between authorities.

 

[Bletchleyite]

One could argue that splitting Northern back into North West and North East would make more sense. You are more likely to get collaboration between the Yorkshire authorities than between Lancashire and Yorkshire in practice. In many ways Northern still acts as two TOCs anyway.

 

[Matt P]

One could argue that splitting Northern back into North West and North East would make more sense. You are more likely to get collaboration between the Yorkshire authorities than between Lancashire and Yorkshire in practice. In many ways Northern still acts as two TOCs anyway.

I've often thought creating Northern was a mistake. It covers a huge area and is arguably unwieldy. In some ways it is an odd move given that Central Trains went in the opposite direction, although I appreciate Wales taking on greater responsibility for rail planning was a key factor.

Splitting Northern into two would align with my suggestion to devolve responsibility for regional rail services to consortia of local authorities.

I don't see any issue with continuity of the Northern services that cross the Pennines or TP Express. It shouldnt be impossible to have services that are jointly planned and tendered/operated.

In the case of TP Express it could even be set up as a limited company with the transport authorities on each side of the Pennines owning all the shares. Or it could become a German style 'Regional Express' type service, jointly planned and tendered/operated by the transport authorities across the north.

 

[WAB]

I don't see any issue with continuity of the Northern services that cross the Pennines or TP Express. It shouldnt be impossible to have services that are jointly planned and tendered/operated.

In the case of TP Express it could even be set up as a limited company with the transport authorities on each side of the Pennines owning all the shares. Or it could become a German style 'Regional Express' type service, jointly planned and tendered/operated by the transport authorities across the north.

Are you planning for traincrew to be provided by both companies in the partnership, rather than the operating company?

 

[JonathanH]

I've often thought creating Northern was a mistake. It covers a huge area and is arguably unwieldy.

It seems odd that people are calling for the return of one organisation for the South East, but trying to split up Northern. Indeed, some basically call for the return of one British Rail type organisation.

Northern may be large, but there were some odd compromises in the days when it was split, for example North West operating to Wakefield Westgate, and North East being the sole operator North of Rochdale. More recently, Northern are able to change allocations of the 195 and 331 fleet to match changing requirements.

 

[YorkRailFan]

I've often thought creating Northern was a mistake. It covers a huge area and is arguably unwieldy. In some ways it is an odd move given that Central Trains went in the opposite direction, although I appreciate Wales taking on greater responsibility for rail planning was a key factor.

Splitting Northern into two would align with my suggestion to devolve responsibility for regional rail services to consortia of local authorities.

I don't see any issue with continuity of the Northern services that cross the Pennines or TP Express. It shouldnt be impossible to have services that are jointly planned and tendered/operated.

In the case of TP Express it could even be set up as a limited company with the transport authorities on each side of the Pennines owning all the shares. Or it could become a German style 'Regional Express' type service, jointly planned and tendered/operated by the transport authorities across the north.

Sounds like a great idea, with a North East Regional service and then a North West Regional service as well as TPE operating express services across the Pennines and Northern operating local serives.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

Yes, it was different when it was introduced, but that doesn't mean it is right now. Does bringing back brands from the 1990 always work?

I think you’re splitting hairs. Whilst there’s an argument for a London/SouthEast regional operator, there’s only so many names you can come up with for a railway brand for said region. At least Network South East is a name that can come off the shelf.

 

[dorsetdesiro]

Are Scotrail and TfW still refusing to be associated with GBR, I can't see this working if GBR only applies to England?

I feel the only way this could work if all TOC brands, including SR and TfW, are retained though with the GBR/BR double arrow logo attached on a smaller scale.

Thought this had been dropped until after the election? GBR could be retained by Labour as Sir Keir seems keen on it.

 

[miklcct]

There is a long history of TfL rail service decisions being made in a way which negatively affects passengers from outside of London, and that is with a relatively close alignment of needs on either side of the boundary. In more complex areas in the North of England or the East Midlands, an imbalance of power will not have a positive effect on service provision.

There is a long history of TfL bringing service improvements to places outside Greater London boundary, for example, Iver and Taplow now have a Sunday service, and Brentwood is now enjoying a line as frequent as the tube for 6 days per week all day long.

 

[Matt P]

It seems odd that people are calling for the return of one organisation for the South East, but trying to split up Northern. Indeed, some basically call for the return of one British Rail type organisation.

Northern may be large, but there were some odd compromises in the days when it was split, for example North West operating to Wakefield Westgate, and North East being the sole operator North of Rochdale. More recently, Northern are able to change allocations of the 195 and 331 fleet to match changing requirements.

I don't personally see the contradiction between suggesting splitting up Northern but suggesting a return to a single authority and brand for London and the Southeast broadly covering the old NSE network. Whilst there are of course many journeys made in the former NSE area that do not start or end in London, London has a hugely significant impact on what area now the South eastern and Eastern Regions of England economically and of course when it comes to transport. Far more significantly than, say, Greater Manchester has on West Yorkshire of West Yorkshire has on Lancashire.

A North West operator would be for Lancashire and Cheshire what an NSE type set up would be for the Southeast and East of England. The differences in scale simply reflect the fact that no region in England has an urban core anywhere near the same size as London.

In addition, a recreation of an NSE brand wouldn't necessarily need to mean one operator, in just the same way that buses in London have a single branding and fare structure but with routes tendered to separate operators. NSE was divided into a number of profit centres under BR but with an overall strategic management structure. A new NSE brand could be similarly made up of bundles of routes that are put out to tender by an NSE strategic management team.

 

[JonathanH]

NSE was divided into a number of profit centres under BR but with an overall strategic management structure. A new NSE brand could be similarly made up of bundles of routes that are put out to tender by an NSE strategic management team.

Yes, so why not set up Northern the same way, to allow for the very obvious issue that the Liverpool to Hull conurbation has overlapping catchment areas. In fact, services across the North are less distinct than those serving each terminal in London.

 

[bussnapperwm]

Taking my own local combined authority rail services as an example, I'd see the following:

The West Midlands Rail services took under WM combined authority control, where they could either run it themselves or let it out similar to London Overground (and the DfT give the WM a bit of cash to pay for it), the London North Western, Chiltern Marylebone services and Cross Country 170 services be took over by a "GB Rail Regional" TOC, and the XC expresses and Avanti services took over by "GB Intercity Rail".

The WMCA ran services would also include the CR Leamington to Stratford-upon-Avon and Brum to Leamington stopper, as well as the 196, "stopper" 350, 323, 139 and 172 ran routes.

 

[YorkRailFan]

Yes, so why not set up Northern the same way, to allow for the very obvious issue that the Liverpool to Hull conurbation has overlapping catchment areas. In fact, services across the North are less distinct than those serving each terminal in London.

That would be operated by Inter-Regional under the TPE brand.

 

[Matt P]

Are you planning for traincrew to be provided by both companies in the partnership, rather than the operating company?

I'd see the partnership as a stand alone entity. If it was a limited company then the company would be the employee. If it is instead a brand and management organisation that procures services then I assume that organisation would be employee.

I am not suggesting franchising when I talk about tendering. I have a model closer to TfL's rail services or Merseyrail in mind.

Yes, so why not set up Northern the same way, to allow for the very obvious issue that the Liverpool to Hull conurbation has overlapping catchment areas. In fact, services across the North are less distinct than those serving each terminal in London.

Because London, the South East and Eastern regions are dominated by London. Geographically London is also broadly if not actually central.

The 'North' isnt a cohesive region. Manchester has far less of an impact on York or Newcastle than London has on say Colchester or even Cambridge. The transport demands and needs of the north are dominated by the 5 major connuerbations there. Yes I know there are other major cities but relatively speaking they are small in comparison to Merseyside, GM, West and South Yorks and Tyneside.

The North has never been planned as a single entity. Whereas and strategic plan for the SE or East would inevitably have to coordinate with London. It follows that transport would need to as well.

That would be operated by Inter-Regional under the TPE brand.

Regional Express operators between the regions of the north is one option similar to what I have outlined.

Taking this a step up, rather than Regional Express type services being tendered or owned by Westminster, perhaps a single brand that covered all of England could be created but owned jointly by all of the regional TAs. It isnt such an outlandish idea.

The Polish regional division of the Polish Railways was transferred to the ownership of the provincial governments who each own a specific number of shares in the company. I assume broadly based on their relative share of Polish population.

 

[YorkRailFan]

Regional Express operators between the regions of the north is one option similar to what I have outlined.

Taking this a step up, rather than Regional Express type services being tendered or owned by Westminster, perhaps a single brand that covered all of England could be created but owned jointly by all of the regional TAs. It isnt such an outlandish idea.

The Polish regional division of the Polish Railways was transferred to the ownership of the provincial governments who each own a specific number of shares in the company. I assume broadly based on their relative share of Polish population.

Another option is that a Northern Express or TPE brand is used and owned and operated by Transport North.

 

[WAB]

I'd see the partnership as a stand alone entity. If it was a limited company then the company would be the employee. If it is instead a brand and management organisation that procures services then I assume that organisation would be employee.

I am not suggesting franchising when I talk about tendering. I have a model closer to TfL's rail services or Merseyrail in mind.

My concern with the separate inter-regional company is the need for additional traincrew depots at Leeds, Wigan Wallgate, Blackpool North, Skipton and Carlisle. As well, there is filling in TPE's route knowledge for the Calder Valley and the Tyne Valley and getting the ex-TPE traincrew to sign whatever traction is transferred from Northern. You would also need a larger overall fleet and traincrew establishment to account for the diagramming inefficiencies and reduction in spares flexibility (both units and crew) introduced by separation.

 

[317 forever]

Devolution of English rail services would be simpler if we had regional government. Imagine if County Councils were abolished and we had Regional Authorities (RA for jargon) for Greater London, South East, East, South West, West Midlands, East Midlands, Yorkshire, North East and North West.

We could have InterCity (as widely suggested here) run by or tendered by the DfT, Express for inter-regional services that might not belong to any RA also run by or tendered by the DfT (examples are LNWR long-distance and Birmingham-Stansted Airport), and remaining services by RAs.

There would be some distribution of cross-boundary RAs to ensure comparative fairness. For example, Manchester-Sheffield stoppers by North West RA along with Marple services, and Manchester Victoria-Leeds services by Yorkshire RA.

 

[Matt P]

Devolution of English rail services would be simpler if we had regional government. Imagine if County Councils were abolished and we had Regional Authorities (RA for jargon) for Greater London, South East, East, South West, West Midlands, East Midlands, Yorkshire, North East and North West.

We could have InterCity (as widely suggested here) run by or tendered by the DfT, Express for inter-regional services that might not belong to any RA also run by or tendered by the DfT (examples are LNWR long-distance and Birmingham-Stansted Airport), and remaining services by RAs.

There would be some distribution of cross-boundary RAs to ensure comparative fairness. For example, Manchester-Sheffield stoppers by North West RA along with Marple services, and Manchester Victoria-Leeds services by Yorkshire RA.

Public service reform generally would be straightforward if there were regional authorities in England. Whitehall is the wrong place to try to govern the NHS, education, transportation and planning systems.

The role of the UK government in England should be reduced to setting up the legislative and regulatory frameworks for regional (and/or local) authorities to plan and deliver services and allowing different parts of England sufficient latitude to determine how best to do this.

My concern with the separate inter-regional company is the need for additional traincrew depots at Leeds, Wigan Wallgate, Blackpool North, Skipton and Carlisle. As well, there is filling in TPE's route knowledge for the Calder Valley and the Tyne Valley and getting the ex-TPE traincrew to sign whatever traction is transferred from Northern. You would also need a larger overall fleet and traincrew establishment to account for the diagramming inefficiencies and reduction in spares flexibility (both units and crew) introduced by separation.

Noted. How about taking a more German style approach. Nationally GBR could brand/name services by category.

Intercity is self explanatory and as I think many broadly agree on here, the operator/tendering authority should be national.

Local and inter regional services that dont fall in the IC category would be labelled Regional and Regional Express. The latter would be distinguished from the former by being semi-fast. These would be tendered by transport authorities.

The likes of Merseyrail and TfL Rail would be an English equivalent of S-Bahns. I suspect there may be some resistance for having a standard logo/name for these services like the white S on a green background as is the case in Germany.

 

[miklcct]

Noted. How about taking a more German style approach. Nationally GBR could brand/name services by category.

Intercity is self explanatory and as I think many broadly agree on here, the operator/tendering authority should be national.

Local and inter regional services that dont fall in the IC category would be labelled Regional and Regional Express. The latter would be distinguished from the former by being semi-fast. These would be tendered by transport authorities.

The likes of Merseyrail and TfL Rail would be an English equivalent of S-Bahns. I suspect there may be some resistance for having a standard logo/name for these services like the white S on a green background as is the case in Germany.

How will you categorise the following services?
- London Waterloo - Exeter
- London Waterloo - Weymouth
- London Waterloo - Portsmouth (via Eastleigh)
- London Waterloo - Basingstoke
- London Waterloo - Reading (calling at Clapham Junction, Richmond, Twickenham, Feltham, Staines, all stations to Reading)
- London Kings Cross - York (calling at Stevenage, Peterborough, Grantham, Newark Northgate, Retford, Doncaster and York)
- Liverpool - Norwich

Also, is London Kings Cross - Kings Lynn (non-stop between London and Cambridge) an IC?

 

[Bevan Price]

Personally I would prefer to see a single national passenger operator (controversially re-integrating Wales & Scotland), with local areas able to "sponsor" service levels in / around their areas. I would hope to see the current city regions abolished, and see something more like wider area "cooperating committees". So, a North West Regional Committee might cover West of the Pennines from Cheshire to the Scottish border; a Yorkshire & North East Committee would do the same for Yorkshire up to the Scottish border; down South, there might be a "London Commuterland" committee, etc,. etc.)

A single operator ought to be able to eliminate silly problems like - "cannot do that, our crews do not know that route, or that stock, etc. "
It would also be able to recognise that the real competition for railways is the private car - not other rail companies. And a final goodbye to anything resembling franchises would save £££ millions that have wasted on legal & consultancy fees whilst preparing finanacial cases whilst competing for franchises tenders.

 

[irish_rail]

My concern with the separate inter-regional company is the need for additional traincrew depots at Leeds, Wigan Wallgate, Blackpool North, Skipton and Carlisle. As well, there is filling in TPE's route knowledge for the Calder Valley and the Tyne Valley and getting the ex-TPE traincrew to sign whatever traction is transferred from Northern. You would also need a larger overall fleet and traincrew establishment to account for the diagramming inefficiencies and reduction in spares flexibility (both units and crew) introduced by separation.

Crew wise you would need to have all crew "owned" by GBR or whatever its called, and crew be available to work what ever services are required at a location. No reason to "sectorise" the crew. Indeed having crew that sign everything will help keep costs down and drive efficiencies. The example i always give, is why can't a driver at Plymouth drive both Voyagers and IETs.