How could devolution of Greater Manchester rail services be carried out?

[Purple Orange]

Could people be getting too focused on the idea of there being a GM Rail fleet/network, but rather it has more to do with ticketing? Alderley Edge - Piccadilly and stations in between may become a part of the Bee Network, but if you’re boarding at any of those stations you may step on to a service originating from Crewe. Perhaps you could tap-in at Alderley Edge and end your journey in Salford Quays having started on a Northern service from Crewe, changed on to a tram at Piccadilly, with your overall weekly/daily charge capped.

 

[nw1]

Some speculative thoughts regarding the southern routes, which I am more familiar with:

• Glossop – Hadfield – Piccadilly
• Rose Hill – Piccadilly
• Buxton – Piccadilly
• Alderley Edge – Piccadilly

I am wondering whether, in fact, all EMU services through Stockport should become part of the "Bee Network", so that everything from Heaton Chapel and Levenshulme is part of the system and that the whole set of routes could be operated with the same fleet of EMUs, allowing interworking. Granted this would mean "Bee Network" services going out all the way to Crewe or Stoke but I guess that's only like 455s or EPBs, two classes thoroughly associated with Greater London, penetrating into deep rural Surrey and West Sussex by calling at the likes of Ockley and Warnham. The "Bee Network" ticketing system could still be restricted to GM if need be.

I also wonder whether not only the Rose Hill stopper but also the Marple/New Mills terminators (if they still exist, my experience on this line was wholly within the 90s) could also become part of the network. If anything, they seem to be more part of it than Buxton would be, as the latter reaches deep into Derbyshire and is more comparable with the line through Knutsford, if anything.

 

[Greybeard33]

Some speculative thoughts regarding the southern routes, which I am more familiar with:

• Glossop – Hadfield – Piccadilly
• Rose Hill – Piccadilly
• Buxton – Piccadilly
• Alderley Edge – Piccadilly

I am wondering whether, in fact, all EMU services through Stockport should become part of the "Bee Network", so that everything from Heaton Chapel and Levenshulme is part of the system and that the whole set of routes could be operated with the same fleet of EMUs, allowing interworking. Granted this would mean "Bee Network" services going out all the way to Crewe or Stoke but I guess that's only like 455s or EPBs, two classes thoroughly associated with Greater London, penetrating into deep rural Surrey and West Sussex by calling at the likes of Ockley and Warnham. The "Bee Network" ticketing system could still be restricted to GM if need be.

I also wonder whether not only the Rose Hill stopper but also the Marple/New Mills terminators (if they still exist, my experience on this line was wholly within the 90s) could also become part of the network. If anything, they seem to be more part of it than Buxton would be, as the latter reaches deep into Derbyshire and is more comparable with the line through Knutsford, if anything.

I imagine TfGM selected those four routes for Stage 1 of the Bee Network on the grounds that it would be quicker to agree devolution of those with DfT and the neighbouring authorities than would be the case for the other routes in Northern's South Manchester service group. Although Buxton is in Derbyshire, it is at the end of a self contained branch line out of GM, as are Glossop and Hadfield.

However, from the TfGM press release, it appears that the other routes in the South Manchester service group (i.e those to New Mills Central/Sheffield, Stoke, Crewe [both routes] and Chester [both routes]) might very well be in TfGM's sights for Stage 2, i.e by 2030. Equally those in the North Manchester service group (i.e to Blackburn/Clitheroe via Bolton and via Todmorden, plus the Atherton line services).

Greater Manchester plans to explore these proposals with the rail industry as part of discussions about longer-term devolution of rail to the city-region, which would see larger parts of the network integrated into the Bee Network by the end of the decade.

Local accountability at centre of new bus network as operators appointed to run first franchised services outside of London for almost 40 years

news.tfgm.com

 

[Chester1]

If we aren't going to go down the route of regional assemblies in England, we need an alternative to bring democratic accountability to projects like this. With Greater Manchester, Liverpool City region, Cheshire, Lancashire and Cumbria all having or creating Combined Authorities it might be a good idea to have one elected person above mayors for whole North West or at least North West minus Cumbria. In Germany and other medium sized federal countries this project would be done at a state level not city level.

 

[javelin]

If we aren't going to go down the route of regional assemblies in England, we need an alternative to bring democratic accountability to projects like this. With Greater Manchester, Liverpool City region, Cheshire, Lancashire and Cumbria all having or creating Combined Authorities it might be a good idea to have one elected person above mayors for whole North West or at least North West minus Cumbria. In Germany and other medium sized federal countries this project would be done at a state level not city level.

Who are Northern accountable to? Or TPE? Or Avanti?

It doesn't seem there is much local accountability at present anyway. Why is accountability only a problem when people suggest more local control?

Anyway, it is quite possible to set up an organisation with multiple local authorities as voting members on the board. Rail North already exists under TfN. You could set one up with GM + the neighbouring authorities for the local commuter network. The authorities outside GM would still have far more control of local services than they do now.

 

[Chester1]

Who are Northern accountable to? Or TPE? Or Avanti?

It doesn't seem there is much local accountability at present anyway. Why is accountability only a problem when people suggest more local control?

Anyway, it is quite possible to set up an organisation with multiple local authorities as voting members on the board. Rail North already exists under TfN. You could set one up with GM + the neighbouring authorities for the local commuter network. The authorities outside GM would still have far more control of local services than they do now.

Northern and TPE are jointly accountable to TfN and Department of Transport. Avanti is essentially run by DfT these days. The accountability issue is important and there is a huge difference between being accountable to central government and a local or regional body if services operate outside is jurisdiction. You can see potential for problems with TfW running services into England. When some forum members said announcements should be in English first within England, one member of this forum said it was a courtesy to even do announcements in English after Welsh as its a Welsh ToC! Several years ago Merseyrail put considerable effort and resources into improving an unreliable Chester service (including track upgrades within Cheshire), so sometimes it can work. If allowed to TfGM would run services for the benefit of Manchester even if its at cost of services in Lancashire, Cheshire and Derbyshire simply because they don't have votes in Greater Manchester.

 

[javelin]

Northern and TPE are jointly accountable to TfN and Department of Transport. Avanti is essentially run by DfT these days. The accountability issue is important and there is a huge difference between being accountable to central government and a local or regional body if services operate outside is jurisdiction. You can see potential for problems with TfW running services into England. When some forum members said announcements should be in English first within England, one member of this forum said it was a courtesy to even do announcements in English after Welsh as its a Welsh ToC! Several years ago Merseyrail put considerable effort and resources into improving an unreliable Chester service (including track upgrades within Cheshire), so sometimes it can work. If allowed to TfGM would run services for the benefit of Manchester even if its at cost of services in Lancashire, Cheshire and Derbyshire simply because they don't have votes in Greater Manchester.

Come off it, the worst the good citizens of Buxton are going to be subjected to are automated announcements in the voice of Liam Gallagher. Whilst annoying, it isn't quite the same as them being in a 'foreign' language!

As we can see currently, being accountable to central government is effectively the same as having no accountability.

GM is not going to make it harder for people to get to Manchester, it isn't in its interest. So all this parochial nonense is just excuse making. Multi-authority rail partnerships in the North already exist, and it's almost certain one will be set up for this. For instance here's the MP for High Peak saying he's already been in discussions with Burnham over the proposals.

https://twitter.com/robertlargan/status/1606621173881741312?s=20&t=mWUv7lR9M10PYrR2yGbdPw

 

[Chester1]

Come off it, the worst the good citizens of Buxton are going to be subjected to are automated announcements in the voice of Liam Gallagher. Whilst annoying, it isn't quite the same as them being in a 'foreign' language!

As we can see currently, being accountable to central government is effectively the same as having no accountability.

GM is not going to make it harder for people to get to Manchester, it isn't in its interest. So all this parochial nonense is just excuse making. Multi-authority rail partnerships in the North already exist, and it's almost certain one will be set up for this. For instance here's the MP for High Peak saying he's already been in discussions with Burnham over the proposals.

https://twitter.com/robertlargan/status/1606621173881741312?s=20&t=mWUv7lR9M10PYrR2yGbdPw

Its an exteme example and not applicable but its the same general point. If services need cutting due to temporary shortage of stock Buxton would be a more appealing cancellation than Rose Hill. High Peak Council should definitely have some sort of oversight role if TfGM services extend into the district.

 

[507020]

Its an exteme example and not applicable but its the same general point. If services need cutting due to temporary shortage of stock Buxton would be a more appealing cancellation than Rose Hill. High Peak Council should definitely have some sort of oversight role if TfGM services extend into the district.

Would it? With no Hazel Grove electric service running, cancelling the Buxton could leave all stations between Stockport and Buxton with no service, even Davenport and Woodsmoor, with only New Mills Newtown having any rail alternative.

Provided the Hadfield/Glossop and New Mills Central/Sheffield are running, cancelling the Rose Hill would leave only 4 stations unserved, with passengers for Hyde stations told to use Flowery Field, Newton for Hyde or Godley, passengers for Woodley told to use Bredbury or Romiley and passengers for Rose Hill told to use Marple. You then have nowhere near as much inconvenience.

 

[MattRat]

Could people be getting too focused on the idea of there being a GM Rail fleet/network, but rather it has more to do with ticketing? Alderley Edge - Piccadilly and stations in between may become a part of the Bee Network, but if you’re boarding at any of those stations you may step on to a service originating from Crewe. Perhaps you could tap-in at Alderley Edge and end your journey in Salford Quays having started on a Northern service from Crewe, changed on to a tram at Piccadilly, with your overall weekly/daily charge capped.

And how exactly would you prove your journey to a Northern ticket inspector?

 

[Purple Orange]

And how exactly would you prove your journey to a Northern ticket inspector?

The card you tapped in with would be recognised if inspected. Same as any tap-in-tap-out system.

 

[gc4946]

We don't know if Metrolink's four zones will remain the same once TfGM includes all its National Rail stations within its boundaries
Could there be a zone 5 covering Wigan, Bolton, Stockport and Glossop/Hadfield section in Derbyshire?
How would you draw up new farezones?

 

[MattRat]

The card you tapped in with would be recognised if inspected. Same as any tap-in-tap-out system.

Except it could be taken advantage of outside the network, so they wouldn't recognize for fear of that. Only on a line fully on the new network would really work.

 

[javelin]

We don't know if Metrolink's four zones will remain the same once TfGM includes all its National Rail stations within its boundaries
Could there be a zone 5 covering Wigan, Bolton, Stockport and Glossop/Hadfield section in Derbyshire?
How would you draw up new farezones?

Bolton and Stockport are similar distances from the centre as Alty, Rochdale and Bury, so I expect they'd be in zone 4. Wigan and beyond may necessitate a zone 5, but ultimately it's a political decision.

 

[Purple Orange]

Except it could be taken advantage of outside the network, so they wouldn't recognize for fear of that. Only on a line fully on the new network would really work.

How could it be taken advantage of outside the network? I don’t see the problem. Thameslink & Elizabeth Line passengers can use the TfL fare system, but the lines also run services that are from outside the network.

 

[Luke McDonnell]

Northern and TPE are jointly accountable to TfN and Department of Transport. Avanti is essentially run by DfT these days. The accountability issue is important and there is a huge difference between being accountable to central government and a local or regional body if services operate outside is jurisdiction. You can see potential for problems with TfW running services into England. When some forum members said announcements should be in English first within England, one member of this forum said it was a courtesy to even do announcements in English after Welsh as its a Welsh ToC! Several years ago Merseyrail put considerable effort and resources into improving an unreliable Chester service (including track upgrades within Cheshire), so sometimes it can work. If allowed to TfGM would run services for the benefit of Manchester even if its at cost of services in Lancashire, Cheshire and Derbyshire simply because they don't have votes in Greater Manchester.

How does this work with London Overground as they have services that extend to Watford which is outside the GLA boundary and to Shenfield which is outside the GLA boundary do Essex CC and Hertfordshire CC have any say in the governance of the LO services which pass into there area? Don't see this as being any different to the routes proposed here especially those that are wholly or mainly within the GM boundary in which similar oversight arrangements could be agreed. I know that TfL had proposals to take over services on Southeastern as far as Gillingham and Kent CC did not have any objections to this as far as it would not result in Kent passengers having to pay higher fares. So this precedent already exists with LO and also Merseyrail (with Chester and Ormskirk being outside LCR) not to forget cross border services provided by Scotrail and TfW e.g. Carlisle and TfW even has a service that operates totally within the territory of England (Liverpool - Chester via Runcorn).

So cross border operation should not be a barrier to devolution with appropriate accountability mechanisms in place also does anyone know how similar arrangements operate in Germany which is often seen as a model for rail devolution i.e. are there any Lander-contracted services which terminate outside the boundary. Would you see being similar to LO in which GMCA/TfGM/GM Mayor becomes the commissioning authority and those services are transferred over from the Northern franchise and would this cause any issues with depots or diagramming and how could that be resolved?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm a little unsure as to why some seem to think this is unduly complex, when it's already the case that Merseyrail extends into Lancashire and Cheshire without any significant problems.

I suspect it would take the form, initially, of TfGM contactless being implemented on existing services just as it has been around London; TfGM already set all rail fares within their boundaries so this is not hard to achieve. Whether TfGM may later take some services over is another matter - I think they may with some but not others, as per Merseyside. Or it may stick to Metrolink for their "self operated" services.

 

[MattRat]

How could it be taken advantage of outside the network? I don’t see the problem. Thameslink & Elizabeth Line passengers can use the TfL fare system, but the lines also run services that are from outside the network.

But it is all under one roof, not two depending on which station you are at.

 

[daodao]

I'm a little unsure as to why some seem to think this is unduly complex, when it's already the case that Merseyrail extends into Lancashire and Cheshire without any significant problems.

I suspect it would take the form, initially, of TfGM contactless being implemented on existing services just as it has been around London; TfGM already set all rail fares within their boundaries so this is not hard to achieve. Whether TfGM may later take some services over is another matter - I think they may with some but not others, as per Merseyside. Or it may stick to Metrolink for their "self operated" services.

Merseyrail is a fairly separate operation, with its services into Cheshire and Lancashire essentially completely segregated from other passenger rail services. In contrast, the heavy rail services that Burnham wishes TfGM to control are integrated with other rail services run by Northern and should be left fully under their remit [albeit with some national government direction]. If TfGM wishes to take over some of the remaining heavy rail Manchester suburban services, it should only do so as part of a full conversion to Metrolink, but only a few lines are suitable for this process, notably the line to Rose Hill via Bredbury.

 

[Greybeard33]

I suspect it would take the form, initially, of TfGM contactless being implemented on existing services just as it has been around London; TfGM already set all rail fares within their boundaries so this is not hard to achieve.

TfGM does not set rail fares, other than Metrolink. PTE fares in the Northern area were abolished some years ago when the Treasury withdrew the special subsidies. Northern increased GM fares substantially to compensate, including the introduction of evening peak restrictions.

In contrast, the heavy rail services that Burnham wishes TfGM to control are integrated with other rail services run by Northern and should be left fully under their remit [albeit with some national government direction]

Control and monitoring of the Northern and TPE franchises is currently devolved to the Rail North Partnership, a partnership between Transport for the North and the DfT. Democratic oversight is provided the Rail North Committee, consisting of delegates from the Northern city regions and other Northern local councils.

Maybe this might be the model for further devolution of local rail services to GM and other city regions, with neighbouring authorities participating in a partnership with the controlling city region?

 

[Purple Orange]

I

But it is all under one roof, not two depending on which station you are at.

It is two systems. The first 8 stops from Reading on the Elizabeth Line are not on the TfL fare structure and fir them it is just like any National Rail service.

 

[Bletchleyite]

TfGM does not set rail fares, other than Metrolink.

The fare setter data in brfares.com begs to differ.

 

[Greybeard33]

The fare setter data in brfares.com begs to differ.

BRfares.com actually says that the fare setter is "GREATER MANCHESTER PTE", a body that ceased to exist in 2011. Legacy data in railway data feeds need not reflect the real world. TRUST still uses ATOC code "VT" for Avanti West Coast and "AW" for TfW.

 

[DevoMax]

Suspect TfGM will want full control of the services - perhaps even of the asset like in Liverpool - especially as three of these (bold below) are also routes in the TfGM tram-train proposals they've talked about. Sequence could be to first operate these lines, get ownership of the asset from Network Rail and then build out-the city centre infrastructure to replace the trains with trams and allow through running and higher frequencies.

Wigan - Victoria
Stalybridge - Southport
Glossop - Hatfield- Piccadilly
Rose Hill (Marple) - Piccadilly
Buxton - Piccadilly
Alderley Edge - Piccadilly

 

[Greybeard33]

Suspect TfGM will want full control of the services - perhaps even of the asset like in Liverpool - especially as three of these (bold below) are also routes in the TfGM tram-train proposals they've talked about. Sequence could be to first operate these lines, get ownership of the asset from Network Rail and then build out-the city centre infrastructure to replace the trains with trams and allow through running and higher frequencies.

Wigan - Victoria
Stalybridge - Southport
Glossop - Hatfield- Piccadilly
Rose Hill (Marple) - Piccadilly
Buxton - Piccadilly
Alderley Edge - Piccadilly

The press release that I linked in this post made clear that the Wigan - Victoria route proposed for GM Rail is via Golborne (i.e on the WCML and Chat Moss line). TfGM's proposed Wigan - Manchester tram-train route, per the webpage you linked, is via Atherton.

 

[urbophile]

Suspect TfGM will want full control of the services - perhaps even of the asset like in Liverpool - especially as three of these (bold below) are also routes in the TfGM tram-train proposals they've talked about. Sequence could be to first operate these lines, get ownership of the asset from Network Rail and then build out-the city centre infrastructure to replace the trains with trams and allow through running and higher frequencies.

Wigan - Victoria
Stalybridge - Southport
Glossop - Hatfield- Piccadilly
Rose Hill (Marple) - Piccadilly
Buxton - Piccadilly
Alderley Edge - Piccadilly

View attachment 127554

But any continental city half the size would have built an underground metro link decades ago. It's not Manchester's fault they didn't do that, but what is the point of a 'rapid transit' rail system if it gets bogged down in city traffic as soon as it enters the city centre?

 

[MattRat]

But any continental city half the size would have built an underground metro link decades ago. It's not Manchester's fault they didn't do that, but what is the point of a 'rapid transit' rail system if it gets bogged down in city traffic as soon as it enters the city centre?

Pretty certain there is a solution to that, although the car fanatics won't want to hear it....

 

[Speed43125]

Pretty certain there is a solution to that, although the car fanatics won't want to hear it....

Given the state of the ULEZ scope in Manchester the politicians probably don't want them to hear it either...