Ideas to simplify the Northern rail network and improve reliability and financial viability

[Bletchleyite]

Not really surprising given Arriva have tried to renegotiate the terms and not all of the factors are within their control. However, Northern is a complex franchise and I'm not convinced renationalising will see any improvements

A good start would be making it less complex (in terms of diagramming and timetabling). The first step in this is to abandon the idea that everywhere in the entire North must have a through service to Ringway Airfield so they can have a cheap trip to the sun once a year. Instead institute a connection regular interval timetable with lower frequencies, self-contained diagrams and long trains.

 

[northernchris]

The first step in this is to abandon the idea that everywhere in the entire North must have a through service to Ringway Airfield so they can have a cheap trip to the sun once a year.

This would be a great start, but it's getting the politicians to agree to it. It's another issue that will continue no matter who runs the service

 

[Glenn1969]

Lower frequencies are no use even with longer trains. All they would do is force people into their cars. I do agree with longer trains though (minimum 6 car because 8 car requires mass platform extensions). I also don't see OLR getting involved- DfT has always viewed Northern as a basket case and denied categorically there was any chance of revocation of the franchise after the Metro mayors' letter.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Lower frequencies are no use even with longer trains. All they would do is force people into their cars.

An unreliable half hourly service will do that far more than an hourly one you can set your watch by.

Below hourly I'd be inclined to agree, that said.

 

[700007]

Northern is not really my part of the world although I have used it a few times before. It does seem like an awfully big franchise that might be too difficult to handle. Would it help by devolving some routes where applicable to other operators, such as Transpennine Express, West Midlands Trains and East Midlands Trains / Railway? Or splitting it into two smaller franchises Northeastern (mostly covering the likes of Newcastle and Yorkshire) and Northwestern? (covering the likes of Liverpool, Manchester, Blackpool).

Like I said I don't know their network well and I imagine perhaps I would probably get hung for suggesting such a radical or stupid idea. Just wanted to see if any of the options would bring more benefits than costs. *wears tin foil hat*

 

[Meerkat]

The North East bit definitely looks like a discrete that could be taken over by the local authorities - the only awkward bits being the Connect to Carlisle and Whitby.

 

[adrock1976]

Could it be split into how both Regional Railways North West and Regional Railways North East used to be, with input for the local services from the Merseyside, Greater Manchester, South Yorkshire, West Yorkshire, and Tyne & Wear Passenger Transport Executives?

 

[Glenn1969]

That's the way it used to be until the DfT redrew the map and put the flagship Transpennine Express routes in their own franchise. Maybe it's time for Transport for the North to step in but that would require full devolution so what chance is there of that?

 

[underbank]

The first step in this is to abandon the idea that everywhere in the entire North must have a through service to Ringway Airfield so they can have a cheap trip to the sun once a year.

They can't even achieve that because for a lot of people, the trains don't start early enough to catch a flight earlier than mid morning and don't run late enough to get people home who land back in the last few hours of the airport operational day or delayed flights.

Shuttles from the various branch lines to main line connecting stations would provide a far better service for locals in Northern-land. Added advantage is that short branch lines would have lent themselves to the unpopular Pacers - fewer people would complain about how awful they are if they weren't stuck on them for hours!

 

[158756]

This sort of thing comes up very often, but what does simplification, fewer services to Manchester airport, fewer services via Castlefield, etc actually mean? Which stations should be cut to 1tph or 1tp2h? Where should lose direct service to the nearest major city - Buxton?Northwich? Blackburn? How many more cars will be on the roads as a result?

 

[Along the bay]

A good start would be making it less complex (in terms of diagramming and timetabling). The first step in this is to abandon the idea that everywhere in the entire North must have a through service to Ringway Airfield so they can have a cheap trip to the sun once a year. Instead institute a connection regular interval timetable with lower frequencies, self-contained diagrams and long trains.

Would a partial solution to this issue be the construction of the western access link allowing trains to continue to knutsford , Crewe , chester or North Wales.

 

[Ianno87]

A good start would be making it less complex (in terms of diagramming and timetabling). The first step in this is to abandon the idea that everywhere in the entire North must have a through service to Ringway Airfield so they can have a cheap trip to the sun once a year. Instead institute a connection regular interval timetable with lower frequencies, self-contained diagrams and long trains.

I think to stimulate travel and connectivity, the starting point should be, in general, multiples of half-hourly services on the main corridors and at most local stations. Otherwise rail just isn't competitive with the North West's road network. Which is, basically, not dissimilar to what we have now...

The only corridor I think your principle may hold is the Transpennine corridor...but both either losing fast Liverpool trains and the Airport Link to Yorkshire ain't going to be an easy sell.... Again, the competition is quite an 'easy' road journey via the M60/M62.

I did actually quite like the partial suggestion posted on here a while back of operating a 2tph Liverpool-Warrington-Manchester-Sheffield fast service, taking the current Cleethorpes and Liverpool services out of the Airport, but with a cross/same platform connection at Piccadilly in its place. That might have some political legs...

 

[underbank]

Is there any mileage in utilising the Bentham line more? I.e. a "fast" train from, say, Preston via the Bentham line to Leeds and then maybe further on to York or Newcastle etc? I'm just thinking of an alternative "cross pennine" route that doesn't involve the congested Manchester/Leeds corridor. it just seems such a waste that the Bentham line only sees a two hourly slow all-stopping service when other routes are so congested.

 

[VT 390]

I would say that the franchise needs to be split, still with Northern as one company but with different parts with different operators. For example I would have the north east Newcastle based services as well as those from Newcastle to Carlisle as one operator, services around Liverpool, Manchester and the north west and another and Leeds/Yorkshire services as another.
This would mean some of the longer through routes would have to be stopped but very few people will use services all the way through like Southport to Leeds, and it would make services more reliable.

 

[unlevel42]

I think to stimulate travel and connectivity, the starting point should be, in general, multiples of half-hourly services on the main corridors and at most local stations. Otherwise rail just isn't competitive with the North West's road network. Which is, basically, not dissimilar to what we have now...

The only corridor I think your principle may hold is the Transpennine corridor...but both either losing fast Liverpool trains and the Airport Link to Yorkshire ain't going to be an easy sell.... Again, the competition is quite an 'easy' road journey via the M60/M62.

I did actually quite like the partial suggestion posted on here a while back of operating a 2tph Liverpool-Warrington-Manchester-Sheffield fast service, taking the current Cleethorpes and Liverpool services out of the Airport, but with a cross/same platform connection at Piccadilly in its place. That might have some political legs...

"(T)he Airport Link to Yorkshire ain't going to be an easy sell.... Again, the competition is quite an 'easy' road journey via the M60/M62."
The Lincolnshire and the Sheffield City region certainly does not have any easy road connections to Manchester or Manchester Airport.
To access the new A555 western relief road from Sheffield requires negotiating cattle grids, a B road too narrow for road markings and a hoard of cyclists.

 

[yorkie]

I would say that the franchise needs to be split, still with Northern as one company but with different parts with different operators. For example I would have the north east Newcastle based services as well as those from Newcastle to Carlisle as one operator, services around Liverpool, Manchester and the north west and another and Leeds/Yorkshire services as another.

So not as one company then? (An 'operator' as defined in the TSA is a train operating company)

I am not sure that more fragmentation is the answer?

 

[VT 390]

So not as one company then? (An 'operator' as defined in the TSA is a train operating company)

I am not sure that more fragmentation is the answer?

Sorry, yes that is what I meant to say, to split the current Northern TOC up in to at least 3 smaller ones.

 

[yorkie]

We can agree to disagree then. Yes, Northern is a shambles in terms of how the company is run (and that's surely down to the people in management roles), but I don't think the solution is to create even more smaller train companies, which causes even more fragmentation (as if we didn't have enough train companies as it is!)

 

[158756]

"(T)he Airport Link to Yorkshire ain't going to be an easy sell.... Again, the competition is quite an 'easy' road journey via the M60/M62."
The Lincolnshire and the Sheffield City region certainly does not have any easy road connections to Manchester or Manchester Airport.
To access the new A555 western relief road from Sheffield requires negotiating cattle grids, a B road too narrow for road markings and a hoard of cyclists.

According to Google, despite all that driving is still faster than the train (at 8pm on a Sunday anyway).

 

[JonathanH]

An unreliable half hourly service will do that far more than an hourly one you can set your watch by.

Below hourly I'd be inclined to agree, that said.

The problem with hourly frequencies on a particular corridor comes when you have connections into services on another hourly route which are missed by nearly a whole hour. Then the train become very uncompetitive with other forms of travel.

 

[Bevan Price]

Personally I think that further fragmentation would just add to the mess.
Now I know that plenty will disagree with me, especially those politically right of centre, but I think the best solution would be a new version of a national rail system. The main problem is that meddling politicians would never agree. Mostly, they seem incapable of long term thoughts or solutions, and cannot think beyond the next election campaign.

I would like to see a very long term finance agreement between "The Railway" and "The Government", and then to find decent managers who know how to run railways - maybe someone like Chris Green or Gerry Fiennes. Secondly, the Civil Service, especially DfT, would be excluded from any connection with railway planning or operations. The only CS function would be to process the agreed transfer of funds from Government to "The Railway".

The Government / Railway "agreement" would include some basic provisions about service levels & operating hours, but railway management would have some freedom to make sensible adjustments to timetables, etc.

As for the current "Northern" timetables, etc., I would, for example, reduce the number of through services for Manchester Airport, and return to regular intervals some of the timtables that have been disrupted by changes / additions to TP & WCML (Manchester) services.

For example, I would have a 15 min. all stations service between Manchester Piccadilly and Manchester Airport, one from Liverpool (via Earlestown); one from Blackpool (via Bolton); one from Leeds via Calder Valley; and one from York via Huddersfield.

Subject to paths being available, there might also be 1 or 2 fasts per hour between Piccadilly and Airport, one from Scotland, and one from Hull (via Doncaster & Sheffield). The latter would replace the Cleethorpes service, which would no longer operate west of Sheffield.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The problem with hourly frequencies on a particular corridor comes when you have connections into services on another hourly route which are missed by nearly a whole hour. Then the train become very uncompetitive with other forms of travel.

Indeed, and one aspect of a lower-frequency service would be that there would be fewer infrastructure constraints on what can be made to connect properly - as the Swiss well know.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

A good start would be making it less complex (in terms of diagramming and timetabling). The first step in this is to abandon the idea that everywhere in the entire North must have a through service to Ringway Airfield so they can have a cheap trip to the sun once a year. Instead institute a connection regular interval timetable with lower frequencies, self-contained diagrams and long trains.

> Minimum crossing movements at Salford Crescent
--- Diesel services from Salford Crescent to go to Victoria which I believe to be 5tph from the Wigan area and 2tph from Clitheroe / Blackburn
--- Electric services from Blackpool and Preston via Bolton to go to Piccadilly which is 3tph (two Blackpool and one Preston)
--- All electric services to go through to Manchester Airport from the Salford Crescent direction with varied calling points; such as to allow interchange etc. at Salford out of Manchester
--- Barrow/Windermere/Preston via Wigan to Manchester services to go to Piccadilly; along with services from Llandudno via Warrington and Liverpool to Crewe
--- Minimum conflicting movements at Leeds; such that services from Castleford / Woodlesford go through towards Garforth. Terminating services using the platforms 12 and lower
--- More use, where pathing is appropriate, of terminating trains at major stations and encouraging positive, shorter connections onto other services instead of lots of through trains

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

A good start would be making it less complex (in terms of diagramming and timetabling). The first step in this is to abandon the idea that everywhere in the entire North must have a through service to Ringway Airfield so they can have a cheap trip to the sun once a year. Instead institute a connection regular interval timetable with lower frequencies, self-contained diagrams and long trains.

Yawn. This post, and therefore thread, loses all credibility by referring to "Ringway Airfield", a term used only by those with an axe to grind against the Manchester area in general. Should we also refer to Speke and Yeadon airfields? The fact is that Manchester is the country's third busiest airport and is 20th busiest in Europe but with a destination list allowing global connections. There are plenty of passengers making other than bucket and spade trips. All busy airports generate significant economic benefits for their hinterlands and the existence of all those through rail services, whether well used or not, is an important factor in attracting airlines from around the world. Given BA's absolutely rigid policy of serving London at the expense of anywhere else in the country this becomes even more important. Brexit will only add to that need.

As for "lower frequencies, self-contained diagrams and long trains" this was what happened under BR when the policy was one of managed decline. I can't understand anyone who claims to be interested in improving our railways advocating such a backward looking idea. Longer trains on the current frequencies would be much more useful but would require a lot of platform extensions, certainly more than are currently planned. And there's no getting away from the fact that the Oxford Road and Piccadilly scheme is desperately needed: imagine Birmingham's New Street and Snow Hill stations having a combined total of just 6 or 8 through platforms. The reality is that there is an awful lot of suppressed demand for rail services across the north but those outside the area seem determined that it should not be met.

 

[unlevel42]

According to Google, despite all that driving is still faster than the train (at 8pm on a Sunday anyway).

Sheffield to Manchester Airport on a Sunday at 8pm by a machine? Be realistic, do try yourself between 6am to 7pm Monday to Saturday in real time.
All of the Derbyshire is single carriageway a maximum of 50mph speed limited (the exception being Whalley by-pass at 70 for 3 miles) There are long stretches of 30 and 40 through the villages in the Hope Valley and along the urban A6 in Cheshire and GM up to the A555 which is itself 50.

Its 90 minutes from the western edge of Sheffield to the airport by car.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yawn. This post, and therefore thread, loses all credibility by referring to "Ringway Airfield", a term used only by those with an axe to grind against the Manchester area in general.

I was using it as a joke, but I certainly do have an "axe to grind" about the way the tail of Manchester Airport wags the dog of the wider North West rail network, in particular TPE and Manchester commuter services.

I am very pro-Manchester in rail terms - I want to see it having a service similar to Merseyrail, and shoving express services down the double track line to Manchester Airport are a barrier to this.

Should we also refer to Speke and Yeadon airfields?

I'm not sure which one Yeadon is, but in Liverpool they certainly call it "Speke Airport" and long have done.

As for "lower frequencies, self-contained diagrams and long trains" this was what happened under BR when the policy was one of managed decline. I can't understand anyone who claims to be interested in improving our railways advocating such a backward looking idea.

Do you think SBB are a backwards-looking rail operator, for their policy of very long trains (200m+) on half-hourly frequencies with planned connections? The North's network is very similar to SBB in many ways in terms of serving a distributed set of cities (albeit our cities are bigger) through a rural, scenic and sometimes mountainous landscape - shouldn't the concepts really translate very well directly?

The reality is that there is an awful lot of suppressed demand for rail services across the north but those outside the area seem determined that it should not be met.

And the main reason for that suppressed demand is that the service is poor. Short trains[1], low quality train interiors and most importantly a total lack of punctuality and reliability (something which has now started to infest London Northwestern services now they have just done the same incredibly stupid thing as Northern did; oh, well, yesterday's "performance" will net me £40 of Delay Repay...)

[1] Message to TPE - 5 x 22m still will not be enough; these need to be 7 or 8-car sets.

 

[BC]

Yeadon is Leeds-Bradford airport I would imagine...

 

[eastwestdivide]

The Lincolnshire and the Sheffield City region certainly does not have any easy road connections to Manchester or Manchester Airport.
To access the new A555 western relief road from Sheffield requires negotiating cattle grids, a B road too narrow for road markings and a hoard of cyclists.

Depends what you call 'easy' - the M1/M62 is a lot more straightforward to drive (no hordes of cyclists and no cattle grids - Winnats Pass), and if you don't like motorways, you can avoid the cattle grids by going via Woodhead or Snake Pass.
Even central Sheffield to the Airport is given by google as 1h36 via the M1/M62.
And it's not just about Sheffield.
From Meadowhall, google gives a driving time of 1h12 via Woodhead, and 1h22 via the M62.
From Doncaster, google gives 1h31 via Woodhead, and 1h30 via the A1M and M62.

 

[option]

The North East bit definitely looks like a discrete that could be taken over by the local authorities - the only awkward bits being the Connect to Carlisle and Whitby.

Don't see why Whitby services would be an issue, they only go to Middlesbrough. If you mean an issue because it crosses LA/regional boundaries, that's the case for all the North Yorkshire services.
Carlisle service is an all-stations one, so easily bundled with the other North-East services.

Nexus already directly operate the Metro.
They might be more efficient at operating the North-East services than Northern are.

 

[Ianno87]

"(T)he Airport Link to Yorkshire ain't going to be an easy sell.... Again, the competition is quite an 'easy' road journey via the M60/M62."
The Lincolnshire and the Sheffield City region certainly does not have any easy road connections to Manchester or Manchester Airport.
To access the new A555 western relief road from Sheffield requires negotiating cattle grids, a B road too narrow for road markings and a hoard of cyclists.

Spinning it in a controversial manner, you could say that the rail journey doesn't *need* to be that good, given how poor the road journey is as an alternative...

<Awaits projectiles in my direction>