• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

MEN article "Northern Councils run trains"

Status
Not open for further replies.

dggar

Member
Joined
16 Apr 2011
Messages
469
This article has appeared today.
I thought this was "old news" however the MEN
is not renowed for being up to the minute on it's scoops.

Any thoughts would be welcome

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/run-trains-well-save-20m-5851454

Jennifer Williams in Manchester Evening News said:
Town halls come together to bid to run train services – and save £20m

Councillors in Greater Manchester have joined other northern councils in drawing up a plan to convince ministers to let them take charge of train franchising

Town halls have outlined plans for better value, more reliable railways in a bid to snatch control over them from Whitehall.


Councillors in Greater Manchester have joined other northern councils in drawing up a plan to convince ministers to let them take charge of train franchising.


Their proposals will save at least £20m a year, they claim – while creating better services and more transparency over how fares are spent.


More than 30 local authorities in Greater Manchester, Cheshire, Yorkshire, Merseyside and the North East have come together to create an outline business case.


Their plan would see a committee of councillors – instead of the Department for Transport – appoint and oversee train operators.


It would see the Transpennine and Northern Rail franchises merged and run by one firm when their contracts end in 2016, saving £20m a year. A report by Manchester council boss Sir Howard Bernstein on the draft case – due to go before the town hall’s executive next week – says ministers have been ‘supportive of the principal’ of handing over franchising power.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

6Gman

Established Member
Joined
1 May 2012
Messages
8,383
Politicians want more power!

Well that's hardly news .....

And is the claimed £20m saving from switching to council franchising, or from combining the two franchises?

Personally, I would be very, very dubious at the idea that the local authorities have the skills and abilities to supervise franchising.
 

kevconnor

Member
Joined
22 Apr 2013
Messages
613
Location
People's Republic of Mancunia
It is old news in a sense in that this has been announced before, but from the article it is being refresh/rehashed on the basis of the report that has been produced for Mcr Council regarding the plans for the north of England franchise. the report can be found here.
 

Xenophon PCDGS

Veteran Member
Joined
17 Apr 2011
Messages
32,269
Location
A semi-rural part of north-west England
Personally, I would be very, very dubious at the idea that the local authorities have the skills and abilities to supervise franchising.

Manchester Airport is owned by the consortium of the 10 local authorites that are generally referred to as Greater Manchester, so they do have certain experience of running a major British airport.

TfGM have also overseen the establishment and expansion of the Manchester Metrolink light rail system.
 
Last edited:

Solent&Wessex

Established Member
Joined
9 Jul 2009
Messages
2,683
TfGM have also overseen the establishment and expansion of the Manchester Metrolink light rail system.

Which is spectacularly shambolic and disorganised in it's operation.

And by their unwavering enthusiasm for the trams they have also overseen the local rail network becoming a tatty underfunded mess compared to the better organised West Yorkshire and Merseyside PTE networks.
 

Manchester77

Established Member
Joined
4 Jun 2012
Messages
2,628
Location
Manchester
Not really once the current improvements are rolled out it'll be a highly efficient people mover you just have to look at how much quicker the journey between Trafford Bar and Cornbrook is, no more waiting for trams to clear the blocks; fully TMS controlled now speeded things right up. Add onto that 2CC and Deansgate-Castlefield improvements the only main hazards are people not reading road signs or threatening to jump of the arndale!

I'm not sure if the franchise controlled by all the regions PTEs is a good idea. There's obviously going to be disagreements and how long will it be until the MEN will be off going are we funding Leeds' trains why etc.
 

Kettledrum

Member
Joined
13 Nov 2010
Messages
790
Politicians want more power!

Well that's hardly news .....

And is the claimed £20m saving from switching to council franchising, or from combining the two franchises?

Personally, I would be very, very dubious at the idea that the local authorities have the skills and abilities to supervise franchising.

..... and the Department for Transport do?

The national re-franchise programme virtually ground to a halt because of skills issues. Local Authorities would need to buy in expertise just as the Department for Transport do. The danger is it's not an area where you can cut costs and cut corners, and local authorities might be tempted to try and do it on the cheap without engaging the top experts in the field.

So why does this make them any different to the Department for Transport at the moment?
 

WatcherZero

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2010
Messages
10,272
..... and the Department for Transport do?

The national re-franchise programme virtually ground to a halt because of skills issues. Local Authorities would need to buy in expertise just as the Department for Transport do. The danger is it's not an area where you can cut costs and cut corners, and local authorities might be tempted to try and do it on the cheap without engaging the top experts in the field.

So why does this make them any different to the Department for Transport at the moment?

They already have to maintain the staff permanetly to supervise the running of the TOCs in their areas; manage the subsidy they give to tocs (for GM thats around £80m per year annual rail service subsidy they manage in addition to tens of millions each year in capital grants), maintain stations, consult on franchises and capital investment, ensure the tocs are meeting their franchise performance targets, perform their statutory transport planning functions, etc...

Frankly they already know the franchises inside out from working on them on a daily basis, a level of franchise knowledge the Dft could never match.
 

1e10

Member
Joined
13 Jun 2013
Messages
815
I would be interested in seeing how they actually intend to drop £20m from their spending rather than just reading their unsupported claims.
 

Starmill

Veteran Member
Fares Advisor
Joined
18 May 2012
Messages
23,224
Location
Bolton
Which is spectacularly shambolic and disorganised in it's operation.

And by their unwavering enthusiasm for the trams they have also overseen the local rail network becoming a tatty underfunded mess compared to the better organised West Yorkshire and Merseyside PTE networks.

The latter, yes, definitely. It's an unmitigated shame, the condition of our suburban lines. But you do Metrolink a disservice! Metrolink is a success story! I wouldn't go so far as shambolic, just highly problematic in recent years. When it's all finished, it'll be better...
 

Darren R

Established Member
Joined
26 Jan 2013
Messages
1,252
Location
Lancashire
It's a nice idea in theory, but unfortunately it's dependent on councils. That - in a nutshell - is my problem with the idea. I don't doubt there are councils that are efficient, well-run bodies staffed by people who are intelligent, able to co-operate with their neighbouring authorities and capable of seeing the bigger picture. Never actually seen any proof to back the statement up, but I'm sure there must be such councils somewhere.

If there is one thing that councils have shown time and time again, it is that most of them are congenitally incapable of co-operating with neighbouring councils. Give them the trains to play with (and the funding) and it will descend to petty squabbles about who gets what. It won't work.

Originally Posted by WatcherZero
They already have to maintain the staff permanetly to supervise the running of the TOCs in their areas; manage the subsidy they give to tocs (for GM thats around £80m per year annual rail service subsidy they manage in addition to tens of millions each year in capital grants), maintain stations, consult on franchises and capital investment, ensure the tocs are meeting their franchise performance targets, perform their statutory transport planning functions, etc...

Frankly they already know the franchises inside out from working on them on a daily basis, a level of franchise knowledge the Dft could never match.

I thought at first you were being sarcastic with this posting! Then I read it again and realised you were talking about metroploitan areas with PTEs (or whatever they're called this week.) You have a point - although personally I think you are over-egging it somewhat. But what about the non-PTE areas? WYMetro may have some of the experience and expertease needed - does North Yorkshire County Council though? TfGM likewise has some of the skills and personnel - but what about Lancashire County Council? Or Blackburn with Darwen? Etc, etc, etc.

The areas with PTEs will be able to use their experience to get what they want at the expense of everyone else.

Additionally, what happens if a council decides - for whatever reasons - that it just wants nothing to do with Transport for the North? Who runs the trains beyond Horsforth and Steeton & Silsden if North Yorkshire County Council aren't involved?
 

185

Established Member
Joined
29 Aug 2010
Messages
4,970
I put this on Facebook around six months ago, when TfGM's policy document was published. The PTE has my support, as a co-ordinated express and local concession would in my view offer better value for money ultimately.

Interesting for all the nay-sayers, I currently see about six former senior- and managing- directors of rail franchises who for months have quietly lurked at the back of at least three of the PTEs. Looks like the generals are already in place for this.
 

WatcherZero

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2010
Messages
10,272
I thought at first you were being sarcastic with this posting! Then I read it again and realised you were talking about metroploitan areas with PTEs (or whatever they're called this week.) You have a point - although personally I think you are over-egging it somewhat. But what about the non-PTE areas? WYMetro may have some of the experience and expertease needed - does North Yorkshire County Council though? TfGM likewise has some of the skills and personnel - but what about Lancashire County Council? Or Blackburn with Darwen? Etc, etc, etc.

The areas with PTEs will be able to use their experience to get what they want at the expense of everyone else.

Additionally, what happens if a council decides - for whatever reasons - that it just wants nothing to do with Transport for the North? Who runs the trains beyond Horsforth and Steeton & Silsden if North Yorkshire County Council aren't involved?

Reverse the argument, you currently have county councils with perhaps one or two staff within their larger transport teams struggling to handle everything railway releated in their entire areas (off the top of my head I think theres around 54 transport authorities in the North), in PTE areas you have the same function performed by better resourced, dedicated teams of around two dozen or more. The rural transport authorities are dying to get the support and expertise of their PTE neighbours and asking them to help out with planning, modeling and feasability studies (see recent examples West Lancashire with Skelmersdale asking Merseyside for help, Cheshire asking for help from Manchester, various scheme in east lancashire asking for help from Manchester, etc..).

Manchester led the way with the Combined Authority model of inter council working and other areas are following their lead on this recognising the benefit of working together, this level of devolution already exists in Merseyside for the Merseyrail network, in London with London Overground and the Underground networks, in Scotland with Transport Scotland and in Wales where they have control of services but not infrastructure though that may be changing around the time of the Cardiff Metro. To put it into perspective the North makes up 25% of the UK economy, more than Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland combined.

As for inclusion at the moment the driving force is Greater Manchester, South Yorkshire and West Yorkshire, structures have been put in place to make it inclusive and ensure the rural areas are represented and the financial commitment is on an opt in basis, the only ones that were initially hesitant were Merseyside who want several Merseyrail branded services to Manchester in exhange for their participation and Tyne and Wear who looked at setting up a small metro franchise of their own however the latest indications are they are now onboard as is every council in the North.
 
Last edited:

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
19,555
Location
Mold, Clwyd
Devolution doesn't mean the locals will have a free hand. Far from it.
The Welsh experience is likely to be followed, at least for the first round of franchise change.
This means DfT will develop a franchise spec and business model with Rail North, bid it jointly, and then hand over the contract for local management.
There is no way the DfT/Treasury will hand over total control of rail spend.
In particular the subsidy profile will be fixed, which means the scope for local changes (eg rolling stock provision) will be limited.
Also none (or very little) of the funding will be "on the council tax". It will remain centrally funded, just locally managed.
Voters won't be able to say "why should I pay for services in another area".
Also Merseyrail will be independent of these arrangements with its long concession.
 

Xenophon PCDGS

Veteran Member
Joined
17 Apr 2011
Messages
32,269
Location
A semi-rural part of north-west England
I notice that this article in Manchester Evening News was written by Jennifer Williams who is a senior reporter whose main remit appears to be that of local government and the trades union movement.

Have any other forum members come across any other of her articles which may have been described as contentious ?
 

Carlisle

Established Member
Joined
26 Aug 2012
Messages
4,124
Which is spectacularly shambolic and disorganised in it's operation.

And by their unwavering enthusiasm for the trams they have also overseen the local rail network becoming a tatty underfunded mess compared to the better organised West Yorkshire and Merseyside PTE networks.

Compared to all the recent expansion in the Metrolink network , merseyrail is hardly a recent success story considering the trains albeit refurbished must be approaching 35 years old and the last expansion of note was electrification to Chester about 16 or more years ago
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,818
Location
Yorks
Frankly they already know the franchises inside out from working on them on a daily basis, a level of franchise knowledge the Dft could never match.

Absolutely. They have a far greater knowledge of the level of service needed in their areas than Whitehall does.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
It's a nice idea in theory, but unfortunately it's dependent on councils. That - in a nutshell - is my problem with the idea. I don't doubt there are councils that are efficient, well-run bodies staffed by people who are intelligent, able to co-operate with their neighbouring authorities and capable of seeing the bigger picture. Never actually seen any proof to back the statement up, but I'm sure there must be such councils somewhere.

If there is one thing that councils have shown time and time again, it is that most of them are congenitally incapable of co-operating with neighbouring councils. Give them the trains to play with (and the funding) and it will descend to petty squabbles about who gets what. It won't work.



I thought at first you were being sarcastic with this posting! Then I read it again and realised you were talking about metroploitan areas with PTEs (or whatever they're called this week.) You have a point - although personally I think you are over-egging it somewhat. But what about the non-PTE areas? WYMetro may have some of the experience and expertease needed - does North Yorkshire County Council though? TfGM likewise has some of the skills and personnel - but what about Lancashire County Council? Or Blackburn with Darwen? Etc, etc, etc.

The areas with PTEs will be able to use their experience to get what they want at the expense of everyone else.

Additionally, what happens if a council decides - for whatever reasons - that it just wants nothing to do with Transport for the North? Who runs the trains beyond Horsforth and Steeton & Silsden if North Yorkshire County Council aren't involved?

The whole idea behind City Regions is to get local authorities in the same economic area to work together to plan services and projects, and the Leeds City Region does this in various fields.

As regards to rural areas, I certainly hope that these will get a strong voice on any such body, certainly stronger than their voice is in Whitehall at present. I would argue that these areas are particularly hard done by with the current set up and have already missed out by not being included in the PTE network. That said, electrification to Skipton is an example where WY Metro worked with North Yorkshire to achieve a "cross border" benefit, so working together is something achievable.

Now, if they can just curb Manchester's unnatural urge to turn everything that moves into a tram, it should work well ;)
 
Last edited:

pemma

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
31,474
Location
Knutsford
I thought this was "old news" however the MEN

I think it may actually be new.

Originally it looked like it would between Merseytravel, Lancashire CC, TfGM, Metro, SYPTE and York CC. Nexus originally wanted the North East to go with Cumbria and be separate, while other areas covered by the Northern franchise appeared to have no local council participating.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Manchester Airport is owned by the consortium of the 10 local authorites that are generally referred to as Greater Manchester, so they do have certain experience of running a major British airport.

TfGM have also overseen the establishment and expansion of the Manchester Metrolink light rail system.

I think the 10 councils are fairly similar in size. If you have Lancashire County Council and Halton Borough Council as two bodies for a North of England rail company then they'll be very different in size and you'll need a different number of representatives from each council.

Cheshire has recently set up an integrated local transport body, which covers all parts of post-1974 Cheshire except Halton: http://www.candwlep.co.uk/cwltb
 
Last edited by a moderator:

pinguini

Member
Joined
2 Jan 2013
Messages
284
The latter, yes, definitely. It's an unmitigated shame, the condition of our suburban lines. But you do Metrolink a disservice! Metrolink is a success story! I wouldn't go so far as shambolic, just highly problematic in recent years. When it's all finished, it'll be better...

I have only been living in Manchester for just under a month, but I'm finding the metrolink to be a fantastic transportation system. I think highly of it
 

hughesfowler

Member
Joined
17 Nov 2009
Messages
113
I have only been living in Manchester for just under a month, but I'm finding the metrolink to be a fantastic transportation system. I think highly of it


Give it time you will be as cynical as those of us that have used it for years, or, you may have come along at the right time as a lot of it has now been done. Love the upto date tram running info on the Bury line, lost track of how many years we have been without it now. !
 

Manchester77

Established Member
Joined
4 Jun 2012
Messages
2,628
Location
Manchester
Bury actually had PIDs which displayed the timetable however these weren't very reliable. You're going to get real time info in the next few years as TMS creeps its way up the bury line. It'll probably post Victoria remodelling when TMS is rolled out up that end of the network.
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
31,267
Any thoughts would be welcome

Your thread title is misleading, just like someone else's about Wrexham the other day.

It should indicate that this is a proposal, such as

"MEN article - Northern Councils bid to run trains".
 

WatcherZero

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2010
Messages
10,272
But wouldnt that then make it sound like they were trying to become franchise bidders like Salmond wanted Transport Scotland to be able to do but was rebuffed.
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
31,267
But wouldnt that then make it sound like they were trying to become franchise bidders like Salmond wanted Transport Scotland to be able to do but was rebuffed.

Ok then, how about

"MEN article - Northern Councils bid to become franchising authority for local train services"
 

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
19,555
Location
Mold, Clwyd
Would Rail North have a harmonised fare structure across the various TPE/Council boundaries (zones etc)?
Would Metrolink tickets be interavailable with rail, or more generally bus/rail?
How would Day Rangers work?
Examples of awkward questions ahead.
 

Silv1983

Member
Joined
8 Jun 2012
Messages
527
Location
Somewhere in Stockport
Here's a thought: If local authorities take over and run the franchise/s in the North West - do rail staff remain employees of the private sector; or do they migrate into the public sector as 'council workers' with all the negativity that comes with that.
 

Kettledrum

Member
Joined
13 Nov 2010
Messages
790
They already have to maintain the staff permanetly to supervise the running of the TOCs in their areas; manage the subsidy they give to tocs (for GM thats around £80m per year annual rail service subsidy they manage in addition to tens of millions each year in capital grants), maintain stations, consult on franchises and capital investment, ensure the tocs are meeting their franchise performance targets, perform their statutory transport planning functions, etc...

Frankly they already know the franchises inside out from working on them on a daily basis, a level of franchise knowledge the Dft could never match.

Fair enough for the metropolitan PTE's, but the County Councils in non metropolitan areas would need lots of external support. Local Government has had huge cuts in central government funding, and council tax rises are capped at 2% if you're lucky. Some Councils are quite frankly running out of money, and all Councils are making huge cuts in their spending. Taking on additional transport responsibilities in this environment would be a huge challenge, and possibly for some, a challenge too far.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,818
Location
Yorks
Here's a thought: If local authorities take over and run the franchise/s in the North West - do rail staff remain employees of the private sector; or do they migrate into the public sector as 'council workers' with all the negativity that comes with that.

As far as I understand it, the local authorities would only take over the function that the DofT does now, so railway staff would continue to be employed by the TOC and not Councils.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Fair enough for the metropolitan PTE's, but the County Councils in non metropolitan areas would need lots of external support. Local Government has had huge cuts in central government funding, and council tax rises are capped at 2% if you're lucky. Some Councils are quite frankly running out of money, and all Councils are making huge cuts in their spending. Taking on additional transport responsibilities in this environment would be a huge challenge, and possibly for some, a challenge too far.

As I understand it, it's more a specifying role than directly running the railway, so I wouldn't have thought they'd have to devote huge staff resources to it. Presumably whichever official deals with transport at the moment might be expected to attend meetings, review and comment on documentation and liaise with the elected members, but that's generally a responsibility that can be absorbed.
 

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
19,555
Location
Mold, Clwyd
Here's a thought: If local authorities take over and run the franchise/s in the North West - do rail staff remain employees of the private sector; or do they migrate into the public sector as 'council workers' with all the negativity that comes with that.

The "Rail North" body would be in the public sector, but the operating franchise(s) (ie TOCs) would still be bid periodically by private groups as everywhere else.
No change at all in Network Rail.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top