MEN article "Northern Councils run trains"

[34D]

The idea is good. But let's see

 

[WatcherZero]

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.

Didnt you read the earlier thread on the consultation paper?

Yes harmonised fares and targeting of fare anomalies and that would mean that some fares in PTE areas would likely go up, also ive heard that their subscribed to the idea that no rail ticket should be cheaper than an equivalent bus journey. Dont really see any issue with day rangers where they are discounted travel for large geographic areas designed for day trippers. While Rail North would input to Metros/tram systems and better integrate with buses it wouldnt administer them.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

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.

Talk of expanding the North West and Transpennine Network rail route to cover the non-intercity parts of the ECML route so that ECML branch routes are better managed.

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/images/6650_Route Plans Routes -A-Q.jpg

 

[Darren R]

Having read other poster's views I seem to find myself cast in the role of naysayer on this subject! I agree that the idea could - could - work well. It's certainly attractive on paper. But I think this is either going to be the best thing that's happened recently to the North's railways or it's going to be an absolute, unmitigated disaster and a decision that we end up regretting. Unfortunately I fear it will turn out to be the latter.

Originally Posted by yorksrob
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.

But outside the PTE areas the councils don't have any responsibility for transport to speak of. And (in my experience anyway) what limited responsibilities they have, they manage to screw up. My local council, Blackburn with Darwen, has done nothing transport-oriented except spend the last decade adding more and more one-way systems, traffic lights and road narrowing measures in order to create the worst traffic jams I have experienced outside the M25. Their current big idea on transport is spending untold millions on a new bus station for the town. The current bus station is immediately outside the town's railway station and provides an excellent transport interchange that other towns would sell their grannies for. The new bus station is on the other side of the town centre. And it's only been made necessary because the council pedestrianised all the roads in the town centre forcing all traffic to have to drive through the current bus station, rendering it impossible to use for buses, pedestrians and other road-users.

Also, as a Unitary Council, they are in a permanent state of war with both Lancashire County Council and their neighbouring borough councils. What I see does not fill me with confidence in their ability to participate in running a pan-Northern England railway system!

 

[yorksrob]

But outside the PTE areas the councils don't have any responsibility for transport to speak of. And (in my experience anyway) what limited responsibilities they have, they manage to screw up. My local council, Blackburn with Darwen, has done nothing transport-oriented except spend the last decade adding more and more one-way systems, traffic lights and road narrowing measures in order to create the worst traffic jams I have experienced outside the M25. Their current big idea on transport is spending untold millions on a new bus station for the town. The current bus station is immediately outside the town's railway station and provides an excellent transport interchange that other towns would sell their grannies for. The new bus station is on the other side of the town centre. And it's only been made necessary because the council pedestrianised all the roads in the town centre forcing all traffic to have to drive through the current bus station, rendering it impossible to use for buses, pedestrians and other road-users.

Also, as a Unitary Council, they are in a permanent state of war with both Lancashire County Council and their neighbouring borough councils. What I see does not fill me with confidence in their ability to participate in running a pan-Northern England railway system!

I think some of it comes down to how those Council's view transport/rail transport in the first place. If they don't have an interest, then they're not likely to be very active in the organisation - but then again, how is that any different to the current situation with Whitehall now ?

At least if they have have to send someone to the meetings, there's the chance that:

1) It might prompt them to take more of an interest.
2) They're more likely to influence the wider franchising process.

 

[Darren R]

I think some of it comes down to how those Council's view transport/rail transport in the first place. If they don't have an interest, then they're not likely to be very active in the organisation - but then again, how is that any different to the current situation with Whitehall now ?

At least if they have have to send someone to the meetings, there's the chance that:

1) It might prompt them to take more of an interest.
2) They're more likely to influence the wider franchising process.

Hmmm - think I'm gonna need a bit more convincing than that!

I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea in principal (or even on principle). My problem is that I just don't have any faith in the abilities of far too many councils to be able to do anything properly! Transport for oop't North will cover a huge area and involve a vast number of councils being able to work together. (I can't even begin to calculate how many councils would have to be involved.) It would be another tier of bureaucracy in addition to what's already there - just what the railways need!

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Yes, harmonised fares and targeting of fare anomalies and that would mean that some fares in PTE areas would likely go up.

Do you think the matter of the fare increases and the reason for this will be one that certain bodies will not want to receive much in the way of media discussion ?

 

[yorksrob]

Hmmm - think I'm gonna need a bit more convincing than that!

I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea in principal (or even on principle). My problem is that I just don't have any faith in the abilities of far too many councils to be able to do anything properly! Transport for oop't North will cover a huge area and involve a vast number of councils being able to work together. (I can't even begin to calculate how many councils would have to be involved.) It would be another tier of bureaucracy in addition to what's already there - just what the railways need!

Personally, I think that it's unlikely that any councils will actually ask for a reduction in services - experience where public transport is devolved to a more local level, be that in London, in the PTE areas, or in the devolved nations, is that those areas take the issue more seriously, and I don't think the North will be any different to that.

With regard to it being another layer of bureaucracy - from the railway's point of view, it's just replacing the DofT's role during the franchising process, so I don't think it will lead to an increase in interference in the day to day running.

I think the potential benefits far outweigh the risks on this one.

 

[185]

Do you think the matter of the fare increases and the reason for this will be one that certain bodies will not want to receive much in the way of media discussion ?

My view is fares will go down for some journeys and remain steady for others.

With the PTEs running a co-ordinated rail franchise, the age-old money spinner of crossing county boundaries may finally be tackled.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I've heard that their subscribed to the idea that no rail ticket should be cheaper than an equivalent bus journey.

I would like to see what reaction there would be if the bus fares were raised to the same level as the rail fares, with a notable example being the rather large fare increase that would apply on the 184 bus service from Greenfield to Marsden (and vice-versa)....

On a less jovial note, will train fare anomolies such as that quoted above be ended once the PTE areas of Greater Manchester and West Yorkshire decide to conjoin in their efforts.

 

[WatcherZero]

At the moment journeys wholly within PTE areas are heavily subsidised leading to anomalies such as a fare spike when crossing out of PTE area and the same journey distance through a rural county costing more. You would likely see these anomalies end with subsidy in PTE areas diverted away from straight fare reduction and instead into investment in rolling stock and infrastructure which will bring down running costs (and which should have the knock on effect of generating additional revenue), meanwhile there would likely be more subsidy going into reducing fares in rural areas particularly on commuter routes into citys.

As 185 says its likely that fares overall will remain roughly equal and continue to rise with the national fare cap possibly with a small one off above inflation rise, thereafter rising faster in PTE areas than rural areas for several years to redress the balance (and give services a firmer commercial footing). They will sell fare rises as paying for new investment improving the quality of service which as this franchise goes on would be very visible with the electrification and increased frequencies.

It should always be remembered the strategy of Rail North isnt to splurge on new services but to target operating costs and reinvest savings, they wont have any money to increase spending, and their budget is likely to be set at the existing subsidy level with any additional investment they want having to be paid for from finding savings elsewhere.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

At the moment journeys wholly within PTE areas are heavily subsidised leading to anomalies such as a fare spike when crossing out of PTE area and the same journey distance through a rural county costing more.

Noting what you say above about the fare spike when crossing out of a PTE area, the rail journey from Littleborough to Walsden does not seem as financially onerous as that from Greenfield to Marsden, where both journeys have this said crossing of the same two PTE areas.

Can someone explain why this should be so, please.

 

[yorksrob]

At the moment journeys wholly within PTE areas are heavily subsidised leading to anomalies such as a fare spike when crossing out of PTE area and the same journey distance through a rural county costing more. You would likely see these anomalies end with subsidy in PTE areas diverted away from straight fare reduction and instead into investment in rolling stock and infrastructure which will bring down running costs (and which should have the knock on effect of generating additional revenue), meanwhile there would likely be more subsidy going into reducing fares in rural areas particularly on commuter routes into citys.

As 185 says its likely that fares overall will remain roughly equal and continue to rise with the national fare cap possibly with a small one off above inflation rise, thereafter rising faster in PTE areas than rural areas for several years to redress the balance (and give services a firmer commercial footing). They will sell fare rises as paying for new investment improving the quality of service which as this franchise goes on would be very visible with the electrification and increased frequencies.

It should always be remembered the strategy of Rail North isnt to splurge on new services but to target operating costs and reinvest savings, they wont have any money to increase spending, and their budget is likely to be set at the existing subsidy level with any additional investment they want having to be paid for from finding savings elsewhere.

I would hope that there would also be a determination to tackle issues such as evening services, sunday services and ghost services (such as Knottingley - Goole ).

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Didnt you read the earlier thread on the consultation paper?

Yes, I've read it. I was just blethering on really... :cry:
Interesting that there might be NR changes as well.

 

[ivanhoe]

There are some big changes taken place within some areas. The creation of City Regions is of particular interest. In Merseyside, this is bringing Councils which were previously outside the area into the fold. Halton is now within the fold. Merseytravel is now run by this new body. My point is that these regions may actually increase absorbing parts of Cheshire and Lancashire. I think that if these Regions can work together, then I think that Northern and TPE could be run by a joint body. There's a long way to go though and I would be sceptical if I actually lived in an area outside of the 'fold'.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Would these new bodies have all the requirements in place and ready to start once the new franchises are awarded ?

 

[ex-railwayman]

An interesting thread, my immediate thoughts were, if the DfT said yes, surely, this would open the door to every other council in the UK to propose something similar for their regions, if you let one lot have it but refused everyone else they'd feel very aggrieved. The other debate is where would the money come from, as has already been stated Central Governments get their dosh from local rate/council tax payers, why should we have to fork out twice, or, possibly three times, in our taxes, for the same transport system whereever we reside, it sounds like too many folks trying to get their grubby hands on the same pots of our money, and we still may never get the quality of rail service that we all require.

Cheerz. ex-railwayman

 

[ivanhoe]

Would these new bodies have all the requirements in place and ready to start once the new franchises are awarded ?

I would have thought not Paul. They are evolving at the moment . In my opinion, they are at least two years away and the issues for the Manchester,Liverpool,Leeds and Sheffield regions are extremely diverse. Some like Manchester are probably ahead of the game although Liverpool is becoming more strategic in its thinking. I'm not au fait with the other city regions to give an opinion.

 

[WatcherZero]

A franchising director for Rail North has already been appointed and it already has a small staff so in some sense its up and running already, would have to be some legislation to devolve responsibility but nothing stopping it existing beforehand in shadow form and specifying the franchising in partnership with the Dft in a couple of years.

 

[pemma]

A franchising director for Rail North has already been appointed and it already has a small staff so in some sense its up and running already, would have to be some legislation to devolve responsibility but nothing stopping it existing beforehand in shadow form and specifying the franchising in partnership with the Dft in a couple of years.

I seem to remember seeing a TfGM wish list for the next franchise already with some ideas looking like they'd been directly copied off this very forum.

 

[WatcherZero]

That was the Rail North strategy consultation paper, product of three meetings between the PTE's and representatives of the smaller transport authorities to agree a common platform and vision along with the usual private sector consultants input.