Next Northern Rail franchise consultation?

[ianhr]

15 times in a year......amazingly common!!

Of course displaced staff are a consequence of delays such as Track Circuit and Signal failures.......

Rest assured Ian.....rostering teams pull out all the stops to make sure that each service is manned.

Yes ok I accept your point , but there IS a relationship between the amount of redundancy in a system and its reliability. If there is virtually no spare capacity in fixed assets, rolling stock and manpower then reliability will inevitably suffer. We only get what we pay for and the logic of modern management is to maximise utilisation to keep cost accountability within acceptable (very tight) limits AND hope that nothing goes wrong anyware. Let us at least have a public admission of these principles.....i.e. "your train is delayed because we do not finance spare crews, spare rolling stock etc and the inconvenience you are suffering is to give you 'value for money'"!

 

[Moonshot]

It is worth noting that 9 out of 10 trains achieve the required PPM ....

 

[YorkshireBear]

15 times in a year......amazingly common!!

Of course displaced staff are a consequence of delays such as Track Circuit and Signal failures.......

Rest assured Ian.....rostering teams pull out all the stops to make sure that each service is manned.

15 times in a year when i catch the train twice a week..... and each of those times i spend about 15 minutes in Leeds max.... So actually if you extrapolated it could happen an awful lot!

I am sure they do but that doesn't remove the point that it does happen.

 

[Moonshot]

I never said it doesnt happen.....however in the bigger picture, there are far more delays caused by infrastructure issues. a point well noted by the ORR.

 

[YorkshireBear]

15 times in a year......amazingly common!!

I was responding to this, you sarcastically said amazingly common so pointed out it is more than 15 times per year.

So what about infrastructure?

All i was saying is it happens quite often in my experience. Your defence is admirable, but i was never really attacking Northern.... Most members on here know me as a fairly big defender of them.

 

[Moonshot]

I ll find out for myself tomorrow, I m due in Leeds !!

 

[tbtc]

I suppose that part of the problem for Northern is that they operate a lot of different hourly services over fairly long distances, which are too awkwardly timed to be fully self contained.

There are the advertised through services that show how complicated things are - like the Manchester - Selby - Wakefield - Leeds - Manchester "Grand Tour" or the Scunthorpe - Lincoln - Adwick service or the new Blackpool - Huddersfield - Wigan service...

...plus various unadvertised through workings (like how one service into Manchester Piccadilly will work back out to a different destination)...

...which must make it difficult to schedule staff/ duties very difficult when something goes wrong - e.g. a delay at Lincoln can affect whether there's someone at Sheffield able to work the next Doncaster service.

Must be a lot easier on something like Merseyrail where the simple frequent services make it simple to diagram stock etc.

 

[ianhr]

I suppose that part of the problem for Northern is that they operate a lot of different hourly services over fairly long distances, which are too awkwardly timed to be fully self contained.

There are the advertised through services that show how complicated things are - like the Manchester - Selby - Wakefield - Leeds - Manchester "Grand Tour" or the Scunthorpe - Lincoln - Adwick service or the new Blackpool - Huddersfield - Wigan service...

...plus various unadvertised through workings (like how one service into Manchester Piccadilly will work back out to a different destination)...

...which must make it difficult to schedule staff/ duties very difficult when something goes wrong - e.g. a delay at Lincoln can affect whether there's someone at Sheffield able to work the next Doncaster service.

Must be a lot easier on something like Merseyrail where the simple frequent services make it simple to diagram stock etc.

I do often wonder if it might be a worthwhile exercise (assuming they are being paid to do it!) for someone to see whether it might be possible to untangle all this, and produce a plan to return to simpler diagrams with less complex interworking. I suspect the present pattern has just grown like topsy over many years, with increasing complexity, rather than ever starting out as an overall plan. There could still remain the objective of good rolling stock utilisation. I am sure most passengers are travelling to/from major hubs like Leeds, Sheffield, Manchester and do not avail themselves of many of the exotic one seat rides possible at present e.g. Brighouse-Selby via Bradford, Doncaster or Huddersfield-Lincoln via Sheffield etc. This could even examine the possibility of matching each type of stock to it's most appropriate route, rather than having everything from 142s to 158s as common user, as seems to be the case now.

 

[Moonshot]

I do often wonder if it might be a worthwhile exercise (assuming they are being paid to do it!) for someone to see whether it might be possible to untangle all this, and produce a plan to return to simpler diagrams with less complex interworking. I suspect the present pattern has just grown like topsy over many years, with increasing complexity, rather than ever starting out as an overall plan. There could still remain the objective of good rolling stock utilisation. I am sure most passengers are travelling to/from major hubs like Leeds, Sheffield, Manchester and do not avail themselves of many of the exotic one seat rides possible at present e.g. Brighouse-Selby via Bradford, Doncaster or Huddersfield-Lincoln via Sheffield etc. This could even examine the possibility of matching each type of stock to it's most appropriate route, rather than having everything from 142s to 158s as common user, as seems to be the case now.

Ah ha......I actually mentioned a few weeks ago that we should really be looking at removing stations which have little footfall. No doubt these impact on overall performance.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Ah ha......I actually mentioned a few weeks ago that we should really be looking at removing stations which have little footfall. No doubt these impact on overall performance.

Of stations within the WYPTE area I'd have thought all stations require improved services rather than cuts or closure, with the possible exception of Ravensthorpe: as it's poorly located, away from main roads and significant housing.

 

[tbtc]

I do often wonder if it might be a worthwhile exercise (assuming they are being paid to do it!) for someone to see whether it might be possible to untangle all this, and produce a plan to return to simpler diagrams with less complex interworking. I suspect the present pattern has just grown like topsy over many years, with increasing complexity, rather than ever starting out as an overall plan. There could still remain the objective of good rolling stock utilisation. I am sure most passengers are travelling to/from major hubs like Leeds, Sheffield, Manchester and do not avail themselves of many of the exotic one seat rides possible at present e.g. Brighouse-Selby via Bradford, Doncaster or Huddersfield-Lincoln via Sheffield etc. This could even examine the possibility of matching each type of stock to it's most appropriate route, rather than having everything from 142s to 158s as common user, as seems to be the case now.

It'd be interesting to see how many more units it would "cost" to split all of these services up - you'd certainly get a more robust timetable (with the Adwick - Sheffield service forming the next Sheffield - Adwick service), not suffer so much from "cross contamination" either. Plus, as you allude, you'd avoid the situation of a three coach 158 carrying one man and his dog from Wakefield to Huddersfield whilst a two coach 143 is at Manchester Victoria filling up with passengers for Halifax/ Bradford/ Leeds.

Would it be worth it if it "cost" an extra five DMUs (over the whole TOC)? An extra ten?

You'd get complaints from people on here about the lack of direct Brighouse - Selby service though!

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Of stations within the WYPTE area I'd have thought all stations require improved services rather than cuts or closure, with the possible exception of Ravensthorpe: as it's poorly located, away from main roads and significant housing.

Has there ever been any official statement been made that would cast doubts upon the continuance of Ravensthorpe station ?

 

[brompton rail]

It'd be interesting to see how many more units it would "cost" to split all of these services up - you'd certainly get a more robust timetable (with the Adwick - Sheffield service forming the next Sheffield - Adwick service), not suffer so much from "cross contamination" either. Plus, as you allude, you'd avoid the situation of a three coach 158 carrying one man and his dog from Wakefield to Huddersfield whilst a two coach 143 is at Manchester Victoria filling up with passengers for Halifax/ Bradford/ Leeds.

Would it be worth it if it "cost" an extra five DMUs (over the whole TOC)? An extra ten?

You'd get complaints from people on here about the lack of direct Brighouse - Selby service though!

The Lincoln line service operates THROUGH Sheffield to provide a service to Meadowhall Shopping Centre. This is at the behest of South Yorkshire PTE and not because Northern like complex diagrams.

 

[tbtc]

The Lincoln line service operates THROUGH Sheffield to provide a service to Meadowhall Shopping Centre. This is at the behest of South Yorkshire PTE and not because Northern like complex diagrams.

...but it doesn't have to be part of the car-crash that is Scunthorpe - Sheffield - Lincoln - Sheffield - Adwick - Sheffield - Scunthorpe.

Having these three services tied together makes it hard to allocate specific stock (e.g. Sheffield - Adwick is a relatively short journey so could make do with a Pacer, whilst Sheffield - Lincoln may deserve something better like a 156) and it causes the kind of staffing problems discussed on this thread whenever something goes wrong.

 

[brompton rail]

...but it doesn't have to be part of the car-crash that is Scunthorpe - Sheffield - Lincoln - Sheffield - Adwick - Sheffield - Scunthorpe.

Having these three services tied together makes it hard to allocate specific stock (e.g. Sheffield - Adwick is a relatively short journey so could make do with a Pacer, whilst Sheffield - Lincoln may deserve something better like a 156) and it causes the kind of staffing problems discussed on this thread whenever something goes wrong.

When Sheffield to Doncaster (& Moorthorpe) is electrified in conjunction with MML and the Freight Spine these services will need to be severed. Possibly the Scunthorpe service would need to be cut back to Doncaster - Scunthorpe only too, but that is a whole new can of worms!

 

[WatcherZero]

The details of the Rail North agreement are supposed to be ironed out in Westminster by the end of the month so they can be presented to authority leaders in early february. Will reportedly include a mechanism designed to allow Rail North to directly invest additional funds in the franchises without being penalised (i.e. extra revenues generated taken by the Dft) and to allow Rail North to easily commision additional services on top of the baseline franchise spec.

 

[northwichcat]

A news story relating to Rail North has been circulated basically confirming that Rail North has formally entered in to a partnership with DfT for the renewal of the Northern and TransPennine rail franchises. Further details: http://www.railnorth.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Developing-the-Rail-North-Partnership.pdf

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

That meeting was supposed to have been held last Friday, 24th January. When will the outcome be in the public domain ?

 

[WatcherZero]

So basically a Rail North team will be embedded in the Dft during franchising and they will jointly run franchise procurement. After completion Rail North will be solely in charge of managing the franchises with Dft observers. Rail North/Dft deal expected to be signed in May and Rail North becomes officially active in July (as opposed to its current shadow form). Public consultation on what shape and objectives for the franchises will be held at some point between now and summer, likely immediately after the signing.