• 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!

Northern and TPE Consultation Document

Status
Not open for further replies.

Harpers Tate

Established Member
Joined
10 May 2013
Messages
1,709
...so any station used under 500 times a year (Hensall 254, Rawcliffe 248) doesn't even have one person relying on it to work each day. Is that really the best use of mass transportation?
No, it isn't. But, if you were a commuter and you had a SINGLE choice of train to get home on - or wait 24 hrs till the next - would you choose to commute by train?

Unless you had extremely reliable and consistent working hours; were able and willing to simply hang up the phone mid-conversation if it were 5pm, in order to catch the one and only train home, you'd be foolhardy to rely on this as amode of transoprt. The service as it is, is practically useless and low usage numbers are thus hardly surprising.

I am not claiming that more trains would make the station and route more worthwhile because I don't know. A well informed, not politically motivated, latent demand study is the only way to evaluate it.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Philip

On Moderation
Joined
27 May 2007
Messages
3,648
Location
Manchester
Will Northern be taking over Manchester Airport to Blackpool when the new franchise starts in early 2016? If so will we see a similar arrangement to when TPE 'hired' 11 class 175s a day from ATW to operate the NW services, this time Northern hiring 185s from TPE? (This until electrification)
 

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
19,707
Location
Mold, Clwyd
Will Northern be taking over Manchester Airport to Blackpool when the new franchise starts in early 2016? If so will we see a similar arrangement to when TPE 'hired' 11 class 175s a day from ATW to operate the NW services, this time Northern hiring 185s from TPE? (This until electrification)

All options are possible, including Northern becoming a 185 operator and sharing the fleet (with TPE getting new electrics).
The transfer of services between Northern and TPE is not confirmed yet - we'll know in the ITT due in December.
 

pemma

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
31,474
Location
Knutsford
Will Northern be taking over Manchester Airport to Blackpool when the new franchise starts in early 2016? If so will we see a similar arrangement to when TPE 'hired' 11 class 175s a day from ATW to operate the NW services, this time Northern hiring 185s from TPE? (This until electrification)

You may recall it was more complicated than that. Initially TPE took over the Manchester Airport to Cumbria routes, while FNW and then Northern kept the Manchester Airport to Blackpool route until a later date so there were technically 3 operators sharing the de-branded 175s at one stage.

One of the proposed options is TPE running Liverpool-Nottingham. If that was to happen it probably wouldn't be an overnight change. The route would have to be split at a timetable change date - not February 2015. Also there are plans for platform lengthening at stations like Widnes and Liverpool South Parkway to be able to take 6 car 185s but initially there wouldn't be 185s available to operate on that route. So the 158s that would likely stay on that route initially. Maybe they'd be subleased from EMT but then maybe they'd transfer to Northern and be subleased to TPE until North TPE electrification?

I think it's probable the proposed options will go ahead unless there is too much objection to them in the consultation. One thing the consultation stresses is that putting a route in to the Northern franchise doesn't mean it can't be treated as a regional route.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
39,058
Location
Yorks
There are over fifty stations that have under a thousand "journeys" a year - i.e. the equivalent of two passengers who use the station to work five days a week - which seems to be a reasonable benchmark (since "departing passengers per day" is a much simpler figure to use - avoids double counting etc).

I think that you could cut most of these poorly used stations without it significantly impacting upon any stations that have over 10,000 journeys a year.

I don't think that anyone is talking about cutting any stations that see 10,000 journeys a year - there are many much weaker stations than those.

OK then, bear in mind that the consultation specifically asks "What are your views on giving priority to improving the quality of the Northern rolling stock at the expense of some reduction in lightly used services", when we've cut Reddish South, Kirton Linsey and Acklington and we've discovered that Northern hasn't been flooded with riches beyond the dreams of avarice, enough to buy and run the new trains, what "lightly used services" do you suppose they are going to reduce ?

And, you're assuming that the site for the station is the heart of the "community" - many towns/ villages are centred nowhere near the station (which is why the station struggles for passengers).

This is true, but it's not the only factor here. I walk fifteen minutes to my local station. I could get a bus from two minutes outside my door, but it would still take me twice as long to get to Leeds!

I think that you are being a tad alarmist. It should be possible to talk about closing Tees-Valley Airport station without it meaning closing significantly bigger stations.

If the railway is sacred, and we cannot close any station without people invoking the spectre of much wider closures then we might as well forget about adjusting to modern demands and keep running a railway based upon the 1960s (or the 1860s).

Well, I see your point to an extent, and I don't doubt we could get by without Tees Side Airport, however, it does rather remind me of how every route closed by Beeching is characterised as a meandering country branchline with a tank engine and single carriage chuffing up and down with one man and his dog. You can't blame me for my cynicism. Cutting stations with less than 1000 entries and exits isn't going to save the money, so what are they going to cut ?

I don't like the sound of this: "The function of each train service will be assessed in the context of the local community and economy it serves,
additions or reductions to the service being evaluated using standard economic appraisal techniques"

Could these be the same standard evaluation techniques that are so rubbish at capturing social need and wider economic benefits to the community in reopening proposals ? Heaven help us.

Partly because a large number of poorly used Northern stations are on lines where we need to run a special service just to keep the station "alive", like the Stockport - Stalybridge service or the extension beyond Knottingley to Goole. A lot more effort to keep a failing station on "life support" when you factor in the expense of a dedicated train service too (rather than just the dwell time on an existing service).

Partly because most of the poorly used Northern stations are in areas with alternative public transport (in fact, often quite close to other train stations). If you close Sugar Loaf then you may leave a big gap on the map without public transport - if you close Reddish South and Denton then there are plenty of existing alternatives.

I think that IanXC's figures are important.

If one person uses a station to and from work five days a week then they are going to be making approximately 500 "journeys" at that station a year (i.e. going to work around 250 times, returning 250 times)...

...so any station used under 500 times a year (Hensall 254, Rawcliffe 248) doesn't even have one person relying on it to work each day. Is that really the best use of mass transportation?

I also think these figures from IanXC are particularly important.

I've been repeating throughout my post "what are they going to cut". Well, one of the other proposals they're considering is considering "where weekend services provide poor value for the subsidy required to operate them". The fact remains that outside of work travel, leisure is one of the main sources of railway travel and weekend services are the key to this. If you start chopping away at weekend, not to mention evening services, you end up with a situation like Knottingley - Goole. History has shown that relying on weekday commuters does not reduce subsidy, otherwise why did NSE spend so much effort generating off peak travel. The consultation appears to me to be considering a return to the most underhand "closure by stealth" methods of the past.

No wonder I'm alarmed !
 

Starmill

Veteran Member
Joined
18 May 2012
Messages
23,396
Location
Bolton
Indeed. Given the number of stations in the current Northern franchise which are not served on Sundays at all and are still growing a little in terms of passenger numbers...

If they could just ensure that 7 Day service is required at every station, that would be a start.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
39,058
Location
Yorks
Subsidy can be reduced by growing farebox revenue as well as by cutting costs. We are in a time of growth in rail travel, very different from the 1960s. Lack of capacity is becoming an issue on many lines. Cutting intermediate stops can enable more frequent, quicker services using longer trains to carry more people buying more tickets. Also the guard has more time between stops to inspect and sell tickets, so reducing ticketless travel.

There's a limit to how much you can achieve to speeding up services this way. Seems to be a sticking plaster for the real improvements some of these lines need. Take Whitby. Many of the trains I travel on are already bursting at the seems. Even if marginally reducing journey times did bring in large numbers of extra passengers, you'd just be left with more overcrowding. It's a fig leaf hiding the better frequencies that would really improve usage of the route.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
If they could just ensure that 7 Day service is required at every station, that would be a start.

Yes, that would certainly help. You only have to look at Sunday usage of the Atherton line since the service was reintroduced.

(If they could start with the Cumbrian coast :D)
 

Starmill

Veteran Member
Joined
18 May 2012
Messages
23,396
Location
Bolton
Even Teesside Airport?

Why not? It sends a message doesn't it? Stop one train there every day rather than only on one day of the week - just as you stop 23 trains at Belle Vue on a Saturday 23 trains should stop there on a Sunday (or if not, as many trains as run on that line), rather than the current 0.

I note there have recently been an awful lot of stations opening for the first time on a Sunday in years and years in Scotland - the whole of the Maryhill line being an example.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
If the service between principal stations can be improved, in speed and/or frequency, by reducing intermediate stops, that will stimulate modal shift to the railway which may far outweigh the loss of passengers from the lightly-used stations (some of whom will drive to the nearest main station instead).

Most of our stations were constructed in the 19th century when travel patterns were considerably different to today's. Just because, 150 years ago, a particular village successfully lobbied (or blackmailed!) a railway promoter to get its own station, it does not follow that that station must necessarily have an hourly service in perpetuity, regardless of the subsidy required.

Which village currently has an hourly service that you think might deserve it's station closing...?

I can't think of any lines where skipping little-used stations to improve the journeytime is really going to help...
 
Last edited:

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
27,686
Location
Redcar
Why not? It sends a message doesn't it? Stop one train there every day rather than only on one day of the week

Why though? What message does it send?

The station is not situated near any major (or minor) populations and any that exist will use Dinsdale just down the road which is actually close to where people live (and already has a reasonable service). The airport itself only has two or three flights per day and anyone with any sense drives to the airport as the station is located a considerable walk from the terminal. Further having a train in one direction isn't much use as most people who fly out tend to fly back so do you call the train to allow people to get to the airport to catch a flight or to meet people who've flown in?

It makes no sense, whatsoever, to call more trains there until either a) the airport has more flights and provides a shuttle between station and terminal or b) they build a housing estate right next to the station as is occasionally planned.
 

Starmill

Veteran Member
Joined
18 May 2012
Messages
23,396
Location
Bolton
Why though? What message does it send?

The station is not situated near any major (or minor) populations and any that exist will use Dinsdale just down the road which is actually close to where people live (and already has a reasonable service). The airport itself only has two or three flights per day and anyone with any sense drives to the airport as the station is located a considerable walk from the terminal. Further having a train in one direction isn't much use as most people who fly out tend to fly back so do you call the train to allow people to get to the airport to catch a flight or to meet people who've flown in?

It makes no sense, whatsoever, to call more trains there until either a) the airport has more flights and provides a shuttle between station and terminal or b) they build a housing estate right next to the station as is occasionally planned.

In this specific case, that's all true. I have been to the station and am well aware of the state of play on that line :D However, Belle Vue and all other stations like it should clearly have a Sunday service (there are better examples; perhaps Pemberton and Orrell would do well) but where does one draw the line? I don't know where it should be drawn, but I do agree that specifically Teeside Airport is on the useless side of it (so the train shouldn't stop at all - only enthusiasts every use the station, as was evidenced by my visit there). But where is said line? Denton and Reddish South are on the useless side of it if a return service isn't provided as you say, but they are far from in the same boat as Teeside Airport. That's why I said, for simplicity, the new franchise should just include specifications for 7 Day services.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
39,058
Location
Yorks
It makes no sense, whatsoever, to call more trains there until either a) the airport has more flights and provides a shuttle between station and terminal or b) they build a housing estate right next to the station as is occasionally planned.

Although, if you believe there's any chance that either of those things might happen, you're better off at least keeping the parliamentary service as if you closed it, you'd be forced to rebuild the platform and the cost of that would probably be prohibitively expensive.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,930
Location
Nottingham
Why not? It sends a message doesn't it?

The message it sends is "Why does this train stop at this stupid station that nobody ever uses - it's so slow that I'll go by car next time". Or even "I saw there was an airport station so I took the train there with a load of luggage on the way to my holiday and ended up having to walk two miles".

Having said that I do agree that there are relatively few lightly used stations on Northern and cutting some stops wouldn't make a huge difference to the economics. The biggest difference would probably be new/refurbished stock on the busiest routes to improve capacity and quality and therefore increase passenger numbers, as well as providing some justification to increase the fares. Along with operating economies which are being discussed elsewhere.

Isn't the transfer of Blackpool from TPE to Northern in part a response to the loss of TPE's 170s? As 319s come on stream they will displace some of Northern's existing DMU fleet which in turn will allow 185s to take over the 170 diagrams. If I'm right in this it makes it unlikely that there will be enough 185s spare to take over any Northern or EMT routes until the Manchester-Leeds electrification is complete. It probably also means that Blackpool will keep 319s long-term (hopefully at least a sub-fleet refurbished with a medium-distance interior) instead of being served by whatever operates TPE's electrified routes.
 

Class83

Member
Joined
8 Jun 2012
Messages
494
Looking at the proposed increase in North TPE to 6 trains per hour I'm left wondering if the Liverpool-Manchester-Leeds-??? service could be increased to 4tph. Would give a turn up and go service similar to the Scotrail EGIP service and deliver most of the benefits of a dedicated high speed line without spending money that will never materialise. How feasible is reducing the current ~50minute journey time from Leeds-Manchester? The other 2 services could do the intermediate stops and Manchester Airport.
 

Carlisle

Established Member
Joined
26 Aug 2012
Messages
4,134
You may recall it was more complicated than that. Initially TPE took over the Manchester Airport to Cumbria routes, while FNW and then Northern kept the Manchester Airport to Blackpool route until a later date so there were technically 3 operators sharing the de-branded 175s at one stage.

One of the proposed options is TPE running Liverpool-Nottingham. If that was to happen it probably wouldn't be an overnight change. The route would have to be split at a timetable change date - not February 2015. Also there are plans for platform lengthening at stations like Widnes and Liverpool South Parkway to be able to take 6 car 185s but initially there wouldn't be 185s available to operate on that route. So the 158s that would likely stay on that route initially. Maybe they'd be subleased from EMT but then maybe they'd transfer to Northern and be subleased to TPE until North TPE electrification?

I think it's probable the proposed options will go ahead unless there is too much objection to them in the consultation. One thing the consultation stresses is that putting a route in to the Northern franchise doesn't mean it can't be treated as a regional route.
In most cases wont a reasonably priced ,fairly frequent ,clean, modern or decently refurbished, reliable train service be pretty popular with the majority of punters no matter who runs it now of in 10 years time ?:D
 
Last edited:

pemma

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
31,474
Location
Knutsford
From The Guardian Blog

Paul Salveson said:
In the next few weeks, we have a huge opportunity to influence the future shape of railways, and the economy, in the north.

The government is asking rail passengers in the north what improvements they want for services across the region ahead of reletting the Northern and TransPennine Express franchises in February 2016. It is important that all of us think beyond our own parochial interests and put forward some well-argued, strategic ideas, rather than accept what the government describes as "trade-offs", such as closing booking offices, cutting services and taking conductors off trains. Those are not "trade-offs", they are cuts. Instead, we should be coming up with some ways of running services more innovatively.

Stations as small businesses

There's a suggestion in the consultation documents published by the Department for Transport on 9 June 2014 that booking offices could be closed or their opening hours reduced. That shows a lack of imagination. It would be absurd to imagine petrol stations as being places where you could buy only petrol, so why do station booking officessell only tickets?

If they are going to survive in the internet age, with more and more tickets being purchased by other means, they have to change. Bring on community hubs, where you can enjoy a range of facilities and buy the sort of things you'd get in a convenience store. Safety and security would come naturally with this approach, not enforced by hideous CCTV cameras.

We should also be talking about bringing people back to stations, not de-staffing them. Where there's no station building – no problem! Bring in a prefabricated building, connect it up to services and get a local small business – maybe a social enterprise – to run it.

Instead of letting go of highly-committed staff who run booking offices at smaller stations, give them a chance to do more. Let them sell other products and make the booking office into a local shop. Change the shape of the booking office to allow that. Let the station staff take a portion of the profits on what gets sold. More radical, trial the handing over of the running of some stations to small co-ops of staff who are willing to give it a go. By building up stations as small businesses there is the chance of longer opening hours and more staff employed – not fewer. Involve the community as well – sell local produce, and meet local needs.

Link up train and bus services

We need to get much, much better at integration. Long waits for connections aren't acceptable and depress rail travel. If we just see local train services as a nuisance that get in the way of longer-distance services, they will never prosper. There's lots we can do to promote better bus/rail connections, including ensuring that the new franchises include better links. Some examples could include journeys between Penrith and Keswick, or between Windermere, Ambleside and Grasmere.

New trains

We've got to get new trains for the North, so let's build them in the North. Euskotren, owned by the Basque government, made absolutely sure that the new trains it was procuring for the regionally-owned line would be built in the Basque country. They did it within EU procurement rules and we should do the same.

Rail North is talking about setting up a company to own its own trains. This is great and would give the rolling-stock companies that own the trains a run for their money and bring down costs of train leasing. Don't scrap the old "Pacer" trains – reconfigure them for tourist routes with lots of space for bikes and luggage.

New franchise

The new franchises need to be different and act in a really transformational way. Why don't bidders look at partnerships with smaller entities – co-ops and other social enterprises – which would really add value to a more conventional approach. We need to combine the hard commercial skills which are well-honed by the "usual suspects" with creativity, social responsibility and sheer bloody enthusiasm. Northern is a huge franchise covering a massive area. Decentralise. Give local managers – and all employees – real responsibility to try things, make mistakes, do things differently.

Keep passengers safe

On-train staff could do more and we need to have a debate about what the future role of a conductor should be, with a change of emphasis from operational to commercial. There are all sorts of good reasons for keeping a second person on the train and passenger security is a critical one. I'd be quite happy to hand over responsibility for opening and closing doors to the driver if it can be done safely, allowing the conductor to get on with passenger assistance.

Five top points for the new northern rail franchise:

• Encourage bidders to have social enterprise partners in the actual bid who can help shape the sustainability and community parts of the franchise.

• The invitation to tender should specify that within the first three years of the franchise the operator should have at least 30 new partnerships with small businesses or social enterprises at stations.

• Come up with imaginative proposals for suitable uses for the "Pacer" fleet and build new trains here in the North.

• Suggest ways in which staff at all levels can be given greater responsibility, with local budgets.

• Identify at least 10 train/bus flows that will form a part of the franchise agreement with dedicated connecting services to particular off-rail locations.

Paul Salveson is a board member of Passenger Focus and visiting professor at the University of Huddersfield's department of transport and logistics

http://www.theguardian.com/public-l...er/2014/jul/18/rail-transport-north-new-ideas
 

Carlisle

Established Member
Joined
26 Aug 2012
Messages
4,134
An interesting article with plenty of good ideas but I can't see it being an easy task growing revenue and reducing costs in this way ,if it was them I'm sure a number of our established heritage railways would have allready grasped the initiative and be providing affordable local community based rail transport all year round
 
Last edited:

Philip

On Moderation
Joined
27 May 2007
Messages
3,648
Location
Manchester
Isn't the transfer of Blackpool from TPE to Northern in part a response to the loss of TPE's 170s? As 319s come on stream they will displace some of Northern's existing DMU fleet which in turn will allow 185s to take over the 170 diagrams. If I'm right in this it makes it unlikely that there will be enough 185s spare to take over any Northern or EMT routes until the Manchester-Leeds electrification is complete. It probably also means that Blackpool will keep 319s long-term (hopefully at least a sub-fleet refurbished with a medium-distance interior) instead of being served by whatever operates TPE's electrified routes.

I think that was the original plan but now it seems the 185s will still be operating the Blackpool services possibly up to December 2017 because the Blackpool electrification has been put back a year. By this time it'll only be a year away from the planned date of completion for North TPE electrification. There's also the possibility of TPE/Northern continuing to run a diesel to Barrow from Manchester (either as a regular pattern or a token service in the peaks), if this happens then using 185s is the most logical option.
 
Last edited:

Masboroughlad

Established Member
Joined
2 Mar 2011
Messages
1,562
Location
Midlands
Went to Cleethorpes yesterday. Giving it to Northern and removing long distance services will be another nail in the coffin there. FTPE had made a reasonable job.

It needs to keep Manchester trains and give it some London trains (as part of East Coast not open access).

I would personally make Northern smaller-stoppers and commuter trains. Add all longer distance to inter-urban or intercity TOCs.
 

pemma

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
31,474
Location
Knutsford
The Grimsby Telegraph have been running a campaign for South TPE not to be split up. They've come up with a story about a pensioner from Grimsby who visits his sister in Manchester just four times a year as evidence the through service needs to remain.
 

David Barrett

Member
Joined
9 Mar 2013
Messages
554
The Grimsby Telegraph have been running a campaign for South TPE not to be split up. They've come up with a story about a pensioner from Grimsby who visits his sister in Manchester just four times a year as evidence the through service needs to remain.

Whilst I'm sure that one pensioner does not make a case for retention we must remember that the Grimsby Telegraph is a local paper and such cases are the lifeblood of maximum impact reporting: poor old pensioners, ill treated dogs, and pigeon infestations of the bus station all figure which, to an extent, stir up local feeling hopefully to the point where a few others may join in.

What this case does, to me anyway, represent is the very type of user alluded to by Stephen Abbott of TravelWatch East Midlands in his letter to Modern Railways (P46 August 2014) regarding the "Remapping" of TP. specifically quoting EMT's figures of around 1000 passengers per day travelling across Nottingham on the Norwich-Liverpool route (or three to four trainloads) which fall into the optional VFR market who just will not travel if the through facility no longer exists. Further to this C.A. Potts of the Copeland Rail User's Group discusses rolling stock suitability and train loadings in the Barrow in Furness area, all relevant as they too are part of this process.

I think that this applies just as much with South Trans Penine as is the case with Norwich-Liverpool, Scarborough to Liverpool, Bridlington to Sheffield et al and our elderly friend in Grimsby is typical of a significant group of contributors, not all of whom are elderly either, to revenue who would not travel in the case of having to change and get involved in a wait, possibly a long walk and most certianly a scrum at Doncaster or wherever a change of train has to be made.

What I find wholly disappointing about the affair though is the fact that open support of retention of through services from Lincolnshire(s) has come from the secretary of an East Midlands user group as opposed to a Yorkshire and the Humber advocate. If this is what Rail North, who will have had some influence on policy already, means to a wider Lincolnshire then I must question the sanity of local leaders wanting to be associated with this group.

Turning to the East Midlands would be no panacea for sure, and probably not possible on account of the politicians presiding over the dismemberment of Humberside almost twenty years ago whilst persisting with the concept of a Yorkshire and The Humber region, but it seems that at least there is someone there who is alert to the ongoing process of creating a poor relation periphery whose rail users are deemed worthy of no more than a rag bag of isolated operations.

Welcome to the crumbling edge Grimsby.
 

Wolfie

Established Member
Joined
17 Aug 2010
Messages
6,160
Do we not learn anything from history. Matters are cyclical and a current view of a number of reopened railway stations show usage that was not the case in the station closure programmes of some 50/60 years ago.

I agree BUT budgets are tight now. Is it better to spend scarse money on something which may (or indeed may not) become useful later or on things which are of obvious value now? That is the stark choice.
 

Xenophon PCDGS

Veteran Member
Joined
17 Apr 2011
Messages
32,426
Location
A semi-rural part of north-west England
I agree BUT budgets are tight now. Is it better to spend scarse money on something which may (or indeed may not) become useful later or on things which are of obvious value now? That is the stark choice.

Looking at certain rail-based projects that are currently costing an extremely large amount of money at this present time, your contention that budgets are tight now does not ring true unfortunately.
 

WatcherZero

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2010
Messages
10,272
15 August 2014

RMT Press Office

The Government have admitted in a leaflet, which transport union RMT believes has been withdrawn from public circulation, that the core of their plan for rail services in the North involves service cuts, increased fares, the closure of ticket offices and the axing of staff.


RMT has obtained one copy of what it believes was supposed originally to be a public information leaflet on the future of the Northern and Trans-Pennine Express as part of the consultation that closes on Monday.

The leaflet confirms that the Government, and their front-organisation Rail North, intend to:

• Reduce Northern services…..

• Increase fares…..

• Reduce the hours during which ticket offices are open and staffed…..

• Reducing the number of calls at “low-use” stations….

• “Adjusting” the time of the first/last train…

These are all direct quotes from the bullet points in the leaflet that has been sent to RMT. The latest bombshell information comes as the union steps its fight against the Northern and TP carve up. RMT will deliver nearly ten thousand post cards to the Department of Transport on Monday 18th August as the consultation on the future plans for the Northern and Trans-Pennine Express franchises comes to a close.

The post cards have been collected from angry members of the public at nearly fifty events organised by RMT across the region during the consultation period. The Government, and their front organisation Rail North, have organised a pitiful five “listening” events across the vast area affected without a single event in Cumbria which is hard-hit by the plans. RMT is demanding to know how many responses the shadowy and low-profile “official” consultation has managed to generate.

RMT has already exposed the fact that cheaper, off-peak fares are being axed before the consultation period has come to a close. Under the new arrangements, which have been confirmed to unions and staff this week, from the 8th September off-peak tickets can no longer be used during key times on weekday evenings.

RMT Acting General Secretary Mick Cash said:

“It is disgraceful that plans that will whack up fares, axe jobs and services and reduce both the Northern and Trans-Pennine franchises to an unsafe, money-making racket, are being bulldozed through under cover of a wholly bogus consultation. If RMT officials and activists hadn’t organised almost fifty events, and a major press campaign, the vast majority of people would have known nothing of this huge rail carve-up. It is extraordinary that we have only come across one copy of the supposed Government information leaflet confirming RMT’s view that the consultation, and the key issues behind it, has been deliberately suppressed by the DfT and Rail North.

“We have said all along that the core of the Government’s future plan for Northern and TPE is to axe jobs, throw the guards off the trains and jack up fares while capacity to meet surging rail demand in the area is left to stagnate. That attack on the fare-paying public has already begun and the delivery of nearly ten thousand cards protesting against the plans on Monday is only the start of the RMT-organised fightback.”

Have RMT still not got around to reading the consultation? All their supposed 'revelations' are already in there and even feature amongst the consultation questions?
 

HH

Established Member
Joined
31 Jul 2009
Messages
4,505
Location
Essex
Have RMT still not got around to reading the consultation? All their supposed 'revelations' are already in there and even feature amongst the consultation questions?

I also have to wonder where all these postcards came from. I attended one of these days and the RMT stall nearby appeared to be attracting very little attention. There's members of the public and "members of the public", if you get my drift...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Yes. The last one was before the consultation has started on Northern + TPE, this one was published in the last week.

There's nothing earth-shattering there though; And nothing "transformational" either. In fact many of the suggestions are reminiscent of the ScotRail ITT. It would be no bad thing if DfT were more like TS, but I can't see it happening.
 

David Barrett

Member
Joined
9 Mar 2013
Messages
554
Have RMT still not got around to reading the consultation? All their supposed 'revelations' are already in there and even feature amongst the consultation questions?

At least they have grasped the issue and are taking up a position of advocacy, unlike some council transport officials who thought all the consultation proposed was an exchange of through services between Trans Pennine and Northern but, other than that, with everything else remaining as now, and two of our local Parliamentarians who think that this is a genuine consultation to determine what the travelling public need. Not to mention the misplaced submission of a neighbouring transport user group who propose further dismemberment of some services in an area already affected by the consultation for their own ends.

If they haven't actually read the consultation, which I doubt, they will not be alone, although it is possible to see a number of posterior organs lined up for some sharp penetration.
 

bluenoxid

Established Member
Joined
9 Feb 2008
Messages
2,466
Has anyone submitted through the Survey Monkey method. It went blank after I pressed Done!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top