Northern/TPE refranchising

Status
Not open for further replies.

WatcherZero

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2010
Messages
9,428
TfGM, West Yorkshire PTE and South Yorkshire PTE have got together and agreed a framework for the rail refranching (with ongoing input from the dft), they are now going to consult Merseryside, Lancashire and Nexus on their plan then take it to Government for approval. Likely some forum members here may not like the way this is going to work...

* Firstly merge TPE and Northern into one franchise.
* TfGM, WYPTE+York and SYPTE with the majority of services passing through their areas would be senior partners (Core and Founding are used) in the governance of the franchise while the other authorities in the north would be junior partners.
* So they can speak with one voice and quickly propose stuff a formula for risk and cost allocation between the partners will be in place from the start. Each of the Core/Founding members agrees to take on a proportional share of the funding and liability of the franchise underwriting.
* The Franchise will cover 19 unitaries, 9 shires, 5 PTEs and Scotland, because not all will have capability to provide the same financial or planning contribution as the big three they wont be required to, instead there will be a two tier body with the senior partners who are willing to underwrite the franchise and the juniors who will express their desires and concerns or may be willing to contribute financially to particular schemes.
* Will be governed by a board with the following makeup, an independent chair appointed by the founding partners, the core members (including founding members) who would each have voting rights equal to the number of services in their area. Non voting members selected by the junior partners who havent assumed financial commitments and a minority dft vote.
* Propose a 7 year franchise with 3 year extension, this is because next few years will see a big shakeup and to allow governance arrangements to bed in. A longer franchise of around 15 years may be let afterwards once their happy with the setup.
* The Dft doesnt want to have to represent the smaller authorities in the franchise area on the board and want a hands off role, they are considering hiving off a small number of routes to other franchises which are not physically or economically relevant to the core members.
* The board would set a long term strategy and control planning and franchise specification including outside their geographic area (subject to consulting the local authorities concerned) as well as monitoring the incumbent franchise.
* Again two tier system, the core members and those voluntarily wishing to put their money where their mouth is who would have to demonstrate competence in transport planning and economic planning before they can recieve voting rights.
* Since the Northern franchise is heavily subsidised the government funding for the board to invest and subsidise services is equal to that the Dft would have provided if it was solely in charge.
* The board may borrow to invest to get services improved faster and Government has agreed to consider funding some infrastructure investments which reduce the upkeep cost of the railway.
* What their looking at investment wise is additional rolling stock, Northern Hub and further improvements leading on from it, multimodal smart ticketing across the whole franchise area, replacement of life expired rolling stock, refurbishment of rolling stock, station improvements such as parking, ticketing/retail, passenger security, service information. More station adoption schemes, more electrification, possible tram-train schemes.
http://www.agma.gov.uk/cms_media/files/8_devolution_of_rail_re_franchising_in_north_of_england.pdf
And you may find these maps useful...
http://www.projectmapping.co.uk/Reviews/Resources/Northern network_map_jan_20.pdf
http://www.tpexpress.co.uk/media/47408/map_geo_oct2011_continuing.pdf


Anyone able to work out approximatly the voting share TfGM, WYPTE+York and SYPTE would each have?
 
Last edited:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Joined
8 Jun 2009
Messages
525
I think the core members should have an equal say, not based on the number of services which seems rather circumstantial.

I like the overall idea though.
 

ivanhoe

Member
Joined
15 Jul 2009
Messages
908
Given the size of subsidy required on this franchise, there is no way that the DFT will let the PTE's have a considerable input and power without them having some sort of casting vote. As for the nonsense of the concept of certain PTE's being senior partners, how about all PTe'S including the County Councils have equal input? Merseytravel, NEXUS , Cheshire , Lancashire , and the other Counties outside of the PTE's cannot be excluded from this.

PTE's have a duty to look after all aspects of transport, including buses.
 

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
14,669
Location
Mold, Clwyd
Glad to see there is some creative thinking going on, at least.
Mapping it onto the real railway, though, will not be easy.
This is basically an east-west mega-franchise.
It recognises the south-north nature of EC/XC running through the area, but curiously not that of the WCML which is ignored (Crewe-Preston-Carlisle).
NR is also aligned LNE/LNW with the long-distance franchises.
Merseyside is not yet on board which is rather important for the model to work.

Schemes like this always have trouble with boundaries.
You can already see Norwich-Liverpool not fitting the model, along with the northern fringe of EMT.
Other Regional services which do not fit the model include Manchester-North/South Wales and Liverpool-Birmingham.
I would detach TP Scottish services and give to ICWC to simplify the map, or have some joint services with Scotrail.
I can see the shire counties (eg E/W Cheshire) being lukewarm.
Will places like Notts, Derby even get a vote?
On the other hand they will bear little of the risk.

We could call it the Lancashire & Yorkshire franchise and pretend the last 100 years never happened...

And the linked document is dated next week!
 

aformeruser

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
30,637
I would detach TP Scottish services and give to ICWC to simplify the map, or have some joint services with Scotrail.
I don't think the Liverpool-Newcastle fast will fit in with local stoppers either. It would fit better with EC or XC. Incidentally the XC franchise can be terminated early in 2013 if DfT isn't satisfied that Arriva have met their targets,

I can see the shire counties (eg E/W Cheshire) being lukewarm.
Isn't that the case already?

And the linked document is dated next week!
That quite often happens with TfGM documents. They date them for a meeting date but release them in advance of the meeting.
 

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
16,165
Location
Yorkshire, Yorkshire, Yorkshire
the XC franchise can be terminated early in 2013 if DfT isn't satisfied that Arriva have met their targets
Do you mean not supplying WiFi in time, or something more serious?

Minor things like puncuality/ reliability etc seem pretty reasonable (certainly compared to the nature of the franchise/ how Virgin performed).
 

aformeruser

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
30,637
Do you mean not supplying WiFi in time, or something more serious?
WiFi wasn't mentioned on the press release at the time.

DfT said:
The new franchise will begin on 11th November 2007 and end on 1st April 2016. DfT has the right to terminate the franchise after six years if the operator fails to meet agreed performance targets. Over the life of the franchise (eight years and four months) DfT will pay a subsidy of £1.056 bn (NPV) to Arriva.

1. The contract will deliver increased capacity, better performance and improved customer services. Passengers will benefit from:

* 40 extra train carriages for operation on long distance services, using High Speed Trains (HSTs), refurbished to the standard of the existing Voyager Trains. This, together with internal changes to the current fleet of Voyager trains, will provide nearly 3,000 more seats each day on the busiest routes at the busiest times. Internal changes on the Voyager trains will also provide for a 20-25% increase in luggage storage space;
* Increased staff visibility with the busiest long distance services having at least three members of staff passing through the train;
* A new web-based ticketing system which will be introduced from December 2009;
* Refurbished Class 170 units on Birmingham - Stansted and Cardiff - Nottingham services including extra seats, and first class on all trains;
* Help and advice for passengers who need to change trains.

2. Revenue share arrangements are as follows: if actual revenue out-turns between 102% and 106% of target revenue, then 50% of the excess between 102% and 106% will be shared with DfT. If it out-turns above 106%, then 80% of the further excess will be shared with DfT.

Revenue support arrangements are as follows: if actual revenue out-turns between 94% and 98% of target revenue, then DfT will provide support equivalent to 50% of the shortfall between 98% and 94%. If it out-turns below 94%, then DfT will provide support equivalent to 80% of the further shortfall. Revenue support arrangements only apply after the first four years of the franchise. - Could this lead to Arriva wanting to terminate early if revenue is lower than expected?

3. The current operator of the Cross Country Franchise is CrossCountry Trains Limited, a subsidiary of Virgin Rail Group Limited. The current operator of the Central Franchise is Central Trains Limited, a subsidiary of National Express Group plc.

4. The parties invited to submit bids for the New Cross Country franchise were Arriva Trains Cross Country Limited (Arriva plc), First Cross Country Limited (First Group plc), NXC Trains Limited (National Express Group plc); Virgin Voyager Trains Limited (Virgin Rail Group Limited).

5. Performance - Arriva is committed to a 25% reduction in delay minutes attributed to the TOC by the end of the franchise.

6. The new passenger refund system, Delay/Repay, will compensate season ticket holders for delays to journeys they have actually taken, not on the basis of overall performance. This is the same compensation system as currently operates for single, return and weekly ticket holders. Refunds will be on the basis of the proportional daily cost of season tickets, with a 50% single refund for delays of 30-59 minutes, 100% single refund for delays of 60-119 minutes, and 100% return refund for delays of 120 minutes+. This system will be rolled out nationally during the term of each new franchise.
 

Gareth

Member
Joined
10 Mar 2011
Messages
859
Location
Liverpool
It doesn't sound at all fair that three other PTE's (or whatever they are these days) should run Liverpool's eastern commuter services, nor the intercitys.

There may be some scope for the PTEs to have more say over commuter rail in and around their areas. If not metropolitan franchises, then at least some specification within the wider nothern franchise in terms of services, branding etc. Certainly, the 'City Line' here could do with better branding and with electric trains on the way, now could be a good time to work on that. I kinda to miss the PTE-liveried pacers too.
 

WatcherZero

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2010
Messages
9,428
It doesn't sound at all fair that three other PTE's (or whatever they are these days) should run Liverpool's eastern commuter services, nor the intercitys.
Merseyside will be invited to join in as long as they pledge to take on a proportional share of the costs and liabilities of the franchise.



Manchester prepares bid for rail franchise control

18 May 2012, 12:13


Rail services across the north could be controlled by local authorities in the Greater Manchester Combined Authority under terms being discussed with Department for Transport.

GMCA is proposing to set up a franchisor body with neighbouring authorities in West Yorkshire and South Yorkshire, sharing financial risk and operational responsibilities.

The Northern and Transpennine franchises could be re-let by the new body as one franchise starting in 2014 or 2015.

Currently, local passenger transport executives such as Transport for Greater Manchester are co-signatories to the franchises but final decisions on specification and funding rest with DfT.

In a board paper to be put to the GMCA on Friday 25 May, TfGM managers Darren Kirkham and Stephen Clark describe an initial seven-year franchise, and argue that local control would enable services and budgets to take account of "new rail infrastructure such as the Northern Hub or electrification; rolling stock changes, related to electrification and replacement; Network Rail's decentralisation agenda".

Talks are likely to begin in the autumn with DfT over a financial settlement to pay for the significant running costs, currently met by DfT centrally. Discussions will also begin with authorities in Lancashire, Merseyside and the North East over integrating transport plans.

The report goes on: "Government has announced significant capital expenditure on the northern rail network over the next seven years, notably in the form of electrification and elements of the Northern Hub scheme. These improvements will deliver significant capacity enhancements and devolution is intended to allow parties the ability to influence how that capacity is best utilised in support of our economic objectives. Securing a franchise of seven years in length will allow the full financial implications of the capacity enhancements to be established and may then put all parties in a stronger position to determine the benefit of a longer franchise of up to 15 years once this period of significant change of the railway is concluded."

GMCA said £1bn of capital work is planned for the next seven years directly in rail infrastructure in the north of England. Projects include the Northern Hub capacity expansion, Lancashire electrification and the Transpennine electrification.
http://www.placenorthwest.co.uk/new...-prepares-bid-for-rail-franchise-control.html
 

Waverley125

Member
Joined
2 Sep 2008
Messages
1,003
Location
Leeds, West Yorkshire
A different proposal

* Keep TPE separate from Northern's other services, or potentially incorporate into the XC service map (if so, along with Liverpool-Norwich). Transfer Manchester Airport-Scotland to ICWC

*Split northern's 'suburban' services amongst the PTEs i.e. Nexus, WYPTE, TfGM, Merseyrail and SYPTE take over their lines. Some lines (e.g. Leeds-Sheffield, both routes) run jointly, all others singly.

*remaining services to retain the name 'Northern', and be a mainly regional, medium-distance franchise, e.g. Leeds-Nottingham, Leeds-Carlisle, Manchester-Sheffield, York-Blackpool.
 

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
16,165
Location
Yorkshire, Yorkshire, Yorkshire
A different proposal

* Keep TPE separate from Northern's other services, or potentially incorporate into the XC service map (if so, along with Liverpool-Norwich). Transfer Manchester Airport-Scotland to ICWC

*Split northern's 'suburban' services amongst the PTEs i.e. Nexus, WYPTE, TfGM, Merseyrail and SYPTE take over their lines. Some lines (e.g. Leeds-Sheffield, both routes) run jointly, all others singly.

*remaining services to retain the name 'Northern', and be a mainly regional, medium-distance franchise, e.g. Leeds-Nottingham, Leeds-Carlisle, Manchester-Sheffield, York-Blackpool.
The problem is that very few services are self contained within PTE boundaries. There are none entirely within Nexus's jurisdiction, only an hourly service (in one direction!) within SYPTE's boundaries, many West Yorkshire services cross over into Harrogate/ Skipton/ Greater Manchester/ South Yorkshire etc.

There are some services that are wholly within Manchester, but that's still a minority (and ignores the Cheshire/ Derbyshire/ Merseyside/ Lancashire ones.

This leads us to have several TOCs each with their own fleets, their own priorities, their own spending... nightmare! The more I think about PTE control, the happier I am with the current arrangement (unless we get a "super PTE")
 

VTPreston_Tez

Established Member
Joined
26 Jan 2012
Messages
1,159
Location
Preston
I think:
For local stopping services keep Northern but make the franchise split into Northwestern and Northeastern as Northern is a really big franchise.
For faster services such as Barrow-Buxton and Blackpool-Liverpool/York transfer into a new franchise which would merge with Transpenninewhich would also consist of Preston-Manchester fast services via Wigan (stopper via Adlington to remain under Northwestern)
Also creating intercity services under Northern routes may be an idea, for
 

WatcherZero

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2010
Messages
9,428
I think this really is the first step towards a northern super pte. While initially they are only going to be focussed on rail when they start working on multi modal tickets and complementary services they are rapidly going to find their having to plan things which incorporate other forms of transport.
 

John55

Member
Joined
24 Jun 2011
Messages
800
Location
South East
It doesn't sound at all fair that three other PTE's (or whatever they are these days) should run Liverpool's eastern commuter services, nor the intercitys.

There may be some scope for the PTEs to have more say over commuter rail in and around their areas. If not metropolitan franchises, then at least some specification within the wider nothern franchise in terms of services, branding etc. Certainly, the 'City Line' here could do with better branding and with electric trains on the way, now could be a good time to work on that. I kinda to miss the PTE-liveried pacers too.
Is it any worse than DfT running them?

The point of the document is to create an organisation which can enter into a contract with the TOC. The core membership will be those organisations which pay the cost of the franchise which will include Merseytravel.

One key part are the two sections dealing with finance. If the DfT release the money to the local authorities so they can finance the railway services then Merseytravel will be paying for and specifying the services in its area (as will WYITA, SYITA, TfGM and any other statutary body) and the new organisation will negotiate the deal with the TOC.
 

Waverley125

Member
Joined
2 Sep 2008
Messages
1,003
Location
Leeds, West Yorkshire
The problem is that very few services are self contained within PTE boundaries. There are none entirely within Nexus's jurisdiction, only an hourly service (in one direction!) within SYPTE's boundaries, many West Yorkshire services cross over into Harrogate/ Skipton/ Greater Manchester/ South Yorkshire etc.

There are some services that are wholly within Manchester, but that's still a minority (and ignores the Cheshire/ Derbyshire/ Merseyside/ Lancashire ones.

This leads us to have several TOCs each with their own fleets, their own priorities, their own spending... nightmare! The more I think about PTE control, the happier I am with the current arrangement (unless we get a "super PTE")
....well then you make the PTE areas bigger then.
 

WatcherZero

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2010
Messages
9,428
Rail routes are so long you would really need a coast to coast PTE to encompass them all. What these three PTE's are doing is just that, creating an organisation that can control all of their combined area and beyond.
 

IanXC

Emeritus Moderator
Joined
18 Dec 2009
Messages
5,814
The Localism Act does allow local authorities to create, merge and amend Integrated Transport Authority areas should they agree to do so.

So there is at least now a legal process defined to allow such a "super PTE" to be created.

Its interesting to see how York City Council seem to be working closely with WYPTE on a number of issues, I would not be surprised to see them join the PTE - although there are of course geographical problems!
 

aformeruser

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
30,637
One key part are the two sections dealing with finance. If the DfT release the money to the local authorities so they can finance the railway services then Merseytravel will be paying for and specifying the services in its area (as will WYITA, SYITA, TfGM and any other statutary body) and the new organisation will negotiate the deal with the TOC.
The issue to overcome is the many lines that serve 2 PTE areas (sometimes with a non-PTE bit in the middle) and the lines that aren't in PTE areas.

Warrington Central has had station improvements as a result of it being a TPE managed station and TPE having station improvements in the franchise commitment. There's similar sized Northern managed stations outside of PTE areas that have not seen such improvements.
 

John55

Member
Joined
24 Jun 2011
Messages
800
Location
South East
The issue to overcome is the many lines that serve 2 PTE areas (sometimes with a non-PTE bit in the middle) and the lines that aren't in PTE areas.

Warrington Central has had station improvements as a result of it being a TPE managed station and TPE having station improvements in the franchise commitment. There's similar sized Northern managed stations outside of PTE areas that have not seen such improvements.
Presumably this is because Warrington Borough Council (or Cheshire CC) successfully lobbied the DfT to have this put in the franchise back in 2003/4. There will be nothing to stop something similar happening if the new body is negotiating the franchise with the new TOC.
 

Lampshade

Established Member
Joined
3 Sep 2009
Messages
3,574
Location
South London
It doesn't sound at all fair that three other PTE's (or whatever they are these days) should run Liverpool's eastern commuter services, nor the intercitys.

There may be some scope for the PTEs to have more say over commuter rail in and around their areas. If not metropolitan franchises, then at least some specification within the wider nothern franchise in terms of services, branding etc. Certainly, the 'City Line' here could do with better branding and with electric trains on the way, now could be a good time to work on that. I kinda to miss the PTE-liveried pacers too.
Once the lines between Lime Street, Wigan, Warrington and Manchester Victoria are electrified, I'd be in favour of handing City Line services over to Merseyrail. Merseytravel won't then need to be part of the 'super PTE' because it'd be running all its own services.
 

John55

Member
Joined
24 Jun 2011
Messages
800
Location
South East
Once the lines between Lime Street, Wigan, Warrington and Manchester Victoria are electrified, I'd be in favour of handing City Line services over to Merseyrail. Merseytravel won't then need to be part of the 'super PTE' because it'd be running all its own services.
All of the "City Line" services are cross boundary, some of them several boundaries, so you could then create the same issue in reverse. We don't want to go back to most services terminating at Newton - le - Willows rather than running on to Manchester.

Moreover the franchise will include Liverpool - Manchester - Leeds - York etc services and possibly the Liverpool - Manchester - Bradford - Leeds services too. Why would Merseytravel not want to be involved?

The organisations involved in managing the new "Northern" franchise are the same ones who brought about the Northern Hub project so similar co-operation in the future can only be beneficial.

The document was written for the TGfM Committee and naturally is very focused on the Greater Manchester aspects. If the proposal goes ahead there will be a lot more detail to be worked out as noted in the paper and that will be rather more interesting.
 

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
16,165
Location
Yorkshire, Yorkshire, Yorkshire
....well then you make the PTE areas bigger then.
...in which case you need to get people in North Yorkshire/ Derbyshire/ Cheshire/ Lancashire to pay for the PTEs - plus there's the democratic issue of those from the "rural" counties paying for PTEs controlled by "metropolitan" areas that they have no control over (see also the Wales & Borders franchise being controlled by politicians in Cardiff Bay who the people of Shropshire/ Cheshire etc have no control over).

One "super PTE" or nothing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top