TFGM press release: Mayor Andy Burnham reveals plans for Bee Network rail to boost passenger numbers and drive Greater Manchester’s growth

[alanbur]

In essence he's just recreating a modern version of the original 1970s Passenger Transport Executive concept. And good on him for it too - the concept was the right one and should never have been messed with.

Oh, is that not still a thing then?

 

[gc4946]

I think Andy Burnham really wants Bee Network trains running as a separate franchise.
Also seeking opportunities ordering new rolling stock, perhaps with provision for driver-only operation, and establishing a new depot.
Northern and other operators will still run into and out of Greater Manchester but adhere to Bee Network fares and conditions when running within the Bee Network area.

 

[YorkRailFan]

A lot of complaints about Northern still running these trains, this is at least a start until Bee Network can potentially run these services on their own. The new ticketing scheme sounds great and is well overdue in GM, and more integration with Metrolink and bus services is always good!

 

[slipdigby]

I think Andy Burnham really wants Bee Network trains running as a separate franchise.
Also seeking opportunities ordering new rolling stock, perhaps with provision for driver-only operation, and establishing a new depot.
Northern and other operators will still run into and out of Greater Manchester but adhere to Bee Network fares and conditions when running within the Bee Network area.

You'll have met our union supported Labour mayor then?

 

[generalnerd]

No, it will be Great British Railways (Northern Division) or something

If they put (northern devsion) in brackets I’ll never take it seriously

 

[gc4946]

A Bee Network franchise would be an ideal clean sheet for new staffing patterns, terms and conditions in tune with running a frequent urban transit service.
Something like a combination of Merseytravel's station staffing hours opening from first service to last train at night, and if not feasible, provision of ticket machines and tap-in/tap-out points mirroring Metrolink's operations.
My hope is that the Bee Network will adopt a similar fleet like a class 755 or 756 bi- or tri-mode Stadler Flirt with level boarding.

 

[noddingdonkey]

Errmm... that's exactly what Burham is addressing here, and he's fixing the most egregious example in the area first, I can't fault him for that. Glossop is 15 miles east of Manchester, there are around 600,000 train journeys a year to/from Manchester. Despite that, because it's in Derbyshire the administrative area is East Midlands (Mayor in Nottingham). Glossop is actually north of many places in Greater Manchester. Our buses have just gone Bee network, the trains are next.

More egrigious than the infamous Greenfield-Marsden rip off?

 

[AlastairFraser]

A Bee Network franchise would be an ideal clean sheet for new staffing patterns, terms and conditions in tune with running a frequent urban transit service.
Something like a combination of Merseytravel's station staffing hours opening from first service to last train at night, and if not feasible, provision of ticket machines and tap-in/tap-out points mirroring Metrolink's operations.
My hope is that the Bee Network will adopt a similar fleet like a class 755 or 756 bi- or tri-mode Stadler Flirt with level boarding.

Even if he starts by splitting off services like Manchester-Glossop/Hadfield with the existing rolling stock into a separate franchise and commits to a 7 day fully staffed railway for each line taken over, it will be a huge improvement (especially with the fare integration). Passenger numbers will rise significantly if people can 1) interchange between some rail lines and Metrolink/buses without a huge fare penalty and 2) the timetable can be relied on, outside of the Monday to Friday peak.

 

[gc4946]

Even if he starts by splitting off services like Manchester-Glossop/Hadfield with the existing rolling stock into a separate franchise and commits to a 7 day fully staffed railway for each line taken over, it will be a huge improvement (especially with the fare integration). Passenger numbers will rise significantly if people can 1) interchange between some rail lines and Metrolink/buses without a huge fare penalty and 2) the timetable can be relied on, outside of the Monday to Friday peak.

I'd start franchising Manchester Piccadilly to Glossop/Hadfield and Rose Hill Marple services. The Rose Hill Marple trains finish earlier than Glossop/Hadfield services, moreover the Rose Hill Marple trains don't run on Sundays!
If Bee Network can get its hands on Anglia Railways' 755s at a stroke they can displace the 150s and 195s and supplement the 323s on the Glossop services. Once more Flirts arrive they due to their superior acceleration allow all services to call at Ashburys, Gorton and Fairfield rather than skip-stopping

 

[Kite159]

I suspect, if anything, Burnham's latest attempts at empire building will just mean the stations get repainted in "Bee Network" colours and being staffed from first to last train, similar to the northern stations in Merseyside on the "City Line". Nothing will change with the rolling stock other than maybe a token livery on a 323 which ends up spending most of it's time away from Hadfield services.

Rather than an Overground style transformation, which benefits from its services being mostly end to end within the TfL area.

Besides, didn't Andy Burnham have something to do with the "Zero Growth" franchise to Northern in 2004?

 

[AlastairFraser]

I'd start franchising Manchester Piccadilly to Glossop/Hadfield and Rose Hill Marple services. The Rose Hill Marple trains finish earlier than Glossop/Hadfield services, moreover the Rose Hill Marple trains don't run on Sundays!
If Bee Network can get its hands on Anglia Railways' 755s at a stroke they can displace the 150s and 195s and supplement the 323s on the Glossop services. Once more Flirts arrive they due to their superior acceleration allow all services to call at Ashburys, Gorton and Fairfield rather than skip-stopping

Why would GA give up their FLIRTs? Start slowly with Manchester to Glossop/Hadfield. Make the service reliable, then take over another line. The 323s are perfect for their current operations.

 

[pokemonsuper9]

Oh, is that not still a thing then?

You don't have to go to a station as quiet as Dinting to see GMPTE, loads of platform signs still show it such as Daisy Hill.
Presumably it'll be replaced with "Bee Network" in time

(yes I know the picture cuts of at Daisy Hil, it's just the only good photo I have of the sign)

 

[alanbur]

Why would GA give up their FLIRTs? Start slowly with Manchester to Glossop/Hadfield. Make the service reliable, then take over another line. The 323s are perfect for their current operations.

No, I don't understand why you'd replace the 323s either, the problem is not the rolling stock, it's staffing, exactly as you say. As for Ashburys, Gorton and Fairfield. I believe the problem is line congestion, not the trains, but I'm not an expert...

 

[plugwash]

If they can split off and convert to Metrolink, then they can split off and operate as Heavy rail (probably simpler as that doesn’t preclude longer-distance services using the same tracks )

Perhaps, but I doubt it would bring much benefit.

1. Sharing tracks between local stopping services and long distance non-stop trains makes it difficult to acheive high frequencies.
2. I strongly suspect you can independently operate two metrolink trams for a similar or lower cost to operating a single 3 car EMU.

Small cheap (both in terms of the vehicle cost themselves and the staff to run it) units, plus a line clear of other stuff lets you get the frequency up to the "magic" 4TPH at which the line becomes attractive to "turn up and go" without checking a timetable first. You can then introduce longer formations or even higher frequencies as the demand builds to use them.

 

[AlastairFraser]

No, I don't understand why you'd replace the 323s either, the problem is not the rolling stock, it's staffing, exactly as you say. As for Ashburys, Gorton and Fairfield. I believe the problem is line congestion, not the trains, but I'm not an expert...

Tbh I don't think the service to Ashburys is particularly bad, given the New Mills stopper as well

 

[Blackpool boy]

1. Sharing tracks between local stopping services and long distance non-stop trains makes it difficult to acheive high frequencies.

How is this overcome in other areas of the country where this may still exist?

 

[Bletchleyite]

How is this overcome in other areas of the country where this may still exist?

The local service runs at no more than 2tph, generally. Like it is in GM now.

 

[Dr Hoo]

How is this overcome in other areas of the country where this may still exist?

It’s not overcome. Hence, for example, it only being feasible to operate an hourly local passenger service along the Hope Valley line amongst a twice per hour fast and significant amounts of freight.

 

[Blackpool boy]

It’s not overcome. Hence, for example, it only being feasible to operate an hourly local passenger service along the Hope Valley line amongst a twice per hour fast and significant amounts of freight.

How do they manage to do this north of Preston with the stopping services and the expresses within many miles of two track railway- which is the post i was questioning?

 

[Bletchleyite]

How do they manage to do this north of Preston with the stopping services and the expresses within many miles of two track railway- which is the post i was questioning?

A combination of the service being infrequent and of most services serving most stops so they don't trip over each other (and of there being long gaps between the stations because there's very little actually there and because some of the local stations were closed to facilitate that). It's not a model that can realistically be applied to east Manchester local services (or e.g. between Birmingham and Rugby) - TPE won't want to be doing all or most stops to Guide Bridge which would be the analogy.

 

[Blackpool boy]

A combination of the service being infrequent and of most services serving most stops so they don't trip over each other (and of there being long gaps between the stations because there's very little actually there and because some of the local stations were closed to facilitate that). It's not a model that can realistically be applied to east Manchester local services (or e.g. between Birmingham and Rugby) - TPE won't want to be doing all or most stops to Guide Bridge which would be the analogy.

So it is possible to overcome then

Thanks for confirming.

 

[pokemonsuper9]

How do they manage to do this north of Preston with the stopping services and the expresses within many miles of two track railway- which is the post i was questioning?

North of Preston only has
- Lancaster (almost all trains stop)
- Oxenholme (almost all trains stop)
- Penrith (most trains stop)
- Carlisle (all trains stop)
Then miles of nothing until the split towards either Edinburgh or Glasgow.

And the freight can wait in loops and probably stand no chance of catching up to a stopping Pendolino anyway.

 

[Blackpool boy]

North of Preston only has
- Lancaster (almost all trains stop)
- Oxenholme (almost all trains stop)
- Penrith (most trains stop)
- Carlisle (all trains stop)
Then miles of nothing until the split towards either Edinburgh or Glasgow.

And the freight can wait in loops and probably stand no chance of catching up to a stopping Pendolino anyway.

So they do manage to fit them in then and it would be possible to do the same elsewhere.

Thanks for confirming.

 

[Bletchleyite]

So they do manage to fit them in then and it would be possible to do the same elsewhere.

It would be possible to do the same elsewhere, yes. So if we're looking at the line towards Guide Bridge, are you happy to see the closure of Ardwick*, Ashburys, Gorton and Fairfield so you get a similar station spacing so it's reasonable for TPE to call at all stations too? No, I thought not. Or on the line towards Preston are you happy to lose Salford Crescent, Clifton*, Kearsley, Moses Gate, Farnworth, Lostock, Horwich Parkway, Blackrod, Adlington and Buckshaw Parkway? Again, no, thought not.

* OK, maybe one of them is reasonable.

 

[D Mylchreest]

It would be possible to do the same elsewhere, yes. So if we're looking at the line towards Guide Bridge, are you happy to see the closure of Ardwick*, Ashburys, Gorton and Fairfield so you get a similar station spacing so it's reasonable for TPE to call at all stations too? No, I thought not. Or on the line towards Preston are you happy to lose Salford Crescent, Clifton*, Kearsley, Moses Gate, Farnworth, Lostock, Horwich Parkway, Blackrod, Adlington and Buckshaw Parkway? Again, no, thought not.

* OK, maybe one of them is reasonable.

Not sure the two are comparable. There are very few stations north of Preston and, judging from lineside observations, the railway is underused compared with south of Preston.

 

[DiscoSteve]

The Rose Hill Marple trains finish earlier than Glossop/Hadfield services, moreover the Rose Hill Marple trains don't run on Sundays!

This I find interesting because as a resident of and reasonably regular user of the station at Romiley I still don't know which services through it will be Bee Network or not? Is it only the (slower) route via Hyde to Rose Hill in Burnham's 8-line plan, or does it also include the (faster) route via Bredbury through to Marple Proper?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Not sure the two are comparable. There are very few stations north of Preston and, judging from lineside observations, the railway is underused compared with south of Preston.

They are comparable in the sense that if you want to be able to squash in a large number of trains they need to have similar stopping patterns.

Even on the 4-track south WCML (other than MKC and Watford Jn) busier stations only get 4tph and quieter ones 2. And that involves use of the fast lines for some WMT services.

 

[mangad]

This I find interesting because as a resident of and reasonably regular user of the station at Romiley I still don't know which services through it will be Bee Network or not? Is it only the (slower) route via Hyde to Rose Hill in Burnham's 8-line plan, or does it also include the (faster) route via Bredbury through to Marple Proper?

The TfGM press release shows the Rose Hill via Hyde services being in the Bee Network by 2028, with the Marple services joining by 2030. Indeed, their maps show the Rose Hill line joining in Phase One - by December 2026.


As a side note on the role out, there's there's very much an unofficial easement where conductors allow people with Rose Hill Marple tickets to use Marple station and vice versa. It's the kind of thing that really would make sense to formalise although attempts to get Northern to do that have been ignored. But the rollout of tap in/tap out will mean a several year gap where Rose Hill has such ticketing, and Marple doesn't. It may well put some people off using the feature in Marple, especially if the woeful service of the Hyde Loop line continues. (Along with Flowery Field/Hyde North, it's a perfect example of where zonal ticketing really makes sense.)

 

[TheGrew]

There are a couple of places where I think the better solution would be to quadruple the track or closely mirror the existing heavy rail with Metrolink.
I like the idea of removing all the stops between Oxford Road and Irlam for example. I think you could take out more of the 'metro stops' by running Metrolink down both Old Ashton Road and Hyde Road.
Then you would get a bit closer to the Parisian Metro/RER Model or Stuttgart's S/U Bahns.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I like the idea of removing all the stops between Oxford Road and Irlam for example.

The proper solution to the CLC isn't closing stations, it's building Northern Powerhouse Rail so it can revert to being purely a local railway (be that by way of 4-6tph EMU stopping services or by converting it to Merseyrail/Metrolink).

In effect I suppose that is 4-tracking it, just as HS2 Phase 1 is basically 6-tracking (8-tracking south of Watford) the south WCML. The other tracks are just in a different place.