Would a Greater Manchester franchise be a good idea?

[Bletchleyite]

It may be but it needs the surrounding areas to propel that economy.

Does it? Most cities could stand largely alone (look at Singapore). The rural hinterlands need the cities much more. Without them you get subsistence economies like Albania.

 

[daodao]

It may be but it needs the surrounding areas to propel that economy. Having blinkered transport policies and funding that end at contrived boundaries do nothing for the region as a whole.

When the local authority boundaries were remodelled in the early 1970s, various localities around Greater Manchester lobbied not to be included within it as they perceived themselves as rural, for example the former mining village of Poynton which has now become a posh dormitory suburb. The Tory government at the time was sympathetic and designed boundaries to help increase the number of potential Tory-controlled seats and authorities. The current arrangement of boundaries around conurbations ensures that rural areas are generally Tory-controlled.

Incorporating rural hinterlands of cities/conurbations within the urban administrative boundaries would ensure Labour control of most of the countryside as well as urban areas. An example where this has happened is the former Wetherby Rural District of the West Riding, which was incorporated into Leeds in 1974 and is now under Labour administration in perpetuity.

Very few rural areas were incorporated into Greater Manchester in 1974; Dunham is an exception, but Tory gerrymandering to create the artificial Borough of Trafford, which has only 2 road links across the River Mersey between its north and south halves, has ensured that Dunham remains under Tory administration.

 

[Mutant Lemming]

Warrington, Preston, Blackburn, Burnley are hardly what you'd call rural. I mentioned surrounding areas of Lancashire.

 

[daodao]

Warrington, Preston, Blackburn, Burnley are hardly what you'd call rural. I mentioned surrounding areas of Lancashire.

The Ribble Valley towns of Central Lancashire are not particularly close to Greater Manchester and are separated it by significant hills. There might have been a case for incorporating Rossendale within Greater Manchester, but that doesn't apply to the Blackburn/Accrington/Burnley/Colne axis.

 

[Mutant Lemming]

The Ribble Valley towns of Central Lancashire are not particularly close to Greater Manchester and are separated it by significant hills. There might have been a case for incorporating Rossendale within Greater Manchester, but that doesn't apply to the Blackburn/Accrington/Burnley/Colne axis.

I wasn't espousing incorporating anything in Manchester but re-establishing the county of Lancashire as an entity. Accrington is only 23 miles from Manchester yet has only recently attained a circuitous direct rail service to Manchester. The former Lancashire towns Leigh, Bury and Bolton lost their direct services to Liverpool. Since Warrington was ceded to Cheshire it lost it's direct buses to Manchester (and the numerous routes to Liverpool are reduced to one). The metropolitan counties set up their own transport iron curtains which seemed to stifle the ability to travel between many Lancashire towns without travelling into one of the metropolises.

 

[delt1c]

a joined up BR franchise would be good , all profits returned to the state for re investment instead of fat cats pockets

 

[daodao]

I wasn't espousing incorporating anything in Manchester but re-establishing the county of Lancashire as an entity. Accrington is only 23 miles from Manchester yet has only recently attained a circuitous direct rail service to Manchester. The former Lancashire towns Leigh, Bury and Bolton lost their direct services to Liverpool. Since Warrington was ceded to Cheshire it lost it's direct buses to Manchester (and the numerous routes to Liverpool are reduced to one). The metropolitan counties set up their own transport iron curtains which seemed to stifle the ability to travel between many Lancashire towns without travelling into one of the metropolises.

The Accrington-Clifton Junction rail line was closed in the mid 1960s, but there is an express bus to M/c.

I doubt that Bolton, Bury and Leigh suffer by not having through trains to Liverpool; they are much closer to the more important city of M/c.

There is still a through bus (First 100, formerly Salford City 10) from Warrington to M/c. There was another through route (NWRCC service 37 via Lymm) but this was curtailed to run Altrincham-Warrington only by 1963 at the latest.

Administrative boundaries are best where they are aligned with economic geography. Central Lancashire is clearly separate from Greater M/c.

 

[fowler9]

I agree that parts of the Merseyrail franchise go outside the Merseyside area (Obviously) but they are all part of a very specific 3rd rail network. Having a Greater Manchester franchise would just add more complication and expense. By all means make Merseyrail part of Northern or even Arriva Trains Wales but lets not take off bits of Northern and make them part of another franchise with more management, legal teams etc. etc. etc. And lets not confuse this with bus operation, Merseyrail has nothing to do with Arriva buses, Stagecoach or anyone else. Their strikes are not at the same time for starters. Ha ha.

 

[Camden]

Strange for someone in Liverpool to suggest removing local control from their own city's railways. Still, takes all sorts!

I think that Greater Manchester does already enjoy control over what represents its own network, it's just that it chooses to do something different with them (ie Metrolink them).

 

[Bletchleyite]

Putting Merseyrail into Northern would be nuts. It works just fine the way it is. Much better than when it was part of BR / Provincial / RRNW prior to being separated off.

 

[Mutant Lemming]

I doubt that Bolton, Bury and Leigh suffer by not having through trains to Liverpool; they are much closer to the more important city of M/c.

.

.

Anywhere would be enhanced by having links to a other cities that people want to go to as opposed to being made to go to or through one place.
Peter Kay would never describe himself as being from 'the important city of Manchester' as would the good citizens of the other Lancashire towns who were against their will forced to become part of a bastardized county bearing the name of a 'important city'. it is a shame that the people who suffered the indignity of losing their local identity were never given a say in the decision.

 

[fowler9]

Strange for someone in Liverpool to suggest removing local control from their own city's railways. Still, takes all sorts!

I think that Greater Manchester does already enjoy control over what represents its own network, it's just that it chooses to do something different with them (ie Metrolink them).

Yeah, bit of a mad comment. Can I rescind? Ha ha.

 

[tspaul26]

I have never found TfGM to be of much use with the assets that it controls at the moment so I see no reason to believe that any improvements would ensue should it be given greater control over railway services.

If anyone else wishes to attend the next meeting of the GMCA Metrolink and Rail sub-committee then you are more than welcome to join me for a coffee and a rant!

 

[tspaul26]

The problem stems from the fact that Metrolink tries to be a 'turn up and go' service, like the Tube, and so doesn't have a timetable (publically). Unfortunately, a 12/15 minute frequency just isn't enough to run in that way. For example, just missing a tram from the park and ride at Ladywell can add 50% onto the length of my journey from there into the city. In that time I can have driven the rest of the way into the city, parked, and be in my office. It's just not practical to use the Metrolink for time-sensitive journeys.

I'm not trying to do Metrolink down, in many ways it's fantastic. My issue is that with a bit of thought and investment in the right places it could be a thousand times better.

I had to wait for nearly twenty minutes this evening. Not bad for a service with a six minute frequency!

No reason given for any delay (unlike the disaster that was Friday last week i.e. 10 November).

 

[tspaul26]

It's that very variability that makes it so silly though. Either have a timetable, publish it, and stick to it or run a true 'walk up and go' service where - disruption not withstanding - passengers never have to wait more than 5/6 mins max.

I agree with this approach.

If there is a timetable, publish it and stick to it (like the West Midlands and South Yorkshire systems).

If the timetable doesn't matter, run the service at such a high frequency that a passenger can literally turn up and go (like Hong Kong - a tram every 30 seconds between Victoria, Happy Valley, Causeway Bay and North Point).

Of course, Metrolink and TfGM will never do the former because then any idiot would be able to see exactly how unreliable and unpunctual the system really is.