Northern and TPE Consultation Document

[Xenophon PCDGS]

isnt that what competition is all about?

Exactly so...TransDev will be laughing all the way to the bank...

 

[Moonshot]

Exactly so...TransDev will be laughing all the way to the bank...

You dont actually know that......

 

[WatcherZero]

Devoloution of the Northern Tyne and Wear services to a distinct business unit looks to be still on:

Bidders may therefore be required to set out how they will establish a distinct ‘North-East’ business unit within the franchise, subject to the agreement of the Secretary of State.

Northern will also be expected to put in place local delivery models that allow the engagement with stakeholders for project delivery on a line by line or local area basis.

Consultation asks readers to weigh up where the tradeoff should be between cuts in rural services and new rather than secondhand trains saying if there is brand new trains there may have to be fewer station calls at little used stations.

Asks for third parties to propose funded service enhancements options before the end of the consultation. Ones already expected include Manchester-Blackburn expected to be funded by Lancashire and Burnley councils before the start of the new franchise. An enhanced service between Bolton and Blackburn expected to be funded by Blackburn council, reinstatement of Newcastle-Ashlington services to be funded by Northumberland CC.

Northern service pattern requirement will be tightly set out, TPE will have a more flexible approach of setting minimum frequency per hour, certain calling patterns and first and last trains times.

Consultation on whether a sixth hourly TPE North service is justified and if so should it extend beyond York to Newcastle (though ultimately extension at the franchise bidders discretion). Network Rail believes transpennine linkages for Liverpool and Manchester airport have equal economic weight. Franchise bidders will be free to suggest how many services terminate at Liverpool and how many at Manchester Airport and which particular pairings of termini, consultation asks whether this should instead be specified.

Consultations asks whether South TPE Manchester-Stockport-Sheffield frequency should be increased to 3tph, says a new Northern rail service may be required to continue to serve Warrington after Manchester-Liverpool South TPE services diverted away from Warrington. Asks whether which South TPE service calls at Man Air and which at Liverpool should be specified or left to bidders discretion.

Asks whether TPE Blackpool should be transferred to Northern to maintain a unified fleet savings. Likewise asks same question for Oxenhome/Windermere and Barrow in furness pointing out Northern would have greater opportunity to link the shuttles with other services to form longer routes. In addition most Barrow passengers are travelling to Manchester while most Windermere passengers are travelling to Oxenholme/Preston for West Coast connections. Asks what the appropiate balance of shuttles and longer distance services should be.

For TPE Scotland asks whether current 50/50 split should become 2:1 in favour of Edinburgh so as to give equal Glasgow/Edinburgh services from Preston. Also asks for views on a Liverpool-Scotland service joining with Manchester Airport-Scotland service. Consultation doesnt tackle the Wigan vs Bolton question.

Bidders asked to draw up plans to withdraw all Pacers. Rail North is currently doing a review into alternate rolling stock procurement for Northern/TPE that would allow cheaper procurement. (I believe this refers to Rail North becoming a ROSCO and leasing trains directly to franchises using borrowing to finance a order of suitable stock.)

Bidders for both franchises will be required to produce a rolling stock strategy that reduces overcrowding into city centres from todays levels, passengers should expect a seat if standing for over 20 minutes. May be financial incentives from government to prevent short forming of services.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

You dont actually know that......

Only basing my assumptions on what has been stated on this website about the expected over-the-board fares increases (not just those exterior to PTE areas) once the new Northern Rail franchise comes into effect.

 

[Moonshot]

Only basing my assumptions on what has been stated on this website about the expected over-the-board fares increases (not just those exterior to PTE areas) once the new Northern Rail franchise comes into effect.

But fares have been rising at RPI + 2% over the last few years - and yet demand is soaring to record levels.....

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

But fares have been rising at RPI + 2% over the last few years - and yet demand is soaring to record levels.....

Except on the non-existent Blackburn - Burnley - Copy Pit Line - Manchester rail service..:roll:

 

[Moonshot]

Except on the non-existent Blackburn - Burnley - Copy Pit Line - Manchester rail service..:roll:

Which isnt going to be non existent in the near future......

 

[ANorthernGuard]

Moonshot you are a colleague BUT Paul has always been very straight forward and honest in conversations and one day my friend demand will peak and decrease. There is only so many fare rises above inflation people will take. Surely you see the faces of passengers every Jan when the latest fare rises are implemented? Each year people get more and more fed up. If I remember correctly a similar policy was operated in the 80s that almost destroyed the railways.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Asks for third parties to propose funded service enhancements options before the end of the consultation. Ones already expected include Manchester-Blackburn expected to be funded by Lancashire and Burnley councils before the start of the new franchise.

Let us not forget that Burnley Council were the lead authority in the successful bid that obtained both the finance for the Weavers Triangle and for the reinstatement of the Todmorden Chord. Having already obtained a number of million pounds in total from this successful bid, without any input from either Network Rail or Northern Rail, to then be asked to fund the stated service beggars belief.

The Government grant monies reduction to councils on matters, such as the ENCTS card that appears to have been mentioned on a number of threads of late on this website, with the councils needing to make up the shortfall, so then being asked to fund one method of transport (rail) when commercial bus companies seem able to fund and run bus services is laughable. Where is the money coming from to run this rail service from the coffers of both Lancashire County Council and Burnley Council ? Perhaps the electorate should be offered a referendum to see if this proposal should see the light of day.

 

[Moonshot]

Let us not forget that Burnley Council were the lead authority in the successful bid that obtained both the finance for the Weavers Triangle and for the reinstatement of the Todmorden Chord. Having already obtained a number of million pounds in total from this successful bid, without any input from either Network Rail or Northern Rail, to then be asked to fund the stated service beggars belief.

The Government grant monies reduction to councils on matters, such as the ENCTS card that appears to have been mentioned on a number of threads of late on this website, with the councils needing to make up the shortfall, so then being asked to fund one method of transport (rail) when commercial bus companies seem able to fund and run bus services is laughable. Where is the money coming from to run this rail service from the coffers of both Lancashire County Council and Burnley Council ? Perhaps the electorate should be offered a referendum to see if this proposal should see the light of day.

Which just goes back to a point I made earlier on ( post 25 @ 18.05pm ) - you cannot make rational investment decisions when the price the consumer is willing to pay is distorted by regulated fares and subsidy.

You have to wonder if Transdev would also run a service from Bolton to Manchester IF the fare structure of the rail service was subject to market forces......I rather think they would !!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Moonshot you are a colleague BUT Paul has always been very straight forward and honest in conversations and one day my friend demand will peak and decrease. There is only so many fare rises above inflation people will take. Surely you see the faces of passengers every Jan when the latest fare rises are implemented? Each year people get more and more fed up. If I remember correctly a similar policy was operated in the 80s that almost destroyed the railways.

I ve already stated I believe demand will flatline...and the moment that happens then some crucial decisions are going to be have to made on investment plans

 

[WatcherZero]

Let us not forget that Burnley Council were the lead authority in the successful bid that obtained both the finance for the Weavers Triangle and for the reinstatement of the Todmorden Chord. Having already obtained a number of million pounds in total from this successful bid, without any input from either Network Rail or Northern Rail, to then be asked to fund the stated service beggars belief.

Thats the way it always works nationally, 3rd parties wanting new services have to fund them for the first three years before the Government will consider including them in the base franchise. It was always the assumption they would have to fund the new services.

My understanding is the hold up was in negotiating the track access fees between Northern Rail and Network Rail for the new chord with no extra network subsidy available to Northern to lease it, not in the funding of the train services themselves.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

According to the prospectus for TPE, Victoria and Oxford Road may be run by Network Rail rather than Northern or TPE.

Page 82 "The potential transfer of Manchester Oxford Road and Manchester Victoria
from the Northern franchise to Network Rail managed station status"


(From SCC)

Also from my post just upthread

 

[IanXC]

I must say I'm a little concerned about the ideas being consulted on for the Humber region.

A second Hull-Manchester service (this time via Sheffield) would be great, but at the cost of through services from the Yorkshire Coast Line? Do we want to create an area 2 changes from destinations such as Birmingham, Edinburgh or Bristol? (The proposal being that the one of the hourly Hull-Doncaster's be added to the South TPE service - and presumably this won't be the all stops service!).

For South TPE the consultation includes a proposal to transfer Doncaster-Cleethorpes from TPE to Northern, either by running what sounds like a similar service, but only as far as Sheffield (which sounds OK), or by adding it to the Northern Scunthorpe stopper... which would presumably increase the journey time significantly, and result in only 1 train per hour between Scunthorpe and Doncaster!

 

[northwichcat]

So we're going to have exorbitant fares across the whole of the North, rather than just outside the PTE areas.

Oh goody.

If we had above inflation increases outside PTE areas and below inflation increases inside PTE areas then it would widen the gap between PTE areas and non-PTE areas. Logically the PTE fares should be higher. I don't think you can argue about the south having it better (as many people do) and also argue about PTE fares being increased to the same level as fares outside PTE areas.

 

[edwin_m]

The Government grant monies reduction to councils on matters, such as the ENCTS card that appears to have been mentioned on a number of threads of late on this website, with the councils needing to make up the shortfall, so then being asked to fund one method of transport (rail) when commercial bus companies seem able to fund and run bus services is laughable.

Bus operators actually receive quite a lot of public money for services that are described as commercial. The local council paying the fares for pensioners and disabled is probably the largest element of this. Not saying this is a bad thing but it needs to be borne in mind when people say bus services are self-supporting.

 

[northwichcat]

Bus operators actually receive quite a lot of public money for services that are described as commercial. The local council paying the fares for pensioners and disabled is probably the largest element of this. Not saying this is a bad thing but it needs to be borne in mind when people say bus services are self-supporting.

In the case of the Chester rail link it was well publicised that Cheshire West & Chester council pay more to Aintree Coachline for the so called commercial service than they use to pay to First Bus for the subsided service.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

For South TPE the consultation includes a proposal to transfer Doncaster-Cleethorpes from TPE to Northern, either by running what sounds like a similar service, but only as far as Sheffield (which sounds OK), or by adding it to the Northern Scunthorpe stopper... which would presumably increase the journey time significantly, and result in only 1 train per hour between Scunthorpe and Doncaster!

If that's the case I would have thought it would say Scunthope-Doncaster would be transferred to Northern.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Bus operators actually receive quite a lot of public money for services that are described as commercial. The local council paying the fares for pensioners and disabled is probably the largest element of this. Not saying this is a bad thing but it needs to be borne in mind when people say bus services are self-supporting.

Interesting. I had always assumed the X43 Lancashire Witch service was a fully commercialised service. As you will be aware, a new fleet of double deckers has entered the TransDev ranks to run on this service. Will the cost of either this service or the new fleet be therefore subsidised from public funds ?

 

[Mark_H]

I must say I'm a little concerned about the ideas being consulted on for the Humber region.

For South TPE the consultation includes a proposal to transfer Doncaster-Cleethorpes from TPE to Northern, either by running what sounds like a similar service, but only as far as Sheffield (which sounds OK), or by adding it to the Northern Scunthorpe stopper... which would presumably increase the journey time significantly, and result in only 1 train per hour between Scunthorpe and Doncaster!

I'm also concerned by Doncaster-Cleethorpes, as it's currently a pretty decent service (if only by comparison to my other local services). A reduction below 1tph would be pretty poor. While I can see their point that this section of the service is less used in comparison to the Airport end, I think that's only relative to the Airport end being absolutely rammed at times; use of the service seems to be at a decent level in absolute terms.

With the last EMT service from Newark into the area ending with the 1935, then the DON-CLE service is pretty vital for credible connections back from London, and I'd be concerned to see it eroded.

Would Northern acquire the 185s currently on the service, or would they be expected to find capacity from their current fleet?

 

[northwichcat]

Would Northern acquire the 185s currently on the service, or would they be expected to find capacity from their current fleet?

I'd suspect Liverpool-Nottingham will switch to 185s and some of the EMT Sprinters will transfer to Northern.

 

[LowLevel]

Just a thought - if the proposal to transfer Liverpool - Nottingham to TPE did happen, would it have an effect on the likelihood of EMT signing their franchise extension as they're current due to finish next year.

 

[northwichcat]

Interesting. I had always assumed the X43 Lancashire Witch service was a fully commercialised service. As you will be aware, a new fleet of double deckers has entered the TransDev ranks to run on this service. Will the cost of either this service or the new fleet be therefore subsidised from public funds ?

From what I understand if the fare paying passengers on the Witch Way would fit on a single decker but a double decker is required to carry all the passengers (including pass holders) then public funds would effectively fund the difference between the cost of operating a single decker and a double decker.

 

[Tomnick]

I'd imagine that they'd be required to find stock from elsewhere - if the existing Cleethorpes service was diverted to Hull as proposed, there'd be no 185s released anyway (but presumably there would be some 158s released off the Sheffield - Hull fasts that would, it seems, be no longer required). More concerning is the proposal to extend the Scunthorpe turnbacks to replace the TPE service to Cleethorpes - substantially longer journey times, overcrowding (the stoppers already get quite full sometimes!) and possibly the loss of through trains beyond Doncaster at some times of day?

I don't really see what it all achieves. Ultimately, unless the proposal to extend the stopper does come to fruition, it'll take the same resources to operate the service, but Cleethorpes, Grimsby and Scunthorpe will lose their through service to Manchester (and possibly even a decent service to Doncaster and Sheffield), Hull will gain another service to Manchester that takes longer than the existing service via Leeds and the Yorkshire Coast will lose its decent service to Doncaster and Sheffield. About the only benefit would be to end the situation of TPE crews working Barton trains, but it's a pretty poor show if they're prepared to shuffle franchises around to that extent - with all the disadvantages above - just to achieve that.

 

[northwichcat]

Just a thought - if the proposal to transfer Liverpool - Nottingham to TPE did happen, would it have an effect on the likelihood of EMT signing their franchise extension as they're current due to finish next year.

Well it won't be a franchise extension, it'll be a Direct Award so some of the terms can be different e.g. a different number of services and a different number of trains. If they fail to agree then DOR will operate the Direct Award and average Joe probably won't notice any difference.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I don't really see what it all achieves.

I think the aim might be for TPE to be a 100% electric franchise by the end of CP6, routes like Hope Valley and Middlesbrough-York as seen as potential future electrification schemes. Although, they still may need to divert over non-electrified routes e.g. via Brighouse, Marple and Mirfield-Wakefield so unless they order some dual powered stock I can't see TPE getting rid of all their DMUs.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

From what I understand if the fare paying passengers on the Witch Way would fit on a single decker but a double decker is required to carry all the passengers (including pass holders) then public funds would effectively fund the difference between the cost of operating a single decker and a double decker.

I wonder what time of day to which you allude regarding the ability of a single-decker service to carry non-ENCTS passengers on the X43 Lancashire Witch ? I have used this service at varying times of the day and from Burnley bus station, climbing uphill past Burnley Manchester Road railway station and passing through the districts of Rosehill and Summit, which always seem to very well patronised by passengers of a much younger age than the holders of the ENCTS passes. Burnley to Rawtenstall sees shoppers and many passengers from the localised ethnic base who appear to make family visits to areas between these two towns during the period outside of the peak hours.

 

[Tomnick]

What's the point of an all-electric franchise, though, if those shiny electric trains don't go where the majority of passengers want them to?

 

[northwichcat]

I wonder what time of day to which you allude regarding the ability of a single-decker service to carry non-ENCTS passengers on the X43 Lancashire Witch ? I have used this service at varying times of the day and from Burnley bus station, climbing uphill past Burnley Manchester Road railway station and passing through the districts of Rosehill and Summit, which always seem to very well patronised by passengers of a much younger age than the holders of the ENCTS passes. Burnley to Rawtenstall sees shoppers and many passengers from the localised ethnic base who appear to make family visits to areas between these two towns during the period outside of the peak hours.

Don't forget 'pass holder' doesn't necessarily mean people over 60. Someone who's 25 with a learning disability may have a pass allowing free travel as well.

Also you can get a single decker coach with around 50 seats compared to the just under 70 on the double decker bus. I don't know how the operating costs would vary between a single decker coach and a double decker bus.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
One thing I've noticed is they seem to be suggesting a peak time only Huddersfield-Manchester stopper alongside the 2 semi-fasts serving the intermediate stations between Stalybridge and Marsden.

 

[Surreyman]

Interesting. I had always assumed the X43 Lancashire Witch service was a fully commercialised service. As you will be aware, a new fleet of double deckers has entered the TransDev ranks to run on this service. Will the cost of either this service or the new fleet be therefore subsidised from public funds ?

As already stated All 'commercial' bus services receive money to compensate for Pensioners/Disabled etc, this will vary depending on how many are carried, if nil, then payments = nil.(operators record the numbers carried by checking/scanning passes etc).
It is arguable that as the rate of compensation for 'free' passengers is less than would be paid by a full fare paying adult, the 'subsidy' isn't really that, i.e a full bus with nothing but full fare passengers is much more profitable than one carrying pensioners etc.
I'm not saying this is wrong (I support free travel for pensioners and other groups) but it means virtually all commercial services receive recompense albeit not at full commercial rates!

 

[158722]

Some thoughts I posted on wnxx about what units currently required to run these services, which seem pertinent to the debate here.

Transfer from TPE to Northern:
 Manchester Airport to Blackpool North - essentially 4x 185s to cover, by 319s
 Services to Windermere - essentially 1x 185s to cover, any DMU or 319 if wired.
 Barrow-in-Furness to Lancaster/Manchester Airport - essentially 3x 185s to cover, 4-car 158s vice 3-car 185?
 York to Scarborough - essentially 2x 185s to cover (very tight, more likely 3 or 4 units to cover, 4-car 158s vice 3-car 185?)
 Doncaster to Cleethorpes - essentially 3x 185s to cover, but if South TP route amended to serve Hull, units retained by TPX. ex-Hull Northern units to replace 185s, ideally 4-car 158s?
Sum = 10/11x 185s displaced from TPX, Northern require 14-16x extra units, all diesel with exception of 4x EMU for Man Air-Blackpool (plus Oxenholme, if confirmed).

Transfer from Northern to TPE:
 One train per hour Doncaster to Hull (one train per hour to remain with Northern)
Sum = 3x units displaced from Northern, ex-Cleethorpes 185s cover for TPX

Transfer from EMT to TPE:
 the Nottingham – Liverpool portion of the existing EMT Norwich –Liverpool service - 6 diagrams required to cover current timetable, most services pairs of 158s, hence 12x units plus spares. Suggestion that frequency might be increased, so assume 3-car 185 every 30mins as opposed to 4-car 158s every hour.
Sum = 12/13x EMT 158s displaced, 11/12x TPX 185s required.

Transfer from Northern to EMT:
 Cleethorpes to Barton-on-Humber (if Doncaster - Cleethorpes remains with TPE) - 1x 153
Sum = 1x 153 NOR to EMT

Overall sum = Displaced 185s from North-west/Scarborough sufficient to cover ex-EMT Liverpool-Nottingham, displaced EMT 158s sufficient to cover extra Northern services aided by 319s on electrified route(s).

Who made the comment about moving deckchairs around? Only advantage I can see is that it keeps 185s on routes where they can run at linespeed, given they are excluded from Sprinter differential limits.

 

[northwichcat]

Some thoughts I posted on wnxx about what units currently required to run these services, which seem pertinent to the debate here.

Transfer from TPE to Northern:
 Manchester Airport to Blackpool North - essentially 4x 185s to cover, by 319s
 Services to Windermere - essentially 1x 185s to cover, any DMU or 319 if wired.
 Barrow-in-Furness to Lancaster/Manchester Airport - essentially 3x 185s to cover, 4-car 158s vice 3-car 185?
 York to Scarborough - essentially 2x 185s to cover (very tight, more likely 3 or 4 units to cover, 4-car 158s vice 3-car 185?)
 Doncaster to Cleethorpes - essentially 3x 185s to cover, but if South TP route amended to serve Hull, units retained by TPX. ex-Hull Northern units to replace 185s, ideally 4-car 158s?
Sum = 10/11x 185s displaced from TPX, Northern require 14-16x extra units, all diesel with exception of 4x EMU for Man Air-Blackpool (plus Oxenholme, if confirmed).

Transfer from Northern to TPE:
 One train per hour Doncaster to Hull (one train per hour to remain with Northern)
Sum = 3x units displaced from Northern, ex-Cleethorpes 185s cover for TPX

Transfer from EMT to TPE:
 the Nottingham – Liverpool portion of the existing EMT Norwich –Liverpool service - 6 diagrams required to cover current timetable, most services pairs of 158s, hence 12x units plus spares. Suggestion that frequency might be increased, so assume 3-car 185 every 30mins as opposed to 4-car 158s every hour.
Sum = 12/13x EMT 158s displaced, 11/12x TPX 185s required.

Transfer from Northern to EMT:
 Cleethorpes to Barton-on-Humber (if Doncaster - Cleethorpes remains with TPE) - 1x 153
Sum = 1x 153 NOR to EMT

Overall sum = Displaced 185s from North-west/Scarborough sufficient to cover ex-EMT Liverpool-Nottingham, displaced EMT 158s sufficient to cover extra Northern services aided by 319s on electrified route(s).

Who made the comment about moving deckchairs around? Only advantage I can see is that it keeps 185s on routes where they can run at linespeed, given they are excluded from Sprinter differential limits.

Don't forget that the 185s freed up off Manchester Airport-Blackpool will be needed to introduce 6tph on North TPE (expected December 2016) and at the same time a couple of units will be released from the Northern Victoria-Huddersfield stopper (it now looks like the peak time extras will remain but the standard pattern services will go.)

The plan seems to be to keep 185s on Selby-Hull and Hope Valley - the two places they are currently used where they can't run at Sprinter speeds.

 

[158722]

Don't forget that the 185s freed up off Manchester Airport-Blackpool will be needed to introduce 6tph on North TPE (expected December 2016) and at the same time a couple of units will be released from the Northern Victoria-Huddersfield stopper (it now looks like the peak time extras will remain but the standard pattern services will go.)

The plan seems to be to keep 185s on Selby-Hull and Hope Valley - the two places they are currently used where they can't run at Sprinter speeds.

Selby-Hull subject to the wires going up - didn't know about the Hope valley - just certain sections or the whole line?