Is rail REALLY that bad in the North?

[swissrailpassion]

Bradford is not a suburb of b****y Leeds!

Quite. It's a city of over half a million with two badly designed small stations. Forster Square rebuilt too small and too far from its original ideal location and Interchange - a pathetic hideous 70s motorway service station style building crammed onto an unsuitable site. Hard to believe it replaced a grand 10 platform colossus that was testament to civic pride and business flair.

 

[47802]

Quite. It's a city of over half a million with two badly designed small stations. Forster Square rebuilt too small and too far from its original ideal location and Interchange - a pathetic hideous 70s motorway service station style building crammed onto an unsuitable site. Hard to believe it replaced a grand 10 platform colossus that was testament to civic pride and business flair.

Well the Location of Foster Square and Interchange may not be perfect but it is what it is and would expensive to change, they built for traffic levels that existed at the time they were built, Interchange integrates with the Bus Station which is quite handy, and while less than ideal considering Foster Square services were once proposed for closure its a lot better than it could of been.

 

[driver_m]

I would say that's a rather selective response. I specifically said that It's not a bad average speed given all the places that need to be served en route; if you're averaging 110mph then you're going a long way without stopping and if you can manage 90mph with a stop or two then all you're really saying is that the London-centric attitude of this country means you have better rolling stock and infrastructure. I do, however, appreciate that the level of demand for travel to London is part of the reason things are how they are.

To compare like with like you need to be thinking about how long you would take to get to Stafford with 8 or 9 stops. It would still be quicker but not by such a margin. Over similar distances, your Wolverhampton trains take two hours with five stops and the Liverpool - Nottingham takes two and a half with eight stops, via the top of the Peaks and using 25+ year old diesel sprinters as opposed to the somewhat astonishingly engineered WCML stock. Yes, you'd win Top Trumps but they are two very different situations for which, I would say, each do a decent job in their respective circumstances.

No. The point I'm getting at is that both trains are class 1 passenger services. To a signaller, there should be no difference, save for whatever specific regulating may be required, but the reality is miles different. It is a good regional train. But realistically it should be a class 2 and what's currently a 2 should really be classed as a 3. The two passenger codes do t really suit what we should have. We should have a service that does Liverpool-Manchester-Sheffield-Nottingham-Peterborough-Norwich. A genuinely fast class 1 service going East-West with properly long stretches of 100mph+ track and certainly no single track sections. Something like the Britannia Bridge single track is acceptable near Bangor, but not one of our biggest cities which actively damages it's economy by restricting it's level of service.

 

[Greybeard33]

The DfT provides subsidy figures with track access charges doled out to the operators based on various criteria.

The Network Grant is not "track access charges". The DfT pays the Network Grant directly to Network Rail because it is classed as capital expenditure - it is nominally for infrastructure enhancements and major renewals. Fixed and variable track access charges, in contrast, fund Network Rail's current operational and maintenance expenditure. Network Rail charges each TOC fixed track access charges according to formulae that are intended to reflect the cost of operating and maintaining the infrastructure used by that operator, and variable track access charges that reflect the wear and tear caused by each train, plus electricity used where applicable.

The DfT figures you linked (which are for the DfT franchised TOCs only, not Scotrail, ATW, LO or Merseyrail) arbitrarily divvy up the Network Grant between TOCs in proportion to the fixed track access charges they each pay Network Rail.

The ORR tables show just the real subsidy/premium payments to/from all the TOCs, including PTE subsidies. For 2015-16 the subsidy was £292.6m to Northern, £72.3m to Merseyrail and £14.6m to TPE.

 

[Moonshot]

And what is the average distance for that price? I think you'll find its not very far. Its all very well waiving around random figures, but you will find that a £2.40 fare will not get you much more than 5-6 miles (and comparaible with local bus fares) even in the PTEs in off-peak periods.

Nothing random about it.......its the figure quoted in the pathfinder prospectus for this franchise. To add to this I just looked at a 7 day season ticket price from Bolton to Manchester which is a significant flow ....works out at £2.47....or just £2.05 over 12 months. 11 miles in distance.

 

[Bantamzen]

Nothing random about it.......its the figure quoted in the pathfinder prospectus for this franchise. To add to this I just looked at a 7 day season ticket price from Bolton to Manchester which is a significant flow ....works out at £2.47....or just £2.05 over 12 months. 11 miles in distance.

OK, so its not random but it is a figure that still doesn't tell the whole story. Taking that season ticket journey you quote, the current single ticket price at this time (just before 8am) is £4.20, almost double that £2.40 price. And its all very well brining season tickets into the equation, you know as well as anyone on here that season ticket prices are always going to be better value otherwise why sell them. And of course whilst it may be as low as £2.05 each way over twelve months, this assumes that the passenger uses the service every single day that they pay for, which for an annual ticket is almost certainly never going to be the case. Again I say, try finding a single ticket even in a wholly PTE area that is £2.40 and for more than 4 or 5 miles travel.

But all this is deflecting from the issue. Its been mentioned earlier that SWT made a better improvement than Northern with only a similar level of investment in stock, i.e. cascades. But even this doesn't take into account that on the whole SWT has a far larger capacity per service to generate revenue, and that is the key here. Of course previous pathfinder studies find Northern to generate so little, its a franchise that has been stifled for years with zero growth agreements, aging stock, limited capacity & increases only begrudgingly allowed by DfT when Northern practically begged for them. You can't possibly expect a franchise to generate more revenue streams when many of the services most likely to do so are already rammed solid.

Only by investing in additional capacity, better stock & quicker journeys can Northern start to realise the potential extra revenue that is there. If anyone doubts this potential, simply observe the rapidly growing traffic woes around the major towns & cities in the North (many of the UK's worst congestion problems are around them), or take a look at the major arteries like the M62 especially though not exclusively at peak flows. Think of it like this, if you open a small coffee shop that has a capacity of 100 cups per hour but quickly find that you reach that maximum at the busiest times, how do you go about increasing revenue flow at these times? You either raise prices and risk losing custom, or you seek ways to increase capacity of your shop by expanding. But you don't wait until profits increase to allow, this can't possibly happen as your peak flow is maxed out. So you speculate by investing in capacity increase (as well as perhaps improving quality of your product, something you may not be able to do when pushed to a maximum capacity).

OK, its a very simplistic analogy, but an effective one. There has always seemed to be some resistance on here from some posters about allowing Northern, or indeed any other TOCs up here to move forward and invest. And similarly there is resistance to allowing major infrastructural improvements in the region. But without such investment, TOCs will never be able to realise the potential additional revenue that is out there, allowing them not only to be able to cover the cost of investment, but further reduce future subsidies. That doesn't mean that prices can stay static, and indeed they don't generally rising above the rate of inflation for a number of years, including season tickets. There will be a price to the passengers, but if capacity, connectivity, transit times and quality all improve most people will be relatively satisfied. But this process has to start with investment, otherwise it stalls and eventually fails.

 

[Moonshot]

OK, so its not random but it is a figure that still doesn't tell the whole story. Taking that season ticket journey you quote, the current single ticket price at this time (just before 8am) is £4.20, almost double that £2.40 price. And its all very well brining season tickets into the equation, you know as well as anyone on here that season ticket prices are always going to be better value otherwise why sell them. And of course whilst it may be as low as £2.05 each way over twelve months, this assumes that the passenger uses the service every single day that they pay for, which for an annual ticket is almost certainly never going to be the case. Again I say, try finding a single ticket even in a wholly PTE area that is £2.40 and for more than 4 or 5 miles travel.

But all this is deflecting from the issue. Its been mentioned earlier that SWT made a better improvement than Northern with only a similar level of investment in stock, i.e. cascades. But even this doesn't take into account that on the whole SWT has a far larger capacity per service to generate revenue, and that is the key here. Of course previous pathfinder studies find Northern to generate so little, its a franchise that has been stifled for years with zero growth agreements, aging stock, limited capacity & increases only begrudgingly allowed by DfT when Northern practically begged for them. You can't possibly expect a franchise to generate more revenue streams when many of the services most likely to do so are already rammed solid.

Only by investing in additional capacity, better stock & quicker journeys can Northern start to realise the potential extra revenue that is there. If anyone doubts this potential, simply observe the rapidly growing traffic woes around the major towns & cities in the North (many of the UK's worst congestion problems are around them), or take a look at the major arteries like the M62 especially though not exclusively at peak flows. Think of it like this, if you open a small coffee shop that has a capacity of 100 cups per hour but quickly find that you reach that maximum at the busiest times, how do you go about increasing revenue flow at these times? You either raise prices and risk losing custom, or you seek ways to increase capacity of your shop by expanding. But you don't wait until profits increase to allow, this can't possibly happen as your peak flow is maxed out. So you speculate by investing in capacity increase (as well as perhaps improving quality of your product, something you may not be able to do when pushed to a maximum capacity).

OK, its a very simplistic analogy, but an effective one. There has always seemed to be some resistance on here from some posters about allowing Northern, or indeed any other TOCs up here to move forward and invest. And similarly there is resistance to allowing major infrastructural improvements in the region. But without such investment, TOCs will never be able to realise the potential additional revenue that is out there, allowing them not only to be able to cover the cost of investment, but further reduce future subsidies. That doesn't mean that prices can stay static, and indeed they don't generally rising above the rate of inflation for a number of years, including season tickets. There will be a price to the passengers, but if capacity, connectivity, transit times and quality all improve most people will be relatively satisfied. But this process has to start with investment, otherwise it stalls and eventually fails.

The very simple point I was making was that the average price paid per journey is £2.40....which I assume was arrived at by dividing total revenue recieved from fares divided by the number of journeys made.

Some of the perceptions forumites have about Northern are not matched by the realities. As frontline staff myself I can safely say that the overcrowding issue only applies to a small number of the 2500 services per day. Its worth noting that commission revenue for guards is falling.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Its worth noting that commission revenue for guards is falling.

That probably has more to do with the much stricter revenue enforcement at stations (e.g. no paying on board from Manchester Piccadilly any more[1]) than a reduced number of passengers.

[1] I know it was never officially allowed, but it was very common practice when it was an open station.

 

[Old Yard Dog]

Well the Location of Foster Square and Interchange may not be perfect but it is what it is and would expensive to change, they built for traffic levels that existed at the time they were built, Interchange integrates with the Bus Station which is quite handy, and while less than ideal considering Foster Square services were once proposed for closure its a lot better than it could of been.

Several schemes have been proposed for a Bradford cross rail in the 19th, 20th and 21st centuries, but none have come to fruition. The closest was a line from Bowling Junction to Shipley via Laisterdyke and Eccleshill which missed out Bradford Exchange unless you wanted to reverse (and went nowhere near Forster Square) .

The irony now is that little Windsor & Eton has a better chance of getting a CrossRail than Bradford.

Bradford has no First Class train services at all apart from the five London trains provided by GC and Virgin. This is perhaps a measure of how poorly served the city is and how unattractive a rail destination it is to businessmen.

Why should every single HS2 (E) train go to Leeds and nowhere else? Is Leeds really all that important?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Bradford has no First Class train services at all apart from the five London trains provided by GC and Virgin. This is perhaps a measure of how poorly served the city is and how unattractive a rail destination it is to businessmen.

I'm not sure it is these days - many if not most businesspeople are no longer allowed to go 1st anyway. It used to be, by pricing, near enough exclusively a business product, these days it's much more of a leisure one.

Why should every single HS2 (E) train go to Leeds and nowhere else? Is Leeds really all that important?

How do I put this...yes, it is.

 

[Bantamzen]

The very simple point I was making was that the average price paid per journey is £2.40....which I assume was arrived at by dividing total revenue recieved from fares divided by the number of journeys made.

Some of the perceptions forumites have about Northern are not matched by the realities. As frontline staff myself I can safely say that the overcrowding issue only applies to a small number of the 2500 services per day.

But that does not denote that demand isn't there. You must in your time have noted that a) numbers of passengers on the whole is rising, and b) yet much of the road network especially around towns and cities is still horribly congested. And of course we have to remember that ever since the early 2000's the franchise has had no kind of premium or inter-city operation that other TOC's use as major revenue sources.

Fixating on historical numbers isn't a strategy for moving forward, as I said if Northern is to realise it's full potential then it must offer more capacity where there is overcrowding, improve punctuality (although to be fair this has been getting better), improve connectivity where passengers move between services and/or modes wherever possible, and of course improve stock. These are the changes that will attract more passengers onto not just the busy services, but where there is still lots of capacity. I'm sure you are aware of the general public consensus of Northern, rightly or wrongly, and how this could be affecting potential revenue streams.

And again to be fair Arriva are working to improve this perception, ordering new stock, improving station facilities and even bringing in the Connect brand. This will only serve to help nudge more irregular passengers onto the network and improve revenue flows. But there are some improvements that are outside Arriva's control that would help in improving the overall picture. Staying static because some report found the "average" fair to be so low (and as a long standing public sector worker I always treat such stats with suspicion, governments rarely use them without some "seasoning") isn't going to improve the picture.

Its worth noting that commission revenue for guards is falling.

Is this because more stations are seeing TVMs, and their ability in some areas to load up season tickets (for example WY's MCard) as well as increased use of online booking? And I'd be careful who you tell this to, the DfT would love to find another reason to justify downgrading guard duties and moving towards DOO.....

 

[backontrack]

what you describe only reflects the experience of the "sort of urban" commuter. some of us live in very rural areas of north yorkshire (other rural areas do exist). public transport generally in any of these areas is ridiculously poor not just rail. i live close to helmsley, disregarding the 45 minute walk to the nearest bus stop, we have the "early" bus that gets us to york (malton is nearer but the bus company haven't realised that yet) just after the 0958/1003 to KGX services have left. then of course we need to get home, the "last" late night bus leaves york station at 1710. for your information the taxi fare from my house to YRK is £65. sorry for hijacking to what should be another thread.

The North does need better connectivity. There's a mindset that, in rural areas, everyone will drive, but that quite plainly isn't true. It's an urban myth.

 

[Moonshot]

The North does need better connectivity. There's a mindset that, in rural areas, everyone will drive, but that quite plainly isn't true. It's an urban myth.

I see the term " Better Connectivity " bandied around quite a lot....what does it actually mean in plain english ?

 

[AndrewE]

I see the term " Better Connectivity " bandied around quite a lot....what does it actually mean in plain english ?

To me it means being able to get around easily and conveniently. Compare the combined tube and Overground network (or the Swiss rail network) for 2 examples of good ones - serving almost everywhere most of the time.

Then look at what is available across our Northern region, which isn't anywhere near as good, even if you factor in the rapidly-declining bus services.

 

[northwichcat]

I see the term " Better Connectivity " bandied around quite a lot....what does it actually mean in plain english ?

Good connectivity:
Knutsford to London. 6 minute wait at Stockport. Through ticket available. Ticket accepted on later London service if Northern service to Stockport is delayed, even if it's an Advance ticket. Passenger compensated by rail operator if delay is over 30 minutes, with value of entire journey taken in to consideration when considering compensation (not just the delayed leg.)

Poor connectivity:
Withington to London. No advertised departure times for Metrolink or clear indication of how long it will take to get between Withington and Piccadilly. No through ticket available. Advance tickets for Manchester to London will not be accepted on the next service if there is disruption on Metrolink, passenger must buy new ticket/excess at additional cost to them. Metrolink will not compensate passenger except in form of free day Metrolink only ticket in case of severe disruption.

 

[Moonshot]

Good connectivity:
Knutsford to London. 6 minute wait at Stockport. Through ticket available. Ticket accepted on later London service if Northern service to Stockport is delayed, even if it's an Advance ticket. Passenger compensated by rail operator if delay is over 30 minutes, with value of entire journey taken in to consideration when considering compensation (not just the delayed leg.)

Poor connectivity:
Withington to London. No advertised departure times for Metrolink or clear indication of how long it will take to get between Withington and Piccadilly. No through ticket available. Advance tickets for Manchester to London will not be accepted on the next service if there is disruption on Metrolink, passenger must buy new ticket/excess at additional cost to them. Metrolink will not compensate passenger except in form of free day Metrolink only ticket in case of severe disruption.

Have you got the figures showing how many trips were made from Withington to London in 2016? And how many of them had bought advance tickets and had to buy new ones because of tram disruption ?

 

[Bantamzen]

I see the term " Better Connectivity " bandied around quite a lot....what does it actually mean in plain english ?

Well one example is my own commute. Commuting every day between my home in Baildon to Leeds, I have to change either at Shipley or Guiseley. Currently the average connection time is around 15-20 minutes, not great when you consider the entire time spent moving is around the 15-20 minute mark. So in effect my journey time is doubled simply because the services up and down the line don’t line up well with the connections. Now I don’t drive so I put up with it, but many people in my area who do work in Leeds do an so either drive to Shipley to connect, mainly because there is more parking at Shipley than at Guiseley, or if they are not early starters then just drive the entire way to Leeds. And I know this to be true because it has been brought up time and again at the local consultations with Northern.

Now this is one small example, and perhaps slightly unusual as Baildon is just about the only station in the area that doesn’t have a direct service to Leeds. But there will be other examples across the network where connection times mean that potential passengers use other modes as a result. But connectivity need not be exclusive to Arriva services. Working with other operators to understand where the connections flows are and try their best to timetable accordingly. And on a wider and much more difficult footing, trying to work with bus operators to make connections as efficient as possible. Whilst Northern and other TOCs are not charities, likewise passengers are not just cash machines. The rail network needs to adapt to the needs of it’s passengers, actual or potential if it wants to realise the maximum possible revenue.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Have you got the figures showing how many trips were made from Withington to London in 2016? And how many of them had bought advance tickets and had to buy new ones because of tram disruption ?

You've missed the point there.

 

[Moonshot]

You've missed the point there.

I didnt miss any point ..... the poster put up a travel itenerary which has nothing to do with the explanation of better connectivity.

Bantazem made a fair point....it seems to me that connectivity in Northerns case ( ie the topic of this thread ) would be about ensuring that anywhere within say a 20 mile radiius of Leeds actually has a connection to Leeds......and that also applies to Manchester, Newcastle , Liverpool etc...

 

[northwichcat]

Have you got the figures showing how many trips were made from Withington to London in 2016? And how many of them had bought advance tickets and had to buy new ones because of tram disruption ?

You've missed the point there.

Indeed. Withington is one of many Metrolink stops. The reason I chose that one over one like Bury or Media City is because connectivity is even worse due to Withington not having a direct tram in to Piccadilly meaning connectivity is even worse than from other stops.

Many passengers will be aware of the risk of buying an Advance ticket and missing their booked train, so may aim to arrive at Piccadilly something like 40 or 50 minutes early to ensure they don't (which nullifies the benefit of trams running to a high frequency) or may opt to buy a more expensive flexible ticket even if they are 99.9% sure which services they intend to catch. In both cases that makes public transport seem less attractive than it could be.

I myself contacted Metrolink customer relations when they turned around an Altrincham tram short which led to me missing a connecting train and having to wait an hour for the next one. Their response was "Tough. You should have got there earlier."

Monnshot - if you want exact figures ask all Greater Manchester residents to complete surveys. With Metrolink not selling through tickets to stations outside of Greater Manchester the figures you're asking for aren't available like figures for rail passenger flows are.

 

[northwichcat]

Bantazem made a fair point....it seems to me that connectivity in Northerns case ( ie the topic of this thread ) would be about ensuring that anywhere within say a 20 mile radiius of Leeds actually has a connection to Leeds......and that also applies to Manchester, Newcastle , Liverpool etc...

That's also one of the problems in the North - the trains only go to the big cities (and places on the way to the big cities.) From Winsford you can get a train to Liverpool. However, despite there being a direct line to Warrington from Winsford and Warrington being closer to Winsford than Liverpool there is no train service.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That's also one of the problems in the North - the trains only go to the big cities (and places on the way to the big cities.) From Winsford you can get a train to Liverpool. However, despite there being a direct line to Warrington from Winsford and Warrington being closer to Winsford than Liverpool there is no train service.

You'll always get that in a web-like service with no one key destination. The way to make it work is as per SBB, Nederlandse Spoorwegen etc - proper timed, planned connections.

The North really does need a Taktfahrplan - far more so than any other part of the UK where journeys tend to be more radial.

 

[coppercapped]

The very simple point I was making was that the average price paid per journey is £2.40....which I assume was arrived at by dividing total revenue recieved from fares divided by the number of journeys made.

Some of the perceptions forumites have about Northern are not matched by the realities. As frontline staff myself I can safely say that the overcrowding issue only applies to a small number of the 2500 services per day. Its worth noting that commission revenue for guards is falling.

Just to put the average price per journey on Northern into context, the ORR's document UK Rail Industry Financial Information 2015-16, published in February 2017 states (on page 11) for the railways as a whole:

Average passenger income per journey was £5.34 in 2015-16, a 0.3% reduction from £5.36 in 2014-15. This is largely due to a smaller increase in fares (3.4%) than in passenger journeys (3.7%).
The average passenger income per journey was highest in Wales (£6.22) followed by England (£5.38) and Scotland (£4.42).

So the average fare paid by Northern passengers is just under half that paid on average in England. As the English average includes many longer distance journeys, especially those to and from London which is not the case for Northern, it does not seem too far out of kilter.

The issue that was the most serious one affecting Northern was the 'no growth' aspect of the franchise. To an extent the reason for this is understandable, when the SRA awarded the franchise in 2004 the cost of running 'the railways' was increasing rapidly as a result of Hatfield, the need to increase maintenance generally, that Network Rail's costs did not appear to be properly under control and also HS1 expenditures were all bundled together in the overall amount. There was no budget to expand Northern's services and the subsequent extensions of the franchise, effectively under the same conditions, did not assist any resolution.

One only hopes that the changes now occurring will not only improve the service to the customer, but that a combination of reduced costs and increased revenue will get Northern's subsidy out of the firing line. It is acceptable that a TOC serving many thinly populated areas over long distances will continue to be subsidised - that's the price of the social railway - but the amount has to be acceptable to those living outside the area who are paying for it. If it could be reduced over the next few years to a level similar to that paid for the London Overground, in terms of pence/pass-km[1], then the sting could be drawn from many of the arguments!

[1] In 2014-15 the Overground's subsidy was about 4 p/pass-km and Northern's about 5 p/pass-km.

 

[HSTEd]

The DfT figures you linked (which are for the DfT franchised TOCs only, not Scotrail, ATW, LO or Merseyrail) arbitrarily divvy up the Network Grant between TOCs in proportion to the fixed track access charges they each pay Network Rail.

The ORR tables show just the real subsidy/premium payments to/from all the TOCs, including PTE subsidies. For 2015-16 the subsidy was £292.6m to Northern, £72.3m to Merseyrail and £14.6m to TPE.

I apologise, I mispoke as to terminology, but this does not change the fact that if the only public money transferred to the railway was the total of those 'real subsidy/premium payments' it would collapse overnight.

So it is not defensible to state that the subsidy to Northern is only £292.6m/a

 

[tbtc]

I agree with yorksrob. When I still lived in the North West I really didn't care about a faster journey to London, the only people who care about that are those that commute. Going to that there London was a day out, and I had to set aside at least a day to do it. Knocking half an hour off the journey time wasn't going to encourage me to go, or encourage me to go by train anymore.

However, knocking 5/10 minutes off my journey into Liverpool / Manchester / Preston, a journey I would do frequently. Or give me the option of getting to Sheffield in a reasonable time, I might just get the train instead of climbing into the car.

Given Leeds is already two hours twenty minutes away from London, I don't see much benefit to a shorter journey. Infact, I can see disadvantages if they begin to change the nature of Leeds' economy from a provincial centre to a dormitory of London.

So faster journey times are okay, as long as they are only faster journey times to places in "the north"?

Faster journey times to London would turn northern places into dormitory suburbs but faster journey times to Leeds/ Manchester are A Good Thing?

I don't remember anyone moaning that the Todmorden Curve would turn Burnley into a dormitory of Manchester and change the nature of the town. I'm sure I keep hearing that SELRAP would be A Good Thing for Colne since it would allow large numbers of people to go work further afield (and presumably turn Colne into a dormitory town?).

Is the new Northern Connect service from Nottingham/ Sheffield to Leeds/ Bradford A Bad Thing because it'll make some of these cities a dormitory of the other?

Should we be improving the "provincial centres" of the north by slowing down London trains, maybe by having a manual token handover somewhere?

Except for the most rural if lines, an hourly service isn't attractive, I'd be looking at every 30 mins.

Also I wouldn't say there is any need for anything to be more frequent than every 15 mins. If more capacity is needed it should be done by train lengths. I'm not sure we need 6 TPEs per hour. Two to Liverpool, two to Manchester Airport, but each with 5-6 carriages would be sufficient at off peak times. This would leave more room for local stoppers which should be 4 cars rather than the current 2 and could perhaps run twice an hour rather than the current hourly.

I like the idea in principle.

The problem is that we have an awkward network of services that get in each others way. E.g. you could say that four longer trains an hour would be great on the Calder Valley - and that sounds reasonable. But some of the services on that route from Leeds towards Manchester split off towards Brighouse/ Huddersfield or Burnley/ Blackpool... some join from Dewsbury/ Brighouse. Those Brighouse services impact upon the Leeds - Huddersfield line too.

I think that our network is too messy for any perfect-world Germanic timetable, sadly.

Bradford, the 10th biggest city in England is only served by slow stopping trains plus four GC trains a day to London which take over 90 mins to get to Doncaster and a slightly faster Virgin one which doesn't run off peak. It has no direct connections to Liverpool, Sheffield, Hull or Birmingham

Obviously it will get direct trains to Liverpool and Sheffield (and Meadowhall, Nottingham etc too).

But the idea of Bradford being a massive place only works if you use generous boundaries to define it (so that Keighley and Ilkley are treated as Bradford) and tightly drawn boundaries to define other cities (so that Nottingham Forest don't play in Nottingham because technically West Bridgeford isn't in Nottingham).

Bradford isn't tiny, but it's nothing like as big or important as Bradford people think it is. And the geography of the place means it's pretty difficult to serve by rail.

Many of the above points are also true of Sheffield (inflated population due to it going all the way out to places like Stocksbridge and High Green... awkward valleys and hillsides restricting Heavy Rail... not getting a full HS2 service... a few locals with over-inflated idea about its importance)

The south TP routes are very poor in comparison to other areas even in the North. Even the A66 is supposed to be getting dualled

The Hope Valley route really ought to be taken out of the Transpennine franchise - it's an afterthought - it's the only line not getting new trains - it's the only line not seeing a frequency increase - it's forgotten about. And by having three different TOCs running services along it, there's no one organisation pushing for proper improvements.

Railways anywhere are. As are sewage systems, education, hospitals... all the infrastructure of a civilised society.

Nobody expects a sewage system to be profitable.

Maybe your analogy would be relevant if London had profitable sewage systems and hospitals that paid a premium to the government whilst sewage systems oop-north required subsidies, I don't know.

But one big difference is that there are alternatives to heavy rail. Some routes/ services could be run by light rail/ buses/ coaches. Not every route that the Victorians left us with is still fit for purpose. Some stations are on the wrong side of the valley for where people live nowadays, for example.

Heavy rail doesn't always have to be the answer.

Just going back to the topic of this thread, one thing that hasnt been mentioned is the average price paid by a passenger on Northern for a single journey is around £2.40.

No doubt because most journeys are very short.

A more realistic journey of 23 miles from Morecambe to Kendal costs over £10.

A ridiculously short journey from Morecambe to Bare Lane costs £1.90 for just 2 miles.

So, per mile, it's actually very expensive.

Nothing random about it.......its the figure quoted in the pathfinder prospectus for this franchise. To add to this I just looked at a 7 day season ticket price from Bolton to Manchester which is a significant flow ....works out at £2.47....or just £2.05 over 12 months. 11 miles in distance.

In terms of the number of people making that journey each week/ year, I think that Moonshot's example is much more relevant.

Whilst there are anomalies (both high and low) in ticketing around the UK, I think we should pay more attention to the kind of tickets that thousands of people buy on a regular basis.

Part of the problem that Northern has is that many passenger journeys are short but many rail journeys are long.

The timetable requires it to run a Manchester - Bolton service all the way to Southport/ Clitheroe/ Barrow, even when a significant number of people have got out at Bolton.

So they have trains that are insufficient for short distance passenger demand but then have the costs (fuel, staffing, track access etc) in running them all the way to distant termini.

Maybe profitability would be better if (after electrification) they ran some eight coach EMU shuttles from Manchester to Bolton to soak up demand (and thinned out the number of two coach diesel services going all the way to Clitheroe etc)?

In the same time SWT has shifted from £115 million subsidy to s £131 million payment (£246 million shift). This compares with Northern which went from a £660 million subsidy to a £510 million subsidy (£150 million shift).

Although Northern is making progress it could be argued that it is doing slower than other franchises. I think that in that timeframe (bearing in mind the period these figures cover) there's been relatively little investment in either franchise. At most a few extra cast offs from other TOC's and whatever Northern has had in that time.

Interesting comparison. Thanks.

Several schemes have been proposed for a Bradford cross rail in the 19th, 20th and 21st centuries, but none have come to fruition. The closest was a line from Bowling Junction to Shipley via Laisterdyke and Eccleshill which missed out Bradford Exchange unless you wanted to reverse (and went nowhere near Forster Square) .

The irony now is that little Windsor & Eton has a better chance of getting a CrossRail than Bradford

Bradford CrossRail wouldn't solve anything significant though.

Unless there's some amazing demand to get from Hebden Bridge to Guiseley that I'm unaware of, it would be a hugely expensive scheme that wouldn't deliver any major benefits.

A solution in need of a problem.

Why should every single HS2 (E) train go to Leeds and nowhere else? Is Leeds really all that important?

a: yes, Leeds is more important
b: no, not all services will go to Leeds and nowhere else - AIUI services towards Newcastle will take a north-eastern chord with no stop in West Yorkshire

 

[notlob.divad]

There is something else massively missing from all of this discussion about operating costs and subsidy that is glaringly obvious when you take a step back and look at what the franchises do.

(Ignoring Merseyrail and LO for reasons that I hope are obvious) along with ATW, Northern doens't really have any long distance inter-city express services. The services covering that region are run by TPE. Therefore to compare the previous Northern franchise directly with a SWT is ridiculous, you would have to remove all of the long distance services into Waterloo, (probably SWTs main money spinners). Same with pretty much any TOC that serves London)

The alternative is you could start including a fraction of the WCML and ECML franchise premiums for all the people who start or finish their journey in Northern land. Direct comparisons between the franchises are stupid they very much are like going to the supermarket and comparing the price of fishfingers with the price of caviar.

 

[The Ham]

Well one example is my own commute. Commuting every day between my home in Baildon to Leeds, I have to change either at Shipley or Guiseley. Currently the average connection time is around 15-20 minutes, not great when you consider the entire time spent moving is around the 15-20 minute mark. So in effect my journey time is doubled simply because the services up and down the line don’t line up well with the connections. Now I don’t drive so I put up with it, but many people in my area who do work in Leeds do an so either drive to Shipley to connect, mainly because there is more parking at Shipley than at Guiseley, or if they are not early starters then just drive the entire way to Leeds. And I know this to be true because it has been brought up time and again at the local consultations with Northern.

Now this is one small example, and perhaps slightly unusual as Baildon is just about the only station in the area that doesn’t have a direct service to Leeds. But there will be other examples across the network where connection times mean that potential passengers use other modes as a result. But connectivity need not be exclusive to Arriva services. Working with other operators to understand where the connections flows are and try their best to timetable accordingly. And on a wider and much more difficult footing, trying to work with bus operators to make connections as efficient as possible. Whilst Northern and other TOCs are not charities, likewise passengers are not just cash machines. The rail network needs to adapt to the needs of it’s passengers, actual or potential if it wants to realise the maximum possible revenue.

Poor connections are not just a Northern thing. Try looking up how to travel by train from Farnborough Main to Ascot by train which is about 25 minute car journey and it will take you about 75 minutes by train for most services listed, if you are luck you may just get a 56 to 61 minute journey time but that involves walking to Farnborough North (not so fun if it is raining) but then does only involve one other change.

Of that 75 minutes only 41 minutes will be on the train due to having to change twice.

 

[Bletchleyite]

(Ignoring Merseyrail and LO for reasons that I hope are obvious) along with ATW, Northern doens't really have any long distance inter-city express services

It sort-of does - the former North West Express services to Barrow and Windermere.

 

[northwichcat]

It sort-of does - the former North West Express services to Barrow and Windermere.

Yes and the number of longer services will increase over the next couple of years as some services are extended. Although, the latest figures for average length of journey and average fare paid won't take in to account journeys on the ex-TPE North West services.

 

[notlob.divad]

And on a wider and much more difficult footing, trying to work with bus operators to make connections as efficient as possible. Whilst Northern and other TOCs are not charities, likewise passengers are not just cash machines. The rail network needs to adapt to the needs of it’s passengers, actual or potential if it wants to realise the maximum possible revenue.

This!!!

and on a wider note, I don't in anyway think it is restricted to the North, I think it is very much an everywhere but London thing. However in London buses/trains/underground are all so frequent that no co-ordination is needed, and oyster brought in the area wide ticketing. The UK in general is very very bad at integrated public transport. Everything is run in isolation without any big picture. That counts for timetabling, ticketing and the very basics of the infrastructure. There are some good examples within the PTE's, but they still have not fully grasped the concept compared to other countries.

A couple of examples to highlight: last summer I went to Budapest, I was camping outside the city a 2km hike from a little village at the end of a bus route. However getting there was the easiest thing in the world, because you got the bus from the airport, to the underground station, switched lines then the tram to the tram-bus interchange on the other side of the city. Everyone got off and buses to all the little villages where sat waiting. Almost the same on the return journey, the bus pulls in you get off, it waits whilst the tram pulls in, every one swaps and off you all go. All done with a single ticket that can be bought at any of the ATMs, and if there is no vending machine at the tiny stop you get on at, you can just wait until you get to the interchange point and buy one there.

Compare that to getting into the nearest city by public transport in my home town in the north west of England. Walk to the bus stop, nowhere to buy a ticket, not a through ticket, not an all forms of transport ticket nothing. (To get one I used to be able go to the local shop 5 minutes walk in the wrong direction, now I can't even do that as the shop has got rid of its Paypoint machine). Wait for the bus, on the bus the driver can only sell me a single ticket or a zonal pass for his/her companies buses (if they can remember what they are all called), not for trains (even though it is the same company running them) not for the competitor companies buses which maybe what I have to get at the other end. Get to the bus station, 1/4 mile walk away from the train station, ok for me 3x year old man, not for my 9x year old grandparents. Buy train ticket, (here I can buy the zonal pass for buses and trains but it is too late because I have already had to pay the bus driver for the bus journey bit. Just miss the train because the bus time is not coordinated to get me to the station in time. Wait 29 minutes for the next train (and that's a decent line with 2 all stop tph + express). At the other end 1/4 mile walk to the bus station. Just miss the bus, because it is not co-ordinated to leave enough time for when the train goes. Thankfully in the city, the bus is every 10 minutes, but the journey home is worse because you see the half hourly bus leave as you step off the train.

Priority 1 should be the integrated ticketing, particularly now you have smart phones and contactless payment, you should be able to buy a through ticket for all forms of transport from your mobile whilst stood at the bus stop.

Priority 2 which is actually the easier, is timetabling the trains so that they provide good connections, and I mean really good connections, between local services and the intercity services.

Priority 3 should be to co-ordinate the bus times to the trains at the local stations, and co-coordinating the bus times between the buses. However this needs to be tied with construction of proper bus/train interchanges. There are decent/good examples where it has been done or they are at least close: Blackburn, Liverpool South Parkway, Newton-Le-Willows (plans), others such as Wigan, and Preston are woeful.