Remapping of Rail Franchises

[Jorge Da Silva]

Preston is more central for that area, which covers the whole coast from Ellesmere Port to Carlisle.

I think you ought to be able to throw in the Morecambe branch, and Leeds-Lancaster/Carlisle in there too as, while it interacts with the Aire Valley line, the rolling stock is all different and there's little reason to keep that line just one operator for electric metro services and diesel rural services. Furness and Windermere are planned to be Connect services (every other one, or train split?) to Manchester Airport via Wigan. Do you just have 'Cumbria Connect' as a sub-brand of a North NW franchise, or do you put those lines in a Northern Connect franchise?
The easiest bit to take off Northern into its own franchise is the North East one (Tyne Valley, Tees Valley, Esk Valley, Durham Coast, etc), with its single interface with everything else at Carlisle. The rest is more tricky as there's more interactions to ease apart.

Okay, add Morecambe into 'Cumbrian Franchise'. I would suggest that Northern Connect would go to TPE if any split happens. As for Windermere and the Furness and Morecambe they would go under a separate franchise.

Cumbrian Franchise would see the following transferred:

• Lancaster-Barrow
• Barrow-Carlisle
• Lancaster-Morecambe
• Morecambe-Leeds/Skipton (three per day)

As for Barrow and Windermere to Manchester should go to TPE (as they were until 2016)

 

[Agent_Squash]

So is it best to Split GTR as Southern Franchise, Thameslink Franchise and of course GN going to LNER and TfL as I originally suggested?

Yes, it would.

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

Yes, it would.

So My original suggestion is best. Basically go back to how it used to be for Thameslink and Southern. Thameslink is still a pretty large franchise on its own so it would be large enough for a separate franchise to work well.

 

[si404]

Morecambe-Leeds/Skipton (three per day)

Did you forget to add the Leeds-Lancaster and Leeds-Carlisle services to your list? Or are you deliberately just having 3/8ths of the trains via Bentham / 3/16ths of the trains via Gargrave?

And if you are enlarging TPX by adding back the Barrow/Windermere services, but pulling off some rural services into their own franchise, what philosophy are you utilising? The first sounds like bigger is better, the latter suggests niche little brands.

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

Did you forget to add the Leeds-Lancaster and Leeds-Carlisle services to your list? Or are you deliberately just having 3/8ths of the trains via Bentham / 3/16ths of the trains via Gargrave?

And if you are enlarging TPX by adding back the Barrow/Windermere services, but pulling off some rural services into their own franchise, what philosophy are you utilising? The first sounds like bigger is better, the latter suggests niche little brands.

Okay, I don’t live in this region so I am only going by what I think and if you disagree with any of my ideas, just say and I will change it. Trust me, doing this thread has taught me a lot.
Hope I am not being too harsh, If I am, My apologies. I sometimes come across the too harsh and too direct.

So in summary:
Let’s Scrap the Cumbrian Franchise and merge it with the proposed ‘North Western Franchise’.

New Plan:
TransPennine Express would take Leeds-Lancaster/Carlisle and all other Northern Connect services

 

[swt_passenger]

So My original suggestion is best. Basically go back to how it used to be for Thameslink and Southern. Thameslink is still a pretty large franchise on its own so it would be large enough for a separate franchise to work well.

You don’t need to suggest it as though it’s your idea however, DfT have already done this.

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

You don’t need to suggest it as though it’s your idea however, DfT have already done this.

Sorry.

 

[DenmarkRail]

Where does East West Rail go in all of this? Part of Chiltern? LNWR? GWR? Its too little, and interconnected to go on its own...

It is a long way off though.

 

[The Planner]

To add some innuendo to this, it isn't size that matters, it is the length... You need Chiltern like timescales to be able to invest properly.

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

Where does East West Rail go in all of this? Part of Chiltern? LNWR? GWR? Its too little, and interconnected to go on its own...

It is a long way off though.

CrossCountry could use the EWR as well but not for local services. MKC-Marylebone would be part of Chiltern I assume but the others I would think its own franchise.

 

[bionic]

Merge them all together, bring it back into public hands and call it British Rail or similar.

Regarding regions and cities, why not manage the local commuter and suburban stuff locally? TFL etc and run the rest nationally. Makes sense. I don't want to start the whole renationalisation debate again but the current franchising model is dead in the water as a long term strategy and needs to change.

 

[swt_passenger]

Greenford branch transfer to Chiltern has been abandoned by DfT, apparently because it is no easier to operate from Wembley than Reading.

(Dft have published the post consultation GW stakeholder brief today.)

 

[Clip]

I see your point on a Southern Split but that surely would be difficult. I would be in favour of a split and I am not in favour of a merge with any other operator. TfL should run the ‘Metro’ services within Greater London and I think the Government last year confirmed some services could be transferred to TfL.

A Southern Split could look like this (Using: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_(Govia_Thameslink_Railway)#Routes )

• TfL should run Metro and West London services
• Creation of a new ‘Coastway Franchise’ which would be formed of Coastway West and Coastway East services
• The Remainder would be split into a ‘Southern Main Line Franchise’ (Gatwick Express, Brighton Main Line, MainLine West, MainLine East, Redhill and Oxted)

Should Redhill and Oxted form a separate franchise as well (i.e an Oxted Franchise)

By creating these new and smaller franchises(using this as an example) you are now having to introduce new structures and management which increases the costs of the railway and that needs to be paid for so how much more money do you want to spend on that?

Interesting that TfL don’t want the routes via East Croydon.

Probably because of delays to services and the knock on id imagine.

To add some innuendo to this, it isn't size that matters, it is the length... You need Chiltern like timescales to be able to invest properly.

Fnnar Fnnar But very very true

 

[Hadders]

I disagree with LNER taking over parts of Great Northern. I'd separate GTR as follows:

- GN inners to TfL
- Southern as a standalone franchise
- The rest (basically the old FCC) a separate Thameslink franchise

The problem with LNER getting involved in the Cambridge fasts/Kings Lynn and Peterborough peak fast services is:

- At times of disruption there are more people involved in the decision making - would LNER really want to make additional calls at smaller stations to maintain a service when there is disruption
- There are already Any Permitted and GA fares from Cambridge to London. Adding LNER only fares (I suspect for only a small saving) will only complicate matters further when passengers want simplification.
- Would an Any Permitted ticket be required to travel on a peak hours extra train from Peterborough to Kings Cross (i.e the current service operated by 365s)? Currently a cheaper GTR only ticket can be used.

 

[Hetlana]

I would rather break up the big franchises along trunk mainlines, and have more competition, either between franchises or involving open access operators.

If we break up big intercity franchises, we could do it so that there’s ultimate duplication, and say, at least two companies London-Manchester, two companies London-Glasgow, or we could split it so that each smaller company gets a branch line to itself and that the competition is only on the main line.

This has got to be better than having monopolies.

 

[The Planner]

We have done this one before, you have two companies running between A-B on the same tracks with the ability to run the services they please, how do you deal with the allocation of traffic? For example the (ex) 0700 from Piccadilly to Euston is the prime path, do you go with the highest bidder? It would become unsustainable very quickly.

 

[HH]

People are getting distracted by specifics. No system will be perfect. However, if a franchise gets too big then it doesn't cope. On TSGN, some bidders recognised this and suggested two "HQs" (or more accurately a second, sub-HQ). It's arguable what a maximum size should be, but certainly GTR is too big and GWR is arguable (partly due to the large geographical spread).

Apart from that it ought to be more efficient to have decisions relating to any specific assets be in the control of as few people as possible.

 

[NorthKent1989]

I would rather break up the big franchises along trunk mainlines, and have more competition, either between franchises or involving open access operators.

If we break up big intercity franchises, we could do it so that there’s ultimate duplication, and say, at least two companies London-Manchester, two companies London-Glasgow, or we could split it so that each smaller company gets a branch line to itself and that the competition is only on the main line.

This has got to be better than having monopolies.

This was considered during the early stages of privatisation, smaller franchises in some cases works: LTS & Chiltern prove this however therein lies the problem at the same time, both LTS and Chiltern are largely self contained routes/networks that don't intersect into other TOC routes or networks, hence why small franchises work on those routes.

Southern for example has many routes that all intersect with one another and that's without it being in the Thameslink mix, how would one divide the South Central area into smaller franchises? There are multiple routes into multiple terminals.

It would be easier to break up South Eastern into smaller franchises, on the map if your familiar with the network you can divide it up into four smaller networks:
- HS1

- The Dartford/Gravesend/Medway routes

- South Eastern Main line to Ashford and Hastings incl the Hayes and Bromley North lines

- Chatham Main line incl the Maidstone East line

However even this would be too difficult to manage because the latter three routes (but to a lesser extent the CML) all share London terminals and the knock on effect in delays would be horrendous even if it does give Kent more options in TOC's

 

[Allwinter_Kit]

I think an interesting problem as well is to do with the separation of routes. After all, stripping TPX out of Northern-land meant that the main profitable route suddenly was no longer subsidising the smaller ones that enable it. Northern Connect is interesting - I would suggest rolling the two back together and having TPX as a Northern Connect flagship. What is gained from separating it from the entire surrounding eco-system?

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

I would rather break up the big franchises along trunk mainlines, and have more competition, either between franchises or involving open access operators.

If we break up big intercity franchises, we could do it so that there’s ultimate duplication, and say, at least two companies London-Manchester, two companies London-Glasgow, or we could split it so that each smaller company gets a branch line to itself and that the competition is only on the main line.

This has got to be better than having monopolies.

London-Glasgow had competition. One was Virgin’s West Coast and the then GNER but following the West Coast Upgrade it was concluded that this was no longer possible for East Coast Franchisee to keep up with the West Coast times hence why there is only one train per day between Glasgow and London via East Coast. Those paths were replaced with CrossCountry instead.

 

[bussnapperwm]

Split the 170 operated services from WM and XC and integrate them together as a mini XC. maybe call them something radical like Central Citylink?

 

[Class 170101]

Where does East West Rail go in all of this? Part of Chiltern? LNWR? GWR? Its too little, and interconnected to go on its own...

It is a long way off though.

CrossCountry could use the EWR as well but not for local services. MKC-Marylebone would be part of Chiltern I assume but the others I would think its own franchise.

Split the 170 operated services from WM and XC and integrate them together as a mini XC. maybe call them something radical like Central Citylink?

I would put East West Rail with Cross-Country along with the Norwich to Liverpool route of EMT plus also Birmingham to Hereford of WM but then you are making that franchise very large, so I would re-create Central Trains Citylink as franchise for East to West Cross Country routes and then for the north to south cross Country franchise I would add Bimringham to Scotland via the West Coast to the current routes to Scotland via the East Coast and Plymouth, Bristol, Bournemouth and Reading to New Street routes.

Greenford branch transfer to Chiltern has been abandoned by DfT, apparently because it is no easier to operate from Wembley than Reading.

(Dft have published the post consultation GW stakeholder brief today.)

Should be electrified and upgraded and added to Crossrail instead of terminating some their services at Paddington.

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

Should be electrified and upgraded and added to Crossrail instead of terminating some their services at Paddington.

They don’t terminate at Paddington anymore now they terminate at West Ealing due to Crossrail.

 

[coppercapped]

This may not be the right question.

In view of the increasing responsibilities being given to the devolved areas of Network Rail and the realisation that closer integration between the infrastructure and the train operators is desirable, possibly the question should concern the future shape of the franchises.

 

[HH]

To my mind, given the level of specification now given by DfT (etc.), franchises no longer make sense - they should either be concessions or they need to hand back some control to franchisees. There is, of course, the nationalisation option, but that's a bit like Brexit - we don't know exactly what that means. As I am not driven by dogma, I have a natural aversion to changes that are largely driven by it.

 

[Class 170101]

They don’t terminate at Paddington anymore now they terminate at West Ealing due to Crossrail.

Crossrail will terminate services at Paddington from Central London.

 

[swt_passenger]

[Greenford] Should be electrified and upgraded and added to Crossrail instead of terminating some their services at Paddington.

No it shouldn’t, because there would be a flat crossing conflict, as has been explained numerous times. The same reasoning explains why the existing GWR service no longer runs to Paddington, and the Chiltern parliamentary will also only run to West Ealing from the next timetable change.

 

[cav1975]

Southeastern should be split with the HS1 services in one company and the rest in another. This should rejuvenate the classic services with journey time improvements back to what they were before HS1 (or better) and bring down HS1 fares due to competition.

Sadly, it won't happen.

 

[Class 170101]

No it shouldn’t, because there would be a flat crossing conflict, as has been explained numerous times. The same reasoning explains why the existing GWR service no longer runs to Paddington, and the Chiltern parliamentary will also only run to West Ealing from the next timetable change.

A flat junction conflict is not a reason why it shouldn't run through otherwise why not have shuttles from all branches to the nearest mainline and make people change trains to avoid as many as possible across the country?

Southeastern should be split with the HS1 services in one company and the rest in another. This should rejuvenate the classic services with journey time improvements back to what they were before HS1 (or better) and bring down HS1 fares due to competition.

Sadly, it won't happen.

I might be tempted to split HS1 off if it stopped them running around the Kent Coast with their St Pancras to St Pancras service. I feel it would be better if Class 395s terminated at Dover / Ramsgate rather than spend time running around the coast when a more suitable lower speed EMU could cover this section with Class 395s providing more services / capacity on HS1.

 

[swt_passenger]

A flat junction conflict is not a reason why it shouldn't run through otherwise why not have shuttles from all branches to the nearest mainline and make people change trains to avoid as many as possible across the country?

I’m sure Network Rail and Crossrail will be pleased to see your evidence that they are completely wrong.