Should local government have more control over heavy rail?

[Plethora]

One idea that seems likely to gain traction if the current government lasts is the concept of localism. Already many forms of transport in this country are locally run, often supported by funding from councils and area stakeholders.

What is the extent to which heavy rail can be locally run? I'm thinking particularly (but not limited) on the infrastructure side.

Linked to this is another question. What lessons can NR and TOCs learn from services currently run locally?

One example that I always raise in my part of the world is Metrolink. They have been aggressively expanding their offering, and they seem to deliver infrastructure upgrades on time and to budget (see second city crossing, airport, and it seems trafford centre is going well too), they run good PR campaigns (an article in the MEN only today feeding back on a survey of reader priorities) and generally have been very successful in attracting new ridership. Other examples would be interesting to hear about - Merseyrail seems to get a good rep even though their rolling stock is very old.

Are there lessons for the (heavy) rail industry here, and is there success to be had in running a local and more reactive operation?

 

[Carlisle]

Yes, Metrolink, Merseyrail T & W metro etc are clear examples of best practice by local authorities whilst at the opposite end Hertfordshire county councils bungled attempts to try and run Watford St Albans suggest they’re not fit to be anywhere near rail

 

[Hadders]

Local Government control could work in metropolitan areas for self contained services but not really anywhere else.

For example, what rail services could Northamptonshire County Council control?

 

[DarloRich]

Local Government control could work in metropolitan areas for self contained services but not really anywhere else.

For example, what rail services could Northamptonshire County Council control?

The crucial Long Buckby to Northampton commuter flow. 12 car trains every 3 minutes are needed

 

[Right Away]

Local Government control could work in metropolitan areas for self contained services but not really anywhere else.

For example, what rail services could Northamptonshire County Council control?

Completely agree. To highlight the impracticalities, they can run a shuttle service for a short distance either side of Kings Sutton station as the line just strays from Oxfordshire into Northamptonshire there. Change trains at the county boundary if you want to get to the adjacent stations at Banbury, Heyford or Bicester North (all in Oxfordshire).

 

[Plethora]

Local Government control could work in metropolitan areas for self contained services but not really anywhere else.

For example, what rail services could Northamptonshire County Council control?

a) Infrastructure. Maintenance of existing routes could become the responsibility of local councils who could appoint local contractors to do the job if desired. However it would become part of the budget, and thus subject to scrutiny. (I can see a counter argument to this being that NR allows more efficient resource allocation and expertise)
b) In rural areas (and Northamptonshire is probably an extreme example of this) there will need it be co-operation with neighbouring councils to target investment. What stops rural areas from setting up PTEs? It seems this would be a good way of encouraging rural infrastructure investment by forcing councils to take an interest.

 

[Elecman]

a) Infrastructure. Maintenance of existing routes could become the responsibility of local councils who could appoint local contractors to do the job if desired. However it would become part of the budget, and thus subject to scrutiny. (I can see a counter argument to this being that NR allows more efficient resource allocation and expertise)
b) In rural areas (and Northamptonshire is probably an extreme example of this) there will need it be co-operation with neighbouring councils to target investment. What stops rural areas from setting up PTEs? It seems this would be a good way of encouraging rural infrastructure investment by forcing councils to take an interest.

And if they maintain the railway infrastructure as well as they do roads you wont have a train service for very long.
Merseytravel wanted to own the Liverpool infrastructur3 bu5 soon changed their minds when they realised the costs

 

[Right Away]

b) In rural areas (and Northamptonshire is probably an extreme example of this) there will need it be co-operation with neighbouring councils to target investment. What stops rural areas from setting up PTEs? It seems this would be a good way of encouraging rural infrastructure investment by forcing councils to take an interest.

Somewhere like the 'Bristol Metro' area would benefit from such an organisation. Although the formation of Avon as an administrative area wasn't largely popular, transport planning for the Bristol 'travel to work' area was at least under one roof, instead of being split between the four separate unitary authorities that replaced it, as is presently the case.

 

[furnessvale]

Give financial control to LAs and you could well see cash diverted to local buses.

You can get an awful lot of buses for the subsidies some lines receive.

 

[swt_passenger]

Give financial control to LAs and you could well see cash diverted to local buses...

I suspect railway routes just don’t map directly onto local authority areas anyway, in the way buses often do.

Wasn’t it localism (or some other earlier term) that was the justification for unitary authorities in various areas of the country? Then you look at a unitary authority like Southampton and find it has no self contained rail services at all...

 

[furnessvale]

I suspect railway routes just don’t map directly onto local authority areas anyway, in the way buses often do.

Wasn’t it localism (or some other earlier term) that was the justification for unitary authorities in various areas of the country? Then you look at a unitary authority like Southampton and find it has no self contained rail services at all...

They could simply allocate lines to a consortium of adjacent LAs. Imagine the fun when the LA in the middle wants to use its cash for other purposes!

My own station, Furness Vale suffers from a variation of this being the first station from Manchester on the Buxton line line NOT to receive additional support from GM/Cheshire/Derbyshire. The price rise for the extra mile means that most commuters drive/walk to New Mills starving FV of passenger numbers.

 

[Edders23]

many local councils are withdrawing bus subsidies with a resultant reduction in services so where would they find the money

 

[Fawkes Cat]

One idea that seems likely to gain traction if the current government lasts is the concept of localism. Already many forms of transport in this country are locally run, often supported by funding from councils and area stakeholders.

What is the extent to which heavy rail can be locally run? I'm thinking particularly (but not limited) on the infrastructure side.

1) I'm not sure where the impression that the current government is in favour of localism comes from. The limited evidence available from the five days that it has been in office seems to suggest the opposite - see their policy for the government of Northern Ireland.
2) But surely localism must be about devolving decisions to the smallest appropriate unit: there's a reason why parish councils run allotments and parks, but not bin collections and highways. That being the case, the appropriate unit to run railways would be quite large - either by population (Merseyside) or by area (Cumbria could be said to have a meaningful rail network).

Given the safety issues and the mixture of local and national passenger services with freight, I can't see that it would be meaningful for Little Interest Parish Council / Northern Powerhouse Regional Authority to actually manage rail maintenance in their area ('Farmer Jones has always helped out with mowing the park: we'll ask him to send a couple of his lads down to the intercity mainline to spread some ballast'...). I can imagine central funding with local top-ups, but that would only encourage cheating ('We'd love the London expresses to stop at our station: if we don't pay to maintain the track, they'll slow to walking pace anyhow so they may as well stop - cheaper for us AND we get our London trains!')

So, is there a role for local management of rail infrastructure? In general, no.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

It would only work if it is regionalised into large areas, much like Scotland and Wales have single bodies for transport (except cross-border).
But England seems to show little interest in regional government, largely because of local big city chauvinism.
TfN and West Midlands Rail are attempts to move in that direction, but it's hard work.
Meanwhile Network Rail are moving in the other direction, with autonomy for their sort of Regions, which are tied to classic lines-of-route.
Localism also collides with national strategy, as per the debates about HS2 and NPR.
The Treasury absolutely hates devolution, and any thought of losing financial control.
You end up with "Barnett Formulas" and endless me-too and north-south debates, with multiple layers of micro-management.
Labour, meanwhile, seems to be heading in a centralist direction.

 

[furnessvale]

many local councils are withdrawing bus subsidies with a resultant reduction in services so where would they find the money

IF they are given control of the current rail budget for their local lines and told to spend it on public transport as they see fit.....................

 

[HSTEd]

The railway network is a cohesive whole.
Most local governments don't have anywhere like the scale to make a meaningful contribution - and it just leads to spiteful curtailment of services because they go in the wrong direction.

 

[furnessvale]

The railway network is a cohesive whole.
Most local governments don't have anywhere like the scale to make a meaningful contribution - and it just leads to spiteful curtailment of services because they go in the wrong direction.

+1 from me