• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Proposals to split Northern into two franchises: How would you do it?

Status
Not open for further replies.

XC victim

Member
Joined
16 Dec 2015
Messages
174
Moderator note: Split from https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...franchises-from-march-31.197313/#post-4351212

It is a bit early for April fools jokes!

if it really is happening I wonder how the split will work, last time the eastern franchise ran all the services between east and west ie
Leeds - Morecambe
York - Blackpool
Leeds - Manchester
Carlisle - Newcastle

Also could be some interesting discussions about how the class 331 and 195 get split up between the franchises
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

class 9

Member
Joined
18 Nov 2010
Messages
1,077
Not sure of specifics, but crewing would probably run as they did back when they were FNW(west side)and ATN(East side)before they merged,as all those services ran then.
The services you list were all ATN services.
 
Last edited:

Aictos

Established Member
Joined
28 Apr 2009
Messages
10,403
What would happen to the Northern Connect services and the York to Blackpool service?

Would they be operated in much the same way that South Eastern and First Capital Connect operated the Kentish Town to Sevenoaks route by splitting responsibility at Blackfriars so South Eastern were responsible south and First Capital Connect were responsible North OR would it be like the current Luton to Rainham (Kent) service in that Thameslink has overall responsibility but the service is staffed by both SouthEastern and Thameslink drivers/revenue staff?
 

randyrippley

Established Member
Joined
21 Feb 2016
Messages
5,382
Much of the current problems are due to fragmentation of services and resources between different companies.
You can't fix that with more fragmentation
 

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
18,056
Location
Reston City Centre
It looks fairly easy on paper - most services are still essentially "RRNE" or "RRNW" - all of the services listed by the OP were RRNE services - the one problem operationally would be the routes that have been combined in recent years (e.g. Calder Valley services that run through to Wigan/ Chester).

There was no problem with RRNE running through to Carlisle/ Morecambe/ Blackpool - these services are operationally independent as far as I am aware (other than a couple of Carlisle services run through into Scotland, but that's a ScotRail issue so wouldn't be affected by an RRNE/RRNW split)

Generally, you could split the services back to what they once were without huge problems - it's not like trying to recreate a franchise like Central Trains (which would be a lot more complicated!)

Since the OP asked about stock, I'd give RRNW all of the 195s with all of the 158s on RRNE services (RRNE will have some 170s as well for longer distance services, so giving RRNW the 195s would be okay IMHO). Keep it simple like Abellio/Serco did (with certain types of stock concentrated on each side of the Pennines). A handful of 331s at Neville Hill would be fine - just like the handful of 321/322s they had - there's no reason to remove these from the Leeds area (unless you want a complicated and costly swap around to produce some ex Heathrow 332s that would require significant conversion, just for the nice "neat" aspect of having all 331s with RRNW!)
 

markymark2000

On Moderation
Joined
11 May 2015
Messages
5,102
Location
Great Britain
I think personally, I would create 3 franchises out of Northern and TPE.

1 for the North East, 1 for north West and another for South Yorkshire/Nottinghamshire

Give or take some routes will be mixed up between them, this would simplify things I think from the perspective of each operator then running some fast and some slower services.

I could go into detail about which routes go to which company but I don't want to make the post too long.
 

Glenn1969

Established Member
Joined
22 Jan 2019
Messages
1,983
Location
Halifax, Yorks
But without the infrastructure improvements that were promised 5 years ago this would just be papering over the cracks and won't fix the problem
 

Marton

Member
Joined
9 Nov 2008
Messages
665
Scotrail and northern seem to manage the Glasgow/Dumfries to Newcastle joint services.
 

Haydn1971

Established Member
Joined
11 Dec 2012
Messages
2,101
Location
Sheffield
I suspect the next split is already in the process of developing, with the Connect services being refranchised as one entity with a few key non connect services added in. The remaining services being targeted for the next step change transformation (after TPE & NC), with the local services coming under more direct PTE / City Region control, in a kinda MerseyRail / London Overground type of service
 

Glenn1969

Established Member
Joined
22 Jan 2019
Messages
1,983
Location
Halifax, Yorks
Trouble is the step change transformation will not happen without the infrastructure investment that the Government have so far refused to fund
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
113,349
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
I suspect the next split is already in the process of developing, with the Connect services being refranchised as one entity with a few key non connect services added in. The remaining services being targeted for the next step change transformation (after TPE & NC), with the local services coming under more direct PTE / City Region control, in a kinda MerseyRail / London Overground type of service

If you were going to do that, you might as well put Connect, the S&C/Bentham lines and the West Lancashire locals into TPE, much as the latter would be a poor fit, then give the rest of it to the relevant Metro Mayors to contract themselves. (Feasibly the West Lancs locals could be done via the Merseyrail bit, I suppose).

3 levels would otherwise be silly.

That aside, just split as they were before, they aren't really properly merged anyway.
 

Glenn1969

Established Member
Joined
22 Jan 2019
Messages
1,983
Location
Halifax, Yorks
TfN have wanted local control for some time. The snag is they haven't got the same devolved control of transport spending as TfL have in London afaik so always have to go cap in hand to Whitehall for funding
 

61653 HTAFC

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Dec 2012
Messages
19,352
Location
Yorkshire
Just a small point of order, not all cross-Pennine services were given to the East side: Hope Valley stoppers and the Standedge stoppers (which at the time ran to Wakefield Westgate) were both NWT/FNW services.
 

ABB125

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2016
Messages
4,339
Location
University of Birmingham
It would potentially be sensible to transfer one or two services to EMR, but I can't think off the top of my head which.
Would a separate Tyne/Tees franchise be a good idea? I don't think there are any Northern-run through services to the area from the south, it's a fairly well-separated operation (although I'm happy to be corrected). The Newcastle-Carlisle service would be run by this new franchise.
 

randyrippley

Established Member
Joined
21 Feb 2016
Messages
5,382
So who ran the long distance services NW-East Anglia when the 156 fleet was first introduced?
Blackpool/Liverpool (and initially Barrow) - Wigan - Piccadilly - Sheffield - Nottingham - Ely - Ipswich/Harwich?
Which part of RR had control of those?
 

61653 HTAFC

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Dec 2012
Messages
19,352
Location
Yorkshire
It would potentially be sensible to transfer one or two services to EMR, but I can't think off the top of my head which.
Would a separate Tyne/Tees franchise be a good idea? I don't think there are any Northern-run through services to the area from the south, it's a fairly well-separated operation (although I'm happy to be corrected). The Newcastle-Carlisle service would be run by this new franchise.
The only overlap the NE services have is the Tyne Valley, and the NE group does seem to be the "ginger stepchild" of Northern what with not getting any post-privatisation stock over 20 years later. The downside of splitting it out would be that it would need to be heavily subsidised, but then we have the wrong approach to subsidy if we always view it as a negative.
 

Glenn1969

Established Member
Joined
22 Jan 2019
Messages
1,983
Location
Halifax, Yorks
Which I guess they do given that one of the reasons given for lack of investment is why put more money into a network that already gets a large subsidy. I remember the no growth franchise too.
 

61653 HTAFC

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Dec 2012
Messages
19,352
Location
Yorkshire
So who ran the long distance services NW-East Anglia when the 156 fleet was first introduced?
Blackpool/Liverpool (and initially Barrow) - Wigan - Piccadilly - Sheffield - Nottingham - Ely - Ipswich/Harwich?
Which part of RR had control of those?
I think the "shadow franchise" model that became the privatised system hadn't really been established when Sprinterisation was happening, so at a guess the operation of those services would have been shared between various depots. Once the shadow franchises were set up, long ECS moves at the start and end of the day became necessary.

I could be completely wrong about this, and there may well have been long ECS moves from Norwich or Nottingham to Barrow even in 1988.
 

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
18,056
Location
Reston City Centre
It would potentially be sensible to transfer one or two services to EMR, but I can't think off the top of my head which

There's a slippery slope of routes that you could transfer, but it's a case of where you draw the line.

EMR are taking the Barton - Cleethorpes stopper from Northern, so already have a 75mph DMU operation on the south bank of the Humber.

The truncated Scunthorpe - Doncaster stopper (i.e. doesn't run through to Meadowhall/ Sheffield) arguably has more in common with EMR - EMR also run Doncaster - Lincoln and Cleethorpes/ Grimsby - Lincoln, so you could give them the Scunthorpe service.

Personally, I'd be fine with EMR taking the Sheffield - Gainsborough stopper and the Sheffield - Lincoln semi-fast (which could be better co-ordinated with the Robin Hood services at Worksop), but that would remove the Meadowhall link.

What after that though? IMHO, it'd be good to have one TOC running the two "fast" Hope Valley services, but if you give the Manchester - Cleethorpes route to EMR then do you throw in the Northern routes on the Sheffield - Doncaster corridor too? That'd meant that Sheffield was the centre of a franchise, rather than being on the fringes of Northern/ TPE/ EMR.

The problem with privatisation is that it's a lot harder to engineer these kind of swaps, since you'd have to negotiate with all of the various franchises, so the only thing I could see happening would splitting Northern into two (not giving the other bits to anyone else)

Would a separate Tyne/Tees franchise be a good idea? I don't think there are any Northern-run through services to the area from the south, it's a fairly well-separated operation (although I'm happy to be corrected). The Newcastle-Carlisle service would be run by this new franchise.

The only real connection to the rest of the network is that most of the South Yorkshire Pacers have been based at Heaton (so periodically have to scamper up/down the ECML at 75mph to rotate them - that must be quite an experience for the poor driver!). Other than that, it's pretty much separate (if there are any 158s that swap with S&C diagrams at Carlisle then that's pretty minor in the grand scheme of things).

The only real problem I've got is whether it'd be big enough to stand independently or whether there's an argument for putting it in with a longer distance franchise that already operate in Tyneside/ Wearside/ Teesside (i.e. TPE or LNER) - it'd have more interaction with them than it would with the remaining bits of Northern.

There's then the problem that, if you're going to have a separate TPE franchise, it needs to have a certain critical mass - the main Leeds - Huddersfield - Manchester route isn't enough in itself so you need to bundle something else in with it - it used to be the Manchester Airport - Blackpool/ Cumbria services - maybe it'd work with the Heaton services (which are operationally separate, but there's maybe some benefit to promoting them and managing them as part of another "half franchise" worth of routes?)
 

Glenn1969

Established Member
Joined
22 Jan 2019
Messages
1,983
Location
Halifax, Yorks
If Sheffield- Lincoln goes to EMR under the new map you could use the same argument for Leeds- Nottingham going as well

Mind you this whole thread could be moot anyway. Don't forget it's Boxing Day which is a slow news day. The Telegraph online has to print something and could just be using lazy journalism to speculate about what might happen (I couldn't read the full article which is behind a paywall)
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
113,349
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Just a small point of order, not all cross-Pennine services were given to the East side: Hope Valley stoppers and the Standedge stoppers (which at the time ran to Wakefield Westgate) were both NWT/FNW services.

I don't know about the latter, but the former made sense in FNW/NWRR because they are extensions of the Marple local service.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
113,349
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
There's then the problem that, if you're going to have a separate TPE franchise, it needs to have a certain critical mass - the main Leeds - Huddersfield - Manchester route isn't enough in itself so you need to bundle something else in with it - it used to be the Manchester Airport - Blackpool/ Cumbria services - maybe it'd work with the Heaton services (which are operationally separate, but there's maybe some benefit to promoting them and managing them as part of another "half franchise" worth of routes?)

I reckon Liverpool-Scarborough/Newcastle plus Manchester-Hull/Middlesbrough is a decent chunk of services that would be enough to make them sustainable without adding in stuff that is a poor fit like the Barrows and Windermeres.
 

61653 HTAFC

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Dec 2012
Messages
19,352
Location
Yorkshire
I don't know about the latter, but the former made sense in FNW/NWRR because they are extensions of the Marple local service.
The downside being that all units and crews being based on one end of the route can cause problems if there's a blockage somewhere. For example if there was an engineering blockade at, say, Earles sidings, the western half can still be run with trains but everything East of the block has to be bustituted.

On the plus side, it meant 101s rather than 142s for far longer than would have been the case if it had been a Northern Spirit service!
 

xotGD

Established Member
Joined
4 Feb 2017
Messages
7,856
Anyone who thinks that the way to solve the problems of a fragmented railway is even more fragmentation needs to lie down in a darkened room.

Local and intercity services out of Paddington were brought together. Local and intercity services in the East Midlands were brought together. The same should be done in the North of England.

As a first step to recreating a single national passenger rail operation.
 

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
18,056
Location
Reston City Centre
If Sheffield- Lincoln goes to EMR under the new map you could use the same argument for Leeds- Nottingham going as well

True - you could have a "cross" of services at Sheffield - half hourly to Nottingham, half hourly to Manchester, half hourly to Leeds (via Barnsley), half hourly to Humberside (Cleethorpes/ Hull) - combining the various semi-fast EMR/ TPE/ Northern services

The downside being that all units and crews being based on one end of the route can cause problems if there's a blockage somewhere. For example if there was an engineering blockade at, say, Earles sidings, the western half can still be run with trains but everything East of the block has to be bustituted

It's still operated from one side now, even under one big Northern franchise (i.e. the staff come from the west side, the units come from the west side - there was a period where a token service was interworked with a Doncaster stopper but it's essentially always been a 'west side" service - if there were a blockade half way then I don't know if anyone "east side" would be able to work it

Anyone who thinks that the way to solve the problems of a fragmented railway is even more fragmentation needs to lie down in a darkened room.

Local and intercity services out of Paddington were brought together. Local and intercity services in the East Midlands were brought together. The same should be done in the North of England.

That works fine on a linear network based upon one main line but how do you split up Northern (and TPE) into WCML/ MML/ ECML services? What is Newcastle - Liverpool? Leeds - Chester? Cleethorpes - Manchester Airport? Or do we assess current services based on their pre-1923 route mileage?

If you're happy with EMR running the local/longer distance services in the East Midlands then shouldn't LNER be running services like Lincoln - Newark/ Doncaster/ Peterborough and to places like Skegness?

Not everything works best as a hub from London.
 

JonathanH

Veteran Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
23,327
As a first step to recreating a single national passenger rail operation.

Isn't the cited problem with the Northern franchise that it covers too great an area for local control?

At what point did British Rail run its services as one national passenger rail operation?
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
113,349
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Local and intercity services out of Paddington were brought together. Local and intercity services in the East Midlands were brought together. The same should be done in the North of England.

So Avanti should run all local services all the way from Euston to Glasgow? I'm not convinced, the WCML is very different from the "long, thin" GWML whose branches primarily feed the trunk.
 

xotGD

Established Member
Joined
4 Feb 2017
Messages
7,856
So Avanti should run all local services all the way from Euston to Glasgow? I'm not convinced, the WCML is very different from the "long, thin" GWML whose branches primarily feed the trunk.
Their parent seems to run intercity and local services all the way from the Swiss border to Scilly without a problem.
 

xotGD

Established Member
Joined
4 Feb 2017
Messages
7,856
Isn't the cited problem with the Northern franchise that it covers too great an area for local control?

At what point did British Rail run its services as one national passenger rail operation?
It always did from a passenger perspective.

Of course there was a pyramid of management, as there is in any organisation, but they were parts of a whole, cogs in the same machine. Not disparate entities seeing each other as the competition and somewhere to point the finger of blame when things go wrong.
 

js1000

Member
Joined
14 Jun 2014
Messages
1,022
There is no logical reason to separate the Northern franchise. It just creates another layer of complication - another convenient party to blame.

Yes the drivers are on completely different contracts but you're just doubling administration and resourcing costs.

I sense an ulterior motive. To cut costs I suspect DOO will rear its head again once all the new trains are in service.

Dividing it up stops the whole franchise going on strike and limiting it to east-west only side. As most of the 195/331s will be west based I suspect introducing DOO on approved routes will be objective.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top