Should Government designate Northern a decarbonisation R&D franchise?

[The Ham]

Some procedures drivers undertake, eg prep, take longer on longer trains, so that's one way longer trains definitely require more drivers.

Hence why I said generally don't require extra drivers, I was also thinking about if you divide/join units to create shorter/longer trains. However in the overall scheme of things that's not going to require too many extra drivers.

 

[Llama]

Don't forget depot drivers too.

 

[Senna1210]

There was one seen at Liverpool lime street this morning about 9 am as far as i am aware the fuel tanks are about 800ltrs

 

[CHAPS2034]

I used the 09:50 which is a representative run between peak hours and takes 97 minutes (ref. timtable 82, dec 2019), (which for the purposes of discussion is within my definition of 'around 90 minutes' and nearer to that than 110 minutes).

Trains in the opposite direction are scheduled for 110 minutes... As you had started your description from the Southport end, I thought at least you might have been consistent in your description.

And a little research on RTT would have revealed the number of stops on the journey and correct distances rather than using Timetable 82

 

[Bertie the bus]

Many would agree that there's a need for more trains, I'm not sure anyone would suggest 10x the amount but certainly 2x wouldn't appear to be too crazy.

Now whilst that would certainly cause problems for storage of units, in not sure that it would be that much of an impact on the numbers of drivers. In that you're unlikely to be able to run too many more services and so you'll mostly be running longer trains. Longer trains don't generally require extra drivers.

In order for there to be a need for anything like that amount of extra stock there would need to be a huge investment in station car parks. The north isn’t like London where most people live a 5 or 10 minute walk from a station and certainly on the Bolton line the car parks and surrounding areas at stations like Buckshaw Parkway, Horwich Parkway and Lostock are full before the end of the morning peak. If people can’t park they won’t transfer to rail travel.

 

[Killingworth]

In order for there to be a need for anything like that amount of extra stock there would need to be a huge investment in station car parks. The north isn’t like London where most people live a 5 or 10 minute walk from a station and certainly on the Bolton line the car parks and surrounding areas at stations like Buckshaw Parkway, Horwich Parkway and Lostock are full before the end of the morning peak. If people can’t park they won’t transfer to rail travel.

True, or they'll park and clog all the neighbouring streets within half a mile, sometimes more if there's a reliable and frequent rail service! The halo around some stations is getting ever wider, causing ingenious parking restrictions to be applied to deter all day parkers - who then go a little further out.

Which reminds me, the west beach at Corruna in NW Spain has a wide and long crescent promenade, beneath which is a continuous car park. There's a massive multi-level underground car park between the main station and the Cathedral in Cologne (probably below the river level). It wouldn't be the British thing to do to build car parks beneath the station and tracks! But I'm now well off topic, sorry.

 

[Roger B]

In order for there to be a need for anything like that amount of extra stock there would need to be a huge investment in station car parks. The north isn’t like London where most people live a 5 or 10 minute walk from a station and certainly on the Bolton line the car parks and surrounding areas at stations like Buckshaw Parkway, Horwich Parkway and Lostock are full before the end of the morning peak. If people can’t park they won’t transfer to rail travel.

Maybe so. But I bet there are quite a few people who do live within half a mile radius of stations, who would change to the train if it was more reliable / frequent / better chance of finding a seat. There may be little room immediately adjacent to stations at some locations, so consider building nearby. Or if no room for car parks - install secure bike racks - I was amazed when I say the capacity of the bike racks at Marylebone recently - with many being used.

Granted there are huge challenges to over come in increasing capacity on routes in the north, whether that's longer or more frequent trains or both. But let's meet those challenges head-on and find solutions - or we'll find ourselves having the same discussions twenty years on.

 

[AndrewE]

True, or they'll park and clog all the neighbouring streets within half a mile, sometimes more if there's a reliable and frequent rail service! The halo around some stations is getting ever wider, causing ingenious parking restrictions to be applied to deter all day parkers - who then go a little further out.
Which reminds me, the west beach at Corruna in NW Spain has a wide and long crescent promenade, beneath which is a continuous car park. There's a massive multi-level underground car park between the main station and the Cathedral in Cologne (probably below the river level). It wouldn't be the British thing to do to build car parks beneath the station and tracks! But I'm now well off topic, sorry.

but that is the classic selfish British thing which militates against ever transferring to public transport and reducing carbon emissions. We went to Stoke and back by bus tonight, but a friend we met there (who lives the same distance off the same bus route) almost said "I've got a car, I'm b*ggered if you'll see me getting a bus!"

 

[AM9]

Trains in the opposite direction are scheduled for 110 minutes... As you had started your description from the Southport end, I thought at least you might have been consistent in your description.

And a little research on RTT would have revealed the number of stops on the journey and correct distances rather than using Timetable 82

As I said: "All this makes my point more valid, i.e. the stops are under the wires therefore there is far less justification to run diesel traction through those settlements." Splitting hairs doesn't change the point in discussion. Absolute accuracy might be a hobby (or even an obsession) for some, - for me, thats for when it is important in the discussion, which doesn't include this one.

 

[Killingworth]

but that is the classic selfish British thing which militates against ever transferring to public transport and reducing carbon emissions. We went to Stoke and back by bus tonight, but a friend we met there (who lives the same distance off the same bus route) almost said "I've got a car, I'm b*ggered if you'll see me getting a bus!"

We are off topic, but if public transport became free more might give up walking than using their cars!

 

[The Ham]

In order for there to be a need for anything like that amount of extra stock there would need to be a huge investment in station car parks. The north isn’t like London where most people live a 5 or 10 minute walk from a station and certainly on the Bolton line the car parks and surrounding areas at stations like Buckshaw Parkway, Horwich Parkway and Lostock are full before the end of the morning peak. If people can’t park they won’t transfer to rail travel.

True, or they'll park and clog all the neighbouring streets within half a mile, sometimes more if there's a reliable and frequent rail service! The halo around some stations is getting ever wider, causing ingenious parking restrictions to be applied to deter all day parkers - who then go a little further out.

Which reminds me, the west beach at Corruna in NW Spain has a wide and long crescent promenade, beneath which is a continuous car park. There's a massive multi-level underground car park between the main station and the Cathedral in Cologne (probably below the river level). It wouldn't be the British thing to do to build car parks beneath the station and tracks! But I'm now well off topic, sorry.

I fear that you may well have only seen London stations, there's quite a lot of the South East which is fairly similar to what you are describing.

When I lived with my parents or was well over a mile to my nearest station whilst to the station we used the most was 3 miles away.

Even when I moved out it was between a 10 minute walk and 3 miles depending on where we were living at the time to the nearest station.

Even though there's problems with car parking some of this could be resolved by providing better cycle parking and better cycle facilities.

 

[delticdave]

We are off topic, but if public transport became free more might give up walking than using their cars!

Now that SWMBO & I are "senior citizens" we do use buses, mostly to / from the local towns for shopping, etc. + visiting city centres anywhere in England.
But, we still use our cars for the heavy shopping & trips where a car is so much quicker. (One of our frequent door to door journeys is 19 miles, 30 minutes by car but 2+ hours by bus, not including the waiting time for connections or the walks at each end....)

 

[modernrail]

I fear that you may well have only seen London stations, there's quite a lot of the South East which is fairly similar to what you are describing.

When I lived with my parents or was well over a mile to my nearest station whilst to the station we used the most was 3 miles away.

Even when I moved out it was between a 10 minute walk and 3 miles depending on where we were living at the time to the nearest station.

Even though there's problems with car parking some of this could be resolved by providing better cycle parking and better cycle facilities.

Yes, we could improve options for hardly any money whatsoever with massive investment in bike parking, and no that is not a contradiction in terms. Compared to car parking massive investment in bike parking is cheap as chips. Take my regular haunts. Herne Hill, Brixton, Paddington, Victoria, Leeds, Euston, Liverpool Lime Street, Headingley Southport, Wigan. Dreadful provision at all of them. Everything that is there full all the time and before the armchair moaners kick in, no not all with abandoned bikes. Before we encourage people to get in their car for 5 mins we could encourage and prioritise everybody who would happily get on their bike for 5 - 10 mins. That gives you a wider circle around a station than the 'walkers' circle. From my front door to Herne Hill station - 20 mins walking, 5 mins on bike.

Headingley, classic example. Station in slightly odd place but massively congested roads into Leeds all around. Now to have a 15 minute service - that is turn up and go. Student and commuter heartlands, thousands of potential users within 10 mins ride. Absolutely screw all bike provision. No way I would leave my bike there.

Merseyrail is the only network I know to have got it anywhere near right.

Add secure parking for electric bikes, you widen the circle even more. Easily to those 30-40 mins walk out and you probably also unlock stations in hilly areas.

We really are weird in this country. Fine, some people insist on using their car but plenty are being held back from using bikes for want of some secure bike parking with CCTV. I have had two bikes nicked in my time. One from on street outside Kings Cross, one on street from outside Denmark Hill. Great nicking fodder for the scumbags because they know you might be gone for a while.

After you have prioritised bike parking, prioritise bus routes to stations. Look at Brixton tube in the morning. Because they forgot to extend the Victoria line a decent distance because it is south of the river (the best option) everybody arrives in on bikes or buses. Thousands upon thousands of people doing the bus/tube transfer every hour making it one of the busiest tube stations in London.

Prioritise spending on unlocking thr maximum extra low carbon journeys for the minimum number of pounds. Those that insist on using cars might have to wait until the autonomous car sharing utopia of the future becomes a reality. The price of land acquisition and construction is eye watering in many cases.

 

[HSTEd]

Short of secure automatic bicycle parking, not much you can do.

Person arrives with bike, puts bike on a rack unit, rack unit is taken into a larger storage carousel and they are presented with a ticket (electronic or otherwise).

Person comes back with ticket later and has bike returned.

 

[ic31420]

In order for there to be a need for anything like that amount of extra stock there would need to be a huge investment in station car parks. The north isn’t like London where most people live a 5 or 10 minute walk from a station and certainly on the Bolton line the car parks and surrounding areas at stations like Buckshaw Parkway, Horwich Parkway and Lostock are full before the end of the morning peak. If people can’t park they won’t transfer to rail travel.

Amen to that. It's stifling off peak usage.

I live 6miles from my nearest station 4 from (Bromley Cross) metrolink. Both carparks and their nearby sisters are stuffed by 8am. There are numerous occasions when Id like to have taken the train but don't fancy the 8 mile round trip walk especially not with my two year old.

A friend lives 0.4 miles from the station yet his missus drives to the station and parks daily despite on some occasions not being able to park within a quarter of a mile. I sometimes park on his drive and walk which just seems a bit mad.

but that is the classic selfish British thing which militates against ever transferring to public transport and reducing carbon emissions. We went to Stoke and back by bus tonight, but a friend we met there (who lives the same distance off the same bus route) almost said "I've got a car, I'm b*ggered if you'll see me getting a bus!"

My neighbour is the same. I was going to town at the weekend and got the bus to town. They saw us at the bus stop and then again in town. When they came home they asked if the car was broken. Pointed out it was less stress and quicker.
Sadly at £5 each adult for a 8mile round trip of 90mins (in town) it was by far more expensive in the bus. That is a problem.

 

[HSTEd]

Buses in urban areas are however painfully slow.

The bus I take to my office every day, partially over a supposed BRT scheme, often barely attains an average speed above 5mph.

You are never going to generate drastic modal shift with performance like that.

Even the BRT scheme falls apart because of lousy all-busses-for-all-stops timetabling, onboard payment, lack of level boarding and a flood of taxis/PHVs.

 

[Dr Hoo]

Moderator note: split from https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...ains-from-319s-initially-for-northern.138660/

Rather than give out piecemeal grants and having the odd piecemeal micro-fleet, it might be a good idea for the Government to designate Northern a decarbonisation R&D franchise now is back in public control and use decarbonisation as an opportunity to develop new tech in the UK whilst also improving provision for passengers.

Take the Harrogate line. A heavily used line like that with surpressed demand either needs to be electrified or an alternative solution is required.

The 769 is not it in that case as it would just be a diesel train.

I am open minded about what is the best solution but let's at least see the problem as the opportunity it is.

When I saw the title of this thread I thought that it might be about the, er, Northern (ex) franchise rather than a medley of stuff about reliability league tables, buses, bikes and London.

Anyway, in the spirit of Modernrail's original question I am unclear why any 'franchise'/'concession'/'OLR' is well suited to R&D for decarbonisation or any other reason. There is a clue in the name of what are commonly referred to as 'Train Operating Companies'. In the GB model these are time-limited, thinly-capitalised, non-asset-owning, risk-averse delivery agents. R&D is, in contrast, commonly a long-term, capital hungry, kit-focussed, uncertain activity.

It is the 'parent body' - DfT, Merseytravel, TfN, etc. - that has a 'permanent' existence, access to capital and ability to shoulder risk. They are the ones who can invest serious money in things like safe cycle routes to stations, better bus integration, charging points for electric vehicles and so forth.

It might be argued that this is more bread and butter stuff than cutting edge R&D but if the idea is more about solar-powered, lightweight carbon fibre, automatic, unstaffed trains full of ticketless passengers being charged on the basis of facial recognition it is again far from clear that the current TOC management teams have much expertise to offer in these areas.

 

[js1000]

On the OP's idea: I like it. Sooner or a later a franchise has to set an example. Many bus companies have introduced hybrid and now electric buses. It has always riled me thay DfT/train companies consider that they are somehow exempt from a responsibility towards sustainability.

 

[HSTEd]

Scrap every pre 2010 diesel train on Northern and replace them with 735s, or 769s if they can get the damn things to work.

Would cost quite a bit of money though.

 

[ic31420]

Scrap every pre 2010 diesel train on Northern and replace them with 735s, or 769s if they can get the damn things to work.

Would cost quite a bit of money though.

I presume you mean Stadlers with a thrash cupboard?

Sounds good to me. I suppose the 195s could go on routes where there is no electricity for the full journey.

I can't decide if a full fleet of bimodes would encourage or stifle the business case for more knitting.

Either way the decarbonisation issue is burning as is the red for further fleet replacement. The flirt seems a decent solution and the only new build bimode sort of working out of the box.

 

[HSTEd]

I can't decide if a full fleet of bimodes would encourage or stifle the business case for more knitting.

Probably both at the same time.

It probably improves the case for electrification of remaining diesel inner suburban routes.
But probably kills the case for outer suburban electrification.

But SNCF has not ordered a diesel multiple unit since they got their first order of electrodiesels and it seems to be working out for them operationally.

Either way the decarbonisation issue is burning as is the red for further fleet replacement. The flirt seems a decent solution and the only new build bimode sort of working out of the box.

Well its either that or try and make commuter IEPs which might be somewhat problematic.

Personally I would prefer a unit with an end gangway, but as that isn't really a FLIRT feature we are kind of stuck.