Should Regional Railways be brought back?

[adrock1976]

Following on from the "Should Network SouthEast return?" thread, with the present day fashion of the "Transport for [insert region]", could a new version of Regional Railways make a comeback?

The modifications I have in mind for the present day set up is as follows:

Northern - Split it back out into North West and North East. Both are in reality are operationally separate and trying to bring all the staff onto the same pay scale for both sides of the Pennines has been attempted without success for a good number of years. North East would have the present day Transpennine Express as they seem to spend more mileage on the east side now they run to Edinburgh via York.

North West - the CLC line via Warrington Central to be jointly under the control of Merseyside and Greater Manchester PTEs, with the present day Southport - Hunts Cross extended to Warrington Central. Also, Kirkby - Wigan Wallgate, and Bidston - Wrexham to transfer to Merseyrail, and Crewe/Liverpool/Manchester - Llandudno/Caernarfon/Holyhead to be Regional Railways North West.

Central - Not brought back to the wide area as per BR/Central Trains but would still cover both the West and East Midlands Regions (sub-divided into West and East). It would not go into Anglia Region (with the exception of Nottingham - Norwich), which would be covered by a new Anglia & Essex sub division, which would include London Fenchurch Street - Shoeburyness services.

Wales - Apart from the North Wales Coast transferring to North West, and the Valley Lines being separate, I would leave as is.

West - Broadly similar to the present day GWR Regional Express limited stop services.

Anglia & Essex - New subdivision for the GA services from London Liverpool Street, plus the services from Fenchurch Street. The Nottingham - Norwich could be jointly Anglia & Essex plus the East section of Central.

 

[Doctor Fegg]

Why?

 

[Purple Orange]

Why?

People like to recreate things that bring back fond memories from younger days.

TPE would be intercity if BR branding was brought back.

 

[Journeyman]

Oh, come on, let's move on. A lot has changed and there's no point in messing about with the networks that are now established. Scotland and Wales have their own devolved networks, Northern is now massive and a regional network in its own right, and services elsewhere have been absorbed into other large franchises. Leave it alone.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Oh, come on, let's move on. A lot has changed and there's no point in messing about with the networks that are now established. Scotland and Wales have their own devolved networks, Northern is now massive and a regional network in its own right, and services elsewhere have been absorbed into other large franchises. Leave it alone.

And while I think the partition of Wales' services into those that serve the journeys people want to do to the associated English places, breaking up TfW would be politically impossible.

 

[bluenoxid]

No. It was a good brand at the time.

Any branding opportunity would be better at either national level or showing the operators in an area.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

Following on from the "Should Network SouthEast return?" thread, with the present day fashion of the "Transport for [insert region]", could a new version of Regional Railways make a comeback?

The modifications I have in mind for the present day set up is as follows:

Northern - Split it back out into North West and North East. Both are in reality are operationally separate and trying to bring all the staff onto the same pay scale for both sides of the Pennines has been attempted without success for a good number of years. North East would have the present day Transpennine Express as they seem to spend more mileage on the east side now they run to Edinburgh via York.

North West - the CLC line via Warrington Central to be jointly under the control of Merseyside and Greater Manchester PTEs, with the present day Southport - Hunts Cross extended to Warrington Central. Also, Kirkby - Wigan Wallgate, and Bidston - Wrexham to transfer to Merseyrail, and Crewe/Liverpool/Manchester - Llandudno/Caernarfon/Holyhead to be Regional Railways North West.

Central - Not brought back to the wide area as per BR/Central Trains but would still cover both the West and East Midlands Regions (sub-divided into West and East). It would not go into Anglia Region (with the exception of Nottingham - Norwich), which would be covered by a new Anglia & Essex sub division, which would include London Fenchurch Street - Shoeburyness services.

Wales - Apart from the North Wales Coast transferring to North West, and the Valley Lines being separate, I would leave as is.

West - Broadly similar to the present day GWR Regional Express limited stop services.

Anglia & Essex - New subdivision for the GA services from London Liverpool Street, plus the services from Fenchurch Street. The Nottingham - Norwich could be jointly Anglia & Essex plus the East section of Central.

What is you are trying to achieve by bringing back Regional Railways - answering that is usually a better start and then the details follow from that once you know what your aim is.

 

[Purple Orange]

‘Regional Railways’ feels like an afterthought - i.e. “it’s just the regions, let’s give them a Pacer, they’ll be happy with that”. Do we want to continue with that sort of thinking in our overly centralised system of government?

 

[adrock1976]

What is you are trying to achieve by bringing back Regional Railways - answering that is usually a better start and then the details follow from that once you know what your aim is.

An integrated public transport system that has a clock face timetable, and a single branding.

Also, progressive federalism for the regions based on the former European Parliament Regions, where each region would have an input into timetabling, service patterns, and service development.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

An integrated public transport system that has a clock face timetable, and a single branding.

Also, progressive federalism for the regions based on the former European Parliament Regions, where each region would have an input into timetabling, service patterns, and service development.

I don’t ever remember Regional Railways having clock-face timetables in fact it was an entirely operational led, cost driven set-up.

 

[Dr Hoo]

I don’t ever remember Regional Railways having clock-face timetables in fact it was an entirely operational led, cost driven set-up.

(As a former RR Resources Manager, etc.) By far the majority of RR services had clock face timetables, especially off-peak and at weekends. Obviously there were many more trains on (say) regular 'Merseyrail' than the occasional Central Wales Line. Things tended to bend a bit when meshing with random InterCity services (e.g. in the South West) or in the rush hours when you really needed to sweat the assets with minimum turnrounds (e.g. around Edinburgh).

 

[HamworthyGoods]

(As a former RR Resources Manager, etc.) By far the majority of RR services had clock face timetables, especially off-peak and at weekends. Obviously there were many more trains on (say) regular 'Merseyrail' than the occasional Central Wales Line. Things tended to bend a bit when meshing with random InterCity services (e.g. in the South West) or in the rush hours when you really needed to sweat the assets with minimum turnrounds (e.g. around Edinburgh).

I was thinking somewhere like Lincolnshire were the RR timetable was built around (and very efficiently) the number of class 153 units available or haphazard calls at Dean and Dunbridge because funding had been reduced for the local service.

 

[6Gman]

An integrated public transport system that has a clock face timetable, and a single branding.

Also, progressive federalism for the regions based on the former European Parliament Regions, where each region would have an input into timetabling, service patterns, and service development.

Why would RR make "an integrated transport system" (whatever that means) any easier to achieve?

And if you want "progressive federalism" how does placing Bangor with Manchester help?

 

[A0]

No. It was a good brand at the time.

Debateable that - probably depended on which bit of RR you used. They ran some pretty decrepit stock on some of their services and some of the stations were pretty down at heel as well.

 

[PR1Berske]

‘Regional Railways’ feels like an afterthought - i.e. “it’s just the regions, let’s give them a Pacer, they’ll be happy with that”. Do we want to continue with that sort of thinking in our overly centralised system of government?

This is a good point, and I think re-creating a NE/NW divide for regional routes would be a step-back.

It was a decent brand, that's the thing about that whole period of Britain's railways. I can't see it fitting today.

 

[David Goddard]

Regional Railways was a good brand, in part created to pick up the routes that were not part of one of the other brands, and did a lot to spruce up the image of the railway at a time when many rural passengers were still rattling around in heritage DMUs, and replacements were not forthcoming. The comment above about pacers (lets include Sprinters) was accurate for the areas which had them - remember they were less than ten years old at the time but for routes like East Anglian branches, North Wales and indeed some round Manchester the "modern-ness" of pacers was some way off.

Regional Railways' flagship was of course the Class 158, and this helped the brand establish on the longer distance routes like East Anglia to the Midlands and North West, Transpennine and in the South West.

Much of what RR did then passed into the privatisation model, with many benefits but also created some legacy thorns (like the North West/ North East divide at Northern referred to above) in the side of the later franchises. Had the two divisions been one in RR Days then who knows, we could have had a Northern Rail style franchise area from the outset in 1997.

Whilst it was great at the time such a model would not fit with today's evolved railway. Bits of it may work (Northern and EastMids local services maybe) but the rest are now firmly established as part of their own TOCS and have developed (some would say regained) their own identities.

 

[Purple Orange]

Regional Railways was a good brand, in part created to pick up the routes that were not part of one of the other brands, and did a lot to spruce up the image of the railway at a time when many rural passengers were still rattling around in heritage DMUs, and replacements were not forthcoming. The comment above about pacers (lets include Sprinters) was accurate for the areas which had them - remember they were less than ten years old at the time but for routes like East Anglian branches, North Wales and indeed some round Manchester the "modern-ness" of pacers was some way off.

Regional Railways' flagship was of course the Class 158, and this helped the brand establish on the longer distance routes like East Anglia to the Midlands and North West, Transpennine and in the South West.

Much of what RR did then passed into the privatisation model, with many benefits but also created some legacy thorns (like the North West/ North East divide at Northern referred to above) in the side of the later franchises. Had the two divisions been one in RR Days then who knows, we could have had a Northern Rail style franchise area from the outset in 1997.

Whilst it was great at the time such a model would not fit with today's evolved railway. Bits of it may work (Northern and EastMids local services maybe) but the rest are now firmly established as part of their own TOCS and have developed (some would say regained) their own identities.

I do not recall it as a very good brand, and I don’t really consider Network South East or British Rail to be a good brand either. All had negative perceptions in the eyes of the public and that is what counts from a brand perspective. There have been better brands since privatisation. There have been worse brands since privatisation. Yet Regional Railways will always remind me of a railway that unloved by both those who used the railway and those who were meant to be running the railway.

 

[Journeyman]

I do not recall it as a very good brand, and I don’t really consider Network South East or British Rail to be a good brand either. All had negative perceptions in the eyes of the public and that is what counts from a brand perspective. There have been better brands since privatisation. There have been worse brands since privatisation. Yet Regional Railways will always remind me of a railway that unloved by both those who used the railway and those who were meant to be running the railway.

Exactly, RR was a dumping ground for stuff that didn't fit elsewhere, and it always felt rather neglected.

We don't need that back again.

 

[domcoop7]

Exactly, RR was a dumping ground for stuff that didn't fit elsewhere, and it always felt rather neglected.

We don't need that back again.

Even the name itself smacks of "Not Intercity or London, so not really important". You could call it "Some Places That Are Outside the M25 and We In Charge Don't Know The Name of So We Just Call it Regional" Railways.

Also you have to ask what the connection is between Par to Penzance and Manchester Airport to Blackpool that would justify them being in the same brand?

Fair enough if you had a national brand, like BR (although of course today it would have to be called "Railways England"). But Regional Railways much as it has the nostalgia value for those of us in our 40s, it's a no from me!

 

[Journeyman]

Even the name itself smacks of "Not Intercity or London, so not really important". You could call it "Some Places That Are Outside the M25 and We In Charge Don't Know The Name of So We Just Call it Regional" Railways.

Also you have to ask what the connection is between Par to Penzance and Manchester Airport to Blackpool that would justify them being in the same brand?

Fair enough if you had a national brand, like BR (although of course today it would have to be called "Railways England"). But Regional Railways much as it has the nostalgia value for those of us in our 40s, it's a no from me!

Exactly. So much has changed in the last 25 years anyway - Wales and Scotland have their own networks with upgraded long-distance services, TPE has been separated out from Northern and now forms a large high-quality regional express network, services in the West Country and Anglia have been integrated into the same brands as TOCs operating both former IC and NSE services...it just isn't necessary, and wouldn't work.

 

[43096]

Even the name itself smacks of "Not Intercity or London, so not really important". You could call it "Some Places That Are Outside the M25 and We In Charge Don't Know The Name of So We Just Call it Regional" Railways.

Regional Railways was an altogether better name than the original title of "Other Provincial Services", which later had the "Other" dropped.

I'm not really sure what else you would call it? Interesting to note that that sort of service in Germany is operated by DB Regio: so a similar name.

 

[domcoop7]

I'm not really sure what else you would call it? Interesting to note that that sort of service in Germany is operated by DB Regio: so a similar name.

If the Government were choosing a name I'd put a tenner on it being "Rail England" like Highways England, Public Health England, NHS England, etc.

If a local government entity was involved, it would end up being called "Transport for England" or "Rail for England" since that's the current groupthink thinking in local councils.

If it were me, I'd use a brand name. Like ExpressLink or AlbionTrack or something (obviously you can tell I'm not a brand consultant so it would obviously be something better!). And then I'd differentiate it by groups of lines, e.g. "Transpennine South by AlbionTrack", "Chat Moss by AlbionTrack" and so on. So that at stations the announcements can say "the Robin Hood line service to Nottingham is at platform 13, the next train from platform 14 is the Transpennine Central service to Bradford" or whatever.

 

[DJ_K666]

I would scrap all the TOCs and reset it all to how it was pre 1997 with a few additions. My experience of the current setup has been one huge headache and stress when trying to commute and do a simple 20 mile journey with that horrid company that takes the Southern Railway's name in vain.
My way of restoring it would be to remove the Railways Act 1993 and then taking the 'other' decision so if it had to be private sector it would be unified not just split up I to all sorts of odd companies with no accountability. And yes, that does mean the return of Regional Railways, NSE, Inter City and all. I'd personally rather forget the whole privatisation debacle had ever happened.

Just my own experience mind, yours might be different.


Besides, you'd have to have special stale bread and lettuce wilting factories for the recreated BR sandwiches.

 

[JonathanH]

My experience of the current setup has been one huge headache and stress when trying to commute and do a simple 20 mile journey with that horrid company that takes the Southern Railway's name in vain.

Can you elaborate as to how restoring the South Central division of Network South East would make your journey easier than it is with Southern? Even within British Rail, the South Central operation was locally managed in the same manner as Southern.

Then why restoring the pre-1994 Regional Railways would make a difference?

 

[Journeyman]

Can you elaborate as to how restoring the South Central division of Network South East would make your journey easier than it is with Southern? Even within British Rail, the South Central operation was locally managed in the same manner as Southern.

Then why restoring the pre-1994 Regional Railways would make a difference?

I think glasses of a rose-tinted variety might be involved.

 

[Cantab26]

If it were me, I'd use a brand name.

Would need to use the jingle as well, of course

[SNCF TER logo]

 

[greatvoyager]

To be honest, I don’t really see the point of doing it.

 

[domcoop7]

I would scrap all the TOCs and reset it all to how it was pre 1997 with a few additions. My experience of the current setup has been one huge headache and stress when trying to commute and do a simple 20 mile journey with that horrid company that takes the Southern Railway's name in vain.
My way of restoring it would be to remove the Railways Act 1993 and then taking the 'other' decision so if it had to be private sector it would be unified not just split up I to all sorts of odd companies with no accountability. And yes, that does mean the return of Regional Railways, NSE, Inter City and all. I'd personally rather forget the whole privatisation debacle had ever happened.

Just my own experience mind, yours might be different.


Besides, you'd have to have special stale bread and lettuce wilting factories for the recreated BR sandwiches.

Well for one, since 1994, Railways have been devolved to Scotland and Wales, so there will never be a scope to recreate BR as it was.

Now the current government have stated that Franchising will come to an end on the railway in England, and the same has been announced for Wales and Scotland.

What it will get replaced with, who knows? Probably just direct operating contracts under tender (since that is the easiest way to avoid new primary legislation). In order to differentiate the old from the new, they may well re-brand the services.

 

[DJ_K666]

I'm hoping that the new way of doing it brings a better experience than franchising. Regional Railways used to work the Brighton to Cardiff service twice a day. This is now a great Malvern in the morning and a Bristol TM in the afternoon.

Really my own experience of the privatised network has irretrievably soured my view of the Railways. BR wasn't perfect by any means but I've seen a lot happen that just doesn't sit well with me like the loss of on board catering, overcrowding on stupidly short trains (I remember Connex with a shudder). It's not just that but remember when Virgin brought in the Shrewsbury service? It took 4 years of meetings and paperwork to split the train at Birmingham, which BR would have just written the timetable and sourced the stock and got on with it.

Like I said elsewhere the experience of others might be different and more positive but from my perspective the privatisation process failed miserably and should be flushed.

 

[Energy]

If it were me, I'd use a brand name. Like ExpressLink or AlbionTrack or something (obviously you can tell I'm not a brand consultant so it would obviously be something better!). And then I'd differentiate it by groups of lines, e.g. "Transpennine South by AlbionTrack", "Chat Moss by AlbionTrack" and so on. So that at stations the announcements can say "the Robin Hood line service to Nottingham is at platform 13, the next train from platform 14 is the Transpennine Central service to Bradford" or whatever.

Sounds overcomplicated to me, why would the average passenger care about half a million brands? I've suggested the brands "Express", "Metro" and "Network" before with the regions coming before e.g "East Coast Express" or "Network West Midlands". It gives a consistent overall brand for what type of service is operated while giving some distinction between the different organisations which run each region.