Rail Services Devolution to Mayors

[LNW-GW Joint]

The Guardian/Observer is reporting that a White Paper to be published tomorrow (Mon 16th) will include the devolution of rail services to elected mayors in England.

Metro mayors to control rail services under unprecedented England devolution plans

White paper paves way for London-style contactless-payment travel networks and unitary authorities to replace two-tier county and district councils

www.theguardian.com

The transport secretary Heidi Alexander told the Observer that a key aim was to promote growth alongside service improvement by devolving power over transport issues to the local level.
“These new powers mark a historic shift in how our railways are run – giving local leaders the ability to shape services that truly meet the needs of their communities and drive local growth,” she said.
“By placing decision making closer to the people using these services, passengers’ experience of public transport will be improved, including through better timetabling and easier journeys door-to-door.”

Government sources said the English devolution white paper would allow people to use contactless payment systems to board trains, then buses and trams with just one tap in and out, rather than having to pay for each as separate journeys. The changes could mean more e-bike docking stations closer to rail links, as a further move toward full integration.
Under the proposals, mayors will work in partnership with Great British Railways, the new company set up to run a renationalised network, which will have a duty to help mayors develop systems to meet local economic, educational and other needs.
Mayors in established combined authorities will be able to request the right to decide how often trains run, where they go and what improvements on connectivity and accessibility are needed.
Ministers say that effective models, such as those in London and the Liverpool city region, show how well integrated, locally run services can work, bringing better reliability and increased use of public transport.

This is more of a Local Government reorganisation than a railways proposal, but it looks like it has been agreed across government.
The remaining county/district split of local government is also to be reset into unitary authorities.

Metro mayors already have some powers over rail services in their areas, as part of the PTE legislation.
But this appears to go much further, with full devolution over timetables and fares in their regions, as in London.
As ever, the devil will be in the detail. Will the mayors get direct funding for their new powers (taken away from DfT/GBR)?
Across the north, there will be multiple regimes if they are not careful, with separate Liverpool, Greater Manchester and West/South Yorkshire management.
They will work in coordination with Great British Railways, but we don't yet know how GBR itself will be organised and managed, and what powers it will have.

There's the potential for endless arguments about stopping patterns and fares policy on (eg) trans-Pennine routes through multiple transport jurisdictions.
Today, those arguments are between TOCs and NR with local consultation - in the future they will be between GBR and the metro mayors.
Either way, planning long-distance regional services between the various mayoralties looks to be getting more complicated.
It's possibly a recipe for every train becoming a stopper, to placate the locals in each area.
Andy Burnham looks quite pleased about it.

 

[Andrew1395]

Didn’t British Rail and indeed the TOCs after privatisation manage this scenario in the past with services paid for by metropolitan councils, and a grant aid matrix to account for the revenue.

Or am I getting memories confused?

So, West Yorkshire and South Yorkshire policies may have created friction at the border but it did not stop anything of significance happening. Nor had impact on customer patterns of usage. It’s just something that needs to be managed among many more.

Isn't the bigger impact on DfT?

 

[Transilien]

The Guardian/Observer is reporting that a White Paper to be published tomorrow (Mon 16th) will include the devolution of rail services to elected mayors in England.

Metro mayors to control rail services under unprecedented England devolution plans

White paper paves way for London-style contactless-payment travel networks and unitary authorities to replace two-tier county and district councils

www.theguardian.com

This is more of a Local Government reorganisation than a railways proposal, but it looks like it has been agreed across government.
The remaining county/district split of local government is also to be reset into unitary authorities.

Metro mayors already have some powers over rail services in their areas, as part of the PTE legislation.
But this appears to go much further, with full devolution over timetables and fares in their regions, as in London.
As ever, the devil will be in the detail. Will the mayors get direct funding for their new powers (taken away from DfT/GBR)?
Across the north, there will be multiple regimes if they are not careful, with separate Liverpool, Greater Manchester and West/South Yorkshire management.
They will work in coordination with Great British Railways, but we don't yet know how GBR itself will be organised and managed, and what powers it will have.

There's the potential for endless arguments about stopping patterns and fares policy on (eg) trans-Pennine routes through multiple transport jurisdictions.
Today, those arguments are between TOCs and NR with local consultation - in the future they will be between GBR and the metro mayors.
Either way, planning long-distance regional services between the various mayoralties looks to be getting more complicated.
It's possibly a recipe for every train becoming a stopper, to placate the locals in each area.
Andy Burnham looks quite pleased about it.

Will this mean that TFL will gain powers over all local rail services in London?

 

[Harpo]

Not entirely convinced it bodes well for a national network that was formerly optimised around long distance travel and connecting with it efficiently. The ECML has long demonstrated the contemporary difficulties of planning on multi-operator railways.

I’m also concerned about routes that extend beyond mayoral boundaries and how those outlying areas get served or even get a voice in how they’re served.

 

[A S Leib]

Off the top of my head, services which are in one combined authority are

• Saltburn – Darlington (but not Bishop Auckland)
• Newcastle – Ashington
• Newcastle – Hexham (I think the plan's to split all Northern services at Newcastle with ECML changes)
• Leeds – Bradford – Ilkley
• Manchester – Hazel Grove / Rose Hill Marple (with Glossop already in Greater Manchester's rail network anyway)
• Bradford – Huddersfield
• Leeds – Knottingley
• Sheffield – Adwick
• Nottingham – Matlock
• Nottingham – Worksop
• Bristol – Avonmouth / Filton Abbey Wood
• Merseyrail services (assuming no change despite some leaving the Liverpool City Region)
• Wolverhampton – Walsall
• The Stourbridge shuttle
• Barton-on-Humber – Cleethorpes (Greater Lincolnshire from May 2025)

Of course, in some cases neighbouring authorities might be able to agree on who runs what, but that isn't a paticularly long list.

 

[Gerald Fiennes]

Up until c.2000, the former PTEs had the ability to specify the services they wanted off BR, later the TOCs, and then paid for them. They did this mostly (but not totally, they had precept power up until the late 80s (?)) with funding very largely from from Central Government. They could paint the trains the colours they liked and (more crucially) set their own fares (including multimodally, at least where bus companies would cooperate after bus privatisation in c.1985). So this does sound very much like back to the future -- although one imagines that the White Paper will skip over the question of who pays for what amongst the public authorities involved and save that up for the GBR legislation next year.

The sticking point comes when they want to change services in crowded parts of the network eg. the Castlefield corridor. Presumably the Government envisages that it would itself make the capacity calls here, as it will in effect be funding both local and national services. In BR days, there was a hierarchy that gave long distances services priority but only charged local operators the incremental infrastructure costs involved.

No doubt GBR will be able and want to help with capacity allocation and could have some sort of statutory objective to look after regional, not just revenue-generating, interestes, but this certainly is a tricky area. One only has to note that it has taken nearly 10 years to find a vague solution to the problems around Manchester created by the VHF timetable and the decision to route Airport trains via Victoria to see that all this is far from easy!

 

[Magdalia]

In Cambridge through ticketing between buses and trains is the most important win, and something that can hopefully be delivered quite quickly.

Once Cambridge South station opens it should be simple to go, for example, from St Ives to the Biomedical Campus using the busway to Cambridge North then the train, on one ticket.

 

[KashmireHawker]

In working for Regional Government, my Mayor is very pleased in seeing this news emerge last night.

Maybe it can and will eventually mean Wolves to Walsall in 12 minutes again - and not in an hour plus via Brum for goodness sake?!

Going to be interesting reading the White Paper in full when it drops tomorrow.

 

[The Planner]

In working for Regional Government, my Mayor is very pleased in seeing this news emerge last night.

Maybe it can and will eventually mean Wolves to Walsall in 12 minutes again - and not in an hour plus via Brum for goodness sake?!

Going to be interesting reading the White Paper in full when it drops tomorrow.

You won't do it in 12 with Willenhall and Darlaston. Expect a lot of arguments between NR and mayors when it comes to strategy.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Will this mean that TFL will gain powers over all local rail services in London?

Article refers to the Metro mayors and London falls under that umbrella so why not. Lets see what the white paper says

 

[65477]

Article refers to the Metro mayors and London falls under that umbrella so why not. Lets see what the white paper says

Agreed, we certainly need to find out the details. For example in Essex will Southend and Thurrock be given these powers? Could have an interesting effect on C2C.

 

[A S Leib]

Will this mean that TFL will gain powers over all local rail services in London?

I wonder if there'll be any change to Marylebone, Fenchurch Street, Paddington or Liverpool Street services, given that TfL already run stopping services / near equivalents (Metropolitan, District, Crossrail, Overground). I think the London Chiltern services are too infrequent to bother transferring to TfL, first-stop Slough services probably don't belong with TfL, and as c2c only runs in London and Essex / Thurrock / Southend, the latter might want more of a say than TfL. I could see a case for Stratford – Meridian Water and maybe Liverpool Street – Hertford East going to TfL.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Agreed, we certainly need to find out the details. For example in Essex will Southend and Thurrock be given these powers? Could have an interesting effect on C2C.

They aren't metro mayors they are:

Cambridgeshire and Peterborough:
Constituent: Cambridge DC, Cambridgeshire CC, East Cambridgeshire DC, Fenland DC, Huntingdonshire DC, Peterborough City UA and South Cambridgeshire DC
East Midlands
Constituent: Derby UA, Derbyshire CC, Nottingham UA, Nottinghamshire CC
Greater Manchester:
Constituent: Bolton MBC, Bury MBC, Manchester MBC, Oldham MBC, Rochdale MBC, City of Salford MBC, Stockport MBC, Tameside MBC, Trafford MBC and Wigan MBC
Liverpool City Region:
Constituent: Knowsley MBC, Liverpool MBC, St Helens MBC, Sefton MBC, Wirral MBC and Halton UA
Non constituent: Warrington UA, West Lancashire DC
North East:
Constituent: Gateshead MBC, Newcastle upon Tyne MBC, Northumberland CC, North Tyneside MBC, South Tyneside MBC, Sunderland MBC
Tees Valley:
Constituent: Darlington UA, Hartlepool UA, Middlesbrough UA, Redcar and Cleveland UA and Stockton-On-Tees UA
South Yorkshire:
Constituent: Barnsley MBC, Doncaster MBC, Rotherham MBC, Sheffield MBC
Non-constituent: Bassetlaw DC, Bolsover DC, Chesterfield BC, Derbyshire Dales BC and North East Derbyshire BC
West Midlands:
Constituent: Birmingham MBC,Coventry MBC, Dudley MBC, Sandwell MBC, Solihull MBC, Walsall MBC, and Wolverhampton MBC
Non-constituent: Cannock Chase DC, Nuneaton and Bedworth DC, Redditch DC, Tamworth DC, Telford and Wrekin
West of England:
Constituent: Bath & North East Somerset UA, Bristol UA, and South Gloucestershire UA
West Yorkshire:
Constituent: Bradford MBC, Calderdale MBC, Kirklees MBC, Leeds MBC, and Wakefield MBC
York and North Yorkshire:
Constituent: North Yorkshire UA, and City of York UA

 

[A S Leib]

They aren't metro mayors they are:

Cambridgeshire and Peterborough:
Constituent: Cambridge DC, Cambridgeshire CC, East Cambridgeshire DC, Fenland DC, Huntingdonshire DC, Peterborough City UA and South Cambridgeshire DC
East Midlands
Constituent: Derby UA, Derbyshire CC, Nottingham UA, Nottinghamshire CC
Greater Manchester:
Constituent: Bolton MBC, Bury MBC, Manchester MBC, Oldham MBC, Rochdale MBC, City of Salford MBC, Stockport MBC, Tameside MBC, Trafford MBC and Wigan MBC
Liverpool City Region:
Constituent: Knowsley MBC, Liverpool MBC, St Helens MBC, Sefton MBC, Wirral MBC and Halton UA
Non constituent: Warrington UA, West Lancashire DC
North East:
Constituent: Gateshead MBC, Newcastle upon Tyne MBC, Northumberland CC, North Tyneside MBC, South Tyneside MBC, Sunderland MBC
Tees Valley:
Constituent: Darlington UA, Hartlepool UA, Middlesbrough UA, Redcar and Cleveland UA and Stockton-On-Tees UA
South Yorkshire:
Constituent: Barnsley MBC, Doncaster MBC, Rotherham MBC, Sheffield MBC
Non-constituent: Bassetlaw DC, Bolsover DC, Chesterfield BC, Derbyshire Dales BC and North East Derbyshire BC
West Midlands:
Constituent: Birmingham MBC,Coventry MBC, Dudley MBC, Sandwell MBC, Solihull MBC, Walsall MBC, and Wolverhampton MBC
Non-constituent: Cannock Chase DC, Nuneaton and Bedworth DC, Redditch DC, Tamworth DC, Telford and Wrekin
West of England:
Constituent: Bath & North East Somerset UA, Bristol UA, and South Gloucestershire UA
West Yorkshire:
Constituent: Bradford MBC, Calderdale MBC, Kirklees MBC, Leeds MBC, and Wakefield MBC
York and North Yorkshire:
Constituent: North Yorkshire UA, and City of York UA

East Yorkshire (East Riding of Yorkshire and Kingston upon Hull) and Lincolnshire (North Lincolnshire, North East Lincolnshire, and the district councils under Lincolnshire County Council) are getting mayors in May. I think it's a fair assumption that everywhere in England will have a metro mayor* in the coming years.

*Tangential to this discussion, but I'd much prefer premier, minister-president or governor for areas which clearly aren't urban mayoralties.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

East Yorkshire (East Riding of Yorkshire and Kingston upon Hull) and Lincolnshire (North Lincolnshire, North East Lincolnshire, and the district councils under Lincolnshire County Council) are getting mayors in May. I think it's a fair assumption that everywhere in England will have a metro mayor* in the coming years.

*Tangential to this discussion, but I'd much prefer premier, minister-president or governor for areas which clearly aren't urban mayoralties.

Thanks i had a feeling the Torys had agreed to some new ones being setup

 

[Harpo]

Lots of scope for parochial nonsense.

 

[WAB]

I think this is a red herring as most of these areas will not have the money, expertise or political interest to get too involved with the railway. Some local branding, joint ticketing and a handful of reopened stations are the likely outcomes in most areas in my view. Plenty of ambition, but the money won't be there to back up their choices.

What's more is that the operations and geography of the railway line up poorly with local government (as illustrated in the attached map of the Northern network with local authority boundaries added in). I'd be wary of allowing LAs to have too much power which would fragment the railway badly.

 

[Falcon1200]

What's more is that the operations and geography of the railway line up poorly with local government (as illustrated in the attached map of the Northern network with local authority boundaries added in). I'd be wary of allowing LAs to have too much power which would fragment the railway badly.

Not to mention also that in many cases local services share track with long-distance passenger and freight trains - There are therefore limits to what powers local authorities can actually have, over railway operations at least.

 

[A S Leib]

I wonder if there'd be cases of neighbouring mayoral authorities setting up joint transport authorities, e.g. Tees Valley and the North East, or West of England and whatever area the rest of Gloucestershire, Wiltshire and Somerset end up in.

 

[WAB]

I wonder if there'd be cases of neighbouring mayoral authorities setting up joint transport authorities, e.g. Tees Valley and the North East, or West of England and whatever area the rest of Gloucestershire, Wiltshire and Somerset end up in.

Could well be sensible. Especially Tees + NE and North/South/East/West Yorkshire as this would create fairly self-contained operating areas and these authorities could therefore wield a lot more influence.

 

[Meerkat]

It’s madness doing this sort of devolution without sorting boundaries so that they match modern social and economic geography.
The imposition of unitary authorities is just so the state can force through development without local democracy.

 

[NER1621]

North East:
Constituent: Gateshead MBC, Newcastle upon Tyne MBC, Northumberland CC, North Tyneside MBC, South Tyneside MBC, Sunderland MBC

The North East also now includes Durham CC, thus giving it a common border with Tees Valley. Both of these authorities working jointly on transport would make more sense than them going it alone. Or even better, merge the two mayoral areas.

 

[Magdalia]

The English Devolution White Paper is here:

English Devolution White Paper

www.gov.uk

Policy paper

English Devolution White Paper​

Published 16 December 2024

Applies to England​

The Executive Summary says the following on transport:

Transport. Since devolution in 1999, London is widely seen to have one of the best integrated transport systems in the world. Huge progress is being made across mayoral areas, not least in the introduction of the Bee Network in Greater Manchester, and Mayors in West Yorkshire and Liverpool City Region taking back control of their buses. But the government will be more ambitious still in three ways:

• The process for taking buses back into public control will be made faster and simpler.
• Mayors will be given a statutory role in governing, managing, planning and developing the rail network. In addition to partnerships with Great British Railways, Mayors of Established Mayoral Strategic Authorities will have a clear right to request greater devolution of services, infrastructure and station control where it would support a more integrated network.
• Mayors will take on powers to coordinate their road network, in partnership with constituent authorities and with less oversight from national government.

There is more detail in section 3.3 transport and local infrastructure, this is what it says about rail.

Rail

Great British Railways will put passengers and local communities back at the heart of the railways and protect their interests – integrating the railways with other forms of transport to support seamless journeys for passengers. This will be underpinned by:

• Engagement with Strategic Authorities on how local rail ambitions can be reflected in the national rail planning processes, including through mayoral partnerships, building on the progress already made with Greater Manchester and the West Midlands.
• A statutory role for Mayors in governing, managing, planning, and developing the rail network, to further embed collaboration and bring decision-making as close as possible to local communities. We will consult on this role ahead of the legislation required to establish the functions of Great British Railways. Subject to royal assent, we will publish guidance outlining the core components that each tier of Strategic Authority can expect, reflecting the need for this to be flexible, place-based, and bespoke.
• Greater reciprocal data-sharing, including through the Rail Data Marketplace, aligning this with the DfT ‘open by default’ position and the MHCLG-led data partnership principles.

If they meet transparent criteria, Mayors will also be given the option for greater control over appropriate local stations so they can capitalise on the opportunities for economic growth, accessibility and intermodal connectivity in and around stations. The government will also work with Strategic Authorities to explore how the considerable land value potential in rail-owned land could drive regeneration, commercial and housing opportunities.

Recognising the successes of the devolved rail models in London and the Liverpool City Region, Established Mayoral Strategic Authorities will have a right to request further rail devolution, up to full devolution of defined local services. We will publish guidance to establish a clear and transparent process for this.

London shows how fully integrated, multi-modal ticketing helps to get people onto public transport. To expand these types of system across the country, Great British Railways will reform the rail ticketing system to make it simpler for passengers and drive innovation. This is particularly crucial where bus franchising is coming or is in place, and rail is often the missing piece. The government will work in close collaboration with Mayoral Strategic Authorities to deliver these shared ambitions, building on existing pay-as-you-go rail pilots. Priority will be given to Established Mayoral Strategic Authorities in city regions with existing ticketing schemes across other transport modes.

 

[JonathanH]

London shows how fully integrated, multi-modal ticketing helps to get people onto public transport.

I'm not sure it does, as there are hefty premiums for any travel that involves use of multiple modes of travel. A big revenue gap would need to be filled before there is any move on that point with rail fares getting progressively more expensive relative to other modes.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm not sure it does, as there are hefty premiums for any travel that involves use of multiple modes of travel. A big revenue gap would need to be filled before there is any move on that point with rail fares getting progressively more expensive relative to other modes.

London doesn't have integrated fares. Most German cities demonstrate it well, though.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

The English Devolution White Paper is here:

English Devolution White Paper

www.gov.uk

The Executive Summary says the following on transport:



There is more detail in section 3.3 transport and local infrastructure, this is what it says about rail.

You would have thought this would have gone hand in hand with GBR being fleshed out albeit I know the white paper covers a lot more ground than transport

 

[Merle Haggard]

The English Devolution White Paper is here:

English Devolution White Paper

www.gov.uk

The Executive Summary says the following on transport:



There is more detail in section 3.3 transport and local infrastructure, this is what it says about rail.

Extract from above white paper 'Mayors will be given a statutory role in governing, managing, planning and developing the rail network'. It doesn't seem to define 'mayors'.

Well I guess there are mayors and mayors but I wonder how this will work in Northamptonshire if taken at face value. 4 of the towns with railway stations also have mayors, the exception being the 5th station,Long Buckby. On the other hand, Daventry, Oundle and Rushden (at least) have a mayor but no railway station.

Just wondering how the roles will work; what weight they would have versus the big mayors (W. Midlands, E. Midlands) if there's any intention to improve services for their towns, which will inevitably have a negative effect on the services to other places, the responsibility of the big mayors. And what if the Daventry mayor decides it's within his powers (it seems to be) to demand a Parkway station on the W.C.M.L. South of Rugby?

 

[A S Leib]

Does this spell the end of Transport for the North, England's Economic Heartland etc. (not that I think most people realised they exist), or is there a chance that they'd stay with greater local input?

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Does this spell the end of Transport for the North, England's Economic Heartland etc. (not that I think most people realised they exist), or is there a chance that they'd stay with greater local input?

Given the closeness of all the major North cities and inter city connectivity needed you would hope it has a role to play or there are provisions within GBR to stop individual mayors declaring UDI.

 

[Magdalia]

Well I guess there are mayors and mayors

Indeed. Here we are talking about directly elected mayors, not people appointed by their fellow councillors performing ceremonies in their local town while wearing a gold chain. Helpfully we already have a list here of the existing directly elected mayors:

Cambridgeshire and Peterborough:
Constituent: Cambridge DC, Cambridgeshire CC, East Cambridgeshire DC, Fenland DC, Huntingdonshire DC, Peterborough City UA and South Cambridgeshire DC
East Midlands
Constituent: Derby UA, Derbyshire CC, Nottingham UA, Nottinghamshire CC
Greater Manchester:
Constituent: Bolton MBC, Bury MBC, Manchester MBC, Oldham MBC, Rochdale MBC, City of Salford MBC, Stockport MBC, Tameside MBC, Trafford MBC and Wigan MBC
Liverpool City Region:
Constituent: Knowsley MBC, Liverpool MBC, St Helens MBC, Sefton MBC, Wirral MBC and Halton UA
Non constituent: Warrington UA, West Lancashire DC
North East:
Constituent: Gateshead MBC, Newcastle upon Tyne MBC, Northumberland CC, North Tyneside MBC, South Tyneside MBC, Sunderland MBC
Tees Valley:
Constituent: Darlington UA, Hartlepool UA, Middlesbrough UA, Redcar and Cleveland UA and Stockton-On-Tees UA
South Yorkshire:
Constituent: Barnsley MBC, Doncaster MBC, Rotherham MBC, Sheffield MBC
Non-constituent: Bassetlaw DC, Bolsover DC, Chesterfield BC, Derbyshire Dales BC and North East Derbyshire BC
West Midlands:
Constituent: Birmingham MBC,Coventry MBC, Dudley MBC, Sandwell MBC, Solihull MBC, Walsall MBC, and Wolverhampton MBC
Non-constituent: Cannock Chase DC, Nuneaton and Bedworth DC, Redditch DC, Tamworth DC, Telford and Wrekin
West of England:
Constituent: Bath & North East Somerset UA, Bristol UA, and South Gloucestershire UA
West Yorkshire:
Constituent: Bradford MBC, Calderdale MBC, Kirklees MBC, Leeds MBC, and Wakefield MBC
York and North Yorkshire:
Constituent: North Yorkshire UA, and City of York UA

I wonder how this will work in Northamptonshire

By the end of this parliament, Northamptonshire will probably have a directly elected mayor. That might just be for Northamptonshire but joining up with the Bedfordshire unitaries and/or Milton Keynes might be another option. It will be up to the local authorities to make proposals within the framework of the White Paper.

Does this spell the end of Transport for the North, England's Economic Heartland etc. (not that I think most people realised they exist), or is there a chance that they'd stay with greater local input?

England's Economic Heartland in a few years time could be 3 or 4 directly elected mayors working together. I don't know much about Transport for the North but guessing that it involves some of the directly elected mayors listed above.