Devolution of Suburban Rail Lines to Mayoral Regions

[Manutd1999]

As GBR slowly stutters into life, should we use this opportunity to handover control of selected suburban railways to mayoral authorities? Based on the success of the Overground network, why shouldn't the same concept be expanded to other cities? Local control is better placed to integrate services with buses/trams, create a more local identity to increase awareness, refurbish run-down local stations etc.

So how could it work?

I would mandate GBR to offer a sliding scale of devolution, so each authority could consider how much responsibility they wanted to take on. Something like this:

1. Takeover responsibility for branding, running stations and for revenue (i.e. selling tickets). Regions pay a flat fee for GBR to operate the services but have no control of timetable or operations, which remains with GBR. This could work where external constraints prevent significant changes to e.g. frequency
   
   
2. Freedom to set the timetable and operation, subject to contraints set by GBR. Drivers, rolling stock and maintenance are provided by GBR but paid-for by the Mayoral region. This is probably the optimum for most cases, so long as the lines are reasonably self-contained.
   
   
3. Full control with responsibility for hiring their own drivers/guards and leasing rolling stock. Maintenance may still shared with GBR. This would only be attractive to larger regions with the scale to take on these overheads.

Regions could takeover individual lines or groups of lines, depending on what suits them best. No top-down diktats, but a flexible approach, tailored to each region.

So where could this be implemented?

It requires a few things:

• Lines which can be easily separated from the wider network, ideally with sufficient flexibility for changes in service pattern etc if desired.
• Lines which mostly self-contained within the Mayoral region, although small extensions past the boundaries shouldn't be a blocker.
• Mayoral regions with the ambition/capability to take-over the service.

I've outlined some ideas for specific regions below.

London
London is the obvious place to start given the success of TfL Overground network. Adding the Great Northern services from Moorgate is already in planning and should be a clear upgrade. After that, the southern commuter/metro networks would seem like good candidates but I don't know enough about these lines to say which could/couldn't be separated out.

Manchester
Manchester has a clear appetite for bringing local rail into the Bee Network, but the messy, complex web of services limits opportunities. Piccadilly to Glossop and Rose Hill may be the easiest short-term options, as these are almost self-contained. Wigan to Rochdale/Stalybridge could be options later on, if the timetable is re-arranged.

Leeds
Similar to Manchester, separating out the services would be difficult. Leeds to Bradford/Skipton/Ilkley could be one option, with some West/North Yorkshire collaboration.

Birmingham
The Cross-City and Camp Hill lines would be good targets in the longer term, but interactions with other services and constraints at New Street may prevent significant changes.

Newcastle
Newcastle already has the Tyne&Wear metro which provides a good starting point. Would there be interest in adding the newly re-opened Northumberland line to the network? Maybe also Newcastle-Middlesborough via Hartlepool, although this would require some coordination with Tees Valley.

Bristol
Handing over the "MetroWest" concept to the Mayoral region could work nicely. These services would be self-contained onto the slow lines along Filton Bank, so there is good potential for running a metro frequency if desired.

Any others?

Overall I think there is significant potential. Outside of London, the Manchester-Glossop/Rose Hill, Northumberland and Bristol MetroWest lines would be good places to start.

 

[SynthD]

Many of these lines don’t lend themselves to services neatly ending at local government boundaries. The national governments plan as far as I’ve seen is to give the local government representation on the management of the lines in their area. This deals with the grey areas like Thameslink in a way that a hard do/do not hand over can’t handle. Even where there is/will be a place to terminate, eg Crews Hill on the Moorgate line, continuing for the sake of further commuters is in the greater interest. Representation and input on decision making is still a form of devolvement.

 

[lowe1409]

Many of these lines don’t lend themselves to services neatly ending at local government boundaries. The national governments plan as far as I’ve seen is to give the local government representation on the management of the lines in their area. This deals with the grey areas like Thameslink in a way that a hard do/do not hand over can’t handle. Even where there is/will be a place to terminate, eg Crews Hill on the Moorgate line, continuing for the sake of further commuters is in the greater interest. Representation and input on decision making is still a form of devolvement.

I've always found this quite bizarre in places such as Glossop or Amersham on the Met where the local transport is run by a neighbouring authority the locals have no say over.

 

[GraphitProjekt]

Interestingly, London (particularly South London) may be a bit easier to figure out than expected as quite a few services can be fairly clearly distilled as Greater London. Thameslink is the big outlier but other than that, I think a definition could be found.

Some graphic designer on Instagram recently regrafted the London Rail & Tube map in the style of Berlin, and in doing so had to define "S-bahn" vs "Regional" services from the wash of NR. I'll link the full thing here. But this is the key section for "S-bahn":

Somewhat relatedly, there was a TfL report about integrating several London based SN and SE services in this document: https://content.tfl.gov.uk/strategic-case-for-metroisation.pdf
It included a map of the kind of frequencies achieved by certain infrastructure investments, so this can give a clue of what more could be turned into OV:

It's actually the boundary between Manchester and Liverpool that I find much hard figure out as you wouldn't want to arbitrarily split Chat Moss local trains. Also both authorities annoyingly use yellow. Combining them together is not going to happen for political reasons but also because I think keeping the Merseyrail network a distinct identity is a good thing.
Similarly, the boundary between Manchester's Bee Network and West Yorkshire's Weaver Network is a little unclear as it seems TRUP is moving to deliver an end-to-end Manchester-Leeds local train rather than two services that stop at Huddersfield.

 

[Manutd1999]

Many of these lines don’t lend themselves to services neatly ending at local government boundaries.

I think the key is not to try to deal with everything in the same way. It's not appropriate for some lines but that doesn't mean it can't work for others. No reason why GBR can't continue to operate the Chat Moss as part of the National Rail network whilst Andy Burnham and co. run Manchester-Glossop as part of the Bee Network.

I've always found this quite bizarre in places such as Glossop or Amersham on the Met where the local transport is run by a neighbouring authority the locals have no say over.

I don't think this has to be such a rigid constraint where it's only one or two stations which drop outside the boundary. The opportunity to gain increased frequency, integrated ticketing with Metrolink would be far more valuable to the people of Glossop than retaining an element of (perceived) control. There could be rules written into the agreement to ensure Glossop is treated equally with other stations along the line.

Representation and input on decision making is still a form of devolvement.

It is, but it doesn't have as many advantages for integration, branding etc. Representation could be "Level 0" in my tiers. I.e., the minimum expected.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Apr 2026 ==

It's actually the boundary between Manchester and Liverpool that I find much hard figure out as you wouldn't want to arbitrarily split Chat Moss local trains. Also both authorities annoyingly use yellow. Combining them together is not going to happen for political reasons but also because I think keeping the Merseyrail network a distinct identity is a good thing.
Similarly, the boundary between Manchester's Bee Network and West Yorkshire's Weaver Network is a little unclear as it seems TRUP is moving to deliver an end-to-end Manchester-Leeds local train rather than two services that stop at Huddersfield.

In the first stages we should probably focus on lines which are (almost) self-contained. Trying to separate out lines where there is a mix of local/regional trains is too complex and has less benefit, as the devolved authority wouldn't have any freedom to adjsut the services without impacting everything else.

 

[YorksLad12]

Manchester
Manchester has a clear appetite for bringing local rail into the Bee Network, but the messy, complex web of services limits opportunities. Piccadilly to Glossop and Rose Hill may be the easiest short-term options, as these are almost self-contained. Wigan to Rochdale/Stalybridge could be options later on, if the timetable is re-arranged.

Leeds
Similar to Manchester, separating out the services would be difficult. Leeds to Bradford/Skipton/Ilkley could be one option, with some West/North Yorkshire collaboration.

For Leeds/West Yorkshire you could also add Leeds to Knottingley (both routes) and the Huddersfield-Bradford shuttle.

In the first stages we should probably focus on lines which are (almost) self-contained. Trying to separate out lines where there is a mix of local/regional trains is too complex and has less benefit, as the devolved authority wouldn't have any freedom able to adjsut the services without impacting everything else.

Agree on the "almost" part. Taking TPE out of the equation for the moment, the Calder Valley and Hallam lines from Leeds pass into GM and SY respectively. I'd imagine the Combined Authorities would present a "whole north" approach to similar services, probably through Transport for the North / Rail North Partnership. Which, it has to be said, is similar to what the old PTEs used to do - the Leeds-Sheffield semi-fast service was a SY idea, supported by WY, WY and GM coordinated on Calder Valley services, etc.

 

[renegademaster]

GTR derives a lot of operational flexibility by taking trains off suburban services to give to long distance and visa versa , and adding extra stops on long distance trains during disruption.

What actual benefits will splitting up Three Bridges/Selhurst into a TfL and GTR side actually bring, considering it's not 10 years ago and London Overground isn't going to get any money for a new fleet like they when they took over. Regardless of local control , Local Government is broke so if they want anything interesting done they are going to have to go cap in hand to uninterested Westminster.

 

[Mgameing123]

I've always found this quite bizarre in places such as Glossop or Amersham on the Met where the local transport is run by a neighbouring authority the locals have no say over.

To be fair in Amersham I don’t know what the locals would complain about.

 

[RT4038]

I've always found this quite bizarre in places such as Glossop or Amersham on the Met where the local transport is run by a neighbouring authority the locals have no say over.

No doubt the Local Transport Authority covering Glossop will be consulted over the cross boundary bus services from the neighbouring authority, and will be at liberty to fund any additional facilities that they may wish.

I am not sure what 'say' locals in shire county areas have over the local train services provided by DfT / GBR - a little bit of consultation about timetables / service patterns and zero say over fares, with always the caveat that the Local Authority can fund any additional facilities they wish - which in practice is virtually nothing. I am sure TfL would afford the same same facility to Buckinghamshire for instance.

 

[Bletchleyite]

To be fair in Amersham I don’t know what the locals would complain about.

They get far more than they'd get without TfL. One only has to look beyond Amersham for the service level (mostly hourly) to get an idea.

It's not unlike any West Lancashire residents whining about Merseyrail - they get 4tph without really paying anything towards its massive subsidy. Without that there'd be an hourly DMU if that and probably nothing on Sundays.

 

[lowe1409]

I am not sure what 'say' locals in shire county areas have over the local train services provided by DfT / GBR - a little bit of consultation about timetables / service patterns and zero say over fares, with always the caveat that the Local Authority can fund any additional facilities they wish - which in practice is virtually nothing. I am sure TfL would afford the same same facility to Buckinghamshire for instance.

At present, local MPs have the ability to go to parliament and lobby for improved services as is seen in most of the country presently outside of London. Devolving it to a neighbouring authority could leave some areas left out such as Merseyrail ending at borders and leaving useless dmu shuttles on the Lancashire side. Or with the inconvenient terminus of the Wrexham bidston where logic to extended over borders will never happen as Merseyside have no intention of funding it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

At present, local MPs have the ability to go to parliament and lobby for improved services as is seen in most of the country presently outside of London. Devolving it to a neighbouring authority could leave some areas left out such as Merseyrail ending at borders and leaving useless dmu shuttles on the Lancashire side.

Given that Merseyrail IS devolved to the Liverpool City Region, what makes you think that?

 

[Manutd1999]

At present, local MPs have the ability to go to parliament and lobby for improved services as is seen in most of the country presently outside of London. Devolving it to a neighbouring authority could leave some areas left out such as Merseyrail ending at borders and leaving useless dmu shuttles on the Lancashire side. Or with the inconvenient terminus of the Wrexham bidston where logic to extended over borders will never happen as Merseyside have no intention of funding it.

How of often does an MPs lobbying actually make a difference? I'd guess rarely... With devolved services residents would arguably have more power, as the issues would gain more prominance in local mayoral elections

 

[PTR 444]

Some graphic designer on Instagram recently regrafted the London Rail & Tube map in the style of Berlin, and in doing so had to define "S-bahn" vs "Regional" services from the wash of NR. I'll link the full thing here. But this is the key section for "S-bahn":
View attachment 202199

The link for this doesn’t work. Would you be able to post an image of the full map here?

 

[GraphitProjekt]

The link for this doesn’t work. Would you be able to post an image of the full map here?

Oh sorry, this should be the correct link but for good measure I'll put in a screenshot - it probably won't be very legible though.

 

[Krokodil]

At present, local MPs have the ability to go to parliament and lobby for improved services as is seen in most of the country presently outside of London.

How often do they manage to improve anything? We have a very centralised system these days, where people in Whitehall who've never been to Cornwall try to cut summer capacity to St Ives on the basis that it's quiet in winter. Thankfully GWR fought back against that particular idiocy.

Devolving it to a neighbouring authority could leave some areas left out such as Merseyrail ending at borders and leaving useless dmu shuttles on the Lancashire side.

Merseyrail already runs to Ormskirk, Chester and Ellesmere Port despite those being in another county. They've got plans to extend services to Helsby too, removing one such DMU shuttle.

Or with the inconvenient terminus of the Wrexham bidston where logic to extended over borders will never happen as Merseyside have no intention of funding it.

BR cut back the Wrexham-Birkenhead service to Bidston on the basis that it could save a unit diagram. Merseytravel and TfW are working together to run through trains between Wrexham and the Liverpool loop. There are no political obstacles to this, the problems are the infrastructure and the 777/1s.

 

[aron2smith]

London
London is the obvious place to start given the success of TfL Overground network. Adding the Great Northern services from Moorgate is already in planning and should be a clear upgrade. After that, the southern commuter/metro networks would seem like good candidates but I don't know enough about these lines to say which could/couldn't be separated out.

I would really like to see TFL be transformed into something more like Network Southeast but smaller and include buses this time, have whatever strategic authorities are formed around the Home Counties and commuter belt all work together with London in a strong partnership when it comes to transport, housing and infrastructure. Each county could then be a sub-region responsive to joining up the more local transport needs but working together as a single organisation thus reducing barriers from cross-boundary issues. Have all stopping and commuting services, especially SWR, Southern and Southeastern under this structure, could then include the whole of Thameslink.

Whatever Project Oval covers in the end could define what services would transfer to the larger transport authority.

Birmingham
The Cross-City and Camp Hill lines would be good targets in the longer term, but interactions with other services and constraints at New Street may prevent significant changes.

I'm of the view that the whole West Midlands Railway (including at least a part of LNWR) be transferred over to WMCA in full. Individual lines are not really self-contained but the network as a whole is. Can't really separate Hereford, Worcester, Stratford upon Avon, Shrewsbury etc from the Wider West Midlands, yet alone Kidderminster, Redditch, Lichfield, even Northampton, all outside the boundary but strongly tied into the West Midlands economy and orbit Birmingham and Coventry.

LNWR - because of the more affordable fares and links provided to key destinations from Birmingham should also be incorporated (at least the Liverpool service) as these services are more commuter than Intercity. Euston to Crewe and New St may make more sense under a Network Southeast type arrangement.

Chiltern would make more sense under the new Network Southeast.

In both the South East and West Midlands, anything that isn't long distance Intercity would make sense to devolve but under far larger boundaries than the current ones seen in Greater London or the West Midlands. Transport needs its own boundaries, ideally as Regional Transport Authorities. It's clear from all city regions, not least the Overground potentially reaching Stevenage, that administrative boundaries should be a lot less relevant to how transport is operated. Reducing that barrier is very important.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Apr 2026 ==

BR cut back the Wrexham-Birkenhead service to Bidston on the basis that it could save a unit diagram. Merseytravel and TfW are working together to run through trains between Wrexham and the Liverpool loop. There are no political obstacles to this, the problems are the infrastructure and the 777/1s.

Hopefully this means TFW's contactless system in North Wales could be joined up with Merseyrail's and have both joined up with Manchester's. Them all being next to each other and having incompatible payment systems is silly.
Same problem with South Wales and Bristol and Gloucestershire despite clearly being a single commuter area.

 

[quantinghome]

Eight lines in Manchester are already scheduled to join the Bee Network.

Note that neither the London Overground nor Merseyrail own the infrastructure - that's still Network Rail / GBR. Tyne and Wear Metro and South Yorkshire Supertram also run a bit over Network Rail tracks. So there's nothing to stop the local ITAs running services on tracks that also have regional/national services. The infrastructure doesn't have to be transferred - although it has been in some cases, like South Wales.

 

[GraphitProjekt]

Although, the East London Line and of course XR Core are owned by TfL i think through an organisation called RfLi - I can't remember the exact ownership paradigms. But ELL is owned by TfL but operated by NwR (New Cross signalbox and Lewisham ECR) while XR Core is more directly operated by TfL. I assume this is what allows ELL to have a night service.

 

[lowe1409]

although it has been in some cases, like South Wales.

What is the reasoning for Welsh government/TFW wanting to devolve the infrastructure? Surely Network Rail already have all the expertise and could do a cheaper and better job than TFW ever could as with the exception of light rail conversions, no other devolved authority has brought infrastructure under local control except where it was never owned by Network Rail in the first place (Such as some of the TFL examples)

 

[PTR 444]

Oh sorry, this should be the correct link but for good measure I'll put in a screenshot - it probably won't be very legible though.
View attachment 202210

Thanks! I like this concept, although feel that the National Rail lines are a little too thin, making them difficult to distinguish from the Underground. I respect that trying to in cram a full network as complex as London’s isn’t easy on a single map though.

 

[Djgr]

What is the reasoning for Welsh government/TFW wanting to devolve the infrastructure? Surely Network Rail already have all the expertise and could do a cheaper and better job than TFW ever could as with the exception of light rail conversions, no other devolved authority has brought infrastructure under local control except where it was never owned by Network Rail in the first place (Such as some of the TFL examples)

I'm not sure everyone is convinced that Network Rail is cheaper and better.

 

[Manutd1999]

Eight lines in Manchester are already scheduled to join the Bee Network.

Indeed, although it's still unclear how it's all going to work. Will Manchester be responsible for revenue, paying a fee to GBR to operate the trains? That would seem the easiest way, maybe also handing over responsibility for running stations and painting trains in a Bee Network livery (i.e. Livel 2 in my proposal).

Note that neither the London Overground nor Merseyrail own the infrastructure - that's still Network Rail / GBR

I wouldn't propose any change of ownership. Maintenance is probably best left to Network Rail.

 

[Djgr]

Eight lines in Manchester are already scheduled to join the Bee Network.

Note that neither the London Overground nor Merseyrail own the infrastructure - that's still Network Rail / GBR. Tyne and Wear Metro and South Yorkshire Supertram also run a bit over Network Rail tracks. So there's nothing to stop the local ITAs running services on tracks that also have regional/national services. The infrastructure doesn't have to be transferred - although it has been in some cases, like South Wales.

and Liverpool City Region aka Merseytravel (not Merseyrail who are the current concession holder) are looking at how the infrastructure could be transferred to them.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Apr 2026 ==

Hopefully this means TFW's contactless system in North Wales could be joined up with Merseyrail's and have both joined up with Manchester's. Them all being next to each other and having incompatible payment systems is silly.

Sounds like you are arguing for a centralised body here (e.g. GBR) rather than devolution.

By definition a devolved body has geographic boundaries where their stuff stops.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Apr 2026 ==

How often do they manage to improve anything? We have a very centralised system these days, where people in Whitehall who've never been to Cornwall try to cut summer capacity to St Ives on the basis that it's quiet in winter. Thankfully GWR fought back against that particular idiocy.


Merseyrail already runs to Ormskirk, Chester and Ellesmere Port despite those being in another county. They've got plans to extend services to Helsby too, removing one such DMU shuttle.


BR cut back the Wrexham-Birkenhead service to Bidston on the basis that it could save a unit diagram. Merseytravel and TfW are working together to run through trains between Wrexham and the Liverpool loop. There are no political obstacles to this, the problems are the infrastructure and the 777/1s.

The issue with out of areas is always where they want the benefits without making the financial contributions (i.e. Essex and the Central Line).

The above examples show how it can work, with electrification to Chester/Ellesmere Port in the 1990s with support from Cheshire and the current productive discussions between Liverpool City Region and the Welsh government.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Apr 2026 ==

I've always found this quite bizarre in places such as Glossop or Amersham on the Met where the local transport is run by a neighbouring authority the locals have no say over.

That's because Glossop fought and fought to stay out of Greater Manchester even though this wasn't logical from a local transport point of view.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Apr 2026 ==

Interestingly, London (particularly South London) may be a bit easier to figure out than expected as quite a few services can be fairly clearly distilled as Greater London. Thameslink is the big outlier but other than that, I think a definition could be found.

Some graphic designer on Instagram recently regrafted the London Rail & Tube map in the style of Berlin, and in doing so had to define "S-bahn" vs "Regional" services from the wash of NR. I'll link the full thing here. But this is the key section for "S-bahn":
View attachment 202199
Somewhat relatedly, there was a TfL report about integrating several London based SN and SE services in this document: https://content.tfl.gov.uk/strategic-case-for-metroisation.pdf
It included a map of the kind of frequencies achieved by certain infrastructure investments, so this can give a clue of what more could be turned into OV:View attachment 202198

It's actually the boundary between Manchester and Liverpool that I find much hard figure out as you wouldn't want to arbitrarily split Chat Moss local trains. Also both authorities annoyingly use yellow.

Although the Liverpool shade of yellow is much better!

 

[aron2smith]

Sounds like you are arguing for a centralised body here (e.g. GBR) rather than devolution.

By definition a devolved body has geographic boundaries where their stuff stops.

I'm saying it's in their interests to work together on this stuff, otherwise you have a balkanised mess fragmenting what is clearly a single travel area.

Project Oval is a great example of creating a system that goes beyond these boundaries and I think a similar unified fares system would be really beneficial in North Wales and North West England. Same in South Wales and West of England.

Railfuture put it like this on their Facebook - ''The government is to give local powers for tap-and-go contactless travel. However, it must first set national objectives and standards, or this will lead to balkanisation of integrated ticketing, with different systems in each devolved authority area.''

That really would not be a good outcome.

 

[quantinghome]

What is the reasoning for Welsh government/TFW wanting to devolve the infrastructure? Surely Network Rail already have all the expertise and could do a cheaper and better job than TFW ever could as with the exception of light rail conversions, no other devolved authority has brought infrastructure under local control except where it was never owned by Network Rail in the first place (Such as some of the TFL examples)

The Valley Lines are self-contained and TfW is converting them to tram-train operation. It's the same logic as Metrolink and T&W metro taking over former national rail lines.

 

[NCT]

Oh sorry, this should be the correct link but for good measure I'll put in a screenshot - it probably won't be very legible though.
View attachment 202210

Over my dead body!

Nice artwork though

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Apr 2026 ==

I'm saying it's in their interests to work together on this stuff, otherwise you have a balkanised mess fragmenting what is clearly a single travel area.

Project Oval is a great example of creating a system that goes beyond these boundaries and I think a similar unified fares system would be really beneficial in North Wales and North West England. Same in South Wales and West of England.

Railfuture put it like this on their Facebook - ''The government is to give local powers for tap-and-go contactless travel. However, it must first set national objectives and standards, or this will lead to balkanisation of integrated ticketing, with different systems in each devolved authority area.''

That really would not be a good outcome.

Devolution of regional services in France has generally led to service improvements, albeit at the cost of some inconsistencies arising.

Consistency and excellence usually don't go together. I'll take excellence.

 

[RT4038]

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Apr 2026 ==




By definition a devolved body has geographic boundaries where their stuff stops.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Apr 2026 ==


The issue with out of areas is always where they want the benefits without making the financial contributions (i.e. Essex and the Central Line).

However, the 'out of areas' often do not have the means to make a financial contribution - Council Tax is capped and most expenditure goes on statutory duties; also Central Government grants for transport are not always seen to be fairly allocated between Metropolitan and Shire areas.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Would ever such a proposal that is the raison d'etre for this thread ever have been in the minds of those instrumental of the Railway Nationalisation after the Second World War?

 

[Djgr]

I'm saying it's in their interests to work together on this stuff, otherwise you have a balkanised mess fragmenting what is clearly a single travel area.

Project Oval is a great example of creating a system that goes beyond these boundaries and I think a similar unified fares system would be really beneficial in North Wales and North West England. Same in South Wales and West of England.

Railfuture put it like this on their Facebook - ''The government is to give local powers for tap-and-go contactless travel. However, it must first set national objectives and standards, or this will lead to balkanisation of integrated ticketing, with different systems in each devolved authority area.''

That really would not be a good outcome.

Emulating Project Oval appears to be easier to achieve when you are essentially dealing with a geograhical area orbiting around a completely dominant central location honeypot (i.e. London).

It appears more complex when you are dealing with multiple smaller honeypots (Liverpool, Manchester, Bristol, Cardiff etc.), in the context of two distinct countries.