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

Devolution of Suburban Rail Lines to Mayoral Regions

Magdalia

Established Member
Joined
1 Jan 2022
Messages
7,408
Location
The Fens
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?
No. After the Second World War the railway was primarily for freight not passengers. Aside from London, most people worked near where they lived. The structure of local government was very different, and their interest in local public transport was municipally run buses (and in some places trams and trolleybuses), not trains.

With devolved services residents would arguably have more power, as the issues would gain more prominance in local mayoral elections
Mayors are a relatively recent innovation and is is only with this government that everywhere in England will have one. It will be for mayors to collaborate on cross border issues. Some of the big cities outside London have a head start on this because they have had Passenger Transport Executives since the 1968 Transport Act, for others mayors are still a new thing.
 
Last edited:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

RT4038

Established Member
Joined
22 Feb 2014
Messages
5,461
No. After the Second World War the railway was primarily for freight not passengers. Aside from London, most people worked near where they lived. The structure of local government was very different, and their interest in local public transport was municipally run buses (and in some places trams and trolleybuses), not trains.


Mayors are a relatively recent innovation and is is only with this government that everywhere in England will have one. It will be for mayors to collaborate on cross border issues. Some of the big cities outside London have a head start on this because they have had Passenger Transport Executives since the 1968 Transport Act, for others mayors are still a new thing.

The new Mayors will still be very dependent on how much funding is at their disposal - it will be politically difficult for them to be spending proportionately much more in boundary areas than elsewhere in their patch for transport services.
 

Magdalia

Established Member
Joined
1 Jan 2022
Messages
7,408
Location
The Fens
The new Mayors will still be very dependent on how much funding is at their disposal - it will be politically difficult for them to be spending proportionately much more in boundary areas than elsewhere in their patch for transport services.
Collaboration between mayors need not necessarily be confined to boundary areas, especially where population is more dispersed. To give an example local to me, I would hope to see the mayor of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough collaborating with the mayor of Norfolk and Suffolk on the Norwich-Cambridge and Ipswich-Cambridge rail routes.
 

Tomos y Tanc

Member
Joined
1 Jul 2019
Messages
917
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)
As always it's about money. Devolution of infrastucture would lead to the WG receiving a Barnett consequential for rail spending - roughly five times greater than the current NR spend in Wales. If the Scottish pattern was followed the WG would instruct NR to carry out projects in Wales and finance them accordingly.
 

lowe1409

Member
Joined
6 Feb 2024
Messages
286
Location
Cheshire
As always it's about money. Devolution of infrastucture would lead to the WG receiving a Barnett consequential for rail spending - roughly five times greater than the current NR spend in Wales. If the Scottish pattern was followed the WG would instruct NR to carry out projects in Wales and finance them accordingly.
Makes a lot of sense when you put it that way.
 

Mgameing123

Member
Joined
29 Apr 2023
Messages
1,060
Location
Denmark
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.
To be fair the hourly Chiltern service used to be half hourly all day. Not sure why they had to cut 1 tph.
 

VItraveller

On Moderation
Joined
1 Oct 2022
Messages
196
Location
West Midlands
I don’t think it would be desirable in the West Midlands, unless policy was set by a much more expanded West Midlands featuring Staffordshire, Worcestershire and Warwickshire alongside the West Midlands County, people have argued that mayors should collaborate with each other for the benefit of residence and yes in an ideal world that would be the case but it just seems like a recipe for blame shifting and responsibility skiving opportunism.
And that’s not getting into if the mayors are from different political parties.
 

Fishmilo

New Member
Joined
20 Jun 2022
Messages
1
Location
r@uZ2aJ$*D7
In the case of the West Midlands, the Mayor already controls more than you think as he's already the chair of WMRE. Ultimately I don't think the Mayor will change much.

All of WMRE lines run through Birmingham and most of them end outside the WMCA boundary. The struggle is obviously getting capping introduced inside the WMCA boundary. Expanding the capping zone would also then be a priority. Also giving the various lines their own numbering and/or naming system so they can better be identified like you see in London would be helpful. The capping is already being worked on and the latter needs GBR handover.
 

NCT

Established Member
Joined
18 Apr 2025
Messages
2,305
Location
London
I believe much of West Midlands is suitable for devolution, however I do think WMRE would need a stronger regional political structure behind it.
 

Nicholas Lewis

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2019
Messages
8,034
Location
Surrey
Whilst not directly comparable in Germany and France the Lander or Departments control their local transport very effectively. In Germany its highly integrated although behind the scenes its actually multiple operators some of them even private running services to the requirements of the Lander Transport Association under one common ticketing system. This principle should be adopted by all the English Mayoral/Combined authorities.
 

The Ham

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
12,036
Depending on capacity, it could be as simple as running a new service to create a "Crossrail" for a given large(ish) settlement.

Clearly, large cities probably wouldn't work (unless you skirt the centre, to give further out places a higher frequency of services but to get to the centre on the extra services they'd have to change).

However, for somewhere with a mainline through it which has some capacity (just not heading to London, Manchester, or the other large cities) it could be possible.

The example I've given in the past is to run a service from Ascot to Basingstoke via a new grade separated junction to allow free movement Frimley / Farnborough Main.

The lines are fairly lightly used.

The slows through Farnborough max out at 4tph in the peak hours and whist there's some freight, it shouldn't be difficult to add 2tph (maybe 8tph including freight).

The line through Camberley sees 2tph, so this going to 4tph (bearing in mind the extra services wouldn't be using the single track section south of Frimley) shouldn't be impossible.

Whist each place is fairly small, the total population for the Aldershot Urban Area is around 250,000, Basingstoke is around 105,000, that's quite a potential for users.

Where it gets interesting is that there's quite a few places where additional stations could be useful (as an example Fleet station is almost at the eastern edge of the settlement and so a western station could serve other areas, including two large developments built in the last 30 years) this would make rail travel far more attractive for a far larger percentage of the population.

Based on a journey time of an hour (end to end) to run 2tph you'd need 5 units.

Based on the rough rule of thumb of £200,000 in lease costs per coach and that's 1/3rd of total costs, that's £4 million to run that service.

Could that generate enough income to cover it. At 12 hours a day (yes you'd actually run for 15-18 hours, but some of those hours would be lightly used) for 300 days a year (allowing for Sundays, Bank Holidays and engineering works to generate zero) with there being 2 services in each direction (12*300*4=14,400) those costs would be across 14,400 services.

Therfore each service would need to generate around £280 in tickets.

Assuming an average return cost between the local stations of £4 (£2 per person on each service) you'd need 140 people.

However, as context ticket prices going a single stops during the off peak are slightly more than this; Camberley Frimley (£4.50) Fleet Winchfield (£5.50)

That's potentially quite a challenge (although remember that's not necessarily everyone on the train at the same time) and assuming only very local rail travel.

To illustrate the point, if the extra travel was on returns averaging £7 (3 stations) that's 80 people per train

However, the assumptions are conservative by also assuming most of the less busy services are not generating any income, that the only new tickets are for the next station (or maybe 3) and it doesn't factor in for increased longer distance rail use.

Whilst it would be unreasonable to allow the local trains to benefit from the total income of the uplift in passenger numbers for longer distance travel, however some of it could be allocated without harming the financial situation for the rest of the network (for example, an allocation of £2 for each ticket sold with one of the new stations as a starting point or where such a journey was unlikely using another route; for example Winchester to Bagshot - either due to journey time or due to blocking of using routes, for example £30 any permitted route but £23 not via Woking/Ash Vale).
 

The exile

Established Member
Joined
31 Mar 2010
Messages
9,451
Location
Somerset
Depending on capacity, it could be as simple as running a new service to create a "Crossrail" for a given large(ish) settlement.

Clearly, large cities probably wouldn't work (unless you skirt the centre, to give further out places a higher frequency of services but to get to the centre on the extra services they'd have to change).

However, for somewhere with a mainline through it which has some capacity (just not heading to London, Manchester, or the other large cities) it could be possible.

The example I've given in the past is to run a service from Ascot to Basingstoke via a new grade separated junction to allow free movement Frimley / Farnborough Main.

The lines are fairly lightly used.

The slows through Farnborough max out at 4tph in the peak hours and whist there's some freight, it shouldn't be difficult to add 2tph (maybe 8tph including freight).

The line through Camberley sees 2tph, so this going to 4tph (bearing in mind the extra services wouldn't be using the single track section south of Frimley) shouldn't be impossible.

Whist each place is fairly small, the total population for the Aldershot Urban Area is around 250,000, Basingstoke is around 105,000, that's quite a potential for users.

Where it gets interesting is that there's quite a few places where additional stations could be useful (as an example Fleet station is almost at the eastern edge of the settlement and so a western station could serve other areas, including two large developments built in the last 30 years) this would make rail travel far more attractive for a far larger percentage of the population.

Based on a journey time of an hour (end to end) to run 2tph you'd need 5 units.

Based on the rough rule of thumb of £200,000 in lease costs per coach and that's 1/3rd of total costs, that's £4 million to run that service.
Surely at £200K per coach, £4M covers only the lease costs of 5 units (= 20 coaches). So £12M in total if lease costs are about one third of total costs (which I doubt if you’re also having to pay back the costs of new infrastructure).
 

The Ham

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
12,036
Surely at £200K per coach, £4M covers only the lease costs of 5 units (= 20 coaches). So £12M in total if lease costs are about one third of total costs (which I doubt if you’re also having to pay back the costs of new infrastructure).

Yes sorry, missed the ×3.

So that'll be 240 trips per service, rather than 80.

In terms of infrastructure mostly it's existing track, maybe around £0.5bn for the grade separated junction and some extra for the new stations.

However, that is purely return on ticket sales, there would likely be wider benefits (if nothing else additional housing being able to be built without needing to improve roads as much, which, if it's at high enough density, means that there's an actual increase in council tax recipients vs the additional costs)
 

The exile

Established Member
Joined
31 Mar 2010
Messages
9,451
Location
Somerset
Yes sorry, missed the ×3.

So that'll be 240 trips per service, rather than 80.

In terms of infrastructure mostly it's existing track, maybe around £0.5bn for the grade separated junction and some extra for the new stations.
Another £5M pa in debt servicing for every percentage point on the interest rate
 

aron2smith

Member
Joined
20 Jan 2025
Messages
699
Location
London
Collaboration between mayors need not necessarily be confined to boundary areas, especially where population is more dispersed. To give an example local to me, I would hope to see the mayor of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough collaborating with the mayor of Norfolk and Suffolk on the Norwich-Cambridge and Ipswich-Cambridge rail routes.
I don’t think it would be desirable in the West Midlands, unless policy was set by a much more expanded West Midlands featuring Staffordshire, Worcestershire and Warwickshire alongside the West Midlands County, people have argued that mayors should collaborate with each other for the benefit of residence and yes in an ideal world that would be the case but it just seems like a recipe for blame shifting and responsibility skiving opportunism.
And that’s not getting into if the mayors are from different political parties.
If the government wanted truly strategic authorities, they would certainly cover larger regions, especially where population is more rural with dominant market towns. Around city regions like the West Midlands, this would cover commuter areas. The real risk is new authorities may still cut across commuting the way those around London or the North West do now.

For transport, Cambridgeshire and Norfolk/Suffolk equalling an East Anglia strategic authority, allowing Herts and Essex to orientate towards London would make a lot of sense.

Same with Staffs, Worcestershire, Warwickshire (add in Shropshire and Herefordshire too) forming a Wider West Midlands . Unlike Gloucestershire or Swindon, these counties/ regions can't be put with anything else and they wouldn't be strategic on their own, as they are too small. To me, WMR is a mostly self-contained network so it being subsumed into GBR makes little sense, when Merseyrail and soon Bee Network trains are allowed to be devolved. Birmingham and everywhere around it deserves the same.

What devolution means for individual lines in more rural/ county areas remains to be seen but I would like that to mean tighter integration within planning and development. In other words, transit orientated development.
 

The exile

Established Member
Joined
31 Mar 2010
Messages
9,451
Location
Somerset
If the government wanted truly strategic authorities, they would certainly cover larger regions, especially where population is more rural with dominant market towns. Around city regions like the West Midlands, this would cover commuter areas. The real risk is new authorities may still cut across commuting the way those around London or the North West do now.
Unfortunately in certain parts of the country this is almost unavoidable as significant travel to work areas overlap.
 

The Mercian

Member
Joined
9 Apr 2024
Messages
160
Location
Henbury, Macclesfield
If the government wanted truly strategic authorities, they would certainly cover larger regions, especially where population is more rural with dominant market towns. Around city regions like the West Midlands, this would cover commuter areas. The real risk is new authorities may still cut across commuting the way those around London or the North West do now.

For transport, Cambridgeshire and Norfolk/Suffolk equalling an East Anglia strategic authority, allowing Herts and Essex to orientate towards London would make a lot of sense.

Same with Staffs, Worcestershire, Warwickshire (add in Shropshire and Herefordshire too) forming a Wider West Midlands . Unlike Gloucestershire or Swindon, these counties/ regions can't be put with anything else and they wouldn't be strategic on their own, as they are too small. To me, WMR is a mostly self-contained network so it being subsumed into GBR makes little sense, when Merseyrail and soon Bee Network trains are allowed to be devolved. Birmingham and everywhere around it deserves the same.

What devolution means for individual lines in more rural/ county areas remains to be seen but I would like that to mean tighter integration within planning and development. In other words, transit orientated development.
They already have a Wider West Midlands body called the West Midlands Rail Executive (WMRE) as
mentioned further up the thread which has representatives from all the counties you mention and also has Cheshire East as an associate member as so many WMRE services go to Crewe and beyond.

Imv WMRE and it’s more senior body Midlands Connect (which adds in the East Midlands) should be front and centre of any devolved rail structures so we at least get some local/regional input into whatever our new GBR overlords have for us. If GBR is the “top down” part of the nationalisation equation the current devolved orgs like Transport for the North, Midlands Connect etc are a vital part of the “bottom up” part of the equation.
 

NCT

Established Member
Joined
18 Apr 2025
Messages
2,305
Location
London
They already have a Wider West Midlands body called the West Midlands Rail Executive (WMRE) as
mentioned further up the thread which has representatives from all the counties you mention and also has Cheshire East as an associate member as so many WMRE services go to Crewe and beyond.

Imv WMRE and it’s more senior body Midlands Connect (which adds in the East Midlands) should be front and centre of any devolved rail structures so we at least get some local/regional input into whatever our new GBR overlords have for us. If GBR is the “top down” part of the nationalisation equation the current devolved orgs like Transport for the North, Midlands Connect etc are a vital part of the “bottom up” part of the equation.

I think the governance structure of WMRE as it stands is too weak. You really need a single political master to make strategic decisions around funding and trade-offs. Or at least a much smaller number of equal partners. At the moment, the WM combined authority plus a handful of county council leaders is too lopsided.
 

The Mercian

Member
Joined
9 Apr 2024
Messages
160
Location
Henbury, Macclesfield
I think the governance structure of WMRE as it stands is too weak. You really need a single political master to make strategic decisions around funding and trade-offs. Or at least a much smaller number of equal partners. At the moment, the WM combined authority plus a handful of county council leaders is too lopsided.
That’s fair comment NCT. When you say lopsided, which way? Too much WM county and not enough shires or the other way?

They of course are always hidebound by what DfT will let them do though you’d hope any new agreement with GBR would hopefully take some of the decision making/budget out into the regions. As ever the haunting spectre of the Treasury looms large…..
 

Magdalia

Established Member
Joined
1 Jan 2022
Messages
7,408
Location
The Fens
For transport, Cambridgeshire and Norfolk/Suffolk equalling an East Anglia strategic authority
An East Anglia strategic authority for Cambridgeshire, Suffolk and Norfolk would be an expensive bureaucracy that would serve little purpose. All it needs is dialogue between two mayors.
 

Noddy

Established Member
Joined
11 Oct 2014
Messages
1,655
Location
UK
Unfortunately in certain parts of the country this is almost unavoidable as significant travel to work areas overlap.

The most obvious being the Cardiff-Bristol M4 corridor which would fall between the Welsh government and whatever regional/mayoral authority covers greater Bristol.
 

Manutd1999

Member
Joined
21 Feb 2021
Messages
549
Location
UK
The most obvious being the Cardiff-Bristol M4 corridor which would fall between the Welsh government and whatever regional/mayoral authority covers greater Bristol.
Is that a problem though?

National Rail could continue to service Bristol-Cardiff as per today. Maybe a lost opportunity for integration, but not the end of the world.

Meanwhile the West of Eng. Mayoral Authority could run "MetroWest", a suburban metro between Weston-Super-Mare/Portishead and Henbury/Avonmouth. Those services are well suited to a devolution, with everything contained to the slow lines along Filton Bank and opportunities to integrate with local buses etc.
 

Noddy

Established Member
Joined
11 Oct 2014
Messages
1,655
Location
UK
Is that a problem though?

National Rail could continue to service Bristol-Cardiff as per today. Maybe a lost opportunity for integration, but not the end of the world.

Meanwhile the West of Eng. Mayoral Authority could run "MetroWest", a suburban metro between Weston-Super-Mare/Portishead and Henbury/Avonmouth. Those services are well suited to a devolution, with everything contained to the slow lines along Filton Bank and opportunities to integrate with local buses etc.

Not necessarily. It’s more to do with issues around what you devolve. For example ticketing (and contactless payments), infrastructure and/or train services, and how you make improvements to cross border services if there is large amounts of devolution.
 
Last edited:

aron2smith

Member
Joined
20 Jan 2025
Messages
699
Location
London
No, it couldn't. The combined population of Cambridgeshire, Peterborough, Norfolk and Suffolk in 2021 is about 2.5 million. It is tiny compared with the Great North area, which is more than 15 million.
That's still a significant population where collaboration makes a ton of sense.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

The most obvious being the Cardiff-Bristol M4 corridor which would fall between the Welsh government and whatever regional/mayoral authority covers greater Bristol.
Same problem in North Wales and Liverpool. To the point where Merseyrail and the Wrexham line will both have contactless but won't accept each other systems despite meeting at Bidston, pretty stupid.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

Meanwhile the West of Eng. Mayoral Authority could run "MetroWest", a suburban metro between Weston-Super-Mare/Portishead and Henbury/Avonmouth. Those services are well suited to a devolution, with everything contained to the slow lines along Filton Bank and opportunities to integrate with local buses etc.
Could surely include the services to Gloucester and Westbury/ Salisbury as part of this too, so it includes trains to Bath.
 
Last edited:

Manutd1999

Member
Joined
21 Feb 2021
Messages
549
Location
UK
In light of Andy Burnham's near-100% chance of becoming PM and strong commitment to devolution, it is time to revive this thread....

How could GBR be adapted and used to devolve rail powers to mayors and regions? I would propose something like this:
  • GBR creates regionalised TOC+Network Rail operating groups, as has already been done with South-Western. One organisation responsible for employing drivers/guards, running regional services as specified (see below) and track maintenance.
  • An InterCity type brand operation is setup for long-distance services, as well as a Regional brand for services which cross multiple regional boundaries (e.g. Transpennine, Norwich-Liverpool, Cardiff-Portsmouth). Fares would be set nationally and revenue returned to government.
  • Within Mayoral regions, responsibility for local services would be devolved as follows:
    • Mayors would get a share of the rail subsidy, but with no obligation to spend it on rail if they wish to prioritise other things, or the option to increase it by making savings elsewhere
    • Mayors would be responsible for "procuring" local services from GBR.
      • GBR identifies local services which are suitable for devolution (i.e. ones which stay within mayoral boundaries or with only simple, limited extensions)
      • Mayor request a service level on given routes
      • GBR determine what is possible within wider timetable constraints and what it would cost to operate.
      • Mayors pay for the service using their devolved budget, set their own fare structure and keep all revenue
      • GBR operate the service but using a regional brand if desired.

Using a random Manchester example:
1) GBR North-West identifies stoppers along the CLC line as a candidate for devolution, with the stoppers split at Warrington. 2ph Regional Liverpool-Sheffield services are retained and controlled by GBR.
1) Mayor asks for a 4ph turn-up-and-go service
2) GBR says only 2ph is possible due to other constraints.
3) Mayor agrees and funds the service.
4) GBR North-West operates the service, using trains branded as BeeNetwork as far much as operationally possible
5) Fares are integrated with the BeeNetwork, with all local revenue retained by the mayor. Passengers travelling outside the region continue to use national tickets as per today.

or alternatively:
3) Mayor decides it's too expensive and doesn't fund the service
4) GBR North-West cuts all stoppers along the CLC.
5) Mayor keeps the rail subsidy and is free to spend it elsewhere. GBR makes it clear the service reduction is the mayors decision/fault.
 
Last edited:

SynthD

Established Member
Joined
4 Apr 2020
Messages
2,051
Location
UK
5) Fares are integrated with the BeeNetwork, with all local revenue retained by the mayor. Passengers travelling outside the region continue to use national tickets as per today.
That bit doesn’t sound right. I don’t know how the funding and income deals will work, but I’d look at the Barnett formula for Scotland as a starter. Someone judges the relevant percentage of stake of the local gov, they have that much money due, that portion of the board/decision making power, that cut of the fares.

Does integrated fares mean within the local governments control, even if that means an abnormally large step at the first station out of their control? TfL don’t have that freedom.
 

Top