Devolution of Suburban Rail Lines to Mayoral Regions

Bletchleyite · 6 Jul 2026

Manutd1999 said:
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.

Given the typical nature of local politics, this (while it happens in Germany*) is incredbly dangerous given that it's difficult and expensive to restart a lost rail service, unlike bus services where you can restart any in 56 days' time (registration period) as soon as the money and an operator is found.

A more collaborative approach than that with a national veto of some kind really does need to be necessary to save us losing entire lines for good when Council budgets get a bit tight, just as we have been losing bus services - but revocably.

* "Nichts bestellt" - "nothing ordered"...quiet and permanent withdrawal.

RailUK Forums

Dr Hoo · 6 Jul 2026

Bletchleyite said:
Given the typical nature of local politics, this (while it happens in Germany*) is incredbly dangerous given that it's difficult and expensive to restart a lost rail service, unlike bus services where you can restart any in 56 days' time (registration period) as soon as the money and an operator is found.

A more collaborative approach than that with a national veto of some kind really does need to be necessary to save us losing entire lines for good when Council budgets get a bit tight, just as we have been losing bus services - but revocably.

* "Nichts bestellt" - "nothing ordered"...quiet and permanent withdrawal.

That was broadly what happened with the original Glasgow Central-Paisley Canal-Kilmacolm service. Local PTE decided not to fund the service; Goodbye.

Manutd1999 · 6 Jul 2026

Bletchleyite said:
Given the typical nature of local politics, this (while it happens in Germany*) is incredbly dangerous given that it's difficult and expensive to restart a lost rail service, unlike bus services where you can restart any in 56 days' time (registration period) as soon as the money and an operator is found.

I think that's a risk we have to take if we want to achieve anything meaningful. "Devolution by half", with Whitehall as a backseat driver, will never work.

SynthD said:
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.

I would say yes. Metro mayors would pay a set fee for GBR to run the service, maintain the rails etc. Tickets would then be entirely the remit of the mayoral authorities. Clear lines of responsibility, no micro-management from Whitehall.

If the Mayor wants to allow everyone to travel for free and fund the service using other parts of the budget, they are free to do so. Alternatively, if they decide to set fares so high that nobody uses the service and they lose money, that is also fine. GBR receives the same fee either way.

Nicholas Lewis · 6 Jul 2026

Manutd1999 said:
I would say yes. Metro mayors would pay a set fee for GBR to run the service, maintain the rails etc. Tickets would then be entirely the remit of the mayoral authorities. Clear lines of responsibility, no micro-management from Whitehall.

If the Mayor wants to allow everyone to travel for free and fund the service using other parts of the budget, they are free to do so. Alternatively, if they decide to set fares so high that nobody uses the service and they lose money, that is also fine. GBR receives the same fee either way.

Exactly thats what local devolution needs to look like and the MerseyRail model has stood the test of time so they can easily replicate if theres the political will.

Bletchleyite · 6 Jul 2026

Manutd1999 said:
I think that's a risk we have to take if we want to achieve anything meaningful.

If that's so then I'm opposed. We cannot let that happen. Bus services are easy to reinstate, but once a rail service is gone it's usually gone forever.

A Passenger Transport Executive approach where devolved funding can increase service but not decrease it is the only sensible approach.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Jul 2026 ==

Nicholas Lewis said:
Exactly thats what local devolution needs to look like and the MerseyRail model has stood the test of time so they can easily replicate if theres the political will.

Merseyrail hasn't gone well. Class 777 has been an utter debacle from start to finish, for instance. Sure, it's better than Northern's local services in the area, but that wouldn't exactly be hard.

NCT · 6 Jul 2026

You can't have it both ways. If you want devolution you need to own the risk of Amercian style bankruptcies. Or kiss Treasury Green Book's feet.

JamesT · 6 Jul 2026

Nicholas Lewis said:
Exactly thats what local devolution needs to look like and the MerseyRail model has stood the test of time so they can easily replicate if theres the political will.

Merseyrail is largely self-contained to an area. How does that work when existing services cross local authority boundaries? If Cumbria are willing to pay for a train but Northumberland are not, does Carlisle to Newcastle get chopped at the Pennines?

Bletchleyite · 6 Jul 2026

NCT said:
You can't have it both ways. If you want devolution you need to own the risk of Amercian style bankruptcies. Or kiss Treasury Green Book's feet.

Then I'm anti devolution.

You cannot destroy long term things on short term political whims which inevitably happen. The abstraction layer of BR dealt with that.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Jul 2026 ==

JamesT said:
Merseyrail is largely self-contained to an area. How does that work when existing services cross local authority boundaries? If Cumbria are willing to pay for a train but Northumberland are not, does Carlisle to Newcastle get chopped at the Pennines?

A pragmatic hybrid model deals with this. Full devolution does not which is why it is not appropriate.

Nicholas Lewis · 6 Jul 2026

JamesT said:
Merseyrail is largely self-contained to an area. How does that work when existing services cross local authority boundaries? If Cumbria are willing to pay for a train but Northumberland are not, does Carlisle to Newcastle get chopped at the Pennines?

Good point but devolution largely driven to big cities and combined authorities so really needs the whole of England being covered by one or the other and provisions made for the need to interwork between regions/cities. That said some service groups established by BR setup to try and serve multiple areas at least cost are not necessarily operationally sensible eg Norwich to Liverpool

The exile · 6 Jul 2026

Dr Hoo said:
That was broadly what happened with the original Glasgow Central-Paisley Canal-Kilmacolm service. Local PTE decided not to fund the service; Goodbye.

And nearly cost us the Penistone line as it cut across two PTEs with differing priorities.

Sir Felix Pole · 6 Jul 2026

The exile said:
And nearly cost us the Penistone line as it cut across two PTEs with differing priorities.

Conversely, GMPTE saved Oldham to Rochdale after BR started closure procedures. Now part of Metrolink, of course.

Nicholas Lewis · 6 Jul 2026

The exile said:
And nearly cost us the Penistone line as it cut across two PTEs with differing priorities.

Which is why enabling legislation may need to specifically identify routes that transit between different mayoral areas/combined authorities to ensure no group can take detrimental action. Im pretty sure the GBR legislation imposes a duty on NR that mirrors this principle.

Krokodil · 6 Jul 2026

Bletchleyite said:
but once a rail service is gone it's usually gone forever.

Though complete withdrawal (rather than just reducing to a Parliamentary service) would require statutory closure proceedings. Outside of lines which already are Parly services, I don't see much of a threat.

Dr Hoo · 6 Jul 2026

Krokodil said:
Though complete withdrawal (rather than just reducing to a Parliamentary service) would require statutory closure proceedings. Outside of lines which already are Parly services, I don't see much of a threat.

Well, Kilmacolm went through a full closure process.
At the risk of stating the obvious, the PTE also ran and organised the bus services so not very easy to demonstrate any ‘hardship’.

Krokodil · 6 Jul 2026

Dr Hoo said:
Well, Kilmacolm went through a full closure process.

Yes, but it was a service BR already wanted rid of and times have changed since the '80s.

Manutd1999 · 7 Jul 2026

Bletchleyite said:
A Passenger Transport Executive approach where devolved funding can increase service but not decrease it is the only sensible approach.

In that case who controls the fares? Trying to compensate devolved regional for the share of any increases in revenue due to their enhanced service would quickly get quite complex. And opportunities for mayors to introduce new fares would be more limited.

frodshamfella · 7 Jul 2026

GraphitProjekt said:
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. 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.

The area which misses out now and really should be covered by Merseyrail is between Hunts Cross via Widnes into Warrington. Highly populated but not receiving a Metro Style service which Merseyrail could offer. Part of this area is also within the Liverpool City Region. I also feel the Northern Line should travel beyond Headbolt Lane to Wigan, also providing a frequent service. For a long time talk to connect Skelmersdale has been talked about one way or another.

Dr Hoo · 7 Jul 2026

Krokodil said:
Yes, but it was a service BR already wanted rid of and times have changed since the '80s.

You’ve confused me there. Why would BR want to close any service that they were being paid to run?

Under the legislation for PTEs a PTE had to give a year’s notice of any service that they no longer wanted to support (or two years for an entire PTE system). After that BR could (and did) close it.

In the general theme of this thread the Birmingham Snow Hill-Wolverhampton line closed in 1972 when the WMPTE decided not to support it. They introduced their flagship Number 79 Birmingham-West Bromwich-Wolverhampton bus route to integrate three of the four former Corporation systems.

Farnborough · 7 Jul 2026

NCT said:
I believe much of West Midlands is suitable for devolution, however I do think WMRE would need a stronger regional political structure behind it.

We could call it the West Midlands Passenger Transport Executive ?

Bletchleyite · 7 Jul 2026

Farnborough said:
We could call it the West Midlands Passenger Transport Executive ?

It's called the West Midlands Combined Authority. These took on the role of the former PTEs and have their powers and a bit more.

I think the poster is talking about more heavyweight devolution a bit more like Wales though.

cornishjohn · 8 Jul 2026

JamesT said:
If Cumbria are willing to pay for a train but Northumberland are not, does Carlisle to Newcastle get chopped at the Pennines?

Already quite a few "starts/terminates here" at Hexham. It really would depend on what the councils thought they wanted to pay for (or not). Why run through trains if they are not wanted... If they are wanted, they can implement passes like Yorkshire.

Manutd1999 · 8 Jul 2026

cornishjohn said:
Already quite a few "starts/terminates here" at Hexham. It really would depend on what the councils thought they wanted to pay for (or not). Why run through trains if they are not wanted... If they are wanted, they can implement passes like Yorkshire.

I agree - in this case if Northumberland didn't pay the Carlisle-Newcatle would still run but would just skip the stops near Newcastle which don't have demand westwards. Not very efficient but that would be respecting the wishes of the locally elected authorities.

In reality this is highly unlikely - mayors are much more likely to be pushing for increases in services rather than cuts. Devolution would be a great way of driving a better service level on many local lines which have potential but are too easily forgotten about under the national system.

Dr Day · 8 Jul 2026

Manutd1999 said:
In reality this is highly unlikely - mayors are much more likely to be pushing for increases in services rather than cuts. Devolution would be a great way of driving a better service level on many local lines which have potential but are too easily forgotten about under the national system.

I’m not so sure. Once they realise the sheer scale of subsidy even suburban rail lines can need, they may think twice about retaining them let alone funding more of them. It’s very easy to want rail services when they are being funded out of a big national budget elsewhere that typically rolls on year after year, but a bit more scary when you have local scrutiny relative to other local needs including buses.

Manutd1999 · 8 Jul 2026

Dr Day said:
I’m not so sure. Once they realise the sheer scale of subsidy even suburban rail lines can need, they may think twice about retaining them let alone funding more of them. It’s very easy to want rail services when they are being funded out of a big national budget elsewhere that typically rolls on year after year, but a bit more scary when you have local scrutiny relative to other local needs including buses.

But is that not exactly the kind of trade-off we should be considering?

A national system can't easily decide whether local branch line X would be best served by funding an increase in the 1ph service to a proper turn-up-and-go frequency, or by scrapping the whole thing and subsiding a bus instead. A local mayor can and should be empowered to do so, even if the rail industry doesn't always like the answer.

Dr Day · 8 Jul 2026

Manutd1999 said:
But is that not exactly the kind of trade-off we should be considering?

A national system can't easily decide whether local branch line X would be best served by funding an increase in the 1ph service to a proper turn-up-and-go frequency, or by scrapping the whole thing and subsiding a bus instead. A local mayor can and should be empowered to do so, even if the rail industry doesn't always like the answer.

The rail industry itself would probably actually like the freedom to work with the bus and tram industries to use a fixed pot of taxpayer money for public transport to spend as they collectively see fit to grow the overall market to open or close lines, increase or decrease services, and end up with a different mix of rail, light rail or buses than we have today.

Manutd1999 · 8 Jul 2026

Dr Day said:
The rail industry itself would probably actually like the freedom to work with the bus and tram industries to use a fixed pot of taxpayer money for public transport to spend as they collectively see fit to grow the overall market to open or close lines, increase or decrease services, and end up with a different mix of rail, light rail or buses than we have today.

That's what I think we could end up with, except it would be mayors controlling the pot of cash. I think it could work well.

Devolution of Suburban Rail Lines to Mayoral Regions

Veteran Member

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member