Could other UK cities devolve their rail services in the same manner as Manchester?

[PTR 444]

As we know, Manchester is planning to bring a handful of National Rail services serving the city under local control from 2025, with services being branded as part of the Bee Network and integrated with local buses and trams. I was wondering if such an approach would be practical and popular in other UK cities?

The best contenders would probably be Birmingham/West Midlands, Liverpool, Leeds/West Yorkshire, Cardiff and Glasgow since these cities have extensive self-contained urban rail networks which are reminiscent of the RER or S-Bahn concept. Other cities including Bristol, Nottingham, Newcastle and Edinburgh don't have as much in the way of urban rail, although I believe devolved rail in these cities could still be made to work if there is sufficient political will to do so.

 

[Purple Orange]

Liverpool already has its main heavy rail routes under local control, and Newcastle converted its main routes to the T&W Metro. The West Midlands is one that could follow in the footsteps of Manchester, as it was also promised greater devolution powers like Manchester was. The City Line and perhaps the snow hill lines could be a part of a devolved network?

 

[rapmastaj]

Local control of rail has already taken place in Liverpool and Cardiff. If it goes well in Manchester I could imagine Merseyrail and the South Wales Metro improving integration with other transport modes, and similar developments in the West Midlands and West Yorkshire.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Merseyrail has already been devolved. There is probably scope to devolve slightly further by transferring some of the Lime St local services to Merseyrail to operate using pantograph fitted (Wigan stoppers) or battery (Warrington C stoppers) 777s, with adding these services to the 8tph Northern Line terminators in some way by way of the Wapping Tunnel proposals also a possibility. Doing this would have the advantage of improving operations at Liverpool Central and allowing a cheaper rebuild to two side platforms like St Pancras Thameslink rather than it needing another island (there's a fair bit of wasted space in the station box which would allow wider side platforms than the island without digging much out).

The split between LNR and WMR was specifically intended to allow for the WMR services to be devolved, but this hasn't happened for now at least.

Manchester has its own thread on this I think.

Not sure about other cities, I'm less familiar with the service patterns.

 

[YorksLad12]

I count 7 routes wholly in West Yorkshire: Leeds-Bradford FS, Bradford FS-Ilkley, Ilkley-Leeds, Leeds-Knottingley via Wakefield, Leeds-Knottingley via Castleford, Castleford-Huddersfield and Huddersfield-Bradford Int.

WY will be concentrating on bus franchising and Mass Transit for the next few, expensive years, so there may not be an appetite for doing much more with the railway until the 2020s are out. Extending and simplifying MCard fares, and (re)integrating the various modes, might be the better options over here.

 

[javelin]

The split between LNR and WMR was specifically intended to allow for the WMR services to be devolved, but this hasn't happened for now at least.

The West Midlands (as in the wider English region) local authorities co-sign the WMR part of the franchise with the DfT, similar to Rail North with Northern and TPE. I'm not aware of a push for deeper control as yet.

 

[Halifaxlad]

Local control of rail has already taken place in Liverpool and Cardiff. If it goes well in Manchester I could imagine Merseyrail and the South Wales Metro improving integration with other transport modes, and similar developments in the West Midlands and West Yorkshire.

The network around Manchester is a lot more dense than West Yorkshire!

 

[Irascible]

I'm not sure it even just needs to be large cities - how about areas where there's a smaller city which is the focal point of a considerable area around it? that's basically a metropolis - which tends to have a centre & then seperate communities packed around it - only spread out more.

 

[PTR 444]

I'm not sure it even just needs to be large cities - how about areas where there's a smaller city which is the focal point of a considerable area around it? that's basically a metropolis - which tends to have a centre & then seperate communities packed around it - only spread out more.

Even a small but condensed rural area like the Isle of Wight might work for rail devolution. Most travel on the island is self-contained anyway, therefore you may as well run the buses and Island Line as a whole.

 

[rapmastaj]

The network around Manchester is a lot more dense than West Yorkshire!

True, but @YorksLad12 has already identified 7 routes entirely within West Yorkshire. You can add Leeds - Huddersfield stoppers to that list, plus Leeds - Skipton and Bradford FS - Skipton, which would almost certainly be part of any devolved rail deal, allowing the whole of the Airedale and Wharfedale lines to be included.

Other potential contenders include:
- the Harrogate line
- Leeds - York via Garforth
- Leeds - Selby
- Leeds - Doncaster.

York City Council already cooperates with West Yorkshire Combined Authority on various transport and other matters and this cooperation could be continued.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Dec 2022 ==

WY will be concentrating on bus franchising and Mass Transit for the next few, expensive years, so there may not be an appetite for doing much more with the railway until the 2020s are out. Extending and simplifying MCard fares, and (re)integrating the various modes, might be the better options over here.

True, but the mass transit itself may actually be the best opportunity for rail devolution, since many of the proposed corridors for mass transit development are closely tied to existing rail corridors.

Personally I think it would make more sense to start by developing a tram system that can cater for the flows within Leeds that are not currently supported by rail, but WYCA instead has wildly ambitious aims for a mass transit (of unspecified variety) that links most of the large towns in West Yorkshire - much of which seems to follow existing rail corridors such as the line from Leeds to Bradford Interchange.

 

[YorksLad12]

True, but @YorksLad12 has already identified 7 routes entirely within West Yorkshire. You can add Leeds - Huddersfield stoppers to that list, plus Leeds - Skipton and Bradford FS - Skipton, which would almost certainly be part of any devolved rail deal, allowing the whole of the Airedale and Wharfedale lines to be included.

Other potential contenders include:
- the Harrogate line
- Leeds - York via Garforth
- Leeds - Selby
- Leeds - Doncaster.

I left out Leeds-Huddersfield because it's TPE. I figured with starting on one operator at a time

Personally I think it would make more sense to start by developing a tram system that can cater for the flows within Leeds that are not currently supported by rail, but WYCA instead has wildly ambitious aims for a mass transit (of unspecified variety) that links most of the large towns in West Yorkshire - much of which seems to follow existing rail corridors such as the line from Leeds to Bradford Interchange.

Mass Transit is complicated. On the one hand you could argue that it should be Leeds Supertram MkII, as Leeds is the main economic driver. That just annoys the other four districts, and nothing gets built.

On the other hand... let's say, for example, that you run west from Leeds via Armley, Bramley, Stanningley, Pudsey and Laisterdyke to Bradford. You could then cut the heavy rail stopping services out, free some paths and run non-stop between Leeds and Bradford - which is what the Integrated Rail Plan seemed to be suggesting. The proposed Bradford-Low Moor-Spen Valley-Dewsbury route roughly follows an old rail corridor, with slow bus routes. It might be some way off, it might never happen, of course.

But for trains, I think something similar to the former MetroTrain idea would work better than full control. That had a (re)investment regime, the former PTA owned a small amount of rolling stock (the class 155s and the centre cars on the 144s), ticketing was joined up (and still is, mostly). There was a new stations programme, and we got the class 333s. We/You don't always have to own everything to get improvements; but it does need to be "integrated" in some way to make it attractive for current and future passengers, to get bums on seats.

 

[MattRat]

Most definitely. I think metro routes in general will see a massive boost compared to normal commuter routes which seem to be struggling, as people either stay in their city or travel to London via intercity services.

Maybe it will even end up extending to places like the Cornish Branches.

 

[clc]

In Glasgow, if Clyde Metro comes to fruition then perhaps SPT will be given control of the proposed ‘heavy metro’ routes, ie. Cathcart Circle/Newton/Neilston, Paisley Canal, Maryhill, Springburn, Milngavie and Dalmuir. Then again, SPT was stripped of its responsibility for local rail when Transport Scotland came into being so it’s possible the Scottish Government will want to retain control.

 

[WAB]

A consultation is underway for an East Midlands combined authority, consisting of Derby, Derbyshire, Nottingham and Nottinghamshire. Transport will be part of the devolution deal.

 

[Bletchleyite]

A consultation is underway for an East Midlands combined authority, consisting of Derby, Derbyshire, Nottingham and Nottinghamshire. Transport will be part of the devolution deal.

If this is to be the case it's interesting because it effectively undoes unitarisation, instead leaving us with effectively bigger Counties and bigger Boroughs (in a practical sense).

What aspects of transport are included?

Edit: there's full detail here (way too long to quote):

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1123610/East_Midlands_Devolution_Deal_-_Signed.pdf

It appears to be bus franchising powers, road maintenance etc and a partnership with the railway but not full responsibility for it. Plus some responsibilities over housing development etc which go well with that - so I think this in a way is close to the principles of a combined PTE style organisation but a bit bigger as outlined above. I wonder why it's not named in that way, as the impression given is of a large County Council?

I suppose you could envisage a North West version but I just can't see Liverpool and Manchester working together, even if the idea of a "Liverpool, Manchester, Chester and Preston PTE" would make a fair bit of sense given how closely bound together those cities' economies are. Possibly a better model there would be to extend the Liverpool City Region and Merseyside PTE to cover West Lancashire and the Chester area, and TfGM to cover the associated parts of Cheshire and Derbyshire which are Manchester commuter areas (this is what they did in Hamburg*, by the way), and then create a new combined transport authority covering the areas of central and north Lancashire, Cumbria and potentially the Dales which aren't primarily associated with the "big two"?

And the Home Counties remains an awkward one. Milton Keynes and Northampton for instance are often grouped with East Anglia politically, but people in MK care about London, not Norwich. But a "whole South East" one would probably be way too big for even a well-managed organisation like TfL. I suppose an "Oxford Cambridge Arc Combined Authority" may just work, but I'm not sure about how far round you'd go, because e.g. MK has nothing to do with Reading but Oxford clearly does.

* There's also the Verkehrsverbund Rhein-Ruhr covering a group of cities in the Ruhrgebiet, which given the nature of the area's industry etc would be comparable, and is also comparable to the West Midlands where multiple cities do coexist nicely, albeit a bit subservient to Brum.

 

[WAB]

It appears to be bus franchising powers, road maintenance etc and a partnership with the railway but not full responsibility for it. Plus some responsibilities over housing development etc which go well with that - so I think this in a way is close to the principles of a combined PTE style organisation but a bit bigger as outlined above. I wonder why it's not named in that way, as the impression given is of a large County Council?

Combined authority seems to be the usual name for a strategic regional authority; I imagine there is the intention to progressively push for additional devolution, potentially including regional rail services. They will already be taking on the Nottingham trams.

 

[YorksLad12]

Combined authority seems to be the usual name for a strategic regional authority; I imagine there is the intention to progressively push for additional devolution, potentially including regional rail services. They will already be taking on the Nottingham trams.

Most Combined Authorities are PTE-plus but Council-minus. I think of them as successors to the old Government Office Regions, but covering a smaller area and having to bid for funds. A lot.

Trouble is, people see the word "authority" and complain about things they have no control over, mostly on social media, so "strategic" might have been a better name than "combined".

 

[Bletchleyite]

Most Combined Authorities are PTE-plus but Council-minus. I think of them as successors to the old Government Office Regions, but covering a smaller area and having to bid for funds. A lot.

Trouble is, people see the word "authority" and complain about things they have no control over, mostly on social media, so "strategic" might have been a better name than "combined".

I think I'd have been more specific and called them "Transport and Housing Authority" as that's basically what they are.

 

[HST43257]

Liverpool, G Manchester, West Yorks, York and South Yorks could perhaps create some sort of combined combined transport provider (if that makes any sense at all), from a point of view of integration

 

[Bletchleyite]

Liverpool, G Manchester, West Yorks, York and South Yorks could perhaps create some sort of combined combined transport provider (if that makes any sense at all), from a point of view of integration

I don't think integrating both sides of the Pennines would make any sense at all. They don't act economically as one in the way the "Liverpool-Manchester-Preston triangle" does, and it's proven again and again that Northern is just too big and too complex.

I could see sense in a "North West PTE" covering an area including Preston and Blackpool/Fylde across to Glossop/New Mills and down to Crewe/Chester, with Liverpool and Manchester inside it, but I can see it being a bit too political as there'd always be accusations from Liverpool that Manchester is hogging the money and vice versa. I think realistically a slight expansion of the two PTEs and City Regions so they between them cover the whole area north of the Crewe-Chester line, across to the Pennines and up towards but just short of Preston, plus a separate north Lancashire arrangement, is the best you're going to get. So e.g. Warrington would join the LCR (it's no worse a fit there than Wigan is in GM).

A North West regional assembly has already been voted down, and I suspect it would be again. It's quite different from the other side of the Pennines where you're a Yorkshireman first and from Leeds/York/Sheffield/whatever second - in the North West you're a Scouser, Lancastrian or Manc first and from the North West second. That culture is hard to address.

 

[YorksLad12]

I think I'd have been more specific and called them "Transport and Housing Authority" as that's basically what they are.

In West Yorkshire's case, Transport, Housing, Culture, Climate and Adult Education Authority. Plus anything else I've forgotten!

Liverpool, G Manchester, West Yorks, York and South Yorks could perhaps create some sort of combined combined transport provider (if that makes any sense at all), from a point of view of integration

I seem to recall, between 15 and 20 years, a loose suggestion to create SWYPTE to merge transport and back-office interests across most of the former West Riding. I don't know if it was ever a serious proposal or just the equivalent of a forum idea, but South & West Yorkshire did often cooperate on things (in my time) such as real-time bus tracking and website supplier. West Yorkshire supplied some technical services to North Yorkshire & York, I don't know if they still do.

 

[WAB]

In West Yorkshire's case, Transport, Housing, Culture, Climate and Adult Education Authority. Plus anything else I've forgotten!


I seem to recall, between 15 and 20 years, a loose suggestion to create SWYPTE to merge transport and back-office interests across most of the former West Riding. I don't know if it was ever a serious proposal or just the equivalent of a forum idea, but South & West Yorkshire did often cooperate on things (in my time) such as real-time bus tracking and website supplier. West Yorkshire supplied some technical services to North Yorkshire & York, I don't know if they still do.

I think that at least for transport, a single coherent network for South and West Yorkshire, along with Skipton, Harrogate, Selby, Knaresborough, Ripon and York would be helpful, both in terms of reducing duplication of head office functions and for improving cross-boundary links. It would encompass a large, fairly urbanised area with neglected public transport.