• 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!

Future Northern Rail

Status
Not open for further replies.

YorkshireBear

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2010
Messages
9,665
.

I think the solution would be to have a "Yorkshire" PTE which could influence services a lot better, and be big enough to have a positive impact.

I pretty much agree with you all the time anyway but thought id say i agree. How many town in yorkshire are not fairly represented by a PTE, york? Hull? two fairly big places with no coverage. These would really get a good results from being involved in a yorkshire wide PTE. My only issue is, what to do about intergrating the east and west? is it better to have them seperate but with a working partnership?
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Xenophon PCDGS

Veteran Member
Joined
17 Apr 2011
Messages
35,408
Location
A typical commuter-belt part of north-west England
It can, but it doesn't happen very often. One way of looking at things would be to see what benefit there is to a PTE area by taking cars off the road travelling into that area from counties outside.

As a possible method of finance raising, there was a proposal for a congestion charge system in the Manchester area consisting of an outer and an inner ring, somewhat akin to the London method. The monies raised were envisaged to finance a part of the Manchester Metrolink system expansion.

After much discussion, it was agreed to hold a referendum on the matter in all of the 10 areas that make up Greater Manchester. It would have had to have a certain area percentage for the scheme to have proceeded.

I have kept a copy of the referendum dated 12th December 2008 and the 10 area results were as follows:-

AREA.....................................For.............................Against
Bolton.......................................20,529.....................,,..76,910
Bury.........................................16,563.........................64,001
Manchester................................43,593.......................113,064
Oldham......................................17,571........................68,884
Rochdale....................................17,333........................61,686
Salford.......................................14,603........................79,326
Stockport...................................24,090.......................103,706
Tameside....................................16,323........................83,105
Trafford......................................20,445........................83,568
Wigan.........................................27,810.......................78,565

As you can see, all 10 areas voted against the congestion charge proposals and the matter was dropped. When it came to it, the aspirations of the proponents were subjugated to the will of the people who would have to had to pay to travel in and out of congestion zone charges.

But that was true democracy in action.
 

northwichcat

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
32,692
Location
Northwich
At the moment Manchester Airport - Chat Moss - Liverpool is DMU operated.

When the Lancashire Triangle is electrified, this will be a wholly electrified route, allowing EMUs to run and replace DMUs.

Diverting this service back via Warrington would mean having to still keep DMUs for this service, thus negating part of the benefit of electrifying lines in this area (under this plan all three of the current "fast" Liverpool - Manchester services would remain DMU operated).

Whether you like it or not the main Liverpool-Manchester Airport service is expected to go via Warrington after the Ordsall Chord and the Scarborough service is diverted via Chat Moss. You'll probably have around 5 years of EMUs on Liverpool-Manchester before any diversions between Liverpool and Manchester.

As I mentioned Merseytravel want four expresses (two on either line), which could use the EMUs released by diverting the Airport service via Warrington. TfGM want Victoria-Stalybridge electrified after Preston-Blackpool which will allow 1 or 2 DMUs to be released.
 

142094

Established Member
Joined
7 Nov 2009
Messages
8,789
Location
Newcastle
As a possible method of finance raising, there was a proposal for a congestion charge system in the Manchester area consisting of an outer and an inner ring, somewhat akin to the London method. The monies raised were envisaged to finance a part of the Manchester Metrolink system expansion.

After much discussion, it was agreed to hold a referendum on the matter in all of the 10 areas that make up Greater Manchester. It would have had to have a certain area percentage for the scheme to have proceeded.

I have kept a copy of the referendum dated 12th December 2008 and the 10 area results were as follows:-

AREA.....................................For.............................Against
Bolton.......................................20,529.....................,,..76,910
Bury.........................................16,563.........................64,001
Manchester................................43,593.......................113,064
Oldham......................................17,571........................68,884
Rochdale....................................17,333........................61,686
Salford.......................................14,603........................79,326
Stockport...................................24,090.......................103,706
Tameside....................................16,323........................83,105
Trafford......................................20,445........................83,568
Wigan.........................................27,810.......................78,565

As you can see, all 10 areas voted against the congestion charge proposals and the matter was dropped. When it came to it, the aspirations of the proponents were subjugated to the will of the people who would have to had to pay to travel in and out of congestion zone charges.

But that was true democracy in action.

The same happened in Edinburgh, who also held a referendum yet didn't legally have to.

One of the major reasons why there is a lack of modal shift between private car and buses is the fact that those who drive perceive buses to be dirty, smelly and turning up late/unreliable. A lot of investment has gone into new buses in most areas in recent years, and a congestion charge would certainly lead to further investment and more reliable buses.
 

YorkshireBear

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2010
Messages
9,665
The same happened in Edinburgh, who also held a referendum yet didn't legally have to.

One of the major reasons why there is a lack of modal shift between private car and buses is the fact that those who drive perceive buses to be dirty, smelly and turning up late/unreliable. A lot of investment has gone into new buses in most areas in recent years, and a congestion charge would certainly lead to further investment and more reliable buses.

I can speak for sheffield in saying buses have improved no end in the last 6-10 years. I am starting to drill into my parents that its not dirty and slowly making an impact. They dont midn park and ride on trams though which is my only 100% victory so far.
 

northwichcat

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
32,692
Location
Northwich
The same happened in Edinburgh, who also held a referendum yet didn't legally have to.

One of the major reasons why there is a lack of modal shift between private car and buses is the fact that those who drive perceive buses to be dirty, smelly and turning up late/unreliable. A lot of investment has gone into new buses in most areas in recent years, and a congestion charge would certainly lead to further investment and more reliable buses.

The reason for doing it in Manchester was they hoped to get public support as they were proposing to use the funds for major improvements to Metrolink but most people didn't want that to happen.

The voting was also a bit unfair in some respects. Someone living in, for instance, Didsbury and working at the Airport would not have to pay the congestion charge to drive to work but got to vote. On the other hand someone living in Wilmslow and working at Manchester University would have to pay if they drove to work but didn't get to vote as they lived outside the GM boundary.
 

SuperOwl86

Member
Joined
2 Jun 2011
Messages
74
I think the solution would be to have a "Yorkshire" PTE which could influence services a lot better, and be big enough to have a positive impact.

That sounds more like a nightmare to me.

If we had a Yorkshire PTE i would see it being like BBC Look North/L**ds. would just be all centred around Leeds.

For a city of Sheffield's size we have a poor rail network, the Tram does not reach enough people, and to top it of we have SYPTE wanting to play buses again and screwing the people of Sheffield over.
 

YorkshireBear

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2010
Messages
9,665
That sounds more like a nightmare to me.

If we had a Yorkshire PTE i would see it being like BBC Look North/L**ds. would just be all centred around Leeds.

For a city of Sheffield's size we have a poor rail network, the Tram does not reach enough people, and to top it of we have SYPTE wanting to play buses again and screwing the people of Sheffield over.

Never evn considered that, this is what forums are about. I think as you say the PTE would be based in Leeds and focused on leeds so youd get improvements to sheffield leeds service but little else. Very interesting point.

Wish they'd stop it with the buses, im sure it doesnt need major changes this often....
We have a railway line in place to stocksbridge that they wont open..... even though its actually cheaper than soem fo the rotues they currtenyl sponsor.
 

Waverley125

Member
Joined
2 Sep 2008
Messages
1,010
Location
Leeds, West Yorkshire
The problem with a SYPTE is that there's not a great deal of urban rail in South Yorks.

I mean, you could have the following lines as 'commuter rail' routes:

Sheffield-Penistone
Sheffield-Doncaster
Sheffield-Pontefract
Sheffield-Retford
Sheffield-Chesterfield
Sheffield-Leeds via Barnsley
Sheffield-Leeds via Moorthorpe

the problem is that 2 (Leeds) would be joint with WYPTE, 2 (Retford & Chesterfield) would leave the PTE area (or it'd have to be expanded), and that just leaves the Dearne Valley, Doncaster & Penistone lines.

with regard to the point about services in and out of liverpool by JCollins, the service pattern I'd envisage would be to achieve 4tph in and out of Liverpool to all stations.

So something like

2tph Liverpool-Wigan North Western (all stops)
2tph Liverpool-Warrington BQ via St Helens (all stops)
2tph Liverpool-Warrington Central via Widnes (all stops)
2tph Liverpool-Preston via Wigan North Western (all stops)
2tph Liverpool-Crewe (all stops)

this would give, say, West Allerton

4tph Liverpool
2tph Crewe
2tph Warrington

and Edge Hill

10tph Liverpool
6tph St Helens
4tph Wigan
4tph Liverpool South Parkway
4tph Warrington
2tph Preston
2tph Crewe
 

Batman

Member
Joined
27 Jun 2011
Messages
497
Location
North Birmingham
I think most of the problems with PTE areas goes back to the tory government in the early 70's and the way the boundaries for the metropolitan counties were drawn. If they'd gone along with the draft proposals drawn up by the Labour government in the late 60's, towns such as Cannock and Bromsgrove would have been in the West Midlands, Chester would have been in Mersyside and West and South Yorkshire would have been a single couty, including towns such as Harrogate and Chesterfield.

I know it sounds radical and it would require primary legislation, but I think the best solution would be at abolish the six PTE's and replace them with eight Regional Transport Authorities (RTA's), one for each region outside Greater London. They would opperate in the same way as PTE's and the boards would be made up of councillors from each county or unitary council in their area. They only difference is that they would ocver larger areas, all parts of England would be covered by one and they would better relect modern commuting patterns and the fact that all the main conurbations now extend outside the boundaries of the met counties.

I'd also like to see the re-organisation the police and fire and rescue service on regional lines and the abolishion of county and district councils in areas that still have them. They would be replaced by unitary councils the are larger than current distircts but smaller than whole counties. But thats a totaly different issue.
 

WatcherZero

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2010
Messages
10,272
County councils perform the same function as PTE's, the difference is as they have less rail and more bus thats where the money mostly goes.
 

Batman

Member
Joined
27 Jun 2011
Messages
497
Location
North Birmingham
The thing is, modern transport newtworks do not fit well with local authority boundaries that were drawn in the 1970's. There is a long running dispute between London Midland, the DfT, Network Rail, Centro, Staffordshire County Council and Cannock Chase District Council over who has responsibility for funding services on the Chase Line.

Although there has been a very successful agreement going back to the 1980's which means West Midlands traval cards are valid on Chase Line trains as far as Hednesford, even though Bloxwich North is that last stop before the county boundary.

I'm supporised at similar agreement hasn't come about as that West Midlands traval cards can be used on the Cross City Line to Lichfield Trent Valley. and I'm supprised Worcestershire County Council haven't tried to do the same regarding the Cross City Line to Redditch and eventually Bromsgorve.

A less radical alternative for the North of England (but still requiring primary legislation) would be to have a single PTE for South and West Yorkshire and a single PTE for Greater Manchester, Mersyside and the four unitary authorities in Cheshire.
 

northwichcat

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
32,692
Location
Northwich
County councils perform the same function as PTE's, the difference is as they have less rail and more bus thats where the money mostly goes.

Hazel Blears' department under the previous government scrapped a lot of county councils in favour of smaller unitary authorities.
 

WatcherZero

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2010
Messages
10,272
Yep but even then its still mostly covered by county councils, heres a map of the current Unitary authorities.

486px-Unitary-Map-EnglandSubdivisions2009.png
 

northwichcat

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
32,692
Location
Northwich
Yep but even then its still mostly covered by county councils, heres a map of the current Unitary authorities.

Well that shows the unitary authorities in yellow but doesn't distinguish between the metropolitan areas like Merseyside and the county council areas like Lancashire minus Blackpool and Blackburn & Darwen.
 

WatcherZero

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2010
Messages
10,272
Metropolitan areas have transport decided on a county level anyway, so no point in showing difference between Metroploitan county and county councils!
 

northwichcat

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
32,692
Location
Northwich
Metropolitan areas have transport decided on a county level anyway, so no point in showing difference between Metroploitan county and county councils!

But your map doesn't highlight how many county councils are still in existence by having the county councils the same colour as metropolitan areas.
 

WatcherZero

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2010
Messages
10,272
No, it shows how many unitary authorities there are and how they tend towards the large (Cornwall) and very small (South coast cities), everywhere else in England its decided at a county level i.e. everywhere not highlighted.
 

Xenophon PCDGS

Veteran Member
Joined
17 Apr 2011
Messages
35,408
Location
A typical commuter-belt part of north-west England
If they'd gone along with the draft proposals drawn up by the Labour government in the late 60's, towns such as Chester would have been in Merseyside.

Well, thank goodness they did not proceed with this piece of ideological nonsense.

Would this have been about the same time as Derek Hatton and the Militant Tendancy were running the Socialist Republic of Liverpool?
 
Last edited:

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
18,052
Location
Reston City Centre
That sounds more like a nightmare to me.

If we had a Yorkshire PTE i would see it being like BBC Look North/L**ds. would just be all centred around Leeds.

For a city of Sheffield's size we have a poor rail network, the Tram does not reach enough people, and to top it of we have SYPTE wanting to play buses again and screwing the people of Sheffield over.

Don't start me on Leeds-bias (War Of The Monster Trucks, anyone?), but I don't think South Yorkshire can really impact much upon trains, considering

(1) How poor the suburban railway services are (Dore, Darnall and Woodhouse)
(2) How *every* daytime service in South Yorkshire crosses over into "foreign" counties (with the exception of Adwick - Doncaster - Sheffield, which comes from Lincoln in the other direction), meaning there's not a lot that SYPTE can really change

Whilst Sheffield has decent long distance trains, we really have poor "local" services
 

northwichcat

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
32,692
Location
Northwich
No, it shows how many unitary authorities there are and how they tend towards the large (Cornwall) and very small (South coast cities), everywhere else in England its decided at a county level i.e. everywhere not highlighted.

The difference in size is related to population levels. For instance, the post-1974 Cheshire has a total population of 829,520 while Cornwall has a population of 532,200. It's hardly surprising Cornwall was not spilt up in two different areas. The only thing that is surprising about how Cheshire was spilt up at first glance is that Halton and Warrington are separate. However, if you then consider that most bus services in Warrington have been operated by the local council since 1902 it's not surprising that they didn't want to merge with another borough council and wanted to be out of Chester's influence.
 

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
18,052
Location
Reston City Centre
Whether you like it or not the main Liverpool-Manchester Airport service is expected to go via Warrington after the Ordsall Chord and the Scarborough service is diverted via Chat Moss. You'll probably have around 5 years of EMUs on Liverpool-Manchester before any diversions between Liverpool and Manchester.

As I mentioned Merseytravel want four expresses (two on either line), which could use the EMUs released by diverting the Airport service via Warrington. TfGM want Victoria-Stalybridge electrified after Preston-Blackpool which will allow 1 or 2 DMUs to be released.

Fair enough if they are going to electrify Manchester - Warrington - Liverpool (which they should IMHO), but its not going to help get rid of Pacers if routes (which could be EMU run) are diverted via diesel lines instead
 

ivanhoe

Member
Joined
15 Jul 2009
Messages
962
Well, thank goodness they did not proceed with this piece of ideological nonsense.

Would this have been about the same time as Derek Hatton and the Militent Tendancy were running the Socialist Republic of Liverpool?

Totally agree (apart from your spelling of Militant. the idea of Chester within Merseyside! Its bad enough having Southport and St Helens within the County!
 

northwichcat

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
32,692
Location
Northwich
Fair enough if they are going to electrify Manchester - Warrington - Liverpool (which they should IMHO), but its not going to help get rid of Pacers if routes (which could be EMU run) are diverted via diesel lines instead

I think the wording of the Manchester Hub document has made it sound worse than it is.

If instead it recommended truncating the Liverpool-Manchester Airport via Chat Moss service and then introducing a new service between Liverpool and Manchester Airport via Warrington if place of the diverted Scarborough service then it would sound better.

Warrington won't be happy about losing it's direct York service but offering a much needed direct Manchester Airport service in it's place will soften the blow.

I agree with you about electrifying the CLC line. Part of it is already electrified so it's Trafford Park to just before Liverpool South Parkway that would need to be electrified. The first time I ever travelled on that line I was surprised it wasn't already electrified as I'd grown up with the slightly incorrect impression that the main routes were electrified and the lesser routes were usually diesel.
 

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
18,052
Location
Reston City Centre
I agree with you about electrifying the CLC line. Part of it is already electrified so it's Trafford Park to just before Liverpool South Parkway that would need to be electrified. The first time I ever travelled on that line I was surprised it wasn't already electrified as I'd grown up with the slightly incorrect impression that the main routes were electrified and the lesser routes were usually diesel.

I'm surprised that its not been announced, but then I wonder whether the Powers That Be have a "stage two" planned fort he logical "follow on" schemes (e.g. Bolton - Wigan - Southport, Thames Valley branchlines) once the Lancashire Triangle and the mainline GWML are wired.

The self contained half hourly Pacer service to Oxford Road ought to be enough to justify electrification, since it is wired at both ends (as you say), plus the potential for longer distance services over that route to be electrified (such as the Manchester Airport - Warrington - Liverpool route which you allude to).
 

Statto

Established Member
Joined
8 Feb 2011
Messages
4,072
Location
At home or at the pub
I'm surprised that its not been announced, but then I wonder whether the Powers That Be have a "stage two" planned fort he logical "follow on" schemes (e.g. Bolton - Wigan - Southport, Thames Valley branchlines) once the Lancashire Triangle and the mainline GWML are wired.

The self contained half hourly Pacer service to Oxford Road ought to be enough to justify electrification, since it is wired at both ends (as you say), plus the potential for longer distance services over that route to be electrified (such as the Manchester Airport - Warrington - Liverpool route which you allude to).

That line should be part of the electrification scheme, it's also a natural diversion should the line through Chat Moss be blocked for whatever reason.
 

WatcherZero

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2010
Messages
10,272
From what im hearing if you think of the announced schemes as Phase 1 occuring between 2013 and 2016, then in the second half of CP5 (2014-2019) 2017-2019ish Network Rail is looking at further schemes to progress under its own standard control period works using the resources (wiring train and trained engineers) built up doing phase 1, rather than being directly government mandated.
 

sulli_os

Member
Joined
19 May 2011
Messages
55
Perhaps, then, rather than PTE based smaller franchises there could be regional franchises. So something like this:

Region 1:
Basically everything in Yorkshire that is South-East of Leeds.

* Services south of Leeds that are currently run as standard Northern services (not Metro)
* South Yorkshire Local services
* South TPE services (excl. EMT Norwich - Liverpool)
* Hull - Sheffield services
* Lincoln - Sheffield services
* Huddersfield - Sheffield services

Region 2:
Central Leeds/West & North Yorkshire

* Metro services
* Surrounding local services to/from Leeds & York
* Local services in North Yorkshire
* Scarborough - Manchester Airport
* West Yorkshire/Hull - Manchester stoppers

For the other regions, repeat in a similar fashion:

Region 3: Greater Manchester
Region 4: Merseryside
Region 5: North-West
Region 6: Tyne & Wear

Whilst I know that splitting franchises isn't the most efficient thing to do, it would give some of the regions chance to have proper control over there own services.
 

WatcherZero

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2010
Messages
10,272
Basically it costs £15m to run the franchise process for each franchise, so multiplacation rather than reduction isnt good.
 

exile

Established Member
Joined
16 Jul 2011
Messages
1,342
Turn the Manchester, West Yorkshire, South Yorkshire and Liverpool "City Line" services into a sort of equivalent of the Rhine-Ruhr S-bahn with services integrated with re-regulated buses and trams across the area and hive off the mainly rural remainder to run along "community railway" lines in partnership with local councils and rail user groups.

As a Northern line customer my wish list is
- get rid of the 142s and 150s (unless they can be diagrammed so they don't form the most overcrowded services, they're ok for off-peak - my heart sinks when one of these mobile henhouses is waiting for me at Lime St in the evening)
- general refurbishment of trains. I guess new trains is too much to hope for
- more seats, shelters, CCTV,real-time train information at stations
- some contingency plan for severe delay. BR used to supply taxis!

It has to be said that some Northern services are seriously underused - off-peak trains in the Manchester area particularly. Even my own line runs more or less empty trains after 7pm. Either offer cheap evening-out fares or consider - sorry to say this - express buses for which train tickets are valid

And - revenue protection needs to be made a priority. At peak times the conductor rarely ventures out of his cabin until Widnes, mainly due to the impossibility of checking and selling tickets in the 2-3 minutes between stations, and I suspect a good 20% of people on board have no tickets (the ticket checkers at Lime St don't tend to look at one's tickets in the evening presumably to avoid delaying hurrying passengers - and some people get wise to this and get only singles in the morning). What's the answer - oyster cards? This might fit with the S-bahn idea. A combination of this with penalty fares and on-train revenue protection patrols could improve matters but requires some investment. In any case I object to paying over £1,000 a year to get to work when I know the person sitting next to me is paying nothing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top