Northern - a catch 22?

[HSTEd]

Dare I suggest that the railway line should either be upgraded to be comparable in quality to the parallel bus routes or it should be closed and converted to a guided busway?

There is little point maintaining the line otherwise.

 

[Bantamzen]

As a regular user of the Airedale and wharfedale lines into Leeds I second that. The general consensus is that electrification brings cascaded stock and that grows the market to such a level that new stock is justifiable. View the lines I just mentioned as a perfect example. When this new stock comes to the north when the 319s are scrapped I would look at heavy investment in ticket barriers, manning stations and making trains DOO with on board staff being relocated to man stations.

Making the railway a closed system on the commuter lines into Leeds, Manchester, Liverpool and Newcastle would increase revenue almost double I believe (I have serious evidence for this, it's just a feeling from personal experience). A railway where you had to have a ticket to enter and exit the system.

I second these thoughts. I too use the Airedale / Wharfedale lines daily into Bradford, & it's often occurred to me that ticket barriers at BDQ would help prevent the regular sight of passengers jumping on the train & running to the front for their short hop to Frizinghall or Shipley, in the hope of avoiding the guard. At the moment at peak times there are RPOs at the platform entrances to check tickets for passengers boarding at Bradford, and selling tickets to passengers alighting, but a more permanent solution might be in order & shouldn't cause too much disruption in creating.

But investment in either some serious refurbishments, or new stock post franchise award is desperately needed. Most of the diesel stock is crying out for it, and even my favourite 333s are starting to look tired now. Perhaps an upgrade might be possible whilst there's a bit of spare capacity using the 321 / 322s not booked for the Leeds-Doncaster & occasional jaunt along the Aire/Wharfe? Would Northern consider this before 2016, or are we going to have to see who gets awarded the new franchise?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Personally if the following happened on northern I would be reasonably happy and I don't think its asking the earth

1. 319 refurbished to a good standard eg 321 demonstrator

Is that asking too much? probably

I have chosen the first of your four aspirations to respond to and would state that there have been a good number of postings made on that particular matter on other threads in the past months.

These have ranged from the aspirational (as yours is in this thread) to the downright cynical on the basis that anything Northern get in this respect will be a refresh-only. There have been other postings that seem to hope to reassure forum members that a correct refurbishment will be made, but such is the expectations of anything "Northern-related" that the old adage of "seeing is believing" will most certainly apply.

The biblical story of Jesus and Thomas springs to mind.

 

[yorksrob]

Dare I suggest that the railway line should either be upgraded to be comparable in quality to the parallel bus routes or it should be closed and converted to a guided busway?

There is little point maintaining the line otherwise.

It does get some 156‘s, which IMO are head and shoulders above any bus in terms of comfort, and couldy presumably be upgraded with wifi and sockets etc. Trouble is, the route has never been suitable for 142 operation, but I wouldn‘t say that makes the route a dead loss, even with some credible bus competition.

 

[northwichcat]

The Altrincham, Bury and Oldham lines around Manchester cover their operating costs from fare revenue since conversion to Metrolink, whereas they were said to be heavily subsidised when operated by decrepit heavy rail stock.

In the case of the Altrincham and Bury lines they were converted when passenger numbers were in decline whereas currently passenger numbers are growing year on year.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

CP5 will see significantly more investment in "the North" than most parts of the UK - are you telling me that we won't see improvements (with all of the electrification, EMUs replacing Pacers, additional services, "Manchester" Hub etc)?

I think the majority of services that will switch to EMUs are mainly Sprinters with the exception of Liverpool-Victoria stoppers and Huddersfield-Leeds stoppers.

 

[ModernRailways]

Dare I suggest that the railway line should either be upgraded to be comparable in quality to the parallel bus routes or it should be closed and converted to a guided busway?

There is little point maintaining the line otherwise.

It's fairly heavily used by freight (as is the line towards Middlesbrough) which means closing it would be silly, it's also the line that goes all the way to Carlisle so is used as a diversion should the line north of Newcastle be blocked.

It's not so much needing to be upgraded, we just need some better, newer DMUs. Sticking some OHLE on the route would be terrible and would really spoil the scenery that there is on the Hadrians Wall Line.

 

[Greybeard33]

That depends whether services really are in a continual spiral of decline.

Certainly there has been an increase in usage in recent years, and in some places, an increase in investment - i.e. electric services around Leeds.

Overall, the subsidy of the railway has decreased since the high point a few years ago, what evidence is there that regional railways in the North have been bucking this trend ?

See https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/rail-subsidy-per-passenger-mile
Total subsidy per passenger-mile (including apportioned Network Grant)
Year: Northern / All DfT franchises:
2009-10: 37.7p / 10.4p
2010-11: 32.4p / 7.6p
2011-12: 34.9p / 7.5p
2012-13: 40.7p / 6.8p

The Northern Rail subsidy per passenger-mile last year was 2.5 times that of FTPE, which was the second worst English TOC in this league table.

 

[47802]

See https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/rail-subsidy-per-passenger-mile
Total subsidy per passenger-mile (including apportioned Network Grant)
Year: Northern / All DfT franchises:
2009-10: 37.7p / 10.4p
2010-11: 32.4p / 7.6p
2011-12: 34.9p / 7.5p
2012-13: 40.7p / 6.8p

The Northern Rail subsidy per passenger-mile last year was 2.5 times that of FTPE, which was the second worst English TOC in this league table.

The interesting thing about that for is that there are two other franchises which include Intercity Services and I imagine if the regional services were separate I would think these would require a similar subsidy eg EMT and FGW, I presume the subsidy figure for Arriva Wales isn't that good either?

Perhaps it is an argument in favour of bringing such as TPX services into Northern, ok it would still be the worst but maybe a bit less so.

 

[TheKnightWho]

It's fairly heavily used by freight (as is the line towards Middlesbrough) which means closing it would be silly, it's also the line that goes all the way to Carlisle so is used as a diversion should the line north of Newcastle be blocked.

It's not so much needing to be upgraded, we just need some better, newer DMUs. Sticking some OHLE on the route would be terrible and would really spoil the scenery that there is on the Hadrians Wall Line.

Although it may well be higher up on the list of electrification priorities than people think. It is the only diversionary route north of York on the ECML, after all.

 

[tbtc]

See https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/rail-subsidy-per-passenger-mile
Total subsidy per passenger-mile (including apportioned Network Grant)
Year: Northern / All DfT franchises:
2009-10: 37.7p / 10.4p
2010-11: 32.4p / 7.6p
2011-12: 34.9p / 7.5p
2012-13: 40.7p / 6.8p

The Northern Rail subsidy per passenger-mile last year was 2.5 times that of FTPE, which was the second worst English TOC in this league table.

Those are pretty depressing figures

 

[northwichcat]

See https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/rail-subsidy-per-passenger-mile
Total subsidy per passenger-mile (including apportioned Network Grant)
Year: Northern / All DfT franchises:
2009-10: 37.7p / 10.4p
2010-11: 32.4p / 7.6p
2011-12: 34.9p / 7.5p
2012-13: 40.7p / 6.8p

The Northern Rail subsidy per passenger-mile last year was 2.5 times that of FTPE, which was the second worst English TOC in this league table.

That table seems to exclude revenue share and revenue support. (Northern pay £12.5m per year in revenue support.)

A different table which includes that is on the Houses of Parliament site, however, it states the total figures rather than per passenger mile:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201213/ldhansrd/text/121015w0001.htm#1210156000153

 

[aleph_0]

Two thoughts. Firstly, Northern and ATW will usually get second hand stock. When we then talk about them being loss-making, we are attributing the cost of the (less-profitable) trains to them, so that the South East can get new trains. There's nothing wrong with this, of course, and it makes good business sense for the trains to migrate north in the later years, but there are some of these 'losses' which would exist elsewhere if the trains didn't have regional railways to migrate to?

I don't see Northern in a catch 22 situation. If more/longer (I know, lots of platforms are currently short) trains generate more customers, that shares out many of the fixed costs (driver, guard, station staff, to some extent infrastructure). This should lower the cost-per-mile subsidy, which is a good thing, and be good for the economy. The fact that the absolute cost is higher shouldn't be a real worry.

 

[anti-pacer]

Two thoughts. Firstly, Northern and ATW will usually get second hand stock. When we then talk about them being loss-making, we are attributing the cost of the (less-profitable) trains to them, so that the South East can get new trains. There's nothing wrong with this, of course, and it makes good business sense for the trains to migrate north in the later years, but there are some of these 'losses' which would exist elsewhere if the trains didn't have regional railways to migrate to?

I don't see Northern in a catch 22 situation. If more/longer (I know, lots of platforms are currently short) trains generate more customers, that shares out many of the fixed costs (driver, guard, station staff, to some extent infrastructure). This should lower the cost-per-mile subsidy, which is a good thing, and be good for the economy. The fact that the absolute cost is higher shouldn't be a real worry.

If trains up here weren't old and shabby, more people would use them, creating a need for longer trains, and then all the benefits you listed above.

I don't actually understand why Northern need subsidising so much. What is it about this franchise that needs this?

 

[northwichcat]

Two thoughts. Firstly, Northern and ATW will usually get second hand stock. When we then talk about them being loss-making, we are attributing the cost of the (less-profitable) trains to them, so that the South East can get new trains. There's nothing wrong with this, of course, and it makes good business sense for the trains to migrate north in the later years, but there are some of these 'losses' which would exist elsewhere if the trains didn't have regional railways to migrate to?

Apart from the 508s at Merseyrail and the 319s expected to arrive, what rolling stock in the North has come from the South East?

Most of the Northern stock has been in the North since it's been new, it's just most of it was introduced in the 1980s, the main exception are many of the class 150s. However, the 150s that have been cascaded to the North have come from South Wales and more recently the West Midlands, not the South East - FGW got the cascaded 150s from the South East.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I don't actually understand why Northern need subsidising so much. What is it about this franchise that needs this?

Look at it this way. Northern have Southport-Airport services which have loadings too high for a 2 car Sprinter so they use 4 car Pacers.

If you look at the track access charges here: http://railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=95593

A pair of Pacers costs 19.48p per mile in track access charges.

A 3 car 172 could provide similar capacity but would cost 13.38p per mile in track access charges, a saving of around a third.

Then if you have one conductor on a pair of Pacers they'll probably be a lot of ticket-less travel but that's less to be less of an issue with a 3 car 172.

Another thing to consider is Northern being required to run loss-making parliamentary/token services e.g. Stockport-Stalybridge, Helsby-Ellesmere Port.

 

[Greybeard33]

That table seems to exclude revenue share and revenue support. (Northern pay £12.5m per year in revenue support.)

No, if you look at the full spreadsheet that is linked on the gov.uk webpage,"Total train operator subsidy per passenger mile" (column a) is calculated as the sum of "Net franchise payment" and "Revenue support", with revenue share shown as negative revenue support.

E.g. for Northern in 2012-13, net franchise payment was 12.6p and revenue support was -1.1p, giving 11.5p total. Added to this is 29.1p Network Grant (column b), to give the total subsidy of 40.7p.

I think the high Network Grant allocation reflects the high infrastructure cost per passenger mile of the long rural lines that are serviced only by 2-car or 1-car DMUs at low frequency.

 

[northwichcat]

No, if you look at the full spreadsheet that is linked on the gov.uk webpage,"Total train operator subsidy per passenger mile" (column a) is calculated as the sum of "Net franchise payment" and "Revenue support", with revenue share shown as negative revenue support.

Ah OK I didn't download the spreadsheet as I thought it would be the same as what was already shown on the webpage and that didn't mention the revenue share deduction.

What I find interesting is XC are practically level with TPE when you take in to consideration XC's revenue support and TPE's revenue share.

 

[Moonshot]

No, if you look at the full spreadsheet that is linked on the gov.uk webpage,"Total train operator subsidy per passenger mile" (column a) is calculated as the sum of "Net franchise payment" and "Revenue support", with revenue share shown as negative revenue support.

E.g. for Northern in 2012-13, net franchise payment was 12.6p and revenue support was -1.1p, giving 11.5p total. Added to this is 29.1p Network Grant (column b), to give the total subsidy of 40.7p.

I think the high Network Grant allocation reflects the high infrastructure cost per passenger mile of the long rural lines that are serviced only by 2-car or 1-car DMUs at low frequency.

This is correct.

Revenue support and revenue share are simply terms which to be honest can be semi ignored.......what is important is that the cost of rail is met by either the farebox on its own, or a combination of farebox and subsidy.

Having been out and about for the last 5 days or so on some of the rural lines, its not difficult to see why subsidy is required.....there are a hell of a lot of trains carrying fresh air!!

 

[northwichcat]

Having been out and about for the last 5 days or so on some of the rural lines, its not difficult to see why subsidy is required.....there are a hell of a lot of trains carrying fresh air!!

That would be the case especially on rural lines on weekdays in winter. However, it isn't an excuse for the Northern Rail franchise as a whole to not get new or extra rolling stock, which is something some people claim as the franchise also contains some well utilised routes.

 

[Moonshot]

That would be the case especially on rural lines on weekdays in winter. However, it isn't an excuse for the Northern Rail franchise as a whole to not get new or extra rolling stock, which is something some people claim as the franchise also contains some well utilised routes.

New rolling stock is a political decision, not Northerns. I can assure you that my employer are shouting from the rooftops about that......which goes back to a point I ve made several times, and that is government influence should be removed entirely from the industry. That aint going to happen for at least the next 5 years, at which point I would expect the privatisation of Network Rail to be on the agenda.

 

[HSTEd]

There will be no need for new stock for Northern in that case since most of it would simply cease to exist.
Without Government intervention there would be very few railways in the north at all.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Without Government intervention there would be very few railways in the north at all.

I wonder if that statement was made about Germany, would it still ring true ?

 

[Moonshot]

There will be no need for new stock for Northern in that case since most of it would simply cease to exist.
Without Government intervention there would be very few railways in the north at all.

Which goes back to a point made by the TSC recently....." Government must be more clear on exactly what subsidy is for"

 

[anti-pacer]

Perhaps if this government were as keen in addressing the North/South divide as they are in bailing out half the world, we'd have a rail network up here to be proud of.

 

[Moonshot]

Perhaps if this government were as keen in addressing the North/South divide as they are in bailing out half the world, we'd have a rail network up here to be proud of.

Are we not already seeing increased investment in the North?? I can point to a number of schemes already started, one in particular at Manchester Victoria ( interestingly enough sponsored by European Union funding ).

 

[Greybeard33]

That would be the case especially on rural lines on weekdays in winter. However, it isn't an excuse for the Northern Rail franchise as a whole to not get new or extra rolling stock, which is something some people claim as the franchise also contains some well utilised routes.

Scotrail requires even higher subsidy levels than Northern, yet (unlike the DfT) the Scottish Government does not seem to regard that as a barrier to acquisition of new stock.

Assuming that the heavily-subsidised rural services are deemed socially necessary, it seems to me that the way forward is to:

• attract more passengers by improving the offering (e.g. refurbished stock, linespeed increases)
• reduce costs by modern technology (e.g. ERTMS to replace labour-intensive Absolute Block signalling).

 

[HSTEd]

I believe this is the juncture where I propose a drastically accelerated electrification programme with the objective of producing an all electric railway.

*exits stage right*

 

[Moonshot]

Scotrail requires even higher subsidy levels than Northern, yet (unlike the DfT) the Scottish Government does not seem to regard that as a barrier to acquisition of new stock.

Assuming that the heavily-subsidised rural services are deemed socially necessary, it seems to me that the way forward is to:

• attract more passengers by improving the offering (e.g. refurbished stock, linespeed increases)
• reduce costs by modern technology (e.g. ERTMS to replace labour-intensive Absolute Block signalling).

Bang on yet again.....I would also add that removing impediments/conflicts on the network needs to be moved up the priority list..

 

[anti-pacer]

Are we not already seeing increased investment in the North?? I can point to a number of schemes already started, one in particular at Manchester Victoria ( interestingly enough sponsored by European Union funding ).

You say Manchester Victoria, I say Crossrail, the Thameslink Programme, and Reading station.

 

[Moonshot]

You say Manchester Victoria, I say Crossrail, the Thameslink Programme, and Reading station.

Those you quote have nothing to do with rail in the north....

 

[anti-pacer]

Those you quote have nothing to do with rail in the north....

I know they don't. It was quoted that Manchester Victoria is one project going on in the North, so I was quoting a few in the South.

Maybe I should have said "For every Manchester Victoria, there's a Reading".