Northern - a catch 22?

[Bantamzen]

I think you fail to understand todays picture.......the rail industry is no more privatised today than it was 20 years ago. Market forces do not decide anything.......investment decisions are made by central government, which also regulates fares. TOCs are simply a form of PFI.

I rather think that increasing tax to fund transport is not what the voters want.....and indeed the Labour party has just signed its own death warrant for the next election by announcing an increase in income tax to 50% for earners over £150k.

To be fair, I do understand how the franchises work but the pressures for the TOCs / ROSCOs are the same as with the rest of private industry. Profit will always come first, and there will be ever growing pressure from them onto the DfT to change decisions on investment to better suit the TOCs. It's the same with PFIs, of which I am all too aware of how they work working in IT for the public sector. Without going off topic, PFIs aren't always the best for the end users with companies regularly putting pressure on, or obstacles in front of decision makers. The phrase "tail wagging the dog" is often used in my sector. I imagine the same is true in the rail industry.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

To add to that list Cheshire Oaks & The Blue Planet Aquarium and you can't even get a connecting bus from either Chester or Helsby to those places.

It is noticible that these premises are sited to meet the needs of the car-driving public with no shortage of car-parking places when they were planned.

 

[tbtc]

Do you honestly think that those 64 people an hour would be better moved on to another form of transport ?

Do you think that Barrow would do better out of it ?

At the moment the Barrow service sees maybe four coaches an hour (a bi-hourly three coach 185 plus the random assortment of Northern DMUs on Carlisle - Lancaster services) and roughly 64 passengers an hour.

If some services are "overcrowded" then that suggests that a lot of services see an overprovision of capacity, whilst people are regularly standing on other Northern services.

Well it does, but towns don't generally change their location. Where the town is, the railway should follow. Beeching failed this spectacularly

Where people live changes (look at how badly the railway has adapted to places like Washington and Ormskirk).

Where people shop changes (look at how badly the railway has adapted to places like the Trafford Centre and White Rose Centre).

Where people work changes (look at how badly the railway has adapted to office parks/ retail parks)

As jcollins mentioned, there are busy leisure destinations with no rail connection too.

I'm sure you blame Beeching for many things, but you can't blame him for these.

So, Northern are running services based on demand fifty years ago (when large numbers of people in West Yorkshire had holidays in Morecambe rather than giving a link to Leeds Bradford Airport which modern holidays involve).

Fifty years ago large numbers of people on the south bank of the Humber needed a connection to the Hull ferry at New Holland... demand has moved on, but we are stuck with a railway system unable to move on.

 

[northwichcat]

I can assure you that the trams at Velopark have been extremely busy today.....I was actually there at around 11am this morning....not realising there was a beer festival on at the Velodrome.

The point I was making is passenger numbers seemed lower than usual on the Altrincham line so those additional passengers must have mainly come from other lines - like the Bury line, which gets a direct service to the Velodrome or alternatively not used a Metrolink service to reach central Manchester. The double M5000s on the Piccadilly-Altrincham services were carting around fresh air and presumably Metrolink had put the double combinations on Piccadilly services instead of Bury services due to the special event and misjudged where the extra passengers would come from.

One of the stops ( New Islington ) is looking very busy, which is not suprising considering the newish developments and the ones that are rising. Manchester has been very good at this over the years, and has become a very cosmopolitan place to live.

As you'll have seen there are a lot of comments in this thread relating to introducing new services rather than just continuing with existing ones. The Rochdale, Bury and Altrincham Metrolink services just replaced heavy rail services (with the exception of being joined on to other services.) However, the lines out to Salford Quays and Eastlands support demand that wasn't there 20 years ago.

 

[Moonshot]

The point I was making is passenger numbers seemed lower than usual on the Altrincham line so those additional passengers must have mainly come from other lines - like the Bury line, which gets a direct service to the Velodrome or alternatively not used a Metrolink service to reach central Manchester. The double M5000s on the Piccadilly-Altrincham services were carting around fresh air and presumably Metrolink had put the double combinations on Piccadilly services instead of Bury services due to the special event and misjudged where the extra passengers would come from.



As you'll have seen there are a lot of comments in this thread relating to introducing new services rather than just continuing with existing ones. The Rochdale, Bury and Altrincham Metrolink services just replaced heavy rail services (with the exception of being joined on to other services.) However, the lines out to Salford Quays and Eastlands support demand that wasn't there 20 years ago.

Which relates to a point TBTC makes.....rail investment has to be targeted and not just made for rails sake. Both Salford Quays and more recently East Manchester have become attractive for both public and private investment. Light Rail is far more efficent at delivering the transport needs of those who benefit from this investment.

 

[HowardGWR]

Where people live changes (look at how badly the railway has adapted to places like Washington and Ormskirk).

Where people shop changes (look at how badly the railway has adapted to places like the Trafford Centre and White Rose Centre).

Where people work changes (look at how badly the railway has adapted to office parks/ retail parks)

As jcollins mentioned, there are busy leisure destinations with no rail connection too.

I'm sure you blame Beeching for many things, but you can't blame him for these.

So, Northern are running services based on demand fifty years ago (when large numbers of people in West Yorkshire had holidays in Morecambe rather than giving a link to Leeds Bradford Airport which modern holidays involve).

Fifty years ago large numbers of people on the south bank of the Humber needed a connection to the Hull ferry at New Holland... demand has moved on, but we are stuck with a railway system unable to move on.

Those examples are nearly all the result of planning decisions. If planners decide to allow OOT shopping centres only served by a ring road and nowhere near a railway, then the results are plain to see. So yes, the blame is not with Beeching, but with councillors, local government officers and governments of a certain political outlook.

In other words, the Humber bridge is a road-only bridge due to those decisions. Authorities are now just beginning to deal with such errors, such as proposed tram /train provision to those OOT shopping centres and trading estates.

 

[yorksrob]

At the moment the Barrow service sees maybe four coaches an hour (a bi-hourly three coach 185 plus the random assortment of Northern DMUs on Carlisle - Lancaster services) and roughly 64 passengers an hour.

If some services are "overcrowded" then that suggests that a lot of services see an overprovision of capacity, whilst people are regularly standing on other Northern services.



Where people live changes (look at how badly the railway has adapted to places like Washington and Ormskirk).

Where people shop changes (look at how badly the railway has adapted to places like the Trafford Centre and White Rose Centre).

Where people work changes (look at how badly the railway has adapted to office parks/ retail parks)

As jcollins mentioned, there are busy leisure destinations with no rail connection too.

I'm sure you blame Beeching for many things, but you can't blame him for these.

So, Northern are running services based on demand fifty years ago (when large numbers of people in West Yorkshire had holidays in Morecambe rather than giving a link to Leeds Bradford Airport which modern holidays involve).

Fifty years ago large numbers of people on the south bank of the Humber needed a connection to the Hull ferry at New Holland... demand has moved on, but we are stuck with a railway system unable to move on.

Fifty years ago we would have run long loco hauled trains to Morecambe from Bradford and Leeds every summer. Nowadays we have five or so DMU's a day operating a local stopper. How on earth can you say the railway hasn't adapted to changing needs on this route ?

You also fail to explain how cutting the Skipton - Lancaster route would translate into a capital grant and pathing re-organisation to allow a station at the white rose centre ?

The fact is, if someone came up with a cheap way of building a station, the railway could serve the white rose centre tomorrow, but no one does and such an installation would cost millions of pounds. If you were really serious about adapting the railway to serve new markets, these are the costs you would be attacking, but instead you justify them and come up with nonsensical ideas about route closure.

 

[47802]

I do think Northern's worst performers need to be identified and looked at, then look at the options, improvement, closure, whether Network Rail would close the line etc, impact of each, I certainly don't think the current railway network should be set in stone that's for sure.

Unfortunately the politician etc don't have the bottle for a fight re line closure's so we the have pointless parliamentary and token services.

 

[Moonshot]

I do think Northern's worst performers need to be identified and looked at, then look at the options, improvement, closure, whether Network Rail would close the line etc, impact of each, I certainly don't think the current railway network should be set in stone that's for sure.

Unfortunately the politician etc don't have the bottle for a fight re line closure's so we the have pointless parliamentary and token services.

Not so long back, the Transport Select Committee identified a piece of work which needs doing....namely " how efficiently is the rail network used ? ".

I suspect the points you raise would come under that.

 

[TheKnightWho]

That was then and this is now, the railways exist to make a profit for the share holders by charging the maximum fare the market will allow.

Do i agree with it?
No I dont but this is "great" Britain!

You do realise that charging the maximum fare that the market allows means that the railways have the largest pot of money to play with?

I thought that you of all people - the greater defender of the railways on this forum - would understand that.

 

[yorksrob]

I do think Northern's worst performers need to be identified and looked at, then look at the options, improvement, closure, whether Network Rail would close the line etc, impact of each, I certainly don't think the current railway network should be set in stone that's for sure.

Unfortunately the politician etc don't have the bottle for a fight re line closure's so we the have pointless parliamentary and token services.

The problem is that if you don‘t set the network in stone, you end up making decisions thay you regret later on and that are nigh on irreversible. Frankly, it‘s worth paying the paltry costs of keeping a few parliamentary services just to avoid that.

Personally I‘d like the Government, supported by all parties to make a legally binding committment to the current passenger network. That way you would avoid the sort of drip drip of damaging closures that bled into the 80‘s.The Government wouldn‘t close the ten percent least heavily used roads, even though they probably don‘t cover their maintenance costs, so why do it with the railway.

Government recognises the importance of the railway to the national economy, its time it recognised the same with local services. If it grew some cajones, it might even consider bringing a meaningful service to places such as Brigg rather than a Parly.

The Skipton - Lancaster and Barton services are not token or parliamentary by the way. They are vital to their local communities and well used by them.

 

[Oscar]

Withdrawing rail services is currently very controversial because it is perceived as degrading or removing transport links to communities. However, if national public transport planning were more holistic, it may not be perceived this way. Settle Junction to Carnforth could be replaced by Settle - Clapham - Ingleton - Oxenholme - Kendal, Ingleton - Bentham - Wennington - Lancaster and Dent/Garsdale - Sedbergh - Kendal - Oxenholme buses which could run hourly or every 2 hours and offer a timetable and fares structure integrated with that of the Leeds - Settle - Carlisle railway. Buses can run more frequently than trains because of their lower running costs. An hourly bus from Clapham village to Settle for trains to Leeds would surely be an improvement on an irregular rail service which has its station around 2 km from the village. Connections in Manchester or Preston for Leeds - Cumbria passengers could be optimised and this could mean faster or equally fast journey times with better rolling stock.

 

[47802]

The problem is that if you don‘t set the network in stone, you end up making decisions thay you regret later on and that are nigh on irreversible. Frankly, it‘s worth paying the paltry costs of keeping a few parliamentary services just to avoid that.

Personally I‘d like the Government, supported by all parties to make a legally binding committment to the current passenger network. That way you would avoid the sort of drip drip of damaging closures that bled into the 80‘s.The Government wouldn‘t close the ten percent least heavily used roads, even though they probably don‘t cover their maintenance costs, so why do it with the railway.

Government recognises the importance of the railway to the national economy, its time it recognised the same with local services. If it grew some cajones, it might even consider bringing a meaningful service to places such as Brigg rather than a Parly.

The Skipton - Lancaster and Barton services are not token or parliamentary by the way. They are vital to their local communities and well used by them.

I think such a commitment would be an absolute folly in my view you could end up having to support services that nobody uses.

The Token services I was referring were such as the local Sheffield York via Pontefract Baghill.

Regarding the Skipton - Lancaster and Barton both have seen reduced frequency of service in recent years and your assertion They are vital to their local communities and well used by them, needs to be proved and assessed along with other routes.

 

[Moonshot]

Lets also not forget that Network Rail are committed to billions of pounds of efficiency savings as per Mcnulty report. This is cast in stone......

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

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.

The Network Grant allocation is a big fudge.
The total NR grant is divided between the TOCs on (I think) a revenue basis.
Thus the high earners get the biggest bill.
However, it does not reflect the actual NR cost of supporting any particular TOC.
Northern may well be penalised by this formula, but the DfT and ORR don't seem to have any means of splitting up the NR Grant in a way which reflects the actual local costs.
Most NR money gets spent on the fast main lines, and peanuts on some of Northern's routes.

 

[Moonshot]

The Network Grant allocation is a big fudge.
The total NR grant is divided between the TOCs on (I think) a revenue basis.
Thus the high earners get the biggest bill.
However, it does not reflect the actual NR cost of supporting any particular TOC.
Northern may well be penalised by this formula, but the DfT and ORR don't seem to have any means of splitting up the NR Grant in a way which reflects the actual local costs.
Most NR money gets spent on the fast main lines, and peanuts on some of Northern's routes.

Which may well be solved once Network Rail is fully devolved by route....add in a devolved northern transport authority and we should see a more targeted approach using what will be increasingly scarce funds..

 

[WatcherZero]

Was previously done on the basis of Fixed Track Access Charges apportioned nationally excluding Scotland which is calculated seperately with the same formula (Dft gives the example that c2c pays 1.3% of fixed track access charges therefore 1.3% of the network grant = £42.8m), so Tocs like Northern which have large networks and low fares (or quiet services) generating little revenue ended up baring the brunt as opposed to long trains travelling short distances with high occupancy generating a lot of revenue. Though it did correctly work to allocate costs for long distance services like Virgin, East Coast, etc...

This control period theyve tinkered with it a bit and Northern seems to no longer be one of the highest allocaters instead pretty much middle of the road. This is because instead of doing it nationally (total track access charges vs total network grant) they are doing it on a Network Route basis (percentage of a tocs access charges within that Route) and there is also an adjustment now added for vehicle mileage, so a TOC thats already paying large amounts of variable access charges (stations, quantity of services, etc) but with short trains wouldnt suffer because a TOC within the region operates few stations and route miles but with very long trains. (a identical change in the calculation of fixed track access to that done for network grant apportionment is also being made)

Fixes Track Access Charges as opposed to variable charges (station lease, variable costs for type and quanity of services operated, other income such as retail) makes up 15% of NR funding and is the amount it actually costs to maintain a line, renewals, upgrades (like electrification or line speed improvements, station renovations) that is in excess of predicted revenue from variable track access charges and other sources during the control period. NR is also proposing a moderate adjustment to reflect the variable track access paid but which arent vulnerable to delay and cancellation of services which would distort the correct apportionment. e.g. station charges per toc are a constant and known and not vulnerable to delays or cancellations, similarly rolling stock depots.

Its all really complicated and makes my head hurt! Some might argue that its proper that tocs that operate quieter lines be apportioned more of the cost than those which operate very busy lines which are more self financing, however others would point out that is the busy lines should help support the quieter lines rather than benefitting twice from more revenue and lower access costs and its not a tocs fault they operate a quieter area that needs government support for social needs services to more rural areas.

For the next financial year, draft figures used during NR consultation:

Route Costs
Anglia 3,992
East Midlands 2,569
Kent 3,910
LNE 8,885
LNW 10,975
Sussex 2,786
Wales 2,677
Wessex 3,910
Western 4,574
England and Wales 44,278
Scotland 5,043
Total 49,321

FTAC
Anglia 478
East Midlands 260
Kent 391
LNE 941
LNW 1,215
Scotland 580
Sussex 281
Wales 305
Wessex 416
Western 443
Total 5,311

Toc apportion FTAC
Arriva Trains Wales 228
c2c Rail Ltd 67
Chiltern Railway Company Ltd 62
XC Trains Ltd 300
East Coast Main Line Rail Company Ltd 399
East Midlands Trains 201
First Capital Connect Ltd 287
First Greater Western Ltd 425
London & Birmingham Railway 241
London Overground Railway Operations Ltd 48
Merseyrail Electrics 2002 Ltd 47
Abellio Greater Anglia Ltd 351
Northern Rail Ltd 322
First ScotRail Ltd 582
Stagecoach South Western Trains Ltd 377
London & South Eastern Railway Ltd 335
Southern Railway Ltd 286
First Keolis Transpennine Ltd 148
West Coast Trains 606
Total 5,311

Edit: Inspired to work out the percentage of fixed track access charges to route costs, that would give a comparative for how self supporting a route is compared to others. Upgrades and renewals costs are a potential distortion to this but if you figure its a average and using five year figures rather than a single year should balance out differing timescales for improvements and renewals over the control period.

FTA as a percentage of total Route Costs
Anglia 10.9
East Midlands 9.25
Kent 9.31
LNE 9.81
LNW 10.2
Scotland 10.49
Sussex 9.24
Wales 10.4
Wessex 9.77
Western 8.44
England & Wales 9.79

The result im surprised to say is that they really show very little variation all around 10% in the next control period which indidates that as it was 15% in the last control period the railways are slightly more than 5% more self financing during the next control period, at least in infrastructure terms and that includes government investment!.

 

[Andrew32]

Anyone know the recruitment plans for Northern this year.

Applied last year in April and was put on hold for a job at Skipton but it was pulled in September.

Had a second interview in Jan and passed and mentioned that I'd be happy working at Leeds which was noted, just waiting for a position now.

Sorry to go off subject but need some reassurance after been in waiting so long.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Sorry, forgot to mention it was for a conductor position

 

[yorksrob]

I think such a commitment would be an absolute folly in my view you could end up having to support services that nobody uses.

The Token services I was referring were such as the local Sheffield York via Pontefract Baghill.

Regarding the Skipton - Lancaster and Barton both have seen reduced frequency of service in recent years and your assertion They are vital to their local communities and well used by them, needs to be proved and assessed along with other routes.

If there's one thing that history has taught us it's that neither governments nor railway operators are remotely capable of predicting which routes will be of use in thirty years time let alone sixty. Remember the Settle - Carlisle which was up for closure one moment then fifteen years later a major freight trunk route and tourist line ? We should accept this lesson gracefully. Another round of closures would be utmost folly.

An atmosphere in which services can be withdrawn at the drop of a hat does local economies no good whatsoever, neither in terms of local businesses nor employment.

As it happens, I use the Skipton - Carnforth route regularly and I see how busy the trains can be, including those getting on and off at intermediate stations and those using the route end to end like myself. I wonder how many people suggesting its closure on here can say the same.

 

[WatcherZero]

Anyone know the recruitment plans for Northern this year.

Applied last year in April and was put on hold for a job at Skipton but it was pulled in September.

Had a second interview in Jan and passed and mentioned that I'd be happy working at Leeds which was noted, just waiting for a position now.

Sorry to go off subject but need some reassurance after been in waiting so long.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Sorry, forgot to mention it was for a conductor position

Theres a sub forum for railway jobs and careers, you should keep the questions there.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If there's one thing that history has taught us it's that neither governments nor railway operators are remotely capable of predicting which routes will be of use in thirty years time let alone sixty. Remember the Settle - Carlisle which was up for closure one moment then fifteen years later a major freight trunk route and tourist line ? We should accept this lesson gracefully. Another round of closures would be utmost folly.

An atmosphere in which services can be withdrawn at the drop of a hat does local economies no good whatsoever, neither in terms of local businesses nor employment.

As it happens, I use the Skipton - Carnforth route regularly and I see how busy the trains can be, including those getting on and off at intermediate stations and using the route end to end like myself. I wonder how many people suggesting its closure on here can say the same.

S&C is an interesting point on unpredictability however the original anti-closure campaigners will be the first to point out that it was the closure notice and campaign against it which actually saved the lines boosting user numbers and gaining national attention, if they had carried on without the national coverage they would have continued to make huge lossses and this new usership would never have appeared. A similar thing happened with the canals, they were unused as industry had stopped using them and were being gradually run down, in fact most of the network was unnavigable. However when they tried to formally close them then campaigners and leisure users were created and saved them, repairing and restoring canals and boats (dirty tricks by the government in trying to get canals closed like filling them with steel reinforced concrete so they couldnt easily be re-excavated make Beeching look like a saint).

 

[yorksrob]

S&C is an interesting point on unpredictability however the original anti-closure campaigners will be the first to point out that it was the closure notice and campaign against it which actually saved the lines boosting user numbers and gaining national attention, if they had carried on without the national coverage they would have continued to make huge lossses and this new usership would never have appeared. A similar thing happened with the canals, they were unused as industry had stopped using them and were being gradually run down, in fact most of the network was unnavigable. However when they tried to formally close them then campaigners and leisure users were created and saved them, repairing and restoring canals and boats (dirty tricks by the government in trying to get canals closed like filling them with steel reinforced concrete so they couldnt easily be re-excavated make Beeching look like a saint).

Some very interesting background on the canal network.

As far as the Skipton - Carnforth route is concerned, I try my best in a personal capacity to contribute to the numbers.

Nothing like putting your money where your mouth is !

 

[455driver]

You do realise that charging the maximum fare that the market allows means that the railways have the largest pot of money to play with?

Not necesarily true, if the maximum the market will stand is £50 and only one person travels the company gets £50, if the price is set at £35 then 2 people might travel, with all fixed costs being the same the company would be £20
better off.
Of course the railway does have a problem with capacity especially during the peaks which is why some companies try to make off peak travel cheaper. The down side of this is that these cheaper tickets just make the peak tickets look even more expensive.

I thought that you of all people - the greater defender of the railways on this forum - would understand that.

I do but it is a question of whether the railways are there to provide a service, provide a profit for the operators or spme variation on thes things!

 

[tbtc]

[/B]Which relates to a point TBTC makes.....rail investment has to be targeted and not just made for rails sake. Both Salford Quays and more recently East Manchester have become attractive for both public and private investment. Light Rail is far more efficent at delivering the transport needs of those who benefit from this investment.

Precisely - Metrolink (and the proposed "TramTrain extension to Supertram) have met new demand - the railway seems very inflexible - its a bit like army generals tailoring the troops to fight previous conflicts (rather than the next one).

As we all know Northern are heavily subsided and therefore seem at the bottom of the pecking order for new stock. Trains, outside the peaks, are quieter than in some parts of the country, and part of that is down to lack of incentive to use trains (ageing stock, slow services, cleanliness, frequency, etc)

Those examples are nearly all the result of planning decisions. If planners decide to allow OOT shopping centres only served by a ring road and nowhere near a railway, then the results are plain to see. So yes, the blame is not with Beeching, but with councillors, local government officers and governments of a certain political outlook.

In other words, the Humber bridge is a road-only bridge due to those decisions. Authorities are now just beginning to deal with such errors, such as proposed tram /train provision to those OOT shopping centres and trading estates.

The OP was asking why Northern seem to need heavy subsidies/ be low down the pecking order for new stock. I've tried to explain many of that the services that they are forced to run aren't fit for purpose in 2014 - blame the planners, blame the PTEs, blame the Dft, blame whoever, but there's a lot of resources wasted on quiet routes and a lot of untapped markets (Newcastle to Washington could have been served by the Leamside, but no)

Fifty years ago we would have run long loco hauled trains to Morecambe from Bradford and Leeds every summer. Nowadays we have five or so DMU's a day operating a local stopper. How on earth can you say the railway hasn't adapted to changing needs on this route ?

...because there's virtually no market for services from West Yorkshire to Morecambe (apart from maybe pensioners taking a nostalgic trip to the seaside resort they visited as children)?

If you were starting from scratch today, you'd give Morecambe a decent service to Preston/ Manchester/ Liverpool (just like you'd give Lytham/ St Annes a decent service to Manchester/ Liverpool) - maybe portion working with Barrow/ Blackpool South services.

You'd have the 09:06 arrival into Leeds (from Skipton/ Keighley) and the 16:39 departure from Leeds (to Keighley/ Skipton) operated by four coach EMUs (instead of putting a Pacer on this busy corridor at rush hour).

You'd maybe consider a 153 on a clockface three-hourly shuttle from Skipton to Lancaster (rather than the current muddle of a timetable).

Maybe even some services from Yorkshire through to Windermere/ Barrow?

But, no, we are stuck with the same timetable we've had for years, arriving in Leeds too late to be useful for anyone working/ leaving Leeds too late for anyone to work, providing a through link of limited value just to tick a box - because nobody would dare do something that disadvantaged a handful (even if it benefitted many).

I do think Northern's worst performers need to be identified and looked at, then look at the options, improvement, closure, whether Network Rail would close the line etc, impact of each, I certainly don't think the current railway network should be set in stone that's for sure.

Unfortunately the politician etc don't have the bottle for a fight re line closure's so we the have pointless parliamentary and token services.

Agreed - we waste a lot of resources serving redundant markets (and aren't challenging for new markets).

 

[yorksrob]

The OP was asking why Northern seem to need heavy subsidies/ be low down the pecking order for new stock. I've tried to explain many of that the services that they are forced to run aren't fit for purpose in 2014 - blame the planners, blame the PTEs, blame the Dft, blame whoever, but there's a lot of resources wasted on quiet routes and a lot of untapped markets (Newcastle to Washington could have been served by the Leamside, but no)

But are these quiet routes the reason for the subsidy ?

Greybeard 33 seemed to suggest from his figures that the subsidy to Northern has increased by 113% over a few years which couldn't possibly be accounted for by operating costs.

Watcherzero suggests that these routes get very little of the Network Grant in the first place.

Are you attacking the right culprit.

...because there's virtually no market for services from West Yorkshire to Morecambe (apart from maybe pensioners taking a nostalgic trip to the seaside resort they visited as children)?

If you were starting from scratch today, you'd give Morecambe a decent service to Preston/ Manchester/ Liverpool (just like you'd give Lytham/ St Annes a decent service to Manchester/ Liverpool) - maybe portion working with Barrow/ Blackpool South services.

You'd have the 09:06 arrival into Leeds (from Skipton/ Keighley) and the 16:39 departure from Leeds (to Keighley/ Skipton) operated by four coach EMUs (instead of putting a Pacer on this busy corridor at rush hour).

You'd maybe consider a 153 on a clockface three-hourly shuttle from Skipton to Lancaster (rather than the current muddle of a timetable).

Maybe even some services from Yorkshire through to Windermere/ Barrow?

But, no, we are stuck with the same timetable we've had for years, arriving in Leeds too late to be useful for anyone working/ leaving Leeds too late for anyone to work, providing a through link of limited value just to tick a box - because nobody would dare do something that disadvantaged a handful (even if it benefitted many).

Ah but there's a whole world of difference between recasting a timetable and closing a route. Morecambe is probably neither here nor there in terms of the West Yorkshire market, but Lancaster is an important destination, and there are connections to some of the other destinations you speak of at Lancaster and Carnforth.

Yes, the service probably could be improved, however I would be wary of terminating all services at Skipton. People do prefer through services, and a change at Skipton and the Lancaster end might be a change too far for many people travelling onwards.

My preference would be to have earlier and later services, maybe connecting at Skipton, but maintaining through services through the day.

 

[tbtc]

Yes, the service probably could be improved, however I would be wary of terminating all services at Skipton. People do prefer through services, and a change at Skipton and the Lancaster end might be a change too far for many people travelling onwards

...but how many people are making trips from east of Skipton to west of Lancaster?

 

[Oscar]

I think if the line is to survive it should provide some through services between Leeds and Windermere with a new link to the WCML North at Carnforth built to make this possible. My impression is that there is a large and predominantly leisure travel market between Yorkshire and the Lake District which is currently very poorly served by rail. New services would have to be accompanied by lower fares and attractive offers for groups.

 

[yorksrob]

...but how many people are making trips from east of Skipton to west of Lancaster?

I have no way of knowing. Personally I find it useful for going to rugby matches in Cumbria and when I lived in Lancaster, I used it to visit friends in York. I've also spoken to people on the train travelling from Glasgow to Leeds via that route.

 

[Greybeard33]

I have no way of knowing. Personally I find it useful for going to rugby matches in Cumbria and when I lived in Lancaster, I used it to visit friends in York. I've also spoken to people on the train travelling from Glasgow to Leeds via that route.

I have travelled on this service from Leeds to Long Preston on a summer Friday evening, and it was reasonably well patronised by hikers, cyclists and holidaymakers. But really, is it the best use of taxpayers' money to carry on maintaining the 25 miles of double track from Settle Junction to Carnforth, including a tunnel, four stations, nine level crossings and two junctions, when there is not normally enough demand to fill a 2-car Pacer at less than 2-hourly frequency, and no regular freight traffic?

 

[fowler9]

I have travelled on this service from Leeds to Long Preston on a summer Friday evening, and it was reasonably well patronised by hikers, cyclists and holidaymakers. But really, is it the best use of taxpayers' money to carry on maintaining the 25 miles of double track from Settle Junction to Carnforth, including a tunnel, four stations, nine level crossings and two junctions, when there is not normally enough demand to fill a 2-car Pacer at less than 2-hourly frequency, and no regular freight traffic?

Is it worth tax payers money to treat people in car crashes they caused themselves or need mountain rescue or have kids they can't afford. Probably not but we do it because thats what society does. I help pay for you, you help pay for me.

 

[David Barrett]

Is it worth tax payers money to treat people in car crashes they caused themselves or need mountain rescue or have kids they can't afford. Probably not but we do it because thats what society does. I help pay for you, you help pay for me.

On the nail, well said.