Northern/TPE refranchising

[northwichcat]

Presumably this is because Warrington Borough Council (or Cheshire CC) successfully lobbied the DfT to have this put in the franchise back in 2003/4. There will be nothing to stop something similar happening if the new body is negotiating the franchise with the new TOC.

No the TPE franchise requirement included improvements for all TPE managed stations in PTE areas or not, including a requirement for step free access to all platforms. So Warrington Central and Hull got the same type of benefits as Huddersfield and Manchester Airport stations. Stations that remained under FNW/ATN management and subsequently went on to Northern missed out, although some have had improvements but not to the same high level as the TPE managed stations.

Cheshire CC stopped controlling Warrington and Halton under John Major's government.

 

[Waverley125]

...in which case you need to get people in North Yorkshire/ Derbyshire/ Cheshire/ Lancashire to pay for the PTEs - plus there's the democratic issue of those from the "rural" counties paying for PTEs controlled by "metropolitan" areas that they have no control over (see also the Wales & Borders franchise being controlled by politicians in Cardiff Bay who the people of Shropshire/ Cheshire etc have no control over).

One "super PTE" or nothing.

You don't have to cover every area within a geographical region

for instance you can bring the york & Harrogate lines entirely with WYPTE, and make York station the cut-off point, similarly for Selby on the Hull line.

 

[tbtc]

You don't have to cover every area within a geographical region

for instance you can bring the york & Harrogate lines entirely with WYPTE, and make York station the cut-off point, similarly for Selby on the Hull line.

So would Harrogate tax payers pay for West Yorkshire's PTE? Or would all North Yorkshire tax payers pay for it? Even those in Whitby? Or would Harrogate people get PTE coverage for free (and therefore be subsidised by those in poorer parts of West Yorkshire)?*

 

[John55]

...in which case you need to get people in North Yorkshire/ Derbyshire/ Cheshire/ Lancashire to pay for the PTEs - plus there's the democratic issue of those from the "rural" counties paying for PTEs controlled by "metropolitan" areas that they have no control over (see also the Wales & Borders franchise being controlled by politicians in Cardiff Bay who the people of Shropshire/ Cheshire etc have no control over).

One "super PTE" or nothing.

Why is this so difficult. Cheshire and Derbyshire seem to be able to survive with some train services provided largely by and for TfGM and Merseytravel so why cannot West and North Yorkshire sort things out equally well under whatever arrangements come about.

 

[northwichcat]

Why is this so difficult. Cheshire and Derbyshire seem to be able to survive with some train services provided largely by and for TfGM and Merseytravel so why cannot West and North Yorkshire sort things out equally well under whatever arrangements come about.

Having a surviving and a thriving train service is not the same thing.

One of the busiest train lines through Cheshire is the Crewe to Hartford stretch of the WCML. Now look at how good the local connections are on that line.

* Crewe-Warrington 1tph non-stop
* Winsford-Liverpool <1tph despite Winsford getting more passengers than PTE area station Rose Hill Marple with 2tph to Manchester.
* Winsford/Hartford to Warrington (direct) - not possible.

Helsby to Ellesmere Port, the Middlewich branch and Chester to Runcorn all have the potential for successful regular services yet they either get no service or a token service.

 

[sprinterguy]

We could call it the Lancashire & Yorkshire franchise and pretend the last 100 years never happened...

Conveniently forgetting the North Eastern sphere of operations and the Cumbrian services :roll: Which, given that Nexus would only be a junior partner in this proposed new structure and that Cumbria has no PTE prescence, runs the risk of becoming the case; with Heaton remaining what is seemingly it's own self-organised, well run, satellite operation that is relatively untouched by the wider goings on of whichever company is in charge of the local rail services at the time.

As there are only a handful of Northern services that remain within PTE areas, it is likely that across the "core" Northern region, through Yorkshire and Lancashire, the benefits of investment in services, principally in new rolling stock, will also trickle down to benefit those stations outside of PTE areas. However, infrastructure improvements, such as station upgrades or the provision of better live travel information at stations, may not translate so well beyond the borders of the senior PTE partners, and this proposed structure does seem to me to run the risk of "hoarding" the majority of the funding available within the areas covered by the three core PTEs, with other areas being delivered a pittance.

In essence, this proposed arrangement could serve to make the voices of the PTEs louder and those of the other areas in the Northern franchise quieter. I guess that it is unlikely that such doom mongering predictions are any more likely to come to pass under this proposed structure than under the current Northern franchise, but we will just have to wait and see.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Conveniently forgetting the North Eastern sphere of operations and the Cumbrian services :roll: Which, given that Nexus would only be a junior partner in this proposed new structure and that Cumbria has no PTE prescence, runs the risk of becoming the case; with Heaton remaining what is seemingly it's own self-organised, well run, satellite operation that is relatively untouched by the wider goings on of whichever company is in charge of the local rail services at the time.

As there are only a handful of Northern services that remain within PTE areas, it is likely that across the "core" Northern region, through Yorkshire and Lancashire, the benefits of investment in services, principally in new rolling stock, will also trickle down to benefit those stations outside of PTE areas. However, infrastructure improvements, such as station upgrades or the provision of better live travel information at stations, may not translate so well beyond the borders of the senior PTE partners, and this proposed structure does seem to me to run the risk of "hoarding" the majority of the funding available within the areas covered by the three core PTEs, with other areas being delivered a pittance.

In essence, this proposed arrangement could serve to make the voices of the PTEs louder and those of the other areas in the Northern franchise quieter. I guess that it is unlikely that such doom mongering predictions are any more likely to come to pass under this proposed structure than under the current Northern franchise, but we will just have to wait and see.

Yes, sorry, I was not trying to ignore the northern tier.
I think the franchise model described is not a lot different to the Wales & Borders setup with the Welsh Government operating the franchise on behalf of DfT (including the Marches counties in England).
In the Northern case there would hopefully be more scope for service improvements and parallel infrastructure/rolling stock investment, but it doesn't look as though the consortium will have much budget freedom.
After all, it's still general UK taxpayers' money, not local taxes.
NR and ORR will still be funded by DfT.

 

[John55]

Having a surviving and a thriving train service is not the same thing.

One of the busiest train lines through Cheshire is the Crewe to Hartford stretch of the WCML. Now look at how good the local connections are on that line.

* Crewe-Warrington 1tph non-stop
* Winsford-Liverpool <1tph despite Winsford getting more passengers than PTE area station Rose Hill Marple with 2tph to Manchester.
* Winsford/Hartford to Warrington (direct) - not possible.

Helsby to Ellesmere Port, the Middlewich branch and Chester to Runcorn all have the potential for successful regular services yet they either get no service or a token service.

You misunderstood my point perhaps because I expressed myself too briefly. I wasn’t referring to train services surviving but local authorities surviving with their finances and dignity intact.

There seems to be some kind of fixation amongst one or two people with the strict boundaries of the PTE/ITA or local authority areas. While these are important they don’t completely dominate the actions of the bodies concerned.

To illustrate this the Merseyrail service from Liverpool and Birkenhead to Chester is far superior to anything that has ever run before. This is largely due to the Merseyside PTE/ITA, which has over the last 30 years electrified the line and progressively improved the service. This has been done with the active participation of Cheshire CC (now Chester and West Cheshire) who contributed to the various schemes but as a junior partner. In the most recent change about 18 months ago when the service was increased from 2 to 4 trains/hour off peak the controversial aspect of the change was the intension to run the additional trains non stop from Hooton to Chester. This was changed after pressure from Chester and WC despite the impact that might have to punctuality and probably against the preference of Merseytravel. This demonstrates to me that bodies can work well to work out acceptable solutions.

I have no idea how the 4 trains per hour off peak was financed but presumably Merseytravel, Merseyrail, the DfT and C & WC spent quite some time working out some sort of deal to make it work.

I believe TfGM similarly work with Derbyshire CC (or whatever body now exists in the Peaks) on the Manchester to Hadfield and Glossop service.

 

[northwichcat]

the controversial aspect of the change was the intension to run the additional trains non stop from Hooton to Chester. This was changed after pressure from Chester and WC despite the impact that might have to punctuality and probably against the preference of Merseytravel.

I suggest you look at the timetable - alternate trains DO run Hooton-Chester non-stop.

One of the proposals was for half of the 4tph between Chester and Liverpool to run Chester to Birkenhead non-stop, which would have been of greatest benefit to Chester-Liverpool passengers. However, Merseytravel said that wouldn't go ahead because it would provide an inconsistent timetable and would use extra resource without providing 'much benefit'.

Another was to turn the Ellesmere Port service in to a 15 minute Hooton shuttle, which Cheshire CC weren't keen on.

However, you're bringing up two lines where there is a small amount of PTE involvement beyond the PTE boundary. If you look at other lines a lot of the PTE benefits don't even go out to the PTE boundary, for instance look at Hazel Grove to Middlewood, Altrincham to Hale and Horwich Parkway to Blackrod.

 

[Pumbaa]

I suggest you look at the timetable - alternate trains DO run Hooton-Chester non-stop.

No they don't. Alternate trains skip Capenhurst, but all call at Bache.

 

[WatcherZero]

Lets put it this way, at the moment the Dft is the one that makes the decisions and assumes the liability, every authority has to apply for funding to them and it favours London and the South East projects. In the future a group of PTE's and local authorities that have volunteered to assume liability will be making the decisions however they now have direct experience and local knowledge. For the big authorities this change is huge, for the smaller authorities its business as usual. They will still be able to take proposals for local infrastructure or service enhancements forward with the same local money they had before (the local authority rail grant isnt going anywhere). They would still gain the improvement of a seat at the table being a part of the discussions which they wernt when the Dft ran things and governed from afar, they just wont gain the power to vote on how the budgets spent that they dont have now unless they are willing to assume a proportional share of the risks and costs involved.

 

[John55]

I suggest you look at the timetable - alternate trains DO run Hooton-Chester non-stop.

One of the proposals was for half of the 4tph between Chester and Liverpool to run Chester to Birkenhead non-stop, which would have been of greatest benefit to Chester-Liverpool passengers. However, Merseytravel said that wouldn't go ahead because it would provide an inconsistent timetable and would use extra resource without providing 'much benefit'.

Another was to turn the Ellesmere Port service in to a 15 minute Hooton shuttle, which Cheshire CC weren't keen on.

However, you're bringing up two lines where there is a small amount of PTE involvement beyond the PTE boundary. If you look at other lines a lot of the PTE benefits don't even go out to the PTE boundary, for instance look at Hazel Grove to Middlewood, Altrincham to Hale and Horwich Parkway to Blackrod.

I think you may have been misled by the late change in service pattern which was not included in the National Rail timetable for Dec 2010. The enhanced service has always run with alternate trains missing Capenhurst but all trains stopping at Bache.

I don't think the idea of fast trains from Birkenhead to Chester was ever a serious likelihood as so much traffic on the line is from the intermediate stations. Even if half the 3m/year passengers at Chester use Merseyrail that is still less than Bromborough and Port Sunlight combined and there are plenty of other busy stations. In the early/mid seventies a limited stop service was tried between Liverpool & Southport which didn't last as there were no stations with exceptional passenger numbers to make it worthwhile. I am sure the same thing would happen between Birkenhead and Chester as my experience is of a great deal of "churn" of passengers on the route even when the trains are full and standing throughout the journey.

I am not sure were the small involvement of Merseytravel in the Chester and Ellesmere Port lines comes from but Merseytravel do hold the franchise which strikes me as quite a big involvement!

I wasn't trying to say anything about the overall involvement of PTE/ITAs in railways across the whole of the northwest I was trying to illustrate that cross border co-operation is alive and well and that there is nothing to stop this developing throughout the potential new Northern franchise.

 

[eps200]

Having a surviving and a thriving train service is not the same thing.

One of the busiest train lines through Cheshire is the Crewe to Hartford stretch of the WCML. Now look at how good the local connections are on that line.

* Crewe-Warrington 1tph non-stop
* Winsford-Liverpool <1tph despite Winsford getting more passengers than PTE area station Rose Hill Marple with 2tph to Manchester.
* Winsford/Hartford to Warrington (direct) - not possible.

Helsby to Ellesmere Port, the Middlewich branch and Chester to Runcorn all have the potential for successful regular services yet they either get no service or a token service.

There are separate problems here though.

Crewe Warrington is on a hugely busy mainline section.
same for winsford
The other part has the issue of falling through the gaps. Ellesmere port to helsby should be handed to merrseyrail while Chester to Runcorn really wants the halton curve sorting out so it can go Chester, Runcorn, Liverpool. Preferably with an opposing timetable to Chester, Birkenhead, Liverpool basicly compensating for the lack of a fast service.

I don't see a major issue with splitting much of the local stuff in cheshire between Mersey rail and TfgM

 

[WatcherZero]

Your right, probably makes sense to give the Liverpool services on the City Line to ATW and end them in Warrington and leave it upto the Welsh to decide, Merseytravel would then only have to worry about its self contained 3rd rail services. Maintains the status quo of City Line services being out of Merseytravels control and keeps them out of the hands of those dasterdly foreigners wot dont speke proper like.

 

[northwichcat]

I think you may have been misled by the late change in service pattern which was not included in the National Rail timetable for Dec 2010. The enhanced service has always run with alternate trains missing Capenhurst but all trains stopping at Bache.

Yeah you're right I only checked the times for Capenhurst before posting and assumed Bache was the same. However, it does appear that in the evening Chester has more trains than Bache according to the Merseyrail website.

I don't see a major issue with splitting much of the local stuff in cheshire between Mersey rail and TfgM

I do as the majority of the lines in Cheshire go to Liverpool and Manchester or both but there's some lines with poor or no service which don't go to Liverpool or Manchester but have real potential but Merseytravel and TfGM aren't really going to be that interested in.

Plans for a direct service between Hartford and Warrington were first submitted by CT and have subsequently been submitted by LM more than once. However, a lack of PTE support has meant the plans haven't progressed as much as other proposals.

 

[WatcherZero]

Yeah you're right I only checked the times for Capenhurst before posting and assumed Bache was the same. However, it does appear that in the evening Chester has more trains than Bache according to the Merseyrail website.



I do as the majority of the lines in Cheshire go to Liverpool and Manchester or both but there's some lines with poor or no service which don't go to Liverpool or Manchester but have real potential but Merseytravel and TfGM aren't really going to be that interested in.

Plans for a direct service between Hartford and Warrington were first submitted by CT and have subsequently been submitted by LM more than once. However, a lack of PTE support has meant the plans haven't progressed as much as other proposals.

2011 West Coast Mainline RUS consultation response: Warrington Council.
Warrington Council welcomes the proposed diversion of a Birmingham-Liverpool service to call Winsford, Hartford, Acton Bridge, Warrington bank Quay, Wigan North Western, Preston.

 

[northwichcat]

2011 West Coast Mainline RUS consultation response: Warrington Council.
Warrington Council welcomes the proposed diversion of a Birmingham-Liverpool service to call Winsford, Hartford, Acton Bridge, Warrington bank Quay, Wigan North Western, Preston.

Warrington Council are as powerful as Stockport council, the latter forms one small part of TfGM.

 

[Stats]

TfGM, West Yorkshire PTE and South Yorkshire PTE have got together and agreed a framework for the rail refranching (with ongoing input from the dft), they are now going to consult Merseryside, Lancashire and Nexus on their plan then take it to Government for approval. Likely some forum members here may not like the way this is going to work...

* Firstly merge TPE and Northern into one franchise.
* TfGM, WYPTE+York and SYPTE with the majority of services passing through their areas would be senior partners (Core and Founding are used) in the governance of the franchise while the other authorities in the north would be junior partners.
* So they can speak with one voice and quickly propose stuff a formula for risk and cost allocation between the partners will be in place from the start. Each of the Core/Founding members agrees to take on a proportional share of the funding and liability of the franchise underwriting.
* The Franchise will cover 19 unitaries, 9 shires, 5 PTEs and Scotland, because not all will have capability to provide the same financial or planning contribution as the big three they wont be required to, instead there will be a two tier body with the senior partners who are willing to underwrite the franchise and the juniors who will express their desires and concerns or may be willing to contribute financially to particular schemes.
* Will be governed by a board with the following makeup, an independent chair appointed by the founding partners, the core members (including founding members) who would each have voting rights equal to the number of services in their area. Non voting members selected by the junior partners who havent assumed financial commitments and a minority dft vote.
* Propose a 7 year franchise with 3 year extension, this is because next few years will see a big shakeup and to allow governance arrangements to bed in. A longer franchise of around 15 years may be let afterwards once their happy with the setup.
* The Dft doesnt want to have to represent the smaller authorities in the franchise area on the board and want a hands off role, they are considering hiving off a small number of routes to other franchises which are not physically or economically relevant to the core members.
* The board would set a long term strategy and control planning and franchise specification including outside their geographic area (subject to consulting the local authorities concerned) as well as monitoring the incumbent franchise.
* Again two tier system, the core members and those voluntarily wishing to put their money where their mouth is who would have to demonstrate competence in transport planning and economic planning before they can recieve voting rights.
* Since the Northern franchise is heavily subsidised the government funding for the board to invest and subsidise services is equal to that the Dft would have provided if it was solely in charge.
* The board may borrow to invest to get services improved faster and Government has agreed to consider funding some infrastructure investments which reduce the upkeep cost of the railway.
* What their looking at investment wise is additional rolling stock, Northern Hub and further improvements leading on from it, multimodal smart ticketing across the whole franchise area, replacement of life expired rolling stock, refurbishment of rolling stock, station improvements such as parking, ticketing/retail, passenger security, service information. More station adoption schemes, more electrification, possible tram-train schemes.
http://www.agma.gov.uk/cms_media/files/8_devolution_of_rail_re_franchising_in_north_of_england.pdf
And you may find these maps useful...
http://www.projectmapping.co.uk/Reviews/Resources/Northern network_map_jan_20.pdf
http://www.tpexpress.co.uk/media/47408/map_geo_oct2011_continuing.pdf

It seems that the North East may not be in favour of this plan, preferring to go it alone.

http://www.journallive.co.uk/north-...ig-decision-on-railway-system-61634-31119960/

RAIL chiefs are putting together plans to create a North East railway system amid concerns their Manchester counterparts may end up controlling trains across the region.

 

[tbtc]

It seems that the North East may not be in favour of this plan, preferring to go it alone.

http://www.journallive.co.uk/north-...ig-decision-on-railway-system-61634-31119960/

The current Northern services in the North East of England are pretty self contained, they've nothing really to do with the rest of the operation. However they would be very small to work as a stand alone franchise.

This does illustrate the point of Manchester's willingness to take on more powers not actually benefitting the rest of northern England, just replicating the London effect further north.

 

[northwichcat]

The current Northern services in the North East of England are pretty self contained

There's plenty of North East services which extend in to Cumbria.

A bigger issue is perhaps if TPE is included in the Northern franchise will Newcastle and Middlesbrough TPE services end up in a local Northern franchise which the North East have little control over. Although, the McNulty review does suggest North TPE services could finish up in the Cross Country or East Coast franchises.

 

[WatcherZero]

It seems that the North East may not be in favour of this plan, preferring to go it alone.

http://www.journallive.co.uk/north-...ig-decision-on-railway-system-61634-31119960/

Greg Stone, a Liberal Democrat councillor, was one of those discussing the rail devolution plans at the transport authority meeting, before the report was sent to council leaders. He warned that with the Government so far giving no clear indication of future funding, a partnership with Manchester and Yorkshire may be “the most practical solution”.

Mr Stone added: “Some will clamour for a North Eastern sub-franchise but there are doubts over whether it would be wholly viable on its own.

“Whichever option is pursued, it will clearly be important to ensure that the interests of the North East are protected given the greater ‘muscle’ of Manchester and Yorkshire, and that efforts are made to improve service and stock quality.”

Seems to be acceptance really, they recognise their too small to go it alone.

 

[IanXC]

It seems that the North East may not be in favour of this plan, preferring to go it alone.

Could Nexus take responsibility for the North East services and run an LO style operation, to include the Metro operation, so as to make it viable?

 

[tbtc]

The current Northern services in the North East of England are pretty self contained, they've nothing really to do with the rest of the operation. However they would be very small to work as a stand alone franchise

There's plenty of North East services which extend in to Cumbria

Yes, but most of them run no further than Carlisle (with the exception of the couple of Newcastle - Glasgow services etc) - they are self contained (and therefore have little to do with the rest of Northern's operation (and could therefore be hived off without much operational problem - just the problem of being too small to function independently at a cost effective level)

 

[WatcherZero]

Call for more local control of rail in north
TRANSPORT AUTHORITIES in the north of England are calling upon the Government to allow local rail services to be managed 'by the north, for the north'.

South Yorkshire Integrated Transport Authority has backed plans that would see greater powers passed down from central Government to transport authorities in the north for the running of the local rail network – and it believes these extra powers would help attract investment.

Together with transport chiefs in West Yorkshire, Greater Manchester and other northern authorities, SYITA has written to the Government to express its approval for plans to devolve power to a new body, the Rail in the North Executive (RiNE), which would then manage the local network.

The authorities are calling for a new North of England rail franchise which would merge the present Northern and TransPennine Express contracts.

This may already be on the Government's agenda, following moves by the DfT to align the termination dates of both contracts to May 2014. Last August, the then transport secretary Philip Hammond said: "Having both existing franchises end at the same date could allow for these franchises to be combined, or split in different ways. I will be considering the optimal configuration and intend to seek views on the optimum structure from local interested parties." The DfT confirmed a month ago that the Northern franchise, which could have ended last September, will now run to May 2014.

SYITA said that research showed that combining these franchises could save £7-10 million a year and increase revenues by £3-5 million a year. It added that this money could then be reinvested in the northern rail network.

Councillors and MPs in the north have long complained that the amount spent for each head in the north is just a fraction of that in the south. Of the trains running in the Northern franchise, 87 per cent date from the 1980s or earlier, while more than 75 per cent of Southern’s trains were built in the present century..

Mick Jameson, the chairman of SYITA, said: “Compared to places down south the north of England tends to get a raw deal when it comes to investment. These proposals would mean we would have more powers to invest in our local railways. That’s got to make sense.

“The best people to run the local rail network are the people who use it day in, day out. That way it can best respond to what local people and local businesses need.”

The Government is expected to announce its decision on how rail devolution might work later this year.

http://www.railnews.co.uk/news/2012/06/08-call-for-more-local-control.html

Looks like we now have a name for this body, RiNE..... im sure the usual rail industry punners wont have to work to hard with that one...... (Wine, Whine, etc....)

 

[northwichcat]

If the North East were to go it alone what type of rolling stock should they get for that area? The current Heaton allocation is 142s and 156s (I'm unsure of the exact number of units though and how many of the allocation are mainly used outside the North East.)

Could it be an idea for them to get a fleet of 150/1s, which then wouldn't be unsuitable for the longer services without them having two different types of units?

 

[sprinterguy]

If the North East were to go it alone what type of rolling stock should they get for that area? The current Heaton allocation is 142s and 156s (I'm unsure of the exact number of units though and how many of the allocation are mainly used outside the North East.)

Could it be an idea for them to get a fleet of 150/1s, which then wouldn't be unsuitable for the longer services without them having two different types of units?

Heaton has thirteen 156s and, since the gain of a few ex-Newton Heath 142s and a further small number returned from FGW, thirty something 142s (It might be 34 units but I'll have to check that). Heatons' 142 diagrams are split pretty much equally so that half are around the North East and the other half are in Yorkshire.

I would quite happily advocate replacing Heatons' Pacers with 150/1s, but youu can get stuffed if you think that the North East should let go of its' 156s : They're perfect trains for the likes of the Tyne Valley route.

 

[northwichcat]

Heaton has thirteen 156s and, since the gain of a few ex-Newton Heath 142s and a further small number returned from FGW, thirty something 142s (It might be 34 units but I'll have to check that). Heatons' 142 diagrams are split pretty much equally so that half are around the North East and the other half are in Yorkshire.

I would quite happily advocate replacing Heatons' Pacers with 150/1s, but youu can get stuffed if you think that the North East should let go of its' 156s : They're perfect trains for the likes of the Tyne Valley route.

So your saying there are no more than 30 units used in the North East, so a small North East franchise would probably need a common type of rolling stock to keep costs down.

Having around 30 x 156s would leave a micro-fleet of 156s for the rest of the North and leave many routes with significantly less capacity, so that won't work.

Having 30 x 142s would work for not having micro-fleets but there would be some long journeys that are stuck with Pacers.

Having all the Northern 150/1s seems ideal - common fleet, the right number of units, suitable for shorter and longer services and two different internal layouts so the ex-LM ones could be used for the diagrams with higher loadings and the ex-FNW ones for the diagrams with lower loadings.

 

[sprinterguy]

I don't think that the North East local services "going it alone" would make much difference to Heatons' rolling stock allocation. Heaton has always traditionally had a small-ish number of 156s and a larger number of Pacers allocated to it since Regional Railways days and it has never experienced any problems arising from operating small fleets. If the North East local services were split off from the "core" of the Northern franchise then I can easily see Heatons' allocation reverting to the units that have historically been allocated there since the late eighties: The present 156 allocation is little changed from BR days, and they would retain the former Cornish "Skipper" 142s, 142015 - 027, most of which have been Heaton units since they were transferred away from Devon and Cornwall, plus a couple of extras such as 142050/065/066.

The concept of allocating all the 150/1s to North East local services is a good one admittedly, particularly in the mix of high and low density units and that there would be enough units to allow doubling up of units on the busiest services, but there is nothing flawed in the present two class system either.

 

[ainsworth74]

Also if you were to give Heaton all the 150/1s for this NE mini franchise you'd have to retrain all the guards and drivers for the new traction as well as the depot staff and it would mean you'd go from a depot that has literally decades of experience maintaining 142s and 156s to starting almost from scratch looking after 150s. To my mind putting all the 150/1s in one place might look good on paper but I think there are some practical drawbacks that mean it would be just as logical to leave the present allocation of 142s and 156s where they are (at least until replacements for the 142s are available).

 

[northwichcat]

but there is nothing flawed in the present two class system either.

Generally speaking the number of micro-fleets around the country is going down as franchises are reorganised and rolling stock is reallocated. There are cost savings to be made by doing so through less crew training, not having to keep crew knowledge up-to-date on different types of unit, more efficient maintenance etc. which is probably why that approach is being taken.

The North East transport groups need to remember that Valley Lines didn't work well as a small franchise so they do need to look at what went wrong there and how that can be avoided in the North East.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Also if you were to give Heaton all the 150/1s for this NE mini franchise you'd have to retrain all the guards and drivers for the new traction as well as the depot staff and it would mean you'd go from a depot that has literally decades of experience maintaining 142s and 156s to starting almost from scratch looking after 150s.

Currently on the East side of the Northern operations crews who rarely work 156s spend time keeping their 156 knowledge up-to-date.

The cheapest option would certainly be a common fleet of 142s but I'm well aware that 142s are not that versatile, while a common fleet of 156s would be more expensive to run than a common fleet of 150s and would leave capacity issues elsewhere in the current Northern franchise area. That is why I suggested the 150/1s as a common fleet.

The reality could be that the North East transport groups may want to get away from Manchester and Leeds influence but their franchise may contain the rolling stock that no-one else wants, if they put across a poorer case for getting larger units such as the 156s.