Suggestion for re-organising franchises

[Flinn Reed]

The current organisation of rail services into different franchises involves some franchises operating a lot more services than others, while many individual services may be more fitting in a different franchise. Here are my suggestions for re-organising all routes into an alternative set of franchises.

A - Services in south and southeast London, Kent, Sussex and parts of surrey, including HS1, mostly replacing Southern and Southeastern

B - Mostly the same as the current SWR franchise, with some services swapped where appropriate - e.g. Reading-Gatwick services would be taken over

C - Services around the Thames Valley, Bristol, and the West Country, including most existing GWR services south of the great western main line (and including services to/from London)

D - Services around the Cotswolds and South/Mid Wales, including to/from London

E - Services around the West Midlands, Birmingham, Oxford and Milton Keynes, mostly replacing the current WMT and Chiltern franchises

F - Services to Bedford, Corby, Leicester, Nottingham, Peterborough and Cambridge, and more local services around these areas

G - East Anglia, taking most services from Greater Anglia and C2C

H - Services around North Wales, Merseyside and Manchester, including existing Merseyrail services

I - Services around Leeds, Sheffield, York, Bradford and Hull

J - Sevices around Blackpool/Preston/Lancaster, Carlisle, Sunderland, Middlesbrough and Newcastle, services across the far north of England, south of Scotland

K - Services around Edinburgh and Glasgow, and all areas of Scotland to the north of these cities

Concessions such as London Overground and Crossrail are not included in this reorganisation.

Thameslink could either be a standalone franchise, or be jointly run between franchises A and F

CrossCountry could either be a standalone franchise, or be absorbed into others as suggested in another thread, with the longest services split up

There would additionally be two main Intercity franchises:

L - Euston to destinations including Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool and Glasgow (could include HS2)

M - St Pancras AND Kings Cross to destinations including Sheffield, Leeds, Newcastle and Edinburgh

 

[transmanche]

What benefits would this bring?

 

[Aictos]

What benefits would this bring?

Good point, the current system is broke but this wouldn’t actually fix anything as it be more the same.

 

[Flinn Reed]

What benefits would this bring?

Rail lines would be grouped together better allowing for better interworking between services. Promotions etc can apply for most routes within an area, same smart cards etc - e.g. instead of C2C being segregated from most other rail services nearby run under GA. Franchise sizes are more equal, avoids one company having a much greater share of the network by bidding for larger franchises. Helps to localise brands better - e.g. GWR covers quite a variety of areas. Reduces anomolies where one operator runs a unique service in an area otherwise run by a different one - e.g. GWR's services to Redhill/Gatwick would be better placed under SWR.

 

[transmanche]

The only discernable benefit I see from all of that is that the map will look neater.

 

[JonathanH]

Reduces anomolies where one operator runs a unique service in an area otherwise run by a different one - e.g. GWR's services to Redhill/Gatwick would be better placed under SWR.

The only discernable benefit I see from all of that is that the map will look neater.

There is no evidence that the North Downs Line would be better run under South Western Railway. Your view appears to be based solely on making the map look neater. It would still be subject to restrictions on how it runs East of Reigate when in interacts with the operator of current Southern and Thameslink services. Where do you propose that the stock is maintained?

 

[JonathanH]

One of the problems with doing too much reorganisation is making sure that the staff all work for the right company, have enough route knowledge for the switch of routes and depots. You also have to deal with harmonisation of employment terms, switch people between pension arrangements and working practices. It really isn't done lightly.

 

[Tomos y Tanc]

D and H are politically impossible.

Splitting Wales between two franchises would be political poison for which ever UK government suggested it and while railways aren't as fully devolved in Wales as they are in Scotland and NI, the Welsh Government has an effective veto on any changes to the system. That will be even more true in a few months time when Wales takes ownership of a fair portion of the track and infrstructure.

 

[krus_aragon]

In addition to @Tomos y Tanc 's observations above, your split of C and D strikes me as unusual. Why give Paddington Intercity services to Bristol TM and the West Country to one operator, and Paddington Intercity services to Bristol Parkway and South Wales to another?

 

[transmanche]

H - Services around North Wales, Merseyside and Manchester, including existing Merseyrail services
[...]
Concessions such as London Overground and Crossrail are not included in this reorganisation.

I thought that Merseyrail was a concession, not a franchise.

 

[Flinn Reed]

In addition to @Tomos y Tanc 's observations above, your split of C and D strikes me as unusual. Why give Paddington Intercity services to Bristol TM and the West Country to one operator, and Paddington Intercity services to Bristol Parkway and South Wales to another?

To better separate the local services related to each set of intercity services, rather than one large franchise operating services in both Wales and the South West.

Services from Paddington to South Wales, Cheltenham, Hereford and Oxford would integrate with local services in Wales and the Cotswolds, while Paddington-Bristol/Plymouth/Exeter/Penzance/Paignton servicea would be jointly run with local services around Bristol and the West Country.