What could a regionalised rail nationalisation look like?

[JonathanH]

2tph actual fast Liverpool-Newcastle operated using long 80x formations and calling at fewer stations than today's TPE

Which trains are going to serve Chester-le-Street, Newton-le-Willows and similar stations then? 2tph Liverpool to Newcastle somewhat blocks any other prospect of something else providing Liverpool to Manchester and York to Newcastle semi fasts.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Which trains are going to serve Chester-le-Street, Newton-le-Willows and similar stations then? 2tph Liverpool to Newcastle somewhat blocks any other prospect of something else providing Liverpool to Manchester and York to Newcastle semi fasts.

I don't know about York to Newcastle as I'm not familiar with ECML service patterns, but I see no reason why Chat Moss couldn't fit two IC and four skip stopping local services in with everything flighted properly, particularly given that a section of it now has 4 tracks. Chiltern basically does on a two track line. The derisory service on Chat Moss at present is purely because Northern is in such a state and nobody seems willing to pay to sort things out.

N-l-W doesn't specifically deserve Liverpool fasts, it only got them when the wires went up, before that it just had stoppers and the fasts were on the CLC at much more deserving Warrington C. On the Manchester side anything will be a fast as there are only two intermediates anyway.

 

[Dr Hoo]

I don't know about York to Newcastle as I'm not familiar with ECML service patterns, but I see no reason why Chat Moss couldn't fit two IC and four skip stopping local services in with everything flighted properly, particularly given that a section of it now has 4 tracks. Chiltern basically does on a two track line. The derisory service on Chat Moss at present is purely because Northern is in such a state and nobody seems willing to pay to sort things out.

N-l-W doesn't specifically deserve Liverpool fasts, it only got them when the wires went up, before that it just had stoppers and the fasts were on the CLC at much more deserving Warrington C. On the Manchester side anything will be a fast as there are only two intermediates anyway.

Remember that the Chat Moss line will have to be planned on the basis of also accommodating large numbers of full-length intermodal trains to/from Parkside and Port Salford (in lieu of Trafford Park) as part of wider redevelopment plans.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Remember that the Chat Moss line will have to be planned on the basis of also accommodating large numbers of full-length intermodal trains to/from Parkside and Port Salford (in lieu of Trafford Park) as part of wider redevelopment plans.

Will need full 4-tracking, then. An hourly service (as operates at present) on a line that is basically the same as the rest of Merseyrail aside from the sparks being overhead and it being Northern rather than Merseyrail Electrics operated isn't acceptable.

 

[Dr Hoo]

Will need full 4-tracking, then. An hourly service (as operates at present) on a line that is basically the same as the rest of Merseyrail aside from the sparks being overhead and it being Northern rather than Merseyrail Electrics operated isn't acceptable.

I’m really struggling to understand how a ‘regional’ model fits with this sort of strategic stuff. Presumably there would still be a continuing ‘TransPennine Route Upgrade’ concept to coordinate and integrate schemes.
So as well as a ‘new’ high-speed passenger line somehow connecting Liverpool and Manchester via Warrington and Manchester Airport there will also be a Chat Moss quadrupling project. At least the latter will also be useful for the large number of anticipated wholly additional TransPennine intermodal trains from Hull, Immingham, Tees and Tyne to the general ‘Lancashire’ area once gauge clearance and electrification is completed.
Given that GBR will be designed within the next couple of years it really needs to be future-proofed to endure for the usual circa 25-year duration of British railway structure models since 1900.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I’m really struggling to understand how a ‘regional’ model fits with this sort of strategic stuff. Presumably there would still be a continuing ‘TransPennine Route Upgrade’ concept to coordinate and integrate schemes.
So as well as a ‘new’ high-speed passenger line somehow connecting Liverpool and Manchester via Warrington and Manchester Airport there will also be a Chat Moss quadrupling project. At least the latter will also be useful for the large number of anticipated wholly additional TransPennine intermodal trains from Hull, Immingham, Tees and Tyne to the general ‘Lancashire’ area once gauge clearance and electrification is completed.
Given that GBR will be designed within the next couple of years it really needs to be future-proofed to endure for the usual circa 25-year duration of British railway structure models since 1900.

There certainly needs to be some part of GBR that manages the conflicts inherent in this sort of situation. If we assume we've got privately owned freight, InterCity/TPE, Burnham and the Liverpool City Region mayor all competing for capacity on the line (and all of them have good claims to it, though perhaps Burnham's being the weakest given that there are only two intermediates and Eccles has the tram) something has to reconcile that. Certainly I'd say there is a strong case for the LCR section of the line to have at least 2tph of stopping service, whether that takes the form of the Manchester or whether it involves reinstatement of the Warrington Bank Quay EMU and thus pushing Earlestown as the main station for the area rather than NlW itself.

That doesn't mean to say freight should necessarily win, of course. The most ludicrous situation with regard to freight I can see is Shap, where underpowered freights hauled by a single Class 66 crawl to a near halt (30mph ish I remember reading) by the top of Shap, eating potential paths that could be used for HS2 Edinburgh services. Someone really does need to take control of that and insist such freights use two electric locomotives (or bimodes) so they can maintain their full top speed throughout and create paths - and any pricing structure for commercial operations, be they freight or open access passenger, really should take into account wasting paths unnecessarily* like this and make sure the properly powered option is the cheapest. But in a regionalised model that oversight might well be missing.

* See also short trains on mainlines, a finger that needs pointing at all the passenger OAOs.

 

[Magdalia]

all of them have good claims to it, though perhaps Burnham's being the weakest given that there are only two intermediates and Eccles has the tram

Regional mayors are not just parochial figures with interests that end at their area boundaries. They are strategic roles with an interest in anything that matters economically for their region.

For example the existing metro mayors show a lot of interest in the performance of Avanti on the train services that link their regions with London.

 

[The Planner]

Will need full 4-tracking, then. An hourly service (as operates at present) on a line that is basically the same as the rest of Merseyrail aside from the sparks being overhead and it being Northern rather than Merseyrail Electrics operated isn't acceptable.

Doubt it, there is space for an hourly Class 4 path.

 

[Dr Hoo]

Doubt it, there is space for an hourly Class 4 path.

Is that in addition to @Bletchleyite ’s notional four skip-stopping local trains per hour and the two ‘fast’ TransPennine/Intercity services?

 

[Bevan Price]

I think the hardest part will be trying to achieve harmonisation of pay, terms & conditions - much scope for flimsy excuses for "industrial action".

Local mayors will specify the service levels they would like in their areas - but will probably have to be told that there are insufficient paths available to meet all their demands - and "GBR" will then provide the staff and trains needed to operate services. Whether station staff at smaller stations are paid by GBR or by local mayors is a possible question.

There needs to be a return to wider route knowledge by train crews, and a need to avoid such nonsense as running empty stock between Nottingham & Liverpool (as happens several times daily on the current EMR services.). Crews & trains will mostly continue from existing depots in their local areas, but maybe operating on a wider range of routes.

As current 15x trains and emus end their lives, it needs to be ensured that their replacements are "compatible", and can be driven by every driver likely to need to drive them.

The proposed new route Liverpool / Warrington / Manchester route is mentioned above. I suspect it could be at least 2050 before that occurs (if at all). Plans for Chat Moss services until then need to be contemplated. There is a need to improve the current level of stopping services between Liverpool & Manchester, How these can fit in with other services is a problem.

And when / if will the Parkside freight terminal get a rail connection. If it goes ahead, I suspect there will be no more than 1 train every 1 to 2 hours, with access primarily to/from WCML (via Earlestown to/from South, and via Golborne Junction to/from Scotland.) (It might even be feasible - but expensive - to build a new direct connection to Parkside from somewhere near Winwick on the WCMl.)

 

[irish_rail]

There needs to be a return to wider route knowledge by train crews, and a need to avoid such nonsense as running empty stock between Nottingham & Liverpool (as happens several times daily on the current EMR services.). Crews & trains will mostly continue from existing depots in and can be driven by every driver likely to need to drive th

Ironically GWR has just informed drivers and the union about almost all depots being made to surrender route knowledge from May. For example at Plymouth another diversionary route is to be lost (Bristol to Swindon). That's on the back of the shambles of making Plymouth lose Taunton to Bristol which has caused countless delays and issues. If wider route knowledge is the answer, someone at the DFt forgot to tell GWR.

 

[Tobberz]

One wonders how the process itself will work. Obviously as we know, the remaining privatised TOCs will enter into public hands step-by-step. There will be a point (quite soon) where a majority of them are nationalised. Will there be a "Day Zero" when a unified "GBR" brand identity (with sub-brands) is launched? Or, say, will SWR get to become GBR first, and other TOCs follow on piecemeal?

 

[The Planner]

Is that in addition to @Bletchleyite ’s notional four skip-stopping local trains per hour and the two ‘fast’ TransPennine/Intercity services?

No, thats as now.

 

[Ghostbus]

Hendy's approach seems to entirely ignore the fact GBR will obviously be a vertically integrated national entity for the purposes of funding and accountability. Or that things wouldn't have been quite so easy at TfL Rail if Thames Valley Rail or Kent & Sussex Rail had equal statutory rights to make demands and expect answers from GBR's regional manager on their patch.

Here's a radical solution. Don't have GBR at all. At least not as a national entity. Transfer full ownership of the railway in each of these local fiefdoms to their Governor. They can make the case to the DfT directly for funding, on a theoretically equal basis.

Any and all matters requiring cross boundary cooperation or a national approach, can be sorted out through cooperative entities funded and managed by the fiefdoms. Some of who naturally would want to use the brand GBR, notably ticketing and intercity services.

That would leave legislation and a truly independent regulator solely to ensure basic safety and secure the rights of open access and freight operators to use this public railway, and achieve other relevant national objectives, such as net zero and levelling up.

I can't see many downsides. It wouldn't be in any Governor's interest to screw over a neighbour or the collective, since they would be directly and indirectly harming their own interests. Just as it should be.

If it directly hit Andy Burnham in the pocket or his fellow Railway Governors chewed him out every time he sidelined a London bound train or GBR TransPennine service to benefit his Bee Trains, he might think twice and take truly holistic approach to such decisions. Show he is actually an "informed client". Which tbf, he does come across as. Which doesn't necessarily mean he is.

The only way Hendy's approach will work is if all local clients are forced to make their requests/demands to the GBR CEO level, as statutory equals, in recognition of the very obvious fact that it really doesn't matter what "willing railway people" at lower levels say if it conflicts with the GBR national strategy or the Treasury set budget.

 

[Clarence Yard]

Hendy’s approach is a return to Regional BR, vertically integrated geographical regions, based around the existing NR regions.

It isn’t anything more diverse. He envisages mayors and the like specifying services (and maybe running stations) and GBR operating them.