Manchester and Liverpool mayors call for termination of Northern rail

[DavidB-AU]

The mayors of Greater Manchester and Liverpool city region have called on the transport secretary to terminate the Northern rail franchise after a year of sustained misery for passengers.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/may/29/manchester-and-liverpool-mayors-call-for-termination-of-northern-rail-franchise

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-48443964

[Barry O]

Perhaps they can also ask that a major culprit (Network Rail)) be nationalised ?  Oops, silly me it already is.

Network Rail have already said (in the press release regarding giving away a Pacwr) that they have delivered lots of improvements..well yes, at a price and with the odd delay or two. No platform improvements finished at Leeds so no new sets in service..

Baz

[Mallard60022]

17 minutes ago, Barry O said:

Perhaps they can also ask that a major culprit (Network Rail)) be nationalised ?  Oops, silly me it already is.

Network Rail have already said (in the press release regarding giving away a Pacwr) that they have delivered lots of improvements..well yes, at a price and with the odd delay or two. No platform improvements finished at Leeds so no new sets in service..

Baz

Is it because they do not have enough Staff  for the amount of infrastructure stuff that is being tackled and demanded by DAFT? Don't answer that Baz!  I seem to encounter loads of Contractors doing Stuff, however that is often the smaller tasks that seem to be going on and maybe LNER work rather than NR as it is off track? 

[Barry O]

Ducky, poor management, lack of know how and they keep taking work on..they have known of the platform changes required in Leeds for over two years. Have they got on with it? Err no. 

I worked for a company who did sub contract work for them. The guys and gals at local level were good but had useless bosses.

Baz

[Covkid]

There isn't a "one size" answer to this but it certainly isn't all the fault of Network Rail or Arriva. Much of the blame lies with John Major's privatisation model introduced in the 1990s. It is asking too much of the industry to have boom & bust rolling stock renewal programmes and complex increases in timetables, which in turn lead to huge rew recruitment and training programmes.  This is what the Northern Franchise has suffered from since Arriva took the system over from the previous "stagnant" operation in 2015.

 

It actually wasn't "stagnant" but was suffering a lack of investment in staff and more trains which left the 2015 franchise with a significant resourcing problem in terms of new and replacement trains and literally hundreds more staff to recruit and train.  

 

One of the criticisms is the Sunday cancellations which is partly staff T&Cs and partly insufficient staff to robustly operate a 7 day a week service, but the massive training programme also causes weekend working problems. Imagine Dvr Joe Bloggs who currently drives classes 142, 150 and 156, but has to train on 158, 195, 319, 323 and 331. Joe's training is based on Monday to Friday so will not be working any of his weekend rostered duties.  In addition to Joe's detachment, he will also have Suzie, a colleague driver instructor on a 1-2-1 basis, who will also need detaching from her duties including whatever weekend work she might have had in her roster.   Multiply the Joe and Suzie scenario many times at many depots and you will quickly see what a lack of investment in the franchise prior to Arriva taking over in 2015 has done. Yes there are new fleets of 195 and 331 and some electric train working, but there are also many thousand hours of training on the various "stock" classes of stock in the Northern fleet.

 

 

[pete_mcfarlane]

I'm assuming this is to be followed by further press release in a couple of weeks where the two (Labour) mayors have a go at Chris Grayling for not terminating the contract, and call for him to resign?

 

It seems like a bit of headline generating politicking rather than a useful intervention.

 

 

[Mike Storey]

The timing is indeed very strange. Northern have just posted their best performance (in Q4) for over a year, and their best cancellation and over 30 mins late figures since 2017 (both of which indicate the very significant effect of the Saturday strikes, which ceased in January after 47 weeks). They have also introduced 2,000 extra services in the past year, and this TT change seemed to pass with few problems. Over 100 of their hi-spec refurbishments of the Sprinter and other fleets are now complete, and well received. Their new Class 331 sets are now entering service at last between Leeds and Doncaster (subject to some apparently vague, last-minute requirements by the ORR), and the faults on the Class 195 sets are sorted with first into passenger service due in July. Final removal of all Pacers is confidently planned by December (but not "guaranteed" right now). The remaining issue seems to be short formations, but this is not a problem unique to Northern.

 

So I don't get it. Perhaps the politicos have decided to have this last dig before it becomes obvious that things really are, at last, changing for the better?

 

Having used them now and again over the past two years on trips from Hebden Bridge, I have not found them to be any worse than most and significantly better than many other TOCs, but then, I have not been commuting at peak times, so defer to others on that.

 

[woodenhead]

17 minutes ago, pete_mcfarlane said:

I'm assuming this is to be followed by further press release in a couple of weeks where the two (Labour) mayors have a go at Chris Grayling for not terminating the contract, and call for him to resign?

 

It seems like a bit of headline generating politicking rather than a useful intervention.

 

 

Makes a change from Brexit, but it is clear 'We're up for re-election' activity.

 

What did Andy Burnham deliver to Greater Manchester as a north answer to Oyster - the Get Me There card - except it isn't anything like Oyster and it isn't one card it is a card and an app and you have to buy your ticket in advance.

[John-Miles]

London gets to run its own transport system so why not  the North West, West Midlands, North East, etc.

['CHARD]

9 minutes ago, John-Miles said:

London gets to run its own transport system so why not  the North West, West Midlands, North East, etc.

 

How long have you got!  

[Fat Controller]

9 minutes ago, John-Miles said:

London gets to run its own transport system so why not  the North West, West Midlands, North East, etc.

In the dim distant days, there were things called 'Passenger Transport Executives' in areas such as 'West Midlands', SELNEC (Manchester), Merseyside, South Yorkshire, West Yorkshire, Tyne and Wear, Strathclyde; these co-ordinated bus and local rail services, set up through ticketing etc. Sadly, in the late 1970s, TBW was elected and decided to break them up, as 'competition would offer a better deal for the passenger'

[woodenhead]

12 minutes ago, Fat Controller said:

In the dim distant days, there were things called 'Passenger Transport Executives' in areas such as 'West Midlands', SELNEC (Manchester), Merseyside, South Yorkshire, West Yorkshire, Tyne and Wear, Strathclyde; these co-ordinated bus and local rail services, set up through ticketing etc. Sadly, in the late 1970s, TBW was elected and decided to break them up, as 'competition would offer a better deal for the passenger'

Except in London which eventually became TFL and how I wish Manchester had such an organisation to co-ordinate and rejuvenate public transport.

[Mike Storey]

23 minutes ago, John-Miles said:

London gets to run its own transport system so why not  the North West, West Midlands, North East, etc.

 

But London doesn't, entirely, yet. It took forty years for TfL, and its predecessor, to argue for taking a wider role beyond the tube and buses. It was the "rescue" of the North London Line by TfL in the 2000's, as the first part of the London Overground, which demonstrated what could be done, and the concept expanded gradually to what it is now. But the London Overground still does not control all national rail services in and around London. It is unlikely to, for the foreseeable future, especially whilst it tries to to sort out Crossrail.

 

But be careful what you wish for - London now receives no funding from national government for operations, and only minor amounts for capital investment, mostly in the form of loans.

 

But, have you not heard of Nexus, Network West Midlands, West Yorks Metro, Manchester TfGM and Merseytravel? These are all still existing, descendants of the Passenger Transport Executives/Authorities. What changed them was bus deregulation, which meant integrated and comprehensive transport management became far more difficult - it would be far more effective to campaign to re-regulate buses than control train networks? They nevertheless control (and partly fund) significant aspects of local train operations, and of course totally control local tram systems. They are also much more closely involved in specifying TOC conditions in each franchise renewal.  It is not much point in their taking over total control of local rail, when it is so integrated into longer distance operation (except perhaps parts of Mersey Rail and similar).

 

Surely the real need is for the various authorities to come much closer together, under the umbrella of Transport for the North, to agree policy and strategy across the region, instead of just fighting for very local interests. There is progress but too slowly - witness the delay in agreeing a single remit for Powerhouse North. I believe there is, or was recently, some willingness for Whitehall to devolve significant power, and some money, to such a body.

 

[Zomboid]

The mayors are missing the real point. The big part of the problem problem isn't who holds the franchise, it's who specifies and awards it, and the content of that contract.

 

I'm no defender of the faith when it comes to the operators or the franchising structure, but changing the name above the door isn't on its own going to solve any problems unless the new name is asked to do a bunch of different things to what the current name is doing.

[cs233]

The 195 units also have technical problems which as far as I know still do not have a resolution plan. The bar coupler issue is the most serious plus other niggles. The fleet has not got off to a convincing start.

[Mike Storey]

2 hours ago, cs233 said:

The 195 units also have technical problems which as far as I know still do not have a resolution plan. The bar coupler issue is the most serious plus other niggles. The fleet has not got off to a convincing start.

 

According to an apparently well-informed poster on another forum, the problem has been solved and several units have been modified, and the rest of the fleet will be done "soon". However, internally, Northern Rail staff appear to be being told that service entry is put back to September, and not July.

 

But, there is a plan to get rid of Pacers by December, even if not all Class 195's are in service (and assuming the NW power supply upgrade can be done to allow the Class 319's to enter service in the summer, which are currently being covered by DMU's). It would seem that the TPE Class 185's are not going to Northern Ireland this year, and there is now a sufficient cascade of other DMU's (mainly 153's I believe) actual and expected.

 

I simply cannot find out about the Class 331's. Does anyone know whether one or more actually entered revenue service between Leeds and Doncaster last week?

[Market65]

I can say that no 331’s entered service last week. Driver training etc, is still ongoing. As to when to they might enter service is not yet known unfortunately.

 

Rob.

[RANGERS]

8 hours ago, Mike Storey said:

 

But London doesn't, entirely, yet. It took forty years for TfL, and its predecessor, to argue for taking a wider role beyond the tube and buses. It was the "rescue" of the North London Line by TfL in the 2000's, as the first part of the London Overground, which demonstrated what could be done, and the concept expanded gradually to what it is now. But the London Overground still does not control all national rail services in and around London. It is unlikely to, for the foreseeable future, especially whilst it tries to to sort out Crossrail.

 

But be careful what you wish for - London now receives no funding from national government for operations, and only minor amounts for capital investment, mostly in the form of loans.

 

But, have you not heard of Nexus, Network West Midlands, West Yorks Metro, Manchester TfGM and Merseytravel? These are all still existing, descendants of the Passenger Transport Executives/Authorities. What changed them was bus deregulation, which meant integrated and comprehensive transport management became far more difficult - it would be far more effective to campaign to re-regulate buses than control train networks? They nevertheless control (and partly fund) significant aspects of local train operations, and of course totally control local tram systems. They are also much more closely involved in specifying TOC conditions in each franchise renewal.  It is not much point in their taking over total control of local rail, when it is so integrated into longer distance operation (except perhaps parts of Mersey Rail and similar).

 

Surely the real need is for the various authorities to come much closer together, under the umbrella of Transport for the North, to agree policy and strategy across the region, instead of just fighting for very local interests. There is progress but too slowly - witness the delay in agreeing a single remit for Powerhouse North. I believe there is, or was recently, some willingness for Whitehall to devolve significant power, and some money, to such a body.

 

Are we really suggesting that a TfL approach would solve all ills outside London?

 

TfL loses circa £2m a day, most of it on the buses. Elsewhere, across the rest of the country as a whole, total bus subsidies are a fraction of what the TfL network needs to prop it up. By all means re-regulate buses, and then cut around £10-12bn from other services to provide a bus network comparable to that which London currently enjoys, but undoubtedly not for much longer.

 

London does work, but at a price, a price which there is now a slowly dawning realisation is one which the Capital, and more critically the country simply can’t afford.

[RANGERS]

8 hours ago, Mike Storey said:

 

But London doesn't, entirely, yet. It took forty years for TfL, and its predecessor, to argue for taking a wider role beyond the tube and buses. It was the "rescue" of the North London Line by TfL in the 2000's, as the first part of the London Overground, which demonstrated what could be done, and the concept expanded gradually to what it is now. But the London Overground still does not control all national rail services in and around London. It is unlikely to, for the foreseeable future, especially whilst it tries to to sort out Crossrail.

 

But be careful what you wish for - London now receives no funding from national government for operations, and only minor amounts for capital investment, mostly in the form of loans.

 

But, have you not heard of Nexus, Network West Midlands, West Yorks Metro, Manchester TfGM and Merseytravel? These are all still existing, descendants of the Passenger Transport Executives/Authorities. What changed them was bus deregulation, which meant integrated and comprehensive transport management became far more difficult - it would be far more effective to campaign to re-regulate buses than control train networks? They nevertheless control (and partly fund) significant aspects of local train operations, and of course totally control local tram systems. They are also much more closely involved in specifying TOC conditions in each franchise renewal.  It is not much point in their taking over total control of local rail, when it is so integrated into longer distance operation (except perhaps parts of Mersey Rail and similar).

 

Surely the real need is for the various authorities to come much closer together, under the umbrella of Transport for the North, to agree policy and strategy across the region, instead of just fighting for very local interests. There is progress but too slowly - witness the delay in agreeing a single remit for Powerhouse North. I believe there is, or was recently, some willingness for Whitehall to devolve significant power, and some money, to such a body.

 

Are we really suggesting that a TfL approach would solve all ills outside London?

 

TfL loses circa £2m a day, most of it on the buses. Elsewhere, across the rest of the country as a whole, total bus subsidies are a fraction of what the TfL network needs to prop it up. By all means re-regulate buses, and then cut around £10-12bn from other services to provide a bus network comparable to that which London currently enjoys, but undoubtedly not for much longer.

 

London does work, but at a price, a price which there is now a slowly dawning realisation is one which the Capital, and more critically the country simply can’t afford.

[DY444]

There seems to be this aura surrounding TfL, most notably from commentators who don't live anywhere near London.  For a while it set the standard on a number of fronts (Oyster, Overground etc) but now it is slowly but surely crumbling and serious cracks are beginning to show.  A combination of political grandstanding, a big squeeze on treasury subsidy and incompetence is taking a big toll.  A number of major projects have been cancelled or deferred indefinitely, those that are ongoing are all late and over budget and asset condition is deteriorating particularly on the underground.   The condition of the TfL "maintained" trunk road network is now noticeably worse than that of the surrounding Traffic England and County Council maintained network (and as Surrey was once dubbed the pothole capital of the UK that is saying something). 

 

In my view TfL is too big, too political, too into empire building and has lost sight of its principle objective which is to run transport in Greater London. 

[woodenhead]

1 hour ago, DY444 said:

There seems to be this aura surrounding TfL, most notably from commentators who don't live anywhere near London.  For a while it set the standard on a number of fronts (Oyster, Overground etc) but now it is slowly but surely crumbling and serious cracks are beginning to show.  A combination of political grandstanding, a big squeeze on treasury subsidy and incompetence is taking a big toll.  A number of major projects have been cancelled or deferred indefinitely, those that are ongoing are all late and over budget and asset condition is deteriorating particularly on the underground.   The condition of the TfL "maintained" trunk road network is now noticeably worse than that of the surrounding Traffic England and County Council maintained network (and as Surrey was once dubbed the pothole capital of the UK that is saying something). 

 

In my view TfL is too big, too political, too into empire building and has lost sight of its principle objective which is to run transport in Greater London. 

The basic way TFL was an integrated hop on hop off service is what attracts us, plus bus services that are not at the whim of the operator.

 

Road condition is not constrained to London, they're bad everywhere now.

 

I know it isn't perfect but it's closer to an ideal than the free for all that is Manchester with it's Get me there card.

 

Andy Burnham is looking to regulate the buses again, it's still in consultation but First bus have thrown in the towel and sold the operation to Go Ahead who operate 23% of London's regulated services.

[Mike Storey]

11 hours ago, RANGERS said:

Are we really suggesting that a TfL approach would solve all ills outside London?

 

TfL loses circa £2m a day, most of it on the buses. Elsewhere, across the rest of the country as a whole, total bus subsidies are a fraction of what the TfL network needs to prop it up. By all means re-regulate buses, and then cut around £10-12bn from other services to provide a bus network comparable to that which London currently enjoys, but undoubtedly not for much longer.

 

London does work, but at a price, a price which there is now a slowly dawning realisation is one which the Capital, and more critically the country simply can’t afford.

 

I am not sure that is a fair appraisal. I would certainly not advocate a one size fits all approach.

 

But TfL were making an operating profit up until a few years ago, whilst all the time modernising the tube and expanding the Overground system, and TramLink, as well as massively increasing cycle routes and so on. The loss of £700m govt grant has been a massive blow at the same time as passenger numbers unexpectedly dropped, although now recovering, and CrossRail opening has been delayed. The partial fares freeze is also not helping, but that is a commitment the Mayor made and he is sticking to it, and being criticised for actually doing what he promised. There are active plans in place to halve the deficit, but that is beside the point. London is now the ONLY capital in Europe not to receive any central subsidy whatsoever (bar cheap loans).

 

More relevant is that London does have a London-wide transport strategy (bar a few rail lines) and has been implementing it. The "North" does not, but wishes it did. How to get from here to there?

 

[Mike Storey]

1 hour ago, DY444 said:

 

In my view TfL is too big, too political, too into empire building and has lost sight of its principle objective which is to run transport in Greater London. 

 

What size would you advocate for the most extensive and complex transport network in Europe? Only Paris comes close in complexity, but is much smaller in terms of users and mileage (about the size of Zone 3, discounting the RER). The only politics come from the elected London Assembly and Mayor's office, who direct it's strategy and approve its annual business plans and accounts.

 

Before TfL was given its wings, transport in London was being run, but into the ground.

 

[DY444]

13 minutes ago, Mike Storey said:

 

The partial fares freeze is also not helping, but that is a commitment the Mayor made and he is sticking to it, and being criticised for actually doing what he promised.

 

 

I don't think he is being criticised for actually doing what he promised.  He is being criticised because what he promised was expected to cripple TfL's finances and it has.

[DY444]

2 minutes ago, Mike Storey said:

 

What size would you advocate for the most extensive and complex transport network in Europe? Only Paris comes close in complexity, but is much smaller in terms of users and mileage (about the size of Zone 3, discounting the RER). The only politics come from the elected London Assembly and Mayor's office, who direct it's strategy and approve its annual business plans and accounts.

 

Before TfL was given its wings, transport in London was being run, but into the ground.

 

 

I'd advocate it concentrating on Greater London.  I may be in a minority of one but I think it is absurd that TfL is going to be running services to Reading.  The politics which "only" come from the Mayor's office in particular have a huge impact, the fares freeze for example.