Posted 8th June 2012 | 6 Comments
Call for more local control of rail in north
The Northern franchise is now due to end in May 2014, having been extended by the DfT
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.
Reader Comments:
Views expressed in submitted comments are that of the author, and not necessarily shared by Railnews.
Steve Alston, Crewe
As a former manager of First Transpennine Express, I can only agree that a merger would be a good thing.
The huge 'real terms' difference in subsidy is unfair. First Transpennine Express inherited a massive income from ticket revenue from Arriva, whilst Northern's subsidy is barely enough to run their trains.
The removal of the Transpennine franchise should have happened long ago, as the income from those services, under BR, previously cross-funded the local services. Nowadays, much of that money is diverted to shareholders, and taxpayers pick up the shortfall.
david c smith, milton keynes
Whilst I'm in favour of competition between TOC's to promote innovation, efficiency and customer - responsiveness, I can't see a way for the present network of lines, post Beecing rationalisation, to run on a competitive basis.
One way forward for infrastructure, with the above in mind might be to follow Sweden and integrate road and rail infrastructure under a unified authority. Motorways and trunk roads already administered by the Highways Authority together with main intercity / long - distance rail lines could come under one body, whilst more minor roads and local rail lines could be administered together by local / regional authorities.
Mike, Liverpool
The merger of Northern and Transpennine may not the best option, as the geographical area served is far too large. One body of opinion is that the franchises should be split back into their original format - North Eastern and North Western. North Eastern, based in York, would have control of the actual transpennine services (e.g. Liverpool - Scarborough & Manchester Airport - Newcastle etc), whilst North Western, based in Manchester, would take over the Manchester - Scotland services.
lorentz, London
What exactly is it that they what more of that is not offered by existing bodies? Why can they not achieve their objectives by closer coordination with the DfT, ORR and Network Rail like other authorities? They propose an additional layer of bureaucracy yet talk of cost reductions, based on unpublished research that is unsubstantiated as are the claims of a raw deal from existing arrangements.
The trouble is that too much money has been poured into the provinces due to political considerations over the years, with little regard to value for money and to the detriment of the London &South East regions. As an example, look at the money given to Merseytravel which did not have any real use for it and ended up spending money on a submarine and museums, and which now proposes to spend up to three years on procurement of new stock when it is not yet required.
Lex, Cumbria
While I agree that the North needs more investment - it's a little unfair to compare the life of rolling stock with that of the South. Most of the southern rolling stock was slam door or not DDA compliant, it had to be replaced. Although old, most of the northern stock is at least "safe".
David McDonald, Rickmansworth
Totally Agree. I lived in the north most of my life and the northern rail stock is a embarrassment. I moved to Herts recently and its like living in luxury with the rail stock here.