Posted 30th September 2014 | 10 Comments

West Midlands councils call for rail devolution

AS pressure grows for more devolution of powers from central to regional and local government, 14 local councils  – metropolitan, shire and unitary authorities – have launched a bid to take over responsibility for overseeing rail services throughout the West Midlands once the existing London Midland franchise ends in 2017.

Meeting in Stafford, the 14 councils (Birmingham, Coventry, Dudley, Herefordshire, Northamptonshire, Sandwell, Shropshire, Solihull, Staffordshire, Telford and Wrekin, Walsall, Warwickshire, Wolverhampton and Worcestershire) agreed to create a consortium titled West Midlands Rail.  

Chairman of WMR is Councillor Roger Lawrence, leader of Wolverhampton City Council and already chairman of West Midlands Integrated Transport Authority, which embraces the metropolitan areas within the new consortium.

Cllr Lawrence explained: “This proposition is a major step towards securing local management and ultimately delivering better rail services focussed on the real needs of West Midlands passengers.

“The local rail network has a key role to play in supporting the region's economy and holding more responsibility here in the West Midlands will help make sure that new investment is best targeted to create growth and jobs.

“It would also help ensure the local rail network fully connects and feeds into the forthcoming high speed rail line, thereby maximising the significant economic benefits offered by HS2.”

The consortium said that transferring more responsibility for the London Midand franchise from the Department for Transport would enable the West Midlands to use local knowledge to lay down minimum standards of service, including punctuality and reliability and have the power to hold the train operator to account.

The councils said devolution could also provide an opportunity to set fares locally, offering fairer pricing for passengers, while locally managed stations could mean improved passenger information, better security and staffing and upgraded facilities such as more cycle parking.

The move could also mean more frequent trains and better integration with bus and tram services while easing the way for a network wide ‘smartcard’ that can be used on all modes of public transport.

The WMR group added that only two areas of the UK presently have locally-managed rail networks – Merseyside and London. Both have been highly successful in terms of passenger satisfaction, passenger growth and punctuality, added WMR.

Reader Comments:

Views expressed in submitted comments are that of the author, and not necessarily shared by Railnews.

  • Chris Neville-Smith, Durham, England

    Actually ... coming to think of it, the LM Euston service might not be an issue for too long. I vaguely remember someone says that there was a plan to merge West Coast and London Midland services out of Euston into a single franchise once HS2 phase 1 is running. If you add Birmingham-London services to that franchise, Add Birmingham-Liverpool into that franchise, and that leaves you with a reasonable West Midlands-centric network.

    Only snag is that you'd have to wait another 12 years before you can do that.

  • A. Huxley, Dillydale

    The notion that the London Midland franchise could be run on a PTE/Local concern model is indeed questionable. However the routes within the LM franchise do support some form of slicing into more appropriate portions.

    The Cross-city is a perfect opportunity to have a self- contained (almost segregated) operation which could be managed quite easily by a local concession/management contract. Indeed such an approach may welcome the opportunity to consider such exotic notions such as Driver Only Operations or lets go for it, a self- contained Driverless Operation - yes you heard it, and why not. The route is around 32 miles long, has 24 stations operated by the incumbent, is virtually separated (operationally at least) and operates a metro like timetable. Sounds like a Tramlink operation to me.

    With regards to the regional stuff – well a West Coast franchise would love to have Euston to Birmingham/Liverpool and I am sure they are not alone. But wait, what about franchise expiry dates: Virgin April 2017, London Midland June 2017, East Midlands October 2017.

  • Melvyn Windebank, Canvey Island, Essex

    I remember how the former Silverlink franchise was split when TFL took over Euston to Watford service with longer services transferred to London Midland.

    Now if the West Midlands sets up its own area a question of who will run long distance services to London may arise ?

  • Lutz, London

    A 'Me too' throwing of the rattle out of the pram..

  • Rob, Stafford

    Crikey - some joined up thinking. hope it happens and that we can get a connected up network in the Midlands.

  • david c smith, milton keynes

    I have felt for a while that local, natural monopoly operations should be run differently to intercity and long distance commercial ones where effective competition is feasible.

    Local services could be run as cooperatives with directly elected ( by a combination of season ticket holders and local taxpaers )managements, whilst local infrastrucyure, both road and rail cold also come under a single local manager. ( Nationally, why not administer both Highways Agency roads and rail main lines under a unified management ? Something similar is already in place in Sweden )

  • Robert Palmer, Norwich

    Didn't they have those powers once? They were called PTE's I seem to recall but they sung from a different hymn sheet to Mrs Thatcher so she abolished them!

  • Chris Neville-Smith, Durham, England

    Hmm. Easier said than done. Merseyside can easily run Merseyrail because it's a small self-contained network almost entirely within Merseyside. A similar thing applies for London with the Underground, Overground and soon Crossrail.

    How you'd apply this to London Midland, when the LM lines extend way beyond the West Midlands, I'm not sure. Open to suggestions for how this will work, but what I wouldn't want to see it LM services being neglected outside of the West Midlands because the overseeing body thinks it's not their problem.

  • Tony Pearce, Reading

    This is I presume going back to the situation that existed in the 1970s when the West Midlands Council under Stanley Yapp ran and funded all Rail Services. I remember badgering Sir Stan to find the funding to keep the Stourbridge Line open, - which he did and Britains shortest railway remains open to this day. However Councils across the UK are now desperately short of money (its being spent on Care services or being cut by Government) and I would argue that there is no way that the current Council will be able to find any money to 'subsidise' services like reducing ticket costs or investing in extra facilities. The future of Public Finance in the UK is basically one of cuts until 2020, and then very little spare cash until the Government Deficit of over £1,250,000,000,000 is reduced.

  • David Faircloth, Derby

    BBC 'East Midlands Today' recently reported that meetings have also taken place between elected representatives from both East and West Midlands to see about improving rail and road links between the two areas; however, the news report didn't suggest that something along similar lines was proposed (no pun intended!), simply that the two areas were considering how to improve links so that the Midlands could be viewed in a simiar way to the "northern powerhouse" now being mentioned by the Chancellor.

    BBC East Midlands news also reported (on 29th September) that the Secretary of State for Transports had announced at the Conservative Party conference that £3m was to be invested in the Nottingham - Newark - Lincoln line; exactly what this was for wasn't explained, but an improved service from next May had already been announced before the conference (additional trains between Nottingham and Newark and a speeding up of some between Lincoln and Nottingham, presumably by cutting-out some stops).