Comment: an integrated transport plan

The directly elected mayor of Greater Manchester, Andy Burnham, has launched a bid to control rail services in the conurbation, as part of an integrated transport plan which includes the franchised Bee bus network.

The proposal, which in principle has the backing of the Department for Transport and Network Rail, will see services managed on eight routes serving 64 stations by 2028, with a further 32 stations added by 2030.

The intended action reflects what has taken place with the London Overground network, where separate routes have been brought together into a single entity with a unified fares structure.

It is not surprising that the mayor has intervened. Brought under the direct control of the DfT five years ago, the former Northern franchise continues to struggle with reliability issues - despite the import of new rolling stock, amounting to 290 vehicles that replaced the problematic Pacer units and older electric sets.

The next stage in fleet replacement has started, with a tender for 450 vehicles issued in January this year, inviting bids from five rolling stock manufacturing companies. The bulk of this new fleet will replace the Sprinter vehicles first introduced more than 40 years ago, together with units for newly electrified lines. The diesel replacements are described as multiple mode.

There is little doubt that ageing rolling stock is a constraint on train performance - as a result of declining availability, often due to a difficulty in obtaining spare parts.

Passenger amenities have also failed to keep pace with expectations, particularly with regards to a lack of air-conditioning and inappropriate seating layouts for metro-style services.

Many stations in Greater Manchester are also outdated, and at present unsuited to providing a gated network that allows the introduction of tap-in tap-out ticketing.

Between now and 2028, the number of stations that provide step-free access (which appeals to family travel as well as for passengers of reduced mobility) will increase from 43% to 60%.

The business case for a new station at Golborne, at a cost of £32 million, has also been approved. Work will start in 2026 in time for a planned opening in 2027.

As far as overall funding is concerned, the Greater Manchester Combined Authority is to be asked to allocate £34m from the City Region Sustainable Transport settlement to support the development and delivery of the programme, with a further £80m to complete work scheduled for completion by the end of 2028.

Robust plans are also needed to address the critical lack of capacity in central Manchester.

Some alleviation has been provided by improved platform utilisation at Manchester Victoria, which has reduced the demand for paths through the Castlefield Corridor. But it does not cater for the prospect of additional intermodal services to the terminal at Trafford Park, although there are plans to relocate the facility.

A factor in the capacity shortfall for heavy rail operations was the conversion of the Chester to Manchester Central (closed in 1969) mid-Cheshire line beyond Altrincham, to form part of the Metrolink light rail system. This left only a route with sections of single line to reach Manchester Piccadilly via Stockport.

Another city centre station was closed in 1969 when services using Manchester Exchange station were diverted to Manchester Victoria.

Thus, two of the four Manchester termini were lost, whereas passenger usage has more than doubled since the closures.

A bold solution would be to proceed with a three-mile access line from the mid-Cheshire route at Mobberley to Manchester Airport. This would convert the station to a through route, for which the design of the station was future-proofed. Trains from Chester and North Wales could reach central Manchester, releasing capacity on the Chat Moss route.

What is proposed reflects the success of the Merseyrail concession, awarded by what is now the Liverpool City Region for a period of 25 years from 2003. This has proved a recipe for stability and has provided the basis for new rolling stock which is currently coming into service.

Originally, a franchised operator was appointed in 1997, but the self-contained nature of the network led to the transfer to local authority control. There was a view at the time that responsibility for the dedicated routes could also be devolved, but it was judged there would be too much financial exposure to significant infrastructure failures.

For both Merseyrail and Manchester Bee, there will be interest in the future structure of operations and the relationship with the future profit and loss account for Great British Railways.

The contractual relationship is likely to be that fare box revenue is retained by the combined authorities (as it is by Transport for London), with GBR income realised from track and station access charges.

This is a pattern that will be repeated in other situations - in particular for Transport for Wales and ScotRail.

And the freight operating companies and open access passenger operators can be added to this list, which brings a conclusion that GBR in part will adopt the structure of a track authority.

It will run the former franchises as contracts expire, as well as those currently under DfT control. But it is hard not to see that the Competition and Markets Authority, as well as the Office of Rail and Road, will want clarity on the allocation of infrastructure costs for the different traffic categories.

There are lessons about past cost allocation by British Rail. When sector management was introduced in 1982, the aim was that business units would underwrite the need for specific infrastructure, rather than the past pro-rata allocation of costs incurred without any ability to challenge the work being undertaken.

After the 1993 Railways Act, the then Rail Regulator decided that the network required for passenger services, with a contractual requirement within franchise agreements, must bear the standing cost of the network. Other activities would pay for their operations based on a tariff for the rolling stock used, and the wear and tear caused.

This is a thought piece, but it is apparent we cannot return to a situation where a monopoly infrastructure provider decides who uses the network, and must make access available at non-discriminatory prices to the range of passenger and freight service providers that exist.