Rail firms should not be paid when trains run late

[whole diary]

[TaplowGreen]

Interesting from Grant Shapps………….

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/rail-firms-should-not-be-paid-when-trains-run-late-says-grant-shapps-a4241131.html

[JayMac]

Have to say that I like the idea of a central body responsible for collecting fare revenue.

What I don't want to see though is the pressure to keep to time put unduly on to front line staff. There's a danger there of promoting punctuality ahead of safety.

[CyclingSid]

What I don't want to see though is the pressure to keep to time put unduly on to front line staff. There's a danger there of promoting punctuality ahead of safety.

... and ahead of passenger service? Especially those needing assisted travel.

[infoman]

When last in Ireland rail staff said to me that if their is a infrastructure problem the rail TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company) gets a payment.

If a train breaks down on the tracks,no payment is made from the TOC.

In the U.K. and in my opinion there must be as much money goes one way as goes the other way,
PLUS all the staff as well as time spent finding out who was responible for the delays.

[grahame]

What I don't want to see though is the pressure to keep to time put unduly on to front line staff. There's a danger there of promoting punctuality ahead of safety.

... and ahead of passenger service? Especially those needing assisted travel.

I have not seen evidence of punctuality ahead of safety or heard of it in recent years. But, agreed, it is something to be mindful of with future metrics.  As it stands today, if there is the slightest concern with the state of train, track, or staff a train is cancelled, and the only "races" are for quick turn arounds and station duties  to make up time loss.  I can't recall being on a late train that's speeding along to the extent that the ride feels more bouncy than normal.

Not easy for me to comment beyond what I have read here on assisted travel.   "Ahead of Passenger service"  I would suggest that at times we have a problem with connections - many's the time I've had a train which should have connected pull out within site - dumping what is at times a not-inconsiderable number of people for a not-inconsiderable number of minutes.  There will always be times a decision has to be made to avoid knock on delays, but personally I would prefer a robust timetable and a reliable service even if it means a few more minutes in the schedule.  Psychologically, that may be best achieved by running trains a little below top speed between stations.

[grahame]

When last in Ireland rail staff said to me that if their is a infrastructure problem the rail TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company) gets a payment.

If a train breaks down on the tracks,no payment is made from the TOC.

In the U.K. and in my opinion there must be as much money goes one way as goes the other way,
PLUS all the staff as well as time spent finding out who was responible for the delays.

I would love to see a money-go-round diagram with all the major players / groups shown, and flow lines between them (the thicker the line, the more money), showing how rail finance really works.  Anyone know of such a diagram or care to draw one up??