IETs into passenger service from 16 Oct 2017 and subsequent performance issues

[whole diary]

[grahame]

You have multiple factors at play in a business here, including the need for a business to maximise its short term income, and also maximise its medium to long term income through customer sentiment. They you need to consider the estimates your suppliers give you on delivery dates and teething curves, and how far off (and in which direction) they may turn out to be.  And you need to be aware that bad news makes the headlines and the gossip, where good news and good journeys rarely get viral exposure even if they account for 90% of your transactions.

Some curious factors come further in to the equation.  Long term business development through customer sentiment is not as valuable in our franchise or contract system as it would be in a "High Street Store" type environment (yes, I know they are in trouble), because every "n" years the franchise or contract is reset.  We have massive capital spend on the railways at present through RoSCOs^▸ (Rolling Stock Owning Company) and through Network Rail, but spend through TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company) for the future is somewhat more controlled.  It's still there - to meet franchise commitments, or where it can be sold / transferred on as part of an asset into the next franchise or management contract.   But there's a danger that a really good idea which has long term results will be held back into the next contract if that's due to start within a couple of years, because its setup cost cannot be clawed back in the remaining time, and its extra income may be lost beyond that point because it would increase the amount you had to bid for the continuing contract - such are the distortions of the current system of appointing train operators.  That's not me suggesting for a moment that "X" other system would be better - I have not seen any suggestion that's a "light bulb moment" on how you provide a public transport service and at the same time motivate operators and investment to do a superb job of providing it with passengers (and freight customers) first.

[SandTEngineer]

Some good points there, Grahame.

My solution to the problems.  Sell the whole lot off, lock stock and barrel. None of this silly fake franchising and national infrastructure provider stuff.

The Government might then have to renationalise the whole lot when it goes pear shaped and it all comes to a standstill afterwards......

Apologies, this has nothing to do with IETs^▸ (Intercity Express Train). In a very cynical mood this morning. I'll get my hat and coat....

[TaplowGreen]

You have multiple factors at play in a business here, including the need for a business to maximise its short term income, and also maximise its medium to long term income through customer sentiment. They you need to consider the estimates your suppliers give you on delivery dates and teething curves, and how far off (and in which direction) they may turn out to be.  And you need to be aware that bad news makes the headlines and the gossip, where good news and good journeys rarely get viral exposure even if they account for 90% of your transactions.

Some curious factors come further in to the equation.  Long term business development through customer sentiment is not as valuable in our franchise or contract system as it would be in a "High Street Store" type environment (yes, I know they are in trouble), because every "n" years the franchise or contract is reset.  We have massive capital spend on the railways at present through RoSCOs^▸ (Rolling Stock Owning Company) and through Network Rail, but spend through TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company) for the future is somewhat more controlled.  It's still there - to meet franchise commitments, or where it can be sold / transferred on as part of an asset into the next franchise or management contract.   But there's a danger that a really good idea which has long term results will be held back into the next contract if that's due to start within a couple of years, because its setup cost cannot be clawed back in the remaining time, and its extra income may be lost beyond that point because it would increase the amount you had to bid for the continuing contract - such are the distortions of the current system of appointing train operators.  That's not me suggesting for a moment that "X" other system would be better - I have not seen any suggestion that's a "light bulb moment" on how you provide a public transport service and at the same time motivate operators and investment to do a superb job of providing it with passengers (and freight customers) first.

I hope there's not too many splinters on that fence Graham 

[grahame]

I hope there's not too many splinters on that fence Graham 

So do I.

[TaplowGreen]

I hope there's not too many splinters on that fence Graham 

So do I.

😂👍

[broadgage]

Quite a few short formed IETs^▸ (Intercity Express Train) today, unusual for a Sunday.
Several of these are 9 car instead of 10 car, which does not matter much in itself as the capacity is almost the same.
It does however suggest a significant non availability of 5 car units.

I suspect the some rolling stock shortages are hidden by the normal Sunday staff shortages.

[CMRail]

Quite a few short formed IETs^▸ (Intercity Express Train) today, unusual for a Sunday.
Several of these are 9 car instead of 10 car, which does not matter much in itself as the capacity is almost the same.
It does however suggest a significant non availability of 5 car units.

I suspect the some rolling stock shortages are hidden by the normal Sunday staff shortages.

Still manage to cancel every Cheltenham HSS^▸ (High Speed Services), you’d never have guessed.

[grahame]

I suspect the some rolling stock shortages are hidden by the normal Sunday staff shortages.

With all the reasons and blame attribution that goes on ... I don't recall ever seeing a multiple reason:
"Shortage of drivers and in any case the train was broken"
"Tree blocking line - not really a problem as we didn't have a conductor"
Odd really, as you would expect there to be multiple problems some times, and indeed if a train was cancelled for one reason (it's run out of fuel) that would be a good reason to make that the train for which there was no driver, and for which there was no train manager!

[IndustryInsider]

One improvement over the last couple of months is a reduction in the number of 10-Cars running with 5 locked out of use - I haven’t seen one in ages.  Some might suggest that’s because of the large number of 5-car short forms, but it is nonetheless an improvement.

[Timmer]

One improvement over the last couple of months is a reduction in the number of 10-Cars running with 5 locked out of use - I haven’t seen one in ages.  Some might suggest that’s because of the large number of 5-car short forms, but it is nonetheless an improvement.

Indeed, it was a terrible advert highlighting the incompetency of the railways having everyone rammed into five carriages whilst the other five convey fresh air.

[stuving]

I suspect the some rolling stock shortages are hidden by the normal Sunday staff shortages.

With all the reasons and blame attribution that goes on ... I don't recall ever seeing a multiple reason:
"Shortage of drivers and in any case the train was broken"
"Tree blocking line - not really a problem as we didn't have a conductor"
Odd really, as you would expect there to be multiple problems some times, and indeed if a train was cancelled for one reason (it's run out of fuel) that would be a good reason to make that the train for which there was no driver, and for which there was no train manager!

Of course the boring reason you don't see that is that mostly you see the official declared cause, and in some places its delay attribution code. The DAPR (remember that?) does cover "Joint Responsibility incidents", but the range of these is quite narrow. However, there is a bit under the slightly alarming heading of "Reactionary Principles" that says:

As mentioned in paragraph B7.5, the group of Y* Codes (Reactionary Delays) are used to describe the effect of late running due to an earlier occurrence on the same or other trains. Although the ‘Minutes Delay’ carries a separate TRUST^▸ (Train Running System TOPS) Reactionary Delay Code they are still attributed to the principal Incident (i.e. the one that has the largest number of ‘Minutes Delay’ allocated to it that contributes to the lateness at that point). Where two or more Incidents have had the same affect then the Reactionary Delay must be split equally between them.

there is even a complicated example:

Suppose a Plymouth to York train is delayed as follows:-
At Plymouth:              10 minutes due to vehicle defect.   
Approaching Bristol:     3 minutes due to loss of path.   
Approaching Derby:      8 minutes due to signal failure.
Approaching Sheffield:  4 minutes due to waiting platform (due to its late running it has lost its platform ‘slot’).

The ‘Minutes Delay’ approaching Bristol would be attributed to the vehicle defect but using the Delay Code YC or YD to describe its loss of path. If no time were regained then the 4 ‘Minutes Delay’ approaching Sheffield would also be attributed to the vehicle defect using code YO since the 13 ‘Minutes Delay’ due to this exceeds the 8 ‘Minutes Delay’ due to the signal failure. However, if the train had regained all but 5 minutes by the time it left Birmingham, the delay outside Sheffield would be attributed to the signal failure since only 5 minutes of the lateness approaching Sheffield is due to the vehicle defect. It is important that the effects of subsequent incidents are properly taken into account when considering the attribution of reactionary delays, and determining where the earlier incident’s effects have ceased.

Apart from YL in respect of FOC^▸ (Freight Operating Company) delays (See N2(f)), the only other exception is where the main or only cause of delay is a P* coded incident in which case the code JB is to be used, reflecting that the location of the Recovery Time in the train schedule does not avoid conflicts with other trains after the TSR^▸ (Temporary Speed Restriction) has been encountered. See Section O2.

Of course most of that should never get into the public explanations - but if it does, you'll know where it came from.

[broadgage]

One improvement over the last couple of months is a reduction in the number of 10-Cars running with 5 locked out of use - I haven’t seen one in ages.  Some might suggest that’s because of the large number of 5-car short forms, but it is nonetheless an improvement.

Indeed, it was a terrible advert highlighting the incompetency of the railways having everyone rammed into five carriages whilst the other five convey fresh air.

Providing only 5 cars looks marginally better than providing 10 cars with 5 locked out of use, but the reduction in capacity is of course the same.
Looking at the number of 5 car instead of 9 or 5+5, on many recent days, would GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) have been able to staff both units ? had these been available.

[IndustryInsider]

Suppose a Plymouth to York train is delayed as follows:-
At Plymouth:              10 minutes due to vehicle defect.   
Approaching Bristol:     3 minutes due to loss of path.   
Approaching Derby:      8 minutes due to signal failure.
Approaching Sheffield:  4 minutes due to waiting platform (due to its late running it has lost its platform ‘slot’).

The ‘Minutes Delay’ approaching Bristol would be attributed to the vehicle defect but using the Delay Code YC or YD to describe its loss of path. If no time were regained then the 4 ‘Minutes Delay’ approaching Sheffield would also be attributed to the vehicle defect using code YO since the 13 ‘Minutes Delay’ due to this exceeds the 8 ‘Minutes Delay’ due to the signal failure. However, if the train had regained all but 5 minutes by the time it left Birmingham, the delay outside Sheffield would be attributed to the signal failure since only 5 minutes of the lateness approaching Sheffield is due to the vehicle defect. It is important that the effects of subsequent incidents are properly taken into account when considering the attribution of reactionary delays, and determining where the earlier incident’s effects have ceased.

Apart from YL in respect of FOC^▸ (Freight Operating Company) delays (See N2(f)), the only other exception is where the main or only cause of delay is a P* coded incident in which case the code JB is to be used, reflecting that the location of the Recovery Time in the train schedule does not avoid conflicts with other trains after the TSR^▸ (Temporary Speed Restriction) has been encountered. See Section O2.

And there in a nutshell is the ridiculous world of delay attribution, where TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company)'s, FOC's, and Network Rail have a good old squabble wasting large amounts of money, time and resources in the process, quite often coming to the wrong conclusions anyway.  There's a 139 page document that explains in more detail here:

http://www.delayattributionboard.co.uk/documents/dag_pdac/Current%20Delay%20Attribution%20Principles%20and%20Rules.pdf

Of course it would be nice if the industry was mature enough to not have to resort to such nonsense, especially given that even a major incident only sways the percentage of delay caused by one party to swing a couple of percentage points over a reporting period, and the overall average of roughly two thirds Network Rail and one third TOC's is pretty much a constant year on year.  The only argument for it is that I suppose it might encourage each organisation to minimise delays as much as they can - though we've seen precious little evidence of that recently.

[IndustryInsider]

Trains in the 1970s had buffets, so with the country now more than twice as wealthy as it was then, why are buffets now an unaffordable luxury ?

As has been said before, it's largely due to the large number of retail outlets available at stations which are generally selling better quality produce at cheaper prices than can be offered on the train.

I was thinking about this when I took a wander round Oxford station today.  Up until AMT Coffee arrived in the mid-90s, all that was available serving food IIRC^▸ (if I recall/remember/read correctly) at Oxford station was Travellers Fare (two outlets) and a John Menzies. 

Fast forward to today and you have an Asian food outlet, the West Cornwall Pasty Company shop, a Delice De France, WHSmith, an M&S, a much larger AMT Coffee outlet, Upper Crust, Pumpkin, and the bloke (Bepe?) who serves burgers out the front.  There's even some vending machines on the platform if you're really desperate.  No wonder few people buy on board these days.

[Umberleigh]

Back in 1999 four of us travelled from Totnes to Paddington day return. It was rare for us all to be together on a business trip and we had been looking forward to it. Indeed,  we even secured off-peak First Class tickets to make it an occasion.

Business done we caught our return service at 19.30, looking forward to a few G&Ts and snacks from the buffet, only discover that the buffet had not been restocked and was down to a handful of items. The crew blamed this on theft at the depot...!

Needless to say, we were disappointed and ever since then I have stocked up at Paddington’s Sainsbury and/or M&S prior to departure