the Increasingly Frustrating Thameslink

[AM9]

Wrong. If you plan to run no trains in a day your PPM can't get worse. If you do run trains it can get worse

But as Bald Rick says, it "doesn't boost the average for a period or year".

 

[talltim]

It's a boost if every other day lowers the average...

 

[Stats]

The Thameslink website makes no reference to Southern accepting TL tickets:

Alternative travel options

Passengers may use London Underground and South West Trains services on any reasonable route.

I am sure Southern were also accepting TL tickets, but it's typical of TL that they can't be bothered to maintain accurate and timely information on their site.

Erm, shouldn't you be directing your ire at NRE? The disruption info is an RSS feed from NRE as it is with most TOCs.

 

[asylumxl]

It's a boost if every other day lowers the average...

Which is sadly almost true.

 

[Hadders]

I know far fewer commuters travel between Christmas and the New Year but GN is running fewer trains (Saturday timetable?) AND running them as 4 cars.

The 0739 from Stevenage is full and standing.

Not good.

 

[Bald Rick]

Wrong. If you plan to run no trains in a day your PPM can't get worse. If you do run trains it can get worse

Allow me to explain. I didn't say it would get worse. I did say it wouldn't get better.

If, in an imaginary 28 day reporting period, a TOC runs 2773 each day. On day 1, it runs all 2773, but only 1387 meet the definition of 'on time' by PPM. It thus has a PPM for the day of 50%.

For reasons I can't be bothered to make up, on days 2-28 of the period, it cancels almost it's entire service for the day, leaving just 1 train planned each day. And mirabile dictu it runs each and every day, and is on time. PPM for days 2-27 is thus 100% for each of those days.

So a reminder. PPM for day 1 is 50.0%. PPM for the other 28 days is 100%. Looks like a great period.

But PPM for the period?

50%

(Ok, technically 50.5%, but you get the point)

 

[Taunton]

But PPM for the period?

50%

Yes. So even though you've cancelled almost all the service for almost all the days, the figures show that you've got 50% right over the month.

What a ridiculous calculation. Whoever thought to exclude cancelled trains from the performance arithmetic ? The correct answer is 2%.

 

[Bald Rick]

Yes. So even though you've cancelled almost all the service for almost all the days, the figures show that you've got 50% right over the month.

What a ridiculous calculation. Whoever thought to exclude cancelled trains from the performance arithmetic ? The correct answer is 2%.

Fair challenge.

The difficult question - to which there is plenty of opinion - is:

At what point should a cancelled train be counted as a cancellation?

At timetable change?
If not advertised 12 weeks out
4 weeks out?
1 week?
1 day?

Answers on a post card to the ORR.

 

[DelayRepay]

If a train is supposed to run, according to the timetable, but doesn't, then the train is cancelled. I am not sure why under any circumstances it makes sense to not count cancellations as cancellations.

Doesn't this "fudging" of statistics just encourage managing the metrics rather than managing the underlying problem?

 

[Bald Rick]

If a train is supposed to run, according to the timetable, but doesn't, then the train is cancelled. I am not sure why under any circumstances it makes sense to not count cancellations as cancellations.

Doesn't this "fudging" of statistics just encourage managing the metrics rather than managing the underlying problem?

My line (which happens to be Thameslink, so remarkably on topic) has a Sunday service that regularly sees trains cancelled on Sunday mornings for engineering works. These are (usually) published 12 weeks out. Should those count as cancellations?

 

[DelayRepay]

My line (which happens to be Thameslink, so remarkably on topic) has a Sunday service that regularly sees trains cancelled on Sunday mornings for engineering works. These are (usually) published 12 weeks out. Should those count as cancellations?

Yes. The service is not available to people who wish to use it. Of course performance across the board would drop, and targets would have to reduce to reflect the amount of engineering work required, but it would present a more accurate figure.

 

[SPADTrap]

but it would present a more accurate figure.

That would depend on what you plan on doing with the figure after, IMO.

 

[Class377/5]

Yes. The service is not available to people who wish to use it. Of course performance across the board would drop, and targets would have to reduce to reflect the amount of engineering work required, but it would present a more accurate figure.

So you'd be happy to have a timetable where trains aren't scheduled to run for the whole six months to avoid the cancellating of trains for half that period because that's what your propsing will happen.

The full timetabled service can never be provided day in without change if you want to maintain the network. Something that is rather important. Let alone never upgrading the line.

Your view would see a worse service just so focus can be made on figures. Figures are not the be all. Ability to use the train is far more important.

 

[LBSCR Times]

That would depend on what you plan on doing with the figure after, IMO.

Precisely!
How would the commuters of St.Albans react if on Monday to Friday the PPM figure was in the low 70's every week, but the Saturday service was excellent, whilst the Sunday service was reduced due to engineering works and consequently the PPM target for the period was as low as 50%, so they didn't get any compensation....

 

[Bald Rick]

Yes. The service is not available to people who wish to use it. Of course performance across the board would drop, and targets would have to reduce to reflect the amount of engineering work required, but it would present a more accurate figure.

And that is your opinion. Others have different opinions, including crucially, those who fund and regulate the railway.

 

[DelayRepay]

And that is your opinion. Others have different opinions, including crucially, those who fund and regulate the railway.

Indeed and I don't think there is a "correct" way to report - every method has its flaws. But please remember I am one of those who fund the railways both as a passenger and a tax payer

 

[The Box Photter]

The DfT sets the timetable. GTR is being paid to run that timetable. If GTR fails to run the timetable up to 100% then season ticket holders should receive a refund of exactly the percentage by which GTR fails to deliver. No ifs, no buts, a train is on time if it arrives at its destination ON TIME, not 10 minutes late. A cancelled train is a cancelled train, whether its because the unit has failed or that the driver is having a rest day. This should be calculated on a monthly basis and refunds applied at next renewal.

If the delay is down to infrastructure failure, too bad, GTR claims that back from Nework Rail. Passengers are the only reason the service is being provided and shouldn't be expected to grin and bear it anymore.

GoVia shareholders need to feel the pain rather than the poor sodding passengers. Perhaps a fall in profit will concentrate their minds on employing enough drivers and maintaining the trains properly. If GoVia want to hand the keys back to DfT, fine, DOR can run the service and at least then any operating profit isn't being creamed off.

I speak as a taxpayer and season ticket holder. They're the only two sources of funding for the railway that I'm aware of.

 

[LBSCR Times]

The DfT sets the timetable. GTR is being paid to run that timetable. If GTR fails to run the timetable up to 100% then season ticket holders should receive a refund of exactly the percentage by which GTR fails to deliver. No ifs, no buts, a train is on time if it arrives at its destination ON TIME, not 10 minutes late. A cancelled train is a cancelled train, whether its because the unit has failed or that the driver is having a rest day. This should be calculated on a monthly basis and refunds applied at next renewal.

If the delay is down to infrastructure failure, too bad, GTR claims that back from Nework Rail. Passengers are the only reason the service is being provided and shouldn't be expected to grin and bear it anymore.

GoVia shareholders need to feel the pain rather than the poor sodding passengers. Perhaps a fall in profit will concentrate their minds on employing enough drivers and maintaining the trains properly. If GoVia want to hand the keys back to DfT, fine, DOR can run the service and at least then any operating profit isn't being creamed off.

I speak as a taxpayer and season ticket holder. They're the only two sources of funding for the railway that I'm aware of.

And passengers should also have a 'Fitness to Travel' certificate along with suitable insurance, just in case they're taken ill on the train and consequently delay it, so either NR or GTR can make a financial claim against them.

Of course, the same standards should apply for all types of industry / workplace....

 

[jon0844]

The DfT set out a minimum requirement for timetables, but let GTR (and others) come up with their proposal.

I wonder if the DfT looked so thoroughly that they could say 'Yes, that's workable and we'll allow it' or just thought to let GTR have a go and if it goes tits up, say 'Looks like you didn't do a very good job' and start applying fines or refusing bonuses etc?

Just because they specified how many trains needed to run per hour, serving which routes and the first/last train times etc - doesn't mean the DfT came up with a detailed structure. In fact, from what I saw of the tendering process, they didn't do that at all.

 

[EM2]

The DfT sets the timetable. GTR is being paid to run that timetable. If GTR fails to run the timetable up to 100% then season ticket holders should receive a refund of exactly the percentage by which GTR fails to deliver. No ifs, no buts, a train is on time if it arrives at its destination ON TIME, not 10 minutes late. A cancelled train is a cancelled train, whether its because the unit has failed or that the driver is having a rest day. This should be calculated on a monthly basis and refunds applied at next renewal.

If the delay is down to infrastructure failure, too bad, GTR claims that back from Nework Rail. Passengers are the only reason the service is being provided and shouldn't be expected to grin and bear it anymore.

GoVia shareholders need to feel the pain rather than the poor sodding passengers. Perhaps a fall in profit will concentrate their minds on employing enough drivers and maintaining the trains properly. If GoVia want to hand the keys back to DfT, fine, DOR can run the service and at least then any operating profit isn't being creamed off.

I speak as a taxpayer and season ticket holder. They're the only two sources of funding for the railway that I'm aware of.

So season ticket holders should get a refund, even if they weren't travelling on trains which were delayed or cancelled? Or even if they didn't travel at all (e.g. off sick, on holiday)?

GoVia are running Thameslink as a management contract, not a franchise.
http://www.railhub2.co.uk/rh4/business/briefs/RHB_franchise.php

Management contract: something of a compromise. Reduced risk for contractor but some degree of commercial flexibility may be permitted. Some incentives/penalties may be included, and revenue is likely to have a closer relationship with actual turnover than is often the case with a concession.

There is also the fact that a private company has a legal obligation to put the interests of its shareholders before that of its customers.

 

[The Box Photter]

So season ticket holders should get a refund, even if they weren't travelling on trains which were delayed or cancelled? Or even if they didn't travel at all (e.g. off sick, on holiday)?

GoVia are running Thameslink as a management contract, not a franchise.
http://www.railhub2.co.uk/rh4/business/briefs/RHB_franchise.php

There is also the fact that a private company has a legal obligation to put the interests of its shareholders before that of its customers.

Which is exactly why the railways shouldn't have been privatised in the first place. Season ticket holders have already paid up front for an expected level of service, in many cases over £5,000 per year so the train operator already has their money regardless of whether they travel or not. I don't get a refund for the time I'm on holiday and not having to use their squalid little monopoly.

Under the current system, you don't have to be travelling on a train to claim delay repay compensation. I'd encourage all disgruntled season ticket passengers to check each day for any trains that were more than 30 mins late on their line and put in a claim. Perhaps we can bankrupt them.

Don't insult me, I know the Thameslink contract is a management contract, but the whole thing stinks, from the boardroom to the tracks and the driving cab.

Perhaps if we all stayed at home the trains could run much better without the annoyance of having to carry people.

 

[Hadders]

I'd encourage all disgruntled season ticket passengers to check each day for any trains that were more than 30 mins late on their line and put in a claim.

I really hope you don't mean that.

I don't think there was any compensation available for delayed journeys under British Rail.

 

[Bald Rick]

I don't get a refund for the time I'm on holiday and not having to use their squalid little monopoly....

...Perhaps we can bankrupt them.

You don't have to use it - not renewing your season ticket and choosing one of many alternatives is always an option, and the most likely way to cause pain to those that receive your season ticket money. Which in this case is the taxpayer.

 

[AM9]

....There is also the fact that a private company has a legal obligation to put the interests of its shareholders before that of its customers.

Not quite, there is a legal obligation to put the financial interests of its shareholders before all others, however, this is all subject to higher priorities of their legal obligations:
1) to health and safety law,
2) to the government as defined in their contracts and
3) their contractual obligations with suppliers and customers.

1) above is in some cases defined in criminal law, not just civil law and commercial conduct.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

.... Season ticket holders have already paid up front for an expected level of service, in many cases over £5,000 per year so the train operator already has their money regardless of whether they travel or not. I don't get a refund for the time I'm on holiday and not having to use their squalid little monopoly.

Under the current system, you don't have to be travelling on a train to claim delay repay compensation. I'd encourage all disgruntled season ticket passengers to check each day for any trains that were more than 30 mins late on their line and put in a claim....

Why is it that season ticket holders think that they alone fund the railways through ticket purchase? They are the reason that much of the rolling stock and infrastructure has poor utilisation. Even with the currently increased level of daytime travel, there is stock sitting idly in sidings between 10:00 and 16:00 just for the benefit of peak hour travel. Similarly, there are additional tracks and platforms which see little use outside the peak hours. This investment eats up a large par of the railway's budgets.
Casual travellers who need to travel in the peak hours pay a high premium for their journeys, but season ticket holders get a heafty discount subsidised by other travellers. They always seem, however to be the first to complain about what a raw deal they get.

 

[ClevedonYellow]

Under the current system, you don't have to be travelling on a train to claim delay repay compensation. I'd encourage all disgruntled season ticket passengers to check each day for any trains that were more than 30 mins late on their line and put in a claim. Perhaps we can bankrupt them.


Perhaps if we all stayed at home the trains could run much better without the annoyance of having to carry people.

Under the current ticket system no direct compensation is given out to season ticket holders as the TOC cannot prove you were on the specific service that you are quoted on. Therefore as an average of all trains during the day is taken (PPM) and your discount and pricing structure is worked out through that figure. This is the only way a season ticket holder would get compensation for delays. (Exceptions of trains that are excessively late due to emergencies, over 120 Mins late in which the train manager or other member of staff would take your contact details)

As for all passengers staying at home, the TOC would hit its PPM targets as there is no passenger related delays. TOC's also earn revenue from advertising, station space and corporate investments.

In my opinion Thameslink, Great Northern have one of the best looking upgrade programs in the industry. (Only behind First Great Western) with the Class 700's and ATO through the central London section. Just remember what gets moved on from London, others have to travel on in other areas of the UK.

 

[Abpj17]

Not quite, there is a legal obligation to put the financial interests of its shareholders before all others, however, this is all subject to higher priorities of their legal obligations:
1) to health and safety law,
2) to the government as defined in their contracts and
3) their contractual obligations with suppliers and customers.

1) above is in some cases defined in criminal law, not just civil law and commercial conduct.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Why is it that season ticket holders think that they alone fund the railways through ticket purchase? They are the reason that much of the rolling stock and infrastructure has poor utilisation. Even with the currently increased level of daytime travel, there is stock sitting idly in sidings between 10:00 and 16:00 just for the benefit of peak hour travel. Similarly, there are additional tracks and platforms which see little use outside the peak hours. This investment eats up a large par of the railway's budgets.
Casual travellers who need to travel in the peak hours pay a high premium for their journeys, but season ticket holders get a heafty discount subsidised by other travellers. They always seem, however to be the first to complain about what a raw deal they get.

1) For the exact (generic) wording Company law says the interests of shareholders (not necessarily financial). Relevant section is: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/section/172

A director of a company must act in the way he considers, in good faith, would be most likely to promote the success of the company for the benefit of its members as a whole, and in doing so have regard (amongst other matters) to—
(a)the likely consequences of any decision in the long term,
(b)the interests of the company's employees,
(c)the need to foster the company's business relationships with suppliers, customers and others,
(d)the impact of the company's operations on the community and the environment,
(e)the desirability of the company maintaining a reputation for high standards of business conduct, and
(f)the need to act fairly as between members of the company.

The purpose of the company can also be re-defined in constitutional documents e.g. common for certain 'public interest' companies/charities.

2) Because season ticket holders pay very high fees and have had years of some of the least reliable services on the Thameslink line. The change from 5%/10% performance discounts to Delay Repay continues to be woefully inappropriate for a commuter service where persistent short delays add up into meaningful chunks of your life.

(And of course, the pricing system isn't sophisicated enough to reward season ticket holders who routinely commute outside peak hours - I routinely depart my home station after 9.30am, and leave London after 7pm...or part-time workers tho I'm aware there is meant to be a trial).

 

[Stats]

Under the current ticket system no direct compensation is given out to season ticket holders as the TOC cannot prove you were on the specific service that you are quoted on. Therefore as an average of all trains during the day is taken (PPM) and your discount and pricing structure is worked out through that figure. This is the only way a season ticket holder would get compensation for delays.

This only applies in franchises awarded before 2006. All franchises awarded since then are required to operate Delay Repay, which applies equally to season ticket holders as it does single use tickets.

 

[Hadders]

This only applies in franchises awarded before 2006. All franchises awarded since then are required to operate Delay Repay, which applies equally to season ticket holders as it does single use tickets.

Indeed. On most franchises delay repay applies to season tickets. I've had a number of claims from GN over the past few months.

 

[Chrisgr31]

Which is exactly why the railways shouldn't have been privatised in the first place. Season ticket holders have already paid up front for an expected level of service, in many cases over £5,000 per year so the train operator already has their money regardless of whether they travel or not. I don't get a refund for the time I'm on holiday and not having to use their squalid little monopoly.

Under the current system, you don't have to be travelling on a train to claim delay repay compensation. I'd encourage all disgruntled season ticket passengers to check each day for any trains that were more than 30 mins late on their line and put in a claim. Perhaps we can bankrupt them.

Don't insult me, I know the Thameslink contract is a management contract, but the whole thing stinks, from the boardroom to the tracks and the driving cab.

Perhaps if we all stayed at home the trains could run much better without the annoyance of having to carry people.

I think you will find that on the Delay Repay pages of the TOC websites it states "if we have delayed your journey....". Therefore you can only claim if you have been on a journey that has been delayed. In practice of course the TOC will struggle to prove you were on a delayed train, unless, like me, your season is on a Southern Key card or similar product. I would suspect that claiming for a journey which you were not on is in fact fraud. It may just about be morally acceptable to claim where you have for whatever reason failed to claim for a previous delayed journey but it is certainly not justifiable to claim for any journey that your ticket covers that is delayed.

As regards season tickets paying for a certain level of service, yes I buy my annual season ticket expecting Southern to try and provide a certain level of service, however I know there are occasions where they will fail, whether that failure is their fault, Network Rails, a passenger, a tresspasser, a lorry driver etc. I therefore buy my ticket knowing that on occasions I will be late. I also know that if the train is delayed there is Delay Repay.

As a commuter I know that if it is vitally important I am in London by a certain time that I have to catch a train earlier than the one to arrive on time. Invariably the on time one will be on time on with 5 minutes of scheduled arrival time. Very rarely am I held up by more than 30 minutes on my commute.

There is no doubt that the London Bridge and Thameslink works are a major project and will lead to a much better customer experience. Its a shame there has to be pain to get there but I see no alternative.

Season ticket holders do of course have an alternative, usually buses or driving. I suggest you try the alternative.

 

[The Box Photter]

I have no realistic alternative to using Thameslink. And I'm not prepared to:

a. Get another job
b. Move home
c. Put up with the lack of service anymore

Occasional users are just that, season ticket holders do benefit from "buying in bulk" but why should we be ignored as captive cash-cows. There are apologists for the railways who quote the massive increase in passenger numbers since 1995 as proof that privatisation has worked. The real reason there are more passenger numbers is that house prices in the major cities, especially London, have risen so far above earnings that the only realistic way an average person can afford to own their own home is to move way out of the city and commute in.

I really don't understand why posters on here are defending a system which is so obviously broken (unless you're all shareholders in the TOCs).

Delay Repay is a crooked system that depends on the person who has been disadvantaged filling in a form, waiting weeks for the TOC to concoct a reason why the claim shouldn't be paid and if successful, receiving their "compensation" in the form of a travel voucher. Compensation should be in a form that hurts the TOC financially and benefits the consumer, not the other way around.