ORR Report into May Timetable change disruption

[717001]

Mod Note: Posts #1 - #5 originally in this thread.

The ORR report is out: http://orr.gov.uk/rail/consumers/inquiry-into-may-2018-network-disruption

The three-month Inquiry has found that Network Rail, Govia Thameslink Railway (GTR), Northern, the Department for Transport (DfT), and the Office of Rail and Road (ORR) all made mistakes, which contributed to the collapse of services, particularly on the GTR and Northern routes.

A key issue, found by the Inquiry, is that there is an apparent gap in industry responsibility and accountability for managing systemic risks, and that needs to change.

Other key findings are:

• The System Operator (SO) function within Network Rail was in the best position to understand and manage the risks, but did not take sufficient action, especially in the critical period of autumn 2017
• Neither GTR nor Northern were properly aware of or prepared for the problems in delivering the timetable and they did not do enough to provide accurate information to passengers when disruption occurred
• Both DfT and ORR are responsible for overseeing aspects of the industry, but neither sufficiently questioned assurances they received from the industry about the risk of disruption....

 

[FQTV]

The ORR report is out: http://orr.gov.uk/rail/consumers/inquiry-into-may-2018-network-disruption

The Today Programme on BBC Radio Four has already heard from the ORR Chair Stephen Glaister, and the Rail Delivery Group’s Paul Plummer this morning.

Chris Grayling will be interviewed at about 07:50. Avoid eating cornflakes while listening.

The ORR makes clear that this is the interim report. It’s an analysis of what happened, rather than a recommendation of how the Railway should be run to avoid similar problems in future.

However, a quick skim of the interim report itself reveals that it includes the following on pages 169 & 170:

Department for Transport:

DfT has a number of functions related to oversight of the industry, which significantly exceed those of the other devolved franchising authorities (Transport Scotland, Transport for Wales and the Rail North Partnership), including:

- The funder of major enhancement schemes and chairing of the Portfolio and Programme Boards that oversee these, following the governance model introduced after the Bowe Review.

- The specifier and manager of franchises, which often include conditions related to anticipated services dependent on Network Rail’s delivery of new infrastructure.

- Commissioning and planning of rolling stock, including that required for the delivery of new services by operators through their franchises.

- Overall responsibility for the structure and strategy of the rail industry, including through the ownership and funding of Network Rail and planning and delivery of the majority of the franchise programme where not devolved to other authorities.

And:

28. As such, DfT is the only body with executive responsibilities that cover, to some degree, all aspects of the delivery of interdependent major programmes that contribute to timetable changes.

But that (their bold):

The Inquiry has found that the diffuse nature of accountability for different programmes across the industry and government results in a lack of clarity about roles and responsibilities for the oversight and control of complex system risks. There is an apparent gap in industry responsibility and accountability for the management of systemic risks. Industry process needs to change to accommodate these responsibilities.

 

[jon0844]

The Daily Mail's interpretation is that it was the TOCs fault, by the looks of it.

 

[Failed Unit]

The Daily Mail's interpretation is that it was the TOCs fault, by the looks of it.

So the extreme opposite to GTR who believe they had nothing to do the this shambles.

 

[infobleep]

Have any previous reports ever highlights accountability issues.

I know there is a report due on the South Western Railway lines (going back to 2010 when it was South West Trains) I wonder if that will notice similar issues on accountability and responsibility.

Then there is the North Downs Line three trains can't run issue. That is similar in some ways as it's a case of one say fine and another saying it's not possible at this time after they have said fine and signed everything. I don't know if they are doing a report on the NDL.

If they learn from these reports it will be good.

 

[PR1Berske]

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/busines...rge-rail-industry-and-dft-lambasted-for-chaos


Quote:

The ORR chairman, Stephen Glaister, said: “Good intentions and over-optimism within the rail industry about its ability to recover missed deadlines left no time to uncover and fix problems. In the event the operators were overwhelmed. They had made insufficient provision to help people in the event that things went wrong.”

The ORR’s interim report was published as the DfT launched a “root and branch” review of the UK rail network. The former British Airways chief executive Keith Williams will lead an examination of Britain’s rail network, which the transport minister, Chris Grayling, admitted was “no longer fit to meet today’s challenges”.

Nothing much unexpected here, I guess.

 

[PR1Berske]

The link to the report itself is here -- http://orr.gov.uk/news-and-media/pr...passengers-let-down-by-rail-industry-failures

 

[TheSel]

Surely a real-time example of the well known cautionary tale:

This is a little story about four people named Everybody, Somebody, Anybody, and Nobody.

There was an important job to be done and Everybody was sure that Somebody would do it.

Anybody could have done it, but Nobody did it.

Somebody got angry about that because it was Everybody's job.

Everybody thought that Anybody could do it, but Nobody realized that Everybody wouldn't do it.

It ended up that Everybody blamed Somebody when Nobody did what Anybody could have done.

 

[PR1Berske]

Surely a real-time example of the well known cautionary tale:

This is a little story about four people named Everybody, Somebody, Anybody, and Nobody.

There was an important job to be done and Everybody was sure that Somebody would do it.

Anybody could have done it, but Nobody did it.

Somebody got angry about that because it was Everybody's job.

Everybody thought that Anybody could do it, but Nobody realized that Everybody wouldn't do it.

It ended up that Everybody blamed Somebody when Nobody did what Anybody could have done.

I think that's in the third Annexe to the report

 

[zoneking]

How much are these people paid to be useless?

 

[PHILIPE]

Surely a real-time example of the well known cautionary tale:

This is a little story about four people named Everybody, Somebody, Anybody, and Nobody.

There was an important job to be done and Everybody was sure that Somebody would do it.

Anybody could have done it, but Nobody did it.

Somebody got angry about that because it was Everybody's job.

Everybody thought that Anybody could do it, but Nobody realized that Everybody wouldn't do it.

It ended up that Everybody blamed Somebody when Nobody did what Anybody could have done.

Fragmentation

 

[JamesT]

Fragmentation

Were things actually that different under BR?
Presumably there was some sort of centralised team writing the timetable, as there is in Network Rail today, presumably each network or sector would be making their requests for the next timetable, and you'd have the infrastructure teams doing their thing. That's all different sets of people responsible for different bits having to work together to produce a decent outcome.
Yes, there's a big boss who can knock heads together, but if the individual teams are being overconfident in their estimates / fibbing about readiness to their superiors, you're still going to end up with the same car crash in the end.

 

[DarloRich]

Surely a real-time example of the well known cautionary tale:

This is a little story about four people named Everybody, Somebody, Anybody, and Nobody.

There was an important job to be done and Everybody was sure that Somebody would do it.

Anybody could have done it, but Nobody did it.

Somebody got angry about that because it was Everybody's job.

Everybody thought that Anybody could do it, but Nobody realized that Everybody wouldn't do it.

It ended up that Everybody blamed Somebody when Nobody did what Anybody could have done.

Just about to post that! A clear real life example of this situation.

Were things actually that different under BR?
Presumably there was some sort of centralised team writing the timetable, as there is in Network Rail today, presumably each network or sector would be making their requests for the next timetable, and you'd have the infrastructure teams doing their thing. That's all different sets of people responsible for different bits having to work together to produce a decent outcome.
Yes, there's a big boss who can knock heads together, but if the individual teams are being overconfident in their estimates / fibbing about readiness to their superiors, you're still going to end up with the same car crash in the end.

You miss one point. The internal BR departments did not have conflicting commercial considerations. TOC's do. Fragmentation is a big issue.

 

[Alteran Ancient]

The great thing about this report is: if you blame everyone at the same time, then you don't have to take punitive action against any of them. You can just continuously point fingers at each other until the audience loses interest.

So, a whitewash. As predicted.

 

[hawk1911]

I suggest Chris Grayling gets one of these:

Of course, its much easier to blame anybody/everbody else.

 

[deltic]

Why the obsession with finding scapegoats - if Chris Grayling said yes its all my fault and I resign would that prevent this type of thing happening again - no.

Every single type of this event and subsequent review shows the railway cant communicate to its passengers - and every time the industry says we will do better next time - but it doesnt.

Most problems in any business/relationship come down to communications and until we solve that problem these type of issues and the chaos for passengers they cause will continue.

 

[PHILIPE]

We shall soon hear he Prime Minister saying "I have full confidence in Chris Grayling".

 

[Typhoon]

We shall soon hear he Prime Minister saying "I have full confidence in Chris Grayling".

"I have full confidence in …" - the words no football manager wants to hear. Unfortunately, in politics, its a different story - unless the minister has a conscience.

 

[nr758123]

TPE management will be celebrating the fact that their failures are completely ignored in the report.

 

[HowardGWR]

I suggest Chris Grayling gets one of these:

Of course, its much easier to blame anybody/everybody else.

I totally disagree. It should be on the desk of the Chairman of Network Rail. Amazing how Hendy seems to get off scot free every time. How can a minister have any knowledge of railway timetables and their implementation?

I have no brief for the current SoS by the way.

 

[Clip]

I totally disagree. It should be on the desk of the Chairman of Network Rail. Amazing how Hendy seems to get off scot free every time. How can a minister have any knowledge of railway timetables and their implementation?

They dont but apparently the buck stops with them every time even though they have legions of civil servants who work for them and do the work for them who still manage to keep their jobs.

 

[hawk1911]

I totally disagree. It should be on the desk of the Chairman of Network Rail. Amazing how Hendy seems to get off scot free every time. How can a minister have any knowledge of railway timetables and their implementation?

I have no brief for the current SoS by the way.

I don't expect a minister to have detailed knowledge of railway timetables and their implementation, but I do expect them to ensure that the Chairman of Network Rail does; and, if not, make changes.

Ultimately, it is the government who are responsible for delivering and maintaining this Country's key infrastructure, including the railways.

 

[DarloRich]

I totally disagree. It should be on the desk of the Chairman of Network Rail. Amazing how Hendy seems to get off scot free every time. How can a minister have any knowledge of railway timetables and their implementation?

I have no brief for the current SoS by the way.

No it shouldn't. While Mr Grayling is not personally responsible for the issues he is accountable. The buck really should stop with him. That is the nature of senior leadership.

.

Ultimately, it is the government who are responsible for delivering and maintaining this Country's key infrastructure, including the railways.

No: The government are accountable for delivering and maintaining this Country's key infrastructure, including the railways. The responsibility sits with their executive officers and senior leaders within the TOC's

 

[HH]

Corrected!

 

[Typhoon]

While Mr Grayling is not personally responsible for the issues he is accountable. The buck really should stop with him. That is the nature of senior leadership.

Like Paul Pester, who stood down as CEO of TSB following issues with the migration of customer's accounts to a new IT system, even though his technical knowledge of how his would happen could probably be written on a side of A4.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Were things actually that different under BR?
Presumably there was some sort of centralised team writing the timetable, as there is in Network Rail today, presumably each network or sector would be making their requests for the next timetable, and you'd have the infrastructure teams doing their thing. That's all different sets of people responsible for different bits having to work together to produce a decent outcome.
Yes, there's a big boss who can knock heads together, but if the individual teams are being overconfident in their estimates / fibbing about readiness to their superiors, you're still going to end up with the same car crash in the end.

The difference in BR is that there was a strong common sense of purpose (with some tension over costs and revenue of course) , so that there were clear lines of responsibilty to a fairly high level of the structure. However, every one knew that there was a critical need to ensure that either a failure to agree , or a failure to deliver at a macro level would ensure the personal intervention of the Chief Executive and the Chairman. With someone like Bob Reid - that would have been terminal. Ergo to be avoided at all costs.

Before I get accused of being totally BR biased , - they did get it badly wrong in the 1967 rewrite of the Southern Region timetable , perhaps too big a job - but though carefully planned and researched , it went wrong - but it was realised very quickly and a combination of strong local Area Managers and some judicious regional tinkering fixed it pretty quickly - but the guts of the plan were maintained.

On a more modest scale - the 1987 introduction of a new TT on the Cardiff Valley network went wrong (especially as the poor track and a combination of "sensitive" couplers on the spanking brand new 150's meant that carefully worked out ideas for splitting and attaching failed , as they either would not part - or couple) , so with much gritting of teeth and a rewrite , a compromise was built into the next plan in a matter of weeks.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

You miss one point. The internal BR departments did not have conflicting commercial considerations. TOC's do. Fragmentation is a big issue.

I think they did at the end, though they probably hid their differences better.
Intercity, NSE and Regional (and freight) had different commercial objectives, especially once they owned their own infrastructure with the abolition of the Regions.
That lasted precisely one year (1993) before Railtrack was formed.

 

[ChrisHogan]

That lasted precisely one year (1993) before Railtrack was formed.

Actually a minimum of nearly two years - 6th April 1992 saw OfQ completed on the former L.M.R. while the BR/Railtrack split was April 1994. The other regions converted to sectors in 1991 so it was nearly three years for them. OfQ was a disaster and every sub-sector wanted to do their own thing although it didn't last long enough to become apparent to the public. Regulation policies became chaotic for example. One freight sub-sector issued instructions to its signalmen that freight trains had priority and were to be regulated accordingly.

 

[Tio Terry]

I suppose I should make it clear from the start that as I live in Epsom so Grayling is my MP. I'm in no way trying to protect him from anything and I'm not personally a great supporter but I think there are a few things people need to consider when calling for him to be sacked.

He was appointed SoS for transport roundly 26 months ago. The Thameslink programme started about 10 years before his appointment so he could have little influence on that. The DfT - his department - dictated the timetable requirements long before he was Minister.

All Ministers rely heavily on the professional Civil Servants who operate their departments no matter what political party is in power. There's no way in less than two years Grayling could have learnt and understood the complexities of rearranging and operating a new intensive timetable. I worked in the railway industry for over 53 years and I couldn't do it, how many professional railwaymen on here could? He had to rely on his Civil Servants and take their advise. Obviously he was badly advised, the resulting chaos was because he accepted that advise from his own department. But how would he, or anyone else appointed to his role, know the right questions to ask his Civil Servants in such a short period in office?

Removing him from his post wouldn't change anything, it could still happen again under a new SoS for transport because the same advisers from the DfT are still there. If you want him replaced, knowing the political options available to you currently, who do you want to replace him with? Who do you think would do a better job and why? Maybe it would be better to leave him there to sort out the problems, learn from them and to make some changes to his Civil Servants?

The real reason why the timetable change failed so badly was because the DfT - who masterminded the train frequency pattern they wanted in the first place - failed to apply their own EU mandated Common System of Risk Assessment and Evaluation to the timetable change. If they had done so, and combined the Risk Assessments from the TOC's, Network Rail, the ROSCO's and themselves together they would have known there were too many risks unmitigated to ensure there was not a failure.

The DfT are, in my view, totally and completely responsible for what has happened and have failed their minister badly. By all means change the minister but that wont solve the problem in my view, the same Civil Servants will still be giving the wrong advise - and that would still happen with a change of government.

I've not mentioned anything to do with the timetable changes in the north west because I don't have any knowledge of what went wrong there, sorry.

 

[jamesthegill]

Before I get accused of being totally BR biased , - they did get it badly wrong in the 1967 rewrite of the Southern Region timetable , perhaps too big a job - but though carefully planned and researched , it went wrong - but it was realised very quickly and a combination of strong local Area Managers and some judicious regional tinkering fixed it pretty quickly - but the guts of the plan were maintained.

I'd be interested in finding out more about this, do you know of any books or websites that would provide further information, please?