ORR Report into May Timetable change disruption

[ChiefPlanner]

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

The Southern 1967 Timetable changes - both before and after were very well written up in Modern Railways at the time - very frankly I have to say (the Chief Planner was one Rupert Shervington I believe , who was briefly remembered on the obituary of his wife in "The Times" a few weeks ago), to be fair the late G F Fiennes as BRB Operating Manager had pushed for some radical change before , as he viewed the Southern as far too complex and therefore a candidate for overhaul. One of his superb comments (IMHO) , was start with a logic with a full train out in the suburbs and run it fast to destination (as well as reduce the number of London termini served from too many routes) , this is an area worth research - there are just about enough people around who were involved in delivery and recovery.

The Valleys debacle of 1987 is admirably recorded in John Davies's book "Valley Lines - the Peoples Railway" , possibly one of the best records of how a network can be brought back from the doldrums by judicious planning and marketing , as well as genuine passion. An excellent read. (not that I am biased about the area !)

 

[infobleep]

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.

Do you know how wuility the 67 timetable was rewritten and did it become a public scandle at the time?

Ignore this I've just seen your comments above.

 

[SamYeager]

I'm still wading my way through the report but I do find it interesting that it appears that GTR reducing from 20 tph to 18tph "to reduce risk" actually seems to have made things worse! It does make me wonder if things would have gone better if GTR had stayed with 20tph? Probably not since it seems that GTR were short of drivers anyway.

 

[jamesthegill]

The Southern 1967 Timetable changes - both before and after were very well written up in Modern Railways at the time - very frankly I have to say (the Chief Planner was one Rupert Shervington I believe , who was briefly remembered on the obituary of his wife in "The Times" a few weeks ago), to be fair the late G F Fiennes as BRB Operating Manager had pushed for some radical change before , as he viewed the Southern as far too complex and therefore a candidate for overhaul. One of his superb comments (IMHO) , was start with a logic with a full train out in the suburbs and run it fast to destination (as well as reduce the number of London termini served from too many routes) , this is an area worth research - there are just about enough people around who were involved in delivery and recovery.

The Valleys debacle of 1987 is admirably recorded in John Davies's book "Valley Lines - the Peoples Railway" , possibly one of the best records of how a network can be brought back from the doldrums by judicious planning and marketing , as well as genuine passion. An excellent read. (not that I am biased about the area !)

Thank you, I shall have a peruse!

 

[nickswift99]

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.

As a project, Thameslink 2000 was running in the late 1980s. There was active timetable planning occurring in the very early 1990s.

 

[Panupreset]

I once read a book on Human Error by Sidney Dekker. The book talks about 'people not coming to work to do a bad job' and 'if they knew what the outcome would have been (ie bad) they would have behaved differently'.

So the key is to understand why people made the decisions they did with the information available to them when they made the decisions.

Disciplining people, making them accountable, making them resign, prevents learning of lessons, as has been alluded to already, doesn't make things better next time.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

I once read a book on Human Error by Sidney Dekker. The book talks about 'people not coming to work to do a bad job' and 'if they knew what the outcome would have been (ie bad) they would have behaved differently'.

So the key is to understand why people made the decisions they did with the information available to them when they made the decisions.

Disciplining people, making them accountable, making them resign, prevents learning of lessons, as has been alluded to already, doesn't make things better next time.

All well and good but how many politicians are willing to think seriously, without over emphasis on their own political dogma, about any outcomes beyond the (expected) date of the next general election? Unfortunately the only effective way of dealing with incompetent political decision makers, at whatever level, is to sack them and/or vote them out.

 

[Ianno87]

I once read a book on Human Error by Sidney Dekker. The book talks about 'people not coming to work to do a bad job' and 'if they knew what the outcome would have been (ie bad) they would have behaved differently'.

So the key is to understand why people made the decisions they did with the information available to them when they made the decisions.

Disciplining people, making them accountable, making them resign, prevents learning of lessons, as has been alluded to already, doesn't make things better next time.

"The Naked Pilot" is a good book on a similar subject (with an aviation focus)

 

[ChiefPlanner]

I remember having a discussion with an ATW conductor on the planned "Standard Pattern Timetable" - will never work he said.

Now the Valley Lines have very many challenges on infrastructure , not the best of rolling stock (14x- 15x at best) , some tight turnrounds , cross Cardiff working over quite lengthy sections (Merthyr to Bridgend via the Vale) - single lines on the Valley ends - yet generally turns out performance in excess of 95% - with little evidence of padding IMHO.

No doubt there will now be calls of "have you been to London Bridge or Blackfriars" - yes - thank you. Very many times.

 

[Confused52]

All well and good but how many politicians are willing to think seriously, without over emphasis on their own political dogma, about any outcomes beyond the (expected) date of the next general election? Unfortunately the only effective way of dealing with incompetent political decision makers, at whatever level, is to sack them and/or vote them out.

Well I have spoken to many MPs over the years from the major parties and most of them didn't confirm to your described stereotype. Most of them did the job to make things better, even the ones I disagreed with!

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

Well I have spoken to many MPs over the years from the major parties and most of them didn't confirm to your described stereotype. Most of them did the job to make things better, even the ones I disagreed with!

I'll certainly not dispute your experience! Equally I like my local MP even though I won't vote for their party. But, such genuinely public-spirited MPs are not often considered ministerial material. In the current situation where Brexit overshadows everything at Westminster it's a minister's position on that issue that makes them useful in Cabinet rather than their willingness to see the bigger long-term picture. Grayling, sadly, is a prime example.

 

[Wombat]

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 don't want to champion Grayling (who is also my MP) either, as I think he's a serial accountability-dodger like many of the rest of them. However, there's an excellent book called The Blunders of our Governments which I'd recommend to anyone wondering how successive governments manage to repeatedly botch large projects. The authors identify a whole catalogue of recurring reasons for failure, one of them being the addiction to reshuffling ministers all over the place with the effect that they're rarely in one department long enough to achieve a reasonable familiarity with the subject matter, let alone mastery of it.

There's a chapter on Metronet which I imagine many of you would enjoy, but the whole thing is revelatory. Having read the book I'm slightly amazed that they ever manage to get anything done.

 

[HH]

The authors identify a whole catalogue of recurring reasons for failure, one of them being the addiction to reshuffling ministers all over the place with the effect that they're rarely in one department long enough to achieve a reasonable familiarity with the subject matter, let alone mastery of it.

Oddly enough, they do the same with senior civil servants and many high flyers at Network Rail. Moving people around is seen as development.

 

[atraindriver]

<deleted>

 

[Steve Harris]

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.

All Ministers rely heavily on the professional Civil Servants. 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.


My bolding.

Or

Perhaps he was correctly advised but didn't want to listen and told his staff what to do ?

 

[njamescouk]

I don't want to champion Grayling (who is also my MP) either, as I think he's a serial accountability-dodger like many of the rest of them. However, there's an excellent book called The Blunders of our Governments which I'd recommend to anyone wondering how successive governments manage to repeatedly botch large projects. The authors identify a whole catalogue of recurring reasons for failure, one of them being the addiction to reshuffling ministers all over the place with the effect that they're rarely in one department long enough to achieve a reasonable familiarity with the subject matter, let alone mastery of it.

There's a chapter on Metronet which I imagine many of you would enjoy, but the whole thing is revelatory. Having read the book I'm slightly amazed that they ever manage to get anything done.

an interesting read, and available from Barnsley library!

 

[Class 170101]

But surely they move them on so they don't cost the government money nor do they have time to undermine the PM as they are too busy learning their new jobs.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

There's also the "we've had enough of experts" stance which has poisoned the Brexit and other debates for 3 years.

Actually, I wouldn't put Grayling in the incompetent class at all.
He's quite savvy on rail and transport generally, unlike some of his predecessors (Ruth Kelly, Geoff Hoon, anyone?).
He will be able to get his way with the PM more than some have been able to.
It's regrettable Paul Maynard (ex Transport Select Committee) was replaced as Rail Minister by the incompetent Jo Johnson last time.
Most DfT rail policies in any case go back well before Grayling, even to the Labour years (RPI+x% for instance).
I don't like his electrification stance, but until NR starts delivering to time and budget he has no option but to prevaricate on further spend.

For Labour, I liked Louise Ellman and Lilian Greenwood leading the Transport Select Committee, but no other spokespersons remotely measure up to them.
They can only gabble "renationalisation" and have no idea what happens next.

 

[HH]

They can only gabble "renationalisation" and have no idea what happens next.

Yes, it's just like Brexit. Ideologue politicians are dangerous...