Should it be mandated in law that some train services must legally operate?

[David M]

2 years ago, I travelled from Edinburgh Waverley to Manchester Airport on the TPExpress 1012 train to catch a flight at around 5pm.
As I went to catch a train from Edinburgh to Glasgow yesterday, there were many angry people complaining about both the 1012 and 1212 TPX services being cancelled - obviously I wasn't affected but had this happened a couple of years back, I may well have missed my flight.
Would it be possible or should it be the case that some services are enshrined in law as must run - in other words any train to and from an airport station can only be cancelled in extreme circumstances like the line being blocked with no alternative route being available?
The consequences of an airport service being dropped are presumably much more damaging than most other services.

 

[Bantamzen]

2 years ago, I travelled from Edinburgh Waverley to Manchester Airport on the TPExpress 1012 train to catch a flight at around 5pm.
As I went to catch a train from Edinburgh to Glasgow yesterday, there were many angry people complaining about both the 1012 and 1212 TPX services being cancelled - obviously I wasn't affected but had this happened a couple of years back, I may well have missed my flight.
Would it be possible or should it be the case that some services are enshrined in law as must run - in other words any train to and from an airport station can only be cancelled in extreme circumstances like the line being blocked with no alternative route being available?
The consequences of an airport service being dropped are presumably much more damaging than most other services.

How would you enforce that? Say a crew was not available, who would drive the train? Ideally all timetabled service ought to run, but making it legally mandatory wouldn't solve the myriad of issues on our network.

In the circumstances you describe, I would immediately seek assistance from the TOC(s) concerned with a view to making alternative arrangements for travel to the airport, be it by an alternative mode of transport or preferably by an alternative route.

 

[Bletchleyite]

What they should do is to implement an emergency timetable they know they can run properly with the stock and staff they have including spare staff to cover for likely levels of sickness.

 

[Skimpot flyer]

I like your idea, but in this fragmented railway, it’s utterly impractical.
If all the rolling stock were under the control of one TOC, then I suppose they could cancel other non-airport services and use the stock for the ‘mandatory’ service. Even then, though, the driver would have to have knowledge of both route and the traction...

 

[185]

A perfect 'touche' to the government's proposal mandating that certain staff turn in during disputes, a law to mandate the train company runs a train.

Most companies unofficially have always tried to run the last train of the night, perhaps that last one should be mandatory. The company mentioned above are one of the few that seemingly doesn't - for example, last year the final train Liverpool-Leeds was cancelled on Christmas Eve, due to a planning mistake. 80 passengers stuck at Liverpool for Northern staff to pick up the pieces due to poorly cut/pasted diagrams.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Certainly last trains do need priority, even if you have to replan, e.g. cancel the two before it and alter the unit diagrams to run a longer train.

And if earlier in the day it looks like you won't be able to run, get on the phone to the bus or taxi companies then, not at midnight, and get a solid plan in place. The railway operates in a "firefighting" mode a lot of the time, not a proper strategic one.

 

[scarby]

99% of timetabled services should, barring severe weather, etc., run as a matter of routine. Anything less than that is completely unacceptable.

 

[BeHereNow]

Given current issues, to absolutely guarantee that as much as possible ran you'd need to pay them for more drivers and more conductors.

 

[Llama]

Or pay them to actually train the drivers they have on their books.

 

[Ferret]

What they should do is to implement an emergency timetable they know they can run properly with the stock and staff they have including spare staff to cover for likely levels of sickness.

This. But doubtless DfT minions are preventing common sense from prevailing.

 

[Bletchleyite]

This. But doubtless DfT minions are preventing common sense from prevailing.

They did do it once. I'm not clear why they can't do it again? Are the fines for doing it higher than for not doing it (and operating unreliably), perhaps? If so, whoever wrote the contract wants the sack.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

Would it be possible or should it be the case that some services are enshrined in law as must run - in other words any train to and from an airport station can only be cancelled in extreme circumstances.

The consequences of an airport service being dropped are presumably much more damaging than most other services.

I’m not sure I follow your logic that a service to an airport is more damaging than anything else, a missed flight would be covered under someone’s travel insurance like a missed international rail or boat connection to a rural Scottish island from say Oban etc.

Surely the most damaging would be a rail service to a medical centre such as a hospital being cancelled where a patient could miss a scheduled critical treatment etc?

More physiologically damaging would be missing a funeral caused by a cancelled train. The example being anything which can be replaced by money (ie the next flight) is less critical than anything irreplaceable.

Where do you start (other than the intention of not cancelling booked services), but I’m not sure airport services are the most critical.

 

[tbtc]

The (much discussed) southern end of the WCML seems to be one of the few lines where there's an "accepted" Plan B timetable (cancellation of Tring stoppers, a third of the Birmingham/ Manchester services chopped, no change to Liverpool/Glasgow services) - maybe this should be publicised on other lines too - e.g. in the case of TPE having problems then going down to a well spaced three trains per hour from Manchester to Leeds (hourly from Liverpool and the Airport, hourly to Hull/ Scarborough/ Middlesbrough - any Newcastle passengers dumped onto existing LNER/XC services).

I suppose that the problem its hat there are a number of reasons why there's disruption (signalling, staffing, TSR, rolling stock, emergency engineering works, fatality on the track etc), and it might do more harm than good to publicise lots of different "alternative" timetables - especially as some of these may give certain intermediate stations a better service than the "norm" (e.g. your local station get upgraded to better quality of stock or a non-stop journey to the nearest big city in the event of disruption, because the LDHS service stops there in lieu of a cancelled stopper), so it might cause anger along the lines of "how come we have to wait for the network to fall down before we can get a decent service".

The consequences of an airport service being dropped are presumably much more damaging than most other services.

If you're going to the Airport, yes. But I'm not a big fan of the way that people going for an annual flight are treated as being significantly more important than people using the train for a regular commute - there are big consequences to dropping any journeys (but irregular leisure passengers seem to be more of a priority on the Forum than boring everyday passengers who use the railway out of necessity.

There's already a lot of complaints from people at the fringes of the TPE network - e.g. Scarborough services terminating at Malton, Middlesbrough services being similarly unreliable - it'd come as little consolation to them to find that their line loses the only trains it has but all services to Manchester Airport are guaranteed to keep running (despite there being nine trains per hour on the Airport branch, so plenty of alternative provision on that side of the route but no alternative provision for Malton or Yarm.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The (much discussed) southern end of the WCML seems to be one of the few lines where there's an "accepted" Plan B timetable (cancellation of Tring stoppers, a third of the Birmingham/ Manchester services chopped, no change to Liverpool/Glasgow services) - maybe this should be publicised on other lines too - e.g. in the case of TPE having problems then going down to a well spaced three trains per hour from Manchester to Leeds (hourly from Liverpool and the Airport, hourly to Hull/ Scarborough/ Middlesbrough - any Newcastle passengers dumped onto existing LNER/XC services).

There are actually a few steps of it - it's very well planned and can be executed well if needed because it's all ready. I agree that one for the main North West lines would make a lot of sense.

Step 1: Cancel Tring stoppers and 1tph of each of Manchester and Brum. Used when a short section is "2 tracked".
Step 2: As step 1 but also lop the North Wales service back to Crewe. Used when a longer section is "2 tracked".
Step 3: AWC as per steps 1 or 2, LNR reduced to 2tph 12-car all stations Euston-Northampton with other services lopped back to Northampton. I think in this case the Trent Valley still runs, but it might be lopped to Rugby, I forget. I didn't know this was a standard one until LNR admitted it was in a Tweet last week. Used only in very severe disruption.

Step 3 is very rarely used but it was the other week. I've also seen hourly all stations but only once - "the day London stopped" - the major "snow day" in the mid 2000s, I forget exactly when it was but have photos of a very empty Euston at about 5:30pm!

(Edit: I've added the photos for anyone who might be interested as a bit of an "on the side" - for those with screen readers they are of Euston, Euston Square and a few locations around London on a weekday including in the peaks with a lot of snow and almost no people! It was it seems 2009.)

 

[Bletchleyite]

If you're going to the Airport, yes. But I'm not a big fan of the way that people going for an annual flight are treated as being significantly more important than people using the train for a regular commute - there are big consequences to dropping any journeys (but irregular leisure passengers seem to be more of a priority on the Forum than boring everyday passengers who use the railway out of necessity.

And this is the root of my being anti-Airport and refer to it as the tail wagging the dog. Yes, there are a lot of people who commute to it, but as the jobs are typically low-waged (other than the pilots) they will tend to be much more local, and are more likely to be getting the bus or tram from Wythenshawe (hence the night service on that branch of Metrolink) and the likes than coming across the Pennines on TPE.

Fundamentally it's more important to provide for the economy of Manchester itself than the airport. The airport is also important (though one would hope for environmental reasons it will become less so over time) but not as important as the basics.

And as I've pointed out many times, if you can drag your wheely case through the tunnels at the Airport you can drag it between trains at Piccadilly. Even from the concourse to 13/14 is not as far as the tunnel at the Airport. These are not the days of large traditional suitcases and luggage trolleys (which are still there, but barely see any use) - they are the days of the small wheely case and rucksack. The low cost airlines' baggage policies have seen to it that a family of 4 are likely to be pulling a relatively small case each (even the kids with the likes of Trunkis) rather than be lugging one or two large traditional non-wheeled bags.