Transpennine woes and a moan...

[gimmea50anyday]

loss of route knowledge has nothing to do with DfT. TPE management making decisions that certain crews at certain depots will only cover certain work on certain traction Types only has created this problem. These decisions were made as far back as 2016. I warned management back then what was going to happen and was assured that they advocated conductor flexibility, however that has been eroded piecemeal year by year ever since. Granted COVID may not have helped, however current management refuse to allow and have taken out training days in the link which were utilised to maintain route knowledge in the past. Spare crews could be out reviewing and refreshing their routes but when those requests went in management refused them. That would have cost NOTHING!!! Instead the routes were taken off conductors and drivers cards. To re-learn will now cost money and time. Decisions for december has now taken all 185 work and the route between leeds and huddersfield off Newcastles work which will potentially result in 185 traction competency lapsing for newcastle crews. That will result in cancellation of services should a 185 deputise for an 802 where scheduled to be crewed by Newcastle. And so the problems will snowball just as they have been for the last 5 years….

train crews have been beating their immediate managers with whats wrong and what the company should be doing to put things right, and they agree and acknowledge this. but the higher managers have got their fingers firmly in their ears are shouting. “La la la la la,” THATS where the problems lie. Front line staff get the impression management don't care and that lack of care is filtering down. Now, no doubt someone here will shoot me down and tell me thats not true, so i put this to you…… Prove it! Convince me otherwise. Start by listening, taking on board and actually actioning what the fromt line staff that do care such as myself are telling you and if the DfT are stopping you, make it public. What do you stand to lose? the franchise is toast anyway

(shareholder value no doubt will be the answer why, that and the cost to the business….)

 

[josh-j]

I'm not saying TPE is being managed well, far from it What I'm saying is that the government has had plenty of time to work out solutions, but hasn't bothered. At the end of the day it's the government which decides who is running the TPE routes.

I suppose it's techically possible that the higher ups in government really do want a better railway but if that's the case they clearly don't have a clue how to bring that about. Either they don't want to fix this or are too blinded by belief in spending cuts to understand that railways need public funding and that funding a public service is actually a good thing, not a bad thing.

Anyway perhaps straying too much into politics there, but when it's politics causing the issue at hand...!

 

[43066]

loss of route knowledge has nothing to do with DfT. TPE management making decisions that certain crews at certain depots will only cover certain work on certain traction Types only has created this problem. These decisions were made as far back as 2016.

Not to dispute that bad decisions may have been made in the past, but it’s true that TOCs have very little freedom to do anything at the moment without DfT sign off. It’s ultimately the Dft who will have to sign off route knowledge being expanded which will cost more than reducing it/allowing it to lapse. Even if that makes the service poorer in the short term.

Management ultimately probably don’t really care because - as noted above - it isn’t impacting their bottom line. It’s slightly missing the point to blame the TOC and is playing into the government’s hands to try and force through changes by blaming the disruption in IA* and unions rather than acknowledging the real cause…

*clearly strikes have had an impact and caused disruption on some occasions but the wider picture of TPE unreliability is not down to this.

 

[Clarence Yard]

Whatever happened before March 2020 is well known but it is the ability to do anything about it now that is at the root of all this.

The franchise effectively ended in March 2020. You staff at TPE are now at the mercy of the DfT who sign off your establishment, your training budget and your train plan. Your management are dancing to the DfT tune and in the NRC there is a gagging clause so if they did go public, it is a red card offence. You get your fees by doing the DfT’s bidding, not by biting the hand that feeds you.

If you think your TPE MD hasn’t been trying to get more funds from the DfT, think again. He has a track record elsewhere of getting extra resources in but, here, he is trying to rescue a TOC with one hand held behind his back and insufficient cash to do it with.

 

[VauxhallNova]

FirstGroup do seem rather good at getting cash out of DfT.

 

[Greybeard33]

Whatever happened before March 2020 is well known but it is the ability to do anything about it now that is at the root of all this.

The franchise effectively ended in March 2020. You staff at TPE are now at the mercy of the DfT who sign off your establishment, your training budget and your train plan. Your management are dancing to the DfT tune and in the NRC there is a gagging clause so if they did go public, it is a red card offence. You get your fees by doing the DfT’s bidding, not by biting the hand that feeds you.

If you think your TPE MD hasn’t been trying to get more funds from the DfT, think again. He has a track record elsewhere of getting extra resources in but, here, he is trying to rescue a TOC with one hand held behind his back and insufficient cash to do it with.

I watched the webcast of the Rail North Committee meeting on 15 November, in which Steve Montgomery (First Rail MD) and Matthew Golton (TPE MD) were interrogated about the performance issues at Avanti and TPE. Both were evasive when committee members invited them to apportion blame to DfT budget constraints. They claimed that both Avanti and TPE have recruited enough drivers to operate the timetable without rest day working agreements, the main issues being the training backlog, driver route competence and driver rosters and diagrams. In the case of TPE, particular challenges are route and traction learning for the December timetable and for the diversionary routes needed during TRU blockades.

Nick Donovan (Northern MD) was confident that Northern will be able to agree with ASLEF amended rosters as required to support the December timetable, but Montgomery and Golton were notably more cautious about the prospects of Avanti and TPE reaching similar agreements in time for the timetable change.

If the December timetable should turn out to be a fiasco on the scale of May 2018, it seems likely that the RNC/TfN will issue Statutory Advice to the Transport Secretary that FirstGroup should be stripped of the Avanti and TPE franchises.

The webcast can be viewed at https://democracy.transportforthenorth.com/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=157&MId=1376

 

[VauxhallNova]

Both were evasive when committee members invited them to apportion blame to DfT budget constraints. They claimed that both Avanti and TPE have recruited enough drivers to operate the timetable without rest day working agreements, the main issues being the training backlog, driver route competence and driver rosters and diagrams.

Ah, but I'm sure that's just the "gagging order", not the fact that things aren't being well managed.

 

[LittleAH]

Ah, but I'm sure that's just the "gagging order", not the fact that things aren't being well managed.

Northern aren't under NRC, TPE are. It's all there in black and white in the NRC. Criticism can't be aimed at DfT and it's a well known secret in the industry. Although, I suppose it doesn't suit your narrative.

That will result in cancellation of services should a 185 deputise for an 802 where scheduled to be crewed by Newcastle.

185s won't be deputising for an 802 north of York.

if the DfT are stopping you, make it public. What do you stand to lose? the franchise is toast anyway

1) Franchising has been toast for nearly 3 years.
2) I think there's rather a lot to lose don't you?

 

[gimmea50anyday]

185s won't be deputising for an 802 north of York.

it does and it has happened. Granted they cant keep to time but a 185 will make a damn good go of it!

 

[LittleAH]

it does and it has happened. Granted they cant keep to time but a 185 will make a damn good go of it!

It used to happen. There's not the need anymore.

 

[VauxhallNova]

Northern aren't under NRC, TPE are. It's all there in black and white in the NRC. Criticism can't be aimed at DfT and it's a well known secret in the industry. Although, I suppose it doesn't suit your narrative.

I'd be interested to see what the clause is, sounds like a very sensitive bit of drafting!

Even with such a clause, TPE and Northern have both made clear that DfT hold the decision on whether to try and negotiate Rest Day Working.

I wonder what other criticisms TPE could make, say they have more than enough drivers.

 

[DanNCL]

Out of interest with one of the Newcastle - Edinburgh diagrams being Glasgow crewed all day, could theoretically a 397 deputise on that if required?

It used to happen. There's not the need anymore.

That is not true. It still happens from time to time. I’ve observed it myself as a passenger and someone else who works them on that route has also mentioned it.

802s might be better than some of the CAF stuff for availability but they’re far from perfect.

It’s the West Coast where 185s can no longer deputise.

 

[Clarence Yard]

Please could you show me the clause?

It's interesting that, even with such a clause, TPE and Northern have both made clear that DfT hold the decision on whether to try and negotiate Rest Day Working.

It's not clear what other criticisms are relevant given TPE say they have more than enough drivers.

Chapter 9.6 in every NRC is what you are looking for. For the avoidance of doubt, items under Chapters 2.2 and 3.1 get covered by it. Basically, you just have to agree your lines with the DfT before you speak.

As you are now acting as just the DfT’s managing agent, rather than being an independent franchise holder, the DfT feels that it owns the “spin” lines.

 

[VauxhallNova]

Great, thankyou. I couldn't find any specific drafting but the section on confidentiality, the first part of section 9.6, reads:

"Subject to the provisions of the Act, the Environmental Information Regulations, the Freedom of Information Act (and any code of practice or other guidance related to the same) and paragraphs 2 (Disclosure of Confidential Information) to 8 (Continuing Obligation) and 10 (Redactions) inclusive of this Chapter 9.6, each Party shall hold in confidence the Contract Documents and all documents, materials and other information, whether technical or commercial, supplied by or on behalf of the other Party (including all documents and information supplied in the course of proceedings under the Dispute Resolution Rules or the rules of any other dispute resolution procedures to which a dispute is referred in accordance with the National Rail Contract) (all together the “Confidential Information”) and shall not, except with the other Party’s prior written authority, publish or otherwise disclose any Confidential Information otherwise than as expressly provided for in the National Rail Contract unless or until the recipient Party can demonstrate that any such document, material or information is in the public domain through no fault of its own and through no contravention of the National Rail Contract, whereupon to the extent that it is in the public domain this obligation shall cease."

It's almost exactly the same as section 17.1 of a franchise agreement:

"Subject to the provisions of the Act, the Transport Act, the Railways Act 2005, the Environmental Information Regulations, the Freedom of Information Act (and any code of practice or other guidance related to the same) and paragraphs 2 to 8 and 10 of this Schedule 17 inclusive, each party shall hold in confidence all documents, materials and other information, whether technical or commercial, supplied by or on behalf of the other party (including all documents and information supplied in the course of proceedings under the Dispute Resolution Rules or the rules of any other dispute resolution procedures to which a dispute is referred in accordance with the Franchise Agreement) (all together the “Confidential Information”) and shall not, except with the other party’s prior written authority, publish or otherwise disclose any Confidential Information otherwise than as expressly provided for in the Franchise Agreement unless or until the recipient party can demonstrate that any such document, material or information is in the public domain through no fault of its own and through no contravention of the Franchise Agreement, whereupon to the extent that it is in the public domain this obligation shall cease."

 

[Clarence Yard]

Indeed it is but because the status of the TOCs has changed, the scope of what the DfT will accept as an “independent” view has also changed. When you read it in conjunction with all the clauses of the main contract, they are leaving little to no room to express a view, especially when it comes to anything to do with staff matters. Section 2.2 is particularly fierce on the ability of the TOC to take anything resembling an independent line.

 

[VauxhallNova]

What do you think TPE would want to say?

 

[DanNCL]

Indeed it is but because the status of the TOCs has changed, the scope of what the DfT will accept as an “independent” view has also changed. When you read it in conjunction with all the clauses of the main contract, they are leaving little to no room to express a view, especially when it comes to anything to do with staff matters. Section 2.2 is particularly fierce on the ability of the TOC to take anything resembling an independent line.

Let the DFT have a tantrum. What are they going to do, strip the contract that’ll likely be stripped anyway when politically convenient? Take legal action that the government would likely lose?

First will know they’re unlikely to have this contract come summer 2024 at the latest, they might as well cut their losses now and speak openly like Virgin/Stagecoach did a few years ago, albeit under very different circumstances (and where Virgin/Stagecoach were as much to blame).

 

[mike57]

What do you think TPE would want to say?

Is there a point reached where the reputational damage caused by inability to sort problems out because of DfT 'interference' means that First Group just walk away from it and concentrate on other areas of the business because the profit contribution is not worth the pain that comes with the profit.

 

[VauxhallNova]

Really not sure DfT are responsible for the historic shortage of traincrew, the over-reliance on Rest Day Working, and the changes to traincrew knowledge and diagramming though?

 

[Clarence Yard]

They aren’t responsible for any of that, in historic terms. But they effectively took back the franchises in March 2020, reached a settlement with the owning groups and then it was all theirs, irrespective of the history.

That’s the bit people don’t realise. It doesn’t matter how much an owning group mucked up prior to March 2020, it is the decisions made afterwards that are in play here. And who has been making those decisions since March 2020?

Whilst owning groups are making fat fees by just being a managing agent for the DfT, of course they are going to stay in the game. Who wouldn’t, even if you have to take a considerable amount of flak in the process.

 

[Bertie the bus]

They aren’t responsible for any of that, in historic terms. But they effectively took back the franchises in March 2020, reached a settlement with the owning groups and then it was all theirs, irrespective of the history.

That’s the bit people don’t realise. It doesn’t matter how much an owning group mucked up prior to March 2020, it is the decisions made afterwards that are in play here. And who has been making those decisions since March 2020?

Whilst owning groups are making fat fees by just being a managing agent for the DfT, of course they are going to stay in the game. Who wouldn’t, even if you have to take a considerable amount of flak in the process.

That clearly isn't the entire truth. If the franchise hadn't been in such a chaotic mess prior to March 2020 it wouldn't be in such a chaotic mess now, so First are largely to blame. They had to come to an agreement with the owning group because otherwise TPE wouldn't exist and there wouldn't be any services and it is ridiculous to suggest that the DfT's first thought in the height of the Covid panic should be how many drivers do TPE have. The DfT might be partially at fault for TPE's predicament but not as much as FirstGroup and just because they largely got let off the hook when Covid struck doesn't absolve them of responsibility.

 

[DoubleO]

The way I view it, TPE are mainly responsible for the current situation due to their historic (poor) decision making on traction, links, route knowledge, and driver numbers. But the DfT are now delaying/preventing progress due to holding back pay talks, controlling recruitment, and pulling RDW payments. You can't say it's wholly the fault of either party, it's a perfect storm of mistakes, mismanagement and significantly tightening the purse strings.

 

[josh-j]

Fact remains that whoever is at fault historically, it's the DFT who should now be trying to fix things surely.

Whether that is with or without First isn't really that relevant, the DFT are the ones who decide to keep First in place and getting paid for the mess.

 

[VauxhallNova]

The way I view it, TPE are mainly responsible for the current situation due to their historic (poor) decision making on traction, links, route knowledge, and driver numbers. But the DfT are now delaying/preventing progress due to holding back pay talks, controlling recruitment, and pulling RDW payments. You can't say it's wholly the fault of either party, it's a perfect storm of mistakes, mismanagement and significantly tightening the purse strings.

Agreed, good summary.

 

[Clarence Yard]

That clearly isn't the entire truth. If the franchise hadn't been in such a chaotic mess prior to March 2020 it wouldn't be in such a chaotic mess now, so First are largely to blame. They had to come to an agreement with the owning group because otherwise TPE wouldn't exist and there wouldn't be any services and it is ridiculous to suggest that the DfT's first thought in the height of the Covid panic should be how many drivers do TPE have. The DfT might be partially at fault for TPE's predicament but not as much as FirstGroup and just because they largely got let off the hook when Covid struck doesn't absolve them of responsibility.

It does! That’s the contractual position! Franchises ended, all problems are now the DfT’s! And all the owning groups are free from revenue and cost risk. They just trouser a (not inconsiderable) fee for doing the DfT’s work for them. It’s effectively a very expensive form of OLR.

Does it mean it’s morally right? Of course not, but the DfT settled with FG fully knowing the position and obviously have not done enough since. COVID and the current dispute have muddied the waters but it’s the DfT who control the purse strings now and if they don’t want to open them up, then it’s going to be a mess.

Every TOC that was short of crew in March 2020 has been in a poor position since then and now some who weren’t are starting to suffer the same issues.

 

[VauxhallNova]

It's interesting whether DfT knew the full position or not. Steve Montgomery confessed at Rail North Committee that they've over-relied on Rest Day Working in the past and that meant they had a false sense of security.

 

[Watershed]

Let the DFT have a tantrum. What are they going to do, strip the contract that’ll likely be stripped anyway when politically convenient? Take legal action that the government would likely lose?

First will know they’re unlikely to have this contract come summer 2024 at the latest, they might as well cut their losses now and speak openly like Virgin/Stagecoach did a few years ago, albeit under very different circumstances (and where Virgin/Stagecoach were as much to blame).

Try defending the loss of a profit-making concession to shareholders, on the basis that "we wanted to tell the public the truth". Good luck!

 

[LittleAH]

That is not true. It still happens from time to time. I’ve observed it myself as a passenger and someone else who works them on that route has also mentioned it.

802s might be better than some of the CAF stuff for availability but they’re far from perfect.

It’s the West Coast where 185s can no longer deputise.

Again, there's no longer the need. Times change.

 

[DanNCL]

Try defending the loss of a profit-making concession to shareholders, on the basis that "we wanted to tell the public the truth". Good luck!

First group is in a poor financial state, losing a concession that's causing them major reputational damage could actually go down well with shareholders, especially if it allows them to focus on more promising ventures like Lumo.

Again, there's no longer the need. Times change.

But there clearly is a need or it wouldn't still be happening, or do you think they send the odd 185 to the Newcastle for a laugh? I certainly don't think that, when they send a 185 it's because they need to.

People have done an excellent job of explaining why a lot of the current issues on TPE are down to loss of route and traction knowledge; you are advocating more of it.

 

[LittleAH]

But there clearly is a need or it wouldn't still be happening, or do you think they send the odd 185 to the Newcastle for a laugh? I certainly don't think that, when they send a 185 it's because they need to.

People have done an excellent job of explaining why a lot of the current issues on TPE are down to loss of route and traction knowledge, and you are advocating more of it.

When was the last time a 185 ran to Newcastle?

Newcastle routes will be 802's as has always been the plan.