Why are the two dates, May and December, chosen for timetable changes?

[Peregrine 4903]

Only in the railway's arrogant mindset could this possibly be framed as a positive change. Can you imagine an airline selling tickets for flights which they've not yet decided whether to run? Yes, airlines do sometimes change flights after you've booked - but generally with far more than 8 weeks' notice, and certainly not because they haven't bothered to match their flight schedule to the available infrastructure (e.g. a terminal or runway being refurbished).

When it comes to unfortunately timed engineering works, one of the railway's most popular refrains is "the work was planned years in advance". Well if it that's the case, then why can't the timetable be confirmed years in advance? Of course, I know there are practical explanations (some may say "excuses") why that would be difficult given the industry procedures - but it's an unbelievable attitude to customer service. Frankly the railway deserves every bit of flak it gets, for as long as it tries to have its cake and eat it in this manner.

You can also be sure that the railway will awfully conveniently omit to mention the other rights that passengers have when their itinerary changes - e.g. to be re-routed at the earliest opportunity (including using other operators if quicker).

I realise that there are also other reasons behind this change, and that this has happened despite the misgivings of many people in the industry. But the railway should have pushed back much, much harder against government interference - this is an utterly unacceptable outcome.

Government doesn't have much to do with this. Its been pushed and managed by NR and was on the cards before covid anyway.

 

[Class 170101]

If it’s needed, yes. But it’s not likely to be needed (At least not in any notable quantity).

It hasn’t been T-12 for nearly 3 years.

And... until changes are made isn't that what the industry supposed to be aiming for and meeting?

how have you reached that conclusion? Which members of the committee have you spoken to? The minutes of the last committee were pretty clear on the matter!

Don't really understand what speaking to a committee has to do with it I'm afraid. If NR have already decided what they want to do then it doesn't offer much confidence.

Yeah at best it's been T-8

Well yes however doesn't mean its right though, see my previous post about better notice and the type of market the railway needs to shift towards.

T-8 permanently, but with a new system for booking tickets beyond that (with advice if your booking changes).

That will p155 customers off eventually because each individual's tolerances for changes will vary as I said previously the industry should be aiming for notice of change further out not shortening it. T-8 favours NR maintenance not passengers I am afraid.

as @Watershed pointed out

Only in the railway's arrogant mindset could this possibly be framed as a positive change. Can you imagine an airline selling tickets for flights which they've not yet decided whether to run? Yes, airlines do sometimes change flights after you've booked - but generally with far more than 8 weeks' notice, and certainly not because they haven't bothered to match their flight schedule to the available infrastructure (e.g. a terminal or runway being refurbished).

When it comes to unfortunately timed engineering works, one of the railway's most popular refrains is "the work was planned years in advance". Well if it that's the case, then why can't the timetable be confirmed years in advance? Of course, I know there are practical explanations (some may say "excuses") why that would be difficult given the industry procedures - but it's an unbelievable attitude to customer service. Frankly the railway deserves every bit of flak it gets, for as long as it tries to have its cake and eat it in this manner.

You can also be sure that the railway will awfully conveniently omit to mention the other rights that passengers have when their itinerary changes - e.g. to be re-routed at the earliest opportunity (including using other operators if quicker).

I realise that there are also other reasons behind this change, and that this has happened despite the misgivings of many people in the industry. But the railway should have pushed back much, much harder against government interference - this is an utterly unacceptable outcome.

Now I would argue that the detailed timetable is unlikely to be able to be shown a year out. However I see no reason why on NRES and TOC websites it cannot show a week by week account of the engineering works in a format like

Engineering Works are taking place on a date(s) between
Edinburgh and Berwick on Tweed

Buses replace trains between Edinburgh and Berwick. Please allow extra time given in minutes to complete your journey

LNER services will take a diversionary route via Carlisle adding extra time given in minutes to the journey

On the basis that NR should know when their major projects are taking place and claim they do a year out then why not give passengers this knowledge as well.

True about 1 person in a TOC; but most will not need them.

Absolutely no confidence in your argument there having seen the amount of late notice change NR are now attempting to throw in. Whether they get them is of course another matter.

In a TOC, one person is a notable quantity, as anyone who has asked for an additional post will have discovered

Not surprised I'm afraid.

It was of course the long distance TOCs who wanted T-12. Most shorter distance operators weren’t bothered. Perhaps T-6 or 8 is a sensible compromise, or is the industry going to try to keep chasing T-12?

Why not chase T-12 (or further) as per my earlier post above alluded to reference the type of customers the railway is now chasing vice what it used to be. Of course this three TT changes per year idea inevitably makes it harder though not impossible.

Reference LD TOCs they would want to offer the T-12 notice (as you say) but the shorter distance ones need to be mindful because many people don't have a long distance operator on their door step and so need the shorter distance operators to start and complete their journeys.

 

[Clarence Yard]

The DfT supports a firm T-8 and that seems to have decided the matter as far as the DfT TOCs are concerned, despite the wishes of LD operators to keep to a firm T-12.

 

[Class 170101]

The DfT supports a firm T-8 and that seems to have decided the matter as far as the DfT TOCs are concerned, despite the wishes of LD operators to keep to a firm T-12.

Another non-focussed customer decision from the DfT.

 

[zwk500]

Another non-focussed customer decision from the DfT.

Is it more customer friendly to promise something you'll never deliver or to set expectations that even if it isn't optimal, at least it can be relied upon (hopefully)

 

[The Planner]

Don't really understand what speaking to a committee has to do with it I'm afraid. If NR have already decided what they want to do then it doesn't offer much confidence.

The class representative committee are the one that signs it off, not NR.
Its all on the NR website

Network Code - Network Rail

The Network Code is a set of contractual rules incorporated into each track access agreement between Network Rail and all train operators

www.networkrail.co.uk

 

[Clarence Yard]

The “CRC” is a committee with 8 members - 2 NR, 3 Franchised Passenger, 1 Non-Franchised Passenger and 2 freight. They, not NR, are responsible for determining alterations to the key industry rules - “The Network Code”.

The CRC reps are voted onto the committee by members of their particular “class” and are usually people who have both timetabling and regulatory experience.

Any decision they take has to go to the ORR, for their final approval.