Future of TPE

[Bantamzen]

I don't think it is clear. The current service is a mess with no passengers (or staff) knowing which services are going to be cancelled each day. It can be assumed it is roughly the same level of cancellation day-to-day but different services. The benefit of making a temporary timetable with fewer services is that people will know weeks in advance what services are going to run. That is not fewer services than actually currently run at the moment BUT it is a predictable service pattern. To blindly cling on to the the current timetable is a foolish stupid naive approach that just generates unnecessary frustration.

A relable timetable is better than the current work of fiction. It is not enough trains, just as the current mess is not enough trains, but it is a predictable service.

I'll make my point again, the North TP is a mixture of commuter and longer distance. This means a lot of people are going to rely on it daily, and implementing an Avanti style timetable cut is not going to work for them. And let's face it even with those cuts Avanti didn't exactly shine, so on a route where capacity is far more limited per service cutting back simply forces more people onto the services that are left will lead to delays and cancellations. Therefore the solution becomes the problem, in fact more so. If TPE were able to operate 10 car formations on the fasts, maybe it might be a solution. But could you imagine the fasts dialled back to 1pth through the core and rocking up at P8 on a morning peak comprised of a 3 car 185 (and let's face it this will happen)? Or the same at P16 at Leeds in the afternoon peak? Punters knowing that their next train won't be for another hour will fight, perhaps literally, for a space on that train. You'd be asking for real problems.

Avanti is a completely different kettle of fish to TPE. For the most part those commuters that might use Avanti would potentially have alternative rail options, passengers in the North TP core do not. Its all very well suggesting that TPE just cut back until they can find something that they might be able to offer. Unfortunately the people using these services might not be able to say to their bosses that they need to change their hours to suit TPE, and that even then they couldn't guarantee it because they might not be able to board the few services left. Most people working in places like Leeds don't have the option of just headed to an out-of town hotel conference room, as suggested by another respondent on this thread.

I'm sorry to say it but it is time for the rail industry and the government to stop making excuses, and making life more and more difficult for passengers. We pay enough as it is directly and indirectly, so between the former two its time to stop pratting about and get the job done.

 

[WAB]

This means a lot of people are going to rely on it daily, and implementing an Avanti style timetable cut is not going to work for them. And let's face it even with those cuts Avanti didn't exactly shine, so on a route where capacity is far more limited per service cutting back simply forces more people onto the services that are left will lead to delays and cancellations. Therefore the solution becomes the problem, in fact more so. If TPE were able to operate 10 car formations on the fasts, maybe it might be a solution. But could you imagine the fasts dialled back to 1pth through the core and rocking up at P8 on a morning peak comprised of a 3 car 185 (and let's face it this will happen)? Or the same at P16 at Leeds in the afternoon peak? Punters knowing that their next train won't be for another hour will fight, perhaps literally, for a space on that train. You'd be asking for real problems.

If the emergency timetable is well-produced, it’ll provide more trains in real terms than the current LTP. I’m not sure how your misunderstanding has come about. An emergency timetable would allow units sitting around sans train crew to actually be out and about. It would allow train crew to be allocated to trains which will actually running, and not trains which can’t run because one leg is uncovered. It allows the available train crew to be concentrated on the busiest times. It provides a timetable which passengers can be more confident will run. It can be relied on more because workers know the service will most likely run.

I'm sorry to say it but it is time for the rail industry and the government to stop making excuses, and making life more and more difficult for passengers. We pay enough as it is directly and indirectly, so between the former two its time to stop pratting about and get the job done.

Oh trust me, the industry is very aware of this. There just is not the money coming in and DfT insist on bodges and ignoring issues.

 

[Bantamzen]

If the emergency timetable is well-produced, it’ll provide more trains in real terms than the current LTP. I’m not sure how your misunderstanding has come about. An emergency timetable would allow units sitting around sans train crew to actually be out and about. It would allow train crew to be allocated to trains which will actually running, and not trains which can’t run because one leg is uncovered. It allows the available train crew to be concentrated on the busiest times. It provides a timetable which passengers can be more confident will run. It can be relied on more because workers know the service will most likely run.

I really wish people would read before commenting. It doesn't matter how well produced a timetable is, if you reduce the timetable but not the passenger numbers you are going to run into problems. As a previously regular user of TPE pre-pandemic, and before the new stock landed, there were regular 185 crushes in the peaks, and quite often outside. Services regularly picked up significant delays because it would take ages to unload and load units thanks to them being packed to the rafters. And this was when there were 4pth & Northern ran the stoppers. It wasn't unusual to see places like P16 at Leeds completely full and overflowing up the stairwell to the footbridge.

If TPE were to go for an Avanti style cut, I can see that happening again. Except this time instead of having to wait another 15-20 minutes for the next service when one gets binned, punters will have the fun time of maybe waiting another hour in crush conditions. I'm sure that won't cause any problems....

Oh trust me, the industry is very aware of this. There just is not the money coming in and DfT insist on bodges and ignoring issues.

Trust me when I tell you this, most punters don't care who is to blame any more. The railway industry, the government, the unions, they've all had a hand in this utter s***show that is now our railways. And this apparent "if at first you don't succeed, give up" culture that seems to be propagating in the rail industry really adds the sense that the railways are in serious, if not terminal decline. Heads need banging together, not given get out of jail free options like cutting back to the bone.

 

[WAB]

I really wish people would read before commenting. It doesn't matter how well produced a timetable is, if you reduce the timetable but not the passenger numbers you are going to run into problems. As a previously regular user of TPE pre-pandemic, and before the new stock landed, there were regular 185 crushes in the peaks, and quite often outside. Services regularly picked up significant delays because it would take ages to unload and load units thanks to them being packed to the rafters. And this was when there were 4pth & Northern ran the stoppers. It wasn't unusual to see places like P16 at Leeds completely full and overflowing up the stairwell to the footbridge.

If TPE were to go for an Avanti style cut, I can see that happening again. Except this time instead of having to wait another 15-20 minutes for the next service when one gets binned, punters will have the fun time of maybe waiting another hour in crush conditions. I'm sure that won't cause any problems....

Respectfully, perhaps you could take your own advice and reread my response? An emergency timetable would offer the same or more services as are currently offered, as it would allow more efficient crew and unit diagrams given the available train crew, as well as make sufficient train crew available for the peak. No, it’s not ideal. But the railway can’t just pull some drivers out from the magic traincrew cupboard and use the magic money tree to increase route knowledge and depot establishments to an appropriate level.

Trust me when I tell you this, most punters don't care who is to blame any more. The railway industry, the government, the unions, they've all had a hand in this utter s***show that is now our railways. And this apparent "if at first you don't succeed, give up" culture that seems to be propagating in the rail industry really adds the sense that the railways are in serious, if not terminal decline. Heads need banging together, not given get out of jail free options like cutting back to the bone.

Tell that to the under-resourced train planning units and see how many train planners you’re left with afterwards. They aren’t giving up, they are working with what they’ve got. I don’t expect the punters to understand this, but someone on a rail forum should. The problem is at government and executive level - the rest of us just have to work with what we are given. I appreciate you are a disgruntled passenger but there are good reasons why we can’t fix things straight away.

 

[Bantamzen]

Respectfully, perhaps you could take your own advice and reread my response? An emergency timetable would offer the same or more services as are currently offered, as it would allow more efficient crew and unit diagrams given the available train crew, as well as make sufficient train crew available for the peak. No, it’s not ideal. But the railway can’t just pull some drivers out from the magic traincrew cupboard and use the magic money tree to increase route knowledge and depot establishments to an appropriate level.

And how does that help delays created by overcrowding because you've got 2 or 3 trainloads of passengers trying to board one unit? I would happily put money on services still being binned as a result even with just 1 fast and 1 stopper an hour through the core, which is the point I've been making all along. Its not just "not ideal" when you are trying to keep your job, its unacceptable. Many of the problems are of the industry's own making, its not up to the passengers to have to work around the railways.

Tell that to the under-resourced train planning units and see how many train planners you’re left with afterwards. They aren’t giving up, they are working with what they’ve got. I don’t expect the punters to understand this, but someone on a rail forum should. The problem is at government and executive level - the rest of us just have to work with what we are given. I appreciate you are a disgruntled passenger but there are good reasons why we can’t fix things straight away.

I'm sorry that the planners have got their work cut out, but this is quite honestly an issue for many areas. However you can't just say well unfortunately we are going have to the dump services indefinitely and not expect a serious backlash. I would be less aggrieved if passengers had viable alternatives, although perhaps that's something you might not wish for because if there are the punters may never come back. But when it comes to TPE through it's core there are not. People rely on these services for work, a bare bones service there would leave a lot of people high and dry. I'm afraid that is not acceptable, end of.

 

[Peter Sarf]

I'll make my point again, the North TP is a mixture of commuter and longer distance. This means a lot of people are going to rely on it daily, and implementing an Avanti style timetable cut is not going to work for them. And let's face it even with those cuts Avanti didn't exactly shine, so on a route where capacity is far more limited per service cutting back simply forces more people onto the services that are left will lead to delays and cancellations. Therefore the solution becomes the problem, in fact more so. If TPE were able to operate 10 car formations on the fasts, maybe it might be a solution. But could you imagine the fasts dialled back to 1pth through the core and rocking up at P8 on a morning peak comprised of a 3 car 185 (and let's face it this will happen)? Or the same at P16 at Leeds in the afternoon peak? Punters knowing that their next train won't be for another hour will fight, perhaps literally, for a space on that train. You'd be asking for real problems.

Avanti is a completely different kettle of fish to TPE. For the most part those commuters that might use Avanti would potentially have alternative rail options, passengers in the North TP core do not. Its all very well suggesting that TPE just cut back until they can find something that they might be able to offer. Unfortunately the people using these services might not be able to say to their bosses that they need to change their hours to suit TPE, and that even then they couldn't guarantee it because they might not be able to board the few services left. Most people working in places like Leeds don't have the option of just headed to an out-of town hotel conference room, as suggested by another respondent on this thread.

I'm sorry to say it but it is time for the rail industry and the government to stop making excuses, and making life more and more difficult for passengers. We pay enough as it is directly and indirectly, so between the former two its time to stop pratting about and get the job done.

I really wish people would read before commenting. It doesn't matter how well produced a timetable is, if you reduce the timetable but not the passenger numbers you are going to run into problems. As a previously regular user of TPE pre-pandemic, and before the new stock landed, there were regular 185 crushes in the peaks, and quite often outside. Services regularly picked up significant delays because it would take ages to unload and load units thanks to them being packed to the rafters. And this was when there were 4pth & Northern ran the stoppers. It wasn't unusual to see places like P16 at Leeds completely full and overflowing up the stairwell to the footbridge.

If TPE were to go for an Avanti style cut, I can see that happening again. Except this time instead of having to wait another 15-20 minutes for the next service when one gets binned, punters will have the fun time of maybe waiting another hour in crush conditions. I'm sure that won't cause any problems....


Trust me when I tell you this, most punters don't care who is to blame any more. The railway industry, the government, the unions, they've all had a hand in this utter s***show that is now our railways. And this apparent "if at first you don't succeed, give up" culture that seems to be propagating in the rail industry really adds the sense that the railways are in serious, if not terminal decline. Heads need banging together, not given get out of jail free options like cutting back to the bone.

Please.

I think most people agree with you that a temporary timetable would not be enough. But there is no capability to run better until staff training is gradually built up. What would you suggest would happen in the meantime ?.

What I understand is that current the service is poor. The idea of a temporary timetable is to possibly run a bit more but mainly provide a predicted service that is more reliable - it will avoid last minute cancellations (including the night before).

You might not like that temporary service but it is BETTER than running the current poor service with what does run being at unpredictable times.

I will ask you - do you understand the current service is WORSE ?.

If you don't want to make the service more predictable then how do you intend to deal with the current abysmal situation ?.

What alternative do you believe is better and how would it be achieved quickly thus avoiding a temporary timetable ?.

 

[Bantamzen]

Please.

I think most people agree with you that a temporary timetable would not be enough. But there is no capability to run better until staff training is gradually built up. What would you suggest would happen in the meantime ?.

What I understand is that current the service is poor. The idea of a temporary timetable is to possibly run a bit more but mainly provide a predicted service that is more reliable - it will avoid last minute cancellations (including the night before).

You might not like that temporary service but it is BETTER than running the current poor service with what does run being at unpredictable times.

I will ask you - do you understand the current service is WORSE ?.

If you don't want to make the service more predictable then how do you intend to deal with the current abysmal situation ?.

What alternative do you believe is better and how would it be achieved quickly thus avoiding a temporary timetable.

<bangs head repeatedly on desk>

No it is not better if a commuter service is infrequent, and those services that run will be so overcrowded that passengers might not even be able to board meaning a "commuter" service might have you waiting for a couple of hours. Why is this concept so difficult to consider? You ask what the alternatives are, well let me flip that around. What are your alternatives for the people who need to get to work, and cannot gamble on an infrequent service that they might still not be able to use?

As I have said above, if the route were able to handle doubled up 802s then just maybe canning many services might be an option. But it can't, so it isn't.

 

[Peter Sarf]

<bangs head repeatedly on desk>

No it is not better if a commuter service is infrequent, and those services that run will be so overcrowded that passengers might not even be able to board meaning a "commuter" service might have you waiting for a couple of hours. Why is this concept so difficult to consider? You ask what the alternatives are, well let me flip that around. What are your alternatives for the people who need to get to work, and cannot gamble on an infrequent service that they might still not be able to use?

As I have said above, if the route were able to handle doubled up 802s then just maybe canning many services might be an option. But it can't, so it isn't.

The commuter service is already infrequent - and all the things you fear ARE ALREADY HAPPENING.

 

[Bantamzen]

The commuter service is already infrequent - and all the things you fear ARE ALREADY HAPPENING.

So binning them won't solve anything, it will just offer less potential capacity thus creating another problem....

 

[Peter Sarf]

So binning them won't solve anything, it will just offer less potential capacity thus creating another problem....

The capacity is ALREADY NOT there. It will not reduce the capacity

What a temporary timetable achieves is people not hanging around on stations for a long time waiting for an alternative train because the timetabled train was not the truth.

 

[Bletchleyite]

So binning them won't solve anything, it will just offer less potential capacity thus creating another problem....

It'll offer MORE capacity by making efficient use of who is available, plus it'll be more predictable.

 

[Bantamzen]

The capacity is ALREADY NOT there. It will not reduce the capacity

What a temporary timetable achieves is people not hanging around on stations for a long time waiting for an alternative train because the timetabled train was not the truth.

<bangs head again>

If you bin most services, but not the passenger numbers then the remaining services will fill up and inevtiably lead to punters being left behind. But now instead of a possible 15-20 minute wait, they might be looking at up to an hour and then still have the space lottery to run.

How in goodness is that a better solution?

It'll offer MORE capacity by making efficient use of who is available, plus it'll be more predictable.

No it won't. The route is constrained by platform capacity across it. Reduce the number of timetabled services and you reduce overall unit capacity. And as I've explained time and again, rammed services will cause delays and cancellations, meaning an equally unpredictable but less frequent service. (Edit) This was a very common occurrence back in the days of 3 car 185s on most services, even though they were running up to 4tph. I remember it well, it was a chuffing nightmare. Goodness knows what it would be like with reducing the current service levels.

 

[Bletchleyite]

No it won't. The route is constrained by platform capacity across it. Reduce the number of timetabled services and you reduce overall unit capacity. And as I've explained time and again, rammed services will cause delays and cancellations, meaning an equally unpredictable but less frequent service.

Are you really not reading any of these posts?

If TPE are cancelling say 40% of services, and you introduce an emergency timetable containing 40% fewer services (edited, I incorrectly wrote "40% of services" before), THE CAPACITY IS THE SAME.

The benefit is that you can then rely on those services. Plus you may be able to lengthen some, e.g. double 185s rather than some parked up because there's no driver.

 

[Bantamzen]

Are you really not reading any of these posts?

If TPE are cancelling say 40% of services, and you introduce an emergency timetable containing 40% of services, THE CAPACITY IS THE SAME.

The benefit is that you can then rely on those services.

OK, I'll concede that if the cancellation rates were consistent on a day to day, week to week basis then yes there would be no capacity change. However if one week they have 25% cancellations then a 40% reduction in an emergency timetable still equates to a reduction in what might actually be possible. TPE should not be aspiring only to their very worst performances, that's just giving them excuses to get worse not better.

However what remains the same is that overcrowded, infrequent services are going to pick up delays, which will lead to more cancellations, which leads to less predictability, and results in exactly the same shoddy service for passengers solving absolutely nothing other than slightly improving performance figures on a spreadsheet. As I have said all along, if there were an alternative operator along some of those really busy sections then fair enough, so long of course that the alt operator could handle the surge. But for many there is not an alternative, and that is the crux of the matter.

I work with people who do rely on these services, and until recently I relied on them to travel to see family & friends (thank goodness Northern are nowhere near as bad and can actually make it across the Pennines). And believe me they would have very harsh words for anyone suggesting that fewer trains would make life better for them.

 

[Peter Sarf]

OK, I'll concede that if the cancellation rates were consistent on a day to day, week to week basis then yes there would be no capacity change. However if one week they have 25% cancellations then a 40% reduction in an emergency timetable still equates to a reduction in what might actually be possible. TPE should not be aspiring only to their very worst performances, that's just giving them excuses to get worse not better.

However what remains the same is that overcrowded, infrequent services are going to pick up delays, which will lead to more cancellations, which leads to less predictability, and results in exactly the same shoddy service for passengers solving absolutely nothing other than slightly improving performance figures on a spreadsheet. As I have said all along, if there were an alternative operator along some of those really busy sections then fair enough, so long of course that the alt operator could handle the surge. But for many there is not an alternative, and that is the crux of the matter.

I work with people who do rely on these services, and until recently I relied on them to travel to see family & friends (thank goodness Northern are nowhere near as bad and can actually make it across the Pennines). And believe me they would have very harsh words for anyone suggesting that fewer trains would make life better for them.

I think many believe the cancellations are consistently 40% or worse.

No one disagrees that the services is over crowded currently and with a temporary timetable would be similar. What many of us think is that a predictable timetable will avoid passengers having to wait on a platform for longer than necessary for that crowded service that is actually running because they will know when it is. Passengers will be able to plan their day.

It is also expected that overall there would be less cancellations as the remaining services would be more reliable. For example a hypothetical service from Liverpool to Newcastle CURRENTLY gets cancelled beyond Manchester because there is no driver for Manchester to Leeds. So then the continuing journey that did have drivers is cancelled. That service is wasted all the way from Manchester to Newcastle and back to Manchester just because a driver was not available for about a quarter of that. This all happens at the last minute. Designing a resilient timetable would allow available drivers to drive a train.

No one has come up with a better way of providing a service, have you ?.

 

[dosxuk]

But now instead of a possible 15-20 minute wait, they might be looking at up to an hour and then still have the space lottery to run.

At the moment, sure, there is a possible 15-20 minute wait, but there's no guarantee that even if that next service is still in the timetable it will actually run. We currently have a complete lottery on whether a train even turns up, that's got to be worse than a lottery about whether or not there'll be enough space to board. A train is still better than no train, even if it's too full to let everybody board, it's at least clearing some of the passengers.

 

[Bantamzen]

I think many believe the cancellations are consistently 40% or worse.

No one disagrees that the services is over crowded currently and with a temporary timetable would be similar. What many of us think is that a predictable timetable will avoid passengers having to wait on a platform for longer than necessary for that crowded service that is actually running because they will know when it is. Passengers will be able to plan their day.

And that might well work on longer distance services where significant volumes of passengers do actually plan in advance, and can amend accordingly. This is often not going to be the case with other passengers.

It is also expected that overall there would be less cancellations as the remaining services would be more reliable. For example a hypothetical service from Liverpool to Newcastle CURRENTLY gets cancelled beyond Manchester because there is no driver for Manchester to Leeds. So then the continuing journey that did have drivers is cancelled. That service is wasted all the way from Manchester to Newcastle and back to Manchester just because a driver was not available for about a quarter of that. This all happens at the last minute. Designing a resilient timetable would allow available drivers to drive a train.

I'm sure the theory is sound, however reality often makes fools of theory. If delays start to mount because you've got punters fighting to board remaining service then even this amount of planning could easily start to fall apart, leading to those cancellations and fewer services to mop up the passengers left behind. I can recall many an occasion stood on a packed P16 at Leeds trying to work out if I can shuffle enough down the platform to give myself a chance on getting on the next 185. Delays into double figure minutes were not uncommon there as scrums tried to shoehorn on whilst beleaguered station staff shouted hopelessly at people to move away from the train. All I can see with more service reductions is a lot more of that again.

No one has come up with a better way of providing a service, have you ?.

I've never said I have. All I am arguing here is that it is not up to the passengers to flex around the railway's problems. Where there is demand, the railways should be working flat out to meet it, in my opinion of course. After all passengers are the whole point of the service!

At the moment, sure, there is a possible 15-20 minute wait, but there's no guarantee that even if that next service is still in the timetable it will actually run. We currently have a complete lottery on whether a train even turns up, that's got to be worse than a lottery about whether or not there'll be enough space to board. A train is still better than no train, even if it's too full to let everybody board, it's at least clearing some of the passengers.

But not a lot of good for those left behind, which could be a way too often occurrence if the ideas in this debate were ever implemented.

Honestly most of the responses in defence of cutting services back to fudge the figures, which is after all what it is, whilst understandable to a degree still miss the point. A route such as the North TP is a very heavily used commuter and long distance route. TPE don't have the option that Avanti do to simply try to shape demand to suit their operational needs, not without serious implications to those travelling passengers. And that is simply unacceptable. We passengers have had three years of being treated by the industry as an inconvenience, admittedly not helped by a period of the government funding to keep punters off the rails during restrictions. If TPE can on some days operate at 80% (for example) or better, then that is what they attempt to do. Giving them excuses to constantly fall back whenever things go wrong will help no-one & just make things more miserable for everyone.

 

[Bletchleyite]

And that might well work on longer distance services where significant volumes of passengers do actually plan in advance, and can amend accordingly. This is often not going to be the case with other passengers.

Almost all commuters have a regular train even if they have a season ticket. It's kind of useful to be able to plan for that train not running so as not to be late for work. If it's primarily a commuter service, that's all the more important to implement an emergency timetable and publicise likely loadings so one can plan.

If anything, long distance leisure passengers are in a better position to be flexible.

 

[Bantamzen]

Almost all commuters have a regular train even if they have a season ticket. It's kind of useful to be able to plan for that train not running so as not to be late for work. If it's primarily a commuter service, that's all the more important to implement an emergency timetable and publicise likely loadings so one can plan.

If anything, long distance leisure passengers are in a better position to be flexible.

Commuters that have fixed hours maybe.....

 

[MattRat]

OK, I'll concede that if the cancellation rates were consistent on a day to day, week to week basis then yes there would be no capacity change. However if one week they have 25% cancellations then a 40% reduction in an emergency timetable still equates to a reduction in what might actually be possible. TPE should not be aspiring only to their very worst performances, that's just giving them excuses to get worse not better.

Then what about a 'compromise'. Let's figure out what their best day is, then reduce to that. That way you get maximum capacity on that day, as well as less cancellations on the other days, as there are still less services than before.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Commuters that have fixed hours maybe.....

The vast, vast majority of commuters do have fixed hours. Even those with zero hours contracts tend to know the day before what times they are expected to work, and are expected to be on time for those hours.

Only a tiny minority of people have genuinely complete flexibility, and precisely none of those would prefer to stand on a freezing platform for half an hour in preference to staying in bed for that time or staying in the office a little longer with a cup of tea winding down the day.

Random cancellations do not help anyone at all. Nobody. The product on sale is the timetable. Even P-coding is better than random cancellations, as you can at least look before you go to bed what is going to run the next day.

 

[Meerkat]

Are First being fined/losing their management charge for this mess?

 

[Bantamzen]

The vast, vast majority of commuters do have fixed hours. Even those with zero hours contracts tend to know the day before what times they are expected to work, and are expected to be on time for those hours.

Only a tiny minority of people have genuinely complete flexibility, and precisely none of those would prefer to stand on a freezing platform for half an hour in preference to staying in bed for that time or staying in the office a little longer with a cup of tea winding down the day.

Random cancellations do not help anyone at all. Nobody. The product on sale is the timetable. Even P-coding is better than random cancellations, as you can at least look before you go to bed what is going to run the next day.

And neither does cutting services to the point where you don't even know if you'll be able to board the remaining services that are remotely useful to you.

But passengers aren't important here, that much is clear...

(Edit) I was going to comment on your breakdown of working hours, but as it would probably risk us going off topic I'm keeping my opinions on your thoughts to myself, even though part of my job gives me a very direct insight into such matters.

 

[dosxuk]

Honestly most of the responses in defence of cutting services back to fudge the figures, which is after all what it is, whilst understandable to a degree still miss the point.

It's not to fudge the figures, it's to give passengers a service that they can rely on to actually turn up, as opposed to turning up to the station and waiting hours for a train to actually arrive.

 

[Bletchleyite]

And neither does cutting services to the point where you don't even know if you'll be able to board the remaining services that are remotely useful to you.

Didn't you read where I said they should publicise anticipated loadings, or where I said that if there aren't 185s parked up all around the place lacking drivers and guards they could make more 6-car formations? Or wouldn't that have suited your narrative?

Didn't you read suggestions that maybe TPE's emergency timetable should have them withdraw from parts of the network where there are other parallel services so they can ensure the core capacity is maintained? (A bit like Avanti did by cutting North Wales back to Crewe)? Or wouldn't that have suited your narrative either?

All you're doing is moaning. That is understandable because the service is unacceptable. But to make the service not unacceptable, we need to take steps to a solution, urgently. The first step is to publicise a timetable which is one that is operable.

But passengers aren't important here, that much is clear...

The most important thing to passengers is punctuality and reliabliity. As I said the timetable is the product on sale. At present, TPE are mis-selling tickets, because they are selling them against itineraries they have no confidence they will run. That is the definition of false advertising - a criminal offence - and it cannot continue.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Mar 2023 ==

It's not to fudge the figures, it's to give passengers a service that they can rely on to actually turn up, as opposed to turning up to the station and waiting hours for a train to actually arrive.

Exactly.

My only conclusion is that @Bantamzen has the privilege of a very flexible job indeed (very much not the norm despite their bizarre veiled claim) and is enjoying travelling for free due to almost every journey being Delay Repay eligible. I'm all right Jack.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I think @Bantamzen is making the very valid point that we currently ARE in a “temporary emergency timetable” and, even then, TPE are unable to operate it properly. Giving them further scope to reduce it further won’t improve things and won’t make the service any more reliable.

It also wasn’t any more reliable last year when we did have a more-reduced “temporary emergency timetable” of 1x Liverpool-Newcastle, 1x Airport-Redcar and 1x Manchester-Hull each hour, plus the stoppers. And the number of times the Redcar ran as a single 185 was beyond belief.

I don’t see how reducing the timetable back down will improve anything. The issue is far beyond staff availability.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think @Bantamzen is making the very valid point that we currently ARE in a “temporary emergency timetable” and, even then, TPE are unable to operate it properly. Giving them further scope to reduce it further won’t improve things and won’t make the service any more reliable.

Well, er, yes it will. Of course it will. Why would it not?

 

[Tetchytyke]

Well, er, yes it will. Of course it will. Why would it not?

Because life isn’t that simple.

TPE aren’t going to roster loads of spare drivers alongside a reduced timetable, they’re just going to roster what they need. So we’ll still have the same issues, just with fewer trains to move passengers after the inevitable ad-hoc cancellations and short-forms.

That’s how it was last year with the reduced timetable. TPE had one train an hour to the airport and *still* failed to run 25% of them!

 

[Peter Sarf]

@Bantamzen

We all know a temporary timetable is not good.

But arguing against a temporary timetable is not going to make things better, it leaves it as it is - worse.

There are right now cancellations and currently TPE get away with these as a fudge by cancelling the night before. Those cancellations are bracketed under cancellations for weather and other problems beyond the TOCs control - that is the fudge.

Instead a temporary timetable would give ALL the passengers a prediction of what is going to run. Currently commuters do not know from one day to the next what is going to be cancelled. Also a temporary timetable is arguably less of a fudge than the current way of cancelling.

 

[Bletchleyite]

TPE aren’t going to roster loads of spare drivers alongside a reduced timetable, they’re just going to roster what they need. So we’ll still have the same issues, just with fewer trains to move passengers after the inevitable ad-hoc cancellations and short-forms.

So what are they going to do? Pay them to sit at home doing nothing?

I know they're incompetent, but they're surely not that incompetent.