TPE franchise to move to OLR

[Bantamzen]

Exactly.

I'm guessing @Bantamzen is either retired or has a VERY flexible employer. For people in most jobs, punctuality is important, and so at least if you know you have to get the 0730 instead of the 0800 to get in on time because the service is down to hourly you know that rather than it being somewhat random if you get in on time or not.

Obviously the actual problems need fixed, but that'll take time, and in the meantime it's more important to be able to plan than to publish the full timetable but cancel half of it.

Wow way to complete dodge the point I was making. I'm not retired, and I do have a flexible employee contract meaning that I can vary when I land in the office. However I do know people who don't, and I know that the having a "predicable" emergency timetable but finding no room on it for them would not be a lot of use. IIRC Avanti was cited as an example of how emergency timetables work, but TPE customers often have different timetables and can't just book onto a train that suits the TOC. Much of their main routes are commuter ones, and people don't have start and end times that suit TOCs.

If they don't have the staff and/or the units, then reducing the timetable is the only option until such time as the problem's fixed. I would rather not have a train on the timetable than one that doesn't turn up and I'm standing there when I could have made other arrangements.

With respect I'll say again having a predicable timetable is useless if there isn't the capacity to meet the demand. Once a train is full, its full. And if capacity is reduced trains get full quicker, which can lead to delays and even cancellations, which mean ever fewer services than previously. And quite honestly its time for the excuses to stop, and for TOCs / DfT to sort out these issues without making train travel even more difficult for the punters, so maybe being asked to provide more than just a worst case scenario timetable might just focus all minds a bit. Sorry but that's how I see it, it is time for all concerned in the industry to step up instead of retreating further.

As an aside, the Piccadilly/Huddersfield "stopper" is run by TPE, if Northern had the capacity I would suggest they run it. Presumably they don't and can't?

Northern are cutting back elsewhere, including routes that TPE may or may not take over in the future so I'm going to guess they don't have the capacity.

 

[josh-j]

Yes, I believe so. But until the current industrial relations mess is sorted out, I don't see how you achieve either, without some sort of reduced timetable?

I agree, but I think it would be very easy to resolve the industrial relations issues if the government was minded to do so. I appreciate it would take longer to fix other things and it isn't just about industrial relations, but that really ought to be a quick win. I don't think anything being asked for by the unions is so unreasonable as to be beyond proper discussion. In my opinion (I do realise not everyone will agree with me, and that is fine of course) this prolonged disruption is purely down to the government not wanting workers to get the impression they're allowed to have a say over their working conditions. Having a functional transport system seems to be far too high-minded a goal.

 

[northwichcat]

But it’s phenomenal just how badly TPE has been run over the past few years… after years of “squeeze” (being expected to take on the Scottish WCML services so that Virgin could enhance services from Chester to London, losing the 170s because Chiltern could offer a longer guarantee) the Trans Pennine franchise must have been the luckiest in the country in terms of getting big numbers of additional capacity without having to surrender any (other than the temporarily “borrowed” 350/4s)… yet they still couldn’t run trains (or had regular short forms)… it’s amazing how they squandered the resources that they had… so I can’t weep for First

TPE were originally supposed to have returned 22 185s to the leasing company, but this hasn't happened due to Transpennine Route Upgrade. They were never supposed to keep all the 185s, in the event it's probably just as well they kept them all given how the Mark 5 introduction has gone and how incapable they seem to be at training crew on new traction.

The original service provision plan for TransPennine Express didn't include diverting the Cleethorpes services to Liverpool or extending the Hull service to Liverpool. I think the Hulls are a mix of single and double 185s, while the Cleethropes are pretty much all doubles. I think the plan for South TransPennine was for the doubles to lose a unit at Sheffield in the eastbound direction but now we have annoucements of boarding the front four coaches only for Meadowhall and other stations east of Sheffield.

On the flip side the Scarborough services don't go to Liverpool and it seems only alternate ones go to Leeds and Manchester!

 

[Lewisham2221]

Scenario A: Advertised as 3tph. All 3 car trains. All services run as timetabled. Happy days.

Scenario B: Advertised as 3tph. All 3 car trains. On the day, 2 of those services don't operate (either cancelled on the day or removed from the timetable pre-10pm the night before). Third service operates as advertised, still a 3 car unit to avoid messing up the diagrams.

Scenario C: Advertised as 1tph. 6 car train. Runs as advertised. People are aware of altered times, frequency and overall capacity, being able to suitably plan and/or amend their journeys. In the mean time, some staff are able to undertake additional training, to allow an eventual return to Scenario A.

Obviously, scenario A is the ideal situation. But it isn't happening now, hasnt happened for a long time, and isn't going to happen any time soon. Claiming that scenario B is the preferable situation, because scenario C  might be used by the government to justify network wide cuts is just bonkers. Scenario C offers more capacity than scenario B, and almost certainly does far less long term damage.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Wow way to complete dodge the point I was making. I'm not retired, and I do have a flexible employee contract meaning that I can vary when I land in the office. However I do know people who don't, and I know that the having a "predicable" emergency timetable but finding no room on it for them would not be a lot of use. IIRC Avanti was cited as an example of how emergency timetables work, but TPE customers often have different timetables and can't just book onto a train that suits the TOC. Much of their main routes are commuter ones, and people don't have start and end times that suit TOCs.

They certainly don't have start and finish times that suit a totally random operation with daily random cancellations.

And if they know they won't get on the train, they can plan to take other options like buses or the car.

The railway's product is basically the timetable. Thus it's essential that it's accurate and operable.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 May 2023 ==

Scenario A: Advertised as 3tph. All 3 car trains. All services run as timetabled. Happy days.

Scenario B: Advertised as 3tph. All 3 car trains. On the day, 2 of those services don't operate (either cancelled on the day or removed from the timetable pre-10pm the night before). Third service operates as advertised, still a 3 car unit to avoid messing up the diagrams.

Scenario C: Advertised as 1tph. 6 car train. Runs as advertised. People are aware of altered times, frequency and overall capacity, being able to suitably plan and/or amend their journeys. In the mean time, some staff are able to undertake additional training, to allow an eventual return to Scenario A.

Obviously, scenario A is the ideal situation. But it isn't happening now, hasnt happened for a long time, and isn't going to happen any time soon. Claiming that scenario B is the preferable situation, because scenario C  might be used by the government to justify network wide cuts is just bonkers. Scenario C offers more capacity than scenario B, and almost certainly does far less long term damage.

Exactly. There is no possible scenario, other than for someone with no time constraints whatsoever, where Scenario B, which describes TPE at present, is the best option.

 

[mike57]

There are real solutions that would allow a return to reliability without cut backs.

Without getting into whats gone wrong in the past, we are where we are today, and even if a pro rail government were elected tomorrow who were able to remove the barriers to success reliability would not return overnight. Driver training, both existing drivers expanding their knowledge, and new drivers entering the workplace will take time.

We have other issues coming up as well, the improvement work between Dewsbury and Huddersfield for one, and the 'microfleet' nature of Transpennine rolling stock, these all contribute to problems which even given money and a will to sort will not be solved overnight. I am not involved in the railway industry, but my guess is based on reading here and elsewhere even with all the blocks removed it would take at least 12 months to get to the point where the resources exist to run a full timetable

So in the meantime cuts have to be made, and better an emergency timetable than random cancellations, but couple that with a properly resourced and timebound plan to return a full timetable.

 

[Bantamzen]

They certainly don't have start and finish times that suit a totally random operation with daily random cancellations.

And if they know they won't get on the train, they can plan to take other options like buses or the car.

So if they can't get on the train because the TOC has slashed potential capacity just to have a neat timetable then just its just tough luck? And what if the emergency timetable doesn't work? Reduce it further, only run once a day / week / month....??

 

[Bletchleyite]

So if they can't get on the train because the TOC has slashed potential capacity just to have a neat timetable then just its just tough luck?

It's even tougher luck if you don't know when the train is and when it does show up at some random time it's still full.

We're talking about making a non-ideal situation a bit more usable, that's all. It isn't all or nothing.

And what if the emergency timetable doesn't work? Reduce it further, only run once a day / week / month....??

As per Avanti you reduce it until the service stabilises. That point with Avanti was 1tph on each of the routes other than North Wales which was truncated to Crewe.

And before you say "Avanti is different" it isn't really. People still need to travel at specific times, and if they know those times aren't an option they can at least plan for needing alternatives.

It just being random is just the worst situation possible unless you're simply going out riding trains for fun and want to do it for free by engineering a bit of Delay Repay.

 

[Bantamzen]

It's even tougher luck if you don't know when the train is and when it does show up at some random time it's still full.

We're talking about making a non-ideal situation a bit more usable, that's all. It isn't all or nothing.



As per Avanti you reduce it until the service stabilises. That point with Avanti was 1tph on each of the routes other than North Wales which was truncated to Crewe.

And before you say "Avanti is different" it isn't really. People still need to travel at specific times, and if they know those times aren't an option they can at least plan for needing alternatives.

It just being random is just the worst situation possible unless you're simply going out riding trains for fun and want to do it for free by engineering a bit of Delay Repay.

I'm sorry but there's a world of difference between Avanti & TPE, the former is a full fledged inter city service with long trains capable of fitting on long platforms, with an ability to manage demand by controlling available ticketing. TPE is much closer to Northern than Avanti, with a mixture of longer distance passengers but lots of commuters hopping on and off along much of it's core routes including many using local season tickets where demand management isn't going to be as possible. Plus its far more difficult to compensate for loss of capacity through longer, fewer trains because the infrastructure just isn't there yet. So fewer trains is going to mean a substantial loss of capacity, which almost certainly is going to lead to issues at busy hubs, which in turn will lead to delays and cancellations, leaving even less capacity and solving. I'd put money on it, because we've seen it all before.

Its either that, or an emergency timetable is going to have to come with alternative transport on demand organised by the TOC (which of course will be massively difficult), and not just expect punters jump onto bus (if routes exist), or drive (and potentially pay through the nose for parking) because when they turned up on a Tuesday only to find every hourly service from Huddersfield to Leeds is full to standing when it arrives, with hundreds of punters between them and the train they can't get on.

I'm sorry but the railway industry is in dire need of a kick up it's arse. It has been for a long time. That will not be achieved by allowing constant fall-backs until conditions suit what the industry feels comfortable with. Industrial relations, planning, recruitment, procurement, the whole shebang needs fixing urgently instead of years of excuses, arguments and blaming. Put simply its time to start lighting the fires under the feet of the decision makers.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm sorry but there's a world of difference between Avanti & TPE, the former is a full fledged inter city service with long trains capable of fitting on long platforms, with an ability to manage demand by controlling available ticketing. TPE is much closer to Northern than Avanti, with a mixture of longer distance passengers but lots of commuters hopping on and off along much of it's core routes including many using local season tickets where demand management isn't going to be as possible. Plus its far more difficult to compensate for loss of capacity through longer, fewer trains because the infrastructure just isn't there yet. So fewer trains is going to mean a substantial loss of capacity, which almost certainly is going to lead to issues at busy hubs, which in turn will lead to delays and cancellations, leaving even less capacity and solving. I'd put money on it, because we've seen it all before.

THERE.
ARE.
ALREADY.
FEWER.
TRAINS.​

An emergency timetable would permit operation of HIGHER capacity than exists at present because random cancellations stuff up diagrams and result in units sitting around not carrying passengers.

I'm sorry but the railway industry is in dire need of a kick up it's arse. It has been for a long time. That will not be achieved by allowing constant fall-backs until conditions suit what the industry feels comfortable with. Industrial relations, planning, recruitment, procurement, the whole shebang needs fixing urgently instead of years of excuses, arguments and blaming. Put simply its time to start lighting the fires under the feet of the decision makers.

I think renationalising TPE is a pretty hefty kick up the arse. But things can't be fixed immediately, and in the meantime changing to a timetable that can be operated reliably is essential.

 

[Clarence Yard]

But when “renationalising” TPE is replacing one method of DfT control with another, it’s hardly a kick up anyone’s arse. It’s just politics.

The problem in the current circumstances is that reducing the timetable further will just magnify the effect. The rigidity of the current manning situation will just transfer to those services. We have discussed some of the issues preventing easy movement of staff (and also all 6 car operation) before.

More fundamental change at the TOC is required and the current IR situation will also hamper any efforts to get things back to normal. This is not a pop at the staff or the management but that’s just where TPE is now.

 

[Trainguy34]

LGTR’s timetable in particular has been absolutely decimated this week by the OT ban. And that’s them struggling to run the basic service, let alone covering training, sickness, holidays etc. they also have much more sensible route cards than TPE from a reliability point of view.

Is this OT ban the overtime ban, the on-time ban or both

 

[Krokodil]

So if they can't get on the train because the TOC has slashed potential capacity just to have a neat timetable then just its just tough luck? And what if the emergency timetable doesn't work? Reduce it further, only run once a day / week / month....??

But (if you accept that Scenario A is unachievable at the moment, regardless of how desirable it may be) you are no worse off under Scenario C in terms of capacity than you are with the present situation which is Scenario B.

Under Scenario B you currently have random cancellations to your hypothetical 3tph service. In practice you often drop to 1tph because Network Rail won't let TPE run services at all unless every part is covered by a driver, to avoid units being dumped in platforms in Leeds or Man Vic. So you might only be missing one or two drivers but because of the "optimised" diagrams you knacker several services.

If you bring in an emergency timetable you may be able to operate 2tph because you can shuffle the diagrams so that you have fewer swaps (within the limits of the current route knowledge). Making a decision on which services you chop means that you can change the diagrams and double up the units, rather than having two units waiting on the depot because half of each diagram is still covered so they'll be out later (while the first unit probably ends up stabling elsewhere for the want of a driver). Even if you can't run 2tph, the one double 185 you do send will pick up more passengers than the single one that Scenario B ends up with.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But (if you accept that Scenario A is unachievable at the moment, regardless of how desirable it may be) you are no worse off under Scenario C in terms of capacity than you are with the present situation which is Scenario B.

You're better off, because the random cancellations resulting from B leave stock lying around doing nothing while everyone crams into a 3-car.

 

[Lewisham2221]

But when “renationalising” TPE is replacing one method of DfT control with another, it’s hardly a kick up anyone’s arse. It’s just politics.

The problem in the current circumstances is that reducing the timetable further will just magnify the effect. The rigidity of the current manning situation will just transfer to those services. We have discussed some of the issues preventing easy movement of staff (and also all 6 car operation) before.

More fundamental change at the TOC is required and the current IR situation will also hamper any efforts to get things back to normal. This is not a pop at the staff or the management but that’s just where TPE is now.

The problem with the current system is that one missing crew can have a huge domino effect, with misplaced units and traincrew.

The idea is that the reduced timetable requires less traincrew, thus creating a surplus of crews, who can then be rostered as spares for training. A spare crew can then run the "missing" crew's leg, and the train can continue to operate as advertised, as opposed to the entire (for example) Liverpool - Cleethorpes journey being cancelled because there is no relief crew available at Sheffield.

 

[Solent&Wessex]

The problem in the current circumstances is that reducing the timetable further will just magnify the effect. The rigidity of the current manning situation will just transfer to those services. We have discussed some of the issues preventing easy movement of staff (and also all 6 car operation) before.

More fundamental change at the TOC is required and the current IR situation will also hamper any efforts to get things back to normal. This is not a pop at the staff or the management but that’s just where TPE is now.

This is the fundamental point as to why an emergency timetable won't work unless Aslef are on-board and agree to waive or modify some existing agreements.

This isn't a dig at Aslef, but a statement of fact.

The rosters are agreed only a couple if times per year, and existing agreements mean that that is essentially set in stone and driver's workings cant be altered.

An emergency timetable wouldn't just mean that all drivers become spare and can be moved around to suit the new timetable it doesn't, sadly, work like that. They would still have the right to claim their work content as per the roster. If that work doesn't exist they just don't become spare to be moved around at will.

So you would still have the same problems as now. Except that rather than 1 train out of 3 being cancelled, 1 train out of 1 would be cancelled- which is what often happens on a Sunday at the moment, when only one train per hour is scheduled between Manchester and York. Sundays are inside the driver's working week, the amended timetable is one train per hour, and yet there are still cancellations due to the agreements and policies in place between TPE and Aslef.

Until those agreements and policies change then absolutely nothing will change with the train service delivery, no matter what sort of emergency timetable you put in place.

 

[43066]

Oh good, I'm glad that our attempts at injecting paranoia in our members are succeeding

I don’t think you need to try very hard in some cases!

An emergency timetable wouldn't just mean that all drivers become spare and can be moved around to suit the new timetable it doesn't, sadly, work like that. They would still have the right to claim their work content as per the roster. If that work doesn't exist they just don't become spare to be moved around at will.

I doubt this completely accurate. Unless TPE is radically different to elsewhere, existing black ink jobs can be cancelled and reverted to spare, but (rightly) it won’t be possible to vary start/finish times and rest day patterns other than by agreed amounts, amendments will need to be published with enough notice. Any amended diagrams will obviously still need to incorporate breaks and driving limits etc. within the hours.

In practice they wouldn’t start from scratch and would likely reverse engineer the emergency timetable from the current one, so that existing jobs can be thinned out and amended.

However it’s true that, in practice, it will be very difficult to make it work if there’s no goodwill from ASLEF. And there almost certainly won’t be.

 

[ComUtoR]

The idea is that the reduced timetable requires less traincrew, thus creating a surplus of crews, who can then be rostered as spares for training. A spare crew can then run the "missing" crew's leg, and the train can continue to operate as advertised, as opposed to the entire (for example) Liverpool - Cleethorpes journey being cancelled because there is no relief crew available at Sheffield.

Slightly confused here. What training is needed ? If you have Drivers who need training on a route then they cannot simply run the spare leg. They aren't trained on the route. Same with traction training. You would need someone qualified to train on said traction thus taking two Drivers to cover the work.

 

[Nick Hall]

So you’re saying that drivers are contracted to particular diagrams, not just a certain number of hours/days.

 

[43066]

So you’re saying that drivers are contracted to particular diagrams, not just a certain number of hours/days.

No, but the contracted hours are averaged over a base roster which is set well in advance. The work content in diagrams can be changed, and frequently is during disruption and for engineering works. However start/finish times are generally pre ordained, so amendments would need to be within these times.

A certain number of spare shifts are rostered and can be moved an agreed amount of time either way. Equally some shifts are standby where the driver is rostered to sit in the depot and be used for whatever they might be required for (again within the times of the shift).

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 May 2023 ==

You would need someone qualified to train on said traction thus taking two Drivers to cover the work.

You also need people to do the training. This means drivers who are willing to become instructors, and who don’t decide to throw it in and go back to normal driving. Again, this is an issue where goodwill has been pushed beyond breaking point.

 

[Confused52]

However it’s true that, in practice, it will be very difficult to make it work if there’s no goodwill from ASLEF. And there almost certainly won’t be.

That is almost the point that the enthusiasts for a reduced Timetable are missing. Whatever the actual timetable the unions will lose any effect of their industrial action if it is allowed to operate undisturbed. Hence any timetable will be made unreliable while the dispute continues, that after all is the point of it - to inconvenience the passengers and pressurise the employers!

 

[Bletchleyite]

That is almost the point that the enthusiasts for a reduced Timetable are missing. Whatever the actual timetable the unions will lose any effect of their industrial action if it is allowed to operate undisturbed. Hence any timetable will be made unreliable while the dispute continues, that after all is the point of it - to inconvenience the passengers and pressurise the employers!

The timetable will be reliable if it's reduced enough that it's operable within the current rosters with no overtime. Avanti managed it.

It may mean that's a very minimal timetable, e.g. long gaps during the day and concentrating on commuter capacity, but either way it needs to be reliability above all else. There is no point having a timetable that is a work of fiction, however nice our resident objector may think it looks when reading it over a cup of tea and a jam scone.

 

[43066]

That is almost the point that the enthusiasts for a reduced Timetable are missing. Whatever the actual timetable the unions will lose any effect of their industrial action if it is allowed to operate undisturbed. Hence any timetable will be made unreliable while the dispute continues, that after all is the point of it - to inconvenience the passengers and pressurise the employers!

People will do what is required, but won’t help out. Then you add in the fact that no overtime is being worked, and hasn’t been for a long time now. Nobody wants to inconvenience passengers, or to be in dispute in the first place, but this is an inevitable result.

The timetable will be reliable if it's reduced enough. Avanti managed it.

They’re still working overtime AFAIK, and of course, as @Bantamzen has pointed out, if it’s reduced too much it will become unusable anyway.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Avanti managed it.

By the skin of their teeth, mind. It wasn't great, trains were absolutely rammed and connection times often doubled or worse.

 

[Clarence Yard]

I don’t think you need to try very hard in some cases!



I doubt this completely accurate. Unless TPE is radically different to elsewhere, existing black ink jobs can be cancelled and reverted to spare, but (rightly) it won’t be possible to vary start/finish times and rest day patterns other than by agreed amounts, amendments will need to be published with enough notice. Any amended diagrams will obviously still need to incorporate breaks and driving limits etc. within the hours.

In practice they wouldn’t start from scratch and would likely reverse engineer the emergency timetable from the current one, so that existing jobs can be thinned out and amended.

However it’s true that, in practice, it will be very difficult to make it work if there’s no goodwill from ASLEF. And there almost certainly won’t be.

I believe TPE is slightly different to elsewhere, at some depots at least. Those agreements don’t make using spare drivers (or, more correctly, drivers made spare) as easy as in other TOCs, where what you are saying certainly holds true.

There is a lot to sort out at TPE, as long as OLR is allowed to do it.

 

[Lewisham2221]

Slightly confused here. What training is needed ? If you have Drivers who need training on a route then they cannot simply run the spare leg. They aren't trained on the route. Same with traction training. You would need someone qualified to train on said traction thus taking two Drivers to cover the work.

Route runs A-B-C-D. Drivers based at B sign A-B and B-C. Need route training C-D to enable end-to-end operation. Driver for B-C is missing, for whatever reason. Spare/standby driver from B already sign B-C and is able to cover that leg (subject to duty times etc).

 

[ComUtoR]

So who drives C-D ? You need a competent Driver and then the released Driver to sit and learn the route. I get that you can create spare Drivers by reducing the need by having a reduced timetable, but you still need C-D covered and competent people to train and assess them. Spare capacity is quickly used up because you need to send those people out to train. It would be pretty complicated to have someone driving the route B-C and then switching position so that another Driver can then drive C-D. It would also lengthen the route learning process. Routes need a specific number of trips/days/time (dependent on the TOC safety case) to be covered.

It isn't a simple process and often takes time (and money)

 

[43066]

I believe TPE is slightly different to elsewhere, at some depots at least. Those agreements don’t make using spare drivers (or, more correctly, drivers made spare) as easy as in other TOCs, where what you are saying certainly holds true.

There is a lot to sort out at TPE, as long as OLR is allowed to do it.

Thanks. Appreciate these things vary. It would be interesting to hear from any TPE drivers should any wish to comment.

 

[Bantamzen]

THERE.
ARE.
ALREADY.
FEWER.
TRAINS.​

An emergency timetable would permit operation of HIGHER capacity than exists at present because random cancellations stuff up diagrams and result in units sitting around not carrying passengers.

There is one fatal flaw in your rather over the top sarcastic response. You are proposing even fewer trains, so if any of your emergency timetabled services get cancelled that is fewer trains still with longer gaps between. And cancellations are as predictable in the TP core as the rain coming in sideways over Marsden Moor.

 

[43066]

Route runs A-B-C-D. Drivers based at B sign A-B and B-C. Need route training C-D to enable end-to-end operation. Driver for B-C is missing, for whatever reason. Spare/standby driver from B already sign B-C and is able to cover that leg (subject to duty times etc).

I agree with @ComUtoR - who drives C to D in this example!?

You need trains to be running, you need drivers willing to take colleagues with them in the cab to go over the route (problematic if it’s a “no” and two hours until the next train), and you really need instructors to sign them off as competent.