Northern owner Deutsche Bahn wants compensation from Network Rail

[js1000]

The franchise has as you say successfully increased the subsidy that the taxpayer pays to support it. We can argue if this is or isn't down to Arriva, but in a way that doesn't really matter. At the end of the day the subsidy was projected to begin falling significantly but has instead gone up. This is of course of absolutely no surprise, given how unattractive the service is now compared to on day one of the franchise. Both the government and the company have presided over this, and in my view it's a pretty significant failure.

Agreed!

Also, someone mentioned Northern use taxis to ferry staff between Piccadilly and Oxford Road.

I work near Piccadilly and you should see the amount Northern conductors and drivers walking between Oxford Road and Piccadilly everyday. It really is as daft as it sounds.

I assume many of them feel the 10-15 minute walk is quicker on relying on a taxi which could be held up in traffic. Such a thoroughly unprofessional arrangement can't be good for morale.

 

[Muttley]

DB did not expect the RMT to have its heels dug in so deep. Things really are not "One way traffic", so to speak. The (in)famous timetable disaster was not entirely Arriva's fault too - stuff like Ordsall Curve without platforms 15/16 can only be shared between Network Rail and DfT. It is very easy to type "DB/Arriva is a private TOC, all private TOCs are evil." The truth is far less cut and dried: there is nothing ostensibly wrong with private TOCs. What we see in the north is a mix of government intransigence, infrastructure failings and Trade Union stubbornness.

Don't work in the industry, I take it ?

 

[philthetube]

Both Network Rail and Northern are to blame.

Network Rail for failing to deliver infrastructure improvements on time.

Northern for failing to identify the proposed timetable was fundamentally but still blindly persisted and failed to change or notify passengers about the impending S-show that was about to unfold.

Each to their own.

Personally, if the government are going to have to pay Deutsche Bahn £31 million for unimplemented services and lost revenue, millions in compensation for conductor strikes and delay repay and additional payments through Network Rail for delayed infrastructure improvements then they may as well take the entire franchise in house and pay Deutsche Bahn off as all of the above is clearly not in the taxpayers' interests. The franchise is still a basket case that is funded a great deal by the taxpayer (35p in the £ for every mile isn't it?) and DB aren't doing very much to change that other than looking to pillage the franchise through penalty payments. It's not right from the taxpayers' perspective

I seem to recall reading in a thread somewhere that Northern requested that the timetable be postponed but were refused.

Perhaps they might consider diagramming their services such that it is not necessary to use road transport to move crews around other than between home and depot or at the start/end of the day, then? They've got these things called trains that come in handy for, you know, moving people around.

The present situation really does seem grossly incompetent.

Cna't rely on trains in Northern land, give the management some credit.

 

[87015]

I seem to recall reading in a thread somewhere that Northern requested that the timetable be postponed but were refused.

But not at a point where it was possible without all other TOCs agreeing, which wasn’t happening in months of Sundays.

 

[Bantamzen]

I seem to recall reading in a thread somewhere that Northern requested that the timetable be postponed but were refused.

But not at a point where it was possible without all other TOCs agreeing, which wasn’t happening in months of Sundays.

Wasn't this request made when it became clear that the NR works were going to miss their targets? If so, could they really have requested changes sooner? I'm not saying that Arriva haven't made mistakes, but there's a long chain of failures which led to the May 18 timetable meltdown. Short of gazing into crystal balls, or consulting three old ladies around a cauldron could Arriva have really done any more?

 

[Antman]

Indeed - nor did they have to sign the franchise contract either. When you sign you are deemed to understand what you've signed up to including all the staffing / infrastructure / etc issues. Obviously some things have gone wrong that were not expected but a whole load hasn't and was for Arriva and others to manage in accordance with their obligations.

I know that never removes the ability for aggrieved contractors to submit claims (their lawyers will have prepared a huge list of weaknesses in the franchise contract) but it should certainly limit their ability to send in a shopping list of contractual breaches by others. The point made by others about many issues being covered by established processes / Network Code is also well made.

(My team do, as part of their jobs, up to nine figure public sector procurements). The contracts are one sided jokes. The information provided is always inadequate and wrong. Each bidder is required to sign up, as a condition to a compliant bid, that they are happy with the information provided (they aren’t, but it has to be signed or noncompliance). The entire process is nonsense. It isn’t a fair process. And it ends up in a row. Usually because of poor procurement and an attitude (as reported to me) of “so what if it’s wrong or unworkable, we can’t and won’t change it. So sign it, or else.” And then the litigators get involved. After the procurement/commissioning teams have long moved on.

That doesn’t absolve poor bidding. That happens as well. Often. Usually because of self interest in the bidding teams (rewarded for winning, not rewarded for a successful contract delivery).

On railways, which is NOT my sector these days, I suspect a significant part of the problem is around NR. It is a core provider and it doesn’t seem to be subject to the same commercial realities that operators are. And also that, mainly outside of its control I suspect, politically it is too weak to say that projects are NOT deliverable on X time and Y budget. So it does the same, commits to the impossible.

 

[PR1Berske]

Don't work in the industry, I take it ?

This is not an industry only forum. My views have been consistent on this.

 

[Bantamzen]

(My team do, as part of their jobs, up to nine figure public sector procurements). The contracts are one sided jokes. The information provided is always inadequate and wrong. Each bidder is required to sign up, as a condition to a compliant bid, that they are happy with the information provided (they aren’t, but it has to be signed or noncompliance). The entire process is nonsense. It isn’t a fair process. And it ends up in a row. Usually because of poor procurement and an attitude (as reported to me) of “so what if it’s wrong or unworkable, we can’t and won’t change it. So sign it, or else.” And then the litigators get involved. After the procurement/commissioning teams have long moved on.

That doesn’t absolve poor bidding. That happens as well. Often. Usually because of self interest in the bidding teams (rewarded for winning, not rewarded for a successful contract delivery).

On railways, which is NOT my sector these days, I suspect a significant part of the problem is around NR. It is a core provider and it doesn’t seem to be subject to the same commercial realities that operators are. And also that, mainly outside of its control I suspect, politically it is too weak to say that projects are NOT deliverable on X time and Y budget. So it does the same, commits to the impossible.

This has an all too familiar ring to it from my area of work in the public sector. Far, far too familiar. Its why I often chuckle to myself when members argue over franchise agreement details, & even regulations. If only they knew the extent of the mess that so much of public contracted services are in, and how nothing, and I do mean nothing is set in stone. As my very first instructor told me many, many years ago on day one of my training for my first job in the public sector, "There are rules for everything, and for every rule there is an exception". It is now as it has ever been...…

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I'm sure we remember that the failed WCRM project wrecked VTWC's franchise and it had to be reset (initial management contract, then a new franchise agreement).
We seem to be heading in the same direction with Northern.
There are enough reports of the way NR left Northern out to dry with inadequate time to rework the May timetable, and then prioritised TPE's changes over Northern's.
None of that excuses Northern's poor delivery of what was left.
However DfT won't want Arriva to walk out at a time of industry and national (Brexit) crisis.

 

[quantinghome]

Wasn't this request made when it became clear that the NR works were going to miss their targets? If so, could they really have requested changes sooner? I'm not saying that Arriva haven't made mistakes, but there's a long chain of failures which led to the May 18 timetable meltdown. Short of gazing into crystal balls, or consulting three old ladies around a cauldron could Arriva have really done any more?

What NR works are we talking about? The principal problem appears to be the Castlefield corridor, where the necessary works (Piccadilly platforms 15 and 16) haven't even been given the go-ahead. Surely the 2018 timetable wasn't predicated on that infrastructure being in place? And if it was, then Arriva had a get out of jail free card, but chose not to use it. I get the feeling this was a 'death march' project, where those involved at the sharp end knew the timetable wasn't going to work, but those in charge at Arriva didn't have the courage to speak up to the DfT and Rail North and warn them.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

It won't be Picc 15/16, but it might be linked to performance on the corridor after the Ordsall Chord opened.
The main factor will be the electrification project (Manchester-Blackpool) which is still not ready and that the cobbled May timetable didn't work.
Long-term revenue damage from the extent of the electrification works might also be a factor (4 years disruption instead of the original 2).

 

[Bantamzen]

What NR works are we talking about? The principal problem appears to be the Castlefield corridor, where the necessary works (Piccadilly platforms 15 and 16) haven't even been given the go-ahead. Surely the 2018 timetable wasn't predicated on that infrastructure being in place? And if it was, then Arriva had a get out of jail free card, but chose not to use it. I get the feeling this was a 'death march' project, where those involved at the sharp end knew the timetable wasn't going to work, but those in charge at Arriva didn't have the courage to speak up to the DfT and Rail North and warn them.

It won't be Picc 15/16, but it might be linked to performance on the corridor after the Ordsall Chord opened.
The main factor will be the electrification project (Manchester-Blackpool) which is still not ready and that the cobbled May timetable didn't work.
Long-term revenue damage from the extent of the electrification works might also be a factor (4 years disruption instead of the original 2).

Yes it was the North West electrification project that I assumed was being talked about. The problems caused as a result of these delays, along with others have contributed towards the problems through the Castlefield corridor. However DfT / Grayling's failure to recognise the importance of both the Ordsall Chord & the P15/16 projects in tandem did result in even more pressure on this section through Manchester.

 

[Muttley]

This is not an industry only forum. My views have been consistent on this.

Yes, I agree.
But you do have a refusal to learn. You apportion blame according to your pre-standing prejudices, despite other posters explaining things to the contrary.
Try reading with an open mind.
No offence is intended, and if you don't want to take the advice no problem.

 

[notlob.divad]

(My team do, as part of their jobs, up to nine figure public sector procurements). The contracts are one sided jokes. The information provided is always inadequate and wrong. Each bidder is required to sign up, as a condition to a compliant bid, that they are happy with the information provided (they aren’t, but it has to be signed or noncompliance). The entire process is nonsense. It isn’t a fair process. And it ends up in a row. Usually because of poor procurement and an attitude (as reported to me) of “so what if it’s wrong or unworkable, we can’t and won’t change it. So sign it, or else.” And then the litigators get involved. After the procurement/commissioning teams have long moved on.

That doesn’t absolve poor bidding. That happens as well. Often. Usually because of self interest in the bidding teams (rewarded for winning, not rewarded for a successful contract delivery).

On railways, which is NOT my sector these days, I suspect a significant part of the problem is around NR. It is a core provider and it doesn’t seem to be subject to the same commercial realities that operators are. And also that, mainly outside of its control I suspect, politically it is too weak to say that projects are NOT deliverable on X time and Y budget. So it does the same, commits to the impossible.

This has an all too familiar ring to it from my area of work in the public sector. Far, far too familiar. Its why I often chuckle to myself when members argue over franchise agreement details, & even regulations. If only they knew the extent of the mess that so much of public contracted services are in, and how nothing, and I do mean nothing is set in stone. As my very first instructor told me many, many years ago on day one of my training for my first job in the public sector, "There are rules for everything, and for every rule there is an exception". It is now as it has ever been...…

I work entirely in the private sector, and the phenomenon you both describe is well entrenched here to. Far too often too much focus sI put on the economic and commercial side of the bid, and not enough on the technical side. I have seen from both sides of the coin: customers where procurement managers run roughshod over the technical specifications and timescales, and suppliers who are so desperate to get work in and keep their business ticking over they sign up to unrealistic commitments with inadequate information just to keep the customer happy. I haven't seen public procurement, but from stories I have heard, there sI no doubt that the same fundamental flaws in the process happen on both sides.

 

[43096]

They didn't have to bid.

Which is utterly irrelevant. If Arriva hadn’t bid (or won) someone else would have done against the same franchise specification, so we’d be in the same position now, but with a different name above the door.

Next time you are delayed, can we tell you “you didn’t have to travel”.

 

[Muttley]

Which is utterly irrelevant. If Arriva hadn’t bid (or won) someone else would have done against the same franchise specification, so we’d be in the same position now, but with a different name above the door.

Next time you are delayed, can we tell you “you didn’t have to travel”.

Sorry but you're wrong.
If nobody bid then they'd have to modify the original spec.

 

[plcd1]

(My team do, as part of their jobs, up to nine figure public sector procurements). The contracts are one sided jokes. The information provided is always inadequate and wrong. Each bidder is required to sign up, as a condition to a compliant bid, that they are happy with the information provided (they aren’t, but it has to be signed or noncompliance). The entire process is nonsense. It isn’t a fair process. And it ends up in a row. Usually because of poor procurement and an attitude (as reported to me) of “so what if it’s wrong or unworkable, we can’t and won’t change it. So sign it, or else.” And then the litigators get involved. After the procurement/commissioning teams have long moved on.

That doesn’t absolve poor bidding. That happens as well. Often. Usually because of self interest in the bidding teams (rewarded for winning, not rewarded for a successful contract delivery).

On railways, which is NOT my sector these days, I suspect a significant part of the problem is around NR. It is a core provider and it doesn’t seem to be subject to the same commercial realities that operators are. And also that, mainly outside of its control I suspect, politically it is too weak to say that projects are NOT deliverable on X time and Y budget. So it does the same, commits to the impossible.

No quibbles with any of that. Bidding teams rarely contain the people who have to deliver the actual contract so you end up with hubristic commitments. I also have no issues with your observation that the client may not be as "intelligent" as you may hope for. I have been a client rep on major procurements with a view to being heavily involved in subsequent delivery. That's unusual but I know for a fact that bidders were reassured by that. Clearly with rail franchises where key management almost certainly will change the client (for the day to day service) changes as well.

The DfT is too remote for day to day operation but clearly ARE the client for the total service requirement *and* they are in charge of Network Rail and thus related project enhancements / enabling works for a franchise even if they claim not to be. The dysfunctionality at DfT / Network Rail level is a key problem on almost every franchise. I won't cite examples as forum members know them better than I do. Obviously with Northern you also have Transport for the North and various Mayors etc featuring but AIUI they don't have much say over the scoping of the franchise and are certainly not in control of it from a client point of view. The power remains with DfT. As has been said in other places you need a fundamental restructuring of the DfT so that it has the ability to be a proper client OR if they don't want that role then they need to establish an organisation with railway and other expertise to fulfill that client role.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The DfT is too remote for day to day operation but clearly ARE the client for the total service requirement *and* they are in charge of Network Rail and thus related project enhancements / enabling works for a franchise even if they claim not to be. The dysfunctionality at DfT / Network Rail level is a key problem on almost every franchise. I won't cite examples as forum members know them better than I do. Obviously with Northern you also have Transport for the North and various Mayors etc featuring but AIUI they don't have much say over the scoping of the franchise and are certainly not in control of it from a client point of view. The power remains with DfT. As has been said in other places you need a fundamental restructuring of the DfT so that it has the ability to be a proper client OR if they don't want that role then they need to establish an organisation with railway and other expertise to fulfill that client role.

Which is of course the purpose of the Williams review just started.
Though whether the DfT will take its recommendations is another matter.
While DfT has close control over franchise letting, I don't believe it has a similar level of control over NR, which still has a quasi-independent status.
DfT can at least control the flow of money to NR, but not really how it gets spent.
TfN is supposed to be a co-signatory with DfT on the Northern/TPE franchises, and to have some role in day-to-day control, but the local Mayors (well, one in particular) doesn't seem to think the current state of affairs is any of his responsibility and is calling for Arriva to be fired.

 

[talltim]

What we see in the north is a mix of government intransigence, infrastructure failings and Trade Union stubbornness.

and TOC management failure

 

[Carlisle]

Sorry but you're wrong.
If nobody bid then they'd have to modify the original spec.

Alternatively management contracts might be a better option in future, given rail franchising is largely pretend capitalism anywaty

 

[43096]

Sorry but you're wrong.
If nobody bid then they'd have to modify the original spec.

And the chances of that are?

 

[scrapy]

Wasn't this request made when it became clear that the NR works were going to miss their targets? If so, could they really have requested changes sooner? I'm not saying that Arriva haven't made mistakes, but there's a long chain of failures which led to the May 18 timetable meltdown. Short of gazing into crystal balls, or consulting three old ladies around a cauldron could Arriva have really done any more?

Many on a lower and middle level (eg. Drivers, conductors, timetable planners, control) at Northern knew full well what a cock up the May timetable would be in March. The problem is when this was raised with higher management/directors people were singled out for being 'negative' even when constructive alternatives were suggested, senior management were saying everything was fine whereas lower management were saying and I quote one manager 'we'll have to wing it'.

David Brown and Chris Grayling both claim they only knew about the problems a few days before the timetable change. The fact David Brown didn't know what was going on in his company despite many raising concerns is either is a glaring example of how bad communication is within Northern since Arriva took over (if he genuinely didn't know about the problems with staffing) or he is just an out and out bull****ter.

Whilst I accept it's not all Northerns fault there is no way Northern should profit from this, any money gained from network rail should be ploughed into new infrastructure investment that Arriva will benefit from in the future hopefully from improved revenue for example station improvements (how about a few heated waiting rooms?) rather than simply sent back to Germany.

 

[6Gman]

Agreed!

Also, someone mentioned Northern use taxis to ferry staff between Piccadilly and Oxford Road.

I work near Piccadilly and you should see the amount Northern conductors and drivers walking between Oxford Road and Piccadilly everyday. It really is as daft as it sounds.

I assume many of them feel the 10-15 minute walk is quicker on relying on a taxi which could be held up in traffic. Such a thoroughly unprofessional arrangement can't be good for morale.

I'm surprised that revenue staff are willing to make such a walk frankly.

 

[superkev]

As the public mostly blame Northern rail for all problems I can't help thinking that db are doing this mainly as an exercise to try transfer some blame in the publics eye to Network rail.
Allthough Northerns managment have been far from perfect and to me always looks like fire fighting rather than planning they have had a poisoned chalice with non appearance of promised stock; late network rail works and an appalling us and them industrial relations legacy.
Sometimes it looks like all railway (and Grayling ) job titles should include the words "and professional apologiser"
K

 

[Greybeard33]

Yes it was the North West electrification project that I assumed was being talked about. The problems caused as a result of these delays, along with others have contributed towards the problems through the Castlefield corridor.

In what way did the electrification delays contribute to the problems through the Castlefield corridor? If the electrification had been ready, Northern was intending to run 7tph through Oxford Road and Piccadilly from May 2018. Due to the delays and consequent DMU shortage, the proposed Leeds to Manchester Airport via Bradford service was cut back to Victoria, leaving the current 6tph. Surely cramming in an extra hourly train would have made the performance of services over the corridor even worse?

The late timetable changes provided a convenient smokescreen for Northern (and TPE) management to try to hide its own failings.

 

[Eccles1983]

I'm surprised that revenue staff are willing to make such a walk frankly.

They shouldn't.

It's against cash regs and could see them sacked.

 

[Bantamzen]

Many on a lower and middle level (eg. Drivers, conductors, timetable planners, control) at Northern knew full well what a cock up the May timetable would be in March. The problem is when this was raised with higher management/directors people were singled out for being 'negative' even when constructive alternatives were suggested, senior management were saying everything was fine whereas lower management were saying and I quote one manager 'we'll have to wing it'.

David Brown and Chris Grayling both claim they only knew about the problems a few days before the timetable change. The fact David Brown didn't know what was going on in his company despite many raising concerns is either is a glaring example of how bad communication is within Northern since Arriva took over (if he genuinely didn't know about the problems with staffing) or he is just an out and out bull****ter.

Whilst I accept it's not all Northerns fault there is no way Northern should profit from this, any money gained from network rail should be ploughed into new infrastructure investment that Arriva will benefit from in the future hopefully from improved revenue for example station improvements (how about a few heated waiting rooms?) rather than simply sent back to Germany.

Whilst I don't doubt what you are saying about staff concerns, I seriously doubt that the top brass knew nothing. It seems to me all parties have been playing politics (a bit like the current guard's dispute). Just more evidence to me that the current franchising system is totally broken.

In what way did the electrification delays contribute to the problems through the Castlefield corridor? If the electrification had been ready, Northern was intending to run 7tph through Oxford Road and Piccadilly from May 2018. Due to the delays and consequent DMU shortage, the proposed Leeds to Manchester Airport via Bradford service was cut back to Victoria, leaving the current 6tph. Surely cramming in an extra hourly train would have made the performance of services over the corridor even worse?

The late timetable changes provided a convenient smokescreen for Northern (and TPE) management to try to hide its own failings.

Its been discussed at length on these forums, but in short the delays to infrastructure led to delays in EMU deployment, subsequent strengthening of DMU services leading to more overcrowding, crew training being delayed leading to cancellations, and so on. The May meltdown then eventually led to the emergency timetable and subsequently further delays to planned December timetable improvements.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm surprised that revenue staff are willing to make such a walk frankly.

I like going for a walk at lunchtime - they might well not mind. From an operational perspective it's nuts, though.

 

[scrapy]

Hi

Whilst I don't doubt what you are saying about staff concerns, I seriously doubt that the top brass knew nothing. It seems to me all parties have been playing politics (a bit like the current guard's dispute). Just more evidence to me that the current franchising system is totally broken.

I agree with you there but as David Brown has come out and publicly said he didn't know anything about it then in my book that's not playing politics that's out and out lies if he did.

If he didn't its surely incompitence either by him or Alan Chaplain.

 

[PR1Berske]

The late timetable changes provided a convenient smokescreen for Northern (and TPE) management to try to hide its own failings.

It was not Northern's fault that electrification schemes overran. If things had gone to plan the timetable changes would have been implemented far smoother.