Northern's Problems in the North West

[Howardh]

If you have a similar journey to the one I had from Blackpool North to Manchester Airport on 22 April, before the new timetable, you won't make your flight. It is worth remembering that from Piccadilly Station to the Airport by Metrolink takes the best part of an hour and the trams are not direct . A change at Colnbrook is required. That is if your train is terminated at Piccadilly.

Thought trams were now direct to the airport? But I was hoping TPE and any other company would be running a reasonably reliable service.

October 14th

This year or next??!

 

[underbank]

Reading what is happening from afar via news websites and chatrooms and other social media, what is happening in the north and London and South East is mayhem and indefensible.
How is it possible for TOC's to say they will deliver a service, supposedly "improve" that service and keep their franchises?

It's possible because some or all of the blame lies at the doors of Network Rail, i.e. late electrification, late cascading of rolling stock, etc - issued beyond the control of Northern. That clouds the issue of who is really to blame. IF the electrification had been completed by Network Rail on time, IF rolling stock cascades had happened as planned (delayed arguably by Network Rail issues elsewhere), then it would undoubtedly be Northern's fault. But Network Rail is at least partly to blame which is government owned/controlled and not privatised/franchised. It's all a mess and no-one is blameless. But taking away Northern's franchise is a knee jerk reaction and probably illegal, opening up claims for massive compensation! Removing their franchise wouldn't change the situation - there'd still be delays and cancellations because they're between a rock and a hard place, caused partly through no fault of their own and which wouldn't magically resolve itself upon nationalisation.

 

[Ant158]

Thought trams were now direct to the airport!

Trams run direct from Victoria to the Airport. You would have to change Trams at St Peter’s Square or Cornbrook if getting a tram from Piccadilly

 

[Moonshot]

It's possible because some or all of the blame lies at the doors of Network Rail, i.e. late electrification, late cascading of rolling stock, etc - issued beyond the control of Northern. That clouds the issue of who is really to blame. IF the electrification had been completed by Network Rail on time, IF rolling stock cascades had happened as planned (delayed arguably by Network Rail issues elsewhere), then it would undoubtedly be Northern's fault. But Network Rail is at least partly to blame which is government owned/controlled and not privatised/franchised. It's all a mess and no-one is blameless. But taking away Northern's franchise is a knee jerk reaction and probably illegal, opening up claims for massive compensation! Removing their franchise wouldn't change the situation - there'd still be delays and cancellations because they're between a rock and a hard place, caused partly through no fault of their own and which wouldn't magically resolve itself upon nationalisation.

Post of the day.....thats the reality of the current situation.

 

[Howardh]

Trams run direct from Victoria to the Airport. You would have to change Trams at St Peter’s Square or Cornbrook if getting a tram from Piccadilly

Gotcha. One option is the first train from Bolton to Victoria and catch the tram there if the trains direct to the airport from Bolton are cancelled.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Post of the day.....thats the reality of the current situation.

In all these posts, I can't see any reference to the existence of a training simulator, which includes all the changes made by Network Rail.
Is there one? If not would it have avoided any of this farrago?
For instance I know there is one for 175s at Chester which ATW has, and VT certainly have one at Crewe for WCML routes.
Do Northern have a similar facility for its trains/routes?
Why should it take x physical trips over the actual infrastructure with the actual stock before being approved with passengers?
Couldn't most of the route learning be done off-line?
Northern (this franchise and the old one) have had (literally) years to plan this transition, since the electrification plans of 2009 and the 2014 ITT.
All the stock has been knocking about the north for decades, except the 319s which have been around in the north for 5 years.
To the layman it seems not to be an insoluble task to develop the necessary route/stock knowledge well in advance of the new timetable.
For example, why wait till the last minute to train for a long-planned 323/319 through Crewe-Liverpool route across Manchester?
This has nothing to do with NR's electrification delays.
Or am I just being silly?

 

[Merseysider]

On Thursday I want to catch a plane at Manchester Airport 12.35pm. Terminal 3 (so that's 10 mins walk from the station) but I will pay extra for fast-track through security. I intend to be at Bolton station as soon as off-peak starts.

Anyone like to run a book on the time I will arrive at security?!!

I don’t think you will

 

[Silver Cobra]

**EDIT: Wrong thread. Please ignore...

 

[Bungle965]

I honestly didn't think things could get worse on the Peterborough route. Looking through RTT, it seems that after the 1625 departure to Peterborough at Arlesey, there won't be another northbound service until 2025. That's four hours between services, and no peak time services from London at that. Absolutely ridiculous....

Think you're on the wrong thread here mate!
Sam

 

[northwichcat]

As of next week BusyBus will start running day trips to the Lake District from Manchester Airport station, which includes a visit to Lake Windermere. Coincidence?

 

[30907]

In all these posts, I can't see any reference to the existence of a training simulator, which includes all the changes made by Network Rail.
Is there one? If not would it have avoided any of this farrago?
For instance I know there is one for 175s at Chester which ATW has, and VT certainly have one at Crewe for WCML routes.
Do Northern have a similar facility for its trains/routes?
Why should it take x physical trips over the actual infrastructure with the actual stock before being approved with passengers?
Couldn't most of the route learning be done off-line?
Northern (this franchise and the old one) have had (literally) years to plan this transition, since the electrification plans of 2009 and the 2014 ITT.
All the stock has been knocking about the north for decades, except the 319s which have been around in the north for 5 years.
To the layman it seems not to be an insoluble task to develop the necessary route/stock knowledge well in advance of the new timetable.
For example, why wait till the last minute to train for a long-planned 323/319 through Crewe-Liverpool route across Manchester?
This has nothing to do with NR's electrification delays.
Or am I just being silly?

See this thread
https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/simulators-for-route-learning.165340/#post-3491509

 

[Merseysider]

As of next week BusyBus will start running day trips to the Lake District from Manchester Airport station, which includes a visit to Lake Windermere. Coincidence?

It was only a matter of time before someone exploited this new gap in the market

 

[Silver Cobra]

Think you're on the wrong thread here mate!
Sam

Whoops! Thanks for pointing out my mistake.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

See this thread
https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/simulators-for-route-learning.165340/#post-3491509

Thanks for that, I guess you could say the response is "mixed"!
I also guess Northern's fleet is too old to have had any simulator capability at the time of manufacture.
As it seems to be such a critical and expensive aspect of operation, you'd hope Northern's new CAF stock has some simulator capability to ease the transition.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Removing their franchise wouldn't change the situation - there'd still be delays and cancellations because they're between a rock and a hard place, caused partly through no fault of their own

I think, truthfully, that Northern are hiding behind the electrification problems as the reason for this mess. It isn't. It's lack of staff. I understand why Northern are hiding behimd Network Rail mistakes, but I don't think they should get away with it that lightly.

I would see them forfeit the franchise, the staffing shortages and the lack of goodwill are ENTIRELY Arriva's fault.

 

[jayah]

The Union don’t micromanage it, thy ensure that the working diagrams presented by the company are legal.

The rostering is devised around these diagrams to ensure adequate rest days, working hours and every diagram is covered on each working day.

I would postulate that is not micromanaging but is operationally essential

Why do they decide if staff can be offered additional pay to work rest days or not?

 

[jayah]

I have a week in the link where I do 26 hours.

I also have a week where I do 59.5 hours (Sun-Sat)

Would you like unload both barrels on me too @jayah for working less than 35 hours in 1 week?

Think you need to look up what an average 35 hour week means and is, because no driver does exactly 8hr45 on a 4 day week. It could be 6hr32 one day and 9hr58 another day.

There is nothing here about the average week I didn't already know.

What happens on Northern West apparently is when they are training off the roster they aren't on an 8hr45 day but a 7hr one.

It has also been said that although Sundays are mandatory hours outside the 35hr, they are at additional pay.

 

[Loop & Link]

This is something which must have passed me by, i.e. Piccadilly drivers learning Chat Moss, and Lime Street drivers learning Airport to Crewe.
I thought a lot of recent fuss was about trains having to change crews at Oxford Road, simply because none (or few) crews knew the complete route. Is this not the case?

As it stands at the moment there was no through work in the dockets for any driver Lime St - Crewe, everyone got relieved at Oxford Road.

So there were no issues where a train was cancelled because a driver didn’t sign the route (eg: Lime St driver couldn’t take a service forward to Crewe at Oxford Road) as there was no through work.

With the Lime St block things are obviously different at the moment.

Piccadilly only sign the Chat Moss at present to do - Manchester Oxford Road-Wigan via Golborne.

Yes, and this also goes for the Airport-Prestons/Blackpools being relieved at Oxford Rd more than originally scoped because of Golborne/158/319 complications. The company originally wanted as little booked relief as possible at Oxford Rd but had to capitulate.

The Airports-Blackpool were less of an issue than the Liverpool services, as there were drivers that worked the route throughout like Lime St, Wigan and Blackpool (ex-TPE) drivers.

 

[jayah]

Best have a go at NR too then, we are a 35 hour week company.

Depends if you get to work 4* 7hr days and get paid for a 35hr contract?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

As it stands at the moment there was no through work in the dockets for any driver Lime St - Crewe, everyone got relieved at Oxford Road.

But the requirement for through Crewe-Manchester-Liverpool services with 319/323 must have been apparent for the last 4 years since the ITT appeared and Northern made its bid.
So why was cross-route training not instituted earlier?
It's surely not rocket science!

 

[RickSanchez]

Why do they decide if staff can be offered additional pay to work rest days or not?

Collective bargaining arrangements common to unionised workforce’s

 

[RickSanchez]

Unconvincing performance by Chris Grayling at the dispatch box

 

[randyrippley]

This is where fantasy and reality meet......and the reality is that 165 services have been took out to ease the pressure on a very difficult situation. The T and Cs of delay repay have not changed at all.

that means 165 services where delay repay can't be paid, even though they're not running

 

[RickSanchez]

Depends if you get to work 4* 7hr days and get paid for a 35hr contract?

Also if a driver is rostered on say a 9 hr spare shift they might be sent one if there isn’t enough work to do after say 6-7 hours and they still get paid for the full shift

Edit: This is a common industry practice, some freight drivers even turn their phone off on spare turns after an allotted time under local agreements

 

[Tringonometry]

It has also been said that although Sundays are mandatory hours outside the 35hr, they are at additional pay.

West side drivers get flat rate for Sundays plus 2hrs on top.

 

[Tringonometry]

There is a thread on here about the Cumbrian Coast service. There have been many services cancelled on that route due to the driver shortage. What routes or traction do they need to learn?

This has been confusing me too. Workington shouldn't be short of drivers, apart from the likes of me on annual leave all of last week and half of this. I'll try to find out on Friday when I'm back in.

Don't forget that there's cross cover, so Workington dvrs could be covering Barrow work because *they're* covering Wigan work who are covering Man Vic work etc etc etc.

Or it could be something else entirely. Who knows?

 

[underbank]

Any reason why drivers can't learn new routes whilst driving under supervision of a trainer/instructor on trains with passengers? Surely it makes more sense to do that rather than having loads of empty trains shuttling around the already busy network. After all, they're already qualified to actually drive the trains, so with proper supervision should be safe enough to carry passengers?

 

[Jimmy Foster]

I think, truthfully, that Northern are hiding behind the electrification problems as the reason for this mess. It isn't. It's lack of staff. I understand why Northern are hiding behimd Network Rail mistakes, but I don't think they should get away with it that lightly.

I would see them forfeit the franchise, the staffing shortages and the lack of goodwill are ENTIRELY Arriva's fault.

n

Clearly you have a strong dislike of the operator but this is a comment borne out of that hatred and thus devoid of common sense.

Any TOC in Northern's position would be delighted to have the franchise 'stripped' at this stage as DfT, who have already stated that the issues they currently face are the fault of Network Rail, would then have to cough up a massive compensation bill to the owning group as the stripping action would be somewhere between illegal as suggested elsewhere and a breach of contract.

That may still satisfy some but consider what it would really mean - an inevitable delay to the arrival of the new trains would be the first thing and as it's still a subsidised TOC DfT would push for a new operator to be appointed asap to reduce the subsidy and that would mean a deal being done where the bidders have the power which in turn would likely be bad news for passengers.

The job of government is to consider all the consequences and arrive at the best overall solution for the country.

 

[jayah]

Also if a driver is rostered on say a 9 hr spare shift they might be sent one if there isn’t enough work to do after say 6-7 hours and they still get paid for the full shift

Edit: This is a common industry practice, some freight drivers even turn their phone off on spare turns after an allotted time under local agreements

A booked training day that has to fit inside 7hr is far worse than a spare turn that isn't going anywhere. I trust there aren't of those in Lancashire at the moment.

 

[WatcherZero]

Independent Inquiry announced into Northern/GTR timetable trouble, blame being firmly laid by government at Network Rail for failing to deliver infrastructure on time and the regulator for advising the TOC's that nothing was wrong and they should only expect minor initial hiccups right up until it was too late while also saying the TOC's should have been more prepared by having a plan B timetable.

Mr Speaker

I would like to update the House on the recent timetable changes, in particular on some Govia Thameslink Railway (GTR) and Northern routes.

Let me be absolutely clear: passengers on these franchises are facing totally unsatisfactory levels of service. And it is my and my department’s number one priority to make sure the industry restores reliability for passengers to an acceptable level. I want to assure the passengers affected that I share their frustration about what has happened, and that I am sorry that this has taken place.

This timetable change was intended to deliver the benefits to passengers of major investment in the rail network. This means new trains, including all trains on the Northern and TransPennine Express networks either new or refurbished, Great North Rail Project infrastructure upgrades worth well over £1 bllion, such as in the Ordsall Chord and Liverpool Lime Street and, through the £7 billion Thameslink Programme, new trains and improved stations, including London Bridge and Blackfriars.

The huge growth in passenger numbers that we have seen in recent years demanded expanded routes, services and extra seats. But this timetable change instead has resulted in unacceptable disruption for passengers that rely on these services.

Mr Speaker

The most important thing right now is to get things back to a position of stability for passengers.

But it is also vital to understand what has happened and why we are in the situation we are today – and the circumstances for the failures are different on the Northern and GTR networks.

The investigations being carried out right now are giving more information about what has gone wrong, but it is also worth being clear that the industry remained of the view until the last moment that it would be able to deliver these changes. That is the bit that everyone will find hard to understand and why there has to be a proper investigation into what has taken place.

On Northern, which is co-managed through the Rail North Partnership by Transport for the North and my department, early analysis shows that the key issue was that Network Rail did not deliver infrastructure upgrades in time – in particular the Bolton electrification scheme – with damaging consequences. This forced plans to be changed at a very late stage – requiring a complete overhaul of logistics and crew planning.

The early analysis also shows that on GTR’s Thameslink and Great Northern routes, the industry timetable developed by Network Rail was very late to be finalised. This meant that train operators didn’t have enough time to plan crew schedules or complete crew training, affecting a whole range of other complex issues that impact the service of what is an already congested service.

But it is also clear to me that both Northern and GTR were not sufficiently prepared to manage a timetable change of this scale either. GTR did not have enough drivers with the route knowledge required to operate the new timetable. And neither Northern nor GTR had a clear fall-back plan.

In GTR’s case, the process of introducing the new timetable was overseen for the last 2 years by an Industry Readiness Board, made up of Network Rail, ORR and the train operating companies and an Independent Assurance Panel.

Both of these groups have told me that they had been given no information to suggest that the new timetable should not be implemented as planned – albeit with some likely early issues as the timetable bedded down.

These bodies were set up specifically to ensure that all parts of the rail network – Network Rail, GTR, other train operators were ready to implement these major timetable changes – it should have been clear to them that some key parties were not ready. They did not raise this risk.

The department received advice from the Thameslink Readiness Board that while there were challenges delivering the May 2018 timetable, namely the logistics of moving fleet and staff, a three week ‘transition’ would allow minimal disruption. My officials were assured the other mitigations in place were sufficient and reasonable.

Indeed as few as 3 weeks before the timetable was to be implemented GTR themselves assured me personally they were ready to implement the changes. Clearly this was wrong, and it is totally unacceptable.

The rail industry has collectively failed to deliver for the passengers it serves.

It is right that the industry has apologised for the situation that we are currently in, and that we learn the lessons for the future.

But right now the focus should be on restoring the reliability of their service to passengers.

This morning I met again with Chief Executives of Network Rail, GTR and Northern – the latest in a series of meetings that my department and I have been holding with these organisations. And the Rail Minister has visited Network Rail’s control centre in their Milton Keynes headquarters today.

We have made clear to them all that current services are still not good enough.

I have demanded that Network Rail and the train operator work more collaboratively across the industry to resolve the situation – where necessary using resources from other train operators to support the recovery effort.

Officials in my department are working around the clock to oversee this process.

We have strengthened resources in both the department and Rail North Partnership – which oversees the Northern franchise – to hold the industry to account for improving services.

Mr Speaker, I would like to be able to tell the House that there is an easy solution, or that the department could simply step in and make the problems passengers are facing go away. If there was a way to do that, I would do so without hesitation. Ultimately, the solution needs to be delivered by the rail industry.

These problems can only be fixed by Network Rail and train operators methodically working through the timetable and re-planning train paths and driver resourcing to deliver a more reliable service.

It is for reasons like this that I am committed to unifying the operations of track and trains where appropriate to ensure we do not encounter problems like this in the future.

Northern Rail have agreed an action plan with the Rail North Partnership – this is focused on improving driver rostering to get more trains running as quickly as possible, rapidly increasing driver training on new routes, additional contingency drivers and management presence at key locations in Manchester, and putting extra peak services in the timetable along the Bolton corridor. Work on this action plan has been underway for some time.

They have also published temporary timetables that will be more deliverable and will give passengers much more confidence in the reliability of their service.

This will mean removing certain services from the new expanded timetable while ensuring there is still an improvement in the total number of services being run by Northern compared to before the timetable change.

Alternative arrangements will be made for passengers negatively impacted by the changes. I believe that this temporary measure is necessary to stabilise the service, enabling improvements to be introduced gradually.

On GTR, there are more services running on a day-to-day basis today than before the timetable change, and Southern and Gatwick Express services are performing well on some routes but not all.

However, GTR are not currently able to deliver all planned services on Thameslink and Great Northern routes.

In order to give passengers more confidence, GTR are removing services in advance from their timetable rather than on the day and reducing weekend services to pre-May levels. This will be in place until a full re-planning of driver resourcing has been completed.

Mr Speaker, I would like to be clear, while I expect to see stable timetables restored on both networks in the coming days, I expect the full May timetable – and all the extra trains - to be introduced in stages over the coming months in order to ensure that it can actually this time be delivered properly.

And once the full service is operating on GTR, 24 Thameslink trains will run through central London every hour. 80 more stations will have direct services to central London stations such as Farringdon, City Thameslink and Blackfriars by next year.

There will be 115 new trains and more than 1,000 new carriages providing faster, more frequent and more reliable journeys for thousands of passengers.

And on Northern, the Great North Rail Project, an investment of well over £1 billion in the region’s rail network will enable, by 2020, faster and more comfortable journeys, as well as new direct services across the north and beyond.

By 2020, it will see the train operators, Northern and TransPennine Express, deliver room for 40,000 extra passengers and more than 2,000 extra services a week.

What matters now is developing a stable service for passengers today.

But I completely understand that passengers are angry at the levels of disruption that this timetable change has caused in recent weeks.

And that is why there has to be a compensation scheme for passengers on affected routes on both GTR and Northern (subject to agreement with the board of Transport for the North) will be introduced and funded by industry, to ensure regular rail customers receive appropriate redress for the disruption they have experienced.

The industry will set out more detail of the eligibility requirements and how season ticket holders can claim. However I believe the scheme should offer passengers, particularly in the North where disruption has been protracted, similar entitlements to last year’s Southern passenger compensation scheme. Commuters in the North are as important as commuters in the South and should receive comparable compensation.

It is also clear to me that aside from Network Rail’s late finalisation of the timetable, GTR and Northern were not sufficiently prepared to manage a timetable change of this scale.

So today (4 June 2018) I am also announcing that work has started to set up an inquiry by the independent Office of Rail and Road (ORR), chaired by Stephen Glaister, into the May timetable implementation.

It is necessary to have a full enquiry.

The inquiry will consider why the system as a whole failed to produce and implement an effective timetable.

The findings will be shared at as early a stage as possible with myself and the rail industry so that lessons can be learned in advance of future major timetable changes. The final report will be published by ORR by the end of the year but I want initial responses much sooner than that.

In parallel to the inquiry my department will assess whether GTR and Northern met their contractual obligations in the planning and delivery of this timetable change.

My department will be assessing whether these issues could have been reasonably foreseen and different action taken to prevent the high levels of disruption passengers are experiencing.

In GTR’s case the assessment will cover whether the operator had sufficient resources and skills to deliver the new timetable, if drivers could have been trained in a faster and more effective way, and examine the contingency and risk management arrangements in place.

Mr Speaker, if it is found that GTR are materially in breach of their contractual obligations, I will take the appropriate enforcement action against them. This includes using the full force of the franchise agreement and my powers under the Railways Act, and I will include how such a failure impacts on their eligibility to hold a franchise bidding passport.

In the case of Northern, my department will assess the operators planning, risk assessment and resilience in preparing for the May timetable change. Bearing in mind Network Rail’s failure to deliver infrastructure on time, we will absolutely hold the operator to the terms of their contractual obligations. I will not be afraid to take action where it is necessary to do so. It is right to go through the review.

I will not hold back from taking appropriate action if the review finds that there has been negligent behaviour.

Finally, given the importance placed on these issues by colleagues on both side of the House, I have arranged for both Northern and GTR to meet with colleagues across the House this week to discuss any specific issues that they wish to raise with the operators.

Mr Speaker, I am incredibly frustrated that what should have been an improvement in services for passengers has turned into significant disruption. I am extremely sorry for the levels of disruption that passengers are experiencing and also sorry to those members of staff caught on the sharp end of these changes.

There clearly have been major failures that have led to the situation we are in today. I am clear that the industry must and will be held to account for this.

But my immediate priority is to ensure that the industry improves train services to an acceptable level as quickly as possible and that will remain my priority.