ORR opens consultation on changing when timetable information is confirmed

[BenS123]

Proposals to modify timetable publication in Network Rail’s licence | Office of Rail and Road

Initial consultation on proposals to modify Network Rail’s network licence requirement on timetable publication.

www.orr.gov.uk

(Edited) The ORR is running a consultation whether to ratify a change to the Network Code which would mean the deadline for confirming the timetable will become 8 weeks before travel instead of 12

This would mean that train operators would only be able to inform passengers of confirmed train times at this eight-week milestone, thereby introducing a new ‘Informed Traveller’ deadline at T-8

 

[Adam Williams]

shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted?

 

[Clarence Yard]

To be clear, the Industry has passed the change to the Network Code but it now needs two things;

1. The ORR has to ratify the change to the Code.

2. NR needs to change its Licence in order for it to happen. This requires a Statutory Consultation as part of the ORR approval process for a Licence change.

 

[185]

Weeks? Months? I thought timetables are confirmed at 10pm the night before giving passengers for the 0001 service from Huddersborough a good two hours to prepare. Or not.

 

[BenS123]

To be clear, the Industry has passed the change to the Network Code but it now needs two things;

1. The ORR has to ratify the change to the Code.

2. NR needs to change its Licence in order for it to happen. This requires a Statutory Consultation as part of the ORR approval process for a Licence change.

Updated the original post - thanks for clarifying

 

[Watershed]

Utterly superfluous box-ticking exercise. What's the ORR going to do, refuse? It hasn't taken any enforcement action over NR being in continuous breach of its Licence for years - let alone most, if not all, TOCs being in breach of their licences when it comes to their PRO responsibilities.

The ORR really needs to step up its game to protect passengers, but it is far too much of a lapdog to do so.

 

[Dr Hoo]

The ORR had certainly taken licence enforcement action against Network Rail for general timetabling and specifically ‘T-12’ compliance in the past.

Obviously not very helpful with all the Covid changes, strikes, extreme events (e.g. Newnham bridge) and so on in recent times.

 

[Snow1964]

The ORR seems to have forgotten its role, it might have gone soft when Covid was around and unplanned changes became necessary.

But really it ought to be now saying, you have had a year to catch up after Covid restrictions ended, we (the ORR) will be enforcing the existing 12 week rules again in 3 months time.

No more post covid excuses, start delivering again, or hefty penalties will be issued. Not taking the approach that it can be a regulator that doesn't feel any need to regulate the rules.

 

[Clarence Yard]

And what is that going to do? The 14 DfT TOCs are effectively nationalised, NR is nationalised, and any penalties will go to the Treasury.

If the DfT continues to support T-8 and the actions of NR/TOCs, then fining Government controlled entities just becomes a pointless exercise and everybody knows it.

 

[Snow1964]

And what is that going to do? The 14 DfT TOCs are effectively nationalised, NR is nationalised, and any penalties will go to the Treasury.

If the DfT continues to support T-8 and the actions of NR/TOCs, then fining Government controlled entities just becomes a pointless exercise and everybody knows it.

Does DfT support T-8 long term, or is it just the temporary post covid target.

If you believe they do want it as a permanent change, can you please link some evidence that shows DfT (not independent ORR) have revised their aims from T-12 in the Network licence they granted (linked)

https://www.orr.gov.uk/sites/default/files/om/netwrk_licence.pdf

 

[station_road]

Does DfT support T-8 long term, or is it just the temporary post covid target.

If you believe they do want it as a permanent change, can you please link some evidence that shows DfT (not independent ORR) have revised their aims from T-12 in the Network licence they granted (linked)

https://www.orr.gov.uk/sites/default/files/om/netwrk_licence.pdf

Whether DfT supports it or not, what is the point of a regulator fining a government-controlled body who receive much of their funding from government grants? (the only possible real impact being that money goes to the Treasury and out of the rail industry, so less spent on things which could improve things for passengers and freight).

There is a separate debate then about how NR and the DfT TOCs can be held to account - answers on a postcard!

 

[nr758123]

Weeks? Months? I thought timetables are confirmed at 10pm the night before giving passengers for the 0001 service from Huddersborough a good two hours to prepare. Or not.

That's been my experience, too. It's difficult to see why it makes a difference between 12 & 8 weeks when TPE are allowed to make "changes to the timetable" - their words not mine - at 10pm the night before.

 

[Clarence Yard]

Does DfT support T-8 long term, or is it just the temporary post covid target.

If you believe they do want it as a permanent change, can you please link some evidence that shows DfT (not independent ORR) have revised their aims from T-12 in the Network licence they granted (linked)

https://www.orr.gov.uk/sites/default/files/om/netwrk_licence.pdf

The DfT were consulted as part of the “Proposal for Change” (120) that went through the Industry “Class Representative Committee” (CRC is the formal determining body for Industry Rules) and raised no objections.

Indeed, they said in their reply that the intended process “seeks to strike the right balance between agility….and giving the customer certainty”. They “welcomed” informed Traveller arrangements “aligned between the parties that will be meaningful and effective”.

The DfT, of course, have another bite at this as part of the Licence consultation but the “Franchised” reps at CRC felt they had no choice but to vote for PfC 120 and it went through to the next stage, which is ORR approval. The ability of NR to change their Licence was one of the two caveats that CRC put on their decision, the other being the ORR being satisfied on a legal point about the December timetable change date.

 

[bringbackcrouc]

Whether DfT supports it or not, what is the point of a regulator fining a government-controlled body who receive much of their funding from government grants? (the only possible real impact being that money goes to the Treasury and out of the rail industry, so less spent on things which could improve things for passengers and freight).

There is a separate debate then about how NR and the DfT TOCs can be held to account - answers on a postcard!

Quite right-- the DFT ministers hide behind Network Rail and Network Rail hide behind DFT.

There should be a 'commissioner for the railways' appointed by the Secretary of State and that is where the buck stops.

This proposal is going completely in the wrong direction; timetables should be set much further in advance. Particularly for intercity services, they should be able to be booked a year in advance. I appreciate some changes will have to be made once the football calendar comes out etc... but broadly if the railways are going to compete with planes the same ambition of booking a year in advance should apply.

See... https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/timetables-set-18-24-months-into-the-future.241667/

 

[The Planner]

The DfT were consulted as part of the “Proposal for Change” (120) that went through the Industry “Class Representative Committee” (CRC is the formal determining body for Industry Rules) and raised no objections.

Indeed, they said in their reply that the intended process “seeks to strike the right balance between agility….and giving the customer certainty”. They “welcomed” informed Traveller arrangements “aligned between the parties that will be meaningful and effective”.

The DfT, of course, have another bite at this as part of the Licence consultation but the “Franchised” reps at CRC felt they had no choice but to vote for PfC 120 and it went through to the next stage, which is ORR approval. The ability of NR to change their Licence was one of the two caveats that CRC put on their decision, the other being the ORR being satisfied on a legal point about the December timetable change date.

Which is why it went through 6-2 at the CRC vote. The FOC votes being the 2 against it.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Apr 2023 ==

Quite right-- the DFT ministers hide behind Network Rail and Network Rail hide behind DFT.

There should be a 'commissioner for the railways' appointed by the Secretary of State and that is where the buck stops.

This proposal is going completely in the wrong direction; timetables should be set much further in advance. Particularly for intercity services, they should be able to be booked a year in advance. I appreciate some changes will have to be made once the football calendar comes out etc... but broadly if the railways are going to compete with planes the same ambition of booking a year in advance should apply.

See... https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/timetables-set-18-24-months-into-the-future.241667/

That's fine as long as its caveated the schedule can still change, or you are in a position where every single piece of disruption has to be nailed down over a year in advance. That is never going to happen.

 

[Gaelan]

This proposal is going completely in the wrong direction; timetables should be set much further in advance. Particularly for intercity services, they should be able to be booked a year in advance. I appreciate some changes will have to be made once the football calendar comes out etc... but broadly if the railways are going to compete with planes the same ambition of booking a year in advance should apply.

I'm not entirely sure I agree - I suspect if it becomes possible to book out a year in advance, it will sooner or later become necessary to book out that far to get reasonable prices.

 

[Class83]

I'm not entirely sure I agree - I suspect if it becomes possible to book out a year in advance, it will sooner or later become necessary to book out that far to get reasonable prices.

Alignment with Eurostar would be a start, the cheapest Eurostar fares can sell out before you know if a cheap advance connection is available.

 

[Gaelan]

Alignment with Eurostar would be a start, the cheapest Eurostar fares can sell out before you know if a cheap advance connection is available.

Good point - this also happens with advances involving a connection between two TOCs, where one leg’s cheap advances will sell out before the booking starts for the other leg.

 

[bringbackcrouc]

It would be great if there was absolute transparency about how advance fares are released and priced

 

[The Planner]

It would be great if there was absolute transparency about how advance fares are released and priced

That would be a seperate TOC issue. This is about timetable change dates and process.

 

[Class 170101]

T-18 basically becomes nigh on impossible if you go to three timetable changes per year. The DfT wants to be able to change its mind and not make a decision until the last minute (or even beyond) as we saw with the 2018 TT.

The problem with that is it impacts on the Long Term Planning and until that is completed you cannot build the Engineering Plans on top of the LTP base. What that means is you cannot release fares for purchase because that relies on actual train schedules being published.

 

[The Planner]

T-18 basically becomes nigh on impossible if you go to three timetable changes per year. The DfT wants to be able to change its mind and not make a decision until the last minute (or even beyond) as we saw with the 2018 TT.

The problem with that is it impacts on the Long Term Planning and until that is completed you cannot build the Engineering Plans on top of the LTP base. What that means is you cannot release fares for purchase because that relies on actual train schedules being published.

Its not technically three though. The February change is optional, I'll be surprised if many operators do anything then.

 

[Class 170101]

Its not technically three though. The February change is optional, I'll be surprised if many operators do anything then.

That will depend on decision makers and I doubt they will want to wait.

 

[The Planner]

That will depend on decision makers and I doubt they will want to wait.

Why? June becomes the principal change with October the subsidiary. February just becomes a big spot bid opportunity if anything.

 

[Class 170101]

Why? June becomes the principal change with October the subsidiary. February just becomes a big spot bid opportunity if anything.

Politicans aren't patient people if they want something to happen it will happen regardless.

 

[The Planner]

Politicans aren't patient people if they want something to happen it will happen regardless.

What re-writes are on the go currently that would end up in Feb 25?

 

[HamworthyGoods]

Update on this - the ORR have rejected to proposal and haven’t agreed to change NR’s license.

Proposals to modify timetable publication in Network Rail’s licence | Office of Rail and Road

Initial consultation on proposals to modify Network Rail’s network licence requirement on timetable publication.

www.orr.gov.uk

 

[The Planner]

Update on this - the ORR have rejected to proposal and haven’t agreed to change NR’s license.

Proposals to modify timetable publication in Network Rail’s licence | Office of Rail and Road

Initial consultation on proposals to modify Network Rail’s network licence requirement on timetable publication.

www.orr.gov.uk

Wondered when this would land in the wild, rumoured to have been knocked back a few weeks ago.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Wondered when this would land in the wild, rumoured to have been knocked back a few weeks ago.

Delighted that ORR haven't caved in. NR & the TOCs need to adequately resource all teams involved with engineering works planning so they consistently deliver this now.

 

[The Planner]

Delighted that ORR haven't caved in. NR & the TOCs need to adequately resource all teams involved with engineering works planning so they consistently deliver this now.

Not sure of the correlation myself. It certainly wasnt proposed for that. The draft and confirmed period possession plan dates werent moving for a start.