ORR Press Release - Late-Notice Cancellations

[purple-Azumas]

Came across this press release from the ORR this afternoon - https://www.orr.gov.uk/search-news/...llation-statistics-match-passenger-experience.

The Office of Rail and Road has today written to the rail industry outlining the need to change how they record ‘pre-cancellations’ and to introduce a more passenger-friendly and transparent way of working when making late changes to services.

Passengers using many parts of the GB rail network are suffering from poor performance.

Train cancellations are at record levels, and an ORR investigation confirmed a further gap between cancellations statistics and the passenger experience.

This was driven by an increased number of unrecorded ‘pre-cancellations’.

Such ‘pre-cancellations’ (via a process known as ‘p-coding') can be confirmed as late as 22:00 the previous evening and are not included in the timetables that railway performance statistics are measured against.

For a passenger this could mean that a train they expected to catch when they went to bed can disappear from the timetable by the time they leave for the station unaware that the train has been cancelled.

Historically such changes have been made to support the introduction of emergency timetables when poor weather or infrastructure damage has required a whole-scale change to train service on a route. Service performance is measured against the published replacement (emergency) timetable instead.

The regulator finds that over the last year this mechanism has been used differently.

Late changes have been made to timetables by withdrawing services when insufficient staff or no appropriate trains are available. ORR says this is an inappropriate application of the Network Code’s provisions on emergency timetables.

ORR has today written to all train companies telling them to stop using this inappropriate approach and to ask Network Rail to coordinate the industry to come up with a better way of doing things.

Until this takes full effect, ORR requires all train companies to supply specific data on any ‘resource availability shortage pre-cancellations’. ORR will publish this data alongside official statistics in the future, ensuring full public transparency.

Feras Alshaker, Director, Planning & Performance, said,

”We recognise this temporary mechanism was used to help passengers through a time of frequent disruption by telling them as early as possible when their train service was cancelled.

“But good passenger information can still be achieved while retaining full transparency, robustness and trustworthiness of the official statistics.

“As such, we need all train companies and Network Rail to come up with a more passenger-friendly method of making late changes. While this does not fix the performance problems themselves, it will support better passenger information while ensuring that the industry statistics remain a transparent and accurate representation of the service provided.

“This in turn will allow important service and investment decisions for the future to be based on the right information.”

From my reading of this, it seems to be the ORR looking down on the whole Published Timetable of the Day (PToD) concept, though more from a passenger information viewpoint than a delay repay one - do they not realise/want to admit this (DR) as an issue?

Am interested in others' thoughts - one press release/letter is not going to change practices, so do you think anything is going to come of this, or will it be lost to the wind in a week's time? Could this be the start of more pushback on PToD or am I reading far too much into this?

 

[Watershed]

It's certainly a step in the right direction, although as you say, it does not go far enough. It reads like as if they are still happy for the Published Timetable of the Day nonsense (and thus Delay Repay rejections) to continue so long as the trains still appear in passenger information systems. If that's not their position, they need to clarify it.

Still, at least there is some movement on this issue.

 

[ashkeba]

This fallows from today's transport questions in Parliament addressing the subject. A transcript should be available soon. I doubt the regulator will drop it now the ministers are being asked about the unfairness of it.

 

[Benjwri]

From my reading of this, it seems to be the ORR looking down on the whole Published Timetable of the Day (PToD) concept, though more from a passenger information viewpoint than a delay repay one - do they not realise/want to admit this (DR) as an issue?

I believe they were told they have to by Huw Merriman, the rail minister today, the press release is likely just a hasty effort to appease him. It came up in a parliamentary debate today:

On the hon. Lady’s narrower question about transparency in P-coding, the rail Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman), will be meeting the Office of Rail and Road to discuss exactly that issue, to ensure that passengers have a transparent understanding of rail performance.

 

[purple-Azumas]

This fallows from today's transport questions in Parliament addressing the subject. A transcript should be available soon. I doubt the regulator will drop it now the ministers are being asked about the unfairness of it.

I believe they were told they have to by Huw Merriman, the rail minister today, the press release is likely just a hasty effort to appease him. It came up in a parliamentary debate today:

Interesting - didn't know about that.

It probably will be a case of wait and see - with everything else going on in the industry at the moment, I can't see them rushing to change this, especially if it saves them a pretty penny in not paying out DR.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

I read it that they are miffed that their statistics are being messed up, cancellations being understated due to the last minute cancellations under the 'p coding' reducing the official number of scheduled trains against which cancellations are measured and reducing the number of trains which are counted as cancelled. That is 100 trains in the long-term timetable, 10 cancelled on the day = 10% cancelled. Alternatively 100 trains in the long-term timetable, 10 cancelled before 2200 the night before, therefore none on the day = 0% cancellations. Kerching performance bonus.

Train cancellations are at record levels, and an ORR investigation confirmed a further gap between cancellations statistics and the passenger experience.
This was driven by an increased number of unrecorded ‘pre-cancellations’.
Such ‘pre-cancellations’ (via a process known as ‘p-coding') can be confirmed as late as 22:00 the previous evening and are not included in the timetables that railway performance statistics are measured against.

The effect on actual passenger experience (the going to bed expecting a train in the morning) but especially the effect on delay repay entitlement is not the concern raised.

 

[jfollows]

Specifically also on "p-coding" (https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commo...72E/TranspennineExpressOperationalPerformance):

Navendu Mishra
Mr Speaker, as a north-west MP, you will be aware of the disgraceful service level offered by Avanti. My constituents have to deal with TransPennine Express on the one hand and also Avanti, so it is a double whammy for the people of Stockport. It has recently been revealed that between 18 September and 12 November 2022, TransPennine Express pre-cancelled between 250 and 450 trains per week through the use of P-coded notices, meaning that thousands of people were left stranded. P-coded notices were first introduced for cancellations caused by exceptional circumstances but now appear to be used routinely by private rail operators. Does the Minister agree that this is an abuse of the P-coded notice system, and has he been speaking to TransPennine Express about that abuse?
Huw Merriman
As the Secretary of State said earlier, I will be speaking to the Office of Rail and Road about P-coding, because I feel it needs a good look. P-coding makes a lot of sense, to ensure that passengers are told on the day they travel whether the train will be operating. If rosters have not been put together because of staff shortages, that makes absolute sense, but the current levels on TPE give me concern, so I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will look at that. P-coding has been used a lot across the network due to the weather-related issues, where we have known that we cannot operate services the following day and want to let passengers know in advance. Finally, I assure him that performance-related fees, which take up the largest part of train operator payments, do of course take into account P-coding, as we would with other cancellations.

 

[Scott1]

High time too. Everyone knows it's just a DfT mandated scam to hide the volume of cancellations.

 

[Confused52]

The going to bed point as well as the issue of needed work rounds for Delay Repay are in the ORR letter to MDs of TOC which ORR also published.

 

[jfollows]

The going to bed point as well as the issue of needed work rounds for Delay Repay are in the ORR letter to MDs of TOC which ORR also published.

The one attached, I think.

Network Rail and all TOCs are to work together to identify and implement an appropriate method to end the use of late-notice, resource availability shortage “P*- coded” pre-cancellations.

Further to industry consultation undertaken prior to writing this letter - and recognising the significant detailed work that will be required to ensure there are no new, unintended consequences - we are asking Network Rail to provide the plan and associated timeline to ORR no later than Friday 10th March 2023.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Jan 2023 ==

Guardian article (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...red-stop-abusing-train-cancellations-loophole) attached; there were previous articles on 3 December and 27 November on the subject.

Rail transport

UK rail firms ordered to stop abusing train cancellations loophole

Cancellations far higher than official data suggests, says ORR, driven by use of unrecorded ‘pre-cancellations’

Helen Pidd North of England editor

Thu 19 Jan 2023 19.03 GMT

The rail regulator has ordered train companies to stop abusing a loophole which means that any train they cancel the night before does not count in their official cancellation statistics.

The Office of Rail and Road (ORR) said train cancellations were at “record levels”, far worse than official figures suggest, driven by an increased number of unrecorded “pre-cancellations”, known as “p-coding”.

These can be confirmed as late as 10pm the previous evening and are not included in the timetables that railway performance statistics are measured against.

A Guardian investigation in November found that one rail company, TransPennine Express (TPE), abused p-codes so much it was regularly cancelling 20%-30% of its train services in autumn. Yet it was legally bound to only report rates of between 5.6% and 11.8% for the same period – services cancelled on the day.

On Wednesday this week TPE cancelled 45% of the 333 trains it was timetabled to run. A hundred of those were pre-cancelled the night before.

On Thursday the ORR acknowledged a significant “gap” between the cancellation statistics it collected and the passenger experience. It has written to the rail industry outlining the need for “full public transparency” in how p-coded cancellations are recorded.

“Removing trains from the timetable in this way can mean that a train a passenger expected to catch when they went to bed can disappear from the timetable by the time they leave for the station, unaware that the train has been cancelled,” the ORR wrote.

Historically such changes have been made to support the introduction of emergency timetables when poor weather or infrastructure damage has required a wholesale change to train service on a route. Service performance is measured against the replacement timetable instead.

But the ORR said p-codes had been used “differently” over the past year, with late changes made to timetables by withdrawing services when insufficient staff or no appropriate trains were available. “This is an inappropriate application of the Network Code’s provisions on emergency timetables,” it said.

The regulator has asked Network Rail to “coordinate the industry to come up with a better way of doing things”. Until this takes full effect, the ORR requires all train companies to supply specific data on any “resource availability pre-cancellations”. It has promised to publish this data alongside official statistics in future.

Feras Alshaker, the ORR director for planning and performance, said: “We recognise this temporary mechanism was used to help passengers through a time of frequent disruption by telling them as early as possible when their train service was cancelled. But good passenger information can still be achieved while retaining full transparency, robustness and trustworthiness of the official statistics.”

TPE said that on Wednesday this week it recorded 100.5 pre-planned cancellations – with partial cancellations being counted as 0.5 per service – and 50.5 on the day. A spokesperson said it had reported the full range to the ORR and published all cancellations via Journeycheck.

 

[185]

Took me a while to find this thread.

This really is a serious matter - increasing abuse of the rules which the ORR have finally been persuaded to both investigate and prevent, following pressure from the public, interest groups and the Transport Select Committee.

Also known up north as TPE Coding

 

[Baxenden Bank]

The one attached, I think.

Regarding the following paragraph from that letter (thanks for uploading it):

Delay Repay eligibility for passengers may also be impacted by removal of the train from the timetable. Again, we recognise that in practice some TOCs have developed
a methodology to ensure that passengers receive appropriate compensation for delayed journeys – but these workarounds may require additional manual intervention.

The thread which covered 'dish timetable of the day' and other posts about people being refused Delay Repay because 'the train doesn't exist in the system' and similar would suggest that 'some' TOCS is certainly not 'all' TOCS. The question is what proportion and which TOCS are in the awkward squad.

 

[PG]

Could this be the start of more pushback on PToD or am I reading far too much into this?

Hopefully it is the start of a pushback on PToD if the main stream media actually start to realise that there is more to this story than just the skewing of performance statistics.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Hopefully it is the start of a pushback on PToD if the main stream media actually start to realise that there is more to this story than just the skewing of performance statistics.

Perhaps they could also take up the issue of the blatent misuse of "do not travel" warnings?

 

[Bald Rick]

It will be interesting to see what is actually done in practice. Personally I can’t see how it can be changed without wholesale changes to systems, industry rules such as the Network Code, and contracts between Governments and their train operator suppliers.

Also seems a little odd that the ORR have only got interested in this now - it’s been going on for 25 years plus. No one mentioned it when FCC were doing it daily (and in large quantity) in the late 2000s For exactly the same reasons.

 

[The Ham]

Also seems a little odd that the ORR have only got interested in this now - it’s been going on for 25 years plus. No one mentioned it when FCC were doing it daily (and in large quantity) in the late 2000s For exactly the same reasons.

There's probably a number of reasons, a few that I might guess at:
- it's more widespread
- it's been going of for 25 years plus
- as the government is more hands on, it's more "their fault" than it was under the franchise model

 

[Bald Rick]

There's probably a number of reasons, a few that I might guess at:
- it's more widespread
- it's been going of for 25 years plus
- as the government is more hands on, it's more "their fault" than it was under the franchise model

- the Guardian wrote a report about it.

 

[James90012]

I was musing about this. ORR are more than happy to lambast NR on all sorts of issuess yet the operators, as they report to DfT, seem to be left alone.

I did also wonder if there is a case for the ORR to explore regarding the DfT/Government's compliance with their own franchising regulations.

 

[Falcon1200]

Everyone knows it's just a DfT mandated scam to hide the volume of cancellations.

Also seems a little odd that the ORR have only got interested in this now - it’s been going on for 25 years plus. No one mentioned it when FCC were doing it daily (and in large quantity) in the late 2000s For exactly the same reasons.

Yes indeed! P-coded cancellations were being used well before I retired (6 years ago) by certain TOCs when they had known Traincrew shortages. It was sharp practice then as it still is now.

I have always thought that the cut-off point for any P-coded timetable alterations should be 2200 on Day 1 with the amended timetable (TT) applying from Day 3, not Day 2, thus giving the industry time to properly advertise the altered service. This would apply regardless of the reason for the amended TT. Having said that however, when a TOC such as Avanti or Transpennine is in such a state that they are cancelling scores of trains day after day, the answer should be a properly-resourced and therefore reliable emergency TT until the normal service can be restored, not cancelling different trains each day.

 

[Watershed]

- the Guardian wrote a report about it.

Indeed. I could sense that this subterfuge might finally start getting addressed when the Grauniad's North of England editor, Helen Pidd, picked up on this issue and (quite rightly!) took it up as her hobby horse.

 

[Starmill]

Personally I can’t see how it can be changed without wholesale changes to systems, industry rules such as the Network Code, and contracts between Governments and their train operator suppliers.

It appears TPE aren't complying with the Network Code, so changing it wouldn't be necessary. They just need to comply with the agreement they entered.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Jan 2023 ==

I was musing about this. ORR are more than happy to lambast NR on all sorts of issuess yet the operators, as they report to DfT, seem to be left alone.

I did also wonder if there is a case for the ORR to explore regarding the DfT/Government's compliance with their own franchising regulations.

There are lots of these things which ORR choose not to investigate, yes. For example the Govia Thameslink price discrimination claim wouldn't ever have arisen if ORR had examined the market in line with their regulatory duty, but they didn't so it has. It could be that ORR doesn't have the resources it needs, it could be that they're not as independent of Ministerial control as they should be. Both are common issues in this country, across the whole of government.

 

[TheManOnThe172]

And of course the "Published Timetable of the Day" (PToD) still isn't published.

There appears to be no way for a passenger to refer back to see whether their cancelled train was cancelled before 2200 the night before, or subsequently.

National Rail have no plans to publish the PToD. Their response to questions about this is that passengers can check their journey planner at precisely 2200 the night before travel, and presumably archive the screenshots in case their train is cancelled after this point and they end up in an argument with a TOC over eligibility for Delay Repay.

TransportFocus understand the issue, they were "in active discussion" with RDG about this last June, but everything seems to have gone quiet since then.

 

[Bald Rick]

It appears TPE aren't complying with the Network Code, so changing it wouldn't be necessary. They just need to comply with the agreement they entered.

The whole industry hasn’t complied with the Network Code for nearly three years, in terms of publishing amended train plans for engineering works at T-12.

However, in terms of what TPE (or any other TOC) is doing by cancelling trains between T-12 and the actual day is entirely in line with the Network Code.

I‘d be interested to know what the desired outcome is, in terms of what passengers actually experience, as it’s not clear to me.

 

[43096]

TransportFocus understand the issue, they were "in active discussion" with RDG about this last June, but everything seems to have gone quiet since then.

Ah, that utterly useless organisation, TransportFocus. If DfT are looking to make spending cuts, that’s a good place to start.

 

[ashkeba]

Indeed. I could sense that this subterfuge might finally start getting addressed when the Grauniad's North of England editor, Helen Pidd, picked up on this issue and (quite rightly!) took it up as her hobby horse.

The action only seems to have happened once there were questions in Parliament. I do not think any newspaper is as powerful.

 

[Parjon]

Took me a while to find this thread.

This really is a serious matter - increasing abuse of the rules which the ORR have finally been persuaded to both investigate and prevent, following pressure from the public, interest groups and the Transport Select Committee.

Also known up north as TPE Coding

Agreed, and I don't understand why this topic is buried in Fares thread.

The regulator's letter I find weak and inadequate versus what has now been stated as an inappropriate use of the P-code facility.

I think the public is entitled to know whether any TOC has benefited financially from this activity versus showing the trains as cancelled. And whether any individuals have profited from bonuses etc.

It's a disgrace the ORR don't already have this information. Why aren't they being asked for resignations?

It's no wonder so many people think the "system is rigged" on all fronts when there are blatant integrity issues like this that go on in plain sight.

 

[Bald Rick]

It's a disgrace the ORR don't already have this information. Why aren't they being asked for resignations?

If you can advise where this information resides in industry systems, and how it is collected, then I’d love to know!

Also, what is the information that is actually required?

 

[Starmill]

However, in terms of what TPE (or any other TOC) is doing by cancelling trains between T-12 and the actual day is entirely in line with the Network Code.

The ORR have set out their interpretation unambiguously that it's not compliant. That's obviously the interpretation taken by other operators such as CrossCountry, who have gone on record quite freely to say they wouldn't do this.

So the question is I guess why is your interpretation, and the presumed interpretation of TPE and as was FCC, so different?

I‘d be interested to know what the desired outcome is, in terms of what passengers actually experience, as it’s not clear to me.

Forgive me but I think ORR have made clear what their desired outcome is? They want operators to cancel trains, and not to p-code them, if the reason for the cancellation is only that there's a shortage of train crew or serviceable trains. Furthermore, they want changes to the reporting process to prevent TPE and others from pulling the wool over the eyes of the public by reporting on all cancellations for resource unavailability together with any cancellations made on the day. Finally they want to establish for the future how to force operators to do this under their licences, and they've asked Network Rail to come up with possible solutions.

 

[Watershed]

The whole industry hasn’t complied with the Network Code for nearly three years, in terms of publishing amended train plans for engineering works at T-12.

Indeed but that is a separate matter. Breaching one part of the Code (a situation which will in any event soon be regularised by amending the Network Code) doesn't excuse breaching other parts.

However, in terms of what TPE (or any other TOC) is doing by cancelling trains between T-12 and the actual day is entirely in line with the Network Code.

It might be within the letter of the Code, but clearly the ORR is of the view that it is not within its spirit. Whether that still allows them to take enforcement action if TOCs don't comply with their requests is unclear; their failure to warn of a penalty for non-compliance suggests that it probably doesn't.

I‘d be interested to know what the desired outcome is, in terms of what passengers actually experience, as it’s not clear to me.

It's not clear to me either. The ORR appears to be suggesting they are happy for resource related cancellations, and the concomitant gaslighting of passengers, to continue so long as they are done at least 72 hours in advance. I fear the outcome could therefore simply be to slightly increase the notice given for such "removals" from the timetable.

Whilst clearly 72 hours is a much longer amount of notice than the current 2-26 hours, I fail to see why the railway shouldn't be held, as a bare minimum, to the standards that apply in the aviation industry - where major and minor changes to the itinerary attract compensation if done within 14 and 7 days of departure, respectively.

As I've said before, it's incredible that you currently have better passenger rights flying with Ryanair than travelling on the railway.

 

[Starmill]

Indeed but that is a separate matter. Breaching one part of the Code (a situation which will in any event soon be regularised by amending the Network Code) doesn't excuse breaching other parts.

Indeed. In the same way that another company breaching it historically doesn't at all excuse doing so today.