ORR Press Release - Late-Notice Cancellations

[Taunton]

From the BBC :

Transpennine: True extent of cancellations revealed

The rail franchise pulled far more trains than any other operator, figures released by the regulator show.

www.bbc.co.uk

Transpennine has previously said it only resorted to pre-planned cancellations "when resources are not available to cover advertised services in order to maximise advance notice of service changes for customers".

It blamed the "combined impact of prolonged higher-than-usual sickness levels, the significant driver training programme to facilitate the delivery of the Transpennine route upgrade and an aligned lack of a driver overtime agreement"

This load of waffle seems to show their management have learned nothing, and have zero contrition.

 

[Bald Rick]

The press need to once again take this out of their hands by now asking the money related questions.

You keep going on about this. What TPE have done is entirely per the contracts between them and NR, and them and the Rail North Partnership (DfT + Transport for the North). They will have been reporting this info about Pre cancellations to RNP / DfT / TfN every 4 weeks. They have only been Pre cancelling trains in agreement with the RNP.

This practice used to aided and abetted by NR as it improves PPM and that used to drive the bonus scheme but that was a few years back so may no longer be in play.

Bonus? What’s that? Hasn’t been one of those for 4 years!

 

[Parjon]

You keep going on about this. What TPE have done is entirely per the contracts between them and NR, and them and the Rail North Partnership (DfT + Transport for the North).

And I have noticed you seem quite agitated whenever I do!

But I haven't seen the contracts or agreements and decline to take your word for it. Sorry! It's clear there are very obvious, reasonable follow up questions to be asked and answered.

 

[Cantab26]

And I have noticed you seem quite agitated whenever I do!

But I haven't seen the contracts or agreements and decline to take your word for it. Sorry! It's clear there are very obvious, reasonable follow up questions to be asked and answered.

The relevant parts of the Network Code and the Delay Attribution Principles and Rules are published online if you care to look.

 

[Facing Back]

Th

The relevant parts of the Network Code and the Delay Attribution Principles and Rules are published online if you care to look.

that’s interesting. I will have a look thanks.

 

[Spartacus]

The relevant parts of the Network Code and the Delay Attribution Principles and Rules are published online if you care to look.

In fairness TPE (and a few other TOCs to a lesser extent) have been, shall we say, playing rather fast and loose with their interpretation of planned cancellations.

 

[Parjon]

The relevant parts of the Network Code and the Delay Attribution Principles and Rules are published online if you care to look.

I don't. I care for professionals to take the matter up and look into it far more capably than I am able to. Thanks.

 

[Cantab26]

I don't. I care for professionals to take the matter up and look into it far more capably than I am able to. Thanks.

So, to summarise: you won’t look at the material yourself and you “decline to take the word” of others about what it says.

An element of having cake and eating it here, methinks.

 

[Bald Rick]

But I haven't seen the contracts or agreements and decline to take your word for it.

I care for professionals to take the matter up and look into it far more capably than I am able to. Thanks.

Fortunately, I am a professional in this field, and have capably looked it up for you.

Hence my earlier post.

You can of course decline to take my word for it. But I don’t know who you are expecting to turn up and provide a definitive assessment.

 

[Horizon22]

I don't. I care for professionals to take the matter up and look into it far more capably than I am able to. Thanks.

And professionals have answered that for you. Perhaps you are reluctant because you don't know the people on the forum "in person", but there are many knowledgable people who have "taken the matter up and looked into it" here.

 

[Roast Veg]

The problem is that the action taken by TPE is not in the spirit of the rules, and has resulted in an extremely poor customer experience. The ORR, acting on behalf of the customer, are right to have stepped in here.

How on earth anybody can dig the franchise out of this mess in even the next 6 months is well beyond me though. If TfN and the DfT are satisfied that this is the best TPE can possibly be doing under the circumstances what hope would any other management structure have?

 

[87015]

The problem is that the action taken by TPE is not in the spirit of the rules, and has resulted in an extremely poor customer experience. The ORR, acting on behalf of the customer, are right to have stepped in here.

How on earth anybody can dig the franchise out of this mess in even the next 6 months is well beyond me though. If TfN and the DfT are satisfied that this is the best TPE can possibly be doing under the circumstances what hope would any other management structure have?

You won’t get any journalism against it, they are far more interested in giving away free passes to Modern Railways reporters than working out that if you give 68 work to a 185 only link that’ll cause problems, let alone looking at actual stats

 

[Facing Back]

I don't. I care for professionals to take the matter up and look into it far more capably than I am able to. Thanks.

Is it more that you don't agree with the terms of the agreement and feel they should be different? Rather than arguing that they are not being adhered too?

I'm going to look at them, because I am a geek. I'm totally talking the posters in here who are involved at their word that the agreements as written are being followed.

 

[Tetchytyke]

You keep going on about this. What TPE have done is entirely per the contracts between them and NR, and them and the Rail North Partnership (DfT + Transport for the North). They will have been reporting this info about Pre cancellations to RNP / DfT / TfN every 4 weeks. They have only been Pre cancelling trains in agreement with the RNP.

I think what TPE are doing is stretching the rules to breaking point, but I do agree that they are complying with the letter of the rules. Certainly not the spirit, but then we all know that.

Of course DfT don't really care, and the ORR don't really care. And I think everyone else accepts the mess First have created is going to take a very long time to fix, so if they leave First hanging until it's 90% sorted there's plenty of political capital to be gained.

Meanwhile TPE's journeycheck is reporting 37 full cancellations and 33 partial cancellations for today, and 24 short-forms on services that are running. It really is pot luck whether you'll get to your destination.

 

[Falcon1200]

I think what TPE are doing is stretching the rules to breaking point, but I do agree that they are complying with the letter of the rules. Certainly not the spirit, but then we all know that.

I agree 100%, but TPE are not the first or only TOC to do what they are doing. Before I retired (*) another TOC, for several months, suffered Traincrew shortages and each night submitted a list of planned cancellations for the next day, which just as with TPE were P* coded and did not therefore affect their performance statistics. I was uncomfortable having to agree to this but it was within the rules, and if the ORR don't like it (or rather, don't like the flak coming their way when the subterfuge has finally been exposed)..... Change the rules!

(*) I retired in 2016.....

 

[Bald Rick]

I agree 100%, but TPE are not the first or only TOC to do what they are doing. Before I retired (*) another TOC, for several months, suffered Traincrew shortages and each night submitted a list of planned cancellations for the next day, which just as with TPE were P* coded and did not therefore affect their performance statistics. I was uncomfortable having to agree to this but it was within the rules, and if the ORR don't like it (or rather, don't like the flak coming their way when the subterfuge has finally been exposed)..... Change the rules!

(*) I retired in 2016.....

Exactly - spot on!

 

[James90012]

All the above debate highlights the importance of fundamental reform.

There are too many holes that means the sole reason these companies exist, to provide the passenger services they are obliged to, gets demoted as one element of an operating contract.

 

[LYuen]

You can still claim, but you have to manually input the train times as their system only shows "timetabled" trains. I've only been disputed once, when they stated I could have caught another cancelled service!! CCF and Trust to the rescue, although open train times shows the same details.

Northern refused to pay delay compensation for P-Coded cancellation, quoting that "the intended service was not timetabled to operate" therefore will not repay.
Not sure about GC or TPE, I am boycotting the later since last year. Liverpool/Manchester to York is quite suitably a Northern only trip.

 

[Falcon1200]

As well as the obvious disruption to passengers' journeys, is it not also ludicrous to announce, as I have heard, that TPE cancellations are due to a 'short-notice change to the timetable'?. The cancellation is the short-notice change!

 

[sheff1]

For Transpennine, none due to rolling stock, but 312 part P-codes due to lack of staff and a whopping 1048 P-codes due to lack of staff.

The 1360 P-codes for Transpennine works out at 48.6 trains per day due to staff shortages, as data is 28 day period.

Yet Matthew Golton (TPE managing director) insists with a straight face that they have not got a shortage of train crew.

 

[nanstallon]

Whether or not TPE are within the rules, the fact remains that the service is unsatisfactory. Rather than arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, TOCs should not get away with poor service.

 

[LYuen]

Should the entire First Group be 'penalised' the appalling service TPE is providing?
My take is, TPE is performing so poor that the franchise should be stripped immediately. However, there can also be a mechanism to force them to give up the franchise if they could not provide the contracted service level due to their internal issues.
One way is to reduce the payment to other First Group franchises too - so First Group to either give up TPE, or their profits from AWC, GWR, Lumo and so on are reduced.
This would increase the pressure a ToC to provide the contracted service level, not just hanging on until the contract is being reviewed.

 

[WAB]

Should the entire First Group be 'penalised' the appalling service TPE is providing?
My take is, TPE is performing so poor that the franchise should be stripped immediately. However, there can also be a mechanism to force them to give up the franchise if they could not provide the contracted service level due to their internal issues.
One way is to reduce the payment to other First Group franchises too - so First Group to either give up TPE, or their profits from AWC, GWR, Lumo and so on are reduced.
This would increase the pressure a ToC to provide the contracted service level, not just hanging on until the contract is being reviewed.

Trouble is, putting any proper pressure on the owning groups will scare them off and make it difficult/impossible to let out NR contracts.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Trouble is, putting any proper pressure on the owning groups will scare them off and make it difficult/impossible to let out NR contracts.

The boss of First's rail division is also the boss of the RDG and is also leading the pay negotiations.

Like they're going to put pressure on Steve Montgomery.

As for TPE, yesterday I was booked on the 1124 Liverpool-Newcastle. P-code cancellation, the website specifically said catch the 1224 (as opposed to the usual "catch another train *shrug*"). Which was also P-code cancelled. Gormless doesn't begin to describe TPE's management.

 

[Watershed]

Should the entire First Group be 'penalised' the appalling service TPE is providing?
My take is, TPE is performing so poor that the franchise should be stripped immediately. However, there can also be a mechanism to force them to give up the franchise if they could not provide the contracted service level due to their internal issues.
One way is to reduce the payment to other First Group franchises too - so First Group to either give up TPE, or their profits from AWC, GWR, Lumo and so on are reduced.
This would increase the pressure a ToC to provide the contracted service level, not just hanging on until the contract is being reviewed.

That's ... not how any of this works!

You can't just arbitrarily pay less on other contracts on the basis that TPE is doing badly - that would be a straightforward breach of contract for which FG could bring a claim against the DfT. Indeed, it would be exactly the kind of thing that might precipitate FG and other OGs handing back their contracts, if they lose confidence in the DfT honouring the terms that were signed up to. That's the last thing the DfT wants right now!

Although some of the (with hindsight poor) decisions that TPE took in the past are certainly contributing factors, ultimately the DfT and the unions are the ones that are stopping things from improving - the former by refusing to give TPE the leeway to negotiate a sufficiently generous Rest Day Working and pay deal, the latter by refusing to entertain reasonable offers.

The DfT is also refusing to allow TPE to reduce its timetable to allow it to become more reliable, as they don't want a repeat of the negative column inches that the Avanti reductions brought on (particularly given the sensitivity of 'levelling up the North' etc.). But without a TT reduction or a change in the industrial relations position, things won't improve!

In the circumstances, TPE is doing exactly what the DfT is asking it to do, and cannot realistically be expected to perform much better. However, in order to be seen to "punish" a poorly performing operator, it's still likely that the contract won't be extended, and that the OLR will take over.

 

[Clarence Yard]

Should the entire First Group be 'penalised' the appalling service TPE is providing?
My take is, TPE is performing so poor that the franchise should be stripped immediately. However, there can also be a mechanism to force them to give up the franchise if they could not provide the contracted service level due to their internal issues.
One way is to reduce the payment to other First Group franchises too - so First Group to either give up TPE, or their profits from AWC, GWR, Lumo and so on are reduced.
This would increase the pressure a ToC to provide the contracted service level, not just hanging on until the contract is being reviewed.

They can’t do that. Each contract is separate (and Lumo isn’t even a DfT contract!) It isn’t a franchise either - it’s a management contract. Franchises effectively finished in 2020 and were settled up. You now do what the DfT want and get paid fees for it. TPE are just following orders - the DfT is in charge of the resource levels and signing off all the TOCs plans.

It is far cheaper for the DfT to not renew the contract at the break point, which is this May. You then make FG the scapegoat and put all the fee money that you would have paid your supplier going forward into paying your OLR contractor to help fix the issues. Money that you haven’t allowed FG to spend on the necessary improvements.

Some might say that would be hard on FG but, if the DfT do that, that’s just politics and there is nothing FG can do about it.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

They can’t do that. Each contract is separate (and Lumo isn’t even a DfT contract!) It isn’t a franchise either - it’s a management contract. Franchises effectively finished in 2020 and were settled up. You now do what the DfT want and get paid fees for it. TPE are just following orders - the DfT is in charge of the resource levels and signing off all the TOCs plans.

Yes you do what the DfT want ie they specify service they want delivered to which TPE then provide a cost for running that service to which they earn the mgt fee plus are incentivised with the performance fee if they deliver on other outputs. So if the DfT didn't want a full service why issue that in the NRC only for TPE to keep removing services might as well have started with half the service and saved costs. So this isn't doen to DfT directly but for sure they are naive enough to know whether they've been duped or not. Bottom line is TPE have made a fist of running this operating area for years now and plenty of other commentators on here have shone a light on some of the issues behind their problems. Allegedly they have a recovery plan but it wont be put in the public domain speaks volume about its deliverability. But for Dft surely the question is whether this plan has a chance for success in a reasonable timescale as transferring it to OLR will set things back another 18-24mths.

 

[Clarence Yard]

It’s a bit different to what you are saying.

The DfT specify the service and you are given a target revenue figure and a target cost figure, which are detailed in your annual business plan with the DfT. You then have to tell them what changes you are going to have to make to meet those cost targets and they get to choose what they want you to do.

The management fee for running the TOC consists of a base fee and a performance fee (roughly 2.5 times the base fee if you get 100%, which you won’t). The latter has five components, only one of which is operating the service (OP). The others are customer satisfaction (CS), service quality (SQ), financial performance (FIN) and business management (BM). There is a weighting on the scores which puts more emphasis on FIN and BM than OP and CS.

The current contract is not the TPE franchise. That franchise and all the liabilities that went with it effectively finished in 2020. All TOCs were settled up. It’s effectively a new game now, with the DfT firmly in the driving seat.

 

[VauxhallNova]

The complexity is that they are performing significantly worse than other TOCs, on the basis of decisions made prior to DfT taking over. So you can see why people might be frustrated at FirstGroup.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

It’s a bit different to what you are saying.

The DfT specify the service and you are given a target revenue figure and a target cost figure, which are detailed in your annual business plan with the DfT. You then have to tell them what changes you are going to have to make to meet those cost targets and they get to choose what they want you to do.

OK thanks for better clarity but if DfT didn't like what TPE were offering they would have culled the service ages ago to meet costs this is clearly a failure by TPE to deliver what they are contracted for reasons as i say others have disclosed. I know RDW is one of the main issues currently, although they seem have plenty of drivers under training, and presumably thats what DfT wont pay for but surely TPE when they prepared costs they said without RDW we can only run X but if we have funding for RDW we can run X+Y.