Transpennine woes and a moan...

[Ianigsy]

TPE Nova 3 (Class 68 + Mk5s) updates and withdrawal from service

Nova 3: NO Passenger Diagrams Today • Diagram: LT705 Loco: 68028 Rake: TP12 First Class at start of day: N/A 1E23 05:56 LIV-SCA (CANX) FAULT 1F60 09:41 SCA-LIV (CANX) FAULT 1E37 12:56 LIV-SCA (CANX) FAULT 1F74 16:44 SCA-LIV (CANX) FAULT 1E51 19:56 SCA-LIV (CANX) FAULT • Diagram: LT701 Loco...

www.railforums.co.uk

This interesting quote from December 2019 suggest that not all the issues are caused by DfT, and to some degree reflect the risks and vulnerabilities inherent to First Group's management of the franchise as it was pre-Covid.

Performance since March 2020 seems to have got steadily worse, in line with trying to increase the number of trains run.

It was probably at some point in 2019 (based on the colleague who told me) that the last train from Manchester to Leeds on a Saturday night was cancelled and a replacement coach provided. One passenger travelling with a dog was left behind in Manchester overnight because the coach driver wouldn't take the dog.

In a way they remind me of Eurostar- potentially fantastic travel experience but hopeless at managing their resources when anything goes wrong.

 

[trainophile]

I don't know why A - B and B - C needs to be used in instances like this. Is it a state secret? If it is then putting their journey on Twitter wasn't very sensible.

As for what happened, very unusually, I have to agree with TPE's actions here. If you use split Advance tickets, which is presumably what they did, then you can't expect to be treated as though you have bought a through walk-up ticket. The first train ran so they are tied to it.

I can't remember the details and can't find the tweet now, but I know York was mentioned as the interim station. If it had been me last Friday travelling Scarborough to York to Man Vic and my booked train from York was showing cancelled, I would have considered it very unhelpful and not at all customer friendly to have been told I couldn't get an earlier departure from Scarborough in order to arrive at Man Vic in time for my onward booked connection from there.

Don't these train operators realise that people sometimes have to be at their destination in time for certain things, and can't just arbitrarily waste an hour of their lives because they decide to cancel a service (or several)?

 

[Watershed]

I don't know why A - B and B - C needs to be used in instances like this. Is it a state secret? If it is then putting their journey on Twitter wasn't very sensible.

As for what happened, very unusually, I have to agree with TPE's actions here. If you use split Advance tickets, which is presumably what they did, then you can't expect to be treated as though you have bought a through walk-up ticket. The first train ran so they are tied to it.

How is it any different to if the passenger held a through A-C ticket but their A-B train was running normally?

The rights of split ticket holders are essentially the same as those of through ticket holders in this situation. They can't force TOCs to do the sensible thing in order to avoid Delay Repay liability, and unfortunately have to 'grin and bear it' if the expected resultant delay is an hour or less.

But as soon as it ticks over to 61 minutes, their PRO rights kick in and they can no longer be forced to wait for their booked A-B train.

 

[XAM2175]

As for what happened, very unusually, I have to agree with TPE's actions here. If you use split Advance tickets, which is presumably what they did, then you can't expect to be treated as though you have bought a through walk-up ticket. The first train ran so they are tied to it.

I'd also note that it's entirely possible for two or more separate services with mandatory reservations to be included on a single Advance ticket.

 

[sjpowermac]

I can't remember the details and can't find the tweet now, but I know York was mentioned as the interim station. If it had been me last Friday travelling Scarborough to York to Man Vic and my booked train from York was showing cancelled, I would have considered it very unhelpful and not at all customer friendly to have been told I couldn't get an earlier departure from Scarborough in order to arrive at Man Vic in time for my onward booked connection from there.

Don't these train operators realise that people sometimes have to be at their destination in time for certain things, and can't just arbitrarily waste an hour of their lives because they decide to cancel a service (or several)?

The journey was as follows.
The customer was booked on:
1334 Scarborough-York (1424)
1450 York-Manchester Victoria

The 1450 York-Manchester Victoria was cancelled.

The customer asked if they could catch 1234 Scarborough-York
1350 York-Manchester Victoria

They would have been entitled to use the 1350 York-Manchester Victoria but were advised their advanced purchase ticket for the 1334 Scarborough-York would not be valid on the 1234 Scarborough-York.

The advice was to use the 1334 Scarborough-York(1424), wait there until the 1550 York-Manchester Victoria and claim delay repay.

Doesn’t seem like particularly friendly customer service, especially since TPE were the ones who cancelled the customer’s intended train York-Manchester.

Link to tweet:

https://twitter.com/TPEassist/status/1579404339071721472?s=20&t=pCgtt9FVgfmom2crnwpF7Q

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Oct 2022 ==

How is it any different to if the passenger held a through A-C ticket but their A-B train was running normally?

The rights of split ticket holders are essentially the same as those of through ticket holders in this situation. They can't force TOCs to do the sensible thing in order to avoid Delay Repay liability, and unfortunately have to 'grin and bear it' if the expected resultant delay is an hour or less.

But as soon as it ticks over to 61 minutes, their PRO rights kick in and they can no longer be forced to wait for their booked A-B train.

Not a particularly customer focused response, especially since the whole journey was with TPE.

Sometimes people have planned a journey to get to a particular place for a particular time. The fact the customer was willing to set off from Scarborough an hour earlier might well have already been an inconvenience.

 

[trainophile]

I've just remembered that on my outbound journey to Scarborough last Tuesday, my 09:54 from Lime Street was showing cancelled the night before. Customers advised to travel on the 10:54. I asked for clarification whether tickets were also valid for the one before, 08:54, and was told yes. On arrival at York (on a through ticket LIV-SCA incidentally, no splits), I never gave a thought to my next booked train being over an hour away and automatically got on the 11:17 rather than hang around for the 12:17. There was a cursory ticket check but I only showed the guard my actual ticket, not the other one with the timings on, and nothing was said. I'd have given a good argument if there had been!

They don't do themselves any favours with the pettiness of enforcing "the rules".

 

[XAM2175]

The journey was as follows.
The customer was booked on:
1334 Scarborough-York (1424)
1450 York-Manchester Victoria

The 1450 York-Manchester Victoria was cancelled.

The customer asked if they could catch 1234 Scarborough-York
1350 York-Manchester Victoria

They would have been entitled to use the 1350 York-Manchester Victoria but were advised their advanced purchase ticket for the 1334 Scarborough-York would not be valid on the 1234 Scarborough-York.

The advice was to use the 1334 Scarborough-York(1424), wait there until the 1550 York-Manchester Victoria and claim delay repay.

Because there was a reasonable expectation that the delay to the passenger's arrival at their final destination would be 60 minutes or greater, TPE were required by the Rail Passengers' Rights and Obligations Regulations (PRO) to offer the passenger a re-routed itinerary to their final destination at the earliest opportunity - which would obviously have involved taking the 1234 from Scarborough.

So in this case TPE were not just unfriendly, but actively wrong.

 

[sjpowermac]

Because there was a reasonable expectation that the delay to the passenger's arrival at their final destination would be 60 minutes or greater, TPE were required by the Rail Passengers' Rights and Obligations Regulations (PRO) to offer the passenger a re-routed itinerary to their final destination at the earliest opportunity - which would obviously have involved taking the 1234 from Scarborough.

So in this case TPE were not just unfriendly, but actively wrong.

Thanks for clarifying, it did seem a very unfair situation to put the customer in.

 

[wellhouse]

Interesting to note that even with the current TPE chaos, the non stop fast City Zap bus service that operates between York and Leeds (and cheaper than the train) is being withdrawn due to lack of passenger numbers, so it would appear that a coach service would be less viable than would first appear. There may be a market between Leeds and Mcr though.

City Zap did run between Leeds and Manchester for a while, pulling off the Motorway between Junctions 24 and 23 for Huddersfield passengers to connect with local bus services, but they attracted insufficient traffic to continue

 

[mike57]

Because there was a reasonable expectation that the delay to the passenger's arrival at their final destination would be 60 minutes or greater, TPE were required by the Rail Passengers' Rights and Obligations Regulations (PRO) to offer the passenger a re-routed itinerary to their final destination at the earliest opportunity - which would obviously have involved taking the 1234 from Scarborough.

So in this case TPE were not just unfriendly, but actively wrong.

Perhaps the rules need to be beefed up to state that "Where a cancellation or delay would result in a customer missing an appointment, timed activity or booked onward connection by any mode of transport the TOC must offer an itinerary which arrives by the required time if that itinerary is available at the time the cancellation or delay becomes known, including travel by other TOC services, with the TOC responsible for the delay being liable for any extra costs resulting from the change of TOC"

Thinking here of things like say flights from Manchester Airport, or any other activity where a late arrival will cause the passenger a loss, e.g. Hospital appointment, sporting event, interview. In any other industry an organisation failing to deliver its advertised and sold services on a regular basis would very quickly find its self out of business and possibly facing legal action from affected customers.

Or of course sort the ticketing and fares out so that you no longer need to use split tickets.

City Zap did run between Leeds and Manchester for a while, pulling off the Motorway between Junctions 24 and 23 for Huddersfield passengers to connect with local bus services, but they attracted insufficient traffic to continue

Was this before or after the initial TPE meltdown in 2018?

If I were a private operator I wouldn't even bother with trying to serve Huddersfield, I would just concetrate on York - Manchester and Leeds - Manchester. What was the quality of their offering like? I think you would need a decent standard, on board toilet, charging points, comfortable seats at a decent pitch. luggage space for airport travellers etc. Probably dont compete on price, sell it on reliability and comfort, after all anyone who has travelled on a 3 carriage 185 rammed to the point of leaving people behind will be a possible customer.

 

[ARIC]

And to those who say 'Ah but its the DfT' a lot of the issues are internal TPE issues, and nothing to do with the DfT. At least then they could go back to the DfT and heads held high, and discuss the other issues.

I'd definitely disagree that it isn't the DfT. They've created an environment where poor TOC performance is not the Dft's problem, or the TOCs, but the passengers.

In a system where you 1) have an obligation to make as much profit as possible and 2) have no obligation to provide any particular level of service - and your profits actually increase the lower the level of service...what do people expect will happen?

 

[Watershed]

I'd definitely disagree that it isn't the DfT. They've created an environment where poor TOC performance is not the Dft's problem, or the TOCs, but the passengers.

And more to the point, they are withholding the funding that would allow many of the issues to be resolved.

In a system where you 1) have an obligation to make as much profit as possible and 2) have no obligation to provide any particular level of service - and your profits actually increase the lower the level of service...what do people expect will happen?

That's not at all how the incentives work for TOCs on NRCs, such as TPE. Good performance earns a bigger performance fee (i.e. profit).

 

[Getbacktowork]

Perhaps the rules need to be beefed up to state that "Where a cancellation or delay would result in a customer missing an appointment, timed activity or booked onward connection by any mode of transport the TOC must offer an itinerary which arrives by the required time if that itinerary is available at the time the cancellation or delay becomes known, including travel by other TOC services, with the TOC responsible for the delay being liable for any extra costs resulting from the change of TOC"

Thinking here of things like say flights from Manchester Airport, or any other activity where a late arrival will cause the passenger a loss, e.g. Hospital appointment, sporting event, interview. In any other industry an organisation failing to deliver its advertised and sold services on a regular basis would very quickly find its self out of business and possibly facing legal action from affected customers.

Or of course sort the ticketing and fares out so that you no longer need to use split tickets.


Was this before or after the initial TPE meltdown in 2018?

If I were a private operator I wouldn't even bother with trying to serve Huddersfield, I would just concetrate on York - Manchester and Leeds - Manchester. What was the quality of their offering like? I think you would need a decent standard, on board toilet, charging points, comfortable seats at a decent pitch. luggage space for airport travellers etc. Probably dont compete on price, sell it on reliability and comfort, after all anyone who has travelled on a 3 carriage 185 rammed to the point of leaving people behind will be a possible customer.

Apolgies I have quoted the wrong post.

I looked at a Leeds to Manchester coach service in detail last summer and was not convinced it would be profitable.

There are already some services ran by the national operators and some of these are non-stop.

I think the success would fall largely down to what proportion of journeys are actually Leeds to Manchester and how many involve prior and subsequent connections.
I don't know the answer to this. Personally I think it would be harder to attract passengers if they have already used the train for part of their journey eg Leeds to Stockport, Wakefield to Manchester.

To compete on timings you would have to run the most direct route. Even serving Oldham (which is attractive as no direct Leeds service and a large population) adds 20 minutes. You may be able to incorporate a few stops outside the city centre, perhaps Prestwich and the M62/M621 junction.

 

[ARIC]

That's not at all how the incentives work for TOCs on NRCs, such as TPE. Good performance earns a bigger performance fee (i.e. profit).

But the performance fee doesn't taper off to zero. Achieving good performance on today's railway would incur great cost. Why bother when you could literally not run a single train and still receive payment?

 

[Killingworth]

The plain fact is that railways can't compete with cars unless they run frequently and reliably.

Thought we'd done well to book a few days in deepest Wales by train, avoiding final TPE leg back to Sheffield by booking Northern. Huh, thats not working. That train is cancelled due to shortage of train crew. Fortunately better half is always ready very early so have been able to bring entire journey forward one hour.

How many occasional travellers know they need to constantly check each leg of a journey until the morning of departure?

 

[Watershed]

But the performance fee doesn't taper off to zero. Achieving good performance on today's railway would incur great cost. Why bother when you could literally not run a single train and still receive payment?

Because there is more money to be made by trying to run trains! Any decision-maker in a TOC who just decided not to bother, as it's "easier", would be fired persuaded to pursue other opportunities by the relevant owning group.

I have no idea where you get this conspiracy theory nonsense from. The awful service provided on many parts of the rail network at the moment isn't because TOCs can't be bothered.

There are a lot of causal factors depending on how far down you want to drill, but the largest factor is a lack of trained staff in the necessary roles (conductors, drivers, instructors, Control staff, rosterers, planners etc.). And that can't be addressed without DfT authorisation to recruit more people, and to have lots of overtime in the meantime.

In the context of mooted 15% spending cuts for all government departments except Health and Defence, neither is likely to happen anytime soon.

 

[VauxhallNova]

Hidden away in the NRC contract is clause 15.6, bolding is mine.

The Operator shall, consistent with its obligation to act as a Good and Efficient Operator, generally use all reasonable endeavours to:
(a) maximise revenue and minimise or mitigate the impacts of any factors leading to revenue being reduced or increasing less quickly than the Operator had forecast;
and (b) reduce costs and minimise or mitigate the impacts of any factors leading to costs being increased or decreasing less quickly than the Operator had forecast, unless otherwise directed in writing by the Secretary of State, provided that where compliance with paragraph (a) in relation to revenue will have consequential impacts on costs and/or compliance with (b) in relation to costs will have consequential impacts on revenue, the Operator’s obligation will be to use all reasonable endeavours to optimise in combination the revenue and cost position.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1030368/first-transPennine-express-ltd-rail-contract.pdf

....which seems somewhat contradictory to the requirement to improve performance, i.e. only do anything if it saves net cost.

The consensus seems to be:

• TPE was in a complete mess pre-Covid, having insufficient traincrew to run the service
• Covid came along and reduced the service, meaning that there was enough traincrew and performance improved
• TPE have tried to increase the number of services, to cope with demand, but now don't have enough traincrew
• DfT / Treasury won't provide any money to make improvements and hire more traincrew
• Many other TOCs are suffering similar issues, but due to the issues above TPE is struggling more than many others

Which comes back to my question earlier. Who is responsible for matching the timetable to the available traincrew resource?

 

[mike57]

To compete on timings you would have to run the most direct route. Even serving Oldham (which is attractive as no direct Leeds service and a large population) adds 20 minutes. You may be able to incorporate a few stops outside the city centre, perhaps Prestwich and the M62/M621 junction.

My thinking was non stop, and concentrate on the major flows, which seem to be York - Manchester and Leeds - Manchester. Maybe even terminate at the Airport at the Manchester end. But I can see that getting people to swap would be a problem. And I can see there would be all sorts of other problems, ticketing, and would it be a turn up and go.

 

[Watershed]

....which seems somewhat contradictory to the requirement to improve performance, i.e. only do anything if it saves net cost.

But as per the paragraph you have quoted:

the Operator’s obligation will be to use all reasonable endeavours to optimise in combination the revenue and cost position.

Since there are fixed costs in employing staff (particularly traincrew), leasing trains, track/station access agreements, etc. - you are never going to optimise the combined revenue/cost position by deliberately deciding not to bother running trains. In that context, running trains will almost always increase revenue without increasing costs by any notable margin.

I really don't understand where this conspiracy theory comes from. It simply doesn't make sense if you think about it, even for a second.

Which comes back to my question earlier. Who is responsible for matching the timetable to the available traincrew resource?

Under NRCs that is, broadly speaking, the responsibility of the TOC. But the DfT has to sign off on any change.

 

[VauxhallNova]

It simply doesn't make sense if you think about it, even for a second.

I'm not sure what conspiracy theory you mean, all I'm suggesting is that the management / DfT are doing whatever is thought to have the lowest net cost. As someone mentioned with budget cuts coming this is the most likely approach by railway management.

Under NRCs that is, broadly speaking, the responsibility of the TOC. But the DfT has to sign off on any change.

Let's hope that TPE management start to better align the timetable with the available traincrew resource.

 

[mpthomson]

If I were a private operator I wouldn't even bother with trying to serve Huddersfield, I would just concetrate on York - Manchester and Leeds - Manchester. What was the quality of their offering like? I think you would need a decent standard, on board toilet, charging points, comfortable seats at a decent pitch. luggage space for airport travellers etc. Probably dont compete on price, sell it on reliability and comfort, after all anyone who has travelled on a 3 carriage 185 rammed to the point of leaving people behind will be a possible customer.

It operated for 6mths between April and August 2018. The quality was as good as the York-Leeds buses, ie high for a bus with 2+1 leather (or pleather) seating on most, charging points, tables, space for luggage etc. None of the buses had toilets, but then the Coastliner buses don't either for journeys of up to 3.75hrs

Huddersfield was presumably added as there wasn't a thought to be viable market for Mcr-Leeds without it. It has to be remembered that the M62 and routes into Leeds and Manchester are very congested during peak times and it's not really that suitable for regular intensively timetabled services during morning and evening peaks as a result. M62 congestion is very random and frequent through the rest of the day too, which also doesn't help.

If someone could run it at a profit, then they would already be doing so (see Oxford Tube as a direct comparison). I'm not convinced that York-Manchester demand is high enough.

 

[Clarence Yard]

Any change to the permanent timetable has to be signed of by the DfT. Therein lies the problem, which happens elsewhere, in that the DfT also has to sign off any resources outside of budget. Sometimes the DfT gives you contradictory instructions - they don’t want the reduction in service but won’t pay for the resources needed to operate the service robustly. Recruitment and training is one area that they sometimes have a problem with - the flexibility a TOC needs to manage the peaks in recruitment/training just isn’t there anymore.

The TOC performance fee in an NRC (or ERMA) has several elements to it, only one being train performance. TOCs now are really DfT “vehicles” with just the management element outsourced. It is a form of pseudo-nationalisation but far more expensive than the OLR equivalent.

 

[VauxhallNova]

It is a form of pseudo-nationalisation but far more expensive than the OLR equivalent.

Agree. I don't really understand the rationale for payments to owning groups given the level of DfT control and the lack of risk taken by owning groups.

 

[DanNCL]

The December 2022 timetable has an extra 1tp2h vs the current advertised timetable between Newcastle and Manchester. I'd be utterly amazed if they actually manage to come anywhere near close to running this reliably.

 

[trainophile]

"This is due to a short notice change to the timetable" is not a reason, and should not keep being trotted out as one.

 

[class 9]

"This is due to a short notice change to the timetable" is not a reason, and should not keep being trotted out as one.

Absolutely agree, they may as well announce ' your train is cancelled because its been cancelled'.

 

[GordonT]

Absolutely agree, they may as well announce ' your train is cancelled because its been cancelled'.

Or "we've cancelled your train but we have no intention of providing any explanation or apology to affected customers".

 

[johntea]

I had a rare positive journey on TPE yesterday

13:46 Nova Manchester Victoria to Leeds (Newcastle) departed smack bang on time, an absolutely flawless run by the driver, can't remember the exact arrival time in Leeds but I then managed to leave Leeds station, walk to Natwest on Park Row to pay in some cash and back to the station in time for my 14:58 service to Knottingley! (yes I walk fast but certainly wasn't sprinting!)

Are the guards still in some sort of dispute regarding scanning electronic tickets? There was a ticket inspection but my eTicket was just inspected visually rather than scanned

Also the departure screens at Victoria seemed to be malfunctioning, hardly any departures showing and the clock was showing 12:48 or some random time rather than the actual time of 13:40!

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Also the departure screens at Victoria seemed to be malfunctioning, hardly any departures showing and the clock was showing 12:48 or some random time rather than the actual time of 13:40!

They weren't working at MCV yesterday, either (!)

 

[skyhigh]

They weren't working at MCV yesterday, either (!)

The post you quote refers to yesterday.

Also the departure screens at Victoria seemed to be malfunctioning, hardly any departures showing and the clock was showing 12:48 or some random time rather than the actual time of 13:40!

There was a major IT fault due to a broken fibre cable which affected a lot of services yesterday, unfortunately.