Transpennine woes and a moan...

[Solent&Wessex]

Is Preston invariably always a crew changeover location for services on the WCML operated by both TPE and/or Avanti?

For TPE, Yes, and also often Carlisle.

It's not uncommon to have separate crews do Man Airport to Preston, Preston to Carlisle, Carlisle to Glasgow / Edinburgh.

As soon as one bit is uncovered then often the whole train will get cancelled, often both ways.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Aug 2022 ==

I’ve never heard of this concept of “more important work”. Is it just the general principle that people work to their diagrams in normal circumstances?



Unfortunately that’s not necessarily the case. Resources can and do try and ask drivers to cut short breaks and do things they aren’t supposed to during disruption - whether that’s deliberate or accidental is another question (and depends who is in the chair). If a driver screws up the first thing the company will do is check whether they’ve taken their correct PNB etc.

A diagram of some sort always needs to be issued, printed and distributed because otherwise there’s a risk of a failure to call/call out of course. It’s therefore extremely difficult to alter this once said driver has departed, even during disruption (absent a call from the signaller to amend stopping patterns etc).



But ad hoc engineering diagrams are at least planned in advance. They can certainly cause issues when they turn out to be “illegal” and/or don’t have proper breaks, however there is at least a paper trail and they can be retrospectively scrutinised.

There are no agreements anywhere (AFAIK) that prevent flexibility around disruption on the day eg if the train you’re working leaves an hour or more late you will still generally be expected to work it, subject to breaks etc. Overall there’s already a great deal of flexibility shown by traincrew in order to recover from disruption. Of course when the goodwill disappears so does that flexibility, as is currently being seen at TPE and other TOCs.

I’m curious as to why you think the solution to staff shortages is moving existing staff around - ultimately a train driver can only drive one train at a time and if they’re taken off their booked working for whatever reason that train will then need to be cancelled unless there’s a spare/standby.

Do you work in train planning/resourcing yourself?

The concept of "more important work" is that drivers can be taken off their booked duties on the day, and given alternative work that is considered "more important".

Here are two examples. A bit simplistic (as there is often more than one driver involved), but perfectly realistic.

Driver 1 is an experienced driver and signs routes A B C. Today he is rostered to drive trains on route A.
Driver 2 is a newly qualified driver OR is a driver from another depot, who only signs routes A and B. Today he is Spare.
There are some trains on route C which have no driver allocated and are likely to get cancelled.
Control could quite easily move Driver 1 from route A to route C to drive the trains which are likely to get cancelled. Driver 1 would still be within his hours and would still get his legal breaks etc.
Driver 2 could then drive the trains on route A which Driver 1 should have been doing.
The end result by moving Driver 1 from his booked duties is that the trains on route C don't get cancelled and nor do the trains he should have been driving on route A.

However as the agreement made with Aslef says this isn't possible then Driver 1 continues to drive the trains on route A, the trains on route C get cancelled, and Driver 2 sits in the messroom doing nothing.


Or another one:

Driver 1 is meant to drive a train 1 from A to B, get off and have a break, then an hour later drive train 2 from B to C, then immediately drive train 3 all the way back from C to A.
When he drives Train 1 he is meant to get relieved by another driver at B. However this duty is uncovered, so there is no driver for train 1 from B to C.
On Train 2 there is another driver (driver 2) who is travelling "PASS" (as a passenger) from B to C.
Driver 2 can't drive train 1 from B to C as he hasn't finished his previous work in time, but instead of travelling PASS on train 2 he could drive it instead. He is not due a break, and is still within his driving hours so it wouldn't be a problem.
Control could get Driver 2 to drive Train 2 instead of Driver 1. Driver 1 could then drive train 1 all the way from A to C and taking his break there instead, and then drive train C to A as booked. Driver 1 would still be within his hours for his breaks and driving so this isn't an issue.
The end result of this would be that Driver 1 drives train 1 and train 3 throughout. Driver 2 drives train 2 from B to C instead of driver 1.
No trains get cancelled.

However as the agreement made with Aslef says this isn't possible then Driver 1 and driver 2 cannot be altered. Driver 1 will still take his break at B and there is no driver to drive train 1 from B to C.
Because there is no spare platform at station B to leave the unit then the whole of train 1 gets cancelled from A to C and back to A again (because the unit never got to C so it can't come back).

The end result is that Train 1 (and it's return working) get cancelled throughout.
Depending on what other trains are running between A and B and where Train 2 comes from then it is likely Driver 1 will then have to travel PASS from A to B or possibly get a taxi.


These are just 2 perfectly realistic situations which do happen.

Multiply this by many times per day, and the fact that because TPE have so many crew changes en route, and that there is no platform space at stations en route to leave units when only part of the journey has no driver, then whole journeys in both directions often get cancelled for the want of one driver duty being uncovered and the inability to shuffle folk around on the day to make best use of the available resources on the day.



Any changes suggested above would all be pre-planned the day before and diagrams would be issued - in the same way they are issued to spare drivers or to conductors who do have a more important work allowance. So drivers would still have a printed diagram. The issue of breaks and making sure you taking the legal breaks etc of course needs to be monitored - but again this is no different to what a spare driver has to do or what happens if there is on the day disruption caused by say a signal failure or fatality.

I again say that ASLEF will allow driver's duties to be amended on the day if there is on the day disruption due to some reasons - but a staff shortage / staff late notice sickness etc is not one of those reasons.

 

[43066]

Driver 1 is an experienced driver and signs routes A B C. Today he is rostered to drive trains on route A.
Driver 2 is a newly qualified driver OR is a driver from another depot, who only signs routes A and B. Today he is Spare.
There are some trains on route C which have no driver allocated and are likely to get cancelled.
Control could quite easily move Driver 1 from route A to route C to drive the trains which are likely to get cancelled. Driver 1 would still be within his hours and would still get his legal breaks etc.
Driver 2 could then drive the trains on route A which Driver 1 should have been doing.
The end result by moving Driver 1 from his booked duties is that the trains on route C don't get cancelled and nor do the trains he should have been driving on route A.

However as the agreement made with Aslef says this isn't possible then Driver 1 continues to drive the trains on route A, the trains on route C get cancelled, and Driver 2 sits in the messroom doing nothing.

Where known about in advance cross coverage of this type between depots can (and should) be done using spares and standbys.

What you appear to be overlooking is that the base roster diagrams are already optimised/agreed in advance to allow maximum utilisation. Cancelling full jobs so that drivers can cross cover other depots’ work will therefore generally lead to less efficient utilisation overall.

The reason is simply that cross covering is inherently inefficient and difficult to do when depots are often a long way apart. In my TOC’s case a London man will only ever be able to cover a small portion of the diagram of driver from further north due to the first/last part of the diagram starting after their shift starts/ends. If B’s diagram ends 100+ miles from A’s depot there’s also the small matter of A needing to pass back to base in time for the end of their shift, so you’ll end up with perhaps half the diagram being covered and the trains either side being driven by someone else (or more likely cancelled).

The only scenario where this might work from a timing/location point of view would be within the same depot where there are no spares/standbys. A driver booking on might be asked to cover the work of the subsequent driver if they have gone sick. But in that instance, by asking A to cover B’s diagram, you’ll by definition (because of no spares/standbys) have nobody to cover A’s workings.

Driver 1 is meant to drive a train 1 from A to B, get off and have a break, then an hour later drive train 2 from B to C, then immediately drive train 3 all the way back from C to A.
When he drives Train 1 he is meant to get relieved by another driver at B. However this duty is uncovered, so there is no driver for train 1 from B to C.
On Train 2 there is another driver (driver 2) who is travelling "PASS" (as a passenger) from B to C.
Driver 2 can't drive train 1 from B to C as he hasn't finished his previous work in time, but instead of travelling PASS on train 2 he could drive it instead. He is not due a break, and is still within his driving hours so it wouldn't be a problem.
Control could get Driver 2 to drive Train 2 instead of Driver 1. Driver 1 could then drive train 1 all the way from A to C and taking his break there instead, and then drive train C to A as booked. Driver 1 would still be within his hours for his breaks and driving so this isn't an issue.
The end result of this would be that Driver 1 drives train 1 and train 3 throughout. Driver 2 drives train 2 from B to C instead of driver 1.
No trains get cancelled.

However as the agreement made with Aslef says this isn't possible then Driver 1 and driver 2 cannot be altered. Driver 1 will still take his break at B and there is no driver to drive train 1 from B to C.
Because there is no spare platform at station B to leave the unit then the whole of train 1 gets cancelled from A to C and back to A again (because the unit never got to C so it can't come back).

If this scenario was known about the day before (as opposed to arising during disruption) it could again be planned for using spares/standbys, or otherwise worked around. The problem is that the “there’s no relief driver” scenario invariably occurs at the last minute. In that case a driver going from A to B where they’re due to have a break will be themselves be taking a risk if they agree to continue to C and have an incident.

This is the kind of thing that people might agree to work around during disruption (assuming they feel able to continue etc.). That goodwill/agreement is not to be used as a sticking plaster for the TOCs resourcing failures. If the driver does agree they’ll need to take a break at C (assuming there are facilities available and that there’s enough time). If not they’d have to work the train back to B for a break and there may be no relief there either! This will also then impact on that driver’s subsequent workings, likely leading to further cancellations.

I again say that ASLEF will allow driver's duties to be amended on the day if there is on the day disruption due to some reasons - but a staff shortage / staff late notice sickness etc is not one of those reasons.

Rightly so. Respecting the base roster works best all round. It is reasonable to depart from it in order to make things work during disruption but if the TOC is having to do that to do that just run the basic service there’s something fundamentally wrong. Robust, properly resourced timetables following (as far as possible) the agreed diagrams will always result in more efficient utilisation and a more robust operation with fewer cancellations than a free for all involving cross coverage etc. as a sticking plaster to cover a lack of resource.

In short, failing to employ enough crew to resource the base timetable (along with poor diagramming practices such as three plus drivers reliefs en route) are the fundamental causes of cancellations due to crew shortages, not ASLEF agreements as you appear to be arguing. That sounds rather like something out of the Grant Shapps playbook…

 

[Solent&Wessex]

Where known about in advance cross coverage of this type between depots can (and should) be done using spares and standbys.

What you appear to be overlooking is that the base roster diagrams are already optimised/agreed in advance to allow maximum utilisation. Cancelling full jobs so that drivers can cross cover other depots’ work will therefore generally lead to less efficient utilisation overall.

The reason is simply that cross covering is inherently inefficient and difficult to do when depots are often a long way apart. In my TOC’s case a London man will only ever be able to cover a small portion of the diagram of driver from further north due to the first/last part of the diagram starting after their shift starts/ends. If B’s diagram ends 100+ miles from A’s depot there’s also the small matter of A needing to pass back to base in time for the end of their shift, so you’ll end up with perhaps half the diagram being covered and the trains either side being driven by someone else (or more likely cancelled).

The only scenario where this might work from a timing/location point of view would be within the same depot where there are no spares/standbys. A driver booking on might be asked to cover the work of the subsequent driver if they have gone sick. But in that instance, by asking A to cover B’s diagram, you’ll by definition (because of no spares/standbys) have nobody to cover A’s workings.



If this scenario was known about the day before (as opposed to arising during disruption) it could again be planned for using spares/standbys, or otherwise worked around. The problem is that the “there’s no relief driver” scenario invariably occurs at the last minute. In that case a driver going from A to B where they’re due to have a break will be themselves be taking a risk if they agree to continue to C and have an incident.

This is the kind of thing that people might agree to work around during disruption (assuming they feel able to continue etc.). That goodwill/agreement is not to be used as a sticking plaster for the TOCs resourcing failures. If the driver does agree they’ll need to take a break at C (assuming there are facilities available and that there’s enough time). If not they’d have to work the train back to B for a break and there may be no relief there either! This will also then impact on that driver’s subsequent workings, likely leading to further cancellations.




Rightly so. Respecting the base roster works best all round. It is reasonable to depart from it in order to make things work during disruption but if the TOC is having to do that to do that just run the basic service there’s something fundamentally wrong. Robust, properly resourced timetables following (as far as possible) the agreed diagrams will always result in more efficient utilisation and a more robust operation with fewer cancellations than a free for all involving cross coverage etc. as a sticking plaster to cover a lack of resource.

In short, failing to employ enough crew to resource the base timetable (along with poor diagramming practices such as three plus drivers reliefs en route) are the fundamental causes of cancellations due to crew shortages, not ASLEF agreements as you appear to be arguing. That sounds rather like something out of the Grant Shapps playbook…

If the TOC is constantly having to rip up the base roster each day just to run the basic service then yes, there is something fundamentally wrong.

And there are a whole host of factors why that is the case, as discussed multiple times.

However it doesn't alter the fact that that is where they are and the situation for passengers could be so much better if there were some element of flexibility.

How exactly someone can refuse to do their job, during their scheduled hours at work in their normal working day, is quite beyond me.

Whilst cutting and pasting work on a daily basis, depending which crews are available, certainly wouldn't solve all problems and wouldn't prevent all cancellations, it would reduce them, almost certainly significantly, especially as TPE diagrams can be quite inefficient with lots of PASS rides. Depots are not a long way apart and on certain core sections of route there is quite a bit of overlap. What is an issue at TPE is that lots of the depots are very small, so just one or two vacancies, or sickness, can suddenly lead to problems.

 

[43066]

If the TOC is constantly having to rip up the base roster each day just to run the basic service then yes, there is something fundamentally wrong.

On that we can certainly agree. The problem here is that the TOC has been prevented from agreeing a new RDW agreement with ASLEF. Whose fault is it that the TOC relies on overtime in the first place ?

And there are a whole host of factors why that is the case, as discussed multiple times.

Indeed there are. But it seems you’re mostly interested in talking about drivers’ agreements…

However it doesn't alter the fact that that is where they are and the situation for passengers could be so much better if there were some element of flexibility.

I don’t think that necessarily follows at all for the reasons explained above. Cutting and pasting might well lead to more cancellations not less. There is already a great deal of flexibility demonstrated by traincrew at most TOCs. The fundamental issue is they there aren’t enough of them. Not sure why you’re choosing to ignore that?

Passengers should be asking why the TOC they’ve contracted with has chosen to rely on voluntary overtime and chronically under resource traincrew depots.

How exactly someone can refuse to do their job, during their scheduled hours at work in their normal working day, is quite beyond me.

Interesting you focus in on the refusal aspect, which is incredibly rare - seven years in I’ve had to “declare myself a failure” a small handful of times.

It might well be be beyond you, but I can assure you that when it’s (unfortunately) necessarily it happens very easily indeed. You simply inform control that it’s unsafe for you to continue. Nobody enjoys doing that but it’s a matter of safety, first and foremost. Please stop trying to paint it as one of awkwardness/intransigence.

depending which crews are available, certainly wouldn't solve all problems and wouldn't prevent all cancellations, it would reduce them, almost certainly significantly, especially as TPE diagrams can be quite inefficient with lots of PASS rides. Depots are not a long way apart and on certain core sections of route there is quite a bit of overlap. What is an issue at TPE is that lots of the depots are very small, so just one or two vacancies, or sickness, can suddenly lead to problems.

Lots of passing, multiple reliefs en route sounds yet again like a poor resourcing strategy on behalf of the TOC. I’m unsure why you’re trying to shift responsibility for that onto ASLEF? When you’re travelling pass, you’re also still at work.

Based on your previous postings (and detailed knowledge of ticketing machines) you’re a guard yourself. It’s therefore interesting to notice that you’re so fascinated by another grade’s union agreements, the possibility of drivers refusing to work trains etc. That rather suggests to me that an axe is being ground here…

 

[Some guy]

Is Preston invariably always a crew changeover location for services on the WCML operated by both TPE and/or Avanti?

Yeah as it’s where both depots are based. Preston tpe crews do work a few services from the airport all the way until Carlisle as well. They have jobs where they work past Preston

 

[irish_rail]

No doubt about it one driver driving a train throughout the course of its journey (where feasible) works far better than changing driver 6 times on route. GwR Plymouth to London trains with one driver covering all 250 odd miles is far more resilient than the mess TPE are in.
Why are say Liverpool drivers not driving the 802 Edinburgh trains at least as far as Newcastle? It seems TPE have a bias towards central depots like Manchester and York but this in my view probably has a detrimental effect on the service....
GWR is a First group TOC and is broadly getting it right with drivers having lots of route knowledge, so why is TPE getting it so wrong???

 

[LittleAH]

So why is TPE getting it so wrong???

Because of decisions made my previous Directors who no longer are at TPE.

Any resolution will take time.

 

[gimmea50anyday]

Directors continue to make that decision unfortunately. I have been told that multiple crews on short legs means more work out of less crews and more efficiently. Its cheaper.

I have bemoaned the loss of a significant chunk of my route knowledge but i have been advised that as i am in an 802 depot i don't need any of the routes that don't use 802s. Bit of a moot point given i sign 185s which are considered to be core traction…

This from my point of view is really disappointing as i have lost a lot of my flexibility, something which Steve Lee stated to me that he was an advocate of conductor flexibility, unfortunately he was moved on not long after he said that to me, since then my flexibility has plummeted.

 

[mike57]

Directors continue to make that decision unfortunately. I have been told that multiple crews on short legs means more work out of less crews and more efficiently. Its cheaper.

I have bemoaned the loss of a significant chunk of my route knowledge but i have been advised that as i am in an 802 depot i don't need any of the routes that don't use 802s. Bit of a moot point given i sign 185s which are considered to be core traction…

This from my point of view is really disappointing as i have lost a lot of my flexibility, something which Steve Lee stated to me that he was an advocate of conductor flexibility, unfortunately he was moved on not long after he said that to me, since then my flexibility has plummeted.

Reading this and previous posts, it fairly obvious that the desicions taken at senior management/director level are not benefiting passengers, are probably not helping staff moral, and are at least partly responsible for the dreadful service on TPE routes. Taking it to the logical conclusion its either a hair brained scheme dreamt up by senior managers, who now dont want to back down for fear of losing face (or worse), or it benefits shareholders.

So maybe time for a DOR, ensuring that those responsible for decisions that have lead to the current problems are not allowed anywhere near the DOR operation. Then look at addressing the problems, some will take time to solve, but a start would be a timetable which can be delivered with the current resources, including allowances for sickness, training and holidays. It may not be the timetable people expect or want but reliability is key here for passenger confidence. Ensure that all available rolling stock is deployed, there is no excuse for 3 car services on the York - Manchester and Sheffield - Manchester core if a reduced timetable is in operation.

Longer term problems can then be looked at.

I would also make the point that the current operation is plainly not delivering value for money in terms of taxpayer subsidy, as a taxpayer I personally dont have a problem with subsidies, even for things that I dont use, but I do have a problem where taxpayers money is wasted and provides no benefit to those it is aimed at, which in this case is to provide an efficient public transport link between major conurabations.

I know there has been 'discussion' on here about the relative state of TPE and Northern. Both reached an all time low in May 2018. As a fairly regular passenger around the region my view is Northern have made progress, and TPE just lurch from crisis to crisis, and to be honest I sick of hearing excuses.

 

[josh-j]

There is, frankly, not going to be a solution to any of this unless the government decided it wants a better service on the railway as a whole.

While they're seemingly quite happy to allow service quality to deteriorate, there's no point blaming any particular operator - and in fact that's exactly what DfT wants people doing, as it gets them and the treasury off the hook. End of the day the government has the power to fix all of this, but they don't want to.

Edit: Even if TPE itself is to blame here, the government still has the power to sort it out. So the mess is totally on them, and they don't want to fix it. Goes without saying I think that's scandalous.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There is, frankly, not going to be a solution to any of this unless the government decided it wants a better service on the railway as a whole.

It depends what you mean by "a better service". My mind boggles as to how Avanti seem unable to run even a heavily reduced one, and I don't see how I can blame the Government for that specifically.

 

[GordonT]

So maybe time for a DOR, ensuring that those responsible for decisions that have lead to the current problems are not allowed anywhere near the DOR operation. Then look at addressing the problems, some will take time to solve, but a start would be a timetable which can be delivered with the current resources, including allowances for sickness, training and holidays. It may not be the timetable people expect or want but reliability is key here for passenger confidence. Ensure that all available rolling stock is deployed, there is no excuse for 3 car services on the York - Manchester and Sheffield - Manchester core if a reduced timetable is in operation.

Sounds a worthy objective. The trouble may be that presumably there isn't a cupboard or shelf somewhere laden with copious numbers of managers with the time, knowledge and competence to be parachuted into a disaster zone like TPE and put everything to rights.

 

[mike57]

Sounds a worthy objective. The trouble may be that presumably there isn't a cupboard or shelf somewhere laden with copious numbers of managers with the time, knowledge and competence to be parachuted into a disaster zone like TPE and put everything to rights.

I take your point, but maybe look around the recently retired for example. There will also be resources of knowledge within the current workforce. Prioritise dealing with two of the problems that could be solved fairly quickly, the timetable and stock utilisation. I was always told to if you deal with the problems where the solutions are within your control (assuming those placed to sort the mess out have a fairly free hand) then the remaining problems which are outside your control will not look as bad.

 

[Clarence Yard]

Reading this and previous posts, it fairly obvious that the desicions taken at senior management/director level are not benefiting passengers, are probably not helping staff moral, and are at least partly responsible for the dreadful service on TPE routes. Taking it to the logical conclusion its either a hair brained scheme dreamt up by senior managers, who now dont want to back down for fear of losing face (or worse), or it benefits shareholders.

So maybe time for a DOR, ensuring that those responsible for decisions that have lead to the current problems are not allowed anywhere near the DOR operation. Then look at addressing the problems, some will take time to solve, but a start would be a timetable which can be delivered with the current resources, including allowances for sickness, training and holidays. It may not be the timetable people expect or want but reliability is key here for passenger confidence. Ensure that all available rolling stock is deployed, there is no excuse for 3 car services on the York - Manchester and Sheffield - Manchester core if a reduced timetable is in operation.

Longer term problems can then be looked at.

I would also make the point that the current operation is plainly not delivering value for money in terms of taxpayer subsidy, as a taxpayer I personally dont have a problem with subsidies, even for things that I dont use, but I do have a problem where taxpayers money is wasted and provides no benefit to those it is aimed at, which in this case is to provide an efficient public transport link between major conurabations.

I know there has been 'discussion' on here about the relative state of TPE and Northern. Both reached an all time low in May 2018. As a fairly regular passenger around the region my view is Northern have made progress, and TPE just lurch from crisis to crisis, and to be honest I sick of hearing excuses.

You do realise what DOR is, do you? It isn’t a brand new management. Instead of being a subsidiary of an owning group, the TOC is now a subsidiary of a DfT OLR company. That OLR company appoints (usually) two non executive directors that sit on and chair the TOC company board. That’s it.

The TOC is still subject to the same financial restrictions that it is now. So you could appoint whoever you want to be MD and the result would be the same. Trans Pennine actually has a very good MD with a track record of getting extra resources out of the DfT but even he can’t get enough to improve the situation as quickly as he wants.

Once you get into a problem with resources, getting the DfT to authorise you the money you want in a timely fashion to avoid further problems is not easy. They are under the cosh from the Treasury and the current default position seems to be to instruct the TOC concerned to reduce the service further.

 

[Killingworth]

So maybe time for a DOR, ensuring that those responsible for decisions that have lead to the current problems are not allowed anywhere near the DOR operation. Then look at addressing the problems, some will take time to solve, but a start would be a timetable which can be delivered with the current resources, including allowances for sickness, training and holidays. It may not be the timetable people expect or want but reliability is key here for passenger confidence. Ensure that all available rolling stock is deployed, there is no excuse for 3 car services on the York - Manchester and Sheffield - Manchester core if a reduced timetable is in operation.

There are big differences between York-Manchester and Sheffield-Manchester. The similarity is very poor travelling experiences on combined routes that mostly start and finish at different points outside the core.

TPE have a monopoly on the former which should give a more consistent service, like including catering (in theory) and first class on all trains. Clearly it's not currently doing that.

Sheffield- Manchester is a 3 ways lottery of fast and slow hourly trains where first is available on TPE only (when they run) and catering may be available in 3 coaches of TPE trains and possibly in 2 or 4 coaches from EMR. Northern currently run more daily services on the route and are probably the most reliable - if not delayed at Sheffield by late running TPE services from Cleethorpes.

Whatever, consistent, reliable and quick rail travel between Yorkshire and Lancashire seems too challenging for the railway as managed today. It can't come overnight. Maybe in 3-5 years time it may seem better, but looking at the multiple underlying causes going back over a century and likely interventions 2030 may be an optimistic aim. Hopefully lots of small incremental improvements will combine to surprise us.

 

[alistairlees]

Just to provide a measure of how much TPE has affected my travel plans, in the last 3 months I have spent over £650 on train tickets (using split tickets) But I have/on course to receiving just over 1k back on delay repays, the vast majority coming from TPE


How am I getting more money back than the money I've spent on tickets? Well because the amount of 2 hour gaps in their timetables, 2 hour delays means i get every penny back including my return ticket cost , and then if there's delays on my return journey i end up making a profit!

my local station is a TPE run station and the services are terrible.

So the railway recently have actually ended up paying me to use the railways, rather than me pay them!

Once All the money is received, any more than my initial outlay will be donated to a charity of my choice (over £250 in total)

Bad times when passengers make a profit!

You are only supposed to claim Delay Repay up to the value of your ticket...

 

[mike57]

Once you get into a problem with resources, getting the DfT to authorise you the money you want in a timely fashion to avoid further problems is not easy.

But shouldn't the first step be to produce and run a timetable that can be delivered with the resources you have. This may not be the timetable people want, or need, but at least it would be reasonably reliable. My (and I suspect a lot of others) major criticism of the current operation is that with abitary cancellations running at the rate they do you cannot plan a journey. Once you are delivering a timetable (may be stripped to the bone one) then you can start the horse trading with the various stakeholders to get the funding to deliver something better. (or not, but thats more of a political decision/discussion)

The other issue is short formed services, with a reduced timetable it is just not excusable to be running 3 car services on the core routes.

I would also question why TPE North services are being extended from Newcastle to Edinburgh and to Redcar/Saltburn when the core routes are in such a dire state

 

[josh-j]

It depends what you mean by "a better service". My mind boggles as to how Avanti seem unable to run even a heavily reduced one, and I don't see how I can blame the Government for that specifically.he government controls who is running the services

Well even if the government can't directly tinker in individual policies within Avanti (but anyway since the pandemic don't they have a lot more direct say?), they can control who runs the services in the first place and impose penalties.

And the whole system is built and determined by the government anyway, so if that system is letting Avanti get away with poor service then that is ultimately down to the government as well.

I get that not every tiny thing is down to the government and the TOCs have various different challenges but we're about longstanding and repeated problems not little niggles. So I'd say they are problems inherent to the way the government runs the railway (or doesn't).

 

[Mcr Warrior]

How am I getting more money back than the money I've spent on tickets? Well because the amount of 2 hour gaps in their timetables, 2 hour delays means i get every penny back including my return ticket cost , and then if there's delays on my return journey i end up making a profit!

Thought 'Delay Repay' schemes were limited to / capped at 100% of the ticket price paid, so no "double bubble" if both the outward and return journeys are severely delayed. Is that not / no longer the case?

You are only supposed to claim Delay Repay up to the value of your ticket...

Indeed. Thanks for confirming/clarifying.

 

[LittleAH]

Directors continue to make that decision unfortunately. I have been told that multiple crews on short legs means more work out of less crews and more efficiently. Its cheaper.

I have bemoaned the loss of a significant chunk of my route knowledge but i have been advised that as i am in an 802 depot i don't need any of the routes that don't use 802s. Bit of a moot point given i sign 185s which are considered to be core traction…

This from my point of view is really disappointing as i have lost a lot of my flexibility, something which Steve Lee stated to me that he was an advocate of conductor flexibility, unfortunately he was moved on not long after he said that to me, since then my flexibility has plummeted.

Do they? AFAIK, the new MD is different and wants that back, especially with TRU around the corner and where diversionary route knowledge will be vital. That's why services that have been going via diversionary routes in the past few months are more likely to be cancelled. Add that to the 15000+ training days that TPE are behind thanks to Covid and Dec 19 fallout courtesy of Mr Goodwin. I'd also not attribute less flexibility to the departure of someone who was at the centre of the Dec 19 farce.

Reading this and previous posts, it fairly obvious that the desicions taken at senior management/director level are not benefiting passengers, are probably not helping staff moral, and are at least partly responsible for the dreadful service on TPE routes. Taking it to the logical conclusion its either a hair brained scheme dreamt up by senior managers, who now dont want to back down for fear of losing face (or worse), or it benefits shareholders.

As has been explained before - TPE, like the vast majority of other TOC's are now subject to National Rail Contracts. They are paid a management fee, which is dependent on parameters of performance across a number of features, set by the Department of Transport. This really isn't about shareholders at all. #224 puts this very succinctly.

So maybe time for a DOR, ensuring that those responsible for decisions that have lead to the current problems are not allowed anywhere near the DOR operation. Then look at addressing the problems, some will take time to solve, but a start would be a timetable which can be delivered with the current resources, including allowances for sickness, training and holidays. It may not be the timetable people expect or want but reliability is key here for passenger confidence. Ensure that all available rolling stock is deployed, there is no excuse for 3 car services on the York - Manchester and Sheffield - Manchester core if a reduced timetable is in operation.

I would also make the point that the current operation is plainly not delivering value for money in terms of taxpayer subsidy, as a taxpayer I personally dont have a problem with subsidies, even for things that I dont use, but I do have a problem where taxpayers money is wasted and provides no benefit to those it is aimed at, which in this case is to provide an efficient public transport link between major conurabations.

DOR/OLR makes absolutely no difference. Many of the issues won't be resolved without Government/DfT actually doing something to resolve IR issues, which unlocks the ability to recover. Unions want Sundays in the working week, but its up to Government to allow TOCs to properly negotiate. As for 3 car services, there's plenty of valid reasons why these may appear. Be it faults, circling the units through Ardwick etc.

As for your comments of value for money for taxpayer. Once again, look at this awful Government.

 

[Aaron1]

You are only supposed to claim Delay Repay up to the value of your ticket...

Is that in the terms and conditions?

If I am delayed for 2 hours on any part of my journey, outward or return I am given the total value of both tickets back, that is in accordance with the delay repay scheme for Tp express and any other train company.

Likewise if I am delayed for 2 hours on my outward journey and for 2 hours on my return journey I am entitled to make a 2 claims for delay repay which will entitle me to basically double my money.

This Is in accordance with the delay repay scheme and is allowed as part of the scheme, so i will not be made to feel guilty for using a scheme what exists and allows that to happen...

 

[Watershed]

Is that in the terms and conditions?

If I am delayed for 2 hours on any part of my journey, outward or return I am given the total value of both tickets back, that is in accordance with the delay repay scheme for Tp express and any other train company.

Likewise if I am delayed for 2 hours on my outward journey and for 2 hours on my return journey I am entitled to make a 2 claims for delay repay which will entitle me to basically double my money.

This Is in accordance with the delay repay scheme and is allowed as part of the scheme, so i will not be made to feel guilty for using a scheme what exists and allows that to happen...

It is now in the NRCoT and (AFAIK) all Charters. However, if you've supplied them with correct details and they've decided to pay out...

 

[alistairlees]

Is that in the terms and conditions?

Yes it is. See clause 32.2 of the NRCoT.

Likewise if I am delayed for 2 hours on my outward journey and for 2 hours on my return journey I am entitled to make a 2 claims for delay repay which will entitle me to basically double my money.

No, you should not do this; refer above.

This Is in accordance with the delay repay scheme and is allowed as part of the scheme, so i will not be made to feel guilty for using a scheme what exists and allows that to happen...

It's not in accordance with Delay Repay though, as Watershed says, if you got paid it and submitted it innocently then no need to worry really. Probably best not to repeat though. Definitely no need to feel guilty either!

 

[childwallblues]

No doubt about it one driver driving a train throughout the course of its journey (where feasible) works far better than changing driver 6 times on route. GwR Plymouth to London trains with one driver covering all 250 odd miles is far more resilient than the mess TPE are in.
Why are say Liverpool drivers not driving the 802 Edinburgh trains at least as far as Newcastle? It seems TPE have a bias towards central depots like Manchester and York but this in my view probably has a detrimental effect on the service....
GWR is a First group TOC and is broadly getting it right with drivers having lots of route knowledge, so why is TPE getting it so wrong???

Liverpool crews used to work to both Newcastle and Scarborough before the roster changes. Liverpool to Glasgow services are worked PRE-LIV-PRE by Preston and invariably get cancelled or sometimes run short only to Preston or Carlisle due to crew shortages.

 

[irish_rail]

Liverpool crews used to work to both Newcastle and Scarborough before the roster changes. Liverpool to Glasgow services are worked PRE-LIV-PRE by Preston and invariably get cancelled or sometimes run short only to Preston or Carlisle due to crew shortages.

Indeed Liverpool to Glasgow would make an excellent out and back driver diagram, with the service fully resourced with just one driver there and back instead of perhaps 4 or 5.

 

[alistairlees]

Indeed Liverpool to Glasgow would make an excellent out and back driver diagram, with the service fully resourced with just one driver there and back instead of perhaps 4 or 5.

What is the maximum permitted continuous driving? I assume Liverpool to Glasgow is below it?

 

[irish_rail]

What is the maximum permitted continuous driving? I assume Liverpool to Glasgow is below it?

Don't know about TPE but on GWR its 4 hours so Liverpool to Glasgow would comfortably meet that id have thought?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Aug 2022 ==

What is the maximum permitted continuous driving? I assume Liverpool to Glasgow is below it?

Just looked it up. 0820 liv to Glasgow takes 3hrs 19 mins. Thats basically what Plymouth drivers do on a regular basis from Ply to London so id be very surprised if not legal on tpe?

 

[Watershed]

Indeed Liverpool to Glasgow would make an excellent out and back driver diagram, with the service fully resourced with just one driver there and back instead of perhaps 4 or 5.

The amount of route learning needed to make this happen, from either end, would be astronomical. The timetable is also unit based rather than traincrew based, so there wouldn't be enough time for a break at either end before the return working. So you would have to either have relief en-route, or to take back a different train.

With LIV-GLC only running every 4 hours (even in the theoretical, full timetable) that means you would end up with lots of pass rides to make it all work, possibly only being able to work trains in one direction due to way the timings work out. That's certainly how it used to be when Manchester Airport guards went to Edinburgh.

It sounds simple in theory but as soon as you dig under the surface, it becomes a whole lot more complicated.

What is the maximum permitted continuous driving? I assume Liverpool to Glasgow is below it?

The maximum continuous driving at most TOCs is at least 4 hours, and for TPE it's 4.5 hours. With LIV-GLC being just under 3.5 hours on most runs that would likely be OK, although at the upper limit (considering you want to allow some contigency in case of delays).

 

[CAF397]

TPE continuous driving is 4h 30 maximum. 1212 Edinburgh to Manchester Airport used to be booked for a Manchester driver, arrived Manchester Airport at 1545. That was the longest West Coast drive.

Drivers cannot work more than 6 hours between breaks, so as long as timings work its possible for Preston drivers to do a Liverpool-Glasgow-Preston if so required, having had a break at Liverpool (but timetable doesn't allow for this)

 

[irish_rail]

The amount of route learning needed to make this happen, from either end, would be astronomical. The timetable is also unit based rather than traincrew based, so there wouldn't be enough time for a break at either end before the return working. So you would have to either have relief en-route, or to take back a different train.

With LIV-GLC only running every 4 hours (even in the theoretical, full timetable) that means you would end up with lots of pass rides to make it all work, possibly only being able to work trains in one direction due to way the timings work out. That's certainly how it used to be when Manchester Airport guards went to Edinburgh.

It sounds simple in theory but as soon as you dig under the surface, it becomes a whole lot more complicated.


The maximum continuous driving at most TOCs is at least 4 hours, and for TPE it's 4.5 hours. With LIV-GLC being just under 3.5 hours on most runs that would likely be OK, although at the upper limit (considering you want to allow some contigency in case of delays).

OK that sounds sensible thanks for the info. However I am guessing Liverpool to Newcastle is hourly??? If so , surely Lime st drivers could easily work to Newcastle , have a PNB then drive back to Liverpool.???