[Rhydgaled]

Originally Posted by AlterEgo

Many posters seem to forget we're talking about PPM rather than just semantics. If a train timetabled to arrive at 1212 arrives at 1213 then it is late by definition - but the point is where should PPM define a train as being late and 'failing charter'?

If posters propose to tighten PPM targets for TOCs, could they explain where the extra money for paying those financial penalties will come from? Don't say 'the TOC' because we all know that's the wrong answer.

The money will come from you, via the farebox.

That's a good point, but if a train is more than 5 minutes late at any scheduled station then connections (a connection generally being around the 7-10 minute mark, unless there are suitable waiting facilities* at the interchange points) will be jepordised. Therefore something needs to be done, whether that is improving waiting facilities, guaranteing to hold connections or imposing penaltys if more than x% of trains are over 5 minutes late. As I said though, you make a good point about TOCs just putting fares up if the penalty is a fine.

*A bus shelter is not good enough

Originally Posted by WelshBluebird

I do think there should be a clause in the franchise that binds the company to keeping within a certain %, or they will lose the franchise (or get some kind of other penalty - not purely financial as a fine).

Maybe there is a way to fine TOCs without them putting fares up. Something taken out of the profit that they would otherwise pocket for themselves each year (like an extra 'tax') might work, if the wording of the contract is carefully planned.

[tbtc]

Originally Posted by Rhydgaled

Maybe there is a way to fine TOCs without them putting fares up. Something taken out of the profit that they would otherwise pocket for themselves each year (like an extra 'tax') might work, if the wording of the contract is carefully planned.

How would that work?

The TOC decide what profit to take out of the business (and what money to reinvest etc).

You'll just end up taking more money from the TOC to give to the Government which will then have to be given back to the TOC in increased subsidy (and pay dozens of bean counters to administer the payments etc). Complicates things further for no benefit to the passenger.

The most important thing is to minimise delays (which is a point that nobody seems to be addressing on this thread). The second most important thing is to try to give people a robust timetable that they can plan around. If a service leaves nine minutes later from a station on certain nights that's much less hassle than if it arrives nine minutes late some nights.

Give people the "worst case scenario", but have people accept that there's a reasonable margin of error.

[Oswyntail]

Just scrap PPM altogether. Its only effect is to generate work. Instead, rely on the professionalism of those in the industry to run a service that meets the needs of the government and the public. The commercial imperative is that, if the performance standards are not met, the TOC will lose the franchise. Drop charter times as well - 99% punctuality is meaningless anyway, if every other service in the TOC is punctual, but the one I need to rely on is always late. Because no one really cares about small amounts of lateness - they care about missed connections, appointments etc.
This might actually help keep fares down. I am sure TOCs factor in compensation into their fare estimates - and, if they don't what are they doing in business?

[tbtc]

Originally Posted by Oswyntail

Just scrap PPM altogether. Its only effect is to generate work. Instead, rely on the professionalism of those in the industry to run a service that meets the needs of the government and the public. The commercial imperative is that, if the performance standards are not met, the TOC will lose the franchise. Drop charter times as well - 99% punctuality is meaningless anyway, if every other service in the TOC is punctual, but the one I need to rely on is always late. Because no one really cares about small amounts of lateness - they care about missed connections, appointments etc.
This might actually help keep fares down. I am sure TOCs factor in compensation into their fare estimates - and, if they don't what are they doing in business?

I'd like to know how much the industry (overall) spends on counting these delays and allocating blame for them

[The Planner]

I'd argue too much as it is at a point now where we cannot dispute delays unless they are over x minutes (varies by train planning area), even if they are caused by another factor as it creates too much work for the delay clerks. Unless staff are no longer performance measured on delay minutes in various disciplines then it will not get any better IMO.

[AlterEgo]

Originally Posted by transmanche

Now I think you're just making stuff up.

I can only assume you aren't familiar with the very complex hoops that TOCs have to jump through in order to satisfy discrimination law, and to ensure that their services are accessible easily by the disabled or vulnerable.

My train leaves at, say, 0723 every morning. I know it's always 0723 and I plan my life around it. If a TSR is put into place, the train now leaves at 0727. If a TSR is removed, for example, my train is now at 0720.

All the public want is a consistent and reliable service. They don't want fannying around with timetables to fudge delay minutes.

For months my morning train was always exactly two minutes late due to a certain TSR. I didnt expect it to be retimetabled to "tell the truth".

As others have said, PPM is a rather outdated method of measuring performance and it does not really work to deliver improvements to the farepayer. I'm not knowledgeable enough to propose a solution, though.

[transmanche]

Originally Posted by transmanche

Just check the TPE timetable for the 00:38 departure from Manchester Piccadilly - clearly highlighted in yellow & black with the note 'Please check your journey details before travelling. Service regularly affected by engineering work.'

And lo & behold, visiting TPE's Changes to train times page tells me that between 28 May and 1 June, that train will depart 9 minutes later than advertised.

Originally Posted by AlterEgo

I can only assume you aren't familiar with the very complex hoops that TOCs have to jump through in order to satisfy discrimination law, and to ensure that their services are accessible easily by the disabled or vulnerable.

I can only assume that you don't want to respond to the information above which totally disproves your theory.

You said it can't happen. I showed you an example of it happening.

Are TPE contravening their own DPPP? No

(Do remember, this discussion is about the 22:00 KGX-NCL and similar late-night services with excessive padding, not rush hour commuter services.)

[NY Yankee]

If people are only allotting a few minutes for a connection then that's too little time. They should factor in a train being delayed due to bad weather or someone holding the doors. However, 10 minutes is ridiculous. That's not "on time." 5 minutes seems reasonable.

[The Planner]

Originally Posted by transmanche

(Do remember, this discussion is about the 22:00 KGX-NCL and similar late-night services with excessive padding, not rush hour commuter services.)

Engineering allowance (not padding, as that is completely the wrong term for it) is excessive only if no one is taking the possession opportunity. These are agreed up to two years in advance. If you were to go down the route of only adding the time in when the work is going to be done, then you would never have a fixed timetable, it would all be STP variants.

[AlterEgo]

Originally Posted by transmanche

You said it can't happen. I showed you an example of it happening.

Are TPE contravening their own DPPP? No

(Do remember, this discussion is about the 22:00 KGX-NCL and similar late-night services with excessive padding, not rush hour commuter services.)

Paper timetables that say "Until 4th June" and then have an adjoining column that says "From 5th June until 26th July" etc are common - everyone has seen that and that's for planned engineering work.

What you suggest (I believe) is that whenever the train is not expected to keep to schedule, the timetable should be altered accordingly.

Do you suggest that as soon as a TSR is whacked in on the route the timetable should change? Say, a track defect reported today at Alexandra Palace resulted in a two mile long 20mph TSR. Would you change the timetable overnight? I believe this would be confusing for passengers, and this was my point about DPPPs - a significant portion of passengers still rely on paper timetables published in advance for long periods. It's unreasonable to expect certain sections of the demographic to turn to the Internet (which they may not have access to), or to ring a premium rate number to find out.

[Oscar]

Originally Posted by NY Yankee

If people are only allotting a few minutes for a connection then that's too little time.

It's fine for a lot if not most connections in Great Britain - I don't know what the situation is like in the USA. When there are no significant disruptions, the trains do not generally run more than a minute or two late on short to medium distance routes at least. We need to have these short connections to compete with car travel. The fact that journey planners do not show that connections less than the minimum advertising connection time (generally 5 minutes, more at major stations) exist already hinders the railway enough in this respect.

[DownSouth]

Originally Posted by Rhydgaled

Maybe there is a way to fine TOCs without them putting fares up. Something taken out of the profit that they would otherwise pocket for themselves each year (like an extra 'tax') might work, if the wording of the contract is carefully planned.

Originally Posted by tbtc

How would that work?

The TOC decide what profit to take out of the business (and what money to reinvest etc).

You'll just end up taking more money from the TOC to give to the Government which will then have to be given back to the TOC in increased subsidy (and pay dozens of bean counters to administer the payments etc). Complicates things further for no benefit to the passenger.

There is a way - take the fare box out of the TOC's hands, and have them paid just for running the trains and keeping the stations operating. The Government takes the risk on revenue and setting fares, and with respect to a late service the TOC would simply be paid a partially deducted fee for a service which is late.

It could even be graduated, perhaps 10% of the service fee for every 3 minutes delayed up to half an hour where it becomes a 100% non-payment. Delay fee deductions could be withdrawn if another party admits that the delay was caused by them, but attempts to attribute delays to other parties would not be allowable.

[ainsworth74]

Originally Posted by Oscar

I don't know what the situation is like in the USA.

I'm sure NY Yankee will comment further but in the meantime as far as I'm aware in the US delays on long distance services are not uncommon and very often will amount to several hours (or more). I'm not sure what the more suburban/commuter routes achieve however.

[Marvin]

Originally Posted by WelshBluebird

Although in the case of ToC's, I do think there should be a clause in the franchise that binds the company to keeping within a certain %, or they will lose the franchise (or get some kind of other penalty - not purely financial as a fine).

I like this idea very much. Fines don't work to actually reduce delays, because TOCs just increase their fares to allow for them. But say "if you don't run to time you lose the franchise forever" and they'll soon find ways to get it done

[millemille]

For the purposes of performance monitoring the ATOC definition of "late" and hence being classed as a "Casualty" is 5 or more direct minutes delay to the service, or a full cancellation. This aligns with the PPM definition.

We also monitor MTIM's which are 3 or more minutes direct delay.