If a service isn’t running due to scheduled infrastructure maintenance, should that be counted as a cancellation?

[Taunton]

mods note - split from this thread

I gave up looking at "official" figures long ago, they are invariably bent to suit their producer.

For example there was no Liz service for 4 days over last Easter holiday. Was that counted as a cancellation? No. Nor for all the strikes. Was the effect for me the passenger that the service was cancelled? Yes.

Presumably the best service for delays and cancellations currently is Bletchley to Bedford, none of either at all. The fact that there is no service at all is doubtless by-the-by. Incidentally, I suspect if it WAS counted into the figures, something more effective would have been done about it.

 

[Goldfish62]

For example there was no Liz service for 4 days over last Easter holiday. Was that counted as a cancellation? No.

That's because it wasn't a cancellation. It was a scheduled closure due to engineering works. You can't base reliability on that.

 

[Taunton]

That's because it wasn't a cancellation. It was a scheduled closure due to engineering works. You can't base reliability on that.

That's a very railway-centric point of view. They can use words as they like. However, for the users of the Liz, it's not running for them. And thus cannot be relied upon.

 

[SuperNova]

That's a very railway-centric point of view. They can use words as they like. However, for the users of the Liz, it's not running for them. And thus cannot be relied upon.

So engineering work equals unreliability? Just nonsense.

 

[43066]

That's a very railway-centric point of view. They can use words as they like. However, for the users of the Liz, it's not running for them. And thus cannot be relied upon.

So, by that logic, any business that is ever closed is unreliable, because it isn’t open for anyone wanting to use it at that point…

 

[Goldfish62]

That's a very railway-centric point of view. They can use words as they like. However, for the users of the Liz, it's not running for them. And thus cannot be relied upon.

I'm the last one to express a railway-centric viewpoint!

If I have any centric viewpoint it's a statistical metric one. Measuring actual trains operated against anything other than the planned number of trains to operate is a nonsense. It would be complete twaddle that would tell no one anything meaningful.

 

[Horizon22]

I gave up looking at "official" figures long ago, they are invariably bent to suit their producer.

For example there was no Liz service for 4 days over last Easter holiday. Was that counted as a cancellation? No. Nor for all the strikes. Was the effect for me the passenger that the service was cancelled? Yes.

Presumably the best service for delays and cancellations currently is Bletchley to Bedford, none of either at all. The fact that there is no service at all is doubtless by-the-by. Incidentally, I suspect if it WAS counted into the figures, something more effective would have been done about it.

Eh? Since when is scheduled engineering works planned months in advance the same as in service cancellations? That's a bonkers interpretation.

Why isolate this example when loads of engineering works was taking place over Easter weekend.

 

[Taunton]

I'm the last one to express a railway-centric viewpoint!

If I have any centric viewpoint it's a statistical metric one. Measuring actual trains operated against anything other than the planned number of trains to operate is a nonsense.

Correct. And the planned number of trains is what is in the timetable, like any other transport organisation. The one that is on the printed timetable board at the stations. The one that shows, in the current National Rail Table 63, that there is an hourly train from Bletchley to Bedford. THAT is the plan. That doesn't show there were no Liz trains for four days over Easter. And believing otherwise is indeed a railway-centric view.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

So, by that logic, any business that is ever closed is unreliable, because it isn’t open for anyone wanting to use it at that point…

If the business is normally open 9-5pm every weekday, and one Wednesday it closes at 1pm because no staff are available, then customers are going to be inconvenienced and will perceive the business as unreliable, even if the business advertised some weeks in advance that they were going to be closed that Wednesday afternoon. (I know this because a friend used to part-own a shop and they had exactly this problem on occasions).

So I do get that planned engineering works isn't the same thing as a last-minute cancellations, and you can't really include them in the 'reliability/etc.' stats. But at the same time, as far as the passenger is concerned, the planned engineering works makes for an unreliable service.

 

[Goldfish62]

It at the same time, as far as the passenger is concerned, the planned engineering works makes for an unreliable service.

So by that definition pretty much every railway in the whole world is unreliable.

 

[Horizon22]

Correct. And the planned number of trains is what is in the timetable, like any other transport organisation. The one that is on the printed timetable board at the stations. The one that shows, in the current National Rail Table 63, that there is an hourly train from Bletchley to Bedford. THAT is the plan. That doesn't show there were no Liz trains for four days over Easter. And believing otherwise is indeed a railway-centric view.

Shops have altered opening hours at times; is that a "retail-centric" view? Or buses on diversion or alterted during roadworks or other events - is that a "bus-centric" view? How about planning of motorway works and late night closures; is that a "road-centric" view? Engineering works and variations are common part of life, I genuinely am struggling that you are going down this route, as it's frankly ridiculous.

The Bedford-Bletchley issue is different (although FYI Table 63 shows a bus 'until further notice', so you are wrong). But there are multiple sources to show that "for four days over Easter" there was indeed a variation happening and allowing others to plan. I am also fairly sure that most printed/static timetables advise something like "the timetable may be subject to alteration due to engineering works - please visit nre.couk for the latest information".

 

[DynamicSpirit]

So by that definition pretty much every railway in the whole world is unreliable.

Yes - if you want to travel on the weekend that there are engineering works and can't because there are no trains, than it's quite likely that you'll think of the railway as at least somewhat unreliable, no matter how much advance notice of the disruption was provided. That of course is why engineering works are (supposedly) planned to cause as little disruption as possible.

About 5 years ago I regularly needed to travel from Abbey Wood to central London on Sundays - and that was when there was a huge amount of engineering works because of building the Elizabeth line. Just about every other week I was having to figure out alternative ways to make my journey. I'm pretty sure that one of the things I was telling my friends was how *unreliable* the trains on that line were at the moment.

 

[Gaelan]

The key point, I think, is that there are degrees of unreliability. The ideal is a perfect 24/7/365 clock-face timetable, so the train's always there when someone turns up expecting it, but there's all sorts of reasons it's not possible. So you try to minimize divergence from that as much as possible, and when you do diverge, announce it as clearly and as far in advance as possible. Planned closures aren't ideal, but clearly they're not as bad as cancellations the night before, which aren't as bad as cancellations a few minutes before scheduled departure. It's all a matter of trade-offs.

 

[The Planner]

Correct. And the planned number of trains is what is in the timetable, like any other transport organisation. The one that is on the printed timetable board at the stations. The one that shows, in the current National Rail Table 63, that there is an hourly train from Bletchley to Bedford. THAT is the plan. That doesn't show there were no Liz trains for four days over Easter. And believing otherwise is indeed a railway-centric view.

Expect the railway to fall apart very quickly then as operators refuse engineering works as it affects reliability figures...

 

[Silenos]

I think there is a confusion here between reliability and usability. Engineering works reduce the usability (or the convenience if you prefer) of the railway when they take place - many’s the time I’ve cursed because an intended journey wasn’t possible - but if there is good information in advance it isn’t a decrease in reliability.