Thameslink Services/Timetable from May 20th 2018

[The Box Photter]

Timetabling I can't comment on as I don't know how long that would take. To repath an entire timetable and each service it will affect at different TOC's is a huge task.

To resource Drivers you are talking about going through PT&R arrangements. It will take months of renegotiation and then you want to reintroduce it again slowly. How do you redeploy again to resource more routes and more training ?




If you rolled back the Driver changes and rolled back the timetable. All those Rainham service will have no Drivers to run them. It's being covered by 3 depots across 2 TOCs. A lot of the new Drivers didn't even exist and have no route knowledge on the previous routes.

By the time it takes to roll back everything you may as well have just carried on and pushed through all the crap.

Which Rainham services would they be? They're not running at the moment anyway.

It can't be beyond the wit of man to go back to the previous timetable. Get the drivers back to their previous depots and mothball the new signng-on points that aren't needed. All the trains that were being used before still exist and so do the drivers. Accept that on one Sunday in the very near future, there will be a VERY patchy service as all the units are put in place for the Monday morning rush hour and dust off the old rosters. Where's the problem?

 

[Failed Unit]

Just spent a few minutes reading various threads on here going back over the last 3 or 4 years, I don't know whether to laugh or cry reading some of the posts, especially from one particular poster no longer here, now the whole dream has come crashing down with a big bang.

If observers on here have been able to accurately and confidently predict shambles, why couldn't GTR/DFT?

Looking at some of the select committee from earlier. Horton knew and deliberately set out to mislead the travelling public (or lie). So glad he is gone.

Now we will see how much Grayling knew.

Feel more sorry for northern.

As for the crystal ball. I didn’t think in my wildest dreams it would be this bad. I expected lots of skip stopping as I can’t see how the timetable can cope with even small delays with things like or 4tph at Welwyn north. I do suspect if it ever does get fully implemented- wires down at Alexandra palace will ruin Journeys to Bedford.

 

[Ianno87]

For a start, the 365 services we do have have generally been running reasonably well. And not having to worry about route and traction knowledge, plus issues south of the river, surely reliability would have been better. Especially if they’d kept the legacy drivers as a “business as usual” link, as I have suggested a few times.

Let's suppose you did do a mix of trains to King's Cross and through the core.

Now, I've never known the ins and outs of GN's driver diagrams in much/any detail, but the semi-fasts/stoppers to King's Cross were always quite "efficient" in their turnrounds - to the point where I'd imagine a driver taking the same train in and out would be quite commonplace.

But then if you had few*er* trains into King's Cross you then get:
-Probably a higher need to have longer turnrounds on what does remain (fewer in/out paths to match up), and
-For drivers that do take a break, again potentially longer turnrounds due to having less choice of inward/outward workings

Both of which already trigger less inherent efficiency in crew diagramming - effectively more enforced unproductive time at Kings Cross - thus a more thinly stretched driver resource.

I just struggle with how you can say 'mixed mode' would definitely be better - when in rostering terms it might actually be the worst of both worlds!

It would also assume that you could construct rolling stock cicuits that supported this. With "half and half" you'd need to likely have a Thameslink arrival at Peterborough form a Thameslink back, and similarly for King's Cross. No mean feat when trying to make a coherent timetable across the rest of the network as well (and not sending Thameslink trains though to the Southern at erratic intervals)

 

[tsr]

Indeed, given the basic outline of the network has been known for a while, and there will have been draft timetables for each variation before that, it would have been possible to at least have a rough idea of what was required in terms of driver numbers even with the new driver depot locations. If there were major changes arising from the late handover of the timetable from NR it raises questions over the competence of the planners responsible at GTR and likewise at NR, as you would not expect major changes to occur from the timetable bid/offer process (tweaks certainly but no more...) especially at the stage at which this was happening.

Thanks for the link, interesting that GTR are still trying to pin the blame on NR's late timetable finalisation resulting in a mismatch between the driver competence requirements and the rosters.

It seems that infrastructure such as (but not necessarily limited to) the Canal Tunnels has been constructed without any clear operational competence for actually using it. Either that, or there's some other mystical explanation for knowing something has existed for many years but being completely unable to run trains through it on its first day. *

My rationale for this largely comes from my observations from "the word Go". Sunday 20th May saw the beginning of services starting to unravel because the pilot driver resource through Central London was so tight. Ultimately, traction training (on 700s) is easier than withdrawing each driver for bespoke route learning; the latter has resulted in trains through Central London being hampered by the sheer lack of people trained on a relatively short bit of railway which has been predicted and planned for a very long time indeed. The relatively short time since all infrastructure has been available is in contrast with the amount of time that the aspiration for 24tph through the Core from the MML + ECML has been known about. A plan to recruit - yes, recruit - enough drivers to cover for route learning would have paid dividends. As would better planning of which drivers should be rostered to learn routes. As would biting the bullet and actually opening depots in time vs that railway enemy, "just in time".

Someone has now posted on here that perhaps a "legacy link" should have been kept. I think I agree with this; a completely fresh pool of drivers could have been recruited and trained to run the first phase of Thameslink services through Central London, with their knowledge expanding further on each side of town when the legacy drivers had later had their turn to learn through the middle. The need to have these drivers available was known way before last autumn; it was known once there was any hint of a service plan to match the capabilities of the Core signalling (to handle x number of trains routinely), the Canal Tunnels and suchlike.

* Blame being put on NR for timetabling issues clearly ignores the fact that, in the South of England at least, they have been largely successful in constructing, testing and opening railway facilities through a very busy public transit network in one of the planet's most significant commercial areas. To do this relatively competently - albeit with design and teething niggles here and there - shows that there is some sort of nugget of competence which has been lacking elsewhere.

---
Footnote - Someone must question the top-heavy nature of assurance and observational organisations involved with the behemoth which attempted to become RailPlan20/20. Giving executive-level boards lots of job titles and big conference tables clearly does not make a good railway. Anyone with current front-line "operational" knowledge who read the Gibb report could have predicted that its culture of grand overlooking of detail would transfer over to ignoring big elephants in tiny conference rooms on the Thameslink front...

 

[Failed Unit]

Couple of questions.

When were the canal tunnels open and signalled?

Could GN drivers have done traction training on MML with the instructor providing route knowledge or isnt that how it works? (Assuming of course if said driver could fit that into their shift pattern- which I understand was the real challenge. Drivers just didn’t have time to train)

 

[AndyY]

Today is the second day when I had to use rush hour trains since the timetable change.
The 07:46 from Elstree was absolutely packed: already standing only on arrival (before the timetable change, you may be able to get a seat on the 07:43 you are quick), and already in canned sardine state by Mill Hill Broadway. At Hendon and Cricklewood, I witnessed people unable to get on.
I suppose that the train before 07:46 was cancelled (will check later). The next train would be in 30 minutes (08:01 from Elstree was also cancelled). I could be in trouble because the 08:16 would make getting to my desk by 09:00 a bit of pot luck.
The train eventually arrived at City Thameslink 4 minutes late, probably due to the increased dwell time at stations.
Coming back, the 18:48 was also cancelled, leaving me a nearly 30 minute wait for the 19:03.

Things were a lot better before the timetable change - there was a train every 10 minutes or so and we were never packed like sardines even on the 07:43. Now reduced to half hourly services. Seems to be worse than when I made the same journey 2 weeks ago.
I wonder where all the drivers for St. Albans <--> central London route went - perhaps driving other routes? This route always seem to be a poorer relation compared to the long distance Bedford <--> central London route.

 

[Hadders]

I went to the Transport Select Committee Meeting at Portcullis House today. There was a packed public gallery - I doubt there's never been more interest in the TSC! I thought GTR got off quite lightely, certainly not the blood bath I expected. Anyway, here's my take on the GTR crisis from what I heard today.

GTR bid for the timetable in August 2017. DfT decided to phase in the timetable meaning that it had to be ripped up and started again. The same situation happened in the North West with delays due to electrification and to a lesser extend in Scotland due to delays with new rolling stock. The timetable was not finalised until a few days beforehand.

GTR normally get the timetable 12 weeks before it starts and then plan the stock diagrams and drivers rosters. It's usual for these to be refined a number of times, especially when there is a significant timetable change. Clearly GTR were unable to carry out this work due to the delays in receiving the timetable.

The Industry Readiness Board concentrated on mitigating the risks. There were a number of 'red flags' but plans appeared to be in place, for example using pilots through the core and removing some services from the timetable.

GTR thought they had enough drivers with sufficient stock and route knowledge to get through but when they finally got the timetable and ran the stock diagrams and drivers rosters they suddenly found at the last minute that they had a major issue - far bigger than anyone ever imagined. Since then they have been in meltdown and are effectively operating on a hand to mouth basis. There is no emergency timetable on GTR. They are planning to introduce one in mid-July with full implementation of the timetable at the end of August. GTR operate around 3,600 trains a day and around 500 are currently being cancelled (surprised it's not more than this). GTR said that piloting through the core will be in place for several months.

Neither GTR, Northern or Network Rail wanted to criticise the DfT. I suspect the TSC report will be very critical of the DfT.

Northern requested that the May 2018 timetable was not implemented. This was over-ruled. It was not clear exactly who said no to this but it seemed to be that a consensus of TOCs would've been needed and this wasn't forthcoming.

Work is on-going for the December timetable change. With the ORR interim report not sue until September I could see the December changes being pushed back.

The evidence was heard in two sessions. GTR and Northern went first with Network Rail afterwards. The GTR people all left after their session. At least the Northern people had the decency to stay and hear what NR had to say. The first session started at 16:45 with the second an hour later. Both sessions ran over time and after 19:00 there seemed to be a great deal of focus on checking the England score on mobile phones!

 

[farleigh]

I went to the Transport Select Committee Meeting at Portcullis House today. There was a packed public gallery - I doubt there's never been more interest in the TSC! I thought GTR got off quite lightely, certainly not the blood bath I expected. Anyway, here's my take on the GTR crisis from what I heard today.

GTR bid for the timetable in August 2017. DfT decided to phase in the timetable meaning that it had to be ripped up and started again. The same situation happened in the North West with delays due to electrification and to a lesser extend in Scotland due to delays with new rolling stock. The timetable was not finalised until a few days beforehand.

GTR normally get the timetable 12 weeks before it starts and then plan the stock diagrams and drivers rosters. It's usual for these to be refined a number of times, especially when there is a significant timetable change. Clearly GTR were unable to carry out this work due to the delays in receiving the timetable.

The Industry Readiness Board concentrated on mitigating the risks. There were a number of 'red flags' but plans appeared to be in place, for example using pilots through the core and removing some services from the timetable.

GTR thought they had enough drivers with sufficient stock and route knowledge to get through but when they finally got the timetable and ran the stock diagrams and drivers rosters they suddenly found at the last minute that they had a major issue - far bigger than anyone ever imagined. Since then they have been in meltdown and are effectively operating on a hand to mouth basis. There is no emergency timetable on GTR. They are planning to introduce one in mid-July with full implementation of the timetable at the end of August. GTR operate around 3,600 trains a day and around 500 are currently being cancelled (surprised it's not more than this). GTR said that piloting through the core will be in place for several months.

Neither GTR, Northern or Network Rail wanted to criticise the DfT. I suspect the TSC report will be very critical of the DfT.

Northern requested that the May 2018 timetable was not implemented. This was over-ruled. It was not clear exactly who said no to this but it seemed to be that a consensus of TOCs would've been needed and this wasn't forthcoming.

Work is on-going for the December timetable change. With the ORR interim report not sue until September I could see the December changes being pushed back.

The evidence was heard in two sessions. GTR and Northern went first with Network Rail afterwards. The GTR people all left after their session. At least the Northern people had the decency to stay and hear what NR had to say. The first session started at 16:45 with the second an hour later. Both sessions ran over time and after 19:00 there seemed to be a great deal of focus on checking the England score on mobile phones!

Thanks Hadders - an interesting read

 

[F Great Eastern]

TOC's will be loathe to criticise the DFT - I've spoken to several people over the years who have told me first hand that they feel that if they criticised them it would not turn out well for them so they're not willing to take that risk.

At the end of the day though everyone knew that the DFT had a part to play in this, but the DFT know that the public in general don't give a monkeys about that and will just blame the TOC and that suits the DFT fine, they can go and hide and let someone else take the flack for everything.

Certainly GTR don't come out of this smelling of roses, but the DFT aren't going to be too worried about that, they'd rather GTR take the flack than people start asking questions about their part.

 

[KeithP]

Coming back, the 18:48 was also cancelled, leaving me a nearly 30 minute wait for the 19:03.

That's only fifteen minutes.

 

[F Great Eastern]

That's only fifteen minutes.

Not if you've just missed a train just after 6.30

 

[Abpj17]

Given the timing, Northern staff were probably staying in London overnight. GTR have got day jobs to be doing in London-based offices.

I'm 30 mins into it now. Disappointing quality of questions - it's hardly forensic. Northern guy seems pretty credible - apologies to customers and tried to stop the changes.

GTR not so much...

 

[jayah]

I went to the Transport Select Committee Meeting at Portcullis House today. There was a packed public gallery - I doubt there's never been more interest in the TSC! I thought GTR got off quite lightely, certainly not the blood bath I expected. Anyway, here's my take on the GTR crisis from what I heard today.

GTR bid for the timetable in August 2017. DfT decided to phase in the timetable meaning that it had to be ripped up and started again. The same situation happened in the North West with delays due to electrification and to a lesser extend in Scotland due to delays with new rolling stock. The timetable was not finalised until a few days beforehand.

GTR normally get the timetable 12 weeks before it starts and then plan the stock diagrams and drivers rosters. It's usual for these to be refined a number of times, especially when there is a significant timetable change. Clearly GTR were unable to carry out this work due to the delays in receiving the timetable.

The Industry Readiness Board concentrated on mitigating the risks. There were a number of 'red flags' but plans appeared to be in place, for example using pilots through the core and removing some services from the timetable.

GTR thought they had enough drivers with sufficient stock and route knowledge to get through but when they finally got the timetable and ran the stock diagrams and drivers rosters they suddenly found at the last minute that they had a major issue - far bigger than anyone ever imagined. Since then they have been in meltdown and are effectively operating on a hand to mouth basis. There is no emergency timetable on GTR. They are planning to introduce one in mid-July with full implementation of the timetable at the end of August. GTR operate around 3,600 trains a day and around 500 are currently being cancelled (surprised it's not more than this). GTR said that piloting through the core will be in place for several months.

Neither GTR, Northern or Network Rail wanted to criticise the DfT. I suspect the TSC report will be very critical of the DfT.

Northern requested that the May 2018 timetable was not implemented. This was over-ruled. It was not clear exactly who said no to this but it seemed to be that a consensus of TOCs would've been needed and this wasn't forthcoming.

Work is on-going for the December timetable change. With the ORR interim report not sue until September I could see the December changes being pushed back.

The evidence was heard in two sessions. GTR and Northern went first with Network Rail afterwards. The GTR people all left after their session. At least the Northern people had the decency to stay and hear what NR had to say. The first session started at 16:45 with the second an hour later. Both sessions ran over time and after 19:00 there seemed to be a great deal of focus on checking the England score on mobile phones!

Perhaps the Northern team were travelling on off-peak tickets?

I have watched a lot of the TOC evidence session. It is evident how poor their human resource management is. In both cases, in a truncated process lasting months, the fact they were both a long way short of bridging the gorge when matching the traincrew rosters to diagrams only became apparent in the final few days. The reasons for the replanning Blackpool etc... may be different, but they had both spent months in the truncated process planning something that they weren't even in sight of delivering. GTR were very late indeed to the party, Northern should probably have realised when Blackpool went turtle that it was time to raise the red flag.

Network Rail is meant to be the responsible body. It is quite understandable given the scale of change elsewhere why they were never going to agree to roll forward the old timetable and sent 15 other companies back to the blackboard instead of 1. The DfT is already far too involved in micro management. TOCs, even the size of Northern can plan a robust, greatly simplified strike timetable in a matter of days. You don't get to T-3 days, put the rosters next to the diagrams and realise oh ****.

 

[700007]

Yeah, like Arlesey to London via Peterborough!

I notice the FailPlan2020 posters at my station have disappeared since I was last there, says it all really.

From what I have noticed, new posters have gone up in the same style but warning people to carefully check their train before travelling.

If only checking my non existent train was actually worthwhile doing...

 

[Mauve]

TOC's will be loathe to criticise the DFT - I've spoken to several people over the years who have told me first hand that they feel that if they criticised them it would not turn out well for them so they're not willing to take that risk.

At the end of the day though everyone knew that the DFT had a part to play in this, but the DFT know that the public in general don't give a monkeys about that and will just blame the TOC and that suits the DFT fine, they can go and hide and let someone else take the flack for everything.

Certainly GTR don't come out of this smelling of roses, but the DFT aren't going to be too worried about that, they'd rather GTR take the flack than people start asking questions about their part.

The DfT seem to be the one body that keeps cropping up in any rail-related disaster. I can well understand why TOCs wouldn't want to criticise them given the potential issues they might have with future franchises, but I think it's appalling that they're pretty much getting away with this by letting the TOCs and NR blame each other.

The level of micromanagement by the DfT in the rail system really must make it very difficult for both NR and TOCs to actually plan anything. Whatever happened to setting an overall vision and high-level strategy, then leaving rail professionals to work out how to implement it? Alternatively, you could ask why the DfT feel the need to interfere so much?

As you say, the general public don't care. They just want a train to turn up on time and take them where they want to go (hardly an unreasonable request from a rail system).

In this case GTR seem to have buggered it up. But did the DfT know it wasn't going to work? Did they know and pretend they hadn't been told? Did they insist everything proceed as if nothing was wrong? Or did they deliberately not ask questions they might not have wanted to know the answers to?

 

[Hadders]

The DfT seem to be the one body that keeps cropping up in any rail-related disaster. I can well understand why TOCs wouldn't want to criticise them given the potential issues they might have with future franchises, but I think it's appalling that they're pretty much getting away with this by letting the TOCs and NR blame each other.

The level of micromanagement by the DfT in the rail system really must make it very difficult for both NR and TOCs to actually plan anything. Whatever happened to setting an overall vision and high-level strategy, then leaving rail professionals to work out how to implement it? Alternatively, you could ask why the DfT feel the need to interfere so much?

As you say, the general public don't care. They just want a train to turn up on time and take them where they want to go (hardly an unreasonable request from a rail system).

In this case GTR seem to have buggered it up. But did the DfT know it wasn't going to work? Did they know and pretend they hadn't been told? Did they insist everything proceed as if nothing was wrong? Or did they deliberately not ask questions they might not have wanted to know the answers to?

It seems as though the DfT (i.e. the very top - Grayling) wasn't aware. The Industry Readiness Board was being told that there were problems but there were plans in place to mitigate them. So everyone thought it was all ok.

It all went wrong on the Thursday before the timetable change when the diagrams and rosters were run and they suddenly realised there was a massive gap.

Should they have realised there was going to be such a big gap beforehand.
Should Horton have communicated directly with Grayling etc.

Are key questions that still need answering.

 

[gingerheid]

*The* timetable wasn't so different to the draft timetables, and there was a point during which they would have been having to make plans to operate it at which they thought they were going to be introducing the full timetable?

This doesn't seem to add up. It seems to me that GTR waited to plan against *the* timetable without having previously cared to check whether or not they could plan against *any* timetable?

 

[bramling]

Let's suppose you did do a mix of trains to King's Cross and through the core.

Now, I've never known the ins and outs of GN's driver diagrams in much/any detail, but the semi-fasts/stoppers to King's Cross were always quite "efficient" in their turnrounds - to the point where I'd imagine a driver taking the same train in and out would be quite commonplace.

But then if you had few*er* trains into King's Cross you then get:
-Probably a higher need to have longer turnrounds on what does remain (fewer in/out paths to match up), and
-For drivers that do take a break, again potentially longer turnrounds due to having less choice of inward/outward workings

Both of which already trigger less inherent efficiency in crew diagramming - effectively more enforced unproductive time at Kings Cross - thus a more thinly stretched driver resource.

I just struggle with how you can say 'mixed mode' would definitely be better - when in rostering terms it might actually be the worst of both worlds!

It would also assume that you could construct rolling stock cicuits that supported this. With "half and half" you'd need to likely have a Thameslink arrival at Peterborough form a Thameslink back, and similarly for King's Cross. No mean feat when trying to make a coherent timetable across the rest of the network as well (and not sending Thameslink trains though to the Southern at erratic intervals)

Doing some quick scribbles on the back of a fag packet, I *think* there is a way of doing it which provides a 1tph service KX to each of Peterborough and Cambridge, based on the FailPlan2020 timetable with a straight substitution of two core services. It can be done using just one extra platform at KX, and using 18x365 to provide a 12-car service (not a bad utilisation level for the remaining 21 units bearing in mind the peaks-only use for the current 19). I haven’t looked at what would happen south of the river. The only snag is that Baldock would not be able to be served without platform extensions - although they would of course retain their 1tph core service.

A spin-off benefit of extending Baldock platforms would be that a couple of the high-peak Baldock terminators could then be strengthened to 12 cars if you steal the 6x peak Peterborough 387s to use SDO at Knebworth and Welwyn North, and backfill the Peterboroughs with 365s (extra seats over 387s!) with a 700 in there somewhere to make up the numbers.

Taking this all a stage further, you could possibly - infrastructure and stabling permitting - move the displaced FLUs to the Luton-Rainham service to provide some extra capacity there, leaving a small handful of RLUs surplus - no great loss.

When I get some time I will have a go at running this in Simsig to see how it works in reality.

 

[bramling]

*The* timetable wasn't so different to the draft timetables, and there was a point during which they would have been having to make plans to operate it at which they thought they were going to be introducing the full timetable?

This doesn't seem to add up. It seems to me that GTR waited to plan against *the* timetable without having previously cared to check whether or not they could plan against *any* timetable?

I think that’s a fair summary.

I felt the Northern people came across much better - it was obvious there were genuine challenges they had to face. The ThamesLink/ issues were a completely different matter - they didn’t really provide any convincing explanation IMO.

 

[blakey1152]

Did Thameslink run any trains at all today (18th June) to the Medway towns? I had a look periodically during the day and from Slade Green at least every single train was either delayed (seemingly permanently) or cancelled!

I'm feeling so sorry for those poor souls at Higham every day

 

[Skymonster]

I sat at Blackfriars for a short while this evening, and at 18;00 the 8th soundbound train was due in 72 minutes time. By my reckoning that would have resulted in an average of one train every 9 minutes heading south through the core - somewhat removed from the proposed maximum capacity at what I assume was a peak time for the evening commute. Northbound was no better, with both directions having breaks of up to 15 minutes between any service whatsoever. I know a temporary timetable has been put into place but I'm still amazed by how poor the frequency is at the moment compared to what I expected. Must admit I was left wondering why anyone had bothered.

 

[Hadders]

I felt the Northern people came across much better - it was obvious there were genuine challenges they had to face. The ThamesLink/ issues were a completely different matter - they didn’t really provide any convincing explanation IMO.

Agreed. Northern do seem to have a line of sight on how to resolve the issues they've got. For example, they explained the delay to the Blackpool electrification meant that all of the drivers lost competence on the route and need to be re certified.

I don't have confidence in GTR's ability to sort out their issues.

 

[Abpj17]

I did however actually see a Peterborough bound train at City Thameslink today. Cue confused tourists half getting on it and off again.

And *then* a Bedford-bound service a mere two minutes later. It was like a 3 minute miracle of a timetable that might work one day.

 

[plcd1]

Having watched the Select Cttee hearing I was a little taken aback by what was said by all the parties that appeared.

Northern seem to have been dealt the worst hand in terms of project delays then undermining their plans. The impact of a shattered timetable is far worse as services are typically less frequent and formed of shorter trains than in the South East. Their operation is more diffuse and complex. I was a little surprised the Northern MD was not a little better prepared with facts and figures. It was inevitable there would be questions about costs and impacts. I was surprised that whatever governance was in place for the Blackpool electrification project seemingly did not have an enormous flashing light and alarm bells ringing the second that it emerged that there may be any slippage of more than 1 or 2 days given the criticality and impact of "lost route knowledge" on a closure of longer than 6 months. The 3 week slippage has cost Northern dear.

I was also a bit surprised by the overuse and over reliance on the "we can do it, we can deliver" sort of macho attitude to delivering the timetable change process in Network Rail. It's all very well being positive and upbeat but there must come a point at which reality takes over and you realise you won't achieve what you set out to do. I thought the System Operator lady was pretty decent once I stopped grinding my teeth about her use of jargon and management speak. She clearly knows her job and the railway.

I was least impressed by GTR. I got a sense we didn't get the whole truth in that session. I don't know or use GTR's services very well / much so I speak from a position of relative ignorance compared to some on this forum. I find it staggering that you get to 2-3 days before launch and only then realise you're drowning in sh*t because you can't match your staff resources and competence to the service you've been planning to run for the better part of 2 years (barring the rephased aspect of the core service). I understand from comments elsewhere that what GTR submitted to NR in terms of timetables was not of the highest quality so far more rework was needed - no mention of that this afternoon from GTR. I did find the "blame NR" line that they took rather objectionable when NR have delivered a functioning and pretty reliable infrastructure across London. Also not mention at all of delayed delivery of the class 700s nor of the impact of mileage accumulation on driver utilisation. Pretty poor stuff from GTR.

While I understand MPs were obviously looking for one or two people to hang a noose around I did find it somewhat odd that they struggled with the concept of committee working and needing to secure a consensus to make things happen. Isn't that how a lot of parliamentary business is done? I doubt Lillian Greenwood can overrule her fellow committee members if they can't agree a final position on a report and there is a split opinion down party lines. I am not sure how the apparent desire to have a "single point of responsibilty" would work when you have 20 or so commercially driven bodies represented in an industry whose key obligation is to their shareholders and no one else. If you put NR in the decision seat then you just ensure that NR gets a barrage of claims if someone decides their decision was "wrong" in some way. It may appear unsatisfactory but I think there are great dangers in trying to unpick long established broadly collaborative processes and especially to do so in any sort of hurry which is probably what Failing Grayling will demand whenever the Glaister review concludes.

 

[MikeWM]

*The* timetable wasn't so different to the draft timetables, and there was a point during which they would have been having to make plans to operate it at which they thought they were going to be introducing the full timetable?

This doesn't seem to add up. It seems to me that GTR waited to plan against *the* timetable without having previously cared to check whether or not they could plan against *any* timetable?

I have to agree. I haven't analysed it in great detail, but far as I know the timetable that was published in mid-March on the Railplan2020 site (that I had a good moan about at the time!) is very close to the 'final' May 20th timetable, certainly on the GN side. So I've been confused for some time how relevant this 'last minute from NR' excuse actually is, in the end I suspect not very.

 

[Mutant Lemming]

Why not give Horton's job to Branson ? (haw haw haw)

 

[MikeWM]

Just noticed on RTT that it appears they cancelled the last Kings Lynn of the night, the 2312 off KGX. An incredible end to an incredible day.

 

[OwenB]

Looks like they're struggling again this morning from WGC/HAT with the early London-bound trains. Only the 6.25 has run since the 4.04. 6.37 now delayed/cancelled. The 6.55 will be rammed

Decided that the 6.13 HAT-MOG would be safest this morning

 

[Failed Unit]

My simple view about GTR is that they knew.

1. All the drivers need to have class 700 traction knowledge.

2. All GN drivers need to have knowledge of the route at least to London Blackfriars.

3. Similar with “south of the river drivers” they need to know the route to at least Finsbury Park

4. The draft timetables needed a higher number of drivers to be trained on the above 3 points than the final one.

GTR wasn’t progressing fast enough on 1-3. But suddenly it is all network rails fault. We probably will never know what % had traction/ route knowledge on 22nd May. But the key fact was not enough and I fail to see why that was going to change if network rail had delivered the timetable at T-12. As I said no one has much confidence it will be delivered at T+12. (With this T being 22nd May). Hopefully GTR will be back in October explaining why the have failed yet again. It is going to be a grim summer for travel on GTR.

Northern I expect will be sorted by then.

 

[Failed Unit]

Looks like they're struggling again this morning from WGC/HAT with the early London-bound trains. Only the 6.25 has run since the 4.04. 6.37 now delayed/cancelled. The 6.55 will be rammed

Decided that the 6.13 HAT-MOG would be safest this morning

The inners look fairy grim this morning. Normally they are propping up the rest of the service. Need to check but does the 0602 WGC - London ever run as scheduled?