Haywain
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 3 Feb 2013
- Messages
- 15,186
When it was renewed it didn't result in Delay Repay being introduced. I'm sure the DfT can explain.Which isn't a new franchise?
When it was renewed it didn't result in Delay Repay being introduced. I'm sure the DfT can explain.Which isn't a new franchise?
When it was renewed it didn't result in Delay Repay being introduced. I'm sure the DfT can explain.
But other franchises (eg Southeastern) did introduce delayrepay as part of the direct award. GWR obviously have something over the DfT.Because it wasn’t a new franchise- it was a direct award based on extension of the existing financial terms. Any changes to compensation regime would require a renegotiation of financial terms; due to the significant impact that delay compensation would have on the contract - and not something the DfT was prepared to sacrifice the cost for. But that’s way outwith the scope of this thread.
It was a direct award. So not a true new franchise. When it is re let I'm sure delay repay will be brought in.When it was renewed it didn't result in Delay Repay being introduced. I'm sure the DfT can explain.
It was a direct award. So not a true new franchise. When it is re let I'm sure delay repay will be brought in.
See MikeWh's answer above.But other franchises (eg Southeastern) did introduce delayrepay as part of the direct award.
Right so employ more drivers to sit around playing cards at key locations "just in case" this costs £. Then the fares can go up to pay for the them and the delay repay.
Some people really don't think things through....
Go back a few years and spare drivers/guards were a feature at key locations, waiting to go into action in cases of service disruption or sickness of colleagues. Fares then were much lower then (even taking into account inflation) than they are now.
There was, of course, no Delay Repay but we have been reliably informed on here that the amounts paid out in compensation for delays is trivial in the grand scheme of things and obviously a key result of having spare turns is a reduction in delays anyway, particularly knock-on delays.
Some people, indeed, do not think things through.
In a fargmented and monetised system? Think it through and with drivers pay substantially more than in yesterday. A spare crew at one location in two shifts will set you back quarter of a million a year. multiply that around all the ATW train crew depots and your into £ millions per annum.
It is not about whether it is realistic to actually provide that cover - but if the railway decides not to do so, they cannot claim the delay is "entirely" outside their control. They were the ones that decided on that specific wording, so they must uphold it.Exactly!
By my calculation just the Cambrian would need 2 spare crews per shift, so that is 8 staff a day, and that doesn't take into account cover for holidays, training etc. Even if they are only on £30k a year that is more than a quarter of a miilion just on wages without adding the NI, tax etc into the equation. Now bring all the other depots just in Wales and we are into many millions. The only people who are going to pay for this is the passenger.
Obviously some on here don't mind their fares going up!!
Again, the root cause of the issue was completely outside the control of the railway industry - a truck hit the bridge. The fact that it may have been possible to mitigate the impact doesn't change the cause.It is not about whether it is realistic to actually provide that cover - but if the railway decides not to do so, they cannot claim the delay is "entirely" outside their control.
ForTheLoveOf clearly doesn't do root cause analysis.Again, the root cause of the issue was completely outside the control of the railway industry - a truck hit the bridge. The fact that it may have been possible to mitigate the impact doesn't change the cause.
It is not about whether it is realistic to actually provide that cover - but if the railway decides not to do so, they cannot claim the delay is "entirely" outside their control. They were the ones that decided on that specific wording, so they must uphold it.
In a fargmented and monetised system? Think it through and with drivers pay substantially more than in yesterday. A spare crew at one location in two shifts will set you back quarter of a million a year. multiply that around all the ATW train crew depots and your into £ millions per annum.
Again, the root cause of the issue was completely outside the control of the railway industry - a truck hit the bridge. The fact that it may have been possible to mitigate the impact doesn't change the cause.
Until you get to something that the Railway can't evade.But how far down the trail does that continue?
Say, eight locations x £250k = £2m pa
In 2016 ATW paid a dividend of £20m to its parent (Arriva UK Trains).
And you could deduct the saving in Delay Repay from that £2m.
Until you get to something that the Railway can't evade.
E.g.
Q: Why was the train cancelled from Manchester ?
A: Because the incoming unit from the south never reached Manchester.
Q: Why was there not a spare crew and unit at Manchester in case of such an eventuality ?
A: We didn't want to pay for such contingency measures.
That's not how RCA works, you have to follow a single path. A spare train would be a mitigation measure, but it's not in the causal chain.E.g.
Q: Why was the train cancelled from Manchester ?
A: Because the incoming unit from the south never reached Manchester.
Q: Why was there not a spare crew and unit at Manchester in case of such an eventuality ?
A: We didn't want to pay for such contingency measures.
If you were to do an analysis of everything that has caused a delay to a particular service, in virtually all cases you couldn't say that the cause of the delay is "entirely" outside the control of the rail industry. At the end of the day a lot of delays are fundamentally caused because the railway has to set a limit to what it protects against.ForTheLoveOf clearly doesn't do root cause analysis.
Again, the root cause of the issue was completely outside the control of the railway industry - a truck hit the bridge.
That seems reasonable, most delays will be due to failings of the Railway. However, having a truck strike a bridge is not.If you were to do an analysis of everything that has caused a delay to a particular service, in virtually all cases you couldn't say that the cause of the delay is "entirely" outside the control of the rail industry.
Root cause analysis is perfectly illustrated by najaB's post, immediately above yours.If you were to do an analysis of everything that has caused a delay to a particular service, in virtually all cases you couldn't say that the cause of the delay is "entirely" outside the control of the rail industry. At the end of the day a lot of delays are fundamentally caused because the railway has to set a limit to what it protects against.
Although the bridge is the property of the railway, I seem to remember that putting a large metal bar across the road in advance of the bridge is another matter entirely because the road is not the property of the railway and building over roads is a complex matter.What about installing devices that stop bridge strikes - you could argue that that IS in the control of the railway industry?
That seems reasonable, most delays will be due to failings of the Railway. However, having a truck strike a bridge is not.
What relevance is that?Who built the bridge?
Who built the bridge?