MEN article-"Northern Rail is crumbling from the inside out and things are only going to get worse"

[underbank]

It is likely that there was no other unit available possibly due to a short notice failure. A 2 car 144 is surely better than a cancellation, particularly on an off peak service that would probably usually cope as a 2 car 158.

For those who can't get on due to it already being full, it's exactly the same as a cancellation. (Or presumably worse as a cancellation may have meant a RRB).

 

[Robertj21a]

I'm currently on a BDI - BPN service which is a two carriage 144 and has left people behind at almost every station we've stopped at.

Northern Rail have really outdone themselves this morning.

Embarrassing and shocking.

Approx how many people left behind ? - could they physically not get on, or just decided to leave it ?. Which train ?

 

[trickyvegas]

For those who can't get on due to it already being full, it's exactly the same as a cancellation. (Or presumably worse as a cancellation may have meant a RRB).

Actually its worse, as you wouldn't wait for a cancelled train to arrive.

 

[Bovverboy]

It is likely that there was no other unit available possibly due to a short notice failure.

The 144 appears to have been taken off the York - Leeds short and whatever had been on the Blackpool diagram went on the Leeds. This was achieved by running both into P7 at York, instead of the ex-Blackpool going into P11. Whether the exchange was intended or accidental, I obviously don't know.

A 2 car 144 is surely better than a cancellation, particularly on an off peak service that would probably usually cope as a 2 car 158.

If a two-car 144 was leaving passengers at most stations, then a two-car 158 would have had a significant number of standing passengers. I'm sure there would have been a time when running an off-peak, medium-distance service, so full would have been considered unacceptable.

 

[Glenn1969]

This is Calder Valley route which does get busy. Trains need to be made longer , more frequent or preferably both. Maybe 2tph to Preston should be an aspiration for the next franchise?

 

[Swimbar]

David Brown the MD of Northern has now accepted that their service is unacceptable, according to a BBC report following a complaint:-

Replying to the email, Mr Brown apologised, saying the cancellations were down to staff shortages after a "large amount sickness" at the Sheffield depot.
He went on to say that he believed "rail travel here in the North...is no longer acceptable" but said "huge improvements", including the replacement of the controversial Pacer trains, were coming.

 

[js1000]

The Northern ITT was published in February 2015. At that time the Network Rail CP5 Enhancements Delivery Plan, December 2014 version, had the GRIP 6 complete milestones for the Oxford Road and Piccadilly schemes as December 2018, as part of the North of England Programmes (LNW) project. They were annotated "Configuration State 7 - Delivers the interventions to enable the operation of the proposed timetable in December 2018". The Ordsall Chord had a GRIP 6 complete milestone of December 2016, as had electrification from Manchester to Preston and Victoria to Stalybridge. These were annotated "Configuration State 5 - Delivers the interventions to enable the operation of the proposed timetable in December 2016".

The TSRs attached to ITT specified service enhancements in two stages, for December 2017 and December 2019. Most of the changes related to the Ordsall Chord were in the 2017 TSRs, but the Bradford - Manchester Airport service, via the Chord, was not required until December 2019. It is a reasonable deduction that this service was considered dependent on the capacity enhancement provided by Oxford Road and Piccadilly schemes.

The Northern franchise award to Arriva was announced on 09 December 2015 and signature of the contract was confirmed on 23 December 2015. The franchise agreement was dated 22 December 2015. The TSRs attached to it included all the Northern Hub service enhancements from the ITT, with the same introduction dates.

The Hendy report was published on 25 November 2015. It did not specifically reference the Oxford Road and Piccadilly schemes, but the Northern Hub project as a whole remained in CP5 with completion shown as December 2019. The CP5 Enhancements Delivery Plan was not updated until March 2016 to show the Hendy changes; at that time the Oxford Road and Piccadilly schemes (now designated "Package C") were still included but with the milestones changed to "Subject to TWAO".

It is not credible that, in the short time available between Hendy publication and contract signature, the Arriva bid was reworked. It can be deduced that the redacted Infrastructure Assumptions Document (IAD) included Oxford Road and Piccadilly completion by December 2019, evidenced by the lack of change between the ITT and franchise agreement TSRs.

In December 2016, Northern and Porterbrook announced the conversion of 8 of Northern's Class 319 EMUs to Class 769 bi-modes, with the support of the Rail North Partnership (i.e. DfT). These were to be used on services from Wigan to Stalybridge and Alderley Edge. From this it can be deduced that the IAD included Lostock to Wigan and Victoria to Stalybridge electrification by December 2017, to enable Northern to use the 319s included in the original fleet plan. The 769s are still not in service, forcing Northern to use DMUs on these routes and causing the DMU fleet to be overstretched.

In July 2017 DfT announced cancellation of the project to electrify the Windermere branch. In December 2018 Northern ordered an additional three Class 195 DMUs to operate Windermere services. From this it can be deduced that the IAD included Windermere electrification, which would have enabled Northern to use Class 331 EMUs per its original fleet plan.

So, the public have been duped by over optimistic political announcements, backed up by Network Rail's enthusiasm to take on more than they could reasonably deliver. The TOCs appear to have gone along with this to promise levels of services it's unreasonable to expect.

Yes and no. Northern went along with it for the May 2018 timetable and tried to make the best of a bad situation.

But they have gradually realised it is not possible to operate a stable, reliable service. They've effectively given up on the timetable as it is and as their MD said recently they want to abolish the franchise agreement in favour of a management contract which would allow a revised timetable to provide a stable service. At the moment they're bound by the services the DfT want as part of the franchise agreement but which clearly are not capable of operating within performance targets.

 

[jayah]

The Northern ITT was published in February 2015. At that time the Network Rail CP5 Enhancements Delivery Plan, December 2014 version, had the GRIP 6 complete milestones for the Oxford Road and Piccadilly schemes as December 2018, as part of the North of England Programmes (LNW) project. They were annotated "Configuration State 7 - Delivers the interventions to enable the operation of the proposed timetable in December 2018". The Ordsall Chord had a GRIP 6 complete milestone of December 2016, as had electrification from Manchester to Preston and Victoria to Stalybridge. These were annotated "Configuration State 5 - Delivers the interventions to enable the operation of the proposed timetable in December 2016".

The TSRs attached to ITT specified service enhancements in two stages, for December 2017 and December 2019. Most of the changes related to the Ordsall Chord were in the 2017 TSRs, but the Bradford - Manchester Airport service, via the Chord, was not required until December 2019. It is a reasonable deduction that this service was considered dependent on the capacity enhancement provided by Oxford Road and Piccadilly schemes.

The Northern franchise award to Arriva was announced on 09 December 2015 and signature of the contract was confirmed on 23 December 2015. The franchise agreement was dated 22 December 2015. The TSRs attached to it included all the Northern Hub service enhancements from the ITT, with the same introduction dates.

The Hendy report was published on 25 November 2015. It did not specifically reference the Oxford Road and Piccadilly schemes, but the Northern Hub project as a whole remained in CP5 with completion shown as December 2019. The CP5 Enhancements Delivery Plan was not updated until March 2016 to show the Hendy changes; at that time the Oxford Road and Piccadilly schemes (now designated "Package C") were still included but with the milestones changed to "Subject to TWAO".

It is not credible that, in the short time available between Hendy publication and contract signature, the Arriva bid was reworked. It can be deduced that the redacted Infrastructure Assumptions Document (IAD) included Oxford Road and Piccadilly completion by December 2019, evidenced by the lack of change between the ITT and franchise agreement TSRs.

In December 2016, Northern and Porterbrook announced the conversion of 8 of Northern's Class 319 EMUs to Class 769 bi-modes, with the support of the Rail North Partnership (i.e. DfT). These were to be used on services from Wigan to Stalybridge and Alderley Edge. From this it can be deduced that the IAD included Lostock to Wigan and Victoria to Stalybridge electrification by December 2017, to enable Northern to use the 319s included in the original fleet plan. The 769s are still not in service, forcing Northern to use DMUs on these routes and causing the DMU fleet to be overstretched.

In July 2017 DfT announced cancellation of the project to electrify the Windermere branch. In December 2018 Northern ordered an additional three Class 195 DMUs to operate Windermere services. From this it can be deduced that the IAD included Windermere electrification, which would have enabled Northern to use Class 331 EMUs per its original fleet plan.

I don't accept your reasonable deduction re. Bradford to the Airport.

The Northern Franchise agreement and ITT only reference CS5, assuming they have the same meanings across all 3 documents and it is not for a NR document to decide if something supports a DfT timetable or not, especially if the latter did not exist at the time it was written.

The CP5 delivery plans were discredited before the ink was dry, well before Hendy and it is perfectly possible Oxford Rd / Piccadilly remodelling on a ludicrous timescale did not form part of the contract.

 

[jayah]

Yes and no. Northern went along with it for the May 2018 timetable and tried to make the best of a bad situation.

But they have gradually realised it is not possible to operate a stable, reliable service. They've effectively given up on the timetable as it is and as their MD said recently they want to abolish the franchise agreement in favour of a management contract which would allow a revised timetable to provide a stable service. At the moment they're bound by the services the DfT want as part of the franchise agreement but which clearly are not capable of operating within performance targets.

The franchise agreements is based on assumptions about the infrastructure. If the infrastructure changes agreed haven't been delivered they are change mechanism. They are not bound to uphold the timetable if infrastructure changes they are not responsible for hasn't happened.

 

[jayah]

So, the public have been duped by over optimistic political announcements, backed up by Network Rail's enthusiasm to take on more than they could reasonably deliver. The TOCs appear to have gone along with this to promise levels of services it's unreasonable to expect.

Having seen so many press announcements of forthcoming jam tomorrow, often the same jam announced at frequent intervals, it's no longer possible to believe anything until it's delivered.

I attended 3 rounds of public consultation about the Hope Valley Capacity Improvement Scheme. Locally we know the original plans for that were being prepared in the days of Railtrack, and Network Rail were talking to the Sheffield Planning Department about new station facilties at Dore in 2005.

Memory says that at all 3 consultations we were assured finance was in place for completion in 2018. Sadly it had to go to a public inquiry due to some relatively minor objections to the Bamford loop. Suggestions to split the project in two and do the Dore section first were rejected by Network Rail - it's all or nothing. And it's nothing we've got until at least 2023!

Where would all these trains go after New Mills?

Hope Valley capacity enhancement should mean longer trains not even more of them.

 

[Starmill]

The CP5 delivery plans were discredited before the ink was dry, well before Hendy and it is perfectly possible Oxford Rd / Piccadilly remodelling on a ludicrous timescale did not form part of the contract

It's possible, yes. It's just unlikely. They're redacted for a reason.

We know that the company is in negotiations with the Department over something, and we know also that there are significant problems with the timetable in this area. Furthermore, we know that an awful lot of the TSR2 (cumulatively with what was supposed to come before it) has not been delivered and much of it has tacitly been abandoned, regardless of the nice words in use. This means that the company is in breach in a significant way. We also know that the company is well under-performing, subjecting it to performance penalties and higher costs.

Finally, we now know from leaks that the Department is up against some time pressure to act. This is the reason that the 31st March date has been doing the rounds. I would suggest that this is driven by the time available for them to reach a settlement - or for the case to go to the Courts if they don't.

If the company is in breach, but they have a legal argument that the Department are also in breach, they will need to reach a settlement. @Greybeard33 's summary of where the legal arguments of the company may have their source is quite good.

 

[Class195]

The 144 appears to have been taken off the York - Leeds short and whatever had been on the Blackpool diagram went on the Leeds. This was achieved by running both into P7 at York, instead of the ex-Blackpool going into P11. Whether the exchange was intended or accidental, I obviously don't know.



If a two-car 144 was leaving passengers at most stations, then a two-car 158 would have had a significant number of standing passengers. I'm sure there would have been a time when running an off-peak, medium-distance service, so full would have been considered unacceptable.

Intended or accidental it’s completely unacceptable for Northern to running 144s on York to Blackpool and back.

What on earth were they thinking? The conductor did his best to apologise but this is just another example of Northern incompetence.

One of the passengers at Halifax was in a wheelchair, zero chance of getting on. This shouldn’t be happening in 2019.

 

[cactustwirly]

Intended or accidental it’s completely unacceptable for Northern to running 144s on York to Blackpool and back.

What on earth were they thinking? The conductor did his best to apologise but this is just another example of Northern incompetence.

One of the passengers at Halifax was in a wheelchair, zero chance of getting on. This shouldn’t be happening in 2019.

Would you prefer no train instead?

 

[Bovverboy]

So, the public have been duped by over optimistic political announcements, backed up by Network Rail's enthusiasm to take on more than they could reasonably deliver. The TOCs appear to have gone along with this to promise levels of services it's unreasonable to expect.

Yes and no. Northern went along with it for the May 2018 timetable and tried to make the best of a bad situation.
But they have gradually realised it is not possible to operate a stable, reliable service.

It's not possible for Northern to operate a stable, reliable service because it doesn't have the staff, and to a lesser extent, the rolling stock, to do so. Both of those deficiencies are of Northern's own creation. The timetable might be ambitious in places, but the fact that a particular section of route might be close to capacity is no reason in itself for half the journeys to fail to operate.

 

[Killingworth]

Where would all these trains go after New Mills?

Hope Valley capacity enhancement should mean longer trains not even more of them.

Very fair question. The original Hope Valley scheme presented to the first round of public consultations was to give paths for 4 fast trains an hour and included a loop at Chinley. It may not have inspired great confidence in the planning when that loop was omitted for the second round because there were unlikely to be enough paths into Piccadilly, and possibly not into Sheffield either.

Confidence in the planning wasn't improved when the originally suggested loop at Grindleford was found to be more difficult than expected due to required cuttings and embankments - and the woodland needed belongs to the National Trust who were prepared to resist all the way through the courts! So the final plan was for a loop at Bamford.

Which brings us back to 2005 when Network Rail were preparing a simpler scheme which only involved the work around Dore.

Longer trains are certainly part of the answer. Lengthening platforms could have been done years ago. All the Hope Valley stations used to service trains of up to 6 coaches. They were all reduced to take 4 or less. Hope, Hathersage and Grindleford were supposed to have been restored to 4 car length by the end of December. Work is still in progress as at this morning. Dore should have been long enough to take 6 by December 2018 but looks more like it will be 2023 if we're lucky. (More 6 car TPE trains now stop and cause delays when the rear 3 carriages have to load or unload through the leading coach of the second unit.)

This has repercussions as overflow from one overloaded train knocks on as all 3 TOCs plough their own furrows, each getting in the way of the others!

At present a 6 car 7.07 from Sheffield is well loaded, and at 3 it's inadequate with the overload filling the 4 car East Midlands service - hopefully 4 and not 2!

The present assumption is that TPE's 185s may take over that route and be able to offer 6 coaches. If that happens reliably there is pent up demand to fill much of the peak hour space.

On Northern there is pent up leisure demand that recovered very quickly after the Saturdays strikes and will do even better when the Sunday service can be relied on and trains can make connections more reliably . All Hope Valley stations are currently in the worst 25 in the country for punctuality at present!

So having a third fast service may have to wait until congestion issues in both Manchester and Sheffield can be improved. In the meantime we may have to start thinking how 8 or 9 car trains can be accommodated. That thinking needs to be now, not when the 6 car trains are overloaded.

After my Christmas trip into Essex, seeing the long trains on two lines heading into London from Southend (a similar distance as between Sheffield and Manchester or Leeds), I was reminded just how far the North is behind.

____________________________________________
Platform lengthening by Network Rail is due to be completed at Hathersage and Grindleford by December 2019. A lot remains to be done by tomorrow.

 

[158756]

Would you prefer no train instead?

If they really have nothing else, a 144 is better than nothing. Whether there actually was nothing else is unclear, but Northern do need to move away from the random unit generator.

 

[Glenn1969]

The Northern TSR included enhancements on several routes that are currently undeliverable due to infrastructure issues. The Atherton, Calder Valley, Macclesfield, Hazel Grove and Northwich lines were all supposed to get badly needed enhancements that appear to have been quietly abandoned

I am prepared to give Northern until the end of the franchise to deliver the TSR but suspect I am in a minority

 

[jayah]

This is Calder Valley route which does get busy. Trains need to be made longer , more frequent or preferably both. Maybe 2tph to Preston should be an aspiration for the next franchise?

Just make the trains longer!

Hebden Bridge to Leeds is already 4tph one via Mirfield.
Then 1tph does Halifax to Leeds and Hull.
Another 1tph does Huddersfield Bradford.
And on top of all that lot you have Grand Central.

The Calder Valley is absolutely saturated with tiny loss making trains.

 

[jayah]

It's possible, yes. It's just unlikely. They're redacted for a reason.

We know that the company is in negotiations with the Department over something, and we know also that there are significant problems with the timetable in this area. Furthermore, we know that an awful lot of the TSR2 (cumulatively with what was supposed to come before it) has not been delivered and much of it has tacitly been abandoned, regardless of the nice words in use. This means that the company is in breach in a significant way. We also know that the company is well under-performing, subjecting it to performance penalties and higher costs.

Finally, we now know from leaks that the Department is up against some time pressure to act. This is the reason that the 31st March date has been doing the rounds. I would suggest that this is driven by the time available for them to reach a settlement - or for the case to go to the Courts if they don't.

If the company is in breach, but they have a legal argument that the Department are also in breach, they will need to reach a settlement. @Greybeard33 's summary of where the legal arguments of the company may have their source is quite good.

The IAD may not be published but the Franchise only has one mapping date in it and that says CS5.

Piccadilly / Oxford Road timescales were GRIP 3 by March 2014. The project doesn't even go to ORR for determination until then. They have no business publishing delivery plans for projects that have not even been costed or approved but it was evident a long time before the end of 2015 it was going nowhere fast.

 

[Swimbar]

Just make the trains longer!

Hebden Bridge to Leeds is already 4tph one via Mirfield.
Then 1tph does Halifax to Leeds and Hull.
Another 1tph does Huddersfield Bradford.
And on top of all that lot you have Grand Central.

The Calder Valley is absolutely saturated with tiny loss making trains.

But many of them don't actually run!!

 

[Andyh82]

It's not possible for Northern to operate a stable, reliable service because it doesn't have the staff, and to a lesser extent, the rolling stock, to do so. Both of those deficiencies are of Northern's own creation. The timetable might be ambitious in places, but the fact that a particular section of route might be close to capacity is no reason in itself for half the journeys to fail to operate.

Is it not the case that they do have the staff (Monday to Saturday at least), but they don’t have enough when many are being taken off regular duties to learn the new trains and/or taking lieu days due to working over time learning new trains?

The learning probably being more intensive than originally planned due to the time period between new trains arriving and the pacers being withdrawn having significantly decreased?

 

[talltim]

Would you prefer no train instead?

Why do people always say this? At the bare minimum they want an on-time train they can all get on.

 

[Class195]

Would you prefer no train instead?

As others have intelligently said, you might as well have not run it due to leaving people behind on the platforms.

Next.

 

[Class195]

Why do people always say this? At the bare minimum they want an on-time train they can all get on.

At least you get my point TallTim. I'm not sure why I keep reading such a moronic response of ”would you prefer no train instead?”

Explain that to the people who couldn't board the packed and standing 144 today, including the person in the wheelchair.

 

[jayah]

Is it not the case that they do have the staff (Monday to Saturday at least), but they don’t have enough when many are being taken off regular duties to learn the new trains and/or taking lieu days due to working over time learning new trains?

The learning probably being more intensive than originally planned due to the time period between new trains arriving and the pacers being withdrawn having significantly decreased?

They have 393 trains and 1500 drivers. Is that enough?

The fact they have enough 4 days a week may prove they do, only they choose when they want to work, rather than the company paying them.

 

[jayah]

But many of them don't actually run!!

That is a start.

Next, make the ones that do longer!

 

[johnnychips]

As others have intelligently said, you might as well have not run it due to leaving people behind on the platforms.

Next.

What? So you remove, say, 200 people on an overcrowded train, but some are left behind. But you might as well not have run it, so there will be 500 people on the next train. I take it you were being ironic.

 

[Class195]

Is York to Blackpool a contained route?

When this turns into Scarborough to Blackpool in May, how is this going to work?

It doesn’t work now and with the current TPE mess with getting to and from Scarborough, is this going to be yet another non existent service?

 

[jayah]

It's possible, yes. It's just unlikely. They're redacted for a reason.

We know that the company is in negotiations with the Department over something, and we know also that there are significant problems with the timetable in this area. Furthermore, we know that an awful lot of the TSR2 (cumulatively with what was supposed to come before it) has not been delivered and much of it has tacitly been abandoned, regardless of the nice words in use. This means that the company is in breach in a significant way. We also know that the company is well under-performing, subjecting it to performance penalties and higher costs.

Finally, we now know from leaks that the Department is up against some time pressure to act. This is the reason that the 31st March date has been doing the rounds. I would suggest that this is driven by the time available for them to reach a settlement - or for the case to go to the Courts if they don't.

If the company is in breach, but they have a legal argument that the Department are also in breach, they will need to reach a settlement. @Greybeard33 's summary of where the legal arguments of the company may have their source is quite good.

A court case would provide some much needed disinfectant over this sorry episode.

An alphabet soup of ECAMs, PRs, GRIPs, ORR Determinations, HLOS, SOFA, EDPs, ITTs and many more and the result is a bloody shambles.

Someone is making a good living out of this lot.

 

[Starmill]

Why do people always say this? At the bare minimum they want an on-time train they can all get on.

Precisely. This is fundamentally what people have paid for.