LNER Reduced Service today 27th Jan

[Swimbar]

LNER providing a reduced service today due to more trains than normal requiring attention.
Is this poor service from Hitachi as we now seem to have short formed trains every day in order to provide a decent service?

 

[Peter Mugridge]

No, there was over-running engineering works compounded by a signal failure. There was even an apology from Network Rail at King's Crtoss in the afternoon.

 

[Far north 37]

No, there was over-running engineering works compounded by a signal failure. There was even an apology from Network Rail at King's Crtoss in the afternoon.

A lot of LNER'S tweets yesterday were saying that services were cancelled due to a high number of trains under repair.

 

[Southern Dvr]

LNER is consistently between 2 & 5 units short for service.

 

[voyagerdude220]

No, there was over-running engineering works compounded by a signal failure. There was even an apology from Network Rail at King's Crtoss in the afternoon.

Whilst there were delays because of the problems you mentioned, the reason I've seen from LNER about yesterday's disruption was a shortage of available trains.

I seem to remember them mentioning 2x Azuma and 1 Class 91 were unavailable due to various faults.

 

[Snow1964]

Even if there was an overrun on engineering, the reason given on disruption webpage was lack of serviceable trains.

Perhaps they need to order couple of spare Azuma sets, or not get rid of class 91s so fast until the Azuma are all fixed.

You don’t need to be a genius to work out the correct number of trains should allow sufficient for the full daily service (only after assuming some are being serviced or repaired), so need extra to cover those. If consistently 2+ short as suggested above then at least 2 short of what they should have ordered.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Even if there was an overrun on engineering, the reason given on disruption webpage was lack of serviceable trains.
Perhaps they need to order couple of spare Azuma sets, or not get rid of class 91s so fast until the Azuma are all fixed.
You don’t need to be a genius to work out the correct number of trains should allow sufficient for the full daily service (only after assuming some are being serviced or repaired), so need extra to cover those. If consistently 2+ short as suggested above then at least 2 short of what they should have ordered.

That's not how the IEP contract works.
The numbers were hard-wired into the contract by DfT, which was then just passed to VTEC/LNER to work with.
All the trains are owned by Agility/Hitachi, who have to meet availability targets to get their money.
No scope for "ordering a couple of spare units" I'm afraid.
If Hitachi can't provide the number of trains (diagrams) contracted, they will be losing money.

 

[Snow1964]

That's not how the IEP contract works.
The numbers were hard-wired into the contract by DfT, which was then just passed to VTEC/LNER to work with.
All the trains are owned by Agility/Hitachi, who have to meet availability targets to get their money.
No scope for "ordering a couple of spare units" I'm afraid.
If Hitachi can't provide the number of trains (diagrams) contracted, they will be losing money.

Illogical : Numbers are hard-wired into a contract with DfT .....and can't provide contracted diagrams
You don't abide by one contract and choose to not abide by another. It should be both or neither.

Sorry, but using a contractual argument selectively is a dumb excuse (even if that is what happens in practice, due to weak enforcement of contract)

 

[800001]

Whilst there were delays because of the problems you mentioned, the reason I've seen from LNER about yesterday's disruption was a shortage of available trains.

I seem to remember them mentioning 2x Azuma and 1 Class 91 were unavailable due to various faults.

2 x Mk4 and 1 X Azuma failed on Bounds Green that was cause of the alterations from Kings Cross yesterday.

1 mk4 had suspension issue, and 1 mk4 brake issue.

The Azuma had Pantograph issues

 

[Clarence Yard]

Illogical : Numbers are hard-wired into a contract with DfT .....and can't provide contracted diagrams
You don't abide by one contract and choose to not abide by another. It should be both or neither.

Sorry, but using a contractual argument selectively is a dumb excuse (even if that is what happens in practice, due to weak enforcement of contract)

The contract lays down what happens if units are not provided so there is no "weak enforcement" - as a TOC you have to just follow what the contract says and if it is Agility's fault will result in a payment, which can be just a small proportion of the daily "Set Availability Payment", depending on the circumstances.

However, the contract relies on the right units being presented back to Agility at the right depot for the right maintenance window. This is a 363 day requirement so if the unit isn't presented back to Agility according to the contract, they can be excused any lack of availability the following day at no cost to themselves.

This is usually referred by them as "misbalances" and is behind most of the current shortforming on GWR. The contractual structure and content puts a lot of pressure on TOC Controls to keep the units in perfect balance, which sometimes you just cannot do.

 

[voyagerdude220]

2 x Mk4 and 1 X Azuma failed on Bounds Green that was cause of the alterations from Kings Cross yesterday.

1 mk4 had suspension issue, and 1 mk4 brake issue.

The Azuma had Pantograph issues

Thanks for clarifying

 

[Swimbar]

The contract lays down what happens if units are not provided so there is no "weak enforcement" - as a TOC you have to just follow what the contract says and if it is Agility's fault will result in a payment, which can be just a small proportion of the daily "Set Availability Payment", depending on the circumstances.

However, the contract relies on the right units being presented back to Agility at the right depot for the right maintenance window. This is a 363 day requirement so if the unit isn't presented back to Agility according to the contract, they can be excused any lack of availability the following day at no cost to themselves.

This is usually referred by them as "misbalances" and is behind most of the current shortforming on GWR. The contractual structure and content puts a lot of pressure on TOC Controls to keep the units in perfect balance, which sometimes you just cannot do.

So, if in order to provide an reasonable service, LNER restructure the days diagrams and some sets end the day at the wrong Depot that negates Agility's requirement to pay? Sorry that's crazy - its Agility's failure to provide the correct number of trains in the first place that creates the need to amend the daily diagrams.

 

[Starmill]

Illogical : Numbers are hard-wired into a contract with DfT .....and can't provide contracted diagrams
You don't abide by one contract and choose to not abide by another. It should be both or neither.

Sorry, but using a contractual argument selectively is a dumb excuse (even if that is what happens in practice, due to weak enforcement of contract)

What makes you think enforcement is weak?

If LNER leased train sets, and maintained them, when maintenance issues resulted in too few train sets available for the number of daily diagrams, the lease payments would still be due.

As LNER are hiring sets per train diagram, however, if the train is unavailable, then LNER don't have to pay anything.

To put it another way, the company gets a financial offset if the train is cancelled because of Hitachi's failure. What they choose to do with that is up to them.

 

[Snow1964]

What makes you think enforcement is weak?

If LNER leased train sets, and maintained them, when maintenance issues resulted in too few train sets available for the number of daily diagrams, the lease payments would still be due.

As LNER are hiring sets per train diagram, however, if the train is unavailable, then LNER don't have to pay anything.

To put it another way, the company gets a financial offset if the train is cancelled because of Hitachi's failure. What they choose to do with that is up to them.

What I am pointing out is that if first contract (Operator-DfT) says you have to operate XX trains, then the spin off contract (Operator-Train provider) should be at least as tough, so first contract is complied with.
Your logic is as they get some financial redress on second, they can ignore the primary contract to have enough servicable trains operating the minimum timetable.

My reasoning was if you have 2 contracts should be delivering both, and if you can't then don't rent enough trains, or the train supplier should buy more to rent out when other trains aren't available. I did word it wrongly that enforcement is weak, what I meant was it isn't financially tough enough to ensure it isn't breached (at the moment, cheap to underperform and not have enough trains)

 

[Starmill]

What I am pointing out is that if first contract (Operator-DfT) says you have to operate XX trains, then the spin off contract (Operator-Train provider) should be at least as tough, so first contract is complied with.
Your logic is as they get some financial redress on second, they can ignore the primary contract to have enough servicable trains operating the minimum timetable.

They are similarly tough in that both allow for a situation where services are cancelled or short-formed due to a shortage of available rolling stock.

 

[43096]

The contract lays down what happens if units are not provided so there is no "weak enforcement" - as a TOC you have to just follow what the contract says and if it is Agility's fault will result in a payment, which can be just a small proportion of the daily "Set Availability Payment", depending on the circumstances.

However, the contract relies on the right units being presented back to Agility at the right depot for the right maintenance window. This is a 363 day requirement so if the unit isn't presented back to Agility according to the contract, they can be excused any lack of availability the following day at no cost to themselves.

This is usually referred by them as "misbalances" and is behind most of the current shortforming on GWR. The contractual structure and content puts a lot of pressure on TOC Controls to keep the units in perfect balance, which sometimes you just cannot do.

Which is just an abysmally written contract. Remind me why DfT procure trains again?

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

So by that logic, if we had a string of, say, five consecutive days whereby Agility underprovided by half a dozen sets, they would be fined for the first day but could argue that misbalances on every evening prior to the subsequent four days which have occurred as a result of set shortages and control swaps to try and mitigate them, are actually the fault of the operator and not themselves?

If so then that IS crazy. That would be like delay attribution ignoring all knock on impacts and only allocating the initial incident timeloss to the original root cause.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Which is just an abysmally written contract. Remind me why DfT procure trains again?

It is, and you'd think they'd have learned by now.

But as even the NAO had to get involved to point out Hitachi were ripping us off...

 

[IanXC]

If so then that IS crazy. That would be like delay attribution ignoring all knock on impacts and only allocating the initial incident timeloss to the original root cause.

Thats only the current logic where TOCs are expected to perform a 'magic reset' and ensure that exactly the correct units are at the correct start points for the following day when there has been disruption on the previous day.

If you're short of units at point A, (start of day) thats your problem, whereas if youre short of units at point A (1500_ then thats the cause of delay's problem.

 

[Dave91131]

And of course absolutely and precisely zero of the points and factors discussed in the previous posts are of any interest whatsoever to the people affected on a daily basis by this shambolic set up of a toy trainset that is called the UK's rail network - the extortionate fare paying customer.

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

And of course absolutely and precisely zero of the points and factors discussed in the previous posts are of any interest whatsoever to the people affected on a daily basis by this shambolic set up of a toy trainset that is called the UK's rail network - the extortionate fare paying customer.

Very true. But certainly of interest to a reasonably informed online forum where people discuss why things are the way they are, not just what is happening and which brand name to blame.