I think that surely Schedule 8 debunks this as
"The way the performance regime works means that we do not calculate the payments to operators for individual incidents. There are only two exceptions to this:
- For significant incidents of disruption, we sometimes estimate the performance payments relating to that incident. These estimates help us to make decisions on how to improve the railway.
- Where an identified third party has caused delay, for instance a vehicle has struck a bridge, and we consider there is a realistic prospect of recovering the cost, it will calculate the cost of that incident for the purposes of pursuing a claim against the third party.
Above quoted from Network Rail -
https://www.networkrail.co.uk/indus...anies/payments-for-disruption-on-the-railway/
I would say that the effective closure of a major north-south link for many hours falls into this category.
No, this is quite consistent with what I posted. Schedule 8 does not operate at the level of individual incidents because it relies on aggregating lateness across monitoring points and service groups against benchmarks and applying calculations in blocks of 28-day periods. A large incident on a multi-user main line will affect multiple service groups and locations well away from the original location.
So during the ‘inquest’ into major incidents (typically causing over X-thousand minutes of delay or YYY cancellations) the payments may be estimated with a view to deciding if there is likely to be a business case for a scheme to reduce the likelihood of a recurrence or assist with faster recovery. This obviously works better with things that might recur, such as trespass and flooding, or where assets are becoming hard to maintain. It is less helpful for events like a lineside fire where the same building is unlikely to burn down twice.
Estimation of Schedule 8 payments in this context is an internal Network Rail process. This is not to say that sensible joint performance improvement planning will not also involve local operators who might comment that savings in overtime and Delay Repay are additional reasons for proceeding with particular schemes.
(During my 40-year career on the railway before retirement I was extensively involved in performance management, recording, reporting, improvement, compensation, attribution, targeting and so forth. I was also ‘stranded’ in Scotland by the Preston incident and had to return south via York.)
Anyway, this is rather off-thread for the original question. I have to say that I am still waiting to see much evidence of the original premises. Who exactly at Northern is demonstrating any ‘will’ to cancel trains? Surely the rostering staff, controllers and others are trying their hardest to run as many trains as possible?
I would also expect that Northern has to record and report all cancellations to the DfT and Transport for the North as franchising and monitoring bodies. These results will be compared to targets and Northern may be subject to normal sanctions if these are missed. Has there been any evidence that these processes are not being applied? This is a matter dear to my heart as local rail travel in the Hope Valley on Sundays is a complete lottery at present and I am getting tired of driving to places like Dronfield and Chesterfield rather than using the train.