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

[cactustwirly]

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.

Well they wouldn't have been able to get on it if it wasn't a 144, as it probably been nothing!
A bad train, even if it was a 144, is always better than nowt

 

[3270]

Out of interest which 144 was it and which service?

 

[Greybeard33]

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.

What are your grounds for believing that the NR timescale forecast for the Oxford Road/Piccadilly enhancements was "ludicrous"? The GRIP 6 start and complete milestones in the Dec 2014 EDP were 2y8m apart, the same as forecast for the Ordsall Chord project at that time. The Ordsall Chord eventually got authorised on 31 March 2015 and was completed on 10 December 2017, i.e. just over 2y8m later. According to this FOI request, the SoS received the Inspector's report from the public inquiry into the Oxford Road/Piccadilly TWAO on 10 February 2016. If the SoS had signed off the TWAO shortly thereafter, the work could have been completed by the EDP milestone date of December 2018. Even with some allowance for slippage, P15/16 could have been in service by now.

Nevertheless, after further scrutiny of the franchise agreement I concur that it seems likely the Oxford Road/Piccadilly scheme was one of those described as "Future Enhancement Schemes" in the franchise agreement and so not included in the Infrastructure Assumptions Document (IAD), nor considered necessary to implement the TSRs. Presumably over-optimistic timetable modelling had led the DfT to believe that 13tph, including the Bradford - Airport service, could be rammed through Piccadilly P13/14.

At least some of the base infrastructure enhancements included in the IAD can be inferred from the cross references to that document from section 44.1, Definitions, in the main franchise agreement document (pp.40-89). These are:

1. “Manchester Victoria to Ashburys Funded Authorisations”
   
2. “Manchester Victoria to Stalybridge Funded Authorisations”
   
3. “Ordsall Chord Funded Authorisations”
   
4. “Oxenholme to Windermere Funded Authorisations”
   
5. “Preston to Blackpool North Funded Authorisations”
   
6. “Preston to Manchester Funded Authorisations”
   
7. “Wigan to Bolton Funded Authorisations”

Of these, only #3, #5 & #6 have actually happened, and the latter two were so late that the related electrification timetable changes had to be deferred from December 2017 to May 2019. #4 has been cancelled, #1 has been deferred indefinitely, #7 has been deferred into CP6, with no start date yet, and #2 has been deferred until the TRU project is authorised.

 

[Class195]

Well they wouldn't have been able to get on it if it wasn't a 144, as it probably been nothing!
A bad train, even if it was a 144, is always better than nowt

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.

Point taken, but for those left behind on the platform it may as well not run. Zero benefits of running this service for them.

 

[Class195]

Out of interest which 144 was it and which service?

I didn't get the number of the unit apologies. It originated from York.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Would you prefer no train instead?

I'd prefer a timetable they can operate.

 

[talltim]

Well they wouldn't have been able to get on it if it wasn't a 144, as it probably been nothing!
A bad train, even if it was a 144, is always better than nowt

But it’s worse than what they were supposed to run. I get that on the best run railway things occasionally don’t work out right. But this isn’t the best run railway...
If they don’t have enough stock they should have ordered more. They currently have so many cancelled trains that they can’t be short of stock. If they can’t keep the stock they have going they should spend more on maintenance.

 

[jayah]

What are your grounds for believing that the NR timescale forecast for the Oxford Road/Piccadilly enhancements was "ludicrous"? The GRIP 6 start and complete milestones in the Dec 2014 EDP were 2y8m apart, the same as forecast for the Ordsall Chord project at that time. The Ordsall Chord eventually got authorised on 31 March 2015 and was completed on 10 December 2017, i.e. just over 2y8m later. According to this FOI request, the SoS received the Inspector's report from the public inquiry into the Oxford Road/Piccadilly TWAO on 10 February 2016. If the SoS had signed off the TWAO shortly thereafter, the work could have been completed by the EDP milestone date of December 2018. Even with some allowance for slippage, P15/16 could have been in service by now.

Nevertheless, after further scrutiny of the franchise agreement I concur that it seems likely the Oxford Road/Piccadilly scheme was one of those described as "Future Enhancement Schemes" in the franchise agreement and so not included in the Infrastructure Assumptions Document (IAD), nor considered necessary to implement the TSRs. Presumably over-optimistic timetable modelling had led the DfT to believe that 13tph, including the Bradford - Airport service, could be rammed through Piccadilly P13/14.

At least some of the base infrastructure enhancements included in the IAD can be inferred from the cross references to that document from section 44.1, Definitions, in the main franchise agreement document (pp.40-89). These are:

1. “Manchester Victoria to Ashburys Funded Authorisations”
   
2. “Manchester Victoria to Stalybridge Funded Authorisations”
   
3. “Ordsall Chord Funded Authorisations”
   
4. “Oxenholme to Windermere Funded Authorisations”
   
5. “Preston to Blackpool North Funded Authorisations”
   
6. “Preston to Manchester Funded Authorisations”
   
7. “Wigan to Bolton Funded Authorisations”

Of these, only #3, #5 & #6 have actually happened, and the latter two were so late that the related electrification timetable changes had to be deferred from December 2017 to May 2019. #4 has been cancelled, #1 has been deferred indefinitely, #7 has been deferred into CP6, with no start date yet, and #2 has been deferred until the TRU project is authorised.

I will propose that only those changes under package CS5 were necessary to move from TSR1 to TSR2 as that is the only remapping date referenced to this.

Some of the minor electrification works around Manchester don't sound material if for relatively little mileage they can be deferred for years. The additional 8+3 diesel units from a fleet of nearly 400 is inconvenient but should not be a show stopper.

The Piccadilly scheme was on another level of scale and complexity to Ordsall with extensive rebuilding of two stations, signalling design not to mention listed building consents and the rest. It was never going to be ready to start or to be delivered in anything close to those timescales among many other schemes in that epic work of fiction known as CP5, depending what account is given for the fact this scheme was not even through GRIP3 when it was written.

 

[Starmill]

Would you prefer no train instead?

It can be very difficult, or impossible, to get Delay Repay claims approved where the train ran but your journey was delayed because the train left you behind. Obviously claiming compensation is a last resort, and it'd be ridiculous to suggest that the train should be cancelled so you'll get a few quid back.

But it does go to show that, if you're going to be stuck regardless, it's almost salt in the wound if the train actually ran.

 

[TUC]

This morning at Halifax both of the first two trains to Leeds (0600 and 0617) are cancelled, together with the 0627 to Blackpool North. According to RTT and OTT these are all due to a 'problem at depot', although one wonders what kind of supposed problem lead to three trains being cancelled rather then late.

 

[LUSOwner]

Would anyone like to start up a new franchise??

 

[Bovverboy]

Out of interest which 144 was it and which service?

If 'Class195' caught a York to Blackpool North train at Bradford Interchange, and by 1229 it had already stopped at quite a few stations, it could only have been the 1023 ex York (due Bradford Interchange 1118, actual 1126).

 

[CaptainHaddock]

If 'Class195' caught a York to Blackpool North train at Bradford Interchange, and by 1229 it had already stopped at quite a few stations, it could only have been the 1023 ex York (due Bradford Interchange 1118, actual 1126).

Very odd. I've checked the TOPS log for yesterday and they were operated by a mixture of class 158s and 195s; no 144s were running from York to Blackpool North. I'm all for people giving Northern richly deserved criticism but there's no need to make stuff up!

 

[Swimbar]

I'd prefer a timetable they can operate.

Agreed, there are too many people who appear to find the current situation acceptable and put forward excuses to justify that stance.
If the service was so poor from any other business you would cancel their contract and move to someone else. That is the nature of consumer power.
The problem here is that there is no one else to move to hence Northern can basically do what they like!

 

[AndrewE]

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.

Sounds unlikely to me: "400 trains" means at least 800 drivers on any one day if the drivers work 6am to 2pm and 2pm to 10, which is obviously too simplistic, although 3 "per train" might be too high. Then increase by 6/5 (or even 7/5) to cover "weekends," then increase again by 56/52 to allow for a minimum of 4 weeks holidays, probably should be 58/52 to allow for days off in lieu of working bank holidays, and again by maybe 5% to allow for sickness, another 5% for training?
That comes to a bit under 1400, although I imagine I was being too optimistic about the training allowance even in a stable situation.
As they claim that half their cancellations are down to traincrew issues then clearly they haven't got enough drivers - if they made an appropriate allowance for the training needs that they are taking on they shuld have been able to anticipate the need.
Someone has said we are facing a demographic time-bomb when retirements are considered: I would have thought that an essential utility would have taken advantage of this situation to massively ramp up recruitment, use the overlap in staff "generations" to cover the training needs for all the new stock and then see the complement drift down to the number needed as the oldies retire.

 

[Bovverboy]

Very odd. I've checked the TOPS log for yesterday and they were operated by a mixture of class 158s and 195s; no 144s were running from York to Blackpool North. I'm all for people giving Northern richly deserved criticism but there's no need to make stuff up!

'Class195' seems adamant that it was a 144 he travelled on, and it would seem an odd story to make up if untrue.

CaptainHaddock, do you have a record of the exact units which worked the following yesterday?

0720 Blackpool North - York
1023 York - Blackpool North
0918 Leeds - York
1009 York - Leeds

 

[cactustwirly]

Are 144s even cleared that way?

 

[CaptainHaddock]

'Class195' seems adamant that it was a 144 he travelled on, and it would seem an odd story to make up if untrue.

CaptainHaddock, do you have a record of the exact units which worked the following yesterday?

Of course.

0720 Blackpool North - York - 158784
1023 York - Blackpool North - 158752
0918 Leeds - York - 158752
1009 York - Leeds - 158784

 

[Class195]

Very odd. I've checked the TOPS log for yesterday and they were operated by a mixture of class 158s and 195s; no 144s were running from York to Blackpool North. I'm all for people giving Northern richly deserved criticism but there's no need to make stuff up!

So we all just imagined being crammed into a class 144 then?

I sugguest you check your logs thoroughly because they are certainly wrong from the Leeds part onwards.

I only say Leeds because I saw the train come down the hill off the branch line, so it wasn't already in Bradford Interchange.

 

[jayah]

Would anyone like to start up a new franchise??

One moral of this tale is if you are planning on taking up a franchise with lots of infrastructure change assumptions, lawyer up.

Complaining you can't deliver a timetable because the other side didn't do what they promised won't cut it.

 

[Class195]

If 'Class195' caught a York to Blackpool North train at Bradford Interchange, and by 1229 it had already stopped at quite a few stations, it could only have been the 1023 ex York (due Bradford Interchange 1118, actual 1126).

It was late due to the overcrowding.

If you look on social media you'll see other people complaining to Northern about it.

The reply I got from the conductor was that it was set swap.

 

[Class195]

Would anyone like to start up a new franchise??

That would depend if you plan on running 150s or 144s on what effectively is a TPE route between York and Blackpool.

 

[LUSOwner]

That would depend if you plan on running 150s or 144s on what effectively is a TPE route between York and Blackpool.

Get some new bi-modes in for lines from Preston...

 

[Llama]

So we all just imagined being crammed into a class 144 then?

I sugguest you check your logs thoroughly because they are certainly wrong from the Leeds part onwards.

I only say Leeds because I saw the train come down the hill off the branch line, so it wasn't already in Bradford Interchange.

Certainly not unheard of for units to get mixed up, the number of times I've taken sets on to depots and been told "this isn't what it's meant to be", "you're only meant to have two - where've these come from?" or words to that effect sprinkled with a few four-letter embellishments.
Certainly not just Northern recently too, TPE managed to lose 185103 last Friday and put out a message to conductors asking them to ring in if they happened to know where it was.

 

[CaptainHaddock]

So we all just imagined being crammed into a class 144 then?

I sugguest you check your logs thoroughly because they are certainly wrong from the Leeds part onwards.

I only say Leeds because I saw the train come down the hill off the branch line, so it wasn't already in Bradford Interchange.

I don't write the TOPs logs, I just have read-only access and can confirm that according to the TOPS log, the 1023 York-Blackpool service yesterday (1B23) was operated by a class 158 and not a 144.

It was late due to the overcrowding.

If you look on social media you'll see other people complaining to Northern about it.

The reply I got from the conductor was that it was set swap.

1B23 arrived in Bradford Interchange 10 minutes late; the reason given was following a slow train (2T10) between Micklefield and Leeds. There is no mention in the TOPs log of any delay due to overcrowding, indeed the train made up time and arrived in Blackpool North at its scheduled time of 1302.

As I said earlier, there are plenty of reasons to slate Northern at the moment, you don't need to make things up!

 

[Bovverboy]

TPE managed to lose 185103 last Friday and put out a message to conductors asking them to ring in if they happened to know where it was.

I like that one. At least, with a train, you can be pretty sure it's still somewhere on the network. I once worked for a coach company, on one occasion a coach disappeared from the yard and turned up a few days later at a pop festival. On another occasion one disappeared but no-one realised it had gone until the police rang to say they'd found it.

But, of course, there was that famous message which came over the police radio after the Great Train Robbery - 'You're not gonna believe this, they've only gone and stolen a b***** train!'

 

[Bovverboy]

1B23 arrived in Bradford Interchange 10 minutes late; the reason given was following a slow train (2T10) between Micklefield and Leeds.

2T10 was itself held back in order to give precedence to the very late-running 2K11, 0915 Hull - Halifax, which, in the event, was terminated at Bradford interchange.

 

[Class195]

I don't write the TOPs logs, I just have read-only access and can confirm that according to the TOPS log, the 1023 York-Blackpool service yesterday (1B23) was operated by a class 158 and not a 144.



1B23 arrived in Bradford Interchange 10 minutes late; the reason given was following a slow train (2T10) between Micklefield and Leeds. There is no mention in the TOPs log of any delay due to overcrowding, indeed the train made up time and arrived in Blackpool North at its scheduled time of 1302.

As I said earlier, there are plenty of reasons to slate Northern at the moment, you don't need to make things up!

What have I made up? The train was late leaving Bradford and Halifax due to the amount of people getting on and off.

It left a wheelchair bound passenger behind at Halifax because the service was too full for them to safely board.

I’ll always defend Northern where I can but not in this case.

Why does Hull - Halifax get the refurbished 170s and York - Blackpool is now the victim of the Northern unit generator.

 

[Bovverboy]

What have I made up? The train was late leaving Bradford and Halifax due to the amount of people getting on and off.

I agree with CaptainHaddock on this point, Realtime Trains shows no extended dwells. In fact, a turnround at Bradford Interchange of one and three-quarter minutes seems positively jet-propelled!
Are you sure we're talking about the same train? The previous Blackpool departure, 1017 ex-Bradfprd, did have a five-minute dwell.

It left a wheelchair bound passenger behind at Halifax because the service was too full for them to safely board.

Wouldn't a wheelchair passenger have had a problem anyway, if it was a Pacer?

 

[Bikeman78]

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.

Did it run through to Blackpool? I don't think a 144 has ever been to Blackpool before. Do Leeds crew go to Blackpool?