TPE franchise to move to OLR

[mike57]

I am not surprised that TPE are being moved OLR, they have been failing to deliver for 5 years. We can argue about the causes and who is to blame, but as a passenger the bottom line is on too many occasions my train hasn't run, has been short formed and rammed, or has run late and this has been ongoing since May 2018.

Two quick wins for the incoming management/operator:

Ensure that the timetable is reduced to the point where it can be delivered reliably, and only restore services when the staffing is in place (either by sorting out RDW or recruitment).
Make sure that all rolling stock is used to run 5/6 car trains on core route services.

This would mean that passengers could plan a journey, and that the journey would be reasonably comfortable. These two simple improvements would go a long way to restoring passenger confidence, services might not be as frequent as one would like but I could plan a trip 3 or 4 days ahead knowing that barring infrastructure problems it will go to plan.

 

[yorksrob]

Transport isn't a monopoly there are plenty of alternatives to rail.

I'd agree with that particularly if GBR turns out to be purely a renamed Network Rail. As currently proposed I can't see GBR being a sucess.

Would it be cheaper in house? What is to stop the in house operator from becoming bloated and bureaucratic? What incentive is there for a proper level of service?

That is purely dependant on how the system is structured.

Rail is a effectively a monopoly in terms of public transport for many flows, for people who don't drive.

 

[TUC]

I am not surprised that TPE are being moved OLR, they have been failing to deliver for 5 years. We can argue about the causes and who is to blame, but as a passenger the bottom line is on too many occasions my train hasn't run, has been short formed and rammed, or has run late and this has been ongoing since May 2018.

Two quick wins for the incoming management/operator:

Ensure that the timetable is reduced to the point where it can be delivered reliably, and only restore services when the staffing is in place (either by sorting out RDW or recruitment).

In what way is that a win for passengers? You might argue in terms of reliabilit, but it is still a poorer service at the end of the day. Reducing services isn't the incoming management doing anything innovative. It's just taking the lazy man's way out.

It’s not up to the politicians to decide - the whole point of TUPE is to protect the staff when one contract ends and another one starts. You can’t just protect some staff and not others.

I think we have enough industrial relation issues on the railway at present without opening another can of worms.

It is the point of TUPE, but it does confirm the view of what difference this change will make in reality?

 

[gimmea50anyday]

The MD responsible for the mismanagement was moved on long ago. Matthew Golton was the one brought in to clear up the mess....... He may well appreciate a return to GWR though, he's aged a decade under the stress.

Given the way TPE has been mismanaged, OLR should eject the entire exec team and all heads of departments.

I feel for Golton, I believe he stood a half decent chance of making progress but with DfT micromanaging and the decisions that managers below him were making were scuttling his attempts, personally I dont think he was aware just how incompetent some of them were as other layers of management were shielding them, and staff have always felt TPE was and has always been management heavy. If those same managers get TUPE'd across then there wont be any improvement under OLR

 

[Bantamzen]

In what way is that a win for passengers? You might argue in terms of reliabilit, but it is still a poorer service at the end of the day. Reducing services isn't the incoming management doing anything innovative. It's just taking the lazy man's way out.

Reduce or create an emergency timetable has become something of a go-to here on these forums, and unfortunately sometimes in the industry too. As you rightly say, whilst this might improve punctuality it may well not actually provide the service that is needed, especially on a network like TPE where not only is it the only operator in sections, it also acts as both a long-distance and commuter provider. And if this then leads to overcrowding on remaining services actually, this can actually start to bake in even more delays & leave you back with punctuality and reduced capacity. The worst of both worlds. Plus, left long enough "emergency" timetables might end up being permanent if TOCs / DfT are allowed to hide behind them all the time.

 

[43066]

In what way is that a win for passengers? You might argue in terms of reliabilit, but it is still a poorer service at the end of the day. Reducing services isn't the incoming management doing anything innovative. It's just taking the lazy man's way out.

Reduce or create an emergency timetable has become something of a go-to here on these forums, and unfortunately sometimes in the industry too. As you rightly say, whilst this might improve punctuality it may well not actually provide the service that is needed, especially on a network like TPE where not only is it the only operator in sections, it also acts as both a long-distance and commuter provider. And if this then leads to overcrowding on remaining services actually, this can actually start to bake in even more delays & leave you back with punctuality and reduced capacity. The worst of both worlds. Plus, left long enough "emergency" timetables might end up being permanent if TOCs / DfT are allowed to hide behind them all the time.

What choice do they really have when the DfT won’t allow them to do anything else?

It’s very bad for passengers, has been for well over a year now, and is unlikely to improve - but at least an emergency timetable might make it more reliable, even if it isn’t particularly usable. The only real way out in the medium term is for the government to allow the industrial dispute to be settled, but neither of you seem to support that either!

 

[KevL]

i appreciatewhat youre saying but as an occasional user of tpe for work, id rather have something predictable that i can rely on, than not know when im getting to my clients or back home. Bear in mind theres been occasions where several trains in sucession have been cancelled.

 

[Krokodil]

Reduce or create an emergency timetable has become something of a go-to here on these forums, and unfortunately sometimes in the industry too. As you rightly say, whilst this might improve punctuality it may well not actually provide the service that is needed, especially on a network like TPE where not only is it the only operator in sections, it also acts as both a long-distance and commuter provider. And if this then leads to overcrowding on remaining services actually, this can actually start to bake in even more delays & leave you back with punctuality and reduced capacity. The worst of both worlds. Plus, left long enough "emergency" timetables might end up being permanent if TOCs / DfT are allowed to hide behind them all the time.

Most passengers would rather have an infrequent service that reliably turns up, than a frequent one that is continually disrupted. At least you can plan around an emergency timetable.

 

[Bantamzen]

What choice do they really have when the DfT won’t allow them to do anything else?

It’s very bad for passengers, has been for well over a year now, and is unlikely to improve - but at least an emergency timetable might make it more reliable, even if it isn’t particularly usable. The only real way out in the medium term is for the government to allow the industrial dispute to be settled, but neither of you seem to support that either!

Quite honestly there is only one option. Someone, somewhere has to grow a pair big enough to push back on DfT and tell them what the new operator needs actually to do (for example stop this madness of not signing crews for entire routes). Much easier said than done, but it does very occasionally happen. I was actually once witness to it personally in my area at an online meeting where a director basically ripped senior Civil Servants a new one when they were pushing for a change that was unachievable at best, and worst pure madness. I'm not a liberty to say what or where, but from time to time it can happen and definitely needs to in this case.

Of course such action risks career changing issues, but if there was someone really senior with the passion for change, and willing to be pensioned off afterwards...

Most passengers would rather have an infrequent service that reliably turns up, than a frequent one that is continually disrupted. At least you can plan around an emergency timetable.

Not if there is not enough capacity to provide a service for everyone, which is a real risk on TPE routes. As I've said before, TPE is the sole operator on a number of sections, and the infrastructure limits unit lengths. So for example if 3 services an hour with between 3-6 cars each, reduces to one service an hour with a maximum of 6 cars, this is a serious reduction of at least a third of the capacity. That could put a lot of strain on what is left, and anyone who remembers the regular scrums at places like Leeds to shoehorn onto the usual 3 cars that ran at the time will also remember all the delays and anger this caused.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Not if there is not enough capacity to provide a service for everyone, which is a real risk on TPE routes. As I've said before, TPE is the sole operator on a number of sections, and the infrastructure limits unit lengths. So for example if 3 services an hour with between 3-6 cars each, reduces to one service an hour with a maximum of 6 cars, this is a serious reduction of at least a third of the capacity. That could put a lot of strain on what is left, and anyone who remembers the regular scrums at places like Leeds to shoehorn onto the usual 3 cars that ran at the time will also remember all the delays and anger this caused.

Better that you know that's happening than that it happens to random trains, of course. This is the whole point of an emergency timetable - at least make it predictable so you can make choices accordingly, one of which may be to drive instead.

 

[Lewisham2221]

Quite honestly there is only one option. Someone, somewhere has to grow a pair big enough to push back on DfT and tell them what the new operator needs actually to do (for example stop this madness of not signing crews for entire routes). Much easier said than done, but it does very occasionally happen. I was actually once witness to it personally in my area at an online meeting where a director basically ripped senior Civil Servants a new one when they were pushing for a change that was unachievable at best, and worst pure madness. I'm not a liberty to say what or where, but from time to time it can happen and definitely needs to in this case.

Of course such action risks career changing issues, but if there was someone really senior with the passion for change, and willing to be pensioned off afterwards...


Not if there is not enough capacity to provide a service for everyone, which is a real risk on TPE routes. As I've said before, TPE is the sole operator on a number of sections, and the infrastructure limits unit lengths. So for example if 3 services an hour with between 3-6 cars each, reduces to one service an hour with a maximum of 6 cars, this is a serious reduction of at least a third of the capacity. That could put a lot of strain on what is left, and anyone who remembers the regular scrums at places like Leeds to shoehorn onto the usual 3 cars that ran at the time will also remember all the delays and anger this caused.

But surely that's what happens now, when consecutive advertised services don't operate, and all intending passengers have to cram onto whatever does eventually operate?

A reduced/emergency timetable would at least provide some form of reliability and you would of course provide the maximum train length possible for each route, ideally considering that, where possible, when planning the frequency (but availability of train crew needing to take the higher priority).

Would a reduced timetable not also provide sufficient "slack" in staffing requirements to allow route training to take place, to return "full route" knowledge to crews, to enable more of the end-to-end type working that you advocate, which would go some way to resolving the issues at hand?

 

[Bantamzen]

Better that you know that's happening than that it happens to random trains, of course. This is the whole point of an emergency timetable - at least make it predictable so you can make choices accordingly, one of which may be to drive instead.

And my point, again, is that if that timetable does not provide sufficient capacity then you cause more problems than you solve. Remember unlike TOCs like Avanti, TPE can't necessarily manage demand by limiting ticket sales. At lot of TPE's core users will be walk-up or season / flex tickets. As I said, I remember the delays overcrowding caused for many years in the TP core. What might look nice and neat on a spreadsheet won't look so good if it isn't designed around the needs of the customers.

But surely that's what happens now, when consecutive advertised services don't operate, and all intending passengers have to cram onto whatever does eventually operate?

Yes it is, except under an emergency timetable there are even fewer planned services to cram onto.

A reduced/emergency timetable would at least provide some form of reliability and you would of course provide the maximum train length possible for each route, ideally considering that, where possible, when planning the frequency (but availability of train crew needing to take the higher priority).

As above, maybe on a spreadsheet. But for core services, the maximum unit length is pretty limited so an emergency timetable will drastically reduce capacity. And as also above it is not as easy to manage demand on mixed use routes where flexible / season tickets will be in use.

Would a reduced timetable not also provide sufficient "slack" in staffing requirements to allow route training to take place, to return "full route" knowledge to crews, to enable more of the end-to-end type working that you advocate, which would go some way to resolving the issues at hand?

Wasn't the timetable originally reduced for training on the new sets?

 

[43066]

Quite honestly there is only one option. Someone, somewhere has to grow a pair big enough to push back on DfT and tell them what the new operator needs actually to do (for example stop this madness of not signing crews for entire routes).

None of that will make much if any difference while no overtime is being done. It will also be impossible to do as they won’t be able to release drivers from the roster to learn the additional routes. You’ll also likely find driver instructors refusing to take on trainees/giving up the role entirely due to a lack of goodwill.

An emergency timetable might make this easier but it will take many months, versus being solved almost overnight if overtime was resumed. As a passenger your complaint is with DfT intransigence in prolonging the dispute - complaining about the TOC will make no difference.

 

[Bantamzen]

None of that will make much if any difference while no overtime is being done. It will also be impossible to do as they won’t be able to release drivers from the roster to learn the additional routes. You’ll also likely find driver instructors refusing to take on trainees/giving up the role entirely due to a lack of goodwill.

An emergency timetable might make this easier but it will take many months, versus being solved almost overnight if overtime was resumed. As a passenger your complaint is with DfT intransigence in prolonging the dispute - complaining about the TOC will make no difference.

I'm going to deliberately avoid specifically talking about the dispute, I can feel the glare of the mods from here. Yes of course it is a major factor in it, but like I say if the capacity in the meantime is reduced to the point where a lot of people who need to use the service and cannot, then what does anyone here propose? Because at the moment it seems like the answer is "tough"...

 

[Bletchleyite]

And my point, again, is that if that timetable does not provide sufficient capacity then you cause more problems than you solve

And if the choice is 6 coaches per hour at random times or 6 coaches per hour at a known time? That's literally the whole point. An emergency timetable wouldn't reduce capacity from what was de-facto operating, simply operate something that can be resourced. It might mean more capacity because a cancellation wouldn't cause stock to be sat idle.

 

[Bantamzen]

I'm going to deliberately avoid specifically talking about the dispute, I can feel the glare of the mods from here. Yes of course it is a major factor in it, but like I say if the capacity in the meantime is reduced to the point where a lot of people who need to use the service and cannot, then what does anyone here propose? Because at the moment it seems like the answer is "tough"...

Edit: Just for clarity, I'm talking about when normal services are advertised as being available, not on strike days.

 

[43066]

I'm going to deliberately avoid specifically talking about the dispute, I can feel the glare of the mods from here. Yes of course it is a major factor in it, but like I say if the capacity in the meantime is reduced to the point where a lot of people who need to use the service and cannot, then what does anyone here propose? Because at the moment it seems like the answer is "tough"...

Yes - to be clear I’m honestly not trying to bring up the dispute for the sake of it - but the overtime ban/lack of goodwill really will be *the* major impediment to improving the situation here, so it’s relevant to point that out.

I don’t work for TPE as you know, but when you’ve worked for one TOC you’ve worked for them all in this respect. GTR’s timetable in particular has been absolutely decimated this week by the OT ban. And that’s them struggling to run the basic service, let alone covering training, sickness, holidays etc. they also have much more sensible route cards than TPE from a reliability point of view.

I’d confidently predict these arrangements will continue until the dispute is resolved, even if that isn’t until after the next election - that’s bad for everyone concerned of course.

An emergency timetable wouldn't reduce capacity, simply operate something that can be resourced.

It won’t necessarily be a case of six coaches hourly instead of three half hourly. It might well mean three coaches every two hours, and no service on some routes.

Edit: Just for clarity, I'm talking about when normal services are advertised as being available, not on strike days.

Yep appreciate that. The changes to route network will require drivers to be released from their normal jobs to sign off the routes. This isn’t a quick process.

Usually the resulting gaps on the roster are covered by overtime.

 

[Bantamzen]

And if the choice is 6 coaches per hour at random times or 6 coaches per hour at a known time? That's literally the whole point. An emergency timetable wouldn't reduce capacity from what was de-facto operating, simply operate something that can be resourced. It might mean more capacity because a cancellation wouldn't cause stock to be sat idle.

And if you can't board that train, or the one an hour later, or two because all when they turn up at your station the are rammed full because capacity has now been reduced across the board regardless of delays or cancellations?

Yes - to be clear I’m honestly not trying to bring up the dispute for the sake of it - but the overtime ban/lack of goodwill really will be *the* major impediment to improving the situation here, so it’s relevant to point that out.

I don’t work for TPE as you know, but when you’ve worked for one TOC you’ve worked for them all in this respect. GTR’s timetable in particular has been absolutely decimated this week by the OT ban. And that’s them struggling to run the basic service, let alone covering training, sickness, holidays etc. they also have much more sensible route cards than TPE from a reliability point of view.

I’d confidently predict these arrangements will continue until the dispute is resolved, even if that isn’t until after the next election - that’s bad for everyone concerned of course.



It won’t necessarily be a case of six coaches hourly instead of three half hourly. It might well mean three coaches every two hours, and no service on some routes.

I quite agree that a resolution would go a long way to solving these problems. We can only hope it doesn't have to wait until the next government (I'm not even sure that a new one would do any better!).

My point is that dialling back a timetable doesn't necessarily just solve the problem, it could make it worse. If overcrowding becomes so bad that the services that remain start to get caught up in delays and even cancellations as a result, the services get worse again. Instead of there will possibly a service every 20-30 minutes, it goes to possibly every hour. And when the cancellations do kick in, and they will, you go from having to wait at least another 20 minutes for the next one to at least an hour. I'm not sure that's an improvement.

 

[43066]

My point is that dialling back a timetable doesn't necessarily just solve the problem, it could make it worse. If overcrowding becomes so bad that the services that remain start to get caught up in delays and even cancellations as a result, the services get worse again. Instead of there will possibly a service every 20-30 minutes, it goes to possibly every hour. And when the cancellations do kick in, and they will, you go from having to wait at least another 20 minutes for the next one to at least an hour. I'm not sure that's an improvement.

Absolutely. It will most probably be a nightmare and if crowding gets too bad you’ll likely get trains being cancelled specifically for this reason. Beyond a certain level it becomes impossible to operate safely.

But there are no good options here (other than the obvious one mentioned above).

 

[Bantamzen]

Absolutely. It will most probably be a nightmare and if crowding gets too bad you’ll likely get trains being cancelled specifically for this reason. Beyond a certain level it becomes impossible to operate safely.

I'm sure its happened in the past at Leeds when 3 car 185s were the norm. The scrums that often occurred at places like Leeds could easily get out of hand especially on P16, delays there of 10 and even 20 minutes were not uncommon as passengers (sometimes literally) fought to shoehorn on. If they were more like Avanti they could manage demand to an emergency timetable, but with that commuter element and the fact they operate through PTE areas who have their own bus / rail season tickets that is practically impossible. Reduce the number of advertised services, and the flows will just compact around what's left and the scrums will return, as will more delays and cancellations.

One would hope that with the unreliable timetables as is minds are focused a bit more as terrible numbers return month on month. Give them an emergency timetable and they could claim a punctuality improvement ("We don't cancel as many trains a day now, yay!") whilst still delivering as bad, or even worse service.

 

[mike57]

In what way is that a win for passengers? You might argue in terms of reliabilit, but it is still a poorer service at the end of the day.

Its not a 'win', but it is a small improvement, I suspect the about the same number of trains would run anyway, the difference is I can plan a journey with an emergency timetable. Take my case, a days business in the NW travelling from Yorkshire, currently the random cancellations make it impossible, if I encounter the random cancellation on the outward leg then my day is a disaster. If the service is less frequent I can plan around it.

Couple that with getting all allocated stock in use so that longer trains run to cover the less frequent service, and whilst not perfect you can at least consider rail travel.

The fact that the unreliability of TPE has been allowed to continue for 5 years since May 2018 is a disgrace, as a passenger I have heard loads of excuses, which have changed over the period. Reliability has to be the number requirement, you can cope with an over crowded train, you may not enjoy the experience, but if your train is cancelled then on routes to our area with an hourly service (Scarborough) thats a disaster, and for example on a recent Friday afternoon there was a 3 hour gap in the service to York.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Its not a 'win', but it is a small improvement, I suspect the about the same number of trains would run anyway, the difference is I can plan a journey with an emergency timetable. Take my case, a days business in the NW travelling from Yorkshire, currently the random cancellations make it impossible, if I encounter the random cancellation on the outward leg then my day is a disaster. If the service is less frequent I can plan around it.

Exactly.

I'm guessing @Bantamzen is either retired or has a VERY flexible employer. For people in most jobs, punctuality is important, and so at least if you know you have to get the 0730 instead of the 0800 to get in on time because the service is down to hourly you know that rather than it being somewhat random if you get in on time or not.

Obviously the actual problems need fixed, but that'll take time, and in the meantime it's more important to be able to plan than to publish the full timetable but cancel half of it.

 

[3RDGEN]

During the engineering blocks TPE only run two York / Leeds / Manchester services per hour, Hull gets a Leeds / Huddersfield service and Scarborough a York shuttle. The Hull - Liverpool (Manc Vic) service is normally a shambles yet during the blocks the Hull - Leeds / Huddersfield service works fine so a fully resourced slimmed down timetable is the answer to a reliable service that passengers can plan around. TPE couldn't run the service pre December timetable so what did they do, they increased services to just cancel them.

Hull now has an hourly Northern service to Leeds / Halifax so why not reduce TPE to two hourly and use the resources released to run a Leeds - Manchester service on the alternate hour. Work out what staff you have and then timetable a service that can be delivered reliable.

 

[ainsworth74]

I can feel the glare of the mods from here

Oh good, I'm glad that our attempts at injecting paranoia in our members are succeeding

 

[Snow1964]

You do really misunderstand how TUPE works, it is for all staff employed by a business being taken over. You can’t randomly select which ones it applies to - it’s one of the battles the unions have been having to protect staff’s conditions!

Technically TUPE only applies to anyone working 50% or more on the affected role.

So if you had say a senior manager or director that worked say 45% on TPE, 45% on another franchise and 10% on headquarters stuff would not qualify for TUPE.

I suppose the 50% rule might be relevant to someone working in a maintenance depot or on a station if they serve multiple operators trains, therefore might spend less than 50% of time for TPE

So those whose employment are effectively split or subcontracted out to others some (>50%) of the time might need to clarify.

 

[Howardh]

Reduce or create an emergency timetable has become something of a go-to here on these forums, and unfortunately sometimes in the industry too. As you rightly say, whilst this might improve punctuality it may well not actually provide the service that is needed, especially on a network like TPE where not only is it the only operator in sections, it also acts as both a long-distance and commuter provider. And if this then leads to overcrowding on remaining services actually, this can actually start to bake in even more delays & leave you back with punctuality and reduced capacity. The worst of both worlds. Plus, left long enough "emergency" timetables might end up being permanent if TOCs / DfT are allowed to hide behind them all the time.

If they don't have the staff and/or the units, then reducing the timetable is the only option until such time as the problem's fixed. I would rather not have a train on the timetable than one that doesn't turn up and I'm standing there when I could have made other arrangements.

As an aside, the Piccadilly/Huddersfield "stopper" is run by TPE, if Northern had the capacity I would suggest they run it. Presumably they don't and can't?

 

[josh-j]

I don't agree at all with cut back timetables. There are real solutions that would allow a return to reliability without cut backs. The *only* barrier to this is that those solutions don't fit with the government's own shortsighted ideology and propensity to make a political scene over everything. The government unfortunately seems more than happy to ruin rail services for years in a row with this childish inability to admit their ridiculous Ayn Rand-style beliefs in the supremacy of rich individuals and the inefficiency of the state is running the country into the ground, and the more we go round in circles cheering about TOC contracts being stripped or cutting timetables to gain reliability the easier it is for that to happen.

Cutting back timetables will, with the current government's attitude to rail, no doubt lead to even more "cost reductions" further down the line and even worse services as a result - after all "nobody uses the railway any more" (because the service is cut to the bone).

Sorry to get political, but unfortunately I think this whole fiasco is political in nature which is why it is so intractable.

 

[Lewisham2221]

I don't agree at all with cut back timetables. There are real solutions that would allow a return to reliability without cut backs. The *only* barrier to this is that those solutions don't fit with the government's own shortsighted ideology and propensity to make a political scene over everything. The government unfortunately seems more than happy to ruin rail services for years in a row with this childish inability to admit their ridiculous Ayn Rand-style beliefs in the supremacy of rich individuals and the inefficiency of the state is running the country into the ground, and the more we go round in circles cheering about TOC contracts being stripped or cutting timetables to gain reliability the easier it is for that to happen.

Cutting back timetables will, with the current government's attitude to rail, no doubt lead to even more "cost reductions" further down the line and even worse services as a result - after all "nobody uses the railway any more" (because the service is cut to the bone).

Sorry to get political, but unfortunately I think this whole fiasco is political in nature which is why it is so intractable.

And those "real solutions" are?

 

[josh-j]

And those "real solutions" are?

Aren't the current problems a mix of bad policy for route retention and lack of rest day working?

 

[Lewisham2221]

Aren't the current problems a mix of bad policy for route retention and lack of rest day working?

Yes, I believe so. But until the current industrial relations mess is sorted out, I don't see how you achieve either, without some sort of reduced timetable?