Transpennine Express decide not to use MK3's on limited services

[kingqueen]

The bottom line is that PRM is still six months away before it comes into force.

18 months.

 

[kingqueen]

Unless you've properly experienced it, you've got no idea what it's like travelling as a wheelchair user. The gap between policy and actuality is massive. At least in the days of inaccessible trains they'd always shove us in the guard's van so we'd get there

I couldn't agree with you more.

 

[kingqueen]

I'm just thinking that, if its okay for the Windermere branch to have inaccessible trains on it all day long (with no services run by accessible trains)

Please excuse me going briefly off topic, but is this actually the case? I assumed it was, because I know their other services aren't accessible (for various reasons, I'm not criticising) but nobody, including West Coast themselves, have actually managed to find out and tell me in response to my enquiries. Only because if they are accessible, I'd love to go on them for the experience. Thanks!

 

[43096]

Please excuse me going briefly off topic, but is this actually the case? I assumed it was, because I know their other services aren't accessible (for various reasons, I'm not criticising) but nobody, including West Coast themselves, have actually managed to find out and tell me in response to my enquiries. Only because if they are accessible, I'd love to go on them for the experience. Thanks!

See my post above about this - on reflection not sure if they used the van area, as there are wheelchair spaces in the coach area. The toilet was out of use, though, when I did it last week.

 

[kingqueen]

See my post above about this - on reflection not sure if they used the van area, as there are wheelchair spaces in the coach area. The toilet was out of use, though, when I did it last week.

Thank you

 

[43096]

Thank you

You’re welcome. It was an ex-FGW vehicle they were using - the whole set is generally in good condition internally (broken toilet apart).

 

[CosherB]

18 months.

Thanks for correcting my spectacular factual/mathematical fail!

Even more reason for using the Mk3s as-is.

 

[Darandio]

Perhaps we could ban all black people from boarding certain trains, and tell them to wait for other services or to travel by taxi. This would alleviate overcrowding on some services.
(I wish to immediately make it abundantly clear that I abhor racism in all its forms and would never advocate anything like this - I'm posting it as a thought experiment, replacing one minority with another.)

Not even sure where to start with this one given were on a tricky subject, I guess you had to quote someone though, and it just happened to be me.

Why not run the Mk3's but just take it a step further and ban everyone from boarding them? Equality and all that.

 

[Spartacus]

Why not run the Mk3's but just take it a step further and ban everyone from boarding them? Equality and all that.

Similar solution to the toilet problem a few years back, when a TOC was criticised for ordering new trains without loos they admitted that had they been allowed to fit traditional small ones they would have done, but having to fit a wheelchair accessible one took up too many seats, so it was better to fit none at all. Equal access resulted in zero access to toilet facilities, instead of access for over 95% of people. It's quite sad when things like that happen.

 

[transmanche]

Similar solution to the toilet problem a few years back, when a TOC was criticised for ordering new trains without loos they admitted that had they been allowed to fit traditional small ones they would have done, but having to fit a wheelchair accessible one took up too many seats, so it was better to fit none at all. Equal access resulted in zero access to toilet facilities, instead of access for over 95% of people. It's quite sad when things like that happen.

I'm trying to think which trains you could be referring to. IIRC, the only trains built in recent years without toilets are ones used on London 'metro' type services: e.g. the 345/378/710/717s used (or soon to be used) on London Overground/Crossrail/GN Inner Suburban services. But then their predecessors didn't have toilets either.

Going back a bit further, the 375s on SE Metro services are toiletless. Are you perhaps referring to the use of refurbished 313s on Coastway services by Southern?

 

[tbtc]

TPE were going to make existing services worse, but only for wheelchair users.

Northern aren't running a train service, they are being replaced by buses. Any additional trains run privately can do whatever they want.

I'm not trying to split hairs here, but the net result is that (at Windermere) a non-accessible train has been introduced onto an existing line... which is exactly what we are told couldn't happen with TPE. Whether there were proposed cuts, whether a different company is now providing the service... none of that affects the passenger experience.

So is the difference that it'd be okay for the Pretendolino coaches to be used as a replacement of a previously inaccessible service (e.g. a Northern 156), but not okay for the Pretendolino coaches to be used as a replacement of a previously accessible service (e.g. a TPE 185)?

For example, could we have got round it if the Pretendolino coaches had been leased to Northern to run Sprinter routes to free up Sprinters for Blackpool/Barrow services to free up the couple of 185s to TPE to allow them to increase their services? That way, the Pretendolino coaches would only be replacing an existing "inaccessible" service?

Or if TPE had cancelled the affected services, but another private company had bid for those paths, it'd be okay (for the previously accessible departure to be replaced by an inaccessible train)?

Presumably there's some kind of line in the sand that explains why Windermere is okay but Scarborough isn't?

Funny you should mention Windermere....

It has been reported elsewhere that yesterday's 1240 Oxenholme-Windermere was held 10 minutes because a TPE service was running late and there was a wheelchair passenger on board for Windermere. Apparently the Northern bus service (which replaces an accessible 156 AIUI) couldn't take a wheelchair, so the non-accessible train was held - presumably the wheelchair went in the brake van?

Anyone want to kick off about the reduction in service as Northern have reduced disabled provision?

Interesting.

Please excuse me going briefly off topic, but is this actually the case? I assumed it was, because I know their other services aren't accessible (for various reasons, I'm not criticising) but nobody, including West Coast themselves, have actually managed to find out and tell me in response to my enquiries. Only because if they are accessible, I'd love to go on them for the experience. Thanks!

I don't know - hopefully someone can answer though

 

[Spartacus]

I'm trying to think which trains you could be referring to. IIRC, the only trains built in recent years without toilets are ones used on London 'metro' type services: e.g. the 345/378/710/717s used (or soon to be used) on London Overground/Crossrail/GN Inner Suburban services. But then their predecessors didn't have toilets either.

Going back a bit further, the 375s on SE Metro services are toiletless. Are you perhaps referring to the use of refurbished 313s on Coastway services by Southern?

I can't quite remember myself, it may have been the 375s, it was certainly something of that era or perhaps slightly later, not the latest baches anyway. Whatever it was there was quite a fuss as they were ending up on some long distant services. I thought they were new builds but it would well have been the 313s when they were introduced on Portsmouth - Brighton services, replacing the 377s which have two loos. The BBC article backs that theory up, at the time it was said by Southern 2/3 of services would still be worked by trains with toilets, now there's only 3 a day https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-11358844

 

[HSTEd]

Perhaps we could ban all black people from boarding certain trains, and tell them to wait for other services or to travel by taxi. This would alleviate overcrowding on some services.
(I wish to immediately make it abundantly clear that I abhor racism in all its forms and would never advocate anything like this - I'm posting it as a thought experiment, replacing one minority with another.)

So black people are unable to board a Mark 3 rake?.....
If you are going to "replace one minority with another", please make sure it at least makes some sense.

People are not proposing that the Mark 3s are a good idea because they think people in wheelchairs are not people or something like that.
The fact remains that the net effect of not using them is that a huge number of people will suffer day in and day out, and the total amount of suffering far outweighs the relatively minor inconvenience of waiting for the next train or taking a taxi to a very small minority of passengers.

The provision of a Taxi almost certainly meets the "reasonable adjustment" criteria laid out in law - which is why the campaigners resorted to mob justice rather than any kind of legal action.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I can't quite remember myself, it may have been the 375s, it was certainly something of that era or perhaps slightly later, not the latest baches anyway. Whatever it was there was quite a fuss as they were ending up on some long distant services. I thought they were new builds but it would well have been the 313s when they were introduced on Portsmouth - Brighton services, replacing the 377s which have two loos. The BBC article backs that theory up, at the time it was said by Southern 2/3 of services would still be worked by trains with toilets, now there's only 3 a day https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-11358844

Think it was 376s IIRC.

The provision of a Taxi almost certainly meets the "reasonable adjustment" criteria laid out in law - which is why the campaigners resorted to mob justice rather than any kind of legal action.

It would, were it not for the needless "wait for the next train first" condition. It shouldn't have been too difficult for TPE to arrange for private-hire firms local to each station to keep a wheelchair-accessible taxi on standby. As wheelchair users are more likely to have booked in advance and booked assistance, often the taxi would be able to also be booked well in advance.

The cynic in me wonders whether the arbitrary "next train" rule was deliberately included to ensure the cancellation: perhaps management had already decided that the Mk3s were going to be more trouble than they were worth so decided to sabotage the whole move!

 

[James James]

So black people are unable to board a Mark 3 rake?.....
If you are going to "replace one minority with another", please make sure it at least makes some sense.

People are not proposing that the Mark 3s are a good idea because they think people in wheelchairs are not people or something like that.
The fact remains that the net effect of not using them is that a huge number of people will suffer day in and day out, and the total amount of suffering far outweighs the relatively minor inconvenience of waiting for the next train or taking a taxi to a very small minority of passengers.

The provision of a Taxi almost certainly meets the "reasonable adjustment" criteria laid out in law - which is why the campaigners resorted to mob justice rather than any kind of legal action.

Most societies, worldwide, have decided that it's better for everyone to suffer equally (too little space on the train), than make only select people *with no choice in the matter* suffer disproportionately (block only wheelchair users). The few societies that decide differently generally don't last all that long, and aren't regarded highly in the international community.

 

[HSTEd]

Think it was 376s IIRC.
It would, were it not for the needless "wait for the next train first" condition. It shouldn't have been too difficult for TPE to arrange for private-hire firms local to each station to keep a wheelchair-accessible taxi on standby. As wheelchair users are more likely to have booked in advance and booked assistance, often the taxi would be able to also be booked well in advance.

The cynic in me wonders whether the arbitrary "next train" rule was deliberately included to ensure the cancellation: perhaps management had already decided that the Mk3s were going to be more trouble than they were worth so decided to sabotage the whole move!

Keeping a taxi on standby is going to cost a fortune.
Also worth noting that in most cases, given the state of the roads in the TPE system - that waiting for the next train will probably get the passenger there before the taxi would even if it left immediately.

And since TPE would likely know what train was to arrive next, the taxi would have been called immediately if a wheelchair passenger has turned up for the first of the two sets.

 

[kingqueen]

The ORR emailed me late yesterday evening on the subject of the Mark 3s. The ORR say that in October 2017, the Department for Transport told the ORR that the Mark 3 stock wouldn't be entering passenger service.

Which seems odd to me, given what's happened recently, but still, on the face of it, the decision was made long before any "mob" inflicted "justice".

The email states that the information in it is released under the Open Government Licence, so here it is, and I've attached the attachment. (Which has a bizarre set of not-properly-redacted redactions "effected" by highlighting in black, and properly redacted redactions...)

Dear Mr Paulley,

Thank you for your email of 27th May 2018 in relation to TPE, their DPPP and their intentions to introduce inaccessible rolling stock.

We have responded to the FOI aspect of your email below, but I will address the other points you have raised first.

As you know, we approve and review the disabled people’s protection policies (DPPPs) that each train and station operator has to produce under its licence conditions. We have been in discussions with TPE since autumn 2017 about a proposed update to their DPPP. The proposed amendments did not relate to the introduction of inaccessible rolling stock but did refer to the programme of rolling stock introduction more generally.

We became aware of TPE’s intention to possibly introduce Mark 3 rolling stock in October 2017 and sought clarification from them and the Department for Transport (DfT) as to the exact plans in place. At this point DfT indicated that the Mark 3 rolling stock would not be entering into passenger service.

Since then, we have had ongoing discussions regarding the content of the DPPP and we expect to be in a position to formally approve and publish the updated, revised version of TPE’s DPPP in the coming weeks.

We are aware of the recent press reports regarding the introduction of Mark 3’s. As soon as we became aware of those reports we sought clarification from TPE as to the potential introduction of Mark 3 stock. TPE has now confirmed there is no plan to introduce this particular rolling stock into passenger service.

Your email also made reference to our Public Sector Equality Duty. Please be assured that during the course of our work as a public organisation, we are mindful of the Equality Act, and our Public Sector Equality Duty. For example, I think you are aware that we are currently reviewing our guidance to operators on how to write their DPPPs, and will be producing an equality impact assessment as part of this.

Freedom of Information Request

In relation to your request for all recorded material ORR hold on TransPennine Express (TPE) intended use of inaccessible stock, I can confirm that we do hold some information.

The relevant information is attached with the following provisions:

· Redactions have been made to personal information under s.40 (2) (b) of FoIA 2000, and also redactions to information contained in the attached documents which I consider not relevant to your request.

· The email exchange between officials which took place on 10th November 2017 was in response to a query raised by Transport Focus. The query was raised to ask whether passenger service was included in the options which were being considered by TPE for driver training using Mark 3 loco hauled stock.

· There is one document supplied to ORR by TPE on the 14th May 2018, which provides a version of their DPPP. I consider this document to be exempt from disclosure under s.22 (1) (a), information intended for future publication. The s.22 exemption is a qualified exemption subject to the public interest test, which means considering the factors in favour of disclosure balanced against the factors for maintaining the exemption.

Public Interest Test

I have considered the following factors in favour of disclosure:

· Promote transparency in ORR’s work on accessibility.

Balanced against the following factors for maintaining the exemption:

· The document was an earlier version and does not reflect current TPE DPPP plans.

· It would be misleading to release an unapproved and outdated document.

Decision

After careful consideration of the above factors and also representations from TPE, I believe the public interest is best served by maintaining the exemption. We have recently received the latest version of TPE’s DPPP, which we are currently scrutinising before approving. The approved document together with our approval letter will be published on our web site in the near future.

Copyright

The ORR information supplied to you continues to be protected by the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. You may re-use (not including logos) free of charge in any format or medium under the terms of the Open Government Licence. To view this licence, visit http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3/ or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew,London TW9 4DU, or email[email protected].

You will need permission from the Department for Transport (DfT), to reproduce any part of their information - https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-transport.

Likewise you will require the permission of TPE to copy any parts of their information - [email protected].

Your rights of appeal under FoIA 2000

If you are not satisfied with the way in which your request has been handled, you have the right to ask for an internal review. Internal review requests should be submitted within two months of the date of this email, and should be addressed to the Board Secretariat at:

Office of Rail and Road
One Kemble Street
London
WC2B 4AN
Email: [email protected]

If you are not content with the outcome of the internal review, you may apply directly to the Information Commissioner (IC) for a decision. Generally the IC cannot make a decision unless you have exhausted the complaints procedure provided by ORR. The IC can be contacted at:

The Information Commissioner’s Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Tel: 0303 123 1113
Email: [email protected]
Website: https://ico.org.uk/

Yours sincerely
(Name removed by kingqueen)
Senior Executive

Customer Correspondence Team
(Phone number removed by kingqueen)

(Name removed by kingqueen)@orr.gsi.gov.uk
1 Kemble Street, London, WC2B 4AN
http://orr.gov.uk/

Follow us on twitter @railandroad

ORR protects the interests of rail and road users; improving the safety, value and performance of railways and roads, today and into the future.

The most interesting bit from the attachment is this from the DFT to the ORR on 10th November 2017.

Subject: TPE and Mark III stock
Hi Redacted s.40 (2) (b),
Following on from our conversation last week about TPE and mark IIIs, I’ve double checked with the franchise team and they assure me that the proposal for the Mark III loco hauled stock is not being progressed for passenger service. They may be used for driver training though. The franchise manager suggested that TPE may be progressing things as if they will be pressing them in to passenger service in the December timetable change, but NR has not agreed to them being used.

There is a line in the 2015 franchise agreement which reads: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa..._data/file/594500/tpe-franchise-agreement.pdf Provision of additional Mark III coaches
38.1 In accordance with its obligations in paragraph 1 of Schedule 1.7 (The Train Fleet) the Franchisee shall enter into a Rolling Stock Lease in relation to ten Mark III coaches using all reasonable endeavours to ensure that all such rolling stock shall be capable of unrestricted passenger carrying service by no later than 1 April 2017.
38.2 By no later than 30 September 2016, the Franchisee shall in relation to the vehicles referred to in paragraph 38.1 overhaul and refurbish them and form them into two sets of coaches each providing 280 standard class seats, 44 first class seats and a standing capacity of an additional 140 passengers. In carrying out such overhaul and refurbishment works the Franchisee shall incur operational expenditure of not less than 15.
38.3 The Franchisee shall ensure that sufficient appropriate locomotives are available to it to enable the two sets of Mark III coaches to be available for unrestricted passenger carrying

This was intended to provide additional capacity and driver training for loco-hauled units ahead of the new Mark 5 coaches being delivered for TPE. But as you can see all the committed dates have been missed and looking at industry blogs on the subject, it looks like there are maintenance issues which are keeping most of the sets in Laira depot.

I will keep you in the loop on this if anything changes.

Thanks, Redacted s.40 (2) (b)

Er, wha?

 

[43096]

The ORR emailed me late yesterday evening on the subject of the Mark 3s. The ORR say that in October 2017, the Department for Transport told the ORR that the Mark 3 stock wouldn't be entering passenger service.

Which seems odd to me, given what's happened recently, but still, on the face of it, the decision was made long before any "mob" inflicted "justice".

The email states that the information in it is released under the Open Government Licence, so here it is, and I've attached the attachment. (Which has a bizarre set of not-properly-redacted redactions "effected" by highlighting in black, and properly redacted redactions...)



The most interesting bit from the attachment is this from the DFT to the ORR on 10th November 2017.


Er, wha?

Given that TPE missed the 2017 deadline by over 12 months and have constantly dragged their feet over getting them operational, I don’t believe - and never have - that TPE management ever wanted them. The disability issue is just a convenient excuse to not use them.

That they have paid Porterbrook the lease charge for them for well over 18 months now and will continue to do so is just a spectacular waste of money from a company (First) that isn’t exactly cas rich.

 

[Bantamzen]

The ORR emailed me late yesterday evening on the subject of the Mark 3s. The ORR say that in October 2017, the Department for Transport told the ORR that the Mark 3 stock wouldn't be entering passenger service.

Which seems odd to me, given what's happened recently, but still, on the face of it, the decision was made long before any "mob" inflicted "justice".

The email states that the information in it is released under the Open Government Licence, so here it is, and I've attached the attachment. (Which has a bizarre set of not-properly-redacted redactions "effected" by highlighting in black, and properly redacted redactions...)

The most interesting bit from the attachment is this from the DFT to the ORR on 10th November 2017.

Er, wha?

That's interesting stuff, thanks. But it leaves far more questions than answers.

Given that TPE missed the 2017 deadline by over 12 months and have constantly dragged their feet over getting them operational, I don’t believe - and never have - that TPE management ever wanted them. The disability issue is just a convenient excuse to not use them.

That they have paid Porterbrook the lease charge for them for well over 18 months now and will continue to do so is just a spectacular waste of money from a company (First) that isn’t exactly cas rich.

Now while it could be possible that TPE managers didn't want the MKIII stock in use, despite it being a franchise requirement, the question begs that why would they still go ahead with the lease, start driver training with them, even produce a draft policy around accessibilities if they really had no intentions on using them for revenue service? As you rightly point out, First Group aren't exactly flush with spare cash to chuck about, so having had to lease them, bring them North, get drivers trained on them why would they then look to find an excuse not to potential earn additional revenue, and in the light of the timetable meltdown maybe even earn a few brownie points (albeit in a somewhat cynical manner)? It just doesn't add up in my mind.

Maybe there are multiple reasons why TPE have resisted getting the MKIIIs into service? Perhaps there are issues with the stock itself (accessibility notwithstanding), perhaps they foresaw possible problems with the MKIII in service, perhaps they just had a bag on about them, or perhaps the accessibility issue was seen as too hot a potato to handle. Who knows, it seems most of us don't and probably never will. DfT may have had a better idea, but they are keeping typically vague about the whole situation.

Just as an aside, and until @kingqueen posted those responses from ORR & DfT I wouldn't have even thought to connect this, but I've been trying to book some First Advance tickets for a trip this weekend, using TPE between Leeds & Manchester (final destination Warrington). Now prior to the timetable change, I've always without fail been able to source a reasonably priced one using my Two Together Card for my wife & I. Previously booked a week or more in advance I've been able to book to Warrington for around £55-£60 for both of us (and was one reason why we started to book First Class), but my searches using numerous engines including split ticket sites could only find me a price double that, including standard class between Manchester & Warrington. Even Leeds-Manchester was coming in around the £60 mark.

Being slightly annoyed & curious, I emailed TPE about this and they came back with a response that basically thanks to the late timetable changes, they've messed up the booking system & that they will still working on it, with a view to getting all the advance tickets back in the system. It was a brutally honest response & to be frank I accepted it as such. However at the same time my wife Tweeted them about the same, and their response was that advance tickets were not being released because they weren't sure if they could run all the services. A somewhat different response that got me thinking was there something going seriously wrong (which has proved to be the case). However in light of the confusion with the MKIIIs coming in or no coming in, it does make me wonder if part of the booking issues surround the MKIIIs being punched into the booking system, and now suddenly having to be taken out. I honestly don't think its a coincidence that there are problems getting advance tickets into the booking system at the same time that there is confusion not only with the timetables, but potentially what stock might or might not be running.

 

[kingqueen]

That's interesting stuff, thanks. But it leaves far more questions than answers.

Doesn't it just!

Perhaps there are issues with the stock itself (accessibility notwithstanding)

There's this quote from the DfT:

looking at industry blogs on the subject, it looks like there are maintenance issues which are keeping most of the sets in Laira depot

However at the same time my wife Tweeted them about the same, and their response was that advance tickets were not being released because they weren't sure if they could run all the services. A somewhat different response that got me thinking was there something going seriously wrong (which has proved to be the case). However in light of the confusion with the MKIIIs coming in or no coming in, it does make me wonder if part of the booking issues surround the MKIIIs being punched into the booking system, and now suddenly having to be taken out.

Interesting response from FTPE!

The Mark 3s were not due to be introduced until after the Liverpool engineering upgrade is completed, which isn't for some time yet. So I don't think the sudden removal of Mark 3s would be responsible for the ticketing issue? But I could well be wrong. I would say though that I've had multiple times I've really struggled to book the wheelchair space because seat reservations haven't been released for trains right up to the day of the train, which also has the effect of preventing advance tickets from being available on that service. Could be due to that...

 

[Bantamzen]

The Mark 3s were not due to be introduced until after the Liverpool engineering upgrade is completed, which isn't for some time yet. So I don't think the sudden removal of Mark 3s would be responsible for the ticketing issue? But I could well be wrong. I would say though that I've had multiple times I've really struggled to book the wheelchair space because seat reservations haven't been released for trains right up to the day of the train, which also has the effect of preventing advance tickets from being available on that service. Could be due to that...

Something is seriously wrong, I'm not surprised that there are problems with wheelchair reservations given everything that's going on. This is further evidenced by the fact that many queries run through the National Rail site fall over when trying to pass to TPE's booking engine, and even that is flakey at best at the moment. I've already raised a further issue with TPE for their devs to look at the issues with the search engine.

But on the main topic of the thread, I can't help but wonder if that TPE response the ORR refereed to had more information that would have been of interest to this thread?

 

[kingqueen]

Something is seriously wrong, I'm not surprised that there are problems with wheelchair reservations given everything that's going on.

It wasn't just wheelchair reservations though; it has been trains where all seat reservations haven't been released. As you say, much is broken, so it seems

But on the main topic of the thread, I can't help but wonder if that TPE response the ORR refereed to had more information that would have been of interest to this thread?

I've provided everything that I received from them (including the attachment to my post)

 

[Bantamzen]

It wasn't just wheelchair reservations though; it has been trains where all seat reservations haven't been released. As you say, much is broken, so it seem.

Yes, the booking I've mad for this weekend and next week is all unreserved so I've aimed for the slows at off-peak / quiet times to & from Piccadilly to maximise the chances of getting a seat in First without issue.

I've provided everything that I received from them (including the attachment to my post)

Oh I know, I was referring to the supplementary document that the ORR alluded to (dated 14/05/18) which they didn't release to you under your query / FOI request.

 

[talltim]

What were they playing at with the unredacted black redactions?

 

[mde]

What were they playing at with the unredacted black redactions?

Someone who doesn't know how to redact documents properly… the hidden text is, however, rather interesting (relates to changes to passenger assistance / DPPP).

 

[xotGD]

So in October 2017 is was stated that the Mark 3s wouldn't be entering service, and yet in December 2017 they were used on a service train. Something does not add up.

 

[DarloRich]

So in October 2017 is was stated that the Mark 3s wouldn't be entering service, and yet in December 2017 they were used on a service train. Something does not add up.

was that one of running not a way to beat a financial penalty on the contract? Perhaps first have renegotiated or have simply decided to "wear" any financial loss.