Who covers the costs during disruption caused by passengers being ill?

[robbeech]

I had a search but couldn’t find anything directly related. This is in no way a complaint, or a suggestion of how I think things should be different, I’m just curious to know how things are calculated.

This evening on my way back from York my LNER train was held outside of Retford as a passenger had taken ill on the Hull trains service in front.

Whilst the most important thing is to ensure the passenger is ok I did wonder how the associated costs (which will likely be tens of thousands of pounds) are worked out.

In this example. The train called at it’s booked stop (Retford) after starting at Doncaster (we don’t need to go into why it started short).
The LNER services that follows also calls at Retford. This stood blocking the up main for 10 minutes before a suitable path could be found to run wrong line and into platform 2. This delayed the service and I missed my connection due to this (still not a complaint).
The Hull Trains Service was cancelled as the person who was ill remained on the train for reasons that I’m sure were justified medically. All passengers (likely 200 or so) were put onto the LNER service. Many of those may have been on advances so ticket acceptance would be in place and the cost here would be substantial.
There would have been further HT passengers at Grantham. The LNER service ran late and may have fouled connections for LNER passengers at other stations. (For example it fouled the minimum connection time for the last connection of the day to Skegness although luckily that service itself was 10L) The LNER arrived much later than the HT service would have so every passenger is entitled to at least a 30 minute delay repay claim.
The return working of the HT (2030 from King’s Cross) was started short at Grantham so ticket acceptance was required on LNER once again. The HT is running about 25L so again could foul connections or if it misses a path could end up 30L and create another batch of claims.
For example had I required that service to get home from London today (it’s my last connection home from London Monday to Friday) I would have been stranded at Retford / Worksop.

So all in all the costs will be running into the tens of thousands. Is it HT that covers this or Network Rail? Is there an agreement between TOCs whereby ticket acceptance for this scenario comes with a reduced fee or does the already struggling to Survive Hull Trains just have to put it down as a cost of doing business?

 

[LowLevel]

The train operator cops for ill passengers on their trains causing delay.

There are however complex rules about when and how they become responsible for delay minutes and to which extent that are beyond me.

 

[Bald Rick]

I had a search but couldn’t find anything directly related. This is in no way a complaint, or a suggestion of how I think things should be different, I’m just curious to know how things are calculated.

This evening on my way back from York my LNER train was held outside of Retford as a passenger had taken ill on the Hull trains service in front.

Whilst the most important thing is to ensure the passenger is ok I did wonder how the associated costs (which will likely be tens of thousands of pounds) are worked out.

In this example. The train called at it’s booked stop (Retford) after starting at Doncaster (we don’t need to go into why it started short).
The LNER services that follows also calls at Retford. This stood blocking the up main for 10 minutes before a suitable path could be found to run wrong line and into platform 2. This delayed the service and I missed my connection due to this (still not a complaint).
The Hull Trains Service was cancelled as the person who was ill remained on the train for reasons that I’m sure were justified medically. All passengers (likely 200 or so) were put onto the LNER service. Many of those may have been on advances so ticket acceptance would be in place and the cost here would be substantial.
There would have been further HT passengers at Grantham. The LNER service ran late and may have fouled connections for LNER passengers at other stations. (For example it fouled the minimum connection time for the last connection of the day to Skegness although luckily that service itself was 10L) The LNER arrived much later than the HT service would have so every passenger is entitled to at least a 30 minute delay repay claim.
The return working of the HT (2030 from King’s Cross) was started short at Grantham so ticket acceptance was required on LNER once again. The HT is running about 25L so again could foul connections or if it misses a path could end up 30L and create another batch of claims.
For example had I required that service to get home from London today (it’s my last connection home from London Monday to Friday) I would have been stranded at Retford / Worksop.

So all in all the costs will be running into the tens of thousands. Is it HT that covers this or Network Rail? Is there an agreement between TOCs whereby ticket acceptance for this scenario comes with a reduced fee or does the already struggling to Survive Hull Trains just have to put it down as a cost of doing business?

In simple terms (and it isn’t quite as simple as this)...

Hull trains pay Network Rail for each minute of delay caused (total)
NR then pays LNER for each minute of delay caused to LNER.
The compensation is not relative to the number or value of claims from passengers.

In almost every case the amount paid by TOC to NR is at a lower rate than by NR to TOC.

 

[pt_mad]

On a similar note can anyone confirm that when a train is delayed due to 'disorder' i.e. disruptive passengers, drunk customers etc, or fighting, that there is no fine to the TOC?

Afaik I think this is the case?

 

[Bald Rick]

On a similar note can anyone confirm that when a train is delayed due to 'disorder' i.e. disruptive passengers, drunk customers etc, or fighting, that there is no fine to the TOC?

Afaik I think this is the case?

Assuming they are on a train or station, that’s the TOCs fault, and they pay.

If they are on the track it’s Network Rail’s fault and they pay instead (at a higher rate).

 

[pt_mad]

Assuming they are on a train or station, that’s the TOCs fault, and they pay.

If they are on the track it’s Network Rail’s fault and they pay instead (at a higher rate).

How is that the TOCs fault? (Disruptive customers)?

 

[Bald Rick]

How is that the TOCs fault? (Disruptive customers)?

In the eyes of the track access contracts, everything is either the ‘fault’ of NR or the TOC. Essentially, any problem on a train or a station is the TOCs ‘fault’, everything else is Network Rail’s.

There are a few exceptions, as ever, where ‘fault’ is shared either by pre-agreement (leaf fall is a good example) or due to specific circumstances.

 

[northernchris]

How come Network Rail have to pay a higher rate than the operators?

 

[Tio Terry]

Basically - and I know there are exceptions - if the passenger has bought a ticket then the TOC is responsible, if they haven't then it's NR's problem because they are trespassers. In years gone by there were accusations that jumpers were provided with tickets by Railtrack staff so that the TOC would be credited with the delay attribution rather than Railtrack. I would hasten to add that this was never, ever, proved and that there is no evidence to support this view. It's just something that privatisation and blame culture brought upon the industry.

 

[pt_mad]

In the eyes of the track access contracts, everything is either the ‘fault’ of NR or the TOC. Essentially, any problem on a train or a station is the TOCs ‘fault’, everything else is Network Rail’s.

There are a few exceptions, as ever, where ‘fault’ is shared either by pre-agreement (leaf fall is a good example) or due to specific circumstances.

I had a vague idea some causes were known as 'excludable causes' and disorder was one but perhaps not the case then.

 

[Dr Hoo]

How come Network Rail have to pay a higher rate than the operators?

In essence the Network Rail rate reflects the amount of future revenue to be lost by the TOC. So for an service group with a lot of highly 'disruption-phobic' airport travelers (who would 'never use the train again') the rate would be quite high. For another service group, used by a few relatively 'captive' commuters the rate would be rather lower.
For TOC-'caused' delays (such as ill passengers) Network Rail doesn't really lose any revenue directly and the rate only reflects the likelihood that another operator will be affected, for which Network Rail will pay out. So for relatively self-contained operators like Merseyrail and c2c the TOC rate is very low. On the other hand for TOCs that do a lot of route sharing, such as CrossCountry and Transpennine, the rate will be rather higher.
As always, remember that these are not 'fines', they are liquidated damages. Also the performance regimes are calibrated to be financially neutral at expected levels of performance. If there are fewer delays than expected then either party can earn bonuses at the same rate as they are 'penalized' for being worse than expected.
Also remember that the regimes work on an aggregated basis that looks at overall shares of delay and levels of average lateness across monitoring points, across service groups, across whole days, bundled up into four-week accounting periods, effectively with one 'net' financial settlement at the end. Most of the calculations are performed automatically by computers.
The common impression that people are somehow arguing and negotiating the toss train-by-train, incident-by-incident is completely false.

 

[Bald Rick]

In essence the Network Rail rate reflects the amount of future revenue to be lost by the TOC. So for an service group with a lot of highly 'disruption-phobic' airport travelers (who would 'never use the train again') the rate would be quite high. For another service group, used by a few relatively 'captive' commuters the rate would be rather lower.
For TOC-'caused' delays (such as ill passengers) Network Rail doesn't really lose any revenue directly and the rate only reflects the likelihood that another operator will be affected, for which Network Rail will pay out. So for relatively self-contained operators like Merseyrail and c2c the TOC rate is very low. On the other hand for TOCs that do a lot of route sharing, such as CrossCountry and Transpennine, the rate will be rather higher.
As always, remember that these are not 'fines', they are liquidated damages. Also the performance regimes are calibrated to be financially neutral at expected levels of performance. If there are fewer delays than expected then either party can earn bonuses at the same rate as they are 'penalized' for being worse than expected.
Also remember that the regimes work on an aggregated basis that looks at overall shares of delay and levels of average lateness across monitoring points, across service groups, across whole days, bundled up into four-week accounting periods, effectively with one 'net' financial settlement at the end. Most of the calculations are performed automatically by computers.
The common impression that people are somehow arguing and negotiating the toss train-by-train, incident-by-incident is completely false.

Very well summarised.

An even shorter version is: its flippin’ complicated, and very few people fully understand it!

 

[northernchris]

@Dr Hoo thanks for the info, appreciate the detail. Delay Attribution really is a complicated thing!

 

[Dr Hoo]

Very well summarised.

An even shorter version is: its flippin’ complicated, and very few people fully understand it!

If only more people made the effort, at least before seeking to criticize or change it. It is actually quite remarkable that the basic structure of the 'template' passenger regime has survived through five control periods.

 

[Bald Rick]

@Dr Hoo thanks for the info, appreciate the detail. Delay Attribution really is a complicated thing!

Delay Attribution is relatively simple, as there is a guide for practitioners known as the Delay Attribution Principles & Rules (formerly the Delay Attribution Guide). This effectively sets out who takes the minutes for different types of incidents. Link below

http://www.delayattributionboard.co...ution Principles and Rules September 2018.pdf

The complicated bit is understanding how to convert delay minutes into the relevant incentive payment between the parties. Naturally there are some clever spreadsheets that do all this, but setting the formulae in the spreadsheets takes some thinking and doing.

 

[jon0844]

Just run it through a random number generator and I'm sure it will all average out in the end!

 

[45107]

In simple terms (and it isn’t quite as simple as this)...

Hull trains pay Network Rail for each minute of delay caused (total)
NR then pays LNER for each minute of delay caused to LNER.
The compensation is not relative to the number or value of claims from passengers.

In almost every case the amount paid by TOC to NR is at a lower rate than by NR to TOC.

Not entirely correct.
Hull Trains are responsible for the delays to their own trains. Network Rail pick up the tab for any other operator affected.
Basically, the performance regime is between Network Rail and the TOC/FOC. Network Rail are responsible for any ‘third party’ TOC/FOC delays.

 

[Bald Rick]

Not entirely correct.
Hull Trains are responsible for the delays to their own trains. Network Rail pick up the tab for any other operator affected.
Basically, the performance regime is between Network Rail and the TOC/FOC. Network Rail are responsible for any ‘third party’ TOC/FOC delays.

Not quite so, although it is possible that Hull trains have a different access contract in this respect as a non franchise operator.

If delay minutes are attributed to one party of the access contract, the they ‘pay’ for all those minutes to the other party of the contract.

If TOC ‘A’ is attributed a delay incident, all minutes attributed to that incident cause a payment from TOC A to NR, regardless of which TOC experiences the delay (TOC A, B, C etc). But through the Star model, NR then compensates TOC B, C, Etc for the minutes incurred by each of them individually.

Example:

TOC A has a train failure, causing 1000 minutes delay total, of which 600 is to its own services, and 400 to TOC B.

TOC A pays NR 1000 minutes. (At the TOC A to NR rate)
NR then pays TOC B 400 minutes. (At the NR to TOC B rate)

As mentioned above, this is the simple version, as it doesn’t work as simply as adding all the minutes up and paying accordingly. @Dr Hoo explained all.

Interestingly, it isn’t actually TOCs that’s are the contractual entities, but Track Access Contract holders. There have been times times when one TOC has had more than one track access contract. As an example, when GW and Thames Trains were merged, the seperate access contracts ran on for quite a while. There was a running joke that the (merged) GW would ‘arrange’ for an inbound service from Greenford to Paddington to sit down across the throat at Paddington just before the evening peak, which because of the huge difference in £/min rate stars would boost their bottom line by several hundred thousand pounds.

 

[45107]

Example:

TOC A has a train failure, causing 1000 minutes delay total, of which 600 is to its own services, and 400 to TOC B.

TOC A pays NR 1000 minutes. (At the TOC A to NR rate)
NR then pays TOC B 400 minutes. (At the NR to TOC B rate).

Unless things have changed since i was involved in dealing with a Schedule 8 contract, the only details included on the daily Pears statement and the day 42 statement were related solely to TOC/Network Rail delays and there was no mention/cost of delays caused to or by other TOCs. It was either TOC or Network Rail. All other TOC caused delays were included in the Network Rail element of the statement, without any detail about delays out TOC caused to others.

As the TOC to N/R deemed cost is lower than the N/R to TOC cost, A franchised TOC is not penalised through the Performance Regimes for delays to other TOCs

I do not know what arrangements apply for non-Franchised operators.

 

[Bald Rick]

Unless things have changed since i was involved in dealing with a Schedule 8 contract, the only details included on the daily Pears statement and the day 42 statement were related solely to TOC/Network Rail delays and there was no mention/cost of delays caused to or by other TOCs. It was either TOC or Network Rail. All other TOC caused delays were included in the Network Rail element of the statement, without any detail about delays out TOC caused to others.

As the TOC to N/R deemed cost is lower than the N/R to TOC cost, A franchised TOC is not penalised through the Performance Regimes for delays to other TOCs

I do not know what arrangements apply for non-Franchised operators.

But that’s right. As far as the Day 42 statement shows, the causing TOC caused all the delay (1000 mins in my example), whilst a ‘victim’ TOC saw delay caused by NR (400 mins in my example), albeit it was actually caused by another TOC.