Why are the two dates, May and December, chosen for timetable changes?

[Class 170101]

So either just before or just after Easter? Not ideal, even though the clocks and the airlines change.

The aim for Easter would be for it to be in the summer timetable.

 

[30907]

The aim for Easter would be for it to be in the summer timetable.

So mid-March at the latest to allow for a holiday period starting a week before.

 

[Bald Rick]

The future, if agreed, is (roughly) February, June, October.

 

[306024]

The future, if agreed, is (roughly) February, June, October.

As a casual observer these days, what intrigues me is how long the timetable development period will be for each timetable, and how the data is managed to ensure changes made just before the end of finalising timetable 1 will still work in timetable 2 (and timetable 3?) which will have presumably already started development (unless it is only going to take four months to develop each timetable )

And secondly what agreements for traincrew rostering will have to be renegotiated with the trade unions to facilitate three roster changes per year. Especially at TOCs like MTR and part of GA where annual leave is part of the base roster. Not really for detailed discussion on an open forum, but an ‘interesting‘ aspect I’m not convinced is fully appreciated.

 

[Bald Rick]

but an ‘interesting‘ aspect I’m not convinced is fully appreciated.

Oh it is!

 

[ABB125]

The future, if agreed, is (roughly) February, June, October.

Why three, and why June? Isn't that a bit late for the "summer" season (which presumably lasts longer than the three summer months)?

 

[Bald Rick]

Why three, and why June? Isn't that a bit late for the "summer" season (which presumably lasts longer than the three summer months)?

If you want to be able to change a timetable more often (funders do), then three is better than 2.

However to keep all the timetable data ‘straight’, you need to finish developing one timetable before starting the next )in the timetable systems, at least) and that means you need 4 months between them.

June is a good time to change for summer dated traffic, and October is a good time to change for Autumn.

 

[306024]

Keeping the timetable data ‘straight’ is key. It is certainly frustrating to have to wait six months for even relatively minor changes. So long as this can be reduced to four months, and not ironically increased to eight months due to the timetable planning workload.

If this is going to happen, the dates chosen seem to make good sense, can’t think of anything better. With Short Term Planning forming the majority of planning work, a firm base for Christmas, Easter, and the three one day Bank Holidays is essential. These proposed change dates make this better than currently. And of course you don’t have to change the timetable just because there is a timetable change date.

 

[zwk500]

And of course you don’t have to change the timetable just because there is a timetable change date.

You don't have to, but it does increase the planning workload if you change mid-timetable.

 

[Clarence Yard]

As a casual observer these days, what intrigues me is how long the timetable development period will be for each timetable, and how the data is managed to ensure changes made just before the end of finalising timetable 1 will still work in timetable 2 (and timetable 3?) which will have presumably already started development (unless it is only going to take four months to develop each timetable )

And secondly what agreements for traincrew rostering will have to be renegotiated with the trade unions to facilitate three roster changes per year. Especially at TOCs like MTR and part of GA where annual leave is part of the base roster. Not really for detailed discussion on an open forum, but an ‘interesting‘ aspect I’m not convinced is fully appreciated.

It is, which is why the revised proposal from NR is now two change dates, June and October with February being an optional dated sub set of the October change timetable. So, if you are not doing any changes in February there is no need to consult.

That is one of the main reasons why the previous “Proposal for Change”, which proposed three formal changes a year got rejected by the TOC/FOC reps. The workload and extra cost a third change date put on the industry was huge. This revised “PfC” will now be voted on by the relevant industry representatives on January 5th.

If it gets passed, Early June will become the principal timetable change date (the “PCD”) and early October will become the subsidiary change date (the “SCD”).

 

[306024]

Thank you @Clarence Yard for that detail. Will await the voting result with detached interest.

 

[The Planner]

Thank you @Clarence Yard for that detail. Will await the voting result with detached interest.

It should go through this time.

 

[Peterthegreat]

As someone who was part of the BR delegation that discussed this at the timetable conference around 30 years ago perhaps I can shed light on the rationale.
Perhaps rather surprisingly the start date wasn't the main driver for change. The issue was mainly regarding the timescales to produce the timetable and the workload involved. Until the early 90s the international timetables only really changed every two years and the process had hardly changed in over a 100 years. However the fall of the iron curtain, opening of high speed lines and the onset of low cost airlines meant changes needed to be made more quickly.
However without the benefit of fax machines, emails and other modern day devices the timetable discussions were mainly done by post and by face to face meetings at the conference and line of route meetings. The main conference lasted around two weeks, the location of which rotated around the railways. In addition most delegates travelled by rail adding another couple of days at either end of the conference. Some railways needed in excess of 30 individuals (often including translators).
So for a timetable starting in the summer the first real works would be taking place the previous summer. Unfortunately it became very difficult to encompass the workload during the summer/school holdays and it was this that brought about the changes.
There seemed to be a consensus to move the timetable change date to early January (rather than say March or September) however SNCF did not want to change in the middle of their ski season so a December date was chosen as a compromise.
I hope this explains the rationale behind the change.

 

[30907]

As someone who was part of the BR delegation that discussed this at the timetable conference around 30 years ago perhaps I can shed light on the rationale.
Perhaps rather surprisingly the start date wasn't the main driver for change. The issue was mainly regarding the timescales to produce the timetable and the workload involved. Until the early 90s the international timetables only really changed every two years and the process had hardly changed in over a 100 years. However the fall of the iron curtain, opening of high speed lines and the onset of low cost airlines meant changes needed to be made more quickly.
However without the benefit of fax machines, emails and other modern day devices the timetable discussions were mainly done by post and by face to face meetings at the conference and line of route meetings. The main conference lasted around two weeks, the location of which rotated around the railways. In addition most delegates travelled by rail adding another couple of days at either end of the conference. Some railways needed in excess of 30 individuals (often including translators).
So for a timetable starting in the summer the first real works would be taking place the previous summer. Unfortunately it became very difficult to encompass the workload during the summer/school holdays and it was this that brought about the changes.
There seemed to be a consensus to move the timetable change date to early January (rather than say March or September) however SNCF did not want to change in the middle of their ski season so a December date was chosen as a compromise.
I hope this explains the rationale behind the change.

Thanks for the fascinating detail. I suspected that holiday periods had something to do with the decision but hadn't realised the lead time was quite so long. It still seems to be almost a year.

It is, which is why the revised proposal from NR is now two change dates, June and October with February being an optional dated sub set of the October change timetable.

...so aligning us with the European summer mini-change and going back almost to 1950s-60s BR!

 

[Class 170101]

If you want to be able to change a timetable more often (funders do), then three is better than 2.

However to keep all the timetable data ‘straight’, you need to finish developing one timetable before starting the next )in the timetable systems, at least) and that means you need 4 months between them.

June is a good time to change for summer dated traffic, and October is a good time to change for Autumn.

Thats all well and good but do the funders want to pay for the extra resource this change will inevitably create? I doubt it. It must also shorten the notice the public will get of engineering work timetable changes currently at 12 weeks notice. I am not convinced this is the way to go if the railway is moving away from a commuter led to a more leisure based market surely more notice should be given to the passengers of engineering works and not less?

It is, which is why the revised proposal from NR is now two change dates, June and October with February being an optional dated sub set of the October change timetable. So, if you are not doing any changes in February there is no need to consult.

That is one of the main reasons why the previous “Proposal for Change”, which proposed three formal changes a year got rejected by the TOC/FOC reps. The workload and extra cost a third change date put on the industry was huge. This revised “PfC” will now be voted on by the relevant industry representatives on January 5th.

If it gets passed, Early June will become the principal timetable change date (the “PCD”) and early October will become the subsidiary change date (the “SCD”).

Thats fine in theory but as @Bald Rick points out above if funders want to change the timetable (and they do) the February date will be just as busy planning wise as any of the other change dates. Also will both NR and operators use it as an opportunity to spread their workload? The current Principal Change Date in December and the Subsidary Date in June seem to have as many timetable changes as each other with NR using it to spread workload.

It should go through this time.

I don't think thats by any means guaranteed by a long stretch.

 

[Peregrine 4903]

Thats all well and good but do the funders want to pay for the extra resource this change will inevitably create? I doubt it. It must also shorten the notice the public will get of engineering work timetable changes currently at 12 weeks notice. I am not convinced this is the way to go if the railway is moving away from a commuter led to a more leisure based market surely more notice should be given to the passengers of engineering works and not less?


Thats fine in theory but as @Bald Rick points out above if funders want to change the timetable (and they do) the February date will be just as busy planning wise as any of the other change dates. Also will both NR and operators use it as an opportunity to spread their workload? The current Principal Change Date in December and the Subsidary Date in June seem to have as many timetable changes as each other with NR using it to spread workload.


I don't think thats by any means guaranteed by a long stretch.

I think it pretty much is to be honest.

 

[Bald Rick]

Thats all well and good but do the funders want to pay for the extra resource this change will inevitably create? I doubt it.

If it’s needed, yes. But it’s not likely to be needed (At least not in any notable quantity).

It must also shorten the notice the public will get of engineering work timetable changes currently at 12 weeks notice.

It hasn’t been T-12 for nearly 3 years.

I don't think thats by any means guaranteed by a long stretch.

how have you reached that conclusion? Which members of the committee have you spoken to? The minutes of the last committee were pretty clear on the matter!

 

[Peregrine 4903]

If it’s needed, yes. But it’s not likely to be needed (At least not in any notable quantity).




It hasn’t been T-12 for nearly 3 years.





how have you reached that conclusion? Which members of the committee have you spoken to? The minutes of the last committee were pretty clear on the matter!

Yeah at best it's been T-8

 

[306024]

If it’s needed, yes. But it’s not likely to be needed (At least not in any notable quantity).

In a TOC, one person is a notable quantity, as anyone who has asked for an additional post will have discovered

It hasn’t been T-12 for nearly 3 years.

It was of course the long distance TOCs who wanted T-12. Most shorter distance operators weren’t bothered. Perhaps T-6 or 8 is a sensible compromise, or is the industry going to try to keep chasing T-12?

 

[Bald Rick]

In a TOC, one person is a notable quantity, as anyone who has asked for an additional post will have discovered


It was of course the long distance TOCs who wanted T-12. Most shorter distance operators weren’t bothered. Perhaps T-6 or 8 is a sensible compromise, or is the industry going to try to keep chasing T-12?

T-8 permanently, but with a new system for booking tickets beyond that (with advice if your booking changes).

True about 1 person in a TOC; but most will not need them.

 

[43096]

T-8 permanently, but with a new system for booking tickets beyond that (with advice if your booking changes).

Given that every change with railway ticketing is to the detriment of customers, why is it that I have absolutely no confidence that that would be an improvement?

 

[The Planner]

I don't think thats by any means guaranteed by a long stretch.

If the proposed way of dealing with the February change was there to start with, then it would already be done and dusted. Its pretty much a formality now.

 

[Bald Rick]

Given that every change with railway ticketing is to the detriment of customers, why is it that I have absolutely no confidence that that would be an improvement?

it’s not a change to ticketing.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Given that every change with railway ticketing is to the detriment of customers, why is it that I have absolutely no confidence that that would be an improvement?

I think it will, to be fair. I assume they're saying that past 8 weeks would be e-tickets only, and so there'd be an email address to send notification of a change to, with the option of a refund, as per flights? Short of not offering bookings past 8 weeks at all (which people whine about even more) this seems a pragmatic solution.

 

[43096]

T-8 permanently, but with a new system for booking tickets beyond that (with advice if your booking changes).

it’s not a change to ticketing.

Both those statements cannot be true. "A new system for booking tickets" is a change to ticketing!

 

[The Planner]

Both those statements cannot be true. "A new system for booking tickets" is a change to ticketing!

Not really, you could book tickets earlier than 8 weeks in the same way, but there will be no guarantee that the train you book will be at that exact time, or potentially at all.

 

[Watershed]

Not really, you could book tickets earlier than 8 weeks in the same way, but there will be no guarantee that the train you book will be at that exact time, or potentially at all.

Only in the railway's arrogant mindset could this possibly be framed as a positive change. Can you imagine an airline selling tickets for flights which they've not yet decided whether to run? Yes, airlines do sometimes change flights after you've booked - but generally with far more than 8 weeks' notice, and certainly not because they haven't bothered to match their flight schedule to the available infrastructure (e.g. a terminal or runway being refurbished).

When it comes to unfortunately timed engineering works, one of the railway's most popular refrains is "the work was planned years in advance". Well if it that's the case, then why can't the timetable be confirmed years in advance? Of course, I know there are practical explanations (some may say "excuses") why that would be difficult given the industry procedures - but it's an unbelievable attitude to customer service. Frankly the railway deserves every bit of flak it gets, for as long as it tries to have its cake and eat it in this manner.

You can also be sure that the railway will awfully conveniently omit to mention the other rights that passengers have when their itinerary changes - e.g. to be re-routed at the earliest opportunity (including using other operators if quicker).

I realise that there are also other reasons behind this change, and that this has happened despite the misgivings of many people in the industry. But the railway should have pushed back much, much harder against government interference - this is an utterly unacceptable outcome.

 

[The Planner]

Only in the railway's arrogant mindset could this possibly be framed as a positive change. Can you imagine an airline selling tickets for flights which they've not yet decided whether to run? Yes, airlines do sometimes change flights after you've booked - but generally with far more than 8 weeks' notice, and certainly not because they haven't bothered to match their flight schedule to the available infrastructure (e.g. a terminal or runway being refurbished).

When it comes to unfortunately timed engineering works, one of the railway's most popular refrains is "the work was planned years in advance". Well if it that's the case, then why can't the timetable be confirmed years in advance? Of course, I know there are practical explanations (some may say "excuses") why that would be difficult given the industry procedures - but it's an unbelievable attitude to customer service. Frankly the railway deserves every bit of flak it gets, for as long as it tries to have its cake and eat it in this manner.

You can also be sure that the railway will awfully conveniently omit to mention the other rights that passengers have when their itinerary changes - e.g. to be re-routed at the earliest opportunity (including using other operators if quicker).

I realise that there are also other reasons behind this change, and that this has happened despite the misgivings of many people in the industry. But the railway should have pushed back much, much harder against government interference - this is an utterly unacceptable outcome.

Not aware of any government interference in this, its been project managed by NR. The class representative commitee which is made up of various TOCs etc have the casting votes.

As for the engineering work timetables, that will be in the gift of the TOCs accepting it. If your base is relatively stable then you probably could confirm 80% of it, but I would expect operators would want the work done again on the latest base to reduce STP work. You certainly couldn't have done it for Dec 22 for example, or for whenever the ECML rewrite happens etc. How can you confirm freight slots that far out as well, as they could be affected by many pieces of work nationally?

 

[Bald Rick]

Both those statements cannot be true. "A new system for booking tickets" is a change to ticketing!

I haven’t explained it right. As far as the passenger sees, they will be booking tickets in exactly the same way. The new system (and processes behind it) will be behind the scenes.

The principle being that for time immemorial, (for example) on weekdays the 1700 off Kings Cross has been a departure for Edinburgh, in theory I could buy a ticket for one departing next November and be confident it will run. Similarly on weekends without engineering works (which are known about 6 months out)

Can you imagine an airline selling tickets for flights which they've not yet decided whether to run?

To be fair it happens all the time.

But in this case, it’s more likely that rail tickets will be sold only for services that are expected to run, ie those not affected by engineering works.

 

[Watershed]

Not aware of any government interference in this, its been project managed by NR.

At the behest of the government, because it wants the ability to cut services more quickly.

As for the engineering work timetables, that will be in the gift of the TOCs accepting it. If your base is relatively stable then you probably could confirm 80% of it, but I would expect operators would want the work done again on the latest base to reduce STP work. You certainly couldn't have done it for Dec 22 for example, or for whenever the ECML rewrite happens etc. How can you confirm freight slots that far out as well, as they could be affected by many pieces of work nationally?

How about you move the whole process further out? Or (shock horror) just return to T-12? It's all perfectly possible; it's a deliberate decision to move to T-8 and the railway needs to "own" that decision and all the consequences which that entails.

To be fair it happens all the time.

In my experience, it happens far less frequently than British trains are altered. I've taken 28 flights this year, many booked months in advance - only 3 of them have had material changes made post-booking. And on all but one occasion, those changes have been notified far in excess of 8 weeks out. As for trains, well I've lost count.

But in this case, it’s more likely that rail tickets will be sold only for services that are expected to run, ie those not affected by engineering works.

Which is, arguably, the 'least worst' way of handling this outcome, and is broadly speaking what already happens with operators that release Advances more than 8 weeks out. But it means that on a significant proportion of weekends (let alone the busy Bank Holidays), the railway becomes much less competitive compared to the airlines for the likes of London to Edinburgh/Glasgow/Newcastle - where flights are released nearly 12 months out. It's noteworthy that Caledonian Sleeper opens bookings that far in advance.