Worst train companies to be named and shamed

[YorkshireBear]

Shouldn't potential customers know if a service is unreliable?

What's the problem with naming and shaming? Public pressure to change is a very good thing.

I agree and disagree.

If you (you in this case being the Government) are going to publicly name and shame companies for their poor performance, then you must give the companies all the tools to be able to sort out the unreliability. As far as I can see, this new name and shame practise has not come with some loosening of the shackles from the DfT for the TOC management. They are still operating with one, if not both arms tied behind their backs, only allowed to do things if the DfT say yes. Yes there are some problems in their control, but I am not convinced it is enough.

 

[TheManBehind]

I agree and disagree.

If you (you in this case being the Government) are going to publicly name and shame companies for their poor performance, then you must give the companies all the tools to be able to sort out the unreliability. As far as I can see, this new name and shame practise has not come with some loosening of the shackles from the DfT for the TOC management. They are still operating with one, if not both arms tied behind their backs, only allowed to do things if the DfT say yes. Yes there are some problems in their control, but I am not convinced it is enough.

And here we reach the nub of it. The reality is the DfT have for years operated with a principle of either "reduce cost" or "reduce the net subsidy position in year one" - both of which are bloody hard to do when you're talking about performance improvement, because it all costs money. Even when you account for reduced DR or increased travel rates (which isn't exactly easy to predict), you rarely get a 12-month positive ROI on these when it takes about 6 months for customer satisfaction figures to even reflect an improvement.

 

[Russel]

Shouldn't potential customers know if a service is unreliable?

What's the problem with naming and shaming? Public pressure to change is a very good thing.

I agree in theory.

But it's not as if it's going to make any difference in reality, it's just another distraction, which to me makes the whole thing pointless.

 

[12LDA28C]

2% or 9%, it doesn’t really matter much in the context of 60% of all taxpayer transport funding for rail. It’s still a railway addicted to subsidy.

Not all routes and services can possibly make a profit, for example rural services being run for the benefit of the community. Evidently you believe that the railway should be run as a business and the only objective should be to make a profit. I disagree with that viewpoint and so do many others.

 

[43096]

Not all routes and services can possibly make a profit, for example rural services being run for the benefit of the community. Evidently you believe that the railway should be run as a business and the only objective should be to make a profit. I disagree with that viewpoint and so do many others.

I didn’t say it had to make a profit.

 

[TheManBehind]

I didn’t say it had to make a profit.

No, but what you're arguing for is (significantly) reduced costs, which is largely what got the railway to where it is in the first place - a focus on what it costs to run over the wider societal value that it brings. Much easier to take apart than put together, etc etc.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

No, but what you're arguing for is (significantly) reduced costs, which is largely what got the railway to where it is in the first place - a focus on what it costs to run over the wider societal value that it brings. Much easier to take apart than put together, etc etc.

The alternative perspective would be that, if you could reduce costs (per passenger-km) then the same subsidy the railways currently receive could pay for a bigger, more expanded, railway.

 

[Harpo]

2% or 9%, it doesn’t really matter much in the context of 60% of all taxpayer transport funding for rail. It’s still a railway addicted to subsidy.

Or a nation addicted to it’s railways? Especially those that will always be a financial basket case, social necessity or vote loser. Viewpoints about which is which vary of course.

As for the percentage of rail’s taxpayer transport funding, political lies, damn lies and statistics keep the hidden taxpayer subsidy of frozen fuel duty well away from that calculation.

 

[Sonic1234]

The railway has a subsidy addiction problem.

Something which is lost on the public. I expect the average person would laugh if you said the railway is subsidised. They see overcrowded trains and sky high fares and think it's an extortion racket making obscene profits.

 

[Jan Mayen]

I've often wondered how much the fares would be if there was no subsidy.

 

[dk1]

Something which is lost on the public. I expect the average person would laugh if you said the railway is subsidised. They see overcrowded trains and sky high fares and think it's an extortion racket making obscene profits.

Very true as they don’t realise how expensive operating railways actually are.

 

[43096]

Very true as they don’t realise how expensive operating railways actually are.

But the railway really doesn’t help itself - it has a chronic inability to control costs.

 

[Harpo]

But the railway really doesn’t help itself - it has a chronic inability to control costs.

Definitely the case on some major infrastructure projects but not worthy of an industry-wide generalism, especially the TOCs.

 

[dk1]

But the railway really doesn’t help itself - it has a chronic inability to control costs.

I don't see much really changing on that front do you?

 

[PyrahnaRanger]

Can we have similar displays outside Parliament and Government Offices giving performance details for MPs and Civil Servants please?

As far as casework is concerned, this data is available - there's a case management system provided by HoP IT which generates stats on number of cases, average time to resolve, etc etc. (I used to look after a few MPs offices as part of the day job). Our local MP actually posts a summary of this each week on social media, and possibly his own website

And we do On target to hit 80 million passenger journeys this year too. Let the others weep at the thought.

So why do GA do so well compared to say, Northern? Or is the answer going to boil down to they get more money so have newer stock and pay better?

But yes, for MPs, yes, attendance figures and voting figures would be helpful and entertaining. But they should also be displayed in the town's and cities of their constituencies. They could be compared to the average and best (top ten) figures.

The information on attendance and voting is kept, although you may need to rely on third party sites to collate it, but if that's good enough for the railway...

What difference do these stats/screens mean to Joe Public? They just want to get from A to B.

For me? Absolutely nothing, which is about the same as the ones for the route, to be fair. If I want to get from Workington to Carlisle by train, I've a choice of one station and one operator, so I can't choose to do anything different, apart from travel via another mode of transport. Once I get to Carlisle, there's still only one station, although a choice of 2 operators (but only on a single route) if I want to go to Glasgow or Edinburgh. For anywhere else, I'm back to a choice of one, so even operator level data doesn't really help. It might be useful data if you live somewhere with multiple stations, routes and operators in proximity, but for anyone else, it's fluff.

Not all routes and services can possibly make a profit, for example rural services being run for the benefit of the community. Evidently you believe that the railway should be run as a business and the only objective should be to make a profit. I disagree with that viewpoint and so do many others.

Very true. Before the days of beancounters being allowed to run everything to the fraction of a penny, bus operators would use profitable routes to cross subsidise other routes - provided it didn't drag the business into the more, everyone was happy. Now if a route isn't profitable on its own, it's gone, sadly. I had a point here, possibly about splitting the railway up, but I can't think what it was now

Definitely the case on some major infrastructure projects but not worthy of an industry-wide generalism, especially the TOCs.

Depends on whose point of view you take, I suspect! If the Mail were to be believed, we're all in thrall to the unions as Labour keep bunging money at overpaid railway staff. Meanwhile, back in the real world...ROSCOs, bonuses, spending money on frivolous vision statements (not confined to the railway) - it looks pretty much like every other public service, with money being spent with little accountability, I'm afraid.

 

[Harpo]

bus operators would use profitable routes to cross subsidise other routes - provided it didn't drag the business into the more, everyone was happy. Now if a route isn't profitable on its own, it's gone, sadly.

Or just the unprofitable journies get withdrawn. A recent threat to a local schooltime journey resulted in the county propping it up with subsidy. It’s not just the railway ‘costing the taxpayer’.

 

[TheManBehind]

The alternative perspective would be that, if you could reduce costs (per passenger-km) then the same subsidy the railways currently receive could pay for a bigger, more expanded, railway.

Well sure, but at what point does the market start to turn on the mode, and is there actually an appetite to build all these additional routes and stations, and how much will the railway need to save in order to justify all the costs associated with it?

There's a minimum standard that customers are willing to pay for in any service industry before they vote with their wallets and switch. I don't think the railway has quite reached that rock-bottom yet, but railway travellers don't rate the industry highly when it comes to VFM. Add to that the DfT's continual push for "increased customer satisfaction" (which inevitably costs money to improve things like appearance, performance, accessibility, etc) and you hugely limit what areas can actually save money.

But the railway really doesn’t help itself - it has a chronic inability to control costs.

I think that's a broad overgeneralisation - DfT business plan requests for operators for the at least the past 2-3 years have focused on "reducing costs" and only this year have looked at "net subsidy reduction", which really amounts to the same thing when every initiative has to wash its face in year one.

 

[43096]

I don't see much really changing on that front do you?

No. But the industry runs the risk that at some point, somebody will borrow Elon Musk’s chainsaw and rip the railway apart by taking huge chunks of cost out.

 

[Egg Centric]

I've often wondered how much the fares would be if there was no subsidy.

The fares may actually be less if it was run as a business. But the rail network would look something like the Serpell report.

 

[Annetts key]

Edit: sorry, the first part of this post has disappeared. I was trying to quote 43096 and then say that it's not simple.

I don't have time to retype it all. Below is what is left of what I said:

No. But the industry runs the risk that at some point, somebody will borrow Elon Musk’s chainsaw and rip the railway apart by taking huge chunks of cost out.

The biggest problem is the debt that Network Rail has to service, but apparently there is no reasonable solution to this.

(missing and lost text)

The roof at Bristol Temple Meads is a good example. As is work to renew the surface at most road level crossings. In these cases, not enough consideration was given to the potential state of the assets. Strangely enough, as work progressed more problems than expected were found. Hence the costs increase and the work takes longer than planned.

I don't know the details about the roof, but the typical problem at level crossings is that either the sleeper fastenings for the rails are badly corroded, the rails are badly corroded or the ballast or formation is found to be poor. Or a combination. Either way, suddenly a lot more work (without the needed resources) needs doing before the line or the road can be reopened to traffic.

I expect there are other examples of this kind of problem as well.

Can further savings be made? Yes, that likely.

But at the same time, some measures such as reducing the amount of maintenance will cost more in the medium to longer term. As worn out equipment and infrastructure degrades quickly and hence has a reduced lifetime. Plus, as it starts to fail more often, it causes greater disruption and hence costs more due to cancellations and delays.

The alternative is to close lines.

What we really need is for the people in power to actually understand the problems and be willing and able to do something about the problems. And that means having an organisation that doesn't try to hide the issues and problems. But that's easier said than done in large organisations.

The current organisation of the railway in this country is a mess. It actually is currently making things worse IMHO. All parts need to work together. Not against each other. Why should there be artificial dividing lines that create work for lawyers? And just to be clear, I don't mean staff doing the jobs of others.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

No. But the industry runs the risk that at some point, somebody will borrow Elon Musk’s chainsaw and rip the railway apart by taking huge chunks of cost out.

The Treasury will already have identified "duplication" costs on the railway and expects the formation of GBR to eliminate them.
Heidi Alexander was only this morning going on about the £130 million of fees going to private TOCs that will be brought in house.
She'll soon find out that removing that layer of management is not "free issue".
Removing HR/Finance/Contract Management out of TOCs means job losses.
Merging TOCs and Network Rail means job losses.
Most of the job losses will be back office rather than front line.
GBR's directive will be to reduce subsidy year on year, accentuated by the government's wider cost problems.

 

[Harpo]

The railway’s obvious cost-savings are its huge mileages of rural and social railway but they come with political ramifications.

Other far more complex savings come from removing interference and indecision. Scotland’s electrification programme shows how efficient a steady workbank can be. GW electrification shows the reverse.

The infrastructure side needs planning stability. The train operating side needs to avoid bleeding out its excellent skills base in the name of economy.

 

[dk1]

No. But the industry runs the risk that at some point, somebody will borrow Elon Musk’s chainsaw and rip the railway apart by taking huge chunks of cost out.

That’ll be fun to watch

 

[TheManBehind]

The Treasury will already have identified "duplication" costs on the railway and expects the formation of GBR to eliminate them.
Heidi Alexander was only this morning going on about the £130 million of fees going to private TOCs that will be brought in house.
She'll soon find out that removing that layer of management is not "free issue".
Removing HR/Finance/Contract Management out of TOCs means job losses.
Merging TOCs and Network Rail means job losses.

The thing is, it probably won't. The plan seems to be based on running routes as their own sectors, which means that chances are most of these activities will remain within the regions. Even contract management teams are likely to be merged rather than swapped out, as TOC contract managers are skilled in areas that NR contract managers won't be.

GBR's directive will be to reduce subsidy year on year, accentuated by the government's wider cost problems.

If that ain't the truth! It'll be a term of "reduce the net subsidy position" which will inevitably bloat marketing budgets as they tend to be the key ones that have an effective ROI to do so...

 

[dk1]

(So why do GA do so well compared to say, Northern? Or is the answer going to boil down to they get more money so have newer stock and pay better?)

Well we certainly don’t get more money as staff but having just two very reliable new fleets of trains does help. All in all it’s just a very well run train operator. Northern is very complex and diverse i must say.

 

[Birkonian]

According to the data, my local station Spital received just under 50% of the scheduled stops. Merseyrail will no doubt prefer to dwell on 2.9% cancellations. My experience is that the former is too low, although still dreadful, and the latter is simply lower than the actuality. No data for trains over 3 minutes late. Not many of them, they just miss out Spital.

 

[Dr Day]

Not sure of the best metric to describe it, but a TOC that is focused relatively intensely on a small self contained geographic network with a reliable fleet will do very well when that infrastructure is behaving but badly when it isn’t. A TOC operating relatively infrequently over a wide range of routes has more opportunities for infrastructure to go wrong and interface with other TOCs failings, which would be compounded by fleet unreliability. GA is probably more in the former and Northern in the latter, although it isn’t black and white.