Would removing Delay Repay affect passenger numbers?

[Moonshot]

Mod Note: Posts #1 - #11 originally in this thread.

If Delay Repay was simply closed down in its entirety, what would be the effect on passenger numbers?

 

[Haywain]

If Delay Repay was simply closed down in its entirety, what would be the effect on passenger numbers?

It would be negligible. People buy tickets to get from A to B, not to get compensation. However, I do not advocate for removal of DR; instead it should be consistent across all TOCs and with a 30 minute threshold (15 minutes is just silly, especially on long distance journeys).

 

[Moonshot]

It would be negligible. People buy tickets to get from A to B, not to get compensation. However, I do not advocate for removal of DR; instead it should be consistent across all TOCs and with a 30 minute threshold (15 minutes is just silly, especially on long distance journeys).

Why would the industry actually have such a scheme if the powers that be knew that a 100% relaible on time railway was impossible to achieve ?

 

[Haywain]

Why would the industry actually have such a scheme if the powers that be knew that a 100% relaible on time railway was impossible to achieve ?

The schemes exist because the government decreed that they should. As for 100% reliability, it has never been the case and never will be due to the number of variables involved.

 

[Moonshot]

The schemes exist because the government decreed that they should. As for 100% reliability, it has never been the case and never will be due to the number of variables involved.

So the government decreed that it should , despite the fact as you rightly point out that passengers buy a ticket for getting from a to b. I wonder just how much the whole scheme costs ?

 

[yorkie]

If Delay Repay was simply closed down in its entirety, what would be the effect on passenger numbers?

For short distance journeys? None.

For medium distance journeys I think it could make a difference, but I think it's more a case of a bad experience has the potential to put people off travelling by rail again, but Delay Repay mitigates against that and can turn a negative into a positive (or at least minimise the impact) and encourage affected people to use rail again.

For many longer distance journeys, rail is already very unappealing compared to road or air and this could further dent the attractiveness of rail travel for such journeys. Delay Repay is one of the few things that is massively in rail's favour compared to other modes.

 

[Watershed]

despite the fact as you rightly point out that passengers buy a ticket for getting from a to b

Passengers choose to take the train on the basis of the timetable. Therefore, non-adherance to the timetable means the railway isn't delivering what it promised. I think it's only fair that there is some compensation for this.

Delay Repay is certainly more generous than what is on offer in most other countries and modes of transport, but that doesn't mean the entire concept should be thrown out.

 

[Moonshot]

A timetable which cannot be delivered in its entirety due to a whole host of issues. How much fraud does this scheme attract?

 

[yorkie]

A timetable which cannot be delivered in its entirety due to a whole host of issues. How much fraud does this scheme attract?

I don't think that's on topic for this thread. If you wish to make a proposal for Delay Repay to be abolished, or reformed in a way that is not formally proposed by the ORR or other recognised industry body, please create a new thread in the Speculative Discussion area.

 

[Watershed]

A timetable which cannot be delivered in its entirety due to a whole host of issues.

None of which are the passenger's responsibility.

How much fraud does this scheme attract?

Probably quite a lot of attempts but operators have evidently been cracking down on this - too hard in some cases - over the last year or two. See the long-running GA Delay Repay "fraud" thread.

 

[Moonshot]

None of which are the passenger's responsibility.


Probably quite a lot of attempts but operators have evidently been cracking down on this - too hard in some cases - over the last year or two. See the long-running GA Delay Repay "fraud" thread.

Indeed passengers have no responsibility for the timetable, but they are not the ones delivering a timetable in the first place, which goes back to my point of why offer a scheme when the criteria can't be met in the first place.

 

[Haywain]

why offer a scheme when the criteria can't be met in the first place.

Which scheme's criteria cannot be met?

 

[mr_jrt]

It's quite depressing that people view 15 minutes as silly. Somehow other countries manage to adhere to timetables.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's quite depressing that people view 15 minutes as silly. Somehow other countries manage to adhere to timetables.

Have you been to Germany lately?

 

[Haywain]

It's quite depressing that people view 15 minutes as silly. Somehow other countries manage to adhere to timetables.

Other countries have delays.

 

[mr_jrt]

Not all of them. Japan springs to mind.

 

[Haywain]

Not all of them. Japan springs to mind.

Wow, one country (not countries) in the whole world.

 

[mr_jrt]

Bit defensive, aren't we? Ok then. Switzerland. Apparently 89% arrive within 3 minutes of their schedule, and the majority of those that do not are cross-boarder services with delays imported from other countries.

My point was that we shouldn't be so accepting of mediocrity and should be challenging our own network to improve, which is what delay repay achives - it provides a financial incentive to the operator to improve. Just outright accepting 15 minutes as acceptable is terrible.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I would be very happy if we rejigged to a Swiss style timetable, with 2tph on main routes with very long trains. So for example 2tph on North TPE, not 6, plus an hourly stopper. That gives you the resilience for that punctuality level.

Many on here don't like it.

If you cram a short train into every path, you get an unreliable railway.

 

[davetheguard]

I would be very happy if we rejigged to a Swiss style timetable, with 2tph on main routes with very long trains. So for example 2tph on North TPE, not 6, plus an hourly stopper.

And for the real authentic Swiss timetable experience it would probably have a ten to fifteen minute dwell time for connections at Manchester Victoria; Leeds; & York. Except we don't have the platform capacity at our major stations to provide it.

As for Delay Repay, I'd say get rid of it, but only if the whole money go round between Network Rail & the TOCs was also abolished. New station construction would suddenley get an awful lot cheaper without the need for Network Rail to pay the train companies for delays due to speed restrictions while they were built!

With both NR & train operators in DfT hands, all the delay attribution stuff could go too; surely worthwhile savings to be had?

 

[jfollows]

I don't think removal of Delay Repay would affect passenger numbers significantly.
For me, though, I feel that its removal would be an improvement.
I should say that I've never made a claim and don't intend to, but would consider it if the amount of money involved were significant enough to me.
My feeling is that its existence has engendered a mentality that it's "OK" to cancel trains and to make trains skip stations at which they could have stopped because the "customer" can get his/her money back.
And that's true.
But I want the people who operate the railway to care more about me, the passenger, and ensure that I can get to my destination.
I also think it's coupled to a massive over-think of "delay attribution" and related issues which appears to require the employment of an army of people who shuffle things around between parties.
Maybe GB Rail will improve things, although I don't expect so.

 

[gingerheid]

If I should return to the office then I'll have the choice between a car that can normally do the journey door to door in 2h15m a day (if I get up really early, on a horrible road, and I hate driving) and a train journey that takes about 4ish hours a day. If you really load all the fixed cost into the car journey (like a per mile charge for depreciation of the car and insurance) then you might almost be able to make it as much as the train ticket is.

Delay repay is very much part of my calculation as to how I should travel, and it also makes you hate the railway less if you get delayed!

For long distance journeys Delay Repay is absolutely part of rail's competitive advantage against air. (And perhaps like entering a free raffle for the cost of your ticket back; the threshold should may be set at percentage of the journey time or something!)

 

[Kite159]

I don't think removal of Delay Repay would affect passenger numbers significantly.
For me, though, I feel that its removal would be an improvement.
I should say that I've never made a claim and don't intend to, but would consider it if the amount of money involved were significant enough to me.
My feeling is that its existence has engendered a mentality that it's "OK" to cancel trains and to make trains skip stations at which they could have stopped because the "customer" can get his/her money back.
And that's true.
But I want the people who operate the railway to care more about me, the passenger, and ensure that I can get to my destination.
I also think it's coupled to a massive over-think of "delay attribution" and related issues which appears to require the employment of an army of people who shuffle things around between parties.
Maybe GB Rail will improve things, although I don't expect so.

The TOCs will still think it's OK to cancel trains and make trains skip stations, and without any comeback from passengers being able to claim money back will probably do it more often.

 

[jfollows]

The TOCs will still think it's OK to cancel trains and make trains skip stations, and without any comeback from passengers being able to claim money back will probably do it more often.

I totally agree with you, but I think it's part of a pervasive mentality which has become "business as usual" for them, and just scrapping Delay Repay on its own won't fix it, however it's part of the problem. Until they think about "the passenger" (and the singular is important) properly the current problem will continue.

 

[Starmill]

I think it should be reviewed based on the actual costs.

Changing the entitlement so that compensation rights are more consistent across the country and that fewer very small amounts can be claimed would probably be desirable, if it meant that the overall costs of the measure were to fall.

The trouble with the actual costs is that more people ought to be paid through easier and better publicised compensation entitlements. So the costs may actually rise in line with the new ORR conditions, but it's worth reviewing the entitlements in any case if this means costs rise less thsn they otherwise might.

Another way to improve satisfaction might be to increase compensation for very long delays, such as three hours or more, to more than 100% of the ticket price, in recognition of how much of a problem such delays are, simultaneously removing the entitlements for less than 30 minute delays and reducing them for less than two hour delays.

As has been pointed out above, the problems are much more related to customer experience than cash compensation. Tackling the root causes of delays, or improving customer experience despite still experiencing delays is much better than paying out cash after the fact. But paying out cash is better than giving rubbish customer experience and doing nothing about it.

 

[Ken H]

I think its about reputational damage. Newspaper stories about very late trains and no compo are not good for the railway.

 

[jfollows]

If I should return to the office then I'll have the choice between a car that can normally do the journey door to door in 2h15m a day (if I get up really early, on a horrible road, and I hate driving) and a train journey that takes about 4ish hours a day. If you really load all the fixed cost into the car journey (like a per mile charge for depreciation of the car and insurance) then you might almost be able to make it as much as the train ticket is.

Delay repay is very much part of my calculation as to how I should travel, and it also makes you hate the railway less if you get delayed!

For long distance journeys Delay Repay is absolutely part of rail's competitive advantage against air. (And perhaps like entering a free raffle for the cost of your ticket back; the threshold should may be set at percentage of the journey time or something!)

I think you make a really good point here, but I've still got a couple of questions:

1. Do you also factor in or otherwise calculate the delay cost of the road network having problems, for which you can site in a huge jam and get nothing back of course? How many days a year, on average, does this happen?
2. I think there used to be a simpler system in which season ticket holders received a discount on their future tickets based on past performance assessed on the number of days on which the commuter service just didn't deliver. Is this a reasonable alternative? It sounded simpler.

My feeling is that Delay Repay doesn't matter to me, I care more about getting reliable information about delays and reliable alternative options, "ticket acceptance" can now be something of a mess for example.

I also understand the work trade-off. My last job was a reliable 25 minute drive versus 2.5 hours by train (two or three of them from Wilmslow to Runcorn East followed by a nice 30-minute walk!) so I made by job choice based on commuting by car. I did the 2 train thing once and left home at 7am for a 9:30am arrival at work!

 

[gingerheid]

I think you make a really good point here, but I've still got a couple of questions:

1. Do you also factor in or otherwise calculate the delay cost of the road network having problems, for which you can site in a huge jam and get nothing back of course? How many days a year, on average, does this happen?
2. I think there used to be a simpler system in which season ticket holders received a discount on their future tickets based on past performance assessed on the number of days on which the commuter service just didn't deliver. Is this a reasonable alternative? It sounded simpler.

1) I'd be commuting on the A14, so absolutely!!! But the absolute worst it could realistically be is so bad that it could take as long as the train would on a good day.
2) Possibly, but as I travel irregularly I don't hold one. Also as the calculation would be more opaque it could leave people feeling they got screwed (for example if minor delays that happened to centre around a particular train repeatedly cause missed connections).