Bad week for GWML

[Jamiescott1]

Tuesday AM signalling issues at Didcot
Tuesday PM broken down 165 on Marlow Branch
Thursday PM points failure near Slough
Friday PM issue next to lines at Didcot

 

[Benjwri]

Friday PM issue next to lines at Didcot

To be fair this one isn’t really GWR’s fault, believe it was a person hit by a train, or someone attempting to be.

 

[FGW_DID]

To be fair this one isn’t really GWR’s fault, believe it was a person hit by a train, or someone attempting to be.

Unfortunately, said person was very much successful!

It’s certainly been quite a grim week!

 

[Jamiescott1]

With the regular infrastructure issues involving signals, points and ohl (and a bridge) it does make me wonder about maintenance and therefore safety

 

[Sly Old Fox]

Tuesday AM signalling issues at Didcot
Tuesday PM broken down 165 on Marlow Branch
Thursday PM points failure near Slough
Friday PM issue next to lines at Didcot

After tonight i would of submitted my 25th delay repay claim of the calendar year

Today at Didcot was a fatality. There was also one at Pangbourne on Tuesday.

In addition there was a signalling fire near Cardiff on Monday and more signalling problems in south wales today too.

 

[YorkshireBear]

With the regular infrastructure issues involving signals, points and ohl (and a bridge) it does make me wonder about maintenance and therefore safety

The reason failures cause so much disruption is usually down to the fail safe mode of operating so I wouldn't worry too much.

Maintenance will start affecting performance long long before safety.

 

[Horizon22]

To be fair this one isn’t really GWR’s fault, believe it was a person hit by a train, or someone attempting to be.

Nor were 2 of the others (NR infrastructure to blame).

 

[Jamiescott1]

This evening a signal failure at Ealing.
This will be the 40th delay repay request I've submitted this year

 

[zwk500]

Maintenance will start affecting performance long long before safety.

While this is reassuring in one sense, performance is still a problem that people worry about.

 

[Horizon22]

This evening a signal failure at Ealing.
This will be the 40th delay repay request I've submitted this year

You’ve travelled 15 times in 5 days and been delayed by over 15 minutes (30 minutes for Elizabeth line) every time?

After tonight i would of submitted my 25th delay repay claim of the calendar year

 

[Benjwri]

30 minutes for Elizabeth line

30 minutes and all TfL fault delays

 

[Horizon22]

30 minutes and all TfL fault delays

Indeed, but we're talking about the GWML, so other things weren't relevant.

And it's not strictly "at fault" but they won't pay out for:

• Strikes
• Security alerts
• Bad weather
• Customer incidents e.g. a person falling ill on a train
• Engineering works

It's not at all generous, especially for a service which is up to 12tph on the GWML.

 

[12LDA28C]

This evening a signal failure at Ealing.
This will be the 40th delay repay request I've submitted this year

Again, hardly GWR's fault. You know it's NR that maintain the infrastructure and GWR run the trains, yes? So you're claiming back money from the TOC (as of course you're entitled to) for delays that are entirely outside their control.

 

[Jamiescott1]

You’ve travelled 15 times in 5 days and been delayed by over 15 minutes (30 minutes for Elizabeth line) every time?

No. I estimated on Friday. Today I went on my delay repay account and counted the number of claims I've made

Again, hardly GWR's fault. You know it's NR that maintain the infrastructure and GWR run the trains, yes? So you're claiming back money from the TOC (as of course you're entitled to) for delays that are entirely outside their control.

The train operating companies claim money from NR for this purpose

 

[matt_world2004]

Again, hardly GWR's fault. You know it's NR that maintain the infrastructure and GWR run the trains, yes? So you're claiming back money from the TOC (as of course you're entitled to) for delays that are entirely outside their control.

The customers contractual relationship is with the TOC who in turn has a contractual relationship with the infrastructure owner. GwR will be claiming significant amounts of money from NR

Claim delay repay for any and every reason it incentivises operators to work harder to mitigate the risks of these things

 

[12LDA28C]

The train operating companies claim money from NR for this purpose

Indeed and of course rightly so. It just seemed that your ire was aimed at GWR for failing to provide a satisfactory service although maybe I misinterpreted.

The customers contractual relationship is with the TOC who in turn has a contractual relationship with the infrastructure owner. GwR will be claiming significant amounts of money from NR

Claim delay repay for any and every reason it incentivises operators to work harder to mitigate the risks of these things

Surely if GWR are claiming significant amounts of money from NR then it should be incentivising NR to better maintain their infrastructure?

 

[matt_world2004]

Indeed and of course rightly so. It just seemed that your ire was aimed at GWR for failing to provide a satisfactory service although maybe I misinterpreted.



Surely if GWR are claiming significant amounts of money from NR then it should be incentivising NR to better maintain their infrastructure?

Delays due to infrastructure failures can be quite profitable to GwR often they can make more money on contract penalty payments than they would on ticket sales for that delayed service

And as a result this can disensentivise them recovering the service quickly

 

[ChrisHogan]

Delays due to infrastructure failures can be quite profitable to GwR often they can make more money on contract penalty payments than they would on ticket sales for that delayed service

And as a result this can disensentivise them recovering the service quickly

A somewhat cynical view I think. Ticket sales income or Delay Repay costs surely come to and from the Treasury. Nothing to do with GWR. And any Schedule 8 payments from NRIL surely offset contract payments from the DfT? GWR (and other TOCs) are financially neutral in these circumstances.

 

[matt_world2004]

A somewhat cynical view I think. Ticket sales income or Delay Repay costs surely come to and from the Treasury. Nothing to do with GWR. And any Schedule 8 payments from NRIL surely offset contract payments from the DfT? GWR (and other TOCs) are financially neutral in these circumstances.

Think of it This way, the service is disrupted and a heavily delayed train has the option of running but it would mean paying the driver 30 minutes overtime.

Do you pay the driver the 30 minutes overtime to help recover the service. Or do you cancel the train and claim the costs back from NR it is often more profitable to cancel the train and claim the costs back than running it

 

[12LDA28C]

Think of it This way, the service is disrupted and a heavily delayed train has the option of running but it would mean paying the driver 30 minutes overtime.

Do you pay the driver the 30 minutes overtime to help recover the service. Or do you cancel the train and claim the costs back from NR it is often more profitable to cancel the train and claim the costs back than running it

Why do you think TOCs care about profit these days? They don't keep any revenue so where exactly is the incentive to maximise profit?

 

[zwk500]

A somewhat cynical view I think. Ticket sales income or Delay Repay costs surely come to and from the Treasury. Nothing to do with GWR. And any Schedule 8 payments from NRIL surely offset contract payments from the DfT? GWR (and other TOCs) are financially neutral in these circumstances.

Schedule 8 payments aren't directly linked to Delay Repay, of course, so it's possible a TOC could be either side of 0 at the end of a delay.

Think of it This way, the service is disrupted and a heavily delayed train has the option of running but it would mean paying the driver 30 minutes overtime.

Do you pay the driver the 30 minutes overtime to help recover the service. Or do you cancel the train and claim the costs back from NR it is often more profitable to cancel the train and claim the costs back than running it

This is a rather cynical view. The Train Running Controllers making such decisions will not know the precise financial fallout nor the maximum potential delays when making those decisions (they will have a rough sense of what the delay will likely cost, but not a specific balance sheet). Their job - what they are assessed upon - is how quickly they get the service back up and running. Operational metrics are far more likely to be measured in Trains Cancelled and delay minutes than the financial costs of what they shake out to.

 

[ChrisHogan]

Think of it This way, the service is disrupted and a heavily delayed train has the option of running but it would mean paying the driver 30 minutes overtime.

Do you pay the driver the 30 minutes overtime to help recover the service. Or do you cancel the train and claim the costs back from NR it is often more profitable to cancel the train and claim the costs back than running it

But the costs you claim from NRIL under Schedule 8 go back to the DfT as do the costs of the 30 minutes overtime incurred by the driver if he works overtime, except the TOC perhaps gets its 1% mark-up (don't know on the last point).

There does seem to be a problem with West of England services as highlighted this morning by another NRIL signalling problem in the West Country leading to horrendous delays and virtually every up service pined at Reading. When I was at Paddn (1980s) we would have relieved the Exeter and Bristol men at Reading with the Ranelagh Bridge standby set and stepped up LHCS or HSTs to cover a full service.

Schedule 8 payments aren't directly linked to Delay Repay, of course, so it's possible a TOC could be either side of 0 at the end of a delay.

This is a rather cynical view. The Train Running Controllers making such decisions will not know the precise financial fallout nor the maximum potential delays when making those decisions (they will have a rough sense of what the delay will likely cost, but not a specific balance sheet). Their job - what they are assessed upon - is how quickly they get the service back up and running. Operational metrics are far more likely to be measured in Trains Cancelled and delay minutes than the financial costs of what they shake out to.

My view entirely on both points.

 

[43066]

Think of it This way, the service is disrupted and a heavily delayed train has the option of running but it would mean paying the driver 30 minutes overtime.

Do you pay the driver the 30 minutes overtime to help recover the service. Or do you cancel the train and claim the costs back from NR it is often more profitable to cancel the train and claim the costs back than running it

That really, really isn’t how it works in practice!

 

[JN114]

It’s always very amusing when these kind of cynical comments about not recovering the train service because it is more profitable - I tend not to bite but I will today.

As a service controller, for GWR, my job is simply to run as much of the train service as possible, with the resources available to me (fleet/crew/infra), and in line with agreed industry plans for when there is reduced capacity - you cannot fit all of our/MTR/freight timetabled trains in when 2/4 lines are shut through Slough, for example, so there’s cross-industry agreements as to how much we each get to run. I can assure you that I and any of my direct colleagues have less than zero interest in the fiscal elements of train service recovery - in terms both of TOC<>NR (Schedule 8 etc) and TOC<>Customer (Delay Repay). Neither have any bearing whatsoever on what we do. It simply isn’t even on our radar. Moreover we don’t want to know, or have it used as a metric as it’s generally at odds with good train service recovery.

There does seem to be a problem with West of England services as highlighted this morning by another NRIL signalling problem in the West Country leading to horrendous delays and virtually every up service pined at Reading. When I was at Paddn (1980s) we would have relieved the Exeter and Bristol men at Reading with the Ranelagh Bridge standby set and stepped up LHCS or HSTs to cover a full service.

There simply aren’t the crew resources to relieve every late running train at Reading, in a situation like this morning - you might be able to scratch together 2 crews on a good day; but with overtime bans and the like at the moment you’ll be lucky to get 1. Fleet we can generally shuffle the pack around to get RT starts if crew are in the right place.

 

[Horizon22]

It’s always very amusing when these kind of cynical comments about not recovering the train service because it is more profitable - I tend not to bite but I will today.

As a service controller, for GWR, my job is simply to run as much of the train service as possible, with the resources available to me (fleet/crew/infra), and in line with agreed industry plans for when there is reduced capacity - you cannot fit all of our/MTR/freight timetabled trains in when 2/4 lines are shut through Slough, for example, so there’s cross-industry agreements as to how much we each get to run. I can assure you that I and any of my direct colleagues have less than zero interest in the fiscal elements of train service recovery - in terms both of TOC<>NR (Schedule 8 etc) and TOC<>Customer (Delay Repay). Neither have any bearing whatsoever on what we do. It simply isn’t even on our radar. Moreover we don’t want to know, or have it used as a metric as it’s generally at odds with good train service recovery.



There simply aren’t the crew resources to relieve every late running train at Reading, in a situation like this morning - you might be able to scratch together 2 crews on a good day; but with overtime bans and the like at the moment you’ll be lucky to get 1. Fleet we can generally shuffle the pack around to get RT starts if crew are in the right place.

While the vast majority of what you say is spot on, it can be different.

For instance MTR on the GWML have different contractual obligations regarding who is “at fault” and also determine service status as a TfL mode depending on the level of the disruption. FOCs have external contracts/clients and timeframes to meet, especially intermodal.

Going into severe service disruption also triggers things like ticket acceptance, although that does not always have a cost implication.

Simply put, TOC and NR controllers will try and do what they can to recover the service within the constraints available , but as with anyone there are those who are more proactive, detailed and innovative with their decisions and there may also be pressure from higher levels (e.g. protecting certain service groups even if that is harder to do at the current time).

It is ridiculously cynical and simply wrong though to think that service controllers are even thinking about “ooh well if I cancel this service and don’t alter it then there will be more payment from NR mwhahaha”.

 

[DylanThomas]

Just as a random bit of info to throw in here. The most recent fatality at Slough (platform 2) cost Network Rail £1m according to the number 4 guy who visited the site two days after (and demanded the fatality mitigation fence was put into operation early).

This is because it was at peak time and was a difficult clean up (taking a lot of time).

 

[irish_rail]

One issue is increasingly lack of diversionary routes. Now Exeter GWR drivers do the majority of B and H work, they do not sign the line via Box, so cannot divert when needed. Same for Plymouth GWR drivers. Only HSS drivers can sign both ways , but in Plymouth case not Taunton to Bristol, just Westbury to Chippenham. This ability to divert is crucial on the Western and is something that happens with surprising regularity to those of us able to divert. I reckon I got diverted about 5 times in past year via Melksham. Unfortunately the reason for all this IS ideology within the company, and a GWR good, HSS bad attitude.

 

[zwk500]

One issue is increasingly lack of diversionary routes. Now Exeter GWR drivers do the majority of B and H work, they do not sign the line via Box, so cannot divert when needed. Same for Plymouth GWR drivers. Only HSS drivers can sign both ways , but in Plymouth case not Taunton to Bristol, just Westbury to Chippenham. This ability to divert is crucial on the Western and is something that happens with surprising regularity to those of us able to divert. I reckon I got diverted about 5 times in past year via Melksham. Unfortunately the reason for all this IS ideology within the company, and a GWR good, HSS bad attitude.

The reduction of route cards must rank among one of the worst false economies the railway has undertaken in recent years.

 

[irish_rail]

The reduction of route cards must rank among one of the worst false economies the railway has undertaken in recent years.

Agree, its a cancer that has afflicted several TOCs with depressing and wholly predictable consequences.

 

[800001]

Think of it This way, the service is disrupted and a heavily delayed train has the option of running but it would mean paying the driver 30 minutes overtime.

Do you pay the driver the 30 minutes overtime to help recover the service. Or do you cancel the train and claim the costs back from NR it is often more profitable to cancel the train and claim the costs back than running it

As someone who works in a control room, I can assure you costs do not come into the decisions we make.

We all want the time table back to 100% asap, we not concern ourselves with what money we get from NWR, or how much delay repay will cost if we make a certain decision.

The sole focus is getting the timetable back to normal and doing the best for ALL the customers.