Poor performance by NR

[hayfield]

2 minutes ago, Zomboid said:

If you haven't used it and kept the receipt, then yes you can...

 

Anyway, ownership isn't the issue really, it's about having competent people in position with the authority and budget to deal with the issues that they face. That could happen in the public sector or the private sector.

 

 

With distant selling rules you can, but not if you go into a shop and buy it unless it is faulty or not as described, totally at the shops discretion. Not using it is not a good reason for a full refund

 

If a company is either bidding for a contract or buying another company it should be doing its own due diligence. Here we have both private sector and a German public sector company failing

 

We task civil servants to get the best deals on offer, granted they should check that the company has the ability to make good its offer, but in the end the NAO expects departments to get the best deals on offer. 

[Mike Storey]

2 hours ago, hayfield said:

 

 

With distant selling rules you can, but not if you go into a shop and buy it unless it is faulty or not as described, totally at the shops discretion. Not using it is not a good reason for a full refund

 

If a company is either bidding for a contract or buying another company it should be doing its own due diligence. Here we have both private sector and a German public sector company failing

 

We task civil servants to get the best deals on offer, granted they should check that the company has the ability to make good its offer, but in the end the NAO expects departments to get the best deals on offer. 

 

I am at a loss to understand what your issue is, because the points you make are not consistent.

 

Treating your premise at face value, none of the parties involved delivered what it said on the tin. Customers (passengers) have no interest in who is at fault, except that they are almost entirely in agreement that it is Arriva's sole fault.

 

But the fact, as you have admitted, that the relevant parts of the tin are all inter-connected, and heavily subservient to one part of the tin, suggests only one party holds the dominant reason for failure. If the DfT let a Franchise without checking that the underlying assumptions of that Franchise are achievable, then that is a blatant failure of due diligence in the award. There is no doubt failure in Arriva in not catching up fast enough, following the delay to the Bolton electrification and the hiatus of the May 2018 TT, which may or may not be adequate reason to remove them. But it is not as simple as that, and we all know it.

 

The "consumer" has triumphed in this case, but is unlikely to see any rapid improvement as a result. By this decision, Mr Shapps has exposed his department a little more than they would wish, I believe.

 

 

[TheSignalEngineer]

On 28/01/2020 at 15:39, Mike Storey said:

 

Thanks, but that just typifies what NR are up against. Since the original submission in 2015, Group Standards may well have changed, and their application applies to when construction starts, not when the T&W Order was applied for.

As previously said I'm out of the loop now, but when I was Signalling Project Engineer in BR I would receive every two months IIRC a brief of forthcoming updates due out in the next standards catalogue two months hence and longer-term changes that were in the pipeline and about to go public. One of my jobs was to go through my live projects for anything affected by mandatory changes and flag up the time delay and cost they would cause. I also had to say if it was possible to incorporate other changes without affecting work already designed. I also had to decide a point of no return where mandatory changes would delay the project and request a short-term derrogation where the alteration would be incorporated as part of the post-commissioning tidy up. 

For projects still in development I had to flag up any changes which may have an effect on yhe scheme. 

As I morphed from being the client's project engineer to the contractor's responsible engineer during privatisation the role changed. The standards for the bid were specified in the Tender documents. Mandatory changes were notified by the Client and priced into the submission if there was time and either an extension requested or provisional sum subject to further negotiation was included. Following signing of the Contract any changes insisted on by the Client during detailed design and construction were subject to timescale and price variations. 

I don't think we were ever asked to tender a firm price before the necessary Statutory approvals were in place other than HMRI approvals which needed detailed design and construction to take place before the final sign-off. On one occasion the Inspector was walking down the platform to join us whilst I was sitting at the table of an engineer's saloon still signing off the testing logs and completion certification for the signalling on a new line.

[hayfield]

14 hours ago, Mike Storey said:

 

I am at a loss to understand what your issue is, because the points you make are not consistent.

 

Treating your premise at face value, none of the parties involved delivered what it said on the tin. Customers (passengers) have no interest in who is at fault, except that they are almost entirely in agreement that it is Arriva's sole fault.

 

But the fact, as you have admitted, that the relevant parts of the tin are all inter-connected, and heavily subservient to one part of the tin, suggests only one party holds the dominant reason for failure. If the DfT let a Franchise without checking that the underlying assumptions of that Franchise are achievable, then that is a blatant failure of due diligence in the award. There is no doubt failure in Arriva in not catching up fast enough, following the delay to the Bolton electrification and the hiatus of the May 2018 TT, which may or may not be adequate reason to remove them. But it is not as simple as that, and we all know it.

 

The "consumer" has triumphed in this case, but is unlikely to see any rapid improvement as a result. By this decision, Mr Shapps has exposed his department a little more than they would wish, I believe.

 

 

 

Mike

 

I have consistently blamed Northern Rail for failing to live up to their tender for running the franchise, certainly as previously stated in an earlier reply the fault was not with the minister and when a company steeped in transport for many years the DfT cannot really be blamed for what turns out to be a failed attempt to run a franchise. Certainly most of the blame must set firmly in both Arriva's/ DB's hands.  As for privatising the railways, we have had  what is basically a nationalised company fail. 

 

Certainly Network Rail's involvement has added to the issues, as have those who should have provided new trains

 

Listening to radio 5 last night both these points were stated as the reason for failure by an independent analysis, also there is a  review of the railways ongoing at the moment

 

It seems from all sides that there is no quick fix for Northern rail, but the DfT seem to be tasked with actually doing something about it. There is a lot to be said when the leader says jump and those under them reply, how high. Let's hope Mr Shaps and the DfT start improving the franchise ASAP

[96701]

Grant Shapps also said that what the government wants on Northern is a new performance-related train contract, like existing ones for Merseyrail and the London Overground, which put less risk on the train company. The franchising system is no longer fit for purpose was also stated by him.

[Hobby]

I made the fatal error of tuning into Question Time on the drive home last night and they were discussing Northern (as it was in Buxton!)... It was clear that most people in the audience (and, worryingly, some on the panel who should have known better, or perhaps they were just "playing to the audience" as it seems is the way these days) have no concept on how trains work, how much work is involved in bringing back to life old railways or modernising existing ones, or how much such work will cost. It would seem however that the Magic Money Tree is alive and well and will be used by the Mayors of the Northern Cities as soon as they are devolved the power... Everyone wants more money but no-one will say where it will come from...

 

Now I remember why I listen to Radio 4 on Thursday nights on the drive home!

Edited January 31, 2020 by Hobby

[hayfield]

I also listened to question time, when I lived just outside of the London suburbs I took the cost of rail transport for granted, I now live a bit further away from London and am amazed at how much using both the trains and buses is.

 

I don't disbelieve the job or sorting out Northern rail is difficult, but that's life, Its in a mess and needs sorting. This may well take strong leadership in getting all the factions working together in order to facilitate a reliable service

 

The rail industry in the main is working well, more passengers than ever before using railways, plenty of investment going in and some wonderful new trains

 

Negative elements still remain, which need addressing. Along with projects which are taking longer to complete than expected. Having said this all major projects suffer setbacks, its the managing of these setbacks that separates the good from the bad.

[D9020 Nimbus]

May be different elsewhere, but in the Newcastle area the main issue, IMHO, is cancellations. I notice that many services have been increased in frequency — there are now 2 tph between Newcastle and Carlisle; I don't remember the general use of this service between Hexham and Carlisle generally being sufficient to demand this all day every weekday. Increasing the number of trains without adequate preparation is bound to lead to problems.

 

Considering the recent issues on Northern and Trans-Pennine, whoever determines the timetable hasn't learned from previous mistakes. I find it hard to believe I'm saying this, but the first way the privatised railway operators were organised, with Tom Winsor as Rail Regulator, seemed to work better than its successors have (excepting Railtrack, obviously). 

[mdvle]

On 29/01/2020 at 12:04, hayfield said:

We are in a free market, nobody held a gun to Northern Rail's head, Arriva is a well known company in the transport business who should have known what it was buying, likewise DB in buying Arriva. don't blame DfT for getting the best deal it could.

 

If Northern was the only franchise in trouble you might have a point.

 

But when there are franchises failing all over the UK, and the common element is DfT, I think blaming them is more than fair.

 

LNER is back in government hands after the failure of the east coast franchise (for the third time!), Northern is now in government hands, and Southwestern Railway is touch and go.

 

DfT settled out of court with one of 2 parties suing them over the franchise process (essentially admitting they were going to lose), and how many franchises have now failed to be re-tendered and are on "temporary" contracts given the entire franchise system (as designed by the DfT) is imploding?

 

On 29/01/2020 at 12:04, hayfield said:

To many of us not in the industry Northern Rail's ownership was not known, to me and I guess a great many others it is a surprise

 

Um, I'm not in the industry.

 

But I am aware of the ownership issue because it has been covered in the media over the years, I believe the one union has expressed outrage over it, Labour may have complained about it (UK tax dollars subsidize profits for foreign railways), and it has certainly been covered on RMweb in the past.

 

So like I said, not a secret.

 

On 29/01/2020 at 12:04, hayfield said:

Northern agreed to the terms of the franchise offered. Or offered too much for the franchise in the bidding cycle.

 

Arrive agreed to provide exactly the service that DfT wanted to pay for - there is no offering too much given that Northern requires a subsidy unlike some of the other franchises.

 

Things were certainly made worse by the late delivery of trains, and issues with NR delivering infrastructure, but at the end of the day DfT dictates the terms of the franchises when they are put out to bid.

 

But also consider this - Northern has been in trouble for years and the government was quite happy to ignore the problems until now.  What changed?  The voters changed parties, and suddenly your concerns were a priority and so now they are finally taking action - though it also helps as noted by someone else that most of the rolling stock issue should soon be over so it can be made to look like they have "magically" solved the problem.

[Hobby]

7 hours ago, mdvle said:

Um, I'm not in the industry.

 

But you are a railway enthusiast and therefore would have some knowledge of some aspects of the franchise system, especially as it's been discussed on this forum rather a lot. Same could be said of Union Members, especially those involved in Transport unions. However for the man in the street who actually owns "Northern" will have not been something they will have known about or been of any interest to until very recently when it's all hit the headlines as it was of no interest or relevance to them. RMT in particular have done a good job of highlighting "foreign ownership" of our railways but even that wouldn't mean that the man in the street would have registered who ran his local trains as he probably wouldn't be bothered.

 

Your last paragraph sums it up nicely for me, chances are, if Northern had been given another few months (at least until delivery of the new stock) they could have sorted it all out. But now it's become political and thiose cynical people in Westminster and the Local Councils will make the most of their "failure" by magically sorting it without doing anything different to what Northern would have done given the time.

[hayfield]

8 hours ago, mdvle said:

 

If Northern was the only franchise in trouble you might have a point.

 

But when there are franchises failing all over the UK, and the common element is DfT, I think blaming them is more than fair.

 

LNER is back in government hands after the failure of the east coast franchise (for the third time!), Northern is now in government hands, and Southwestern Railway is touch and go.

 

DfT settled out of court with one of 2 parties suing them over the franchise process (essentially admitting they were going to lose), and how many franchises have now failed to be re-tendered and are on "temporary" contracts given the entire franchise system (as designed by the DfT) is imploding?

 

 

Um, I'm not in the industry.

 

But I am aware of the ownership issue because it has been covered in the media over the years, I believe the one union has expressed outrage over it, Labour may have complained about it (UK tax dollars subsidize profits for foreign railways), and it has certainly been covered on RMweb in the past.

 

So like I said, not a secret.

 

 

Arrive agreed to provide exactly the service that DfT wanted to pay for - there is no offering too much given that Northern requires a subsidy unlike some of the other franchises.

 

Things were certainly made worse by the late delivery of trains, and issues with NR delivering infrastructure, but at the end of the day DfT dictates the terms of the franchises when they are put out to bid.

 

But also consider this - Northern has been in trouble for years and the government was quite happy to ignore the problems until now.  What changed?  The voters changed parties, and suddenly your concerns were a priority and so now they are finally taking action - though it also helps as noted by someone else that most of the rolling stock issue should soon be over so it can be made to look like they have "magically" solved the problem.

 

The first point is counterbalanced by several franchises doing well, and certainly Virgin wanted to stay in the business.

 

Second point most of the public would not have a clue about the ownership

 

Your third point was is the exact opposite to the summing up on Northern Rail's attempt at running the franchise by an independent industry analysis who was very scathing at the whole way Northern Rail went about it, in both the bidding process and  the running of the franchise, aided and abetter by Network Rail and the train manufacturers

 

My own personal view is that the ownership of the system is too fragmented and that private owners need leeses of sufficient length so they can invest to make a return. Lets hope the review that is ongoing now comes up with some practical solutions

[D9020 Nimbus]

14 hours ago, mdvle said:

Arrive agreed to provide exactly the service that DfT wanted to pay for - there is no offering too much given that Northern requires a subsidy unlike some of the other franchises.

They can still "offer too much" by requiring a smaller subsidy than their rivals.

 

The ownership of the trains should be clear—it says "Northern by Arriva" on the sides of the trains.

[Hobby]

15 hours ago, D9020 Nimbus said:

The ownership of the trains should be clear—it says "Northern by Arriva" on the sides of the trains.

 

You actually believe people read the names on the sides of the trains?!! Try doing my job for a bit and you will realise they don't! (And they ignore the colours which is another giveaway!)

[hayfield]

29 minutes ago, Hobby said:

 

You actually believe people read the names on the sides of the trains?!! Try doing my job for a bit and you will realise they don't! (And they ignore the colours which is another giveaway!)

 

Its fine if you are a regular traveller, in my commuting days I could catch any train, even an intercity.

 

Now if I want to go to London, can I catch any train that stops at my station ? the ticket I buy makes no mention of what provider I have to use ?

[ess1uk]

Back on topic

 

why is it that other regions in NR seem to be coping better?

why only North West & Central Region on warning?

[31A]

1 hour ago, hayfield said:

 

 

 

Now if I want to go to London, can I catch any train that stops at my station ? the ticket I buy makes no mention of what provider I have to use ?

 

Yes, you can, unless the ticket says otherwise, for example endorsed "LNER only".

[TheSignalEngineer]

17 hours ago, D9020 Nimbus said:

 

The ownership of the trains should be clear—it says "Northern by Arriva" on the sides of the trains.

Except that most have never been rebranded since the old stkcky back plastic was taken off. Plenty of anonymous sets west of the hills, anything not refurbished or due off lease.

[Hobby]

8 minutes ago, 31A said:

"LNER only".

 

TOC only tickets... The spawn of the devil...

[Mike Storey]

4 hours ago, ess1uk said:

Back on topic

 

why is it that other regions in NR seem to be coping better?

why only North West & Central Region on warning?

 

And South Western

[ess1uk]

18 hours ago, Mike Storey said:

 

And South Western

The report doesn’t mention South Western.

 

[Hobby]

It's in the press, they are under a warning. A Google search shows reports on it.

[woodenhead]

One thing not discussed so far (I don't think) but which is probably a large element in the current issues within Manchester is the Ordsall Curve.

 

It was a bold idea to finally link Victoria and Piccadilly with mainline services and reduce the number of trains having to cross the throat at Piccadilly.

 

Except they didn't do the other bit - the capacity between Castlefield and Piccadilly - lots of lovely plans to extend Oxford Road station, add 2 extra platforms at Piccadilly so that one train can dwell in each direction whilst another sets off/arrives from Oxford Rd.  The May 18 debacle in Manchester was all the trains trying to get through the corridor and then getting stuck, being held on the Irlam line whilst trains entered/stopped and departed Deansgate was regular for me.

 

Since then what I have seen is a reduction in trains stopping at both Oxford Rd and Deansgate - no longer can you step off a train from the Irlam line and then pick up a Trans Pennine to the North at Oxford Rd, you may need to go to Piccadilly which still means alighting at Oxford Rd then the following East Midlands to Piccadilly, and then wait for the TPE service on the most crowded platforms in the area.  Also I've noted that the stoppers no longer all stop at Deansgate, another reduction all of which appear to be to resolve capacity issues that were meant to be resolved by rebuilding Oxford Rd and adding platforms at Piccadilly.  Trains also move at almost walking pace between Oxford Rd and Piccadilly, no doubt because of adverse signals up ahead only when they just about reach Piccadilly do they speed up slightly just before braking into the platforms.

 

The current governing party stopped this project all those years ago believing there was a magic signalling system that DB/Schenker, Northern, EMT, TPE, Virgin/Avanti could all install on their trains and magically resolve capacity with not a single extra piece of track being laid.   Nothing appears to have happened other than to blame the rail companies, NR and the economy for the problems, you cannot do half a job and expect success.