TPE loses contract

[Oldddudders]

36 minutes ago, APOLLO said:

Last Friday my daughter had an Exam at Lancaster University, (in her final fourth year).

Towards the end of my career, I had a year or so working with a lot (30+) of very bright young people, each of whom had a second degree from Lancaster. The degree was in Operational Research, a problem-solving science which I do wonder might help many TOCs get their house a little more in order. 

[Steadfast]

2 hours ago, jbqfc said:

The Daily Mail spun the story to be an ASLEF plot to get TPE renationalised  

 

John 

Aww bless them. No doubt recycling the same anti ASLEF rubbish that came with the government issued press release

 

Jo

[Mike_Walker]

Tony Miles, someone not known to share the same view as the DM or to accept government press releases at face value, has posted this:

 

"It is known that ASLEF had decided that a scalp was needed and had targeted TPE (independent consultants have seen emails from some local branches) as the company to bring down."

 

ASLEF certainly does not have clean hands in this affair.

[skipepsi]

14 minutes ago, Mike_Walker said:

Tony Miles, someone not known to share the same view as the DM or to accept government press releases at face value, has posted this:

 

"It is known that ASLEF had decided that a scalp was needed and had targeted TPE (independent consultants have seen emails from some local branches) as the company to bring down."

 

ASLEF certainly does not have clean hands in this affair.

Really?

[APOLLO]

5 hours ago, Oldddudders said:

Towards the end of my career, I had a year or so working with a lot (30+) of very bright young people, each of whom had a second degree from Lancaster. The degree was in Operational Research, a problem-solving science which I do wonder might help many TOCs get their house a little more in order. 

 

The TOC's are not good and getting worse.

 

Here in Wigan two recent matters come to mind.

 

A couple of years ago one of the bay platforms at Wigan NW was lengthened at £millions for the then new Wigan NW to Leeds service. Since the timetable change last Christmas these now run to Wallgate. Wasted money. Nearly all trains Wigan to Manchester now run from Wallgate with just a smattering from NW.

 

I fear the ongoing electrification Lostock Jcn to Wigan NW will be an expensive mistake given nearly all current trains run to Wallgate, which cannot be electrified because of the road bridge with the (listed) station / shops etc on it.

 

Also at the timetable change the two trains per hour we had from North Western to Manchester Airport (ex Windemere and Barrow alternately) have been diverted via Bolton leaving Wigan (both stations) with NOT ONE airport direct train. Who wants to change at (say) Pneumonia Junction (Salford Crescent) with luggage ? Bolton now has five services per hour to the airport (two ex Blackpool, the two above and one TPE if you are lucky).

 

I recently wrote to Andy Burnham, Greater Manchester Mayor. re the above. His lacky replied citing congestion in the Castlefield Corridor - I quickly replied stating that ALL the above mentioned trains transit this corridor, and added that the multi million £ Ordsall Chord has just one train per hour in each direction (TPE !!), and thus was a waste of public money. I await (in vain) for a reply.

 

The trouble with our railways is the Government, 100%.

 

Brit15

[Wheatley]

9 hours ago, Oldddudders said:

The degree was in Operational Research, a problem-solving science which I do wonder might help many TOCs get their house a little more in order. 

Northern has an Operational Science team, I sit next to them. Some of the stuff they're rummaging about in fascinating and it all feeds directly into train planning. 

 

I forget the exact reasons for the Wigan issues but my understanding is they're tied in with service pattern changes needed to accommodate TRU work rather than incompetence. TRU impacts directly on the Castlefield corridor of course. 

[phil-b259]

On 12/05/2023 at 23:01, Steadfast said:

Nothing to replace the HSTs. Expect rejigging of Voyager diagrams from what I've heard. Likewise on GWR, nowt to replace the 2+4 HSTs, just short form other services to free up stock.

 

Grand Central rumoured to be taking 10 Avanti 221s to replace the 180s. The 222s at EMR aren't compatible with the 220/221s, so would need to be run as a separate fleet if the did get taken on by XC.

 

Jo

 

Yup

 

Please remember that according to the self appointed 'experts at the DfT passenger numbers are "still significantly less than pre-pandemic levels",  plus "we need to be fair to hard working taxpayers who spent billions subsidising the railways and keeping rail workers employed during said pandemic by cutting the railways costs"

 

In other words that means:-

 

Pay restraint (i.e. reduce wage costs and hence the strikes)

Cuts in service frequencies (i.e. less drivers, less trains etc needed)

Giving up the leases on rolling stock (i.e. shorter trains as whats kept has to go further).

 

But doing nothing about the waste and inefficiency created by political medalling.....

 

 

[APOLLO]

1 hour ago, Wheatley said:

Northern has an Operational Science team, I sit next to them. Some of the stuff they're rummaging about in fascinating and it all feeds directly into train planning. 

 

I forget the exact reasons for the Wigan issues but my understanding is they're tied in with service pattern changes needed to accommodate TRU work rather than incompetence. TRU impacts directly on the Castlefield corridor of course. 

 

Interesting, though what is TRU ?

 

The trains diverted still run on the Castlefield corridor at the same frequency as when they ran through Wigan.

 

I may be wrong but I sense the diversion may have been to allow Northern to save money on track access charges on the Wigan to Golborne Jcn (WCML) as these were the only Northern services to use this stretch. 

 

Brit 15

[Fishoutofwater]

8 minutes ago, APOLLO said:

TRU

https://thetrupgrade.co.uk/

[Wheatley]

14 hours ago, APOLLO said:

 

The TOC's are not good and getting worse.

 

Here in Wigan two recent matters come to mind.

 

A couple of years ago one of the bay platforms at Wigan NW was lengthened at £millions for the then new Wigan NW to Leeds service. Since the timetable change last Christmas these now run to Wallgate. Wasted money. Nearly all trains Wigan to Manchester now run from Wallgate with just a smattering from NW.

 

I fear the ongoing electrification Lostock Jcn to Wigan NW will be an expensive mistake given nearly all current trains run to Wallgate, which cannot be electrified because of the road bridge with the (listed) station / shops etc on it.

 

Also at the timetable change the two trains per hour we had from North Western to Manchester Airport (ex Windemere and Barrow alternately) have been diverted via Bolton leaving Wigan (both stations) with NOT ONE airport direct train. Who wants to change at (say) Pneumonia Junction (Salford Crescent) with luggage ? Bolton now has five services per hour to the airport (two ex Blackpool, the two above and one TPE if you are lucky).

 

I recently wrote to Andy Burnham, Greater Manchester Mayor. re the above. His lacky replied citing congestion in the Castlefield Corridor - I quickly replied stating that ALL the above mentioned trains transit this corridor, and added that the multi million £ Ordsall Chord has just one train per hour in each direction (TPE !!), and thus was a waste of public money. I await (in vain) for a reply.

 

The trouble with our railways is the Government, 100%.

 

Brit15

Further to my earlier 'off the top of my head' answer - The concentration of services on the Bolton corridor was one of the outputs of the Manchester Recovery Task Force public consultation held in 2021. The focus on Bolton is deliberate because that is where the major traffic flow is, and (based on pre-Covid passenger numbers) the TPE services already on the corridor were unable to provide the capacity needed and will again be unable as and when TPE traffic recovers. Likewise the need to change for the airport by reducing the number of services running through Manchester north to south is also deliberate, that is the bit that eases traffic through the Castlefield corridor by reducing the number of east/southbound services trying to turn right out of 13 & 14 at Piccadilly.  It goes without saying that if the Castlefield corridor had been four-tracked as per the original plan(s) then none of this would be necessary.    

 

Link - https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1024623/manchester-recovery-task-force-public-consultation-response.pdf

 

Complaints etc to your MP or the Mayor please. 

[Michael Hodgson]

4 hours ago, Wheatley said:

 

Complaints etc to your MP or the Mayor please. 

Don't think it would do much good complaining to my MP.  TPE doesnt serve his constituency and he was PPS in the Transport Dept under Teresa May's government

Edited May 17, 2023 by Michael Hodgson

[Railpassion]

Chris Jackson from Northern will replace Matthew Golton as TPE head from the end of this month.

[The Stationmaster]

On 16/05/2023 at 10:25, Oldddudders said:

As I've said previously, drivers were the big winners from the BR workforce as a result of Privatisation. Their traditional rivals in payscales were the signallers, all of whom ended up w Railtrack, still on a national wage-scale.  TOCs have no great difficulty in recruiting station staff, booking clerks, even guards where needed, but the willingness of Virgin to pay top dollar for drivers on Pendolini was among the initial accelerants in creating a drivers' job market. 

And Lew aAdams, the then General Secretary of ASLE&F played it to absolute perfection knowing exactly what buttons to puc sh and where and when.  He even knocked the union's EC (Executive Committee) into doing it all teh way he advocated, at great benefit to the unions membership.

 

And a great bloke to  negotiate with as well - straight as a die - and able to talk in an intelligent way where even the change of a single word could mean something very different.  After some of our Drivers had put something up to union HQ (although it was not a dispute - yet) my Director sent me across to Arkwright House to 'discuss it with Lew'.  Admittedly i had the advantage of knowing whose names to mention to him of ASLE&F members I had dealt with in previous jobs so he knew where I was coming from in 'discussion' terms.

 

We had an excellent meeting and I gave him the assurance he wanted in a fornm of words which he knew would give him what he wanted to reassure the branch but which both of us knew meant that I was not giving anything new or additional to his members. (and he fully understood without asking me that I wouldn't give anything even if he did ask for it).  All a matter of both of us using the right words and of trusting each other - that's how proper negotiation works - or should work

 

 

 

 

[The Stationmaster]

20 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Yup

 

Please remember that according to the self appointed 'experts at the DfT passenger numbers are "still significantly less than pre-pandemic levels",  plus "we need to be fair to hard working taxpayers who spent billions subsidising the railways and keeping rail workers employed during said pandemic by cutting the railways costs"

 

In other words that means:-

 

Pay restraint (i.e. reduce wage costs and hence the strikes)

Cuts in service frequencies (i.e. less drivers, less trains etc needed)

Giving up the leases on rolling stock (i.e. shorter trains as whats kept has to go further).

 

But doing nothing about the waste and inefficiency created by political medalling.....

 

 

Interesting isn't it that by forcing TOCs to reduce ticket sales outlets and remove staff who check that passengers have tickets DafT is in effect also reducing the number of passengers who are counted because they don't need to buy a ticket for their journey.    A sort of self-fulfilling prophecy.

[Michael Hodgson]

13 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

Interesting isn't it that by forcing TOCs to reduce ticket sales outlets and remove staff who check that passengers have tickets DafT is in effect also reducing the number of passengers who are counted because they don't need to buy a ticket for their journey.    A sort of self-fulfilling prophecy.

Isn't that what BR used to do when they wanted to close a line?

[phil-b259]

1 hour ago, The Stationmaster said:

Interesting isn't it that by forcing TOCs to reduce ticket sales outlets and remove staff who check that passengers have tickets DafT is in effect also reducing the number of passengers who are counted because they don't need to buy a ticket for their journey.    A sort of self-fulfilling prophecy.

Indeed - but just the sort of ‘cunning plan’ HM Treasury like…..

[Wheatley]

Passenger numbers are not only extrapolated from ticket sales. 

[The Stationmaster]

19 hours ago, Wheatley said:

Passenger numbers are not only extrapolated from ticket sales. 

Doing passenger counts used to be a nice little overtine earner.  At Paddington we normally had two people at the main barrier counting the passengers of an arriving train.  With a good system to prevent double counting - one of us would count the makes and the other would count the females 👀

[MidlandRed]

1 hour ago, The Stationmaster said:

Doing passenger counts used to be a nice little overtine earner.  At Paddington we normally had two people at the main barrier counting the passengers of an arriving train.  With a good system to prevent double counting - one of us would count the makes and the other would count the females 👀

Transportation data collection comes from a multitude of sources in the increasingly technological age, including (not identifiable by person) mobile phone data, direct info from sales, usage counting (usually done by contractor), in the case of road traffic data, automatic traffic counters (both permanent and temporary), and even on train sensors (those who travel on Thameslink will know the PIS displays within the train show usage level in each carriage. Bus ticket machines give operators and then Authorities direct usage info (obviously not if the user doesn’t pay and is not registered by the driver - my understanding is the driver, certainly on TfL has the ability to register a non-paying passenger).

 

Im interested to hear the reference to DfT staff (referred to as DafT by some). We should be clear those staff are there to ensure the rules are followed by those seeking to use public funds and they have a duty to ensure national Policy is followed. They, ultimately (or at least the very senior ones) report direct to politicians, who generally set their aims out, which are then interpreted into Policy. It appears a Policy came about to, for instance ensure Thameslink trains were the appropriate length - when the operators had the option, operationally, to short form trains down to four or eight cars, this was done so regularly that one of the metrics published and shown on posters for relative performance of operators included contracted train length and cancellation - Thameslink were always at the bottom - ok they had older rolling stock but nontheless consistently awful performance. The new trains are in fixed 12 and 8 car lengths - Thameslink now perform very well. It is likely politicians had a hand in that and DfT developed the Policy leading to those specs. A case where the public service won over operational convenience? I’m sure those people who’ve had a hand (large or small in such things) would have comments on that and please correct me if my interpretation is incorrect.

 

Of course there’s no helping some politicians and judging by the ludicrous utterings of a recent Secretary of State (said the Government doesn’t own the railways - in respect of Network Rail and disputes) I pity the poor DfT having to deal with them - and their current fad of cost cutting (whilst continuing to provide significant cheap fare support to the bus industry)!! I guess the ballot box is the place to deal with them!! 

[The Stationmaster]

23 hours ago, MidlandRed said:

Transportation data collection comes from a multitude of sources in the increasingly technological age, including (not identifiable by person) mobile phone data, direct info from sales, usage counting (usually done by contractor), in the case of road traffic data, automatic traffic counters (both permanent and temporary), and even on train sensors (those who travel on Thameslink will know the PIS displays within the train show usage level in each carriage. Bus ticket machines give operators and then Authorities direct usage info (obviously not if the user doesn’t pay and is not registered by the driver - my understanding is the driver, certainly on TfL has the ability to register a non-paying passenger).

 

Im interested to hear the reference to DfT staff (referred to as DafT by some). We should be clear those staff are there to ensure the rules are followed by those seeking to use public funds and they have a duty to ensure national Policy is followed. They, ultimately (or at least the very senior ones) report direct to politicians, who generally set their aims out, which are then interpreted into Policy. It appears a Policy came about to, for instance ensure Thameslink trains were the appropriate length - when the operators had the option, operationally, to short form trains down to four or eight cars, this was done so regularly that one of the metrics published and shown on posters for relative performance of operators included contracted train length and cancellation - Thameslink were always at the bottom - ok they had older rolling stock but nontheless consistently awful performance. The new trains are in fixed 12 and 8 car lengths - Thameslink now perform very well. It is likely politicians had a hand in that and DfT developed the Policy leading to those specs. A case where the public service won over operational convenience? I’m sure those people who’ve had a hand (large or small in such things) would have comments on that and please correct me if my interpretation is incorrect.

 

Of course there’s no helping some politicians and judging by the ludicrous utterings of a recent Secretary of State (said the Government doesn’t own the railways - in respect of Network Rail and disputes) I pity the poor DfT having to deal with them - and their current fad of cost cutting (whilst continuing to provide significant cheap fare support to the bus industry)!! I guess the ballot box is the place to deal with them!! 

There have been instances where DafT have effectively instructed operators under the present contractual arrangemnts to reduce the length of trains.   Whether the overcrowding statistics introduced - as you said - to monitor short formed/overcrowded services will get so much attention in future is an interesting question.

 

The level of Civil Service interference is now massively greater when the railway was fully m nationalised although it did happen then (but was inevitably denied by politicians even when they were directly involved). IIn some cases change came about pre urely because of changes introduced by Cvil Servants (but I don't know at whose behest) for exanmolke teh considerable cutback in freight servoces in the late 1980s was a direct consequence of an instruction from The Treasury and included the ending of various services which were making an operating profit (many of them were subsequently reintrodiced by EWS so clearly they were quite happy that they were profitable).   But the cuts were ver ysquarely publicly identified as being 'BR policy' when they literally were not and various BR staff were told not to say what had caused them.

 

In my experience there is little to chose between teh different lots of politicians whe n it comes down to action rather yjam rhetoric.  There have been one or two who have had a pretty good understanding of the railway industry but one who back in the 1990s spent half a day shadowing me as part of a 'railway industry familiarisation' freely admitted, when I asked him, that he saw it as a route to certain posts in Govt because very few of his colleagues were either interested in or knew nothing about 'transport', especially the railway.   However when he did get various ministerial jobs he never had one in transport so clearly his strategy hadn't been absolutely necessary.  Nice chap tho' and seemingly quite competent in the jobs he did get.

[jjb1970]

Politicians are generalists, most of the current crop seem to be from either legal or policy backgrounds (the sort who get jobs as advisors to politicians or with NGOs and work their way up through the party apparatus) and while their understanding of issues tends to be superior to the general public and they do tend to be rather intelligent they're not technical experts.

 

They rely on the civil service, and increasingly consultants and NGOs, with some industry lobbying, to try and make sense of things. So the role of the civil service is crucial as they're the ones in government who are supposed to have a thorough understanding of whatever activity their department is supposed to be a part of. And unfortunately if I look at some of the woeful contracts they enter into, over reliance on questionable consultants and NGOs an attempts to micro-manage it's not a pretty picture.

 

The problem isn't lack of expertise, it is in some cases but if I look at Abbey Wood in Bristol the MoD has a wealth of outstanding expertise, the problems seem to be a systemic dysfunctionality. 

[Michael Hodgson]

8 hours ago, jjb1970 said:

Politicians are generalists, most of the current crop seem to be from either legal or policy backgrounds ... unfortunately if I look at some of the woeful contracts they enter into, over reliance on questionable consultants and NGOs an attempts to micro-manage it's not a pretty picture.

So shouldn't these elected lawyers at least manage to get contracts right?

[jjb1970]

59 minutes ago, Michael Hodgson said:

So shouldn't these elected lawyers at least manage to get contracts right?

 

If they were drafting and negotiating them, probably. The work is done by others and it's not unreasonable for government ministers and MPs to work on an assumption that legal experts in the civil service should be capable of looking after contracts without the minister marking their work.

[Mark Saunders]

20 hours ago, jjb1970 said:

 

If they were drafting and negotiating them, probably. The work is done by others and it's not unreasonable for government ministers and MPs to work on an assumption that legal experts in the civil service should be capable of looking after contracts without the minister marking their work.

The job of a minister is to apply government policy and then blame others when it goes wrong!

[jjb1970]

1 hour ago, Mark Saunders said:

The job of a minister is to apply government policy and then blame others when it goes wrong!

 

That may be true, just as it is true that civil service legal experts should be able to do their job and technical experts be capable of performing their roles effectively. Unfortunately I can't help feeling that just as society gets the politicians we deserve so politicians get the civil service they deserve.