Fife Circle - Flying Scotsman - 15/05/16

1. If you are going to post a response to my remarks please do me the courtesy of sticking to what I have said rather than continue your tirade about all manner of matters irrelevant to this thread.

2. If you are going to dismiss a topic because it forms a small percentage of NR responsibility then I wonder why you choose to do so on a thread devoted to a topic which you regard as a minority interest.

3. If you are going to falsely attribute multiple quotations such as you do at the end of your third paragraph then please direct your remarks at those whom you quote. You are being thoroughly misleading in directing them at me.

4. You accuse me of "insulting the company's workforce at large". Either please point out where I have done this or withdraw your remarks. I am more than happy to justify what I have said by reasoned argument but I have no responsibility for what others may or may not have said.

You clearly feel passionately protective of Network Rail. Perhaps you might consider working for them? Or perhaps you already do.

 

Get a grip, Its called humour, Dads Army sketch. And you are and you are not.

 

Maybe the discussion would be better paused until the CEO has reported what the investigation finds out.

http://www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk/news/flying-scotsman-tours-of-scotland-reinstated

NR has resolved the immediate problem and will conduct root [route] cause analysis. Job done for now, not the best starting point but crisis averted. Hopefully lessons learned will prove all to the good.
Now go enjoy!

 

Oh, I have a very good grip on reality.and your post wasn't humorous in the slightest. and Dads Army has bugger all to do with this - now go chase your Footex tomorrow, coz you wont be anywhere near the Borders!

 

I'll shoot it in purple to make you feel at home

 

Feel free, I'm more interested in seeing pic's & vids from tomorrow of 60103's exploits north of the border.

 

To answer in turn

(1) Please read my response carefully because as far I as I am concerned the paragraph "Yes a management and/or a change in the organisations structure may well be needed with respect to Charter trains / guageing "is in essence similar to your your statement that "When the same failures occur repeatedly, regularly and consistently year in year out something not only needs to change, it is crying out for immediate change in the management responsible."

The difference is mainly I am less focused on the management (i.e. sacrificial scalps) because, as you have highlighted this has not done the trick in the past so is unlikely to improve things, however good it may make people feel this coming week.

Given I have no idea how the relevant department is structured at present I cannot say what forms that 'change' might take. Unless you work for NR at Milton Keynes you won't know either - and neither will the majority on forum members. In principle it sounds easy get the latest clearance data for the route and loco then compare, but as with most things engineering related its the little details, which may not be apparent to those outside the relevant area of expertise. Not every route can be scanned every day, certain tolerances, maintenance activities etc have to be added into the mix plus data may be stored on different proprietary systems that isn't readily exchangeable - and would rewriting / buying new software be a wise use of resources? However being pragmatic about the role of charter trains within NRs wider priorities does not make spending vast sums of money or hiring vast quantities of extra people a realistic solution.

(2) I am not seeking to 'dismiss the topic' as you put it rather to try and put it into context. On this forum enthusiasts naturally make up the majority of contributors so it is only natural for it to be a big issue and the latest in a long saga of bad charter planning etc. But if you look back there has been relatively little substance to the comments and rather too much hot air. Lots of people only to willing to state how incompetent NR is without stopping to think that the bit of NR that has screwed up is a relatively tiny part of the organisation.

Another analogy here to use is the Banking collapse - this was primarily triggered by investment bankers and city traiders rather than in branch staff, yet "Banker Bashing" became almost a national sport for several years, much to the frustration of individual branch employees. Is it far to tar everyone in the same organisation with the same brush?

(3) & (4) As far as I can see I did not actually accuse you personally of using the quoted terms - that was not the intention. Rather their inclusion was to illustrate why I have felt the need to press the issue of fairness to NR employees and also the company at large. No it is not perfect - but then show me a company that is. From utility companies to grocery chains to car makers, they all have bits that are good and bits that are bad. Focusing on the bad bits is fine - but extrapolating that to the whole company is wrong.

 

So a bit of an insider view there!

As I stated on a previous thread, why do network rail care what sort of train it is? Gauging should work in a schedule order priority of when the train is going to run. Are the people who work in the planning and gauging department rail enthusiasts? Probably not. A train is a train and it either fits or doesn't.

You mention all the problems with gauging - engineering clearances, unavailable data, different proprietary systems etc? All of these I'm sorry are just excuses for the department not being run properly?

Not got the latest engineering data? Go and get it, you have 1000's of employees availible. Work out an engineering solution where portable gauging equipment can be mounted under a service train and collect the data once a week. It's a big leap, but it would help (and cost money obviously)

Using multiple proprietary systems to do the same job? SORT IT OUT THERE IS NO EXCUSE IN 2016!! That's laziness of not having a rolling and managed software program for the department. They may be small, but if IT for an organisation is managed properly you shouldn't be in that situation. It's also down to the office themselves to ask for something integrated that makes them work more efficiently. No excuse.

I'm not bashing network rail here - but if planning and gauging work in the way you describe they clearly need better management and leadership, because they are not working in the best way to get their job done. Every organisation has its problems and its weaknesses but planning and effective delivery and managing expectations of stakeholders and customers should be number one.

Gauging a steam charter? Give the charter operators a web ports where they can find out the approval status of their trains.

Got an idea something might be out of gauge? Call someone the instant you know so you can give them time to sort an alternative or help you find resources to fix the problem.

 

I have sent you a PM

Regards

WN

EDIT (15th May 12.30) Following my PM to Phil-d259 he has kindly agreed to edit his earlier posts to more accurately reflect my postings on this subject and to make clear that a number of the quotations he used in response were not taken from my posts.

My thanks to Phil for his clarification & corrections.

 

A report about todays events has just been on BBC Breakfast. 60103 seemed to turn into 68007 half way through though. So is that how they got over the gauging problem by swapping the A3 with an Austerity Tank?

Sent from my D6603 using Tapatalk

 

Is gauging what the Yellow 125hst does?

 

Is it the one off nature of gauging steam locos for one off operations thats the issue? after all 99 per cnt of what runs on NR is " known" to the guaging office, and set measures can be put into place when something has to work off route, such as reforming some of GW' s HST sets into short swing sets when services are diverted onto SW Div metals into Waterloo. how does NR gauge for a steam engine? is it a computer exercise or based on historic data ie, axle loads, known clearence issues, or does every route has to be checke by running a gauging unit on that section?

 

The thing is that it is NR's own customer satisfaction metric which is at 41% (see Alan Williams' column in Modern Railways ) - of course it depends on how you're measuring yourself as an organisation but that is surely pretty poor in terms of any meaningful measure. The majority of those 59% dissatisfied will not be the charter customers who are not core business, but the TOC's and the freight companies who are.

I want NR to succeed, and there are many thousands of employees working hard in the face of challenges such as flooding to achieve that, but with a badly-structured organisation their efforts may well be in vain. Hopefully with Hendy as chair things can start to improve , otherwise I do fear for what the politicians may decide is the best forward

Jon

 

If a charter company decides to offer a trip around Fife, or from Clapham Jct to Southampton, what does NR actually get out of it in terms of revenue? I'm wondering what the incentives are and whether the 1.5 staff is a reflection of what service level you don't pay much for you don't get much of.

 

This is from the Network Rail website : 15 per cent of our income comes from fixed track access charges to operators, leaving 19 per cent coming from variable charges from train operators.

That any help?

Dave B

 

But for a one-off steam special?

 

You also need to consider that in the case of charter trains, an industry agreement leaves NR to pick up the bill for any delays to other operators. One off charters will also consume more timetable / planning resources than planning the running of regular services which has the same timings day in day out and / or uses the same class of unit / motive power. If everything runs well, then in theory running a charter train will produce a reasonable return fir NR, however if problems occur it doesn't take much for any particular charter to end up costing NR money.

Going forward the Government want to change the way it funds NR and abolish the capital grant in favour of significantly increased track access charges. At present this has stalled because Open access operators like Hull Trains and Grand Central say it unfairly impacts them compared to Franchised opperators (who would get an increased subsidy under the plans) - but were the Government to get their way charter traffic would be expected to increase what they pay. Such a move may well be unaffordable in terms of ticket prices (much as Government inspired moves to remove the 'cap' / 'subsidy' charter trains benefit from with respect to delay minutes threatened to do several years ago)

 

Flying Scotsman on the Borders Railway

Approaching Shawfair, sounding superb!



James

 

Very salient points and I too would be interested to know just how much "revenue" NR actually receive from one-off charters.

Given that everyone needs to be paid it is certain that some proportion of each charter fare eventually reaches Milton Keynes already. Whilst it is laid down that NR have a responsibility to facilitate open access equally it would seem unreasonable to ask either them or the general tax-payer to subsidise our somewhat eccentric hobby.

It could be argued that it should be possible for any publicly funded body to provide an efficient service for the same cost as an inefficient one, a job done better does not necessarily involve greater expenditure but given that complaints from those most closely connected with the process regularly cite lack of resources as one part of the problem then additional finance may be required.

Looking at some hypothetical (but hopefully not too inaccurate) figures I would tentatively suggest a solution that would seem reasonably cost effective. First assume that approximately 1000 passengers travel on charters each week, say 50000 per year (allowing for Xmas/New Year). Add just £1 per fare paid and hey presto £50000 per year is generated. This would more than fund an additional NR staff member who could be employed on charter timing & gauging duties. On the basis that there are perhaps 500 charters per year (many of which are repeat itineraries with standard paths) such an person could be employed 9-5 Mon - Fri and have no difficulty in producing paths well in advance of tour running dates. This would avoid difficulties for TOCs , tour promoters and passengers alike. Over time such an employee would gain experience and knowledge in the field benefitting all concerned. Taken together with the resulting reduction in NR paying out unnecessary compensation they might save money or even produce a modest profit.

I know the above may be regarded by some as simplistic and I'm sure it would need tweaking to achieve the best results, but perhaps simplicity is what is needed to avoid the numerous failures that currently plague the railtour industry. It would certainly reduce the likelihood of repeating the farcical situations that regular railtourers are all too used to, even if they did only come into the political & public consciousness this weekend.

The spectacle of NR engineers scurrying around like demented rabbits last Friday night has hopefully ensured that long overdue change is on the way, but we must be willing to pay for it.