So Who's Fault Is It?

The recent severe disruption to services again saw Twitter come alive with the usual abuse aimed at the train operator, Abellio Greater Anglia (AGA).  And last week we learned that since Abellio took over the franchise in 2012 there have been 36,000 cancellations.  So, it’s all their fault obviously.  Well, yes and no.  5,808 cancellations were due to train failures that may have been due to poor maintenance on their part, or may have had something to do with the trains being ‘mature’ and past their sell by date.  But then AGA don’t actually own any trains but lease them, so should the leasing companies who own the trains bear some responsibility?  Now don’t get me wrong, there’s plenty that we commuters are all agreed on that AGA are responsible for that can be improved but that is for another time.

So, more than 30,000 cancellations were down to infrastructure failures and fatalities.  Sadly there has been a significant increase in the number of people who choose to end their lives in front of trains.  But can the train company be blamed for these sad events?  Similarly it is Network Rail who are responsible for the infrastructure and AGA are simply a customer of theirs, so points failures, signal failures, overhead wire problems and the like, actually prevent AGA from providing a service. 

So, it’s Network Rail’s fault then.  Well, yes and no.

Yes, you have to sometimes question Network Rail’s project management abilities when engineering works again overrun, or relatively new infrastructure fails.  But Network Rail are generally working with an infrastructure that has endured decades of under investment in this region – some of the overhead wires date from the 1940s.

So it’s the government’s fault then.  Well yes and no.  Railways are expensive things to run and there are only two ways to fund them – via the taxpayer and from fares.  We have the most expensive fares in Europe and the price of commuting is becoming increasingly prohibitive for many.  And let’s be honest, there are not many who regularly use the railway who would consider it value for money.   Unfortunately successive administrations have never really regarded rail as key national infrastructure in the same way as perhaps they do with roads, or as their opposite numbers do in the rest of Europe.

So, was privatisation the way to go with the railways?  Well yes and no. It is accepted by many that the UK railways have seen more investment as a consequence of privatisation (although how much has been in East Anglia is debateable).  But is it really very efficient to split up the infrastructure, train ownership and day-to-day operations so much? Well, yes and no…

Published in The Gazette "On The Rails" 5th December 2014

Ever Thought The Trains Ran For Your Benefit...?

Do you ever wonder when travelling by train that perhaps you’re something of an inconvenience getting in the way of the railway being run efficiently?  Any early birds commuting from Manningtree as I do will be familiar with the sometimes-cancelled 05:54. (Currently 05:53 to account for the autumn leaf fall timetable, which mysteriously sees the train run more on time anyway, so why not stick to that time all year round?) I digress.

There is sometimes an announcement, usually on a cold morning, that the 05:54 has been cancelled due to something or other.  We are then resigned to catch a slower service that is due to leave some 15 minutes later calling everywhere, but more importantly, with uncomfortable seats.  Often though, before this slow lumbering service arrives, the ‘cancelled’ 05:54 speeds through the station with its tail on fire.  Not only does it not stop at Manningtree but it usually skips Colchester too.

What could possibly be the point of running a service but cut out certain stops, leaving passengers stranded at those stations and, I know for a fact, catching out passengers already on that train who want to get off!

Well there is a theory to explain all this.  Not one the train company will ever admit to of course but well accepted by us commuters as being the case anyway.  Train journeys are considered to have arrived on-time if they arrive at their destination within 5 minutes of their advertised time (10 minutes in the case of Inter City services).  Note – this only applies to the destination, not the intermediate stops.  So, if there’s a chance of getting the train to its destination ‘on time’ and therefore keeping the reliability statistics looking good then why not take steps to speed it on its way.  One way is, where possible, to get other trains to pull over out of the way but then there’s the danger of making those trains late too.  The alternative of course is to avoid making all those annoying stops that slow everything up. 

That way, the train arrives on time – albeit half empty – and the statistics look good. 

A similar tactic is sometimes employed in the evening.  My train is supposed to go to Ipswich but often lately when it has been running a bit late they decide to terminate it at Colchester.  The commuter theory is that a train that doesn’t even reach its destination somehow scores more brownie points than a late one.  And of course the return trip is less likely to be delayed to its destination, skewing the figures.

All theory, of course.  But a good one.  And you thought they were running the trains for you?

Published in The Gazette "On The Rails" 14th November 2014