Timetabling review
ORR demands a rigorous review from Network Rail into the schedule and process for producing train timetables.
NETWORK Rail’s System Operator must lead an industry review into Part D of the Network Code which prescribes the schedule and process for producing timetables.
It is one of a series of recommendations made by the Office of Rail and Road (ORR), as part of the Glaister Inquiry’s full report (published on December 7) into the disruption caused by the May 2018 timetable changes.
ORR and Inquiry Chairman Professor Stephen Glaister said: “Passengers were let down by the rail industry on May 20 and the weeks that followed. We found systemic failures that needed to be resolved in order to reduce the possibility that passengers have to endure these conditions again. Our recommendations will now mean that in every project, impact on passengers will be a central consideration - as it should always be.
“We are pleased with the improvements that have been made so far and expect our recommendations, which can be implemented immediately, to bring more benefits.
“More fundamental changes are needed in the longer term, which is the subject of the Williams Review. The ORR will contribute to that Review.”
The regulator says the System Operator must publish a plan by April 1 2019 explaining how it intends to lead a review of Part D. It recommends:
In undertaking the review, the System Operator is to seek to gain whole industry buy-in.
Any changes proposed by the review must be considered in light of a system-wide review of their benefits and disbenefits (including for passengers and freight), which must be clearly articulated to stakeholders.
Any changes proposed by the review must include an assessment of the implementation of those changes and the impacts on NR and operators.
The ORR says it will take account of whether the industry review has “adequately followed” that process when deciding whether to approve any proposed changes.
In the review, the System Operator must review Part D to strengthen the collaboration between operators and the System Operator, with particular reference to the use of so-called Event Steering Groups and any other opportunities to “better align outcomes across parties for the benefit of the system as a whole, including whether participation in such groups should be compulsory”.
The System Operator must also consider whether Part D should explicitly set out “go/ no go” decision points, and operators must commit to engaging constructively in the process and identify system-wide benefits.
The inquiry concluded that there was “insufficient consideration of passenger interests when assessing delivery risk in the infrastructure programme and timetable planning processes ahead of May 2018”.
Therefore, the ORR recommends that programme sponsors should seek appropriate assurance that the impact on passengers has been assessed at investment decision points, and also when decisions need to be made during the delivery phase of a programme that affect the delivery of the service passengers will experience (or the timing of the delivery of those services).
Passenger information was widely criticised as being inadequate at times during the disruption, and the ORR says operators and infrastructure managers should participate in an ORR-led research project into passenger information and how it can be improved. This should include active participation in the evidence-gathering phase in 2019, and further collaboration in the development and implementation of proposals.
In terms of application of the timetabling process, the System Operator is to set out to the ORR by April 1 2019 how it will report on the progress of strengthening timetable technology capability, and how it is following ‘best practice’ stakeholder engagement and industry consultation.
The ORR recommends the System Operator should review the progress of a trial with ScotRail to provide greater access to the planning system. It also wants the System Operator to create an industry timetabling technology strategy to improve the timetabling process.
The System Operator must set out the timescales for the creation of this strategy as soon as it is able
to do so, and consider proposed changes to technology and their benefits and disbenefits. Operators and funding authorities will participate in the development of the strategy, and consider whether there are individual business cases for bringing forward improvements.
The ORR says it will continue to monitor preparedness of the rail industry for forthcoming timetable changes, and “maintain this focus” while the industry increases its timetabling capability.
Failings in programme governance are to be addressed, with the Terms of Reference for all programme boards to include a responsibility to understand “dependent systemic risks” which have an impact on other programmes such as rolling stock and franchises, to manage risks which could materialise from co-dependent programmes, and to co-operate with other programmes.
ORR says this should happen as soon as possible for all programmes at all stages of their development, including the sponsor’s initial planning and specification stage.
The need for co-ordination with other programmes as projects near completion should be addressed by the creation of an Industry Readiness Board to manage the process, says the ORR. This should be established in advance of network changes and bring together all relevant bodies.
The report recommends that these should have the executive capability and resources to manage the preparation for network change, and the ability to call on independent audit and assurance of all dependent programmes and the preparedness of parties to operate the network. The ORR says this should become the “default arrangement” for all major network changes.
Where programmes depend on others, the Glaister Inquiry recommends that all boards responsible for them should plan the timing of critical advice and decisions with “full regard to the risks to other programmes, including timetable development”.
Where the critical path for timetable development is departed from, it should be a decision taken “consciously by all related parties including the SO” and well in advance of the timetable change at ‘D-40’ in Part D of the Network Code.
The inquiry found that there is no authority capable of making national judgements about systemic change, or trusted by sponsors and funders to advise them of the risks and potential mitigations.
The ORR recommends that an enhanced systemwide advice, audit and assurance capability for major network changes should be introduced as soon as possible. This should be independent of individual programmes, and carry the authority of sponsors to represent their interests and those of end-users across the delivery of programmes.
It should be remitted to predict system-wide risks to the effective delivery of programme benefits for users, and provide advice to programmes and sponsors that prevent risks from occurring. @AndyRoden1