Official figures that show 90 per cent of trains are running on time are
highly misleading, it has been revealed.
In some cases the proportion of trains arriving on time is almost 25 per cent
less than claimed.
Train companies are allowed to record a long-distance service as having
arrived on time even if it was 9 minutes and 59 seconds late. Commuter
trains and regional services can arrive 4 minutes and 59 seconds behind
schedule and still be listed as on time.
Some companies argue that passengers do not mind short delays, even though a
late arrival by a few minutes could mean them missing a connection and
having to wait an hour.
Network Rail, the infrastructure company, believes that by recording every
delay, however small, passengers would be given a more honest picture of
punctuality, and overall performance would be improved. It has begun an
experiment with South West Trains (SWT), Britain’s biggest train company, in
which it records every delay, including those of only a few seconds.
It has found an alarming discrepancy between what it describes as “right-time
arrivals” and the public performance measure (PPM), which is published every
quarter by the Office of Rail Regulation.
Last month the PPM for SWT was 93.5 per cent, but the proportion of trains
that actually arrived at exactly the right time was only 71.6 per cent.
Iain Coucher, Network Rail’s chief executive, told The Times: “For us to keep
improving punctuality, we need to look at the causes of all delays,
including the short ones. We can deliver an ultra-reliable railway by
sitting down and working out why each train was not bang on time. It is our
intention to do this across the network.”
Mr Coucher said that Network Rail would also start measuring whether each
train arrived on time at intermediate stations. The PPM records only when
trains arrive at their final destination. A long-distance train may run late
for much of its journey but still officially arrive on schedule after
accelerating on the last leg.
Mr Coucher said that increased pressure on train companies to ensure their
trains were precisely on time would release spare capacity, allowing extra
trains to be scheduled. “The right-time railway will show where there is
surplus time, including when trains regularly arrive early and then sit at
stations,” he said.
The average train last year on the 220-mile (350kilometre) Tokaido Shinkansen
line, linking Tokyo, Nagoya and Osaka, was only 18 seconds late. By
contrast, almost a quarter of trains on First Great Western’s high-speed
service were at least ten minutes late last year.
Anthony Smith, chief executive of Passenger Focus, the rail watchdog, said:
“Passengers expect the timetable to be a work of fact, not of fiction. We
think the industry should adopt a new approach where ‘on time’ means ‘on
time’.”
Richard Bowker, chief executive of National Express, which operates the East
Anglia and East Coast franchises, said that he would be willing to publish
the percentage of right-time arrivals if the media made it clear that delays
were far worse by air and road.
Airlines allow themselves an even greater margin than train companies, with a
flight not being listed as late if it arrives within 15 minutes of the
scheduled time.
The "rule" that long-distance trains are considered to be "on time" if they are less than 10 minutes late at the final destination (and similarly that "commuter" trains are "on time" if up to 5 nimutes late) has been around for well over 10 years so it is hardly a new revelation as the start of the article suggests.
This all dates from the "Passenger's Charter" that came in long before privatisation as part of the drive by John Major's government to get public sector organisations to provide reasonable quality services to the public.
One thing not mentioned in the article is "padding" in the timetable. This is when the final leg of a train's journey is given much more time that the same journey in the opposite direction. This is to make it more likely that a train will "on time" at its final destination.
Jeremy, Lincolnshire,
A move to measuring 'right time arrivals' at intermediate as well as destination stops should be warmly welcomed in the drive to deliver a Japanese-style railway such a densely populated country needs.
However, much as acceleratared or re-routed services are an annoyance to those they inconvenience, those complaining here should also remember that doing so benefits those on the train who wish to arrive at the destination on time.
In addition those complaining should also remember that with many junctions on the network operating at, or close to designed capacity, 'making up time' by unfortunately ommitting stops is often essential if other services and their passengers are not to be delayed too. Therefore where there is a problem, inconveniencing a minority often benefits a majority.
Paul, London, England
Isn't it a bit unfair to always bash British rail operators? British Rail has been fragmented into segments too small for any economies of scale or standardisation. Left with a network programmed for exctinction, they manage to not only keep it alive but increase ridership. That they manage to run quite a few good trains in these conditions is no small feat. As a Frenchman, I think our so much praised SNCF would do no better in the same conditions.
Those who should be bashed are the short-sighted politicians who butchered British Rail.
Andre Peretti, Bastia, France
It is about time that the rail watchdog reviewed the whole process of analysing timeliness of our railways. As a regular short distance commuter, invariably the morning trains are late at my start point and final destination. Going the other way they tend to be more on time. But overall figures don't reflect the morning problem.
John Schofield, York, N Yorks
My understanding of the rules governing train punctuality is that only the arrival time at the final destination counts, not those at intermediate stops.
When Virgin was responsible for the Cross Country franchise, one of its tricks was to miss out intermediate stops - even important interchanges like Reading - if the train was running late. This would mean passengers having to get off at the station before the one they had intended and having to wait for another connection, as well as leaving the passengers in the bypassed station stranded.
Sad to say that Arriva, which has taken over the Cross Country franchise is carrying on Virgin's habit of cancelling and re-routing trains without the slightest thought for its paying customers.
Paul, Coventry,
Trains are deliberately allowed excessive time for the last leg of their journey to give them a better chance of a 'punctual' arrival at their destination.
First Group's Great Western trains are given up to 19 minutes for just over five miles from St Erth to Penzance (only 8 minutes in the other direction). A train can thus be 20 minutes late all through Cornwall to St Erth and then magically be just ten minutes late at Penzance when it would be counted as "on time".
Similarly, Chiltern trains from Marylebone are allowed as much as ten minutes for the last half mile from Birmingham Moor Street to Snow Hill (for which other trains are allowed two minutes). A punctual arrival is thus recorded even though a train may have been significantly late for much of its journey from London.
Robert Darlaston, Goostrey, Cheshire, Great Britain
South West Trains will often miss out stations if the train is running late, on the Windsor to Waterloo Line.
Such fiddling is unacceptable - as shows the weakness in the current performance targets. Train arrives on times - but who cares about dozens of people who have missed their stop? Clearly not SWT!
Jon, Twickenham, England
Sir,
I have long felt the ability of the railway TOCs to redefine lateness on their terms as being tantamount to a lie, a manipulation. Mr Anthony Smith is absolutely right, when I purchase a ticket for a service I expect it to leave on time and arrive on time according to the timetable. A comparison with road and air services is utterly irrelevant on most services. In fact Mr Bowker's willingness to publish comparisons suggests that his company's bus and coach services are less punctual than his railway company's. That doesn't say much about either. Instead of trying to hide his company's dismal performance under a smokescreen of comparisons and re-branding he should be looking to introducing modern efficient rolling stock and pushing for service accelerations. Then the odd minute or two late arrival will be tolerated.
The least said about Network Rail the better.
Andrew Symon, Homersfield, UK
Another insanity is that trains can deliberately not stop at stations so that a late-starting service can make up time and not be late. This happened to me - my train home from the end of one of the SE London commuter lines was late leaving, and ran fast to London Bridge so it could be classified as 'on time'. Yet surely it should have been classified as a cancellation as it didn't stop where it should have, and I had to wait for the next train instead!
Sarah, London,