Examination of Witnesses (Question Numbers
80-99)
DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORT, NETWORK
RAIL, OFFICE
OF RAIL
REGULATION AND
ASSOCIATION OF
TRAIN OPERATING
COMPANIES
4 JUNE 2008
Q80 Mr Davidson: Can I ask about
attacks on staff related to delays? Obviously you monitor attacks
on staff. Is there a pattern by which it is identifiable that
attacks on staff are more numerous at times of delay?
Mr Franks: There certainly are
a number of instances recorded where staff have been assaulted
as a consequence of passengers being unhappy about disruption.
Q81 Mr Davidson: Is there a pattern
to that at all? Is it a particular line? A particular area? A
particular part of the country? Or is it entirely random?
Mr Franks: Again I would need
to go and check statistics but I think it is probably random.
Q82 Mr Davidson: Could you do that?
I think it would be helpful for us to know whether or not there
was any pattern there. In terms of delays, which operating company
is worst and which is best, and how do you define that? [4]
Dr Mitchell: There are figures
which are published on a monthly basis and it will be no secret
that First Great Western was, until recently, the poorest performing
company. As a result of that the secretary of state took action
to enforce an improvement plan. Generally speaking the most up-to-date
figures I have for period 13—which is most of March this
year—the cumulative position for the whole of the train
industry showed the best performer as Chiltern Railways achieving
a 95% public performance measure, which is a measure including
not only lateness but cancellations as well. The worse performer
was National Express East Coast at 82.6%.
Q83 Mr Davidson: Do I take it that
there should probably be a correlation between the bad figures
from the National Express and the amount paid out in compensation,
and that generally we would expect that those were the best records?
Dr Mitchell: Yes.
Q84 Mr Davidson: If there is anything
that does not correlate to that then there would be something
wrong.
Dr Mitchell: One would expect
that except that, as the table on page 47 of the Report at appendix
four indicates, there are variations, but with that proviso yes.
Q85 Mr Davidson: The final point
I would seek to clarify is about train faults and the relationship
between the operating companies and the leasing companies. Is
there any sanction in these circumstances applied to the companies
from whom the trains are being leased or does it all fall on the
operating companies?
Mr Franks: It all falls onto the
operating companies.
Q86 Mr Davidson: So there is no responsibility
for the leasing companies at all then.
Mr Franks: No.
Q87 Mr Davidson: Are any of the faults
traceable back to the leasing companies or are they all the responsibility
of the operating companies?
Mr Franks: The most common problem
that could be associated with a rolling stock company would be
where they have undertaken heavy maintenance, which is their responsibility,
and there may be a warranty issue with a piece of equipment that
has been installed on a train which then causes delay on the network,
but that becomes our accountability.
Q88 Mr Davidson: Can you then claim
the money that you end up paying to somebody else back from the
leasing company or are they getting off scot-free?
Mr Franks: They do not take any
responsibility for any compensation that we pay.
Q89 Mr Davidson: Being a leasing
company is the best position of all in these circumstances.
Mr Franks: Well it is certainly
better than being a train operating company if they cause a delay.
Q90 Mr Davidson: Who allowed this
position to develop, that the leasing companies can lease the
trains but they have no accountability for the fines that are
applied to the operating company? It does seem to be a trifle
unfair.
Dr Mitchell: The leasing companies
effectively purchased the rolling stock from British Rail in the
mid-1990s and the terms on which they are then leased back were
determined at the time. The leasing companies own the rolling
stock but they do not take any responsibility for the condition
of the trains. It is left to the operators to maintain those trains
in good condition.
Q91 Mr Davidson: Does that seem reasonable
to you?
Dr Mitchell: They are not regulated.
Q92 Mr Davidson: That is not what
I asked you. Does that seem reasonable to you?
Dr Mitchell: That is the position
we have inherited.
Q93 Mr Davidson: I know that; I am
asking you whether or not that seems reasonable to you.
Dr Mitchell: We have made a complaint
to the Competition Commission about the position of the rolling
stock companies and the Competition Commission is considering
our complaint as we speak.
Q94 Nigel Griffiths: Dr Mitchell,
you said the newer rolling stock is more reliable; what is the
sort of history and pattern of replacing rolling stock over the
past decade or two decades?
Dr Mitchell: The majority of the
new rolling stock came into service in the early part of this
century, that was to replace the slam door rolling stock on the
electric lines south of London. That is the biggest single influx
of additional rolling stock that came in. However, I think it
is fair to say that every company in the country has seen an influx
of new rolling stock, so much so that we now, I believe, have
the youngest rolling stock fleet in Europe.
Q95 Nigel Griffiths: I notice the
Report says that passenger rail services are being used more heavily
than at any time in almost 60 years which must be putting some
strains on it. I am interested to know the impact of Hatfield
on your operations. Can you tell us something about pre-Hatfield
and post-Hatfield?
Dr Mitchell: No doubt Mr Coucher
will wish to comment on that particular issue because, as you
are aware, the Hatfield incident arose from a track defect which
then caused multiple speed restrictions throughout the country
and that led to a major reduction in punctuality of the railways.
It has been a major challenge to get back to pre-Hatfield performance
and we have now set the high level output specification for the
next five years from 2009 to 2014, an even higher target for the
railways of 92.6% right time, which compares with the current
performance of about 90%.
Q96 Nigel Griffiths: What were the
reasons for Hatfield? What caused the Hatfield incident?
Mr Coucher: A piece of rail on
one of the high speed turns cracked and failed due to a concept
called rolling contact fatigue.
Q97 Nigel Griffiths: How widespread
was that throughout the network?
Mr Coucher: Immediately after
Hatfield Railtrack then put in an investigation programme which
uncovered huge amounts of problems with this concept called rolling
contact fatigue and that has largely been removed now.
Q98 Nigel Griffiths: What had caused
the fatigue?
Mr Coucher: Just the speed of
trains going over the rails and the problem had not been picked
up.
Q99 Nigel Griffiths: Figure 16 on
page 29 indicates that the annual number of incidents causing
delays is actually at an eight year low. Is that right?
Mr Coucher: Yes.
4 Ev 16. Back
| 
