-
Immediate priority must be to establish effective
oversight of next national rail timetable changes
-
Rail timetabling process requires genuinely independent
oversight
-
Worst-affected 2018 season ticket holders should
receive a discount on 2019 season tickets, equivalent to the
price rise announced on 30 November
-
Effective contingency plans for disabled passengers and
stringent enforcement
-
Events demonstrate overwhelming case for automated, or
automatic compensation schemes
The chaotic rollout of the national rail timetable change on 20
May 2018, must be the catalyst for genuine change for people who
rely on the railways, say MPs on the Transport Committee.
Changes to the national rail timetable occur each May and
December and are often relatively minor tweaks. In May 2018,
following major infrastructure works, an unprecedented timetable
change of around four times the typical scale was planned,
involving 43,200 individual changes and affecting 46% of
passenger services. The implementation was chaotic and resulted
in a prolonged period of intensely inconvenient, costly and
potentially dangerous disruption for passengers across the north
of England and in London and the south.
Published today, Rail timetable changes: May 2018,
concludes the crisis was partly due to the ‘astonishing
complexity’ of a fragmented railway in which interrelated private
train companies, operating on publicly-owned and managed
infrastructure, have competing commercial interests. This complex
system could not cope with the scale of the changes.
There was a collective, system-wide failure across Network Rail,
the privately-owned train operating companies, the Department for
Transport and the Office of Road and Rail. Governance and
decision-making processes were not fit for purpose, says the
Report. The Committee endorses the key conclusion of the inquiry
led by the Chair of the Office of Road and Rail, Professor
Stephen Glaister, that ‘nobody took charge’.
Only the Secretary of State had the ultimate authority to judge
the trade-offs between competing commercial interests and could
step in to avert the crisis by halting implementation, but he was
not given all the information he required to make that decision.
However, the Committee concludes Mr Grayling should have been
more proactive and that it is not reasonable for him to absolve
himself completely of all responsibility. He has since announced
a much broader ‘root and branch’ review of the rail industry,
intended to result in a White Paper by Autumn 2019, with reforms
to be implemented from 2020.
Chair of the Committee, MP, said:
“It is extraordinary, and totally unacceptable, that no-one
took charge of the situation and acted to avert the May
timetabling crisis. Instead of experiencing the benefits of
much-needed investment in our railways, around one in five
passengers experienced intensely inconvenient and costly
disruption to their daily lives. There was extraordinary
complacency about protecting the interests of passengers, who
were very badly let down.
“The complex system by which we operate our rail services
failed to cope with the scale of change planned for May 2018. The
Secretary of State has announced a year-long independent rail
review, to be conducted by Keith Williams. While the need for
fundamental reform is beyond doubt, passengers cannot wait until
2020 for key lessons to be learned and reforms implemented.
“Friday’s announcement of fare rises averaging 3.1% in 2019,
which came after we had agreed our Report, adds insult to
passengers’ injury. We recommend that 2018 season ticket holders
most affected by the timetabling crisis receive a discount on
their 2019 season tickets equivalent to the increase announced on
30 November.”
The Committee concludes that national rail timetabling requires
genuinely independent oversight, following accepted principles of
professional project management, including the appointment of an
independent Project Sponsor or Senior Responsible Owner for the
whole national timetabling project. Its strong view is that this
role would need to be located outside Network Rail, so that it is
more effectively insulated from commercial and political
pressures.