Delay Attribution Principles and Rules. December Briefing Document

Transcription

1 Delay Attribution Principles and Rules December 2017 Briefing Document For the attention of all staff who are involved in the Train Delay Attribution Process Page 1 of 12

2 INTRODUCTION This brief supplements, and covers the changes made within, the December 2017 release of the DAPR and also incorporates an overview of the additional process and guidance documents developed by the DAB for improved understanding, application and consistency of the attribution process. In terms of this December 2017 issue, as you will be accustom to, some of the changes are just cosmetic or corrective such as improving formatting or amending grammar and minor errors from the previous version. The DAB continues to review the common areas of perceived misinterpretation of the DAPR or areas that seem to cause the most debate within the Industry be it between Operators and Network Rail or indeed internally to the individual parties. Often, many of these debates are about understanding the principles (that, for many outside the attribution world, can admittedly seem perverse). Therefore you will (hopefully) notice throughout this brief that many of the changes are about trying to improve clarity and drive that improved understanding. It is hoped that having some of the attribution principles set out in black and white backed up by examples, where appropriate, will go some way in reducing the amount of discussions that are occurring and drive more efficiency into the overall process. Within this document, the general briefing notes are in standard black and the DAPR entries and references are in italics with some additional red font used to highlight new entries and the changes where only parts of the entry have changed. Only Sections that have any amendments are shown in this document. Any Section not covered within this brief remains unaltered from the June 2017 issue. In a similar vein, the dates at the foot of the Sections in the DAPR itself will reflect the last occasion when that Section was updated. As always, feedback on the DAPR, Process Guides and these briefings is always welcome to ensure continual improvement with each. Regards, Mark Southon Board Secretary DABOffice@networkrail.co.uk December 2017 DAPR Briefing te Page 2 of 12

3 Part 1: Changes within the December 2017 DAPR Delay Code Changes Delay Codes Removed Delay Codes have been removed in this issue. Delay Code Additions Delay Code JR, M2 and OF have been introduced in the December 2017 DAPR Delay Code Alterations Delay Codes FI and TS have had their descriptions amended (See also Section G and Section S updates below for further details) SECTION A - INTRODUCTION A new entry has been made in Section A referencing and reflecting the DAB Process Guides (PGD) existence and standing as below:- A7 Process Guide Documents A7.1 The Board also produces Process Guide Documents (PGD) to supplement and support the DAPR. These documents are not part of the DAPR itself but have been developed to provide either suitable process advice or further assistance in the understanding and application of Delay Attribution principles. SECTION B - OVERVIEW OF DELAY ATTRIBUTION AND SYSTEM DEFINITIONS An amendment has been made to Paragraph B7.4 to remove ambiguity and refer the reader to the appropriate Process Guide covering Queues of Trains as below:- B7.4 Section D5 provides an example of attribution of a series of delays occurring to a Plymouth to York train. In the example given, trains held behind the Plymouth to York train held approaching Derby should be attributed to the signal failure as a Primary Delay until the Plymouth to York train has passed the next Recording Point, from which point, normal Reactionary Delay rules apply. For further guidance on allocation of delays to trains in a queue please refer to Process Guide PGD11 Queue of Trains Delay Allocation. December 2017 DAPR Briefing te Page 3 of 12

4 SECTION E TRUST DATA AND RECORDING OF DELAYS Section E3 has been fully reviewed and updated to provide greater clarity in relation to TRUST reporting issues and to make reference to the new supporting Process Guide Document. Ultimately this sets out the identification and agreement of the issues but most importantly the element of control that is required for any subsequent amendments to the TRUST data. E3 TRUST Reporting Errors and Anomalies E3.1 TRUST Berth errors occur due to anomalies in TRUST automatic reporting, whereby a train might appear to lose time as the result of an inaccurate report, only to recover it immediately. This can still occur even if the Berth Offsets are agreed as being accurate. E3.2 In certain circumstances, these anomalies may be sufficiently pronounced to cause the generation of a Delay Alert. Such anomalous reports and incorrect TRUST timings should be highlighted and corrected in accordance with the relevant standards as set out in the Performance Data Accuracy Code before application of what is set out in E3.3 to E3.5 below. E3.3 If both parties agree that the Delay Alert has been entirely generated due to an inaccurate report and would not have been generated otherwise, the delay alert generated should be attributed to an incident coded PT. Any resulting above threshold reactionary delay should be re-attributed to the largest identified cause at that point. E3.4 If both parties agree that a sub threshold delay has occurred, but has been artificially inflated to create an above threshold delay alert due to an inaccurate report then a new incident coded PT is to be created to account for the spurious delay (ONLY) and the remaining sub-threshold delay and any reactionary delay attributed to it is to be attributed as per normal attribution rules. E3.5 If both parties agree that an above threshold delay alert has occurred which has been artificially inflated due to an inaccurate report, but is of sufficient magnitude that it would have been generated anyway, the delay itself and any reactionary delay is to be attributed as per normal attribution rules, with no time removed. te: For the supporting process covering the identification and correction of TRUST anomalies please refer to PGD15 December 2017 DAPR Briefing te Page 4 of 12

5 SECTION G FLEET AND INFRASTRUCTURE SYSTEMS INTERFACE INCIDENTS Section G has been reviewed in relation to the wider introduction of ERTMS/ETCS/ATO from 2018 and the need for Industry Parties to accurately capture and identify delays linked to those systems. Circumstance (b) in table G1.2 has been amended to include a reference to Section G3 and has had ERTMS removed from the list of systems as Delay Code M2 will be now used in these cases. Section G3 has been fully updated reflecting the amendments to, and introduction of, specific Delay Codes relating to ERTMS/ETCS/ATO. See also Delay Code changes in Section S. G1.2 b. Delays associated with faults relating to train borne safety systems within the CAB (For ETCS/ ERTMS see Section G3) M0 (zero) CSR DSD DVD GSM-R Horn NRN OTMR RETB Speedo Technical head or tail light failure Train Operator (M##*) G3 Failure of ETCS/ERTMS/ATO System G3.1 When operating on an ETCS/ERTMS/ATO enabled line, trains that are fitted with the onboard ETCS/ ERTMS / ATO rely on the system being able to draw a level of information, such as positional referencing and line topography, from track mounted balises. In the event of a failure of the ETCS/ERTMS/ATO system, causation coding should be as follows:. Circumstance Delay Code Incident Attribution a. Delay associated with the trainborne ETCS/ERTMS/ATO system M2 Train Operator(M##*) b. Delays associated with the IM Network ETCS/ERTMS track-mounted balise c. Delays associated with RBC issues affecting ETCS / ATO operation (NOT balise related) d. GSM-R related issues affecting ETCS / ATO e. Delay associated with incorrect ETCS system operation by Signaller / Controller f. Delays associated with incorrect ETCS system operation by Driver JR See Section G5 OF FI / TS Rail(IQ**) Network Rail(IQ**) See Section G5 Network Rail(OQ**) Train Operator(F##* / T##*) December 2017 DAPR Briefing te Page 5 of 12

6 SECTION H DEPOTS YARDS AND SIDINGS INCIDENTS Section H has been reviewed and clarified in parallel with, and to support, the release of the DAB Process Guide covering asset failures on / off network (PGD14) and relevant entries amended as below:- H1.2 a. Infrastructure defect or problem on Network Rail network infrastructure affecting trains entering the Network Rail network H3.3 a. Infrastructure defect or problem on Network Rail network infrastructure affecting trains entering the Network Rail network I*/J*/X* as appropriate I*/J*/X* as appropriate See Section O1 and also Process Guide PGD14 See Section O1 and also Process Guide PGD14 SECTION K REGULATION AND SIGNALLING OF TRAINS Section K has been reviewed and amended in parallel with, and to support, the release of the DAB Process Guide covering stock swaps (PGD16). New entries covering two of the more common scenarios have been included, as well as a reference to the Process Guide, as below:- K9 Stock Swaps. Circumstance Delay Code Incident Attribution a The Signaller carries out an unplanned stock move and there are no pre-agreed localised arrangements in place between Network Rail and the Operator OC Network Rail (OQ**) b Network Rail Control agrees to a stock swap and re-plans with no delay impact foreseen. The Signaller deviates from the Control plan. OC - Where no rationale is provided for the deviation from the plan. Network Rail (OQ**) Where the rationale for deviation is explained allocate to that reason. Reaction to reason identified te: For further scenarios and attribution relating to Stock Swaps please refer to Process Guide Document (PGD16) (Further amendments relating to stock swaps have been made in Section N2 described later) Section K10 has been reviewed and updated in relation to the introduction of Traffic Management System (TMS). The principles for attribution are in line with ARS and so the opportunity was taken to utilise the current flow diagram to cover both systems. The flowchart follows on the next page:- December 2017 DAPR Briefing te Page 6 of 12

7 K10 Flowchart covering signalling delays in ARS and TMS controlled areas. Any delays caused by schedules that are not compliant with the Capacity Planning Rules (i.e. don t work) should be dealt with under Section L Signalling related Delay in ARS / TMS Controlled area Is train held (not routed) or misrouted? Is train schedule in ARS / TMS? Is schedule VSTP? Upload / system error OH Are all details correct / present in schedule? (line code etc) Q* Is train correctly regulated? Could Intervention have mitigated? Did Control advise Signaller where appropriate? Q* OD OC Standard attribution rules OH OC / OD (as appropriate)* *Pe OC / OD dependenp on syspem Mnd person who conprols Phe regulmpion December 2017 DAPR Briefing te Page 7 of 12

8 SECTION M SERVICE RECOVERY AND CONTINGENCY PLANS The DAB continue to be made aware of, and therefore review, issues arising in relation to attributing delays due to service disruption and the subsequent recovery - the purpose of which Section M was originally introduced in This December 2017 update sets out situations in relation to Special Stop Orders and Connections (which are repeated entries from Section N for ease of referencing) and also adds examples of use for Delay Codes YN, YR and YU relating to crew and stock workings which were not previously covered in the main body of the DAPR. M3 Service Recovery M3.1 Activities relating to Service Recovery. Circumstances Delay Code Incident Attribution a. Waiting for authorised Special Stop Orders to be issued RL Operator of train involved (R##*) b. Waiting for unauthorised Special Stop Orders to be issued RJ Operator of train involved (R##*) c. Special Stop Order within TOC and Network Rail Contingency Plan or agreed as part of a Service Recovery Plan YM Prime incident causing train to require SSO d. Special Stop Order authorised by TOC Control but outwith the TOC and Network Rail Contingency Plan e. Special Stop Order not authorised by TOC Control and outwith the TOC and Network Rail Service Recovery Plan f. Waiting passenger connection not authorised by TOC Control and out-with the Connectional policy. g. Waiting passenger connections authorised by TOC Control but outwith the TOC and Network Rail Connectional Policy or Service Recovery Plan h. Waiting passenger connections within the Connectional Policy or agreed as part of a Service Recovery Plan i. Waiting passenger connections from other modes of transport (e.g bus replacement) j. During an ongoing disruptive incident a member of train crew is stepped up / reallocated duties for service recovery purposes. k. In relation to an ongoing disruptive incident it is agreed to cancel a train (in full or part) to reduce services through the affected area. l. In relation to an ongoing disruptive incident a unit / loco is stepped up / reallocated to another service for service recovery purposes. RL RJ RI RK/TM YL RM / T3 YN YR YU Operator of train involved (R##*) Operator of train involved (R##*) Operator of train being held (R##*/T##*) Operator of train being held (R##*/T##*) Prime incident causing incoming train to be late at that point Operator of train being held (R##*/T##*) Prime incident necessitating the reallocation of train crew Prime incident necessitating the cancellation decision Prime incident necessitating the unit / loco to be reallocated to another service te: In all Service Recovery scenarios shown above the decisions and activity should be recorded as part of the SRCT process to aid appropriate and efficient attribution of any associated delays. December 2017 DAPR Briefing te Page 8 of 12

9 SECTION N STATION OPERATING DELAYS As mentioned in Section K above, Section N has similarly been reviewed and amended in parallel with, and to support, the release of the DAB Process Guide covering stock swaps (PGD16). New entries under N2 covering two of the more common scenarios have been included, as well as a reference to the Process Guide, as below; N2. Circumstance Delay Code Incident Attribution an Operator request via Station Control Point to swap two units on different platforms to form different services. additional stock moves required and no Network Rail involvement. As per Operator reason for requirement As per Operator reason for requirement ao The Signaller carries out an unplanned stock move in line with pre-agreed localised arrangements between Network Rail and the Operator As per reason for requirement As per reason for requirement te: For further scenarios and attribution relating to Stock Swaps at stations please refer to Process Guide Document (PGD16) SECTION O INFRASTRUCTURE INCIDENTS A new bullet has been added to DAPR O1.1 to clarify the situation of asset failures caused by an off network issue should also be coded to the appropriate I*/J* to reflect the asset affected. The amendment also references the DAB Process Guide Document (PGD14) that covers the principles of on / off network asset failures in more detail. O1.1 Failures caused as a direct result of an off Network Rail network infrastructure fault or failure (See Process Guide PGD14) Paragraph O4.1 has been amended, as below, to clarify that OHLE issues can be reattributed to an Operator but only when further information becomes available during investigations in essence either Network Rail believe they have ruled out a Network Rail cause or have reason to believe it to be an Operator cause; O4.1 rmally any OHLE associated problems should be coded I1 initially and attributed to the Network Rail (IQ**) unless further information becomes available. Supporting the amendment above, and to provide improved clarity, a new Paragraph (O4.3) has been added to the DAPR to cover the Cause Found scenario of OLE de-wirements; O4.3 Provided all possible causes have been investigated, considered and exhausted as agreed reasonable by both parties, if those investigations cannot determine the cause of the problem, the incident should be coded I1 and attributed to the Network Rail (IQ**). In essence this is a reversal of O4.1 whereby full investigation categorically rules out any Operator responsibility leaving the infrastructure as the only or likely cause. December 2017 DAPR Briefing te Page 9 of 12

10 SECTION Q EXTERNAL IMPACT INCIDENTS Circumstance (b) in table Q4.1 has been reformatted for ease of reading. Previously the text was displayed in one solid paragraph that led to misinterpretation of the scenarios being described and the application of XB Delay Code. Q4.1. Circumstances Delay Code Incident b. Where it is identified: That an Infrastructure failure is due to vandalism or theft (other than to cables); or Objects have been placed deliberately on Network Rail Infrastructure, including in points; or Objects that have been thrown or fired at trains or the track on Network Rail Infrastructure, whether from outside railway premises or from railway premises including stations, and adjacent property (such as car parks); or Objects being thrown or fired from Network Rail Infrastructure at trains or onto track on non- Network Rail Infrastructure (including LUL). XB Attribution Network Rail (XQ**) SECTION S: DELAY CODES Below is set out the new and amended Delay Codes and descriptions. All changes relate to ERTMS/ETCS/ATO in preparation for its wider introduction on the Network. Amendment to FI Description and Abbreviation FI Delay due to incorrect ETCS system or equipment operation by Driver ETCS DVR Amendment to FS Description and Abbreviation TS Delay due to incorrect ETCS system or equipment operation by Driver ETCS DVR New Delay Code JR for RBC issues to differentiate from Balise issues under the current IM Code JR Delay due to RBC issues affecting ETCS / ATO operation (not Balise related) RBC ETCS New Delay Code M2 for ETCS/ATO related Cab Safety Equipment issues to differentiate from the current M0 Code M2 Delay due to ATO / ETCS equipment ETCS New Delay Code OF for ETCS related Operational Control Staff issues to differentiate from the current OC and OD Codes OF Delay due to incorrect ETCS system or equipment operation by Signaller / Controller ETCS CTRL December 2017 DAPR Briefing te Page 10 of 12

11 Part 2: Process and Guidance Documents to support the DAPR PGD1 PRIME Cause definition / Examples This Process Guide formally defines the term Prime Cause (as added to the April 2016 DAG) It is supported with examples of application by a number of real life scenarios that should be used for briefing or referencing. PGD2 Reactionary Delay Attribution Examples This Process Guide contains explanations on how to allocate reactionary delays being a critical element of the attribution process. They are demonstrated with worked examples for what are considered the most common scenarios. PGD3 Y code application This Guide was derived from the brief that supported the Y code changes for the April 2015 DAG. It contains descriptions of all the Y codes with examples of usage and diagrams to aid understanding. PGD4 Dispute and Resolution Process Guide This Guidance Process was designed for Operators and Network Rail Routes covering disputes and resolution principles to enable timely and appropriate disputes and resolution. PGD5 Delay Management TIN reattribution process This Process Guide was designed for the reattribution of Management TINs including appropriate actions and timescales. It sets out there needs to be a common understanding of communication requirements between parties in relation to the occurrence and subsequent reattributions. PGD6 Joint Responsibility This Guidance Document sets out what does and doesn t constitute Joint Responsibility and provides a reference table and flow diagram for the attribution of individual trains when joint responsibility criteria has been determined. Additionally it sets out some common examples of when Joint Responsibility does and doesn t apply to aid understanding. PGD7 Holding Code This guidance document sets out the appropriate use and processes to be applied by all Parties when considering an incident for Holding Code status. It prescribes what scenarios should and shouldn t be considered for a Holding Code and covers the process to follow should a Holding Code be agreed. PGD8 Delay Allocation Entering and Leaving the network This guidance document covers various scenarios, in diagrammatic form, of delays caused to trains waiting to enter or leave the Network Rail network. PGD9 Delay Allocation Managing Freight Services This guidance document covers various scenarios of freight trains retimed / rescheduled under the Managing Freight Services during Disruption (MFSdD) Control instructions and the attribution of any subsequent delays incurred. PGD10 Permissive Working This guidance document covers various scenarios relating to the process of calling-on at stations and the relevant responsibility of each scenario. It particularly covers the principle that station staff communication with the Signaller is seen as acting as an agent to Network Rail in the same vein that a member of platform staff dispatching another TOCs service is applied. December 2017 DAPR Briefing te Page 11 of 12

12 PGD11 Queue of Trains This guidance document sets out examples to improve understanding of the allocation of delays for trains in a stationary (and subsequently moving) queue of trains. PGD12 Uninvestigated and Unxplained This guidance document supports the previous amendments to the Z Codes (reclassification of ZW, ZX, ZY and ZZ and introduction of ZS and ZU) as well as the two new Delay Codes R8 and T8. It sets out the appropriate use of these Delay Codes, supported by process guidance in relation to the investigation and resolution of delays deemed unexplained or uninvestigated. PGD13 - Fatalities This guidance document supports and builds on PGD6 and specifically covers fatalities being an area cited by Industry as in most need of improved guidance supported with flow diagrams and further example incidents specific to fatalities. PGD14 Asset Failures On Off network This guidance document sets out the principles to apply for asset failures that occur either side of the network boundary and the effect they have on other assets, the network or the of network location. It reiterates the principles of attribution being to either Network Rail as operator of the network or Operators as operator of trains. PGD15 TRUST Accuracy and Anomalies This guidance document sets out circumstances where TRUST accuracy may be highlighted and the appropriate processes that should be applied to firstly confirm the issue but most importantly when and how to correct any such anomaly. PGD16 Stock Swap Scenarios Attribution This guidance document covers various scenarios relating to the process of stock swaps and the relevant responsibility of each scenario. It particularly covers the principle that Network Rail are responsible for the operation of the network and thus should manage any such requests to amend the train plan. PGD17 Investigation Templates This Process Guide has been developed to provide suitable guidance as to the co-ordination of investigations and information that is deemed required for three main incident types; namely: Fires believed to be caused by trains. Train failures believed to be caused by object strikes (and similar damage related incidents) Pantograph Damage / Automatic Dropper Device Activations (and similar OHLE interface scenarios) This document is purely aimed at assisting the investigations in terms of information provision and is not intended to be an attribution or resolution guidance document. ALL THE PROCESS AND GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS CAN BE FOUND ON THE DAB WEBSITE December 2017 DAPR Briefing te Page 12 of 12