Guidance

DPTAC response to ORR consultation on modifying the network license requirement on timetable publication

Published 3 July 2023

Applies to England

Understanding of the consultation and its context

The Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee (DPTAC) found the Office of Rail and Road (ORR) consultation on proposals to modify timetable publication in Network Rail’s licence​ challenging to respond to, given the extensive use of, often unexplained, technical terms and language in the consultation document. As such we think it is worth summarising our understanding of the consultation and its context, as this has formed the basis of our response.

Our understanding is that this consultation seeks preliminary stakeholder views (ideally with supporting evidence) on the proposal that Network Rail’s Network Licence should be changed so as to state that National Timetable publication dates would be aligned with the Network Code rather than specifying that they should be available 12 weeks before travel, as is the current position.

This is in the expectation that Network Rail, in line with recommendations emerging from the Better Timetables for Passengers and Freight (BTPF) programme, will seek agreement from the ORR in due course to amend the Network Code requirement for the National Timetable to be published 12 weeks ahead of travel (T-12) to 8 weeks ahead of travel (T-8).

As such, the consultation also seeks views on the potential impacts on passengers of moving T-12 to T-8. This preliminary consultation will be followed by 2 further formal consultations on the required changes to the Network Licence and Network Code respectively.

Proposed modification to condition 7: reference to 12 weeks

Q1. Do you have any comments on the proposed licence modification text, which is designed to require Network Rail to meet the timeliness requirements as described in the Network Code?

The proposed change to the Network Licence to align it with Network Code, as set out in section 4 of the consultation document seems sensible. There is a clear need for alignment between the Network Licence and the Network Code, and the proposed change removes the need for changes to the Network Licence should the Network Code change in the future. This is essentially a procedural change and we do not see any impacts on accessibility as a result of the proposed change.

However, the proposed change is in anticipation of Network Rail ultimately seeking agreement for the Network Code to be amended to require timetables to be available at T-8 rather than T-12. The far more important issue, therefore, is whether moving from T-12 to T-8 will benefit or disbenefit passengers and, in the context of DPTAC’s specific responsibilities, what the benefits and disbenefits of such a change would be for disabled people.

Potential ORR follow-on consultations

The ORR initial consultation on proposals to modify timetable publication in Network Rail’s licence seeks to anticipate the expected follow-on consultations focused on the changes to the Network Licence and Network Code required for any move to T-8 by seeking views and evidence on the potential impacts on passengers.

Question 2 focuses on this issue, and we will provide our initial views in response to that question. However, in anticipation of the likely further consultations, we thought it worth making some general contextual observations at this stage.

Firstly, the premise for moving to T-8 appears to essentially be predicated on the basis that Network Rail has been unable to comply with its existing regulatory requirement to publish the National Timetable at T-12 and that T-8 would offer a more sustainable and deliverable regulatory obligation.

Against this backdrop, we would have expected a much fuller explanation of the short- and long-term factors that had resulted in T-12 being undeliverable and a more detailed explanation of the concomitant passenger benefits that would accrue from moving to T-8. In this context, the benefits set out in paragraph 2.10 of the consultation (and supported by the information in Annex A) were neither clear nor compelling.

We were unsure, for instance, what was meant by ‘greater emphasis on governance to ensure safe timetabling’, why a move to T-8 was needed to achieve this and what the benefits would be from a passenger perspective. Similar questions were present around the other elements of the rationale for moving to T-8 developed through the BTPF and set out in paragraph 2.10.

We would also have expected the consultation to have provided more information on the likely sustainability of a regulatory obligation based on T-8, given recent experience with T-12. Given this background, what will prevent Network Rail from failing to comply with a new T-8 obligation, thus undermining or eliminating the potential benefits associated with this change?

This is particularly so, given that the underlying rationale for moving to T-8 seems to be the inability to deliver T-12. If there is consistent failure to deliver T-8, then it is easy to foresee a proposal to move to T-6 or T-4, using the same rationale as the proposed move to T-8.

We would finally note that this consultation seeks evidence from stakeholders relating to the proposed changes. In reality, many stakeholders are unlikely to have detailed evidence to submit, while train operating companies (TOCs), Rail Delivery Group (RDG) and Network Rail do have access to relevant data. However, the consultation does not contain any analysis of the data available beyond a link to correspondence with RDG suggesting that only 3% of passengers buy tickets more than 6 weeks ahead of travel. By contrast, the link to research by Transport Focus provided quite a lot of useful and relevant data.

In summary, we did not believe that this consultation provides the level of detailed information and analysis necessary for stakeholders to offer informed views on the proposed changes. In our response to question 2 of this consultation, we provide a summary of the additional information that would be helpful for the planned follow-on consultations to include.

Q2. Do you consider that confirming timetables with fewer than 12 weeks’ notice will impact the abilities of end users to plan journeys with confidence and/or purchase tickets?

DPTAC does not have any specific evidence of its own relating to this question, but it has, however, looked at the Transport Focus research referenced in the consultation document. This provided some interesting insights into passenger behaviour and preferences.

In line with evidence supplied by RDG, the research found that the majority of passengers planned their journeys and ticket purchases within 6 weeks of departure.

However, in contrast to the RDG evidence, the research suggested that a much higher proportion of passengers planned their journeys more than 6 weeks in advance of departure. This was particularly so for the leisure market, rail’s fastest growing market, where 20% of passengers planned their journey 10 or more weeks ahead of travel and a further 19% planned their journeys 6 to 9 weeks ahead of travel.

Reflecting this, around two-thirds of passengers wanted accurate timetable information to be available in journey planners 12 or more weeks ahead travel.

The Transport Focus report did not provide any breakdown of the research by disabled and non-disabled respondents but it is clear from the demographic breakdown contained in the report that respondents were asked if they had a disability (23% of respondents identified as having a disability).

It should, therefore, be possible to disaggregate the research results to provide additional insight into whether disabled respondents displayed different behaviours and preferences to non-disabled respondents. Such information would be highly relevant to any Equality Impact Assessment of the proposed move to T-8 and would also form a very helpful component of the planned follow-on consultations.

In the absence of any disability-specific evidence, it is nevertheless possible to put forward some reasoned opinion based on the evidence available.

Firstly, there is no reason to suppose that disabled travellers plan their journeys and ticket purchases in shorter timeframes than non-disabled travellers.

On the contrary, it seems reasonable to suppose that some disabled people at least plan their rail trips further in advance than non-disabled people because their journeys may require more detailed planning due to accessibility issues (such as needing to ensure that they have secured a wheelchair space, for instance).

In such circumstances, some disabled people may only feel sufficiently confident to use the rail network if they have planned their journeys some considerable time ahead of travel. On this basis, our initial view would be that moving to T-8 will impact the ability of some disabled travellers to plan their journeys and purchase their tickets with confidence.

However, in this context, it is worth reiterating that the disaggregation of the Transport Focus research evidence would provide more substantive insight into this question.

It is also worth highlighting that it also seems reasonable to assume that disabled people have been disproportionately affected by the industry’s inability to deliver T-12. The frequent unavailability of timetables 12 weeks in advance coupled with the material probability that even published timetables would be subject to change as a result of cancellations of or amendments to scheduled services is likely to have impacted some disabled people’s ability to plan their journeys with confidence. This would have been compounded by the problems caused by late changes to – and cancellations of –services.

From an accessibility perspective, this poses something of a dilemma as there are potential downsides associated with both moving to T-8 and remaining with T-12, given the industry’s current inability to deliver in line with its regulatory obligations.

However, this consultation does not provide sufficient insight or information for us to take an informed view on this issue. To allow a better-informed view to be taken from an accessibility perspective, it would be helpful if the planned follow-on consultations provided:

• a better understanding of the current position with T-12 – in particular why it has proved difficult to deliver and what the impacts have been on passengers (what proportion of trains services have not been available at T-12 and what proportion were affected by cancellation/amendment post-publication, for instance)
• the extent to which the problems with T-12 have been short-term, COVID-19-pandemic-specific issues, and to what extent they reflected longer-term, more fundamental issues
• the passenger benefits that can be expected from moving to T-8
• more insight into the behaviours and preferences of disabled people based on disaggregation of the Transport Focus research
• more detailed analysis of the evidence available to TOCs and Network Rail

Given Network Rail’s public sector equality duty (PSED) obligations, we would also expect to see a robust Equality Impact Assessment of the proposed changes.

Two final views worth putting forward are:

1. This consultation effectively assumes that there will ultimately be a binary choice between T-12 and T-8. However, there is potentially a third option, which is to move to T-8 for a period of time to stabilise performance and then consider a return to T-12 once performance had stabilised and the industry felt confident that it could deliver T-12. The proposed change to the Network Licence would facilitate this approach.

2. On the evidence available (mainly the Transport Focus research), there is no case for any shorter timeframe than T-8 and the planned future consultations should make it clear that no further reductions beyond T-8 are planned.

Proposed modification of definition: relevant timetable changes

Do you agree with the proposed modification to include the publication of the Working Timetable on a Timetable Change Date in the definition of “Relevant Timetable Changes”?

This appears to be a technical change to the definition of Relevant Timetable Changes to specifically include Working Timetables within the definition. This seems to be a sensible change without any implications for accessibility, so we have no comment to make on the proposed change.