This Page Was First Created on 2
September 2010
Paragraph or Table |
Determination |
Date of Hearing |
Points made within Determination (Verbatim extracts given in Italics, or between “quotes”)
|
Definitions “Key Journey
Time” |
ORR’s determination of journey time protection for
First Scotrail |
Letter of 1 Feb 2010 |
“The model clause journey time
protection provisions 44. The model passenger contract provides for three different
types of journey time protection: • maximum journey times; • maximum key journey times; and • fastest key journey times. These are all caps on the journey times that Network
Rail may schedule a service in the timetable. The differences are explained
below. 45. Maximum journey times provide journey time caps for all
services on a specified route with the same calling pattern. However, in
advance of the development of a timetable, these caps are automatically
amended to reflect any changes in sectional running times, station dwell
times, performance allowances, engineering recovery allowances and any other
allowances provided for in the Rules of the Route (RoR) or RoP. They are
therefore a cap on the amount of pathing time which Network Rail can insert. 46. Maximum key journey times are similar to maximum journey
times in that they provide journey time caps for all services on a specified
route with the same calling pattern. However, as these are "key"
journey times, Network Rail is not permitted to propose or agree to any
changes to the RoR/RoP that would prevent it from scheduling a service within
the maximum key journey time cap. Because maximum key journey times apply to
a number of services, rather than just one service per day as is the case for
fastest key journey times (see below), we expect there to be a reasonable
degree of headroom included within the cap to ensure that there is not an
undue constraint on Network Rail's flexibility to timetable the network on
behalf of all users. 47. Fastest key journey times apply only to one train per day,
and therefore give the least flexibility to Network Rail. They are intended
to protect the capability of the network by establishing the fastest time
that a train can travel between set points on the network, subject to a very
limited degree of flexibility. This time would not necessarily be achievable
for all train slots, but gives the operator a "headline" journey time.
Fastest key journey times would, for instance, be used for
"flagship" intercity train slots. To exercise this right, the
operator must bid for at least three slots on any weekday with the
characteristics specified in the table. Network Rail can then choose which of
the train slots should run within the fastest key journey time. In practice,
these journeys would generally have minimal pathing time. As with maximum key
journey times, Network Rail is not permitted to propose or agree to any
changes to the RoR/RoP that would prevent it from scheduling a journey time
within the fastest key journey time cap. 48. The difference between maximum journey times and the two
types of "key" journey times is therefore relevant during the
RoR/RoP process at the start of each timetable process. When it comes to
timetabling the trains following establishment of the RoR/RoP, the protection
works the same way for all three i.e. they must be timetabled within the
specified journey times in accordance with the terms of the contractual
protection.” |
Schedule 5
paragraph 7.1: Journey time
protection in relation to Applicable Rules of the Route and Applicable ROTP |
TTP324 |
March 2010 |
“ 35.
Here the Panel finds that, in relation to WCT’s very
specifically protected Firm Rights, and Network Rail’s rights to implement
Restrictions of Use, the following considerations apply, and derive from the
operation of all the procedures contemplated in Part D of the Network Code
and the incorporated Rules of the Plan, and Rules of the Route: 35.1.
Restrictions of Use are specific single events, each
catering for particular work. They
can be incorporated into the Working Timetable using the Rules of the Route
consultation process as laid down in Conditions D2.1 Review of the
Rules of the Route/Rules of the Plan, or D2.2 Possession
Strategy Notice, or D4.8 Supplemental Timetable Revision
Process, all of which processes are subject to challenge by Train
Operators; 35.2.
the outcome of such processes can be that 35.2.1.
the work is be undertaken within the span of a Standard
Possession Opportunity (Section 4 of the Rules of the Route); 35.2.2.
the work requires possessions that exceed the
Standard Possession Times and are detailed in Section 5 Possession Strategy
and/or Section 7 Register of Possessions; 35.3.
individual Restrictions of Use established in
accordance with the due processes and incorporated into the Applicable Rules
of the Route, may require rescheduling of WCT trains, and such rescheduled
Train Slots need not, in accordance with the terms of Paragraph 7.1(c),
comply with the Key Journey Time provisions in Table 6; 35.4.
in the absence of any specific Restriction of Use
(which may include a recurring Restriction of Use), extending WCT’s Journey
Times beyond the limits defined in Table 6 (e.g. to accommodate a standard
2TTR) has no contractual sanction, and is therefore a breach of WCT’s rights.
” “ 38.1.
Except where Network Rail can demonstrate, on a case
by case basis, that there are such specific circumstances as are contemplated
by WCT Schedule 5 paragraph 7.1(c), namely a Restriction of Use that has been
incorporated into the Applicable Rules of the Route 38.1.1.
it is bound by the provisions of WCT Track Access
Contract Schedule 5 paragraph 7.1(a), including in respect of the Key Journey
Time Firm Rights with which all Offers of Train Slots should comply and
therefore 38.1.2.
is precluded, by those same provisions, from
proposing for incorporation into the Applicable Rules of the Plan, or
Applicable Rules of the Route, any amendments that, would prevent it from: ·
scheduling a Journey Time which is equal to or less
than the Fastest Key Journey Time in respect of at least one Passenger Train
Slot for each of the Key Journeys specified in Table 6.2 in respect of each
Weekday; and ·
which is equal to or less than the Maximum Key
Journey Time specified for every Passenger Train Slot consistent with each
Key Journey of the type specified in Table 6.3; and should
be taking all necessary steps to ensure that only Train Slots compliant with
WCT’s Firm Rights are incorporated into the Working Timetable. 38.2.
Where a current Offer does not comply with a Key
Journey Time provision at the behest, or with the acquiescence, of WCT,
Network Rail is not absolved from the need to achieve compliant Offers, but
the Panel would accept that this might be a matter of lower priority. . ” [TTP324] |
Schedule 5
paragraph 7.5: Journey time
Review provisions |
ORR’s determination of journey time protection for
First Scotrail |
Letter of 1st Feb 2010 |
“Journey times review notice
process 51. Virtually all rights in a track access contract are subject
to the RoR and the RoP. In respect of the RoR, this is because rights should
not unduly obstruct Network Rail's maintenance and renewal requirements. In
respect of the RoP this is because it is quite likely that that certain
allowances contained within them may need to change over the lifetime of a
track access contract. 52. Among the very few rights that are not subject to the RoP is
key journey time protection where Network Rail is prevented from proposing or
agreeing to any amendments to the RoP which would prevent it from scheduling
a key journey time. Because of the considerable constraint this places on
Network Rail, key journey times would normally only be agreed for an
operator's most commercially important services on key routes. 53. However, because it is envisaged that there may occasionally
be a very good reason to change the RoP which would result in a breach of the
journey time protection, or conversely, that the journey time protection
should be tightened, e.g. in order to take account of line speed
improvements, and the parties cannot agree this mutually, the model contract
contains a process whereby either party can seek to amend any of the journey
time protections in Schedule 5.” |
The granting
of Journey Time Protection |
ORR’s determination of journey time protection for
First Scotrail |
Letter of 1st Feb 2010 |
“ORR's approach to approving
journey time protection 55. We expect contractual journey time protection to contain a
degree of flexibility so that Network Rail can provide for changes to
successive timetables over the life of the contract, including accommodating
future growth. We would usually expect the majority of journey time
protection to be in the form of maximum journey times which are subject to
the RoP/RoR which include industry consultation, agreement and appeal
procedures if necessary. 56. Because
of the restrictions they place on Network Rail's flexibility in constructing
the timetable, in our C&Ps [criteria and procedures] we say
that we would not expect all journeys to be covered by key journey times. We
would expect this level of protection to be given "to an operator's most
commercially important services on key routes". These journey times
should include a reasonable amount of headroom above the minimum achievable
to afford Network Rail some flexibility in the design of the timetable. 57. We
do not specify what we mean by "an operator's most commercially
important services on key routes" but consider that they would be those
services where there is a very strong relationship between journey time and
passenger demand that makes it a commercial imperative for the operator to
have contractual protection as extended journey times could have a
significant adverse affect on the operator's revenue. On these services,
journey time is a key factor in the competitiveness of rail against other
modes of transport. This is particularly the case for intercity services
where private or air transport can provide viable alternatives for customers”
“101. Our policy is that maximum key journey times should include a
reasonable amount of additional time above the clean path time (i.e. the
minimum achievable time) to afford Network Rail that same flexibility in the
design of the timetable(in this [Scotrail] dispute we have
referred to this flexibility as “headroom”). Under the model contract provisions, even with “key” journey
times Network Rail can propose changes to the RoP, e.g. to extend sectional
running times, as long as it can still timetable the service within the key
journey time cap.” “110. …in considering the services for which ScotRail has sought
journey time protection we have had regard to the following principles: (a) because
of the constraints they place on Network Rail, key journey times should only
be approved for services that are very commercially important (i.e. in terms
of passenger revenue); (b) other
than in very exceptional circumstances we should not approve provisions in a
bilateral contract that frustrate multilateral network code processes; (c) we
should not object to any of the protection that Network Rail is prepared to
offer on the basis that we are broadly content with what is proposed.” |