102
Train punctuality: the passenger perspective November 2015

Train punctuality: the passenger perspectived3cez36w5wymxj.cloudfront.net/migrated/Train... · England, Scotland and Wales in March 2015 (taking place in Cardiff, Glasgow, London

  • Upload
    others

  • View
    1

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Train punctuality: the passenger perspectived3cez36w5wymxj.cloudfront.net/migrated/Train... · England, Scotland and Wales in March 2015 (taking place in Cardiff, Glasgow, London

Train punctuality: the passenger perspective

November 2015

Page 2: Train punctuality: the passenger perspectived3cez36w5wymxj.cloudfront.net/migrated/Train... · England, Scotland and Wales in March 2015 (taking place in Cardiff, Glasgow, London
Page 3: Train punctuality: the passenger perspectived3cez36w5wymxj.cloudfront.net/migrated/Train... · England, Scotland and Wales in March 2015 (taking place in Cardiff, Glasgow, London

1

ContentsForeword 1

Key findings 2

Transport Focus conclusions and recommendations3

2

3

6

8

Train punctuality: the passenger perspective1

Office of Rail and Road conclusions 4

Punctuality performance measurement 115

Background, objectives and methodology 12Passengers’ top of mind views on train performance 17Reaction to PPM and CaSL performance measures 22Speed, punctuality, frequency trade-offs 35Performance measurement trade-off exercises 41Summary 49

Punctuality and passenger satisfaction 536

Page 4: Train punctuality: the passenger perspectived3cez36w5wymxj.cloudfront.net/migrated/Train... · England, Scotland and Wales in March 2015 (taking place in Cardiff, Glasgow, London

2

Foreword

As part of this push to give more weight in the process to passengers’ perspectives, Transport Focus and

the Office of Rail and Road (ORR) have co-funded twostudies to understand more about passengers’ views on train punctuality. The first is new qualitative researchinto views about train performance – punctuality andcancellations – and how it should be measured. Thesecond is a quantitative analysis of the relationshipbetween a passenger’s actual punctuality and theirsatisfaction with the journey in question.

The research involved 10 focus groups acrossEngland, Scotland and Wales in March 2015 (takingplace in Cardiff, Glasgow, London and Manchester). Thepassengers taking part reflected a cross-section of age,gender and socio-demographics, as well as differentsegments of the rail market. Meanwhile the quantitativeanalysis looked at the relationship between actualpunctuality experienced and how satisfied 10,849 AbellioGreater Anglia passengers were when they took part in

the National Rail Passenger Survey (NRPS) between2012 and 2014. It is clear from both studies that greaterfocus on punctuality will be needed to deliver whatpassengers expect in the five years from 2019 (railwayControl Period 6, or CP6). The key findings of the twostudies are set out below, followed by the conclusionsand recommendations that Transport Focus and ORReach draw from them.

We hope that this report will help support the process of determining the Control Period 6 passengerperformance targets and ensuring that they focus onpassengers’ needs.

Anthony Smith Richard PriceChief Executive Chief ExecutiveTransport Focus Office of Rail and Road

The process to determine what Britain’s railways should deliver in the five yearsfrom 2019 is already underway. It is vital that passengers’ views are at the heartof the process – and with passengers paying over 60 per cent of the cost of therailway through fares, their views must count in decisions on how rail serviceimprovements and investments are prioritised.

Train punctuality: the passenger perspective1

Page 5: Train punctuality: the passenger perspectived3cez36w5wymxj.cloudfront.net/migrated/Train... · England, Scotland and Wales in March 2015 (taking place in Cardiff, Glasgow, London

3

Key findings from the passenger researchThe full research report by Illuminas is included in thisdocument as section 5. The key findings are:

• Passengers in the focus groups saw a punctual service as thekey success criterion for their journey. They saw performancemeasurement as an important part of ensuring that railcompanies focus sufficiently on punctuality. Punctuality is avital prerequisite for building trust between passengers and a train company.

• In general, passengers want a tougher Public PerformanceMeasure (PPM) target, but feel that the Cancellations andSignificant Lateness (CaSL) target is more reasonable. Oncemade aware of how PPM is calculated, passengers oftenregarded a very high target as not unreasonable – given thefive minutes ‘grace’ (10 minutes for long-distance trains) for a train to be considered ‘on time’ by the industry. Thepassengers also suspected that the current target level of 92.5 per cent is regarded as a ceiling rather than a minimum.Some argued that an industry focused on its customers should always aim to deliver 100 per cent, even if it is never achieved.

• Some passengers suggested that a ‘significantly late’ trainshould be 10 minutes for short-distance and 20 minutes forlong-distance, which is a tighter definition than the 30 minutescurrently used by the industry. For some, combining

cancellations and significant lateness was confusing.Passengers in the Glasgow groups could not understand why there is no CaSL target in Scotland.

• Passengers in the focus groups defined ‘on time’ as beingwithin one minute of scheduled time, although some wouldaccept leeway of one or two minutes. The passengers believedpunctuality should be measured at all stations, not just where a train terminates. There was low awareness of the currentperformance measures and lack of trust in how the rail industrymeasures punctuality. Once aware of how PPM is calculated,the passengers felt it offered the rail industry too muchflexibility in meeting targets they already regarded as too low; it also confirmed their suspicions about statistics generally, in that a train that is late can count as ‘on time’.

• The research explored if it would be better to measure theproportion of passengers who arrive on time, rather than the proportion of trains that are on time. Some commuters in the focus groups found this attractive, recognising that there would be greater incentive for train companies to runtheir trains punctually. On balance, however, passengers in the focus groups felt that all trains should count equallytowards punctuality targets. There was a strong view thatpassengers travelling on a lightly-loaded train should not be treated as less important when it comes to focus onpunctuality.

Train punctuality: the passenger perspective2

Page 6: Train punctuality: the passenger perspectived3cez36w5wymxj.cloudfront.net/migrated/Train... · England, Scotland and Wales in March 2015 (taking place in Cardiff, Glasgow, London

4

Trade-offsVarious ‘trade-offs’, described below, were explored in theresearch. Significantly, passengers in the focus groups felt that if the railway is properly-planned, properly-maintained and properly-run it should not be necessary to make trade-offs between thequality of different aspects of their journey. Many passengers felt that not striving to deliver on all fronts is an example of thecustomers interest being insufficiently to the fore of rail industrythinking. Three key points emerged:• Punctuality versus speed and frequency. Overall, the

preference expressed was for trains to be more punctualrather than faster or more frequent. There were exceptions:on very long-distance trips journey time reduction isimportant, as is frequency to some leisure passengers.

• Punctuality versus fewer cancellations and days ofwidespread disruption. Commuters regarded punctuality as the priority because it affects them twice a day every day, whereas leisure and business passengers felt that ashort delay has less impact on them than a cancellation.

• Punctuality versus running an extra train. Most sawpunctuality as more important than seeking to run an extratrain. This was particularly true of commuters, unless theyexperienced crowding that prevented them from getting on the train at all.

Other findings• Many passengers taking part in the research felt it is not

acceptable for train companies to add extra time into thetimetable on approach to the destination station. Those whothought managing expectations in this way was acceptableoften observed that it would be more honest if the extra time was distributed throughout the journey.

• On very high frequency routes, for example with 10 trains per hour or more, the idea of measuring the interval betweentrains (rather than measuring each train at its destination)found favour with most passengers. However some still feltthat trains should be measured against the timetable even in these circumstances.

• Passengers in the research favoured the current approach by some train companies of adjusting the timetable in theautumn leaf-fall season to deliver a predictable, reliableservice, even if journey times are slightly extended.

• There was strong opposition to the current practice that a train cancelled before 22:00 the day before does not count as a cancellation in official statistics.

Passengers were presented with what some regarded as a trickydilemma. Namely, whether – on a day of widespread disruption – the rail industry should seek to reinstate the normal timetableas quickly as possible, even if there is short-term disadvantageto some passengers as a result. The sort of things that might be done include: trains missing out stations so the next journeyruns on time; cancelling a train so the next one runs on time; and terminating trains before the normal destination so most ofthe next trip runs on time. While the effect of the focus groupenvironment may have influenced the responses given in front of peers, many participants felt it was fairer to ‘spread the pain’than cause disadvantage to some for the ‘greater good’.However, passengers in London felt that short-term disruption to restore the timetable was reasonable because alternatives are more likely to exist for those affected.

Train punctuality: the passenger perspective2

Page 7: Train punctuality: the passenger perspectived3cez36w5wymxj.cloudfront.net/migrated/Train... · England, Scotland and Wales in March 2015 (taking place in Cardiff, Glasgow, London

5

The executive summary of the report by consultantsGHD is included as section 6.

This analysis updated work Transport Focus published in 20101

examining the relationship between actual train performance andpassenger satisfaction. The 2015 work looked at the actualpunctuality experienced by 10,849 Abellio Greater Anglia passengerswho took part in the National Rail Passenger Survey (NRPS)between 2012 and 2014. We are grateful to Abellio Greater Angliafor their co-operation in providing detailed train performanceinformation for the three years in question.

The key findings are:• 82 per cent of passengers were satisfied with punctuality

when their train arrived early or within 59 seconds of the timegiven in the public timetable. This varies by journey purpose:75 per cent of commuters were satisfied with punctualitywhen on time or early, while 94 per cent of leisurepassengers and 91 per cent of business passengers weresatisfied with punctuality when on time. A possible reason forthe variation is that commuters’ assessment of punctuality‘today’ is affected by past experience – and, put simply,commuters have more ‘past experience’ than leisure andbusiness passengers. The effect of cancellations may alsohave a marginal effect. For example where a passenger’sintended train is cancelled and they catch the next one – thepassenger is late but the train they travelled on is on time.

• For every minute of lateness (that is, after scheduled arrivaltime), passenger satisfaction with punctuality declined by threepercentage points. This also varies by journey purpose: commutersatisfaction declined by five percentage points per minute oflateness, while among leisure passengers the decline was onepercentage point per minute. Therefore a significant degree of passenger satisfaction is ‘lost’ when trains are officially ‘ontime’ according to the industry measure of PPM, but late inpassengers’ eyes. For example, passengers travelling on a train

that arrives four minutes 59 seconds late – ‘on time’ accordingto PPM – will record satisfaction with punctuality over 12percentage points lower than had that train been truly on time.

• For every minute of lateness, overall satisfaction declines by oneand a half percentage points. Among commuters the decline in overall satisfaction is steeper at three percentage points perminute of lateness. Therefore overall satisfaction on a train thatis four minutes 59 seconds late – that is, on time according to PPM – will have fallen by over six percentage points.

• On trains leaving London (where the majority of passengersare likely to get off before the train’s terminating station), 56 per cent of passengers arrived at their station on time or early. This compares with 69 per cent of trains reachingtheir destination on time.

Key findings from analysis of the relationship between punctualityand passenger satisfaction

1What passengers want – Towards a ‘right time’ East Anglian railwayhttp://www.transportfocus.org.uk/research/publications/what-passengers-want-towards-a-right-time-east-anglian-railway

Page 8: Train punctuality: the passenger perspectived3cez36w5wymxj.cloudfront.net/migrated/Train... · England, Scotland and Wales in March 2015 (taking place in Cardiff, Glasgow, London

6

Train punctuality: the passenger perspective3

2Presenting ‘right-time’ performance information to rail passengers, May 2013http://www.transportfocus.org.uk/research/publications/presenting-righttime-performance-information-to-rail-passengers

Transport Focusconclusions and recommendationsThe overall conclusion Transport Focus draws from this researchand analysis is that a key strategic focus for Control Period 6must be on delivering a railway that is markedly more punctualthan at present. That is, markedly more punctual in the waypassengers understand punctuality – on time to within a minuteof the timetable (‘right time’, as the rail industry calls it). Unlessan incident is specifically disrupting the service, passengersshould arrive ‘right time’ significantly more often than nowwherever they get off. Trains which never run on time, or whichare late more often than not, must become a thing of the past.And we note that it can be done: Arriva Trains Wales, ChilternRailways and c2c regularly achieve a ‘right time’ arrival score of over 80 per cent.

The research shows that passengers want a robust,dependable timetable so they arrive on time at their destination.It appears that passengers – particularly commuters – are moreinterested in arriving punctually than in how long the journeytakes or in the industry striving to run extra trains. There areexceptions: there is appetite for reduced journey time on verylong-distance trips; for having more trains on routes with lowfrequencies; and for extra trains among commuters who strugglejust to get on the train – never mind getting a seat. It should bekept in mind that this is qualitative research, but it suggests thatpassengers do not want a ‘fudge’ where the timetable just aboutworks on paper, but rarely if ever in practice. This should beexplored further in quantitative research.

It is clear that punctuality measured by the PublicPerformance Measure (PPM) does not accurately reflectpassengers’ experience, mainly because of the five or 10 minute leeway and because trains are measured only at theirdestination. PPM also undermines trust: counting trains as ontime when they are late plays badly to passengers, many ofwhom are already suspicious of statistics from their traincompany. Transport Focus therefore advocates a move awayfrom PPM as the single regulatory measure of train punctuality.Continuing for another five years with a regime where late isconsidered ‘OK’ is simply not tenable. But Transport Focusrecognises that moving instead to a single pass/fail measure of‘arrival within 59 seconds’ could have unintended consequences.Might the answer be targets to encourage movement of thewhole ‘arrivals curve’ (example below) to the left on the graph,incentivising better ‘right time’ performance, but also givingincentives to achieve a three minute delay rather than a fourminute delay, or a nine minute delay rather than an 11 minutedelay and so on?

The industry needs to determine how punctuality should bemeasured at intermediate stations and then reflected in theregulatory targets. A new metric could try to combine punctualityat destination with that at some or all intermediate stations. Itwould be more difficult to explain, but it might focus attention onwhat really matters to passengers. If accompanied by completetransparency about performance, passengers would still be ableto see how their trains performed, but the metric would bedifficult to explain to passengers and staff – potentially limiting its effectiveness as a tool to drive improvement.

Example of an ‘arrivals curve’

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f tr

ain

s

Lateness in minutes

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%-5 -3 -1 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27

Page 9: Train punctuality: the passenger perspectived3cez36w5wymxj.cloudfront.net/migrated/Train... · England, Scotland and Wales in March 2015 (taking place in Cardiff, Glasgow, London

7

Control Period 6 should seek to deliver better punctuality for commuters – but not at the expense of giving train companiesless incentive to run off-peak trains on time. The fact that poorpeak punctuality can currently be off-set by good off-peakperformance should be addressed, but not by creating theopposite problem. Would setting a target for peak trains, as wellas for the timetable as a whole, be a way to increase focus ontrains carrying a large numbers of commuters, without riskingperverse incentives elsewhere?

A single pass/fail measure does not paint a full picture. A trainwith a 'right time' record of zero might arrive within two minuteson every occasion - but equally it might always be nine minuteslate. It should therefore be made easy for a passenger to see agraduated picture of how often their train is ‘right time’, arriveswithin two minutes, three minutes, four minutes and so on. Thiswould give a richer, more rounded view of train punctuality to both passengers and commentators.

The definition of ‘significant lateness’ within the Cancellationsand Significant Lateness (CaSL) measure should be reviewed for Control Period 6. To passengers, particularly those makingshort journeys, a train becomes significantly late after less than30 minutes delay. Separately, the target for CaSL should bereduced further for long-distance operators. Passengers makinglong-distance leisure and business trips said cancellations causethem more trouble than late running, yet the target for VirginTrains (that is, Intercity West Coast) and Virgin Trains East Coast is more forgiving than for other operators. A CaSL target should also beconsidered for Scotland.

The industry shouldconsider how underlyingpunctuality can be measuredand better understood – thatis, on days when there havebeen no specific incidents.Perhaps this could beachieved by tracking ‘righttime’ performance on the ninebest days in every 10 (with theleast good removed)? Orperhaps by tracking ‘right time’punctuality on days when thereare very few cancellations orsignificantly late trains (as a proxy for the absence of disruption)?

Finally, in looking forward to 2019 the industry shouldconsider if the level of punctuality required by previous High LevelOutput Specifications has been insufficiently ambitious to driveradical thinking and innovation. If the governments and regulatorwere to seek substantially higher performance in Control Period 6and beyond, could it be the catalyst for fundamental change thatwould ultimately lead to exceptionally high levels of punctualityand highly efficient use of track, station and fleet capacity?

Summary• When it comes to performance, a main objective for 2019-

2024 should be to markedly improve true ‘on time’ punctualityacross the rail network, including at intermediate stations. That means robust timetables that are neither overly heroic nor excessively padded. It means accurate sectional runningtimes and accurate station dwell times.

• Transport Focus advocates a move away from PPM as thesole measure of success. It is not trusted by passengers anddoes not drive sufficient focus on punctuality as passengersdefine it.

• Whatever replaces PPM must strongly incentivise ‘right time’punctuality, but seek to avoid unintended consequences ofhaving a different, more demanding, sole measure of success.The industry should investigate if targets could be developedthat would incentivise better performance generally, including‘right time’. How can the industry be incentivised in ControlPeriod 6 to move the whole ‘arrivals curve’ to the left on thegraph?

• Whatever the chosen metric, there should be a separatepunctuality target for peak services to incentivise the industryto get commuters to and from work on time. Givenpassengers’ concerns about reducing the incentive to run off-peak trains on time, this is preferable to weighting trains by volume of passengers within punctuality statistics.

• To give a more meaningful picture of punctuality, the industryshould make it easy for passengers to see a graduated pictureof how often their train (or group of trains) is ‘right time’, within two minutes, three minutes, four minutes and so on.

• The industry must become properly transparent and granularwith all performance information – and through the ‘front door’via train company websites and apps. If a passenger uses onlythe ‘07:29’ and the ‘18:17’, data for those trains alone shouldbe readily available to them. The industry did not respondeffectively to recommendations following research in 20132

(funded jointly by Transport Focus, ORR and National RailEnquiries) and it should now do so.

• There should be a review of the Cancellations and SignificantLateness (CaSL) measure and targets with a view to: reducingthe definition of ‘significant lateness’, particularly for short-distance journeys; further tightening the target forlong-distance train companies; and Transport Scotland shouldconsider specifying a CaSL measure in Control Period 6.

• The industry should tackle causes of distrust in statistics by:eliminating differences between the public timetable and the working timetable; reforming the system wherebycancellations made before 22:00 the day before do not countas cancellations in statistics; and being transparent about the number of days on which a formal amended timetable (one involving fewer trains running than normal) operated and about the number of trains involved.

Page 10: Train punctuality: the passenger perspectived3cez36w5wymxj.cloudfront.net/migrated/Train... · England, Scotland and Wales in March 2015 (taking place in Cardiff, Glasgow, London

As the regulator for rail in Great Britain, we want to ensure thatpassengers are at the heart of Britain’s railways and we are keen to see improvements in the levels of punctuality and reliability forpassengers achieved by the industry to the greatest extent possiblewith the funding available. These studies are an important startingpoint as part of our preparations for Control Period 6 (CP6).

The qualitative study reflects the views of 80 passengers using therail network. Their views provide us and the industry with a valuableinsight into the priorities of different passenger groups, their level ofawareness of performance targets and how they understand andinterpret the existing performance measures. The quantitative analysisis useful in helping the industry better understand the real relationshipbetween actual train performance and passenger satisfaction, althoughit must be noted that the results for Abellio Greater Anglia passengersmay not be reflective of all train passengers, especially those usingdifferent types of services, e.g. long distance.

ORR is working to get the best deal for passenger and taxpayers.ORR’s role is to create incentives and set targets for passenger

punctuality and reliability that reflect the interests of both governmentand the passenger (and recognising also the role of freight operators).We must develop a framework that genuinely encourages NetworkRail and the industry to deliver improvements in punctuality, and which also aligns the objectives of train operators and Network Rail.

We are pleased that the industry National Task Force (NTF) isleading a review of the existing measures and generating alternativeoptions for CP6 and that it has found these studies useful in thatprocess. We would like the industry to deliver an outcome thatprovides the industry with measures which drive the right behaviours,which government would feel comfortable using for setting its highlevel targets for the industry and for its train operator franchises, and which we could then also use to set the regulatory targets forholding Network Rail to account.

We particularly welcome that the industry has taken on board the need to provide passengers with more accessible and transparentinformation about punctuality. The National Task Force has endorseda “My Journey” work stream to make additional information available

Office of Rail and Roadconclusions

8

Train punctuality: the passenger perspective4

Page 11: Train punctuality: the passenger perspectived3cez36w5wymxj.cloudfront.net/migrated/Train... · England, Scotland and Wales in March 2015 (taking place in Cardiff, Glasgow, London

to passengers about the reliability of their individual journeys. We willmonitor progress with this work.

Before introduction of any new industry punctuality and reliabilitymeasure, there are a range of options and features now underdiscussion, in part informed by these studies and also from industrydiscussion and debate. This includes measurement to ‘right time’(arrival within one minute of scheduled time), measurement at everystation, use of banding, and some sort of passenger weighting. We consider that it is likely that we will need to achieve a balance of these desirable features across a small number of measures,rather than seeking to achieve one single measure which reflects all the features identified.

The assessment by the industry, by government, and by us of anypotential new industry measures must be a carefully considered oneand so we do not propose to make recommendations as to particularmeasures at this stage. We particularly want to understand how anynew measure would translate into management behaviour in the dayto day operation of the railway, and also in how the railway is planned

and timetabled, so that any unwanted outcomes are avoided. Forexample a ‘right time’ measure has the potential to result in extendedjourney times as a result of longer station dwell times to enablegreater volumes and different types of passengers to get on and offthe train. We must take into account the impact of any changes topassenger punctuality measures on the freight market (and vice versa).

There is merit in continuing to measure PPM for comparison andcontinuity purposes, as this is a measure that has been in place for a number of years. New measures, which may help the industryaddress the issues raised by these studies, could require improvementsin technology (or the availability or distribution of technology on thenetwork). We believe we must not be limited by the currenttechnology but set the industry on a path that enables the importantnew technology on the horizon, such as GPS train fitment and smartticketing, to be utilized to further improve measures over time.

We are acutely aware that there is a very difficult balance to strike between a comprehensive measure that captures all elementsof punctuality and one that is transparent and easy for users tounderstand.

The NTF is leading an industry trial of a selection of newmeasures over the coming months, and we are eager to see theoutcome of this trial. We consider that there needs to be flexibility to develop a strong set of measures that would meet the criteria set out above. We do not consider it necessary to wait until the nextControl Period to implement a new measure or set of measures.

In terms of next steps, we will continue to engage with the NTF workstream, while developing our views on what the regulatedoutputs will be. This will inform our initial Periodic Review 2018(PR18) consultation early in 2016, and wider consultation which we intend to carry out in relation to outputs around that time.

We look forward to continuing to work with the industry todevelop proposals in this area.

9

Page 12: Train punctuality: the passenger perspectived3cez36w5wymxj.cloudfront.net/migrated/Train... · England, Scotland and Wales in March 2015 (taking place in Cardiff, Glasgow, London

10

Page 13: Train punctuality: the passenger perspectived3cez36w5wymxj.cloudfront.net/migrated/Train... · England, Scotland and Wales in March 2015 (taking place in Cardiff, Glasgow, London

11

Pre

pare

d in

com

plia

nce

with

the

Inte

rnat

iona

l qua

lity

stan

dard

cov

erin

g m

arke

t res

earc

h, IS

O 2

0252

(201

2), T

he M

RS

Cod

e of

Con

duct

, and

the

Dat

a P

rote

ctio

n A

ct 1

998

by Il

lum

inas

, 183

-203

Eve

rsho

lt S

treet

, Lon

don

NW

1 1B

U, U

K

T +4

4 (0

)20

7909

092

9 F

+44

(0)2

0 79

09 0

921

E in

fo@

illum

inas

-gl

obal

.com

w

ww

.illu

min

as-g

loba

l.com

PREP

AR

ED B

Y IL

LUM

INA

S a

glob

al te

am b

ased

in L

ondo

n, N

ew Y

ork

and

Aus

tin

Punc

tual

ity p

erfo

rman

ce m

easu

rem

ent

Res

earc

h D

ebrie

f

Prep

ared

for:

Tra

nspo

rt F

ocus

D

ate:

8th

Apr

il 20

15

Page 14: Train punctuality: the passenger perspectived3cez36w5wymxj.cloudfront.net/migrated/Train... · England, Scotland and Wales in March 2015 (taking place in Cardiff, Glasgow, London

12

Bac

kgro

und,

obj

ectiv

es a

nd

met

hodo

logy

Page 15: Train punctuality: the passenger perspectived3cez36w5wymxj.cloudfront.net/migrated/Train... · England, Scotland and Wales in March 2015 (taking place in Cardiff, Glasgow, London

13

Bac

kgro

und

Trai

n pe

rform

ance

in B

ritai

n is

sub

ject

to a

num

ber o

f qua

lity

serv

ice

targ

ets

cove

ring

a ra

nge

of a

spec

ts o

f the

ser

vice

whi

ch th

e ra

ilway

s pr

ovid

e

Thes

e ta

rget

s ar

e se

t by

a pr

oces

s in

volv

ing

the

Offi

ce o

f Rai

l and

Roa

d (O

RR

), th

e ra

il in

dust

ry it

self

and

the

Wes

tmin

ster

and

Edi

nbur

gh

gove

rnm

ents

. The

se b

odie

s ar

e ab

out t

o be

gin

a re

view

pro

cess

that

will

le

ad to

the

prod

uctio

n of

a s

et o

f Hig

h Le

vel O

utpu

t Spe

cific

atio

ns th

at w

ill

incl

ude

targ

ets

for t

rain

per

form

ance

from

201

9 to

202

4

To h

elp

info

rm th

e de

velo

pmen

t of t

hese

targ

ets,

Tra

nspo

rt Fo

cus

and

the

OR

R h

ave

com

mis

sion

ed re

sear

ch to

ens

ure

that

pas

seng

ers’

prio

ritie

s fo

r tra

in p

erfo

rman

ce a

re c

lear

ly u

nder

stoo

d an

d in

form

the

abov

e pr

oces

s

Page 16: Train punctuality: the passenger perspectived3cez36w5wymxj.cloudfront.net/migrated/Train... · England, Scotland and Wales in March 2015 (taking place in Cardiff, Glasgow, London

14

The

obje

ctiv

es o

f the

rese

arch

are

to e

stab

lish

wha

t pas

seng

ers

know

abo

ut ra

il pe

rform

ance

mea

sure

men

t an

d to

iden

tify

thei

r asp

iratio

ns fo

r how

(and

wha

t ele

men

ts o

f) pe

rform

ance

sho

uld

be m

easu

red

in th

e fu

ture

Key

obj

ectiv

es fo

r the

rese

arch

are

to u

nder

stan

d:

How

pas

seng

ers

judg

e tra

in c

ompa

nies

’ ‘pe

rform

ance

’ P

asse

nger

s’ e

xper

ienc

e of

dis

rupt

ion

incl

udin

g de

lays

, can

cella

tions

, div

ersi

ons,

sho

rt-fo

rmat

ions

, etc

H

ow th

ese

expe

rienc

es tr

ansl

ate

into

pas

seng

ers’

ass

essm

ent o

f the

railw

ay’s

‘per

form

ance

’ P

asse

nger

s’ k

now

ledg

e an

d un

ders

tand

ing

of h

ow p

erfo

rman

ce is

cur

rent

ly m

easu

red

offic

ially

P

asse

nger

s’ u

nder

stan

ding

of a

nd re

actio

ns to

the

Pub

lic P

erfo

rman

ce M

easu

re a

nd th

e ge

nera

l con

cept

of

‘lat

enes

s’

Pas

seng

ers’

und

erst

andi

ng o

f and

reac

tions

to th

e C

ance

llatio

ns a

nd S

igni

fican

t Lat

enes

s M

easu

re

The

exte

nt to

whi

ch p

asse

nger

s un

ders

tand

and

are

pre

pare

d to

mak

e al

low

ance

s fo

r the

inte

r-re

latio

nshi

p of

ser

vice

freq

uenc

y, jo

urne

y tim

e (s

peed

), ca

paci

ty (a

vaila

bilit

y of

sea

ts) a

nd p

erfo

rman

ce

Inte

rest

am

ongs

t pas

seng

ers

in h

avin

g of

ficia

l per

form

ance

mea

sure

s pu

blis

hed

and

avai

labl

e fo

r pub

lic

scru

tiny

Diff

eren

ces

in u

nder

stan

ding

and

exp

ecta

tions

by

pass

enge

r typ

e, jo

urne

y pu

rpos

e, jo

urne

y di

stan

ce,

serv

ice

frequ

ency

, etc

Th

e im

pact

of p

oor p

erfo

rman

ce o

n pa

ssen

gers

’ tru

st in

the

railw

ays

and/

or s

peci

fic T

rain

Ope

ratin

g C

ompa

nies

(TO

C)

Wha

t crit

eria

sho

uld

form

the

basi

s of

any

qua

ntita

tive

asse

ssm

ent o

f pas

seng

er p

erce

ptio

ns o

f TO

C

perfo

rman

ce.

Obj

ectiv

es

Page 17: Train punctuality: the passenger perspectived3cez36w5wymxj.cloudfront.net/migrated/Train... · England, Scotland and Wales in March 2015 (taking place in Cardiff, Glasgow, London

15

Met

hodo

logy

Ten

qual

itativ

e fo

cus

grou

ps w

ere

cond

ucte

d ac

ross

four

loca

tions

: Lo

ndon

D

erby

G

lasg

ow

Car

diff

Four

focu

s gr

oups

wer

e co

nduc

ted

in L

ondo

n an

d tw

o in

eac

h of

the

othe

r loc

atio

ns:

Two

of th

e gr

oups

in L

ondo

n sa

mpl

ed A

belli

o G

reat

er A

nglia

pas

seng

ers

only.

Thi

s w

as s

o th

at th

e fin

ding

s of

thes

e gr

oups

can

be

cons

ider

ed a

long

side

a s

epar

ate

stud

y th

at T

rans

port

Focu

s an

d O

RR

hav

e co

mm

issi

oned

look

ing

at th

e im

pact

of a

ctua

l del

ay e

xper

ienc

ed b

y pa

ssen

gers

on

how

th

ey a

nsw

er p

artic

ular

Nat

iona

l Rai

l Pas

seng

er S

urve

y qu

estio

ns. F

or th

at e

xerc

ise

Abe

llio

Gre

ater

A

nglia

has

bee

n us

ed a

s a

case

stu

dy.

Eac

h fo

cus

grou

p co

ntai

ned

eigh

t res

pond

ents

who

use

d th

e tra

in fo

r eith

er c

omm

utin

g or

bus

ines

s/le

isur

e pu

rpos

es

Res

pond

ents

wer

e al

so c

ateg

oris

ed b

y ag

e an

d so

cio-

dem

ogra

phic

s.

Page 18: Train punctuality: the passenger perspectived3cez36w5wymxj.cloudfront.net/migrated/Train... · England, Scotland and Wales in March 2015 (taking place in Cardiff, Glasgow, London

16

Gro

up d

iscu

ssio

n pr

ogra

mm

e

The

focu

s gr

oup

disc

ussi

on p

rogr

amm

e is

det

aile

d be

low

:

LOCA

TIO

N

DEM

OG

RAPH

ICS

& T

RAIN

USA

GE

TRA

IN U

SAG

E

Lond

on

Youn

ger,

C1C

2D

Com

mut

er

Old

er,

ABC1

Bu

sine

ss/L

eisu

re

Lond

on (

Abel

lio G

reat

er A

nglia

pass

enge

rs)

Youn

ger,

ABC

1 Bu

sine

ss/L

eisu

re

Old

er,

C1C2

D

Com

mut

er

Man

ches

ter

Youn

ger,

C1C

2D

Busi

ness

/Lei

sure

Old

er,

ABC1

Co

mm

uter

Card

iff

Youn

ger,

ABC

1 Co

mm

uter

Old

er,

C1C2

D

Busi

ness

/Lei

sure

Gla

sgow

Yo

unge

r, C

1C2D

Co

mm

uter

Old

er,

ABC1

Bu

sine

ss/L

eisu

re

Focu

s gr

oups

took

pla

ce w

eeks

com

men

cing

9 a

nd 1

6 M

arch

201

5.

Methodology

Ten qualitative focus groups were conducted across four locations: London Derby Glasgow Cardiff

Four focus groups were conducted in London and two in each of the other locations: Two of the groups in London sampled Abellio Greater Anglia passengers only. This was so that the findings of these groups can be considered alongside a separate study that Transport Focus and ORR have commissioned looking at the impact of actual delay experienced by passengers on how they answer particular National Rail Passenger Survey questions. For that exercise Abellio Greater Anglia has been used as a case study.

Each focus group contained eight respondents who used the train for either commuting or business/leisure purposes

Respondents were also categorised by age and socio-demographics.

6

Page 19: Train punctuality: the passenger perspectived3cez36w5wymxj.cloudfront.net/migrated/Train... · England, Scotland and Wales in March 2015 (taking place in Cardiff, Glasgow, London

17

Pas

seng

ers’

top

of m

ind

view

s on

trai

n pe

rform

ance

Page 20: Train punctuality: the passenger perspectived3cez36w5wymxj.cloudfront.net/migrated/Train... · England, Scotland and Wales in March 2015 (taking place in Cardiff, Glasgow, London

18

Wha

t mak

es fo

r a “s

ucce

ssfu

l” jo

urne

y?

Rel

iabi

lity

is p

asse

nger

s’ m

inim

um re

quire

men

t fro

m th

eir t

rain

ser

vice

P

asse

nger

s de

fine

relia

bilit

y pr

imar

ily in

term

s of

pun

ctua

lity

and

seco

ndar

ily in

term

s of

not

bei

ng

canc

elle

d or

dis

rupt

ed (r

efle

ctin

g th

e fre

quen

cy w

ith w

hich

thes

e is

sues

are

typi

cally

exp

erie

nced

)

Pun

ctua

l ser

vice

Sta

tion

envi

ronm

ent

Trai

n en

viro

nmen

t

Get

ting

a se

at

Oth

er th

an a

relia

ble

serv

ice,

a ra

nge

of

addi

tiona

l fac

tors

info

rm p

asse

nger

s’

asse

ssm

ent o

f wha

t mak

es fo

r a s

ucce

ssfu

l jo

urne

y Th

ese

fact

ors,

suc

h as

get

ting

a se

at a

s w

ell a

s a

clea

n an

d sa

fe e

nviro

nmen

t on

the

train

and

at

the

stat

ion,

can

enh

ance

the

exte

nt to

whi

ch th

e jo

urne

y is

rate

d po

sitiv

ely

But

thes

e fa

ctor

s al

one

(i.e.

in th

e ab

senc

e of

a

punc

tual

ser

vice

) will

not

resu

lt in

a s

ucce

ssfu

l jo

urne

y

The

impo

rtanc

e of

thes

e fa

ctor

s of

cou

rse

varie

s by

jour

ney

type

Fo

r exa

mpl

e on

a lo

nger

dis

tanc

e bu

sine

ss/le

isur

e jo

urne

y, g

ettin

g a

seat

is a

lmos

t exp

ecte

d an

d th

e la

ck o

f it c

an s

ever

ely

influ

ence

sat

isfa

ctio

n H

owev

er, o

n a

shor

ter c

omm

uter

trip

in p

eak

hour

s pa

ssen

gers

do

not n

eces

saril

y ex

pect

to g

et a

se

at, s

o ge

tting

one

can

cre

ate

cons

ider

able

del

ight

.

Hyg

iene

fa

ctor

s

Qua

lity

driv

ers

Sta

ff

Page 21: Train punctuality: the passenger perspectived3cez36w5wymxj.cloudfront.net/migrated/Train... · England, Scotland and Wales in March 2015 (taking place in Cardiff, Glasgow, London

19

Ove

rall,

pas

seng

ers’

sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith th

e le

vel o

f del

ay, d

isru

ptio

n an

d ca

ncel

latio

ns is

not

esp

ecia

lly

poor

H

owev

er, e

xper

ienc

es d

o va

ry b

y pa

ssen

ger t

ype

CO

MM

UTE

R

Del

ays

tend

to b

e m

inor

but

freq

uent

Fo

r exa

mpl

e, 2

-3 m

inut

e de

lays

se

vera

l tim

es p

er w

eek

Few

can

cella

tions

, but

sho

rt fo

rmat

ions

no

t unc

omm

on

NB

: Due

to th

e gr

oup

envi

ronm

ent a

n el

emen

t of o

ver c

laim

may

exi

st

BU

SIN

ESS/

LEIS

UR

E D

elay

s, c

ance

llatio

ns a

nd d

isru

ptio

n ar

e ra

re

Mos

t can

reca

ll at

leas

t one

“hor

ror s

tory

” of

a jo

urne

y, th

ough

this

was

not

ne

cess

arily

rece

nt

RU

RA

L LI

NES

D

elay

s an

d ca

ncel

latio

ns o

ccur

mor

e of

ten

durin

g ‘b

ad’ w

eath

er

Inst

ance

s of

trai

ns n

ot s

topp

ing

at

sche

dule

d st

atio

ns

Wee

kend

ser

vice

ofte

n no

n-ex

iste

nt o

r re

duce

d in

freq

uenc

y

GLA

SGO

W

Pas

seng

ers

in G

lasg

ow fe

el th

e nu

mbe

r of

min

or d

elay

s an

d ca

ncel

latio

ns is

hig

h an

d th

at th

e se

rvic

e is

infe

rior c

ompa

red

with

oth

er p

arts

of B

ritai

n Lo

ng d

elay

s ar

e ra

re, w

ith tr

ains

eith

er

2-3

min

utes

late

or c

ance

lled

outri

ght

NB

: oth

er T

rans

port

Focu

s re

sear

ch in

S

cotla

nd s

how

ed a

bel

ief t

hat S

cotR

ail i

s to

o ca

utio

us a

nd in

clin

ed to

can

cel

serv

ices

at t

he ‘f

irst s

ign

of a

sno

wfla

ke’

“The

boa

rd w

ill s

ay th

at th

e tra

in is

del

ayed

by

thre

e m

inut

es, a

nd th

en it

will

just

cha

nge

to c

ance

lled,

ther

e is

not

hing

in b

etw

een.

” G

lasg

ow g

roup

, Com

mut

er, Y

oung

er.

Exp

erie

nce

of d

elay

s, d

isru

ptio

n an

d ca

ncel

latio

ns is

mix

ed

Page 22: Train punctuality: the passenger perspectived3cez36w5wymxj.cloudfront.net/migrated/Train... · England, Scotland and Wales in March 2015 (taking place in Cardiff, Glasgow, London

20

Pas

seng

ers

assu

me

that

per

form

ance

is m

easu

red

prim

arily

in te

rms

of p

unct

ualit

y, a

lthou

gh th

ey

have

no

defin

itive

kno

wle

dge

of th

is

Mos

t stru

ggle

to re

call

havi

ng h

eard

or s

een

anyt

hing

abo

ut p

erfo

rman

ce m

easu

rem

ent

Ref

er to

/mak

e co

mm

ent o

n m

edia

sto

ries

e.g.

: K

ings

Cro

ss C

hris

tmas

deb

acle

S

outh

ern

com

mut

er s

ervi

ce fr

om B

right

on

to V

icto

ria th

at w

as ‘l

ate

ever

y da

y’

Som

e m

entio

ns o

f pos

ters

in ra

il st

atio

ns s

how

ing

‘num

bers

of s

ome

sort’

ab

out p

unct

ualit

y P

artic

ular

ly in

Lon

don,

pas

seng

ers

quer

y th

e re

liabi

lity

of th

ese

num

bers

as

ofte

n se

em h

igh

Ther

e is

no

clea

r und

erst

andi

ng o

f who

set

s pe

rform

ance

targ

ets

It is

pre

sum

ed th

at th

is is

don

e by

the

train

com

pani

es th

emse

lves

, the

‘Gov

ernm

ent’

or ‘s

omet

hing

of

ficia

l’.

LITT

LE/N

O K

NO

WLE

DG

E SO

ME

KN

OW

LED

GE

Lim

ited

know

ledg

e of

how

per

form

ance

is a

ctua

lly m

easu

red

Page 23: Train punctuality: the passenger perspectived3cez36w5wymxj.cloudfront.net/migrated/Train... · England, Scotland and Wales in March 2015 (taking place in Cardiff, Glasgow, London

21

Pre

viou

s re

sear

ch*

has

high

light

ed th

e im

porta

nce

of re

liabi

lity

for t

rain

com

pani

es in

atta

inin

g an

d bu

ildin

g tru

st

Ther

e ar

e ot

her f

acto

rs in

add

ition

to re

liabi

lity

and

man

y of

thes

e ar

e la

ckin

g am

ongs

t tra

in c

ompa

nies

Th

eref

ore

pass

enge

rs a

re o

ften

cyni

cal w

hen

talk

ing

abou

t the

ext

ent t

o w

hich

they

trus

t the

ir tra

in

com

pany

C

onse

quen

tly, t

hey

are

also

pes

sim

istic

whe

n ta

lkin

g in

term

s of

rail

targ

ets;

how

they

are

set

, who

set

s th

em a

nd th

e ex

tent

to w

hich

they

are

ach

ieve

d

Rel

iabi

lity

is k

ey to

TO

Cs

build

ing

trust

Thos

e sa

tisfie

d w

ith th

e pu

nctu

ality

of t

heir

train

ser

vice

ar

e m

ore

likel

y to

trus

t the

TO

C

For c

omm

uter

s, p

unct

ualit

y is

m

ost i

mpo

rtant

to b

uild

ing

trust

, gi

ven

that

an

on-ti

me

serv

ice

is

mos

t des

ired

For b

usin

ess/

leis

ure

pass

enge

rs, e

mot

iona

l fac

tors

ar

e al

so c

ited

as b

eing

key

to

esta

blis

hing

trus

t, su

ch a

s st

aff

enga

gem

ent,

qual

ity o

f rol

ling

stoc

k an

d cu

stom

er s

ervi

ce.

“I tru

st th

e on

e th

at I

use

beca

use

they

get

me

to

wor

k on

tim

e, a

nd it

’s v

ery

impo

rtant

that

I ge

t to

wor

k on

tim

e ot

herw

ise

I’m la

te fo

r cou

rt.”

Der

by g

roup

, Com

mut

er, O

lder

.

“In te

rms

of q

ualit

y of

the

actu

al tr

ain

carr

iage

s I

thin

k V

irgin

are

way

ahe

ad a

nd th

at in

fluen

ces

my

trust

in th

em.”

Der

by g

roup

, Bus

ines

s/Le

isur

e, Y

oung

er.

* http

://w

ww

.tran

spor

tfocu

s.or

g.uk

/rese

arch

/pub

licat

ions

/pas

seng

ers-

rela

tions

hip-

with

-the-

rail-

indu

stry

Page 24: Train punctuality: the passenger perspectived3cez36w5wymxj.cloudfront.net/migrated/Train... · England, Scotland and Wales in March 2015 (taking place in Cardiff, Glasgow, London

22

Rea

ctio

n to

PP

M a

nd C

aSL

perfo

rman

ce m

easu

res

Page 25: Train punctuality: the passenger perspectived3cez36w5wymxj.cloudfront.net/migrated/Train... · England, Scotland and Wales in March 2015 (taking place in Cardiff, Glasgow, London

23

Ove

rvie

w: r

eact

ions

to tr

ain

perfo

rman

ce m

easu

res

Pas

seng

ers

know

littl

e ab

out h

ow tr

ain

perfo

rman

ce is

mea

sure

d - k

now

ledg

e of

PP

M a

nd C

aSL

non-

exis

tent

How

ever

, mea

surin

g pe

rform

ance

is s

een

as im

porta

nt a

nd th

ere

is a

n ap

petit

e fo

r lea

rnin

g ab

out h

ow it

is m

easu

red

That

sai

d, m

ost p

asse

nger

s ex

pect

that

targ

ets

will

not

be

parti

cula

rly d

eman

ding

and

tend

to g

ive

low

est

imat

es w

hen

aske

d w

hat t

hey

belie

ve ta

rget

s w

ill b

e

For C

aSL,

the

head

line

targ

et o

f 2.2

per

cen

t was

see

n as

reas

onab

le

98 p

er c

ent n

ot c

ance

lled

was

typi

cally

sug

gest

ed a

s an

asp

iratio

n A

ccep

ted

that

‘thi

ngs

happ

en’ m

eani

ng s

ome

canc

ella

tions

inev

itabl

e

PP

M le

ss w

ell r

ecei

ved

98 p

er c

ent

- 99

per c

ent p

unct

ualit

y of

ten

the

typi

cal t

arge

t sug

gest

ed

As

such

, 92.

5 pe

r cen

t tar

get f

alls

wel

l sho

rt of

idea

l (al

thou

gh n

ot a

ltoge

ther

une

xpec

ted)

O

n re

flect

ion,

aro

und

95 p

er c

ent s

een

as ‘r

ealis

tic’ t

arge

t

How

ever

, onc

e th

e de

tail

of ta

rget

s is

reve

aled

, man

y fe

el th

at th

eir ‘

wor

st s

uspi

cion

s’ h

ave

been

con

firm

ed

Do

not b

elie

ve th

at m

easu

res

accu

rate

ly re

flect

true

per

form

ance

Fi

gure

s ‘m

assa

ged’

by

gene

rous

targ

ets

and

‘loop

hole

s’

Furth

erm

ore,

man

y pa

ssen

gers

stru

ggle

to u

nder

stan

d ho

w ta

rget

s im

pact

on

thei

r jou

rney

W

heth

er a

chie

ved

or n

ot, w

hat a

re th

e co

nseq

uenc

es?

Som

e m

ake

an e

xplic

it lin

k be

twee

n co

mpe

nsat

ion

for d

elay

or c

ance

llatio

n w

ith p

erfo

rman

ce ta

rget

s or

with

fine

s an

d pe

rform

ance

targ

ets

Whi

le th

ere

are

calls

for m

ore

strin

gent

rule

s in

resp

ect o

f fin

es a

nd c

ompe

nsat

ion,

this

is a

lso

seen

as

a do

uble

-edg

ed

swor

d –

perc

eptio

n th

at u

ltim

atel

y ‘th

e pa

ssen

ger a

lway

s pa

ys’

“And

at t

he e

nd o

f the

day

if th

at w

as o

kay,

they

wou

ld te

ll yo

u w

ould

n’t t

hey?

It w

ould

be

“Her

e’s

how

we

are

m

easu

red.

..” b

ut th

ey o

bvio

usly

don

’t w

ant t

o te

ll yo

u th

at b

ecau

se e

very

body

is g

oing

to s

ay th

at’s

not

righ

t.”

Car

diff

grou

p, C

omm

uter

, You

nger

.

“It’s

a b

it of

a c

on, t

hey’

re

mea

surin

g th

ose

figur

es in

a

way

that

mak

es th

em s

how

w

hat t

hey

wan

t the

m to

sho

w,

rath

er th

an m

easu

ring

it to

id

entif

y an

d fix

pro

blem

s, to

m

ake

it ac

tual

ly a

goo

d se

rvic

e.”

Lond

on g

roup

, Com

mut

er,

You

nger

.

Page 26: Train punctuality: the passenger perspectived3cez36w5wymxj.cloudfront.net/migrated/Train... · England, Scotland and Wales in March 2015 (taking place in Cardiff, Glasgow, London

24

Per

form

ance

mea

sure

men

t: in

itial

exp

ecta

tions

Pas

seng

ers

expe

ct p

unct

ualit

y to

be

mea

sure

d in

det

ail a

nd b

elie

ve th

at th

e te

chno

logy

can

/sho

uld

faci

litat

e th

is

STAT

ION

TO

C

JOU

RN

EY

Eve

ry s

ervi

ce o

pera

ted

by

ever

y TO

C s

houl

d be

m

easu

red

and

publ

ishe

d

All

jour

neys

sho

uld

be

mon

itore

d an

d pu

blis

hed

Dep

artu

re/a

rriv

al ti

mes

sh

ould

be

mea

sure

d fo

r ev

ery

train

sto

ppin

g at

eve

ry

stat

ion

Som

e su

gges

t a s

ampl

ing

appr

oach

as

long

as

the

sam

ple

still

mea

sure

d th

e tra

in’s

ent

ire ro

ute

(not

ju

st e

nd d

estin

atio

n st

atio

n).

“Eve

ry s

tatio

n it

stop

s at

bec

ause

it’s

all

very

w

ell i

f it l

eave

s G

lasg

ow a

nd g

ets

to E

dinb

urgh

at

the

right

tim

e bu

t if s

omew

here

alo

ng th

e lin

e, s

ay it

’s d

elay

ed a

nd y

ou a

rriv

e la

te o

r mis

s yo

ur c

onne

ctin

g tra

in?”

G

lasg

ow g

roup

, Com

mut

er, Y

oung

er.

“I kn

ow w

e’ve

got

the

tech

nolo

gy to

do

it b

ut if

you

can

get

a b

ig e

noug

h sa

mpl

e, it

’s s

tatis

tical

ly v

alid

an

yway

.” C

ardi

ff gr

oup,

Com

mut

er, Y

oung

er.

Page 27: Train punctuality: the passenger perspectived3cez36w5wymxj.cloudfront.net/migrated/Train... · England, Scotland and Wales in March 2015 (taking place in Cardiff, Glasgow, London

25

Unv

eilin

g of

PP

M to

resp

onde

nts

Pas

seng

er

thou

ghts

on

whe

n pu

nctu

ality

sh

ould

be

mea

sure

d

Pas

seng

er

perc

eptio

ns o

f w

hat ‘

on-ti

me’

m

eans

Pas

seng

er

estim

atio

n of

%

of tr

ains

that

ar

rive

on ti

me

Brie

f de

scrip

tion

of

PP

M g

iven

Initi

al

awar

enes

s of

P

PM

test

ed

Edu

cate

d th

at a

le

eway

exi

sts

for

train

s ar

rivin

g at

de

stin

atio

n st

atio

n

Edu

cate

d th

at

curr

ent t

arge

t is

92.5

% o

f tra

ins

arriv

ing

on ti

me

Ask

ed to

re

valu

ate

estim

atio

n fo

r %

of ‘

on-ti

me’

tra

ins

Edu

cate

d th

at

train

s ar

e on

ly

mea

sure

d fo

r pu

nctu

ality

at

end

dest

inat

ion

stat

ion

Edu

cate

d th

at

long

dis

tanc

e tra

ins

have

a 1

0 m

inut

e le

eway

Edu

cate

d th

at

shor

t dis

tanc

e tra

ins

have

a 5

m

inut

e le

eway

Firs

t st

age

Seco

nd

stag

e

Third

st

age

Pas

seng

ers

wer

e ed

ucat

ed a

bout

Pub

lic P

erfo

rman

ce M

easu

re (P

PM

) in

the

follo

win

g w

ay

Thei

r rea

ctio

ns w

ere

soug

ht a

fter e

ach

piec

e of

info

rmat

ion

was

giv

en

Page 28: Train punctuality: the passenger perspectived3cez36w5wymxj.cloudfront.net/migrated/Train... · England, Scotland and Wales in March 2015 (taking place in Cardiff, Glasgow, London

26

Ove

rvie

w: r

eact

ions

to P

PM

The

Pub

lic P

erfo

rman

ce M

easu

re (P

PM

) sho

ws

the

perc

enta

ge o

f tra

ins

whi

ch a

rriv

e at

thei

r te

rmin

atin

g st

atio

n on

tim

e.

Initi

al re

actio

ns a

re th

at P

PM

sho

uld

mea

sure

pun

ctua

lity

firm

ly a

nd s

tring

ently

B

road

con

sens

us th

at >

95 p

er c

ent o

f tra

ins

shou

ld b

e ar

rivin

g ‘o

n tim

e’

‘On

time’

sho

uld

mea

n to

the

min

ute

Pun

ctua

lity

at e

very

sto

p sh

ould

be

mea

sure

d

Initial reaction

Initi

al s

tring

ency

sof

tens

as

educ

ated

mor

e ab

out w

hat P

PM

mea

sure

s U

nder

stan

ding

that

a v

ery

smal

l ele

men

t of ‘

leew

ay’ m

ay b

e ne

eded

ar

ound

‘on

time’

mea

sure

Considered reaction

Sce

ptic

ism

set

s in

and

pas

seng

ers

ques

tion

the

valu

e of

the

mea

sure

92

.5 p

er c

ent t

arge

t fee

ls fa

r too

low

(NB

- ta

rget

tend

s to

be

seen

as

a ce

iling

rath

er th

an a

bas

e le

vel)

Leew

ay c

onsi

dere

d ov

erly

gen

erou

s i.e

. 10

min

utes

‘lat

e’ c

onsi

dere

d to

o lo

ng to

stil

l be

coun

ted

as ‘o

n tim

e’

That

trai

ns a

re o

nly

mea

sure

d at

des

tinat

ion

stat

ion

furth

er c

ompo

unds

cy

nici

sm

Reaction after detailed

explanation

Awar

enes

s of

how

PP

M m

easu

re is

cal

cula

ted

furth

er u

nder

min

es tr

ust i

n tra

in

oper

ator

s.

Page 29: Train punctuality: the passenger perspectived3cez36w5wymxj.cloudfront.net/migrated/Train... · England, Scotland and Wales in March 2015 (taking place in Cardiff, Glasgow, London

27

Initi

al

awar

enes

s of

P

PM

test

ed

No

awar

enes

s of

PP

M

Pas

seng

er

estim

atio

n of

%

of t

rain

s th

at a

rriv

e on

tim

e

Est

imat

es ra

nge

from

70

per c

ent –

90

per c

ent

Thos

e w

ho s

ugge

st lo

wer

figu

res

argu

e th

is re

flect

s tru

e ex

perie

nces

Th

ose

that

pre

dict

hig

her f

igur

es b

elie

ve th

at s

ome

of th

e sh

orte

r, le

ss c

onge

sted

se

rvic

es a

re m

ore

relia

ble

and

boos

t the

ave

rage

S

ome

belie

ve th

at tr

ain

com

pani

es w

ould

not

wan

t to

repo

rt lo

w fi

gure

s, a

nd

“mas

sage

” the

figu

res

acco

rdin

gly

“I th

ink

peop

le h

ave

a pe

rcep

tion

that

it’s

a lo

t lo

wer

but

ther

e’s

load

s of

diff

eren

t com

pani

es a

nd

jour

neys

that

are

muc

h sh

orte

r and

pro

babl

y on

-tim

e m

ost o

f the

tim

e.”

Car

diff

grou

p, C

omm

uter

, You

nger

.

Pas

seng

er

perc

eptio

ns o

f w

hat ‘

on-ti

me’

m

eans

For t

he m

ajor

ity, ‘

on-ti

me’

mea

ns to

the

min

ute

Som

e ac

cept

ance

that

a s

mal

l lee

way

(one

/tw

o m

inut

es) m

ay b

e ju

stifi

ed

Som

e re

cogn

ition

that

it is

like

ly to

diff

er

depe

nden

t on

the

jour

ney

leng

th

“If it

arr

ives

at 7

.01a

m in

stea

d of

6.5

9am

to m

e th

at is

late

; it’

s no

t the

tim

e th

ey

adve

rtise

d it.

Not

that

late

I w

ill a

ccep

t, bu

t it’s

stil

l lat

e.”

Lond

on g

roup

, Com

mut

er,

You

nger

.

Edu

cate

d th

at

curr

ent t

arge

t is

92.

5% o

f tra

ins

arriv

ing

on ti

me

92.5

per

cen

t ini

tially

sou

nds

high

as

a re

flect

ion

of tr

ue tr

ain

punc

tual

ity (

alth

ough

no

t par

ticul

arly

hig

h as

a ta

rget

) S

ome

sugg

est t

hat t

arge

t sho

uld

be m

ore

aspi

ratio

nal

Sho

uld

striv

e to

be

the

best

i.e.

100

per

cen

t A

nd s

houl

d be

pro

gres

sive

e.g

. sho

w p

rogr

ess

year

on

year

.

Det

aile

d vi

ew: r

eact

ions

to P

PM

Page 30: Train punctuality: the passenger perspectived3cez36w5wymxj.cloudfront.net/migrated/Train... · England, Scotland and Wales in March 2015 (taking place in Cardiff, Glasgow, London

28

Edu

cate

d th

at

shor

t dis

tanc

e tra

ins

have

a 5

m

inut

e le

eway

Edu

cate

d th

at

long

dis

tanc

e tra

ins

have

a

10 m

inut

e le

eway

Edu

cate

d th

at

train

s ar

e on

ly

mea

sure

d fo

r pu

nctu

ality

at

end

dest

inat

ion

stat

ion

Ask

ed to

re

valu

ate

estim

atio

n fo

r %

of ‘

on-ti

me’

tra

ins

Pas

seng

ers

ofte

n ‘o

utra

ged’

at i

ndus

try’s

def

initi

on o

f ‘on

-tim

e’

Als

o di

sbel

ief t

hat t

his

is n

ot m

ore

wid

ely

com

mun

icat

ed

Som

e su

gges

t alte

rnat

ives

: Le

eway

cal

cula

ted

as a

per

cent

age

of tr

ain

jour

ney

Le

eway

bui

lt in

to th

e tim

etab

le, p

artic

ular

ly

fo

r lon

g di

stan

ce jo

urne

ys (a

s pe

r airl

ines

)

“If y

ou’re

giv

en a

tim

e an

d it

gets

pas

t tha

t tim

e, th

en in

my

opin

ion

that

’s la

te –

ho

w c

an y

ou s

ay it

’s o

n tim

e if

it ar

rived

10

min

utes

late

?”

Gla

sgow

gro

up,

Bus

ines

s/Le

isur

e,

Old

er

Pas

seng

ers

furth

er ir

ritat

ed b

y th

is

Add

s to

the

perc

eptio

n th

at tr

ain

com

pani

es ‘m

assa

ge’ t

he fi

gure

s

Con

sens

us th

at p

unct

ualit

y sh

ould

be

mea

sure

d at

eve

ry s

tatio

n

Oth

erw

ise

not a

ccur

ate

give

n m

any

peop

le w

ill d

isem

bark

bef

ore

final

de

stin

atio

n

A pe

rcep

tion

that

92.

5 pe

r cen

t is

not a

true

refle

ctio

n of

trai

n pu

nctu

ality

G

iven

all

of th

e ca

veat

s, a

sco

re o

f 99

per c

ent i

s no

t see

n as

unr

easo

nabl

e.

“We

all s

aid

that

we

care

abo

ut if

it g

ets

to o

ur

stat

ion

on ti

me,

so

this

isn'

t rea

lly te

lling

us

anyt

hing

abo

ut th

at, i

t’s ju

st te

lling

us

whe

ther

it

gets

to w

hich

ever

the

end

stat

ion

is.”

Car

diff

grou

p, C

omm

uter

, You

nger

.

Det

aile

d vi

ew: r

eact

ions

to P

PM

Page 31: Train punctuality: the passenger perspectived3cez36w5wymxj.cloudfront.net/migrated/Train... · England, Scotland and Wales in March 2015 (taking place in Cardiff, Glasgow, London

29

Unv

eilin

g of

CaS

L to

resp

onde

nts

Brie

f de

scrip

tion

of C

aSL

give

n

Ask

ed to

es

timat

e w

hat

‘sig

nific

antly

la

te’ m

eans

Initi

al

awar

enes

s of

CaS

L te

sted

Ext

ent t

o w

hich

ca

ncel

latio

ns

and

sign

ifica

nt

late

ness

sho

uld

be m

easu

red

toge

ther

Ask

ed to

re

valu

ate

estim

atio

n fo

r %

of c

ance

lled/

si

gnifi

cant

ly la

te

train

s

Edu

cate

d th

at

curr

ent t

arge

t is

2.2%

of t

rain

s ca

ncel

led

or

sign

ifica

ntly

late

Pas

seng

er

estim

atio

n of

%

of tr

ains

that

are

ca

ncel

led

or

sign

ifica

ntly

late

Edu

cate

d th

at 3

0 m

inut

es la

te is

co

nsid

ered

as

‘sig

nific

antly

’ lat

e

Edu

cate

d th

at

Sco

tRai

l is

not m

easu

red

agai

nst C

aSL

Firs

t st

age

Seco

nd

stag

e

Gla

sgow

on

ly

Pas

seng

ers

wer

e ed

ucat

ed a

bout

Can

cella

tions

and

Sig

nific

ant L

aten

ess

(CaS

L) in

the

follo

win

g w

ay

Thei

r rea

ctio

ns w

ere

soug

ht a

fter e

ach

piec

e of

info

rmat

ion

was

giv

en

Page 32: Train punctuality: the passenger perspectived3cez36w5wymxj.cloudfront.net/migrated/Train... · England, Scotland and Wales in March 2015 (taking place in Cardiff, Glasgow, London

30

CaS

L is

def

ined

as

the

num

ber a

nd p

erce

ntag

e of

pas

seng

er tr

ains

(fra

nchi

sed

and

open

ac

cess

ope

rato

rs) w

hich

are

can

celle

d in

par

t or f

ull,

or w

hich

arr

ive

at th

eir f

inal

des

tinat

ion

30 o

r mor

e m

inut

es la

ter t

han

the

time

show

n in

the

publ

ic ti

met

able

.

Pas

seng

er d

efin

ition

of ‘

sign

ifica

ntly

late

’ con

side

rabl

y m

ore

strin

gent

th

an th

e in

dust

ry m

easu

re

10 m

inut

e ‘c

ut-o

ff’ fo

r sho

rt di

stan

ce a

nd 2

0 m

inut

es fo

r lon

g di

stan

ce tr

ains

C

ance

llatio

ns s

een

as re

quiri

ng a

mor

e st

ringe

nt ta

rget

than

la

tene

ss –

98

per c

ent n

ot c

ance

lled

emer

ges

as c

onse

nsus

figu

re.

S

ome

indi

gnat

ion

at in

dust

ry d

efin

ition

of ‘

sign

ifica

ntly

late

’ - 3

0 m

inut

es

cons

ider

ed to

o ge

nero

us

How

ever

, 2.2

per

cen

t as

head

line

figur

e co

nsid

ered

a re

ason

able

targ

et fo

r ca

ncel

latio

ns a

lbei

t mor

e de

tail

rega

rdin

g re

ason

s fo

r can

cella

tion

ofte

n de

sire

d M

easu

ring

sign

ifica

nt la

tene

ss a

nd c

ance

latio

ns to

geth

er is

con

fusi

ng fo

r so

me.

Reaction after detailed explanation

Initial reaction

Ove

rvie

w: r

eact

ions

to C

aSL

Page 33: Train punctuality: the passenger perspectived3cez36w5wymxj.cloudfront.net/migrated/Train... · England, Scotland and Wales in March 2015 (taking place in Cardiff, Glasgow, London

31

Initi

al

awar

enes

s of

C

aSL

test

ed

Ask

ed to

es

timat

e w

hat

‘sig

nific

antly

la

te’ m

eans

No

awar

enes

s of

CaS

L

Pas

seng

ers

estim

ate

that

‘sig

nific

antly

late

’ wou

ld in

clud

e sh

ort d

ista

nce

train

s th

at a

re m

ore

than

10

min

utes

late

and

long

dis

tanc

e tra

ins

that

are

mor

e th

an

20 m

inut

es la

te

i.e. d

oubl

e th

e al

low

ance

s th

at P

PM

mak

es fo

r lat

e tra

ins

Edu

cate

d th

at

30 m

inut

es

late

is

cons

ider

ed a

s ‘s

igni

fican

tly’

late

Incl

udin

g si

gnifi

cant

late

ness

with

in c

ance

llatio

n fig

ures

cau

ses

som

e co

nfus

ion

Som

e ag

ree

that

30

min

s de

lay

is a

s ba

d as

a c

ance

llatio

n an

d so

sho

uld

be c

ount

ed a

s su

ch

Oth

ers

susp

ect i

t may

be

a w

ay o

f ‘hi

ding

’ lat

enes

s

Pas

seng

er

estim

atio

n of

%

of t

rain

s th

at a

re

canc

elle

d or

si

gnifi

cant

ly

late

Est

imat

es a

re 9

5-98

per

cen

t of t

rain

s ar

e no

t can

celle

d or

sig

nific

antly

late

P

asse

nger

s sp

eak

in te

rms

of th

e nu

mbe

rs o

f tra

ins

that

are

not

del

ayed

or

sig

nific

antly

late

R

athe

r tha

n th

e nu

mbe

r tha

t are

can

celle

d or

sig

nific

antly

late

.

“I ca

n't u

nder

stan

d w

hy it

is 3

0 m

inut

es a

nd I

wou

ld a

im to

redu

ce

that

. I th

ink

they

hav

e gi

ven

them

selv

es q

uite

a lo

t of l

eew

ay

actu

ally

with

30

min

utes

.” G

lasg

ow g

roup

, Bus

ines

s/Le

isur

e,

Old

er.

Det

aile

d vi

ew: r

eact

ions

to C

aSL

Page 34: Train punctuality: the passenger perspectived3cez36w5wymxj.cloudfront.net/migrated/Train... · England, Scotland and Wales in March 2015 (taking place in Cardiff, Glasgow, London

32

Edu

cate

d th

at

curr

ent t

arge

t is

2.2%

of t

rain

s ca

ncel

led

or

sign

ifica

ntly

late

2.2

per c

ent c

onsi

dere

d a

reas

onab

le ta

rget

by

mos

t O

nly

a m

inor

ity a

rgue

for s

omet

hing

mor

e st

ringe

nt

Ext

ent t

o w

hich

ca

ncel

latio

ns

and

sign

ifica

nt

late

ness

sho

uld

be m

easu

red

toge

ther

Ask

ed to

re

valu

ate

estim

atio

n fo

r %

of c

ance

lled/

si

gnifi

cant

ly la

te

train

s N

ot a

cle

ar c

onse

nsus

on

sign

ifica

nt la

tene

ss

Sug

gest

ed s

igni

fican

t lat

enes

s sh

ould

be

mea

sure

d al

ongs

ide

PP

M

(som

e as

sum

ed th

at in

clud

ing

a tra

in w

ithin

CaS

L bo

osts

PP

M s

core

s fu

rther

) A

lso

man

y ar

gue

that

cla

ssifi

catio

n fo

r ‘si

gnifi

cant

ly la

te’ s

houl

d be

diff

eren

t for

sh

ort a

nd lo

ng d

ista

nce

30 m

inut

e de

lay

on a

10

min

ute

jour

ney

mor

e si

gnifi

cant

than

on

a 3

hour

jo

urne

y C

ould

be

calc

ulat

ed a

s a

perc

enta

ge o

f jou

rney

tim

e

Edu

cate

d th

at

Sco

tRai

l is

not

mea

sure

d ag

ains

t CaS

L

Pas

seng

ers

in G

lasg

ow c

anno

t com

preh

end

why

Sco

tRai

l is

not m

easu

red

agai

nst

CaS

L S

pecu

late

that

this

is b

ecau

se o

f the

var

iabl

e an

d “s

ever

e” w

eath

er

But

not

con

side

red

a le

gitim

ate

reas

on fo

r exc

lusi

on

Sup

ports

pas

seng

er p

erce

ptio

n th

at d

elay

s ar

e ei

ther

min

or, o

r tra

ins

are

canc

elle

d ou

trigh

t.

“Wha

t do

you

expe

ct?

99 p

er c

ent?

I w

ould

se

ttle

for 9

9 pe

r cen

t for

eve

ryth

ing.

” G

lasg

ow g

roup

, Bus

ines

s/Le

isur

e, O

lder

.

“2.2

per

cen

t? I

thin

k th

at’s

qu

ite re

ason

able

. We

can

live

with

that

.” Lo

ndon

gro

up, B

usin

ess/

Leis

ure,

Old

er

Det

aile

d vi

ew: r

eact

ions

to u

nvei

ling

of C

aSL

Page 35: Train punctuality: the passenger perspectived3cez36w5wymxj.cloudfront.net/migrated/Train... · England, Scotland and Wales in March 2015 (taking place in Cardiff, Glasgow, London

33

Cur

rent

ly, a

ll tra

ins

coun

t equ

ally

tow

ards

pun

ctua

lity

targ

ets

– ea

ch in

divi

dual

trai

n ei

ther

do

es o

r doe

sn’t

arriv

e w

ithin

5 o

r 10

min

utes

of s

ched

uled

tim

e. T

here

is th

eref

ore

exac

tly

the

sam

e in

cent

ive,

from

a p

erfo

rman

ce ta

rget

per

spec

tive,

to ru

n a

train

on

time

that

has

1,

000

pass

enge

rs o

n it

as o

ne w

ith 2

0 pa

ssen

gers

.

On

bala

nce,

mos

t pas

seng

ers

belie

ve th

at a

ll tra

ins

shou

ld c

ount

equ

ally

tow

ards

pun

ctua

lity

targ

ets

They

arg

ue th

at e

very

one

has

mad

e th

e sa

me

cont

ract

with

the

TOC

and

eac

h jo

urne

y sh

ould

ha

ve th

e sa

me

wei

ght

Ther

e is

som

e ar

gum

ent (

parti

cula

rly b

y co

mm

uter

s) th

at jo

urne

ys s

houl

d be

wei

ghte

d by

pas

seng

er

num

bers

A

nd s

ome

susp

icio

n th

at ta

rget

s m

ight

be

mas

sage

d by

ope

rato

rs ru

nnin

g tra

ins

on ‘e

asy’

se

rvic

es to

‘up’

the

aver

age

How

ever

, als

o be

lieve

that

wei

ghtin

g by

pas

seng

er n

umbe

rs m

ight

intro

duce

per

vers

e in

cent

ives

If

targ

ets

are

skew

ed to

bus

y tra

ins,

it is

fear

ed th

at th

e tra

in c

ompa

nies

may

dro

p se

rvic

e st

anda

rds

on q

uiet

er s

ervi

ces

and

not s

trive

to e

nsur

e op

timum

pun

ctua

lity.

“I do

n't t

hink

they

sho

uld

or o

ther

wis

e th

ey

will

end

up

mak

ing

all t

he tr

ains

for l

eisu

re

four

hou

rs la

te, a

nd th

e re

st o

n tim

e!”

Lond

on g

roup

, Bus

ines

s/Le

isur

e, O

lder

.

“But

are

they

look

ing

at th

at s

ayin

g th

ere’

s on

ly 2

0 pe

ople

on

it so

let’s

can

cel i

t bec

ause

it’

s no

t eco

nom

ical

to ru

n it?

“ G

lasg

ow g

roup

, Com

mut

er, Y

oung

er.

Det

aile

d vi

ew: r

eact

ion

to c

alcu

latio

n of

pun

ctua

lity

targ

ets

Page 36: Train punctuality: the passenger perspectived3cez36w5wymxj.cloudfront.net/migrated/Train... · England, Scotland and Wales in March 2015 (taking place in Cardiff, Glasgow, London

34

Kno

wle

dge

of P

PM

/CaS

L an

d ho

w e

ach

mea

sure

is c

alcu

late

d fu

rther

und

erm

ines

pas

seng

ers’

trus

t in

the

railw

ay fo

r a n

umbe

r of r

easo

ns:

Bel

ief t

hat t

arge

ts a

re n

ot s

tretc

hing

eno

ugh

over

all

Targ

ets

seen

as

cont

aini

ng n

umer

ous

loop

hole

s an

d ca

veat

s th

at a

llow

the

indu

stry

to m

assa

ge

the

figur

es

Exp

ecta

tion

that

targ

ets

will

be

treat

ed a

s a

ceili

ng fo

r ser

vice

per

form

ance

and

that

ope

rato

rs

are

only

ince

ntiv

ised

to ‘g

et o

ver t

he li

ne’.

Effe

ct o

n tru

st

“You

trus

t the

m le

ss, k

now

ing

the

deta

il be

hind

the

mea

sure

now

, it’s

like

no

t wha

t we

wou

ld e

xpec

t, ou

r pe

rcep

tion

of 9

5 pe

r cen

t on

time

is

not a

ctua

lly a

ccur

ate.

” Lo

ndon

gro

up, B

usin

ess/

Leis

ure,

O

lder

.

“I sa

id b

efor

e th

at I

trust

if I

had

a co

mpl

aint

but

now

I th

ink

they

’d p

roba

bly

do th

e sa

me

with

thei

r com

plai

nt fi

gure

s an

d sa

y “o

h w

ell,

this

com

plai

nt d

oesn

't

coun

t for

this

reas

on”,

wha

teve

r.”

Gla

sgow

gro

up, B

usin

ess/

Leis

ure,

Old

er.

“A b

unch

of t

hiev

ing

rogu

es!”

Lond

on g

roup

, Bus

ines

s/Le

isur

e,

Old

er.

Page 37: Train punctuality: the passenger perspectived3cez36w5wymxj.cloudfront.net/migrated/Train... · England, Scotland and Wales in March 2015 (taking place in Cardiff, Glasgow, London

35

Spe

ed, p

unct

ualit

y,

frequ

ency

trad

e-of

fs

Page 38: Train punctuality: the passenger perspectived3cez36w5wymxj.cloudfront.net/migrated/Train... · England, Scotland and Wales in March 2015 (taking place in Cardiff, Glasgow, London

36

Pun

ctua

lity

mos

t des

ired

over

spe

ed, f

requ

ency

Mos

t pas

seng

ers

(and

com

mut

ers

in p

artic

ular

) des

ire m

ore

punc

tual

trai

ns

This

is b

ecau

se p

asse

nger

s’ p

rimar

y ai

m is

to a

rriv

e at

thei

r des

tinat

ion

‘on

time’

, reg

ardl

ess

of

how

long

that

jour

ney

take

s A

lso,

refle

cts

belie

f / e

xper

ienc

e th

at d

elay

s oc

cur m

ore

frequ

ently

than

can

cella

tions

Ther

e ar

e a

few

exc

eptio

ns:

Spee

d de

sire

d on

ver

y lo

ng d

ista

nce

jour

neys

(Lon

don

– G

lasg

ow),

to re

duce

jour

ney

time

Freq

uenc

y de

sire

d on

rura

l jou

rney

s, to

ens

ure

train

s ru

n m

ore

regu

larly

Fr

eque

ncy

desi

red

by s

ome

leis

ure

trave

llers

, as

this

sho

uld

resu

lt in

mor

e se

ats

and

ther

efor

e le

ss c

row

ding

A w

ides

prea

d be

lief f

rom

pas

seng

ers

that

ther

e is

no

reas

on w

hy th

e tra

in c

ompa

nies

can

’t de

liver

an

impr

ovem

ent i

n te

rms

of a

ll th

ree

fact

ors:

spe

ed, f

requ

ency

and

pun

ctua

lity

The

indu

stry

’s a

rgum

ent t

hat a

ll th

ree

can’

t be

achi

eved

furth

er c

ompo

unds

a v

iew

that

pa

ssen

gers

’ bes

t int

eres

ts a

re n

ot p

rom

inen

t eno

ugh

Pas

seng

ers

also

arg

ue th

at a

‘one

siz

e fit

s al

l’ ap

proa

ch is

inap

prop

riate

and

that

diff

eren

t jou

rney

s re

quire

diff

eren

t im

prov

emen

t prio

ritie

s.

“Tha

t is

a rid

icul

ous

argu

men

t. I t

hink

bec

ause

w

e gi

ve th

em s

o m

uch

leew

ay th

at is

why

they

ca

n th

en s

ay th

ese

thin

gs.“

Lond

on g

roup

, Com

mut

er, Y

oung

er.

“To

me

it’s

too

top

dow

n, it

’s a

gen

eral

que

stio

n in

gen

eral

term

s, w

hat w

ould

you

like

? B

ut th

e sp

ecifi

c is

sues

are

spe

cific

rout

es s

o w

hy c

an’t

they

add

ress

them

rath

er th

an ju

st s

ayin

g w

e ca

n ha

ve fr

eque

ncy,

spe

ed o

r ?“

G

lasg

ow g

roup

, Com

mut

er, Y

oung

er.

Page 39: Train punctuality: the passenger perspectived3cez36w5wymxj.cloudfront.net/migrated/Train... · England, Scotland and Wales in March 2015 (taking place in Cardiff, Glasgow, London

37

Task

1

60%

40%

Com

mut

ers

mor

e lik

ely

to d

esire

mor

e ‘o

n tim

e’ tr

ains

, ref

lect

ing

mor

e fre

quen

t exp

erie

nce

of d

elay

s an

d m

ore

limite

d im

pact

s of

can

cella

tions

giv

en s

ervi

ce fr

eque

ncy

Thos

e ch

oosi

ng fe

wer

can

cella

tions

(mor

e of

ten

busi

ness

/leis

ure

trave

llers

) arg

ue th

at a

10

min

ute

dela

y is

not

hug

ely

sign

ifica

nt fo

r a lo

nger

jour

ney,

but

a c

ance

llatio

n co

uld

be a

‘dis

aste

r’.

“If I

was

doi

ng a

jour

ney,

say

I w

as

goin

g G

lasg

ow to

Man

ches

ter f

or a

tri

p aw

ay, i

f you

r tra

in’s

can

celle

d,

that

’s y

our t

rip ru

ined

.” G

lasg

ow g

roup

, Com

mut

er,

You

nger

.

“I pu

t the

firs

t one

just

bec

ause

I th

ink

ther

e’s

not

as m

any

canc

ella

tions

as

ther

e ar

e la

te tr

ains

. B

ut a

can

cella

tion

at th

e w

rong

tim

e co

uld

be

terr

ible

but

they

rare

ly g

et c

ance

lled,

com

pare

d to

the

amou

nt th

at a

re la

te.“

Lond

on g

roup

, Com

mut

er, Y

oung

er.

Bas

e: 8

0 C

AU

TIO

N: T

hese

figu

res

shou

ld b

e us

ed o

nly

as a

n in

dica

tion,

due

to th

e lo

w s

ampl

e si

ze

Page 40: Train punctuality: the passenger perspectived3cez36w5wymxj.cloudfront.net/migrated/Train... · England, Scotland and Wales in March 2015 (taking place in Cardiff, Glasgow, London

38

30%

70

%

Com

mut

ers,

aga

in a

re m

ore

likel

y to

des

ire m

ore

‘on

time’

trai

ns

Acc

usto

med

to c

row

ding

and

not

get

ting

a se

at

Pun

ctua

lity

and

getti

ng to

wor

k/m

eetin

gs o

n tim

e is

mor

e im

porta

nt

Bus

ines

s/le

isur

e pa

ssen

gers

des

ire m

ore

com

fort

– cr

owdi

ng/la

ck o

f sea

ting

is a

mor

e si

gnifi

cant

issu

e

Som

e co

mm

uter

s ar

gue

in fa

vour

of a

dditi

onal

trai

ns o

n gr

ound

s th

at s

ervi

ces

ofte

n se

vere

ly

over

crow

ded N

ot a

que

stio

n of

not

get

ting

a se

at, b

ut o

f not

bei

ng a

ble

to g

et o

n th

e tra

in a

t all.

“But

then

you

don

’t re

ally

min

d st

andi

ng o

n th

e tra

in fo

r 15

min

utes

eve

ry m

orni

ng, y

ou w

ould

n't

wan

t to

be s

tand

ing

from

Gla

sgow

to L

ondo

n.“

Gla

sgow

gro

up, B

usin

ess/

Leis

ure,

Old

er.

“I'd

rath

er g

et s

quas

hed

for a

littl

e bi

t. B

ecau

se

we’

re u

sed

to g

ettin

g sq

uash

ed.“

Lond

on g

roup

, Com

mut

er, Y

oung

er.

Task

2

Bas

e: 8

0 C

AU

TIO

N: T

hese

figu

res

shou

ld b

e us

ed o

nly

as a

n in

dica

tion,

due

to th

e lo

w s

ampl

e si

ze

Page 41: Train punctuality: the passenger perspectived3cez36w5wymxj.cloudfront.net/migrated/Train... · England, Scotland and Wales in March 2015 (taking place in Cardiff, Glasgow, London

39

Littl

e de

sire

for a

fast

er s

ervi

ce in

exc

hang

e fo

r mor

e er

ratic

pun

ctua

lity

Pas

seng

ers

do n

ot m

ind

how

long

a s

ervi

ce ta

kes,

pro

vidi

ng it

arr

ives

at t

he s

ched

uled

tim

e A

llow

s th

em to

pla

n/sc

hedu

le

Bel

ief t

hat f

aste

r doe

sn’t

mea

n si

gnifi

cant

ly fa

ster

and

is li

kely

to b

e on

ly o

ne/tw

o m

inut

es

quic

ker.

“If th

ey te

ll m

e it’

s go

ing

to ta

ke 1

0 m

inut

es,

I'm h

appy

for i

t to

take

10

min

utes

, don

’t re

ally

ca

re if

it ta

kes

eigh

t.“

Lond

on g

roup

, Com

mut

er, Y

oung

er.

“Yea

h, if

you

r tra

in jo

urne

y ta

kes

norm

ally

20

min

utes

and

they

can

redu

ce it

to 1

0 m

inut

es

but t

hey

coul

d be

10

min

utes

late

, the

n yo

u're

st

ill g

ettin

g fro

m y

our h

ouse

to y

our u

ltim

ate

dest

inat

ion

at th

e sa

me

time.

I’d

rath

er th

ey

wer

e m

ore

accu

rate

.“ Lo

ndon

gro

up, B

usin

ess/

Leis

ure,

Old

er.

Task

3

10%

90%

B

ase:

80

CA

UTI

ON

: The

se fi

gure

s sh

ould

be

used

onl

y as

an

indi

catio

n, d

ue to

the

low

sam

ple

size

Page 42: Train punctuality: the passenger perspectived3cez36w5wymxj.cloudfront.net/migrated/Train... · England, Scotland and Wales in March 2015 (taking place in Cardiff, Glasgow, London

40

73%

17

%

10%

“I th

ink

gene

rally

mor

e tra

ins

are

dela

yed

than

th

ey a

re c

ance

lled

or d

isru

pted

so

if yo

u're

taki

ng

an a

vera

ge, I

wou

ld ra

ther

that

they

wer

e m

ore

on

time

and

a co

uple

of c

ance

llatio

ns.”

Lond

on g

roup

, Com

mut

er, Y

oung

er.

The

maj

ority

des

ire m

ore

train

s ar

rivin

g on

tim

e –

refle

cts

belie

f / e

xper

ienc

e th

at d

elay

s oc

cur m

ore

frequ

ently

than

can

cella

tions

Thos

e w

ho o

pt fo

r few

er d

ays

of m

ajor

dis

rupt

ion

argu

e th

at th

is w

ill re

duce

the

num

ber o

f peo

ple

stra

nded

/una

ble

to g

et s

omew

here

, par

ticul

arly

on

long

er jo

urne

ys

Whe

reas

can

cella

tions

/del

ays

may

stil

l allo

w a

rriv

al a

t des

tinat

ion,

just

late

.

“I pu

t num

ber t

hree

aga

in b

ecau

se if

you

can

't ge

t th

ere

at a

ll , i

f you

hav

e a

day

of m

ajor

dis

rupt

ion,

if

you

can'

t get

ther

e at

all

it co

uld

real

ly m

ess

up

a ho

liday

or w

hate

ver ,

whe

reas

bei

ng s

light

ly la

te

isn’

t the

end

of t

he w

orld

.” Lo

ndon

Gro

up, B

usin

ess/

Leis

ure,

Old

er.

Task

4

Bas

e: 8

0 C

AU

TIO

N: T

hese

figu

res

shou

ld b

e us

ed o

nly

as a

n in

dica

tion,

due

to th

e lo

w s

ampl

e si

ze

Page 43: Train punctuality: the passenger perspectived3cez36w5wymxj.cloudfront.net/migrated/Train... · England, Scotland and Wales in March 2015 (taking place in Cardiff, Glasgow, London

41

Per

form

ance

mea

sure

men

t tra

de-o

ff ex

erci

ses

Page 44: Train punctuality: the passenger perspectived3cez36w5wymxj.cloudfront.net/migrated/Train... · England, Scotland and Wales in March 2015 (taking place in Cardiff, Glasgow, London

42

Lear

ning

abo

ut s

ome

of th

e cr

iteria

aga

inst

whi

ch P

PM

and

CaS

L ar

e m

easu

red

furth

er e

rode

s pa

ssen

gers

’ per

cept

ions

of t

he c

redi

bilit

y of

thes

e m

easu

res

Pas

seng

ers

are,

aga

in, l

eft ‘

outra

ged’

at s

ome

of th

e ta

ctic

s th

at th

e tra

in c

ompa

nies

can

em

ploy

, sp

ecifi

cally

: A

ddin

g ex

tra ti

me

to th

e tim

etab

le b

etw

een

the

penu

ltim

ate

and

last

sto

p C

ance

l tra

ins

by 1

0pm

the

nigh

t bef

ore

they

are

due

to ru

n an

d th

ey d

on’t

coun

t as

canc

elle

d M

iss

out s

tatio

ns to

sav

e tim

e an

d ge

t sub

sequ

ent t

rain

s ru

nnin

g to

sch

edul

e

This

furth

er s

treng

then

s th

e pe

rcep

tion

that

PP

M/C

aSL

does

not

pro

vide

a re

pres

enta

tive

view

of t

he

train

ser

vice

as

too

man

y ‘lo

opho

les’

exi

st.

“I

thin

k th

e fig

ures

they

see

m to

pub

lish

are

certa

inly

pub

lishe

d to

pul

l the

woo

l ove

r our

eye

s. If

they

just

told

us

wha

t was

ha

ppen

ing,

we

coul

d sa

y “Y

eah,

that

’s o

kay,

we

unde

rsta

nd it

’s

a di

fficu

lt jo

b yo

u’ve

got

to d

o, w

e un

ders

tand

ther

e’s

goin

g to

be

del

ays

and

canc

ella

tions

”, w

e un

ders

tand

all

that

, if y

ou ju

st

told

us

the

truth

then

we’

d be

abl

e to

dea

l with

that

.” G

lasg

ow g

roup

, Bus

ines

s/Le

isur

e, O

lder

.

Furth

er le

arni

ng o

n P

PM

/CaS

L

Page 45: Train punctuality: the passenger perspectived3cez36w5wymxj.cloudfront.net/migrated/Train... · England, Scotland and Wales in March 2015 (taking place in Cardiff, Glasgow, London

43

28%

22

%

25%

15

%

10%

Not

a c

lear

con

sens

us

Som

e se

e th

is a

s ac

cept

able

pro

vidi

ng th

ey a

rriv

e at

thei

r des

tinat

ion

at th

e sc

hedu

led

time

– ex

pect

atio

ns a

re m

anag

ed

Man

y fe

el it

is u

nacc

epta

ble

Ano

ther

way

that

the

figur

es a

re m

anip

ulat

ed

Not

a fa

ir/ge

nuin

e re

flect

ion

of h

ow th

e se

rvic

e ha

s pe

rform

ed

View

ed a

s m

ore

acce

ptab

le if

add

ition

al ti

me

is a

dded

on

at e

very

sta

tion

the

train

sto

ps a

t E

.g. o

ne/tw

o m

inut

es

But

not

just

bet

wee

n pe

nulti

mat

e an

d en

d st

atio

n.

“It’s

not

fixi

ng th

e pr

oble

m. I

t’s ju

st ly

ing

and

sayi

ng

that

it is

on

time,

but

it’s

not

.” G

lasg

ow g

roup

, Bus

ines

s/Le

isur

e, O

lder

.

“If it

sai

d a

coup

le o

f min

utes

fro

m w

hen

it ac

tual

ly a

rriv

es a

t its

des

tinat

ion,

you

kno

w I

wou

ld

rath

er p

erso

nally

that

than

it

arriv

e tw

o m

inut

es la

te a

nd I

mis

s m

y co

nnec

tion.

” G

lasg

ow g

roup

, Com

mut

er,

You

nger

.

“If a

trai

n sa

id it

add

ed a

n ex

tra m

inut

e on

the

time

betw

een

each

sto

p an

d it

actu

ally

took

that

tim

e,

whe

ther

that

mea

nt it

was

goi

ng s

light

ly s

low

er o

r w

hate

ver,

that

I w

ould

n't h

ave

a pr

oble

m w

ith.”

Lond

on g

roup

, Com

mut

er, Y

oung

er.

Task

1

Bas

e: 8

0 C

AU

TIO

N: T

hese

figu

res

shou

ld b

e us

ed o

nly

as a

n in

dica

tion,

due

to th

e lo

w s

ampl

e si

ze

Page 46: Train punctuality: the passenger perspectived3cez36w5wymxj.cloudfront.net/migrated/Train... · England, Scotland and Wales in March 2015 (taking place in Cardiff, Glasgow, London

44

80%

20%

Larg

e m

ajor

ity a

gree

that

an

inte

rval

mea

sure

men

t sys

tem

wou

ld b

e m

ore

appr

opria

te

Per

cept

ion

that

this

wou

ld p

rovi

de a

mor

e ac

cura

te re

flect

ion

of p

unct

ualit

y ex

perie

nced

by

the

maj

ority

of p

asse

nger

s.

“It’s

stil

l goi

ng to

inco

nven

ienc

e th

e fir

st p

eopl

e at

the

plat

form

or s

ome

peop

le o

n on

e tra

in, b

ut fo

r the

maj

ority

it’

s pr

obab

ly g

oing

to im

prov

e th

eir e

xper

ienc

e.”

Lond

on g

roup

, Com

mut

er, Y

oung

er.

Task

2

Bas

e: 8

0 C

AU

TIO

N: T

hese

figu

res

shou

ld b

e us

ed o

nly

as a

n in

dica

tion,

due

to th

e lo

w s

ampl

e si

ze

Page 47: Train punctuality: the passenger perspectived3cez36w5wymxj.cloudfront.net/migrated/Train... · England, Scotland and Wales in March 2015 (taking place in Cardiff, Glasgow, London

45

10%

90%

Mix

ed fe

elin

gs e

xist

on

leaf

mul

ch

Som

e re

cogn

ise

that

it is

a g

enui

ne p

robl

em

Oth

ers

stru

ggle

with

the

conc

ept a

nd d

on’t

belie

ve o

ther

cou

ntrie

s ha

ve s

uch

prob

lem

s

Pas

seng

ers

desi

re a

pre

dict

able

ser

vice

rath

er th

an u

ncer

tain

ty a

nd d

o no

t opp

ose

an a

men

ded

timet

able

S

afet

y is

par

amou

nt

Any

am

ende

d tim

etab

le w

ould

nee

d to

be

in p

lace

for a

lim

ited

perio

d i.e

. tw

o/th

ree

mon

ths

With

adv

ance

not

ice

abou

t its

intro

duct

ion

Thos

e ag

ains

t the

idea

arg

ue th

at th

e TO

Cs

rece

ive

enou

gh le

eway

as

it is

W

hils

t a la

ck o

f tru

st re

sults

in p

asse

nger

s be

lievi

ng th

at T

OC

s w

ould

intro

duce

the

timet

able

s to

o ea

rly o

r whe

n le

af m

ulch

isn'

t a p

robl

em.

“Peo

ple

just

nee

d to

pla

n th

eir

jour

ney,

peo

ple

acce

pt

diffe

rent

tim

es o

f yea

r tha

t yo

u m

ight

not

get

the

sam

e le

vel o

f ser

vice

, it’s

kno

win

g in

adv

ance

so

you

can

take

ot

her a

ctio

n to

get

ther

e.“

Gla

sgow

gro

up, C

omm

uter

, Y

oung

er.

Task

3

Bas

e: 8

0 C

AU

TIO

N: T

hese

figu

res

shou

ld b

e us

ed o

nly

as a

n in

dica

tion,

due

to th

e lo

w s

ampl

e si

ze

Page 48: Train punctuality: the passenger perspectived3cez36w5wymxj.cloudfront.net/migrated/Train... · England, Scotland and Wales in March 2015 (taking place in Cardiff, Glasgow, London

46

40%

60

%

Pas

seng

ers

divi

ded

on th

e in

trodu

ctio

n of

an

amen

ded

timet

able

Saf

ety

is p

aram

ount

A

n am

ende

d tim

etab

le is

like

ly to

be

mor

e pu

nctu

al

But

, any

am

ende

d tim

etab

le

shou

ld b

e co

mm

unic

ated

wel

l in

adva

nce

TOC

s sh

ould

at l

east

atte

mpt

to d

eliv

er th

e fu

ll tim

etab

le

Rat

her t

han

adm

ittin

g de

feat

st

raig

htaw

ay

P

asse

nger

s’ p

erce

ptio

ns o

f ext

rem

e w

eath

er li

kely

to b

e si

gnifi

cant

ly d

iffer

ent

from

TO

Cs’

P

asse

nger

s st

rand

ed a

t non

-sto

ppin

g st

atio

ns

Supp

ort a

n am

ende

d tim

etab

le

Opp

ose

an a

men

ded

timet

able

Per

form

ance

sho

uld

be m

easu

red

agai

nst t

he a

men

ded

timet

able

, pro

vidi

ng p

asse

nger

s ar

e gi

ven

notic

e of

this

and

it is

not

intro

duce

d at

ver

y sh

ort n

otic

e.

“I th

ink

that

they

sho

uld

atte

mpt

to d

o it.

In m

y ex

perie

nce

ther

e’s

like

liter

ally

a c

oupl

e of

sn

owfla

kes

and

that

’s it

the

who

le n

etw

ork

goes

off

. To

be h

ones

t the

y w

ould

brin

g in

an

amen

ded

timet

able

too

soon

, the

y’d

say

right

that

’s

it.”

Gla

sgow

gro

up, C

omm

uter

, Y

oung

er.

Task

4

Bas

e: 8

0 C

AU

TIO

N: T

hese

figu

res

shou

ld b

e us

ed o

nly

as a

n in

dica

tion,

due

to th

e lo

w s

ampl

e si

ze

Page 49: Train punctuality: the passenger perspectived3cez36w5wymxj.cloudfront.net/migrated/Train... · England, Scotland and Wales in March 2015 (taking place in Cardiff, Glasgow, London

47

66%

30

%

4%

1%

0%

Alm

ost u

nani

mou

s ag

reem

ent t

hat t

his

shou

ld n

ot b

e al

low

ed to

hap

pen

Mor

e ac

cept

able

if th

e cu

t off

poin

t was

ear

lier t

han

10pm

and

pas

seng

ers

wer

e gi

ven

mor

e w

arni

ng e

.g. 2

4 ho

urs.

“I co

uld

unde

rsta

nd if

they

had

a

plat

form

whe

re th

ey c

ould

info

rm

ever

yone

“thi

s tra

in’s

can

celle

d” a

nd

you'

re g

iven

ple

nty

of n

otic

e bu

t if t

hey

didn

’t re

ally

pro

vide

not

ice,

I’d

stro

ngly

di

sagr

ee th

at th

is is

acc

epta

ble.

” Lo

ndon

gro

up, C

omm

uter

, You

nger

.

“It d

epen

ds w

hat t

ime

the

train

s ar

e th

e

next

day

ent

irely

bec

ause

you

can

get

a

six

o’ c

lock

trai

n an

d yo

u're

sle

epin

g at

10

pm, I

thin

k it

has

to b

e 12

hou

rs’

notic

e or

som

ethi

ng li

ke th

at.”

Gla

sgow

gro

up, C

omm

uter

, You

nger

.

Task

5

Bas

e: 8

0 C

AU

TIO

N: T

hese

figu

res

shou

ld b

e us

ed o

nly

as a

n in

dica

tion,

due

to th

e lo

w s

ampl

e si

ze

Page 50: Train punctuality: the passenger perspectived3cez36w5wymxj.cloudfront.net/migrated/Train... · England, Scotland and Wales in March 2015 (taking place in Cardiff, Glasgow, London

48

19%

81%

The

maj

ority

feel

that

all

pass

enge

rs s

houl

d be

trea

ted

equa

lly, r

egar

dles

s of

tim

e of

trav

el

Unf

air t

o le

ave

pass

enge

rs s

trand

ed

And

una

ble

to g

et h

ome

Mos

t pas

seng

ers

can

reca

ll a

time

whe

n th

ey h

ave

been

stra

nded

or a

trai

n ha

s no

t st

oppe

d at

thei

r sta

tion

The

only

exc

eptio

n is

Lon

don

Som

e pa

ssen

gers

feel

that

Lon

don

is b

ette

r equ

ippe

d to

cop

e if

they

can

celle

d tra

in

serv

ices

for a

sho

rt pe

riod

Alte

rnat

ive

rout

es/fo

rms

of tr

ansp

ort a

vaila

ble

‘Dis

aste

r day

s’ s

houl

d be

mea

sure

d se

para

tely

in p

unct

ualit

y st

atis

tics

And

mea

sure

d ag

ains

t how

wel

l the

‘dis

aste

r’ w

as d

ealt

with

.

“I th

ink

it’s

the

mos

t fai

r, ev

eryo

ne’s

goi

ng to

get

de

laye

d an

d th

at’s

just

the

way

it g

oes.

You

all

get

dela

yed

toge

ther

.” Lo

ndon

gro

up, B

usin

ess/

Leis

ure,

Old

er.

Task

6

Bas

e: 8

0 C

AU

TIO

N: T

hese

figu

res

shou

ld b

e us

ed o

nly

as a

n in

dica

tion,

due

to th

e lo

w s

ampl

e si

ze

Page 51: Train punctuality: the passenger perspectived3cez36w5wymxj.cloudfront.net/migrated/Train... · England, Scotland and Wales in March 2015 (taking place in Cardiff, Glasgow, London

49

Sum

mar

y

Page 52: Train punctuality: the passenger perspectived3cez36w5wymxj.cloudfront.net/migrated/Train... · England, Scotland and Wales in March 2015 (taking place in Cardiff, Glasgow, London

50

Per

form

ance

mea

sure

s an

d tru

st

Pas

seng

ers’

vie

ws

on p

erfo

rman

ce ta

rget

s an

d m

easu

rem

ent a

re in

form

ed b

y th

e w

ider

con

text

with

in

whi

ch th

ey a

sses

s th

e ra

ilway

s. T

here

are

thre

e ke

y is

sues

:

Lim

ited

trus

t - la

ck o

f tru

st is

a re

curr

ing

them

e in

pas

seng

ers’

ass

essm

ent o

f rai

lway

per

form

ance

Th

is s

tudy

, in

line

with

muc

h pr

evio

us re

sear

ch, h

ighl

ight

s a

larg

e de

gree

of c

ynic

ism

abo

ut th

e m

otiv

es a

nd

beha

viou

r of t

he ra

ilway

s W

hile

this

cyn

icis

m c

an o

ften

appe

ar il

l-inf

orm

ed, i

t ref

lect

s bo

th a

(not

unr

easo

nabl

e) la

ck o

f und

erst

andi

ng

abou

t how

the

railw

ay o

pera

tes

and

the

very

lim

ited

emot

iona

l eng

agem

ent t

hat c

onsu

mer

s ha

ve w

ith th

e ra

ilway

s

As

such

, the

re is

a te

nden

cy to

sus

pect

the

wor

st ra

ther

than

giv

e th

e be

nefit

of t

he d

oubt

– a

n im

pres

sion

that

is

rein

forc

ed w

hen

pass

enge

r lea

rn m

ore

abou

t the

det

ail t

hat s

its b

ehin

d P

PM

and

CaS

L

Lack

of c

ompe

titio

n - w

hile

con

sum

ers

are

ofte

n sc

eptic

al a

bout

the

clai

ms

mad

e by

‘big

bus

ines

s’,

this

is c

ompo

unde

d in

the

case

of t

he ra

ilway

s by

a b

elie

f (w

heth

er ri

ght o

r wro

ng) t

hat t

he in

dust

ry is

no

t sub

ject

to th

e sa

me

leve

l of c

ompe

titiv

e m

arke

t dis

cipl

ine

as o

ther

sec

tors

Th

is h

as th

e co

ntra

dict

ory

effe

ct o

f inc

reas

ing

the

perc

eive

d im

porta

nce

of th

e ra

ilway

s ha

ving

stri

ngen

t pe

rform

ance

targ

ets,

whi

le a

lso

rein

forc

ing

pass

enge

rs’ s

uspi

cion

s th

at th

e ra

ilway

s w

ill d

o no

thin

g m

ore

than

the

bare

min

imum

to re

ach

such

targ

ets

Lack

of t

rans

pare

ncy

- for

the

mos

t par

t, pa

ssen

gers

do

not k

now

wha

t tar

gets

are

set

, by

who

m th

ey

are

set o

r how

they

are

mon

itore

d. F

urth

erm

ore,

eve

n w

hen

they

are

info

rmed

abo

ut ta

rget

s, th

ey

stru

ggle

to s

ee a

link

bet

wee

n th

ese

mea

sure

s an

d th

eir o

wn

jour

ney

expe

rienc

e or

how

thes

e m

easu

res

cont

ribut

e to

ser

vice

impr

ovem

ent m

ore

gene

rally

Li

nkin

g pe

rform

ance

mor

e ex

plic

itly

to c

ompe

nsat

ion

and

/ or f

ines

is s

een

by s

ome

as a

bet

ter w

ay o

f ref

lect

ing

pass

enge

rs’ e

xper

ienc

es b

ut s

ome

feel

suc

h co

sts

will

ulti

mat

ely

be b

orne

by

the

pass

enge

r.

Page 53: Train punctuality: the passenger perspectived3cez36w5wymxj.cloudfront.net/migrated/Train... · England, Scotland and Wales in March 2015 (taking place in Cardiff, Glasgow, London

51

Pas

seng

ers

valu

e P

PM

/CaS

L in

prin

cipl

e, b

ut q

uest

ion

how

th

ese

mea

sure

s ar

e im

plem

ente

d in

pra

ctic

e P

asse

nger

s’ k

ey p

riorit

y is

for r

elia

bilit

y an

d a

such

ther

e is

bro

ad a

gree

men

t tha

t bot

h pu

nctu

ality

(esp

ecia

lly) b

ut a

lso

canc

ella

tions

sho

uld

be s

tring

ently

mea

sure

d

As

such

, bot

h P

PM

and

CaS

L ar

e se

en a

s re

leva

nt a

nd u

sefu

l in

prin

cipl

e H

owev

er, i

n pr

actic

e, th

e ov

eral

l tar

gets

are

see

n as

rela

tivel

y le

nien

t (pa

rticu

larly

PP

M)

The

curr

ent m

easu

res

are

also

con

side

red

to c

onta

in to

o m

any

‘loop

hole

s’ –

this

rein

forc

es p

erce

ptio

ns o

f len

ienc

y an

d un

derm

ines

trus

t in

the

who

le m

easu

rem

ent p

roce

ss

Pas

seng

ers’

resp

onse

to th

e ab

ove

is to

sug

gest

that

mor

e –

and

mor

e de

taile

d –

info

rmat

ion

shou

ld b

e pr

ovid

ed. S

peci

fical

ly:

Mor

e de

tail

Dep

artu

re/a

rriv

al ti

mes

sho

uld

be m

easu

red

for e

very

trai

n st

oppi

ng a

t eve

ry s

tatio

n E

very

ser

vice

and

jour

ney

mea

sure

d In

form

atio

n on

cau

se o

f del

ay/c

ance

llatio

n/di

srup

tion

Sep

arat

e de

finiti

ons

for ‘

sign

ifica

ntly

late

’ on

shor

t and

long

dis

tanc

e tra

ins

Som

e su

ppor

t wei

ghtin

g by

pas

seng

er n

umbe

rs (a

lthou

gh th

e ov

eral

l con

sens

us w

as fo

r m

easu

rem

ent p

er tr

ain)

Less

leni

ent

Am

ount

of ‘

leew

ay’ d

eter

min

ing

‘on-

time’

bas

ed o

n jo

urne

y le

ngth

of t

rain

TO

Cs

not a

llow

ed to

add

ext

ra ti

me

to th

e tim

etab

le b

etw

een

penu

ltim

ate

and

term

inat

ing

stat

ion

Sco

tRai

l to

be m

easu

red

agai

nst C

aSL

Can

cella

tions

and

‘dis

aste

r day

s’ a

lway

s re

cord

ed a

nd m

easu

red

Tran

spar

ency

M

ore

com

mun

icat

ion

that

thes

e m

easu

res

exis

t M

ore

com

mun

icat

ion

abou

t how

thes

e fig

ures

are

cal

cula

ted

and

mon

itore

d P

rovi

ding

som

e of

the

addi

tiona

l det

ail d

escr

ibed

abo

ve m

ight

hel

p to

reas

sure

pas

seng

ers

abou

t the

rele

vanc

e an

d in

tegr

ity o

f PP

M a

nd C

aSL

How

ever

, it h

as to

be

ackn

owle

dged

that

sug

gest

ions

suc

h as

thes

e ar

e, in

par

t, a

func

tion

of p

asse

nger

s ha

ving

bee

n as

ked

to lo

ok a

t per

form

ance

mea

sure

s in

a s

usta

ined

and

det

aile

d w

ay in

a re

sear

ch s

ettin

g. In

real

ity, c

onsu

mer

s ar

e se

ldom

will

ing

to e

ngag

e at

suc

h a

leve

l of d

etai

l, al

thou

gh th

ey b

elie

ve a

cces

s to

suc

h de

tail

shou

ld b

e av

aila

ble

if re

quire

d.

Page 54: Train punctuality: the passenger perspectived3cez36w5wymxj.cloudfront.net/migrated/Train... · England, Scotland and Wales in March 2015 (taking place in Cardiff, Glasgow, London

52

Issu

es to

con

side

r

Pass

enge

rs w

ant t

rain

pun

ctua

lity

and

canc

ella

tions

to b

e m

easu

red

Giv

en th

is, t

here

may

be

mer

it in

pro

vidi

ng a

dditi

onal

det

ail a

bout

targ

ets

and,

inde

ed, i

n m

akin

g ta

rget

s m

ore

strin

gent

But

in a

dditi

on, c

onsi

dera

tion

shou

ld a

lso

be g

iven

to c

omm

unic

atin

g ta

rget

s in

a w

ay th

at h

elps

add

ress

the

bigg

er,

cont

extu

al is

sues

– p

artic

ular

ly th

at o

f tru

st. T

he fo

llow

ing

mig

ht th

eref

ore

be c

onsi

dere

d:

Obj

ectiv

ity a

nd in

depe

nden

ce

Mor

e in

form

atio

n ab

out w

ho s

ets

and

mon

itors

the

targ

ets,

as

wel

l as

reas

sura

nces

that

they

are

man

aged

in

depe

nden

tly a

nd im

parti

ally

with

pas

seng

ers’

bes

t int

eres

ts ‘a

t hea

rt’

Con

sequ

ence

s an

d in

cent

ives

C

omm

unic

atio

n of

why

it is

nec

essa

ry a

nd im

porta

nt fo

r TO

Cs

and

Net

wor

k R

ail t

o m

eet (

or e

ven

exce

ed)

targ

ets

and

the

cons

eque

nces

of n

on-p

erfo

rman

ce

Asp

iratio

nal a

nd p

rogr

essi

ve

Pos

ition

ing

targ

ets

as th

e ‘m

inim

um a

ccep

tabl

e le

vel’

of p

erfo

rman

ce, g

ivin

g an

ass

uran

ce th

at th

e in

dust

ry

striv

es to

exc

eed

thes

e ta

rget

s an

d pr

ovid

ing

evid

ence

that

it d

oes

so o

n oc

casi

ons”

* C

omm

unic

atin

g im

prov

emen

t ove

r tim

e an

d sh

owin

g th

at ta

rget

s w

ork

in s

uppo

rting

con

tinua

l ser

vice

im

prov

emen

t S

impl

icity

C

onsi

dera

tion

mig

ht b

e gi

ven

to re

-fram

ing

targ

ets

away

from

pur

ely

stat

istic

al in

form

atio

n (a

lthou

gh s

till v

ery

muc

h un

derp

inne

d by

‘har

d’ d

ata)

tow

ards

mak

ing

a sm

all n

umbe

r of s

impl

e bu

t def

initi

ve p

rom

ises

, cas

t in

‘con

sum

er’ l

angu

age

and

with

a c

lear

indi

catio

n of

the

cons

eque

nces

of f

ailu

re.

In th

is c

onte

xt, t

arge

ts m

ight

be

bet

ter c

omm

unic

ated

thro

ugh

Cus

tom

er R

epor

ts, w

hich

app

ear t

o ha

ve s

igni

fican

t pot

entia

l for

bui

ldin

g di

alog

ue w

ith p

asse

nger

s*

For e

xam

ple,

‘We

will

onl

y ev

er c

ance

l a tr

ain

for t

he fo

llow

ing

reas

ons.

..’, ‘

If w

e m

ake

you

mor

e th

an X

m

inut

es la

te w

e w

ill re

fund

Y p

er c

ent o

f you

r far

e’ e

tc.

*http

://w

ww

.tran

spor

tfocu

s.or

g.uk

/new

s/ar

ticle

s/tr

ain-

com

pany

-tran

spar

ency

-wel

com

ed-b

y-pa

ssen

gers

-201

5

Page 55: Train punctuality: the passenger perspectived3cez36w5wymxj.cloudfront.net/migrated/Train... · England, Scotland and Wales in March 2015 (taking place in Cardiff, Glasgow, London

53

Transport Focus Links between train punctuality and passenger satisfaction: Journeys across the Greater Anglia franchise in 2012, 2013 & 2014

Page 56: Train punctuality: the passenger perspectived3cez36w5wymxj.cloudfront.net/migrated/Train... · England, Scotland and Wales in March 2015 (taking place in Cardiff, Glasgow, London

54

Executive summary Transport Focus is the independent transport user watchdog charged with representing the interests of: Britain’s rail passengers; bus, coach and tram passengers in England but outside London; and users of the strategic road network in England. Amongst other objectives, Transport Focus seeks to understand the needs and expectations of rail passengers and to secure tangible and measurable improvements for them. To support these objectives Transport Focus commissions and publishes the twice-yearly National Rail Passenger Survey (NRPS), which is the benchmark measure of changes in passengers’ attitudes towards all elements of rail travel in the country.

This report, commissioned by Transport Focus in a joint project with the Office of Rail and Road (ORR), provides the results of a study examining passenger satisfaction, as measured by NRPS, alongside rail industry train punctuality data from 2012 to 2014. The principal aim of the study is to further understand the relationships between passenger satisfaction with punctuality and actual train punctuality.

The analysis matched train punctuality data with individual respondents from the survey, establishing how late the train was at the location where the passenger alighted. This allows a direct comparison to be made between the lateness the passenger experienced and their resulting satisfaction with punctuality.

The report focusses on the Greater Anglia (GA) franchise in order to provide comparability with a 2009 report prepared by CDL (now part of GHD), as well as to inform Transport Focus ahead of the East Anglia franchise competition later in 2015.

The document has been prepared solely based on data from:

NRPS records and corresponding reports, supplied by Transport Focus; and

Train punctuality and timetable data, supplied by Abellio Greater Anglia (AGA).

In discussion with Transport Focus it was agreed that:

Due to potential complications resulting from weekend engineering works, NRPS respondents travelling at weekends would be excluded from the analysis;

Train punctuality data used would be that for weekdays during the NRPS survey periods only; and

Cancelled services would be excluded from the study.

Findings from the analysis Impact of lateness on satisfaction with punctuality

The analysis shows the relationship between passenger satisfaction with punctuality as measured by the NRPS and actual lateness experienced by the passenger concerned. Do passengers notice an increase in lateness? How significant is the impact on their satisfaction?

Across all passengers surveyed in the study period:

82 per cent express satisfaction with punctuality when their service arrives early or on time; and

For every minute of lateness, satisfaction with punctuality decreases by three percentage points.

The characteristics of a passenger’s journey can influence how they perceive lateness. Typically, those passengers who travel more frequently are less satisfied and are more sensitive to worsening punctuality. The following graphs illustrate this for different journey purposes and

Page 57: Train punctuality: the passenger perspectived3cez36w5wymxj.cloudfront.net/migrated/Train... · England, Scotland and Wales in March 2015 (taking place in Cardiff, Glasgow, London

55

travel frequency. Given that these characteristics are clearly linked – commuters travel most frequently – the graphs have similarities.

For journey purpose (as shown in the figure below):

Commuters are less tolerant of lateness than business and leisure travellers; only 74.9 per cent of commuters are satisfied with punctuality when their train is on time;

94 per cent of leisure travellers are satisfied when their train is on time;

For every minute of lateness, commuters’ satisfaction with punctuality declines by five percentage points; this suggests that those passengers who travel most frequently are influenced by previous punctuality experiences when responding to the survey;

Leisure travellers’ satisfaction with punctuality decreases by just one percentage point for every minute of lateness; and

The rate of decline for leisure travellers increases at the eight minute mark, indicating that leisure passengers have heightened awareness of lateness from this point.

For travel frequency (as shown in the figure below):

Passengers travelling more frequently express a lower satisfaction rate than those travelling less frequently even when their service arrives early or on time; their reaction to increased lateness is almost identical to that of commuters; and

Passengers travelling between one and eight times per month respond to lateness in the same way as passengers travelling less than once a month. This indicates that the satisfaction rate of less frequent travellers is defined by their journey purpose rather than their frequency of travel.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10-11 12-15

Prop

ortio

n of

pas

seng

ers

satis

fied

Lateness (minutes)

Changes in satisfaction with punctuality with an increase in minutes of lateness (by journey purpose)

Leisure Commuters Business

Page 58: Train punctuality: the passenger perspectived3cez36w5wymxj.cloudfront.net/migrated/Train... · England, Scotland and Wales in March 2015 (taking place in Cardiff, Glasgow, London

56

Extending this to ticket type, the trend continues. Respondents using weekly, monthly and annual season tickets are less satisfied with punctuality, even when on time. When experiencing delays, their satisfaction with punctuality also declines at a faster rate than those on full and reduced tickets (typically bought by less frequent travellers).

Changes to passenger lateness and satisfaction over time

When a comparison between satisfaction and lateness is considered year by year, conclusions may be drawn about whether passengers’ satisfaction with punctuality follows the trend of the punctuality actually experienced. Most notably (as shown in the figure below):

Of the passengers surveyed, the proportion of passengers arriving within five minutes of their scheduled time increased marginally from 89 per cent (2012) to 91 per cent (2014);

The proportion of passengers arriving on time or early decreased in 2013, but increased again in 2014; and

The response of passengers in terms of their satisfaction with punctuality follows a similar trend, with a dip seen in 2013, followed by a recovery in 2014.

Note that the graph below is only representative of the respondents who were successfully mapped to punctuality data.

Impact of lateness on overall satisfaction

Many years of NRPS results has enabled Transport Focus to determine that satisfaction with punctuality is the key driver for overall satisfaction. As a result, it is expected that the trend

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10-11 12-15Prop

ortio

n of

pas

seng

ers

satis

fied

Lateness (minutes)

Changes in satisfaction with punctuality with an increase in minutes of lateness (by frequency of travel)

Three or more times a week One to eight times per month Less than once a month

89% 88% 91%

63%56% 60%

73% 72% 75%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2012 2013 2014

Prop

ortio

n of

pas

seng

ers

Year

NRPS matched passenger lateness vs passenger satisfaction with punctuality

Proportion of passengers arriving within five minutes of scheduled time (RT5)Proportion of passengers arriving early or on time (RT)Satisfaction with punctuality

Page 59: Train punctuality: the passenger perspectived3cez36w5wymxj.cloudfront.net/migrated/Train... · England, Scotland and Wales in March 2015 (taking place in Cardiff, Glasgow, London

57

between satisfaction and increased lateness to apply to overall satisfaction as well. While other factors clearly influence a passenger’s overall satisfaction, the graph below shows that lateness does play a key part. The key findings are (as shown in the figure below):

Only 83 per cent expressed overall satisfaction with their service when arriving early or on time; and

For each minute of lateness, the overall satisfaction reduces by 1.5 percentage points.

This does not prove a relationship, but indicates that passenger’s overall responses are influenced by punctuality.

This is supported when considering how passengers’ satisfaction with punctuality and overall satisfaction has changed over the three year study period. Both satisfaction with punctuality and overall satisfaction in 2014 improved in comparison with 2012, as shown in the figure below. Note that the data for this graph is taken from the respective NRPS reports and represents the full survey, not just the matched data.

Impact of satisfaction with punctuality on responses to other NRPS questions

The analysis carried out also considers the impact that passenger satisfaction with punctuality has on responses to other NRPS questions, e.g. satisfaction with train cleanliness and crowding. There are three categories of relationship:

Satisfaction drives satisfaction (satisfaction with punctuality drives positive responses to other questions);

Dissatisfaction drives dissatisfaction (dissatisfaction with punctuality drives negative responses to other questions); and

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10-11 12-15

Prop

ortio

n of

pas

seng

ers

satis

fied

Lateness (minutes)

Changes in overall satisfaction with an increase in minutes of lateness

74%78% 80%

70%75% 76%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2012 2013 2014

Prop

ortio

n of

pas

seng

ers

satis

fied

Year

NRPS respondents satisfaction with punctuality and overall satisfaction

Overall satisfaction Satisfaction with punctuality

Page 60: Train punctuality: the passenger perspectived3cez36w5wymxj.cloudfront.net/migrated/Train... · England, Scotland and Wales in March 2015 (taking place in Cardiff, Glasgow, London

58

No significant relationship.

The table below allocates NRPS questions to each category, with the strongest relationship at the top of each column. For example, satisfaction with punctuality drives satisfaction with scheduled journey time in a positive direction. Conversely, dissatisfaction with punctuality means passengers are more likely to be dissatisfied with the value for money of their ticket. Note that the relationship with overall satisfaction, discussed earlier, has also been included in this table. The analysis suggests that satisfaction with punctuality drives overall satisfaction, but dissatisfaction with punctuality does not have the same impact on overall dissatisfaction.

Satisfaction with punctuality drives satisfaction

Dissatisfaction with punctuality drives dissatisfaction

No significant relationship

Overall satisfaction

Scheduled journey time

Value for money of ticket

Sufficient space to sit and stand

Ease of getting on and off the train

Train cleanliness

Comparing train and passenger lateness

The analysis reported up to this point is based on the lateness the passenger experiences. It is important to understand that this can be significantly different from the train lateness that is widely reported by the rail industry in the form of the Public Performance Measure (PPM) and ’right-time’ arrivals. The graph below highlights this by considering only services travelling away from London. The reason these services have been chosen is because the destination of the passenger and of the train is likely to be different. The graph shows there is a one minute lag between the two lines (as shown in the figure below). This means:

If a train from London is reported as being on time, the average passenger will be one minute late; and

On services departing London, 69 per cent of trains arrive at their ultimate destinations on time or early, compared with 56 per cent of passengers arriving at their station on time or early.

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415161718192021222324252627282930

Prop

ortio

n of

pas

seng

ers/

trai

n

Lateness (minutes)

Lateness of train at passenger destination vs train destination (departures from London)

Passenger Train

Page 61: Train punctuality: the passenger perspectived3cez36w5wymxj.cloudfront.net/migrated/Train... · England, Scotland and Wales in March 2015 (taking place in Cardiff, Glasgow, London

59

Passenger satisfaction insight

During the analysis, some useful insight was also gained into how passenger satisfaction varies by passenger characteristic.

Satisfaction by gender: In general female respondents show higher levels of satisfaction – both with punctuality and overall – than male respondents; the difference ranging from two to seven percentage points over the past three years.

Satisfaction by age: Older age groups are considerably more satisfied than younger age groups (as shown below).

Satisfaction by route: All routes have generally been improving with respect to satisfaction with punctuality. None more so than Stansted Express which has satisfaction levels 13 percentage points higher than any other route in 2014, although this may be related to changes in the composition of the Stansted Express building block within NRPS.

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

16-25 26-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+

Prop

ortio

n of

pas

seng

ers

satis

fied

Age groups

Satisfaction with punctuality by age

2012 2013 2014

Page 62: Train punctuality: the passenger perspectived3cez36w5wymxj.cloudfront.net/migrated/Train... · England, Scotland and Wales in March 2015 (taking place in Cardiff, Glasgow, London

60

Table of contents 1. Introduction................................................................................................................................

1.1 Background .....................................................................................................................

1.2 Report structure ..............................................................................................................

2. Approach ...................................................................................................................................

2.1 Source data .....................................................................................................................

2.2 NRPS route definitions....................................................................................................

2.3 Mapping NRPS respondents to delay data ....................................................................

3. Passenger satisfaction observations ........................................................................................

3.1 Application of weighting – gender and age .....................................................................

3.2 Satisfaction by gender and age ......................................................................................

3.3 Satisfaction by time of day ..............................................................................................

3.4 Satisfaction by route .......................................................................................................

3.5 Satisfaction by journey purpose ......................................................................................

4. Influence of satisfaction with punctuality ...................................................................................

4.1 Influence of punctuality on overall satisfaction ...............................................................

4.2 Influence of punctuality on other NRPS criteria ..............................................................

5. Train punctuality observations ..................................................................................................

5.1 Overview .........................................................................................................................

6. Passenger punctuality analysis .................................................................................................

6.1 Overview .........................................................................................................................

6.2 Punctuality by time of day ...............................................................................................

6.3 Punctuality by route ........................................................................................................

6.4 Passenger punctuality vs train punctuality .....................................................................

7. Relationship between satisfaction with punctuality and actual punctuality ...............................

7.1 Satisfaction with punctuality by lateness ........................................................................

8. Relationship between overall satisfaction and actual punctuality .............................................

8.1 Overall satisfaction by length of delay and gender .........................................................

8.2 Overall satisfaction by length of delay and journey purpose ..........................................

9. Impact of remapping .................................................................................................................

Appendix 1 – Passenger punctuality by time of day and route ...........................................................

63

63

63

64

64

65

67

68

68

69

70

71

72

74

74

77

81

81

83

83

83

84

85

87

87

96

96

97

98

99

Page 63: Train punctuality: the passenger perspectived3cez36w5wymxj.cloudfront.net/migrated/Train... · England, Scotland and Wales in March 2015 (taking place in Cardiff, Glasgow, London

61

Table index Table 1 Date ranges and sample size for NRPS datasets ..................................................................

Table 2 Sample size of Bugle data......................................................................................................

Table 3 GA route categorisation and definition ...................................................................................

Table 4 Adjustments made on origin/destination stations for WA remapping ....................................

Table 5 Combined NRPS and Bugle sample size for each year ........................................................

Table 6 Influence of NRPS factors on overall satisfaction ..................................................................

Table 7 Ticket type groupings .............................................................................................................

Figure index Figure 1 NRPS and Bugle data matching process ..............................................................................

Figure 2 Unweighted NRPS respondent proportion based on gender and age .................................

Figure 3 Weighted NRPS respondent proportion based on gender and age .....................................

Figure 4 Overall satisfaction by gender ...............................................................................................

Figure 5 Satisfaction with punctuality by gender .................................................................................

Figure 6 Overall satisfaction by age ....................................................................................................

Figure 7 Satisfaction with punctuality by age ......................................................................................

Figure 8 Satisfaction with punctuality by time of day ..........................................................................

Figure 9 Weighted respondent proportions by route ...........................................................................

Figure 10 Overall satisfaction by route ................................................................................................

Figure 11 Satisfaction with punctuality by route ..................................................................................

Figure 12 Overall satisfaction by journey purpose ..............................................................................

Figure 13 Satisfaction with punctuality by journey purpose ................................................................

Figure 14 Overall satisfaction and satisfaction with punctuality ..........................................................

Figure 15 Approach to determining influence of satisfaction with punctuality ....................................

Figure 16 Example of a matrix that indicates no relationship between satisfaction with punctuality and other NRPS criteria ................................................................................

Figure 17 Example of a matrix that indicates a strong relationship between satisfaction with punctuality and other NRPS criteria ................................................................................

Figure 18 Comparison of satisfaction with punctuality and overall satisfaction ..................................

Figure 19 Comparison of satisfaction with punctuality and journey time ............................................

Figure 20 Comparison of satisfaction with punctuality and value for money ......................................

Figure 21 Comparison of satisfaction with punctuality and crowding .................................................

Figure 22 Comparison of satisfaction with punctuality and ease of being able to get on and off the train ......................................................................................................................

64

65

65

66

67

74

93

67

68

68

69

69

70

70

71

71

72

72

73

73

75

75

76

77

77

78

79

79

80

Page 64: Train punctuality: the passenger perspectived3cez36w5wymxj.cloudfront.net/migrated/Train... · England, Scotland and Wales in March 2015 (taking place in Cardiff, Glasgow, London

62

Figure 23 Comparison of satisfaction with punctuality and train cleanliness ......................................

Figure 24 Train punctuality by year .....................................................................................................

Figure 25 Trains arriving early or on time by departure hour ..............................................................

Figure 26 Trains arriving early or on time by route .............................................................................

Figure 27 Passenger punctuality by year ............................................................................................

Figure 28 Passengers arriving early or on time by departure hour .....................................................

Figure 29 Passengers arriving early or on time by route ....................................................................

Figure 30 Distribution of passenger lateness by route ........................................................................

Figure 31 Train lateness vs passenger lateness .................................................................................

Figure 32 Train lateness vs passenger lateness for services departing London ................................

Figure 33 Comparison of satisfaction with punctuality and actual passenger punctuality ..................

Figure 34 Satisfaction with punctuality vs passenger lateness ...........................................................

Figure 35 Satisfaction with punctuality vs passenger lateness by gender ..........................................

Figure 36 Satisfaction with punctuality vs passenger lateness by age (1) .........................................

Figure 37 Satisfaction with punctuality vs passenger lateness by age (2) .........................................

Figure 38 Satisfaction with punctuality vs passenger lateness by journey purpose ...........................

Figure 39 Satisfaction with punctuality vs passenger lateness by route (1) .......................................

Figure 40 Satisfaction with punctuality vs passenger lateness by route (2) .......................................

Figure 41 Satisfaction with punctuality vs passenger lateness by ticket type (1) ...............................

Figure 42 Satisfaction with punctuality vs passenger lateness by ticket type (2) ...............................

Figure 43 Satisfaction with punctuality vs passenger lateness by frequency of travel .......................

Figure 44 Overall satisfaction vs passenger lateness .........................................................................

Figure 45 Overall satisfaction vs passenger lateness by gender ........................................................

Figure 46 Overall satisfaction vs passenger lateness by journey purpose .........................................

Figure 47 Overall satisfaction - route remapping comparison ............................................................

Figure 48 Satisfaction with punctuality - route remapping comparison ..............................................

Figure 49 Passengers arriving early or on time by hour and route (1) ................................................

Figure 50 Passengers arriving early or on time by hour and route (2) ................................................

80

81

82

82

83

84

84

85

85

86

87

88

88

89

90

90

92

92

94

94

95

96

97

97

98

98

99

99

Page 65: Train punctuality: the passenger perspectived3cez36w5wymxj.cloudfront.net/migrated/Train... · England, Scotland and Wales in March 2015 (taking place in Cardiff, Glasgow, London

63

1. Introduction 1.1 Background

Transport Focus is the independent transport user watchdog charged with representing the interests of Britain’s rail passengers; bus, coach and tram passengers in England but outside London; and users of the strategic road network in England. Amongst other objectives, Transport Focus seeks to understand the needs and expectations of rail passengers and to secure tangible and measurable improvements for them. To support these objectives, Transport Focus commissions and publishes the twice-yearly National Rail Passenger Survey (NRPS), which is the benchmark measure of changes in passengers’ attitudes towards all elements of rail travel in the country.

Evidence from a wide range of research, including that of Transport Focus, has highlighted that punctuality and reliability of train services is one of the key measures of each Train Operating Company’s (TOC’s) NRPS scores. As a result, Transport Focus commissioned this study to further examine the relationship between NRPS results and the punctuality of train services.

The report focusses on the Greater Anglia (GA) franchise in order to provide comparability with a 2009 report prepared by CDL (now part of GHD), as well as to inform Transport Focus ahead of the East Anglia franchise competition later in 2015. The GA franchise is currently operated by Abellio Greater Anglia (AGA).

1.2 Report structure

This report provides insight into satisfaction, train punctuality and passenger punctuality before bringing the elements together. Section 2 details the approach and assumptions made during the data analysis.

The initial focus of the report is on satisfaction among passengers using the GA franchise, with Section 3 presenting NRPS results for satisfaction with punctuality and overall satisfaction. Section 4 considers how these two measures of satisfaction are related, before considering how satisfaction with punctuality influences other NRPS criteria.

The focus then turns to lateness, with Section 5 analysing the punctuality of terminating AGA trains (restricted to those within the NRPS survey dates). Section 6 considers the lateness of services at the passenger’s destination, which is often different from that of the train. Train and passenger punctuality are directly compared in this section.

Section 7 brings Sections 3, 5 and 6 together by mapping NRPS respondents against train punctuality data to analyse how passengers’ satisfaction with punctuality varies as lateness increases. Section 8 repeats the same process, but for overall satisfaction.

Finally, Section 9 gives a summary of the impact of remapping services to London Overground and Crossrail, to enable Transport Focus to understand how passenger satisfaction may change after remapping.

Page 66: Train punctuality: the passenger perspectived3cez36w5wymxj.cloudfront.net/migrated/Train... · England, Scotland and Wales in March 2015 (taking place in Cardiff, Glasgow, London

64

2. Approach 2.1 Source data

For this study, three main sources of data have been used, each of which are explained in more detail in the following sections. These are:

NRPS records1;

Bugle data (train punctuality data, explained in Section 2.1.2)2; and

MOIRA timetable data (explained in Section 2.1.3)3.

The datasets used in this study have been obtained either from publically-available sources or directly from Transport Focus or AGA.

2.1.1 NRPS records

NRPS survey results contain the individual responses from each passenger surveyed, including details of the train service they travelled on. From this dataset it is possible to determine the purpose of their journey, the frequency of travel, personal characteristics, as well as scores for satisfaction of a number of attributes relating to their journey. It is important to emphasise that the satisfaction is intended to relate to the single journey they have undertaken and not be influenced by previous experiences.

The NRPS records date back to 1999 and are published on a twice-yearly basis; each survey period is known as a ‘wave’. In order to establish a suitable sample, the analysis takes into account the NRPS results from the last six waves, covering 2012, 2013 and 2014. Table 1 summarises details of each wave.

Year Wave NRPS Survey Start date

NRPS Survey End date

NRPS sample size

Proportion of Weekday Responses

Spring 2012 26 28-Jan-12 30-Mar-12 2,454 86 per cent

Autumn 2012 27 01-Sep-12 12-Nov-12 2,156 87 per cent

Spring 2013 28 12-Jan-13 24-Mar-13 2,267 87 per cent

Autumn 2013 29 02-Sep-13 11-Nov-13 2,226 86 per cent

Spring 2014 30 02-Feb-14 13-Apr-14 2,313 86 per cent

Autumn 2014 31 02-Sep-14 11-Nov-14 2,226 91 per cent

Table 1 Date ranges and sample size for NRPS datasets

Due to potential complications resulting from weekend engineering works, NRPS respondents travelling at weekends would be excluded from the analysis.

Weighting of survey results

In order to obtain a statistically robust assessment of passenger satisfaction, the NRPS survey obtains results from the whole GA franchise, including different sizes of stations. The results are also obtained at different times of day, and day of week so that the views of a mix of commuters, business and leisure travellers are represented within the published results.

In order that the NRPS results correctly represent the views of all passengers travelling, the individual responses are given a weighting to reflect the significance of the individual response.

1 Received from Transport Focus on 5th February 2015 2 Received from AGA on 31st March 2015 3 Received from AGA on 3rd March 2015

Page 67: Train punctuality: the passenger perspectived3cez36w5wymxj.cloudfront.net/migrated/Train... · England, Scotland and Wales in March 2015 (taking place in Cardiff, Glasgow, London

65

These weightings are used throughout the analysis, except where stated otherwise. A demonstration of the impact of weighting is given in Section 3.1.

2.1.2 Bugle data

DATASYS BUGLE is a rail performance management software tool used widely by the UK rail industry. TOCs use this software to monitor, manage and improve train performance by capturing and analysing train delays and lateness data. The data produced by this software is widely known as Bugle data.

AGA provided the Bugle data for days specific to the NRPS survey. The lateness at every stop for every train service run during these periods has been captured. All cancelled services have been excluded from the Bugle dataset, as they are difficult to quantify in the context of this study. The sample size for each of the waves is as detailed in Table 2.

Period Bugle sample size (number of stops)

Spring 2012 620,837

Autumn 2012 737,410

Spring 2013 726,516

Autumn 2013 741,760

Spring 2014 728,879

Autumn 2014 745,060

Table 2 Sample size of Bugle data

2.1.3 MOIRA timetable data

MOIRA is a software system designed to predict how changes to timetables will affect passenger revenue. For this study, however, the model is used for the source data contained within it, rather than its ability as a revenue forecasting model. The MOIRA data has been used to obtain the specific timetable information on all train services operated by AGA during the sample date ranges described above. This was supplied by AGA.

2.2 NRPS route definitions

The AGA sample for NRPS is organised into routes (or ‘building blocks’) so that variation in satisfaction within the franchise can be understood. Table 3, below, identifies the routes within AGA that were used as part of the analysis, as defined in Transport Focus’s rail passenger satisfaction ‘at a glance’ report.

GA Routes Definition

Intercity London to Norwich journeys, plus a few shorter workings

Mainline Journeys on outer suburban Great Eastern services including London to Ipswich, plus branches to Harwich, Clacton, Walton, Sudbury, Southminster and Braintree. Also includes journeys on London to Southend Victoria service and London Liverpool Street to Chelmsford and Colchester

Metro Journeys on London Liverpool Street to Ilford, Gidea Park and Shenfield

West Anglia Outer Journeys on West Anglia routes London - Hertford East, London to Cambridge, London to King's Lynn, Cambridge to

Page 68: Train punctuality: the passenger perspectived3cez36w5wymxj.cloudfront.net/migrated/Train... · England, Scotland and Wales in March 2015 (taking place in Cardiff, Glasgow, London

66

King's Lynn, Cambridge, Bishop’s Stortford and Hertford East via Tottenham Hale

Stansted Express Journeys on Stansted Express, on Greater Anglia trains which start or end at Stansted Airport, where the passenger has an origin or destination of the airport4

West Anglia Inner Journeys on West Anglia routes London to Enfield Town, London to Chingford, London to Cheshunt and Romford to Upminster.

Rural Journeys on Ipswich to Felixstowe, Lowestoft, Cambridge and Peterborough rail lines, plus Norwich to Lowestoft, Yarmouth, Sheringham and Cambridge lines

Table 3 GA route categorisation and definition

Due to the proposed remapping of West Anglia (WA) services to London Overground and Great Eastern Metro services to Crossrail and London Overground, the latest round of NRPS results (wave 31) has undergone some remapping. This has resulted in some changes to routes allocated to previous NRPS responses as detailed below.

2.2.1 Creation of West Anglia Inner for remapping to London Overground

Historically, within NRPS, West Anglia has been a route on its own. In wave 31 (Autumn 2014), it has been split into West Anglia Inner and West Anglia Outer, as shown in Table 3. This enables the West Anglia Inner sample to be remapped to London Overground in 2015. For this analysis, to enable consistency, all respondents from previous waves have been allocated to Inner and Outer as appropriate.

West Anglia Outer origin/destination West Anglia Inner origin/destination

King’s Lynn Cheshunt

Ely Chingford

Cambridge Enfield Town

Bishop’s Stortford London Fields

Broxbourne

Hertford East

Tottenham Hale

Table 4 Adjustments made on origin/destination stations for WA remapping

2.2.2 Redefining Metro for remapping to Crossrail and London Overground

Historically, the Metro building block has contained Liverpool Street to Shenfield, Liverpool Street to Southend Victoria, Wickford to Southminster and Romford to Upminster trains. In wave 31 (Autumn 2014), the Southend and Southminster trains have been reallocated to the Mainline building block and Romford to Upminster trains to the West Anglia Inner building block. All

4 The composition of the Stansted Express building block has changed in Wave 31 (Autumn 31). Prior to this, the passenger journey was not taken into account, only the origin and destination of the train. No re-categorisation has taken place – in this study – to reflect this change.

Page 69: Train punctuality: the passenger perspectived3cez36w5wymxj.cloudfront.net/migrated/Train... · England, Scotland and Wales in March 2015 (taking place in Cardiff, Glasgow, London

67

respondents in previous waves have been re-categorised to reflect these changes. This enables the Metro route to be remapped to Crossrail in 2015, and the Romford to Upminster services to be remapped to London Overground with the West Anglia Inner services.

2.3 Mapping NRPS respondents to delay data

In order to understand how passengers perceive punctuality, it is necessary to map NRPS respondents to Bugle lateness information. Figure 1 outlines the process undertaken as part of this study.

Figure 1 NRPS and Bugle data matching process

During the mapping process, every NRPS respondent’s journey is matched to a MOIRA service from the respective timetable. As part of a separate process, Bugle services are also mapped to MOIRA services. The MOIRA timetables bring the two datasets together, identifying the lateness that each individual passenger experienced on their journey. The outcome from this matching process is the minutes of lateness – or delay – on arrival at the stations where passengers alight.

Matching the NRPS responses with Bugle data through MOIRA timetables maximises the proportion of successful matches, resulting in a success rate of 94 per cent of 2012 NRPS respondents, 94 per cent of 2013 NRPS respondents and 92 per cent of 2014 NRPS respondents. This results in the sample size, as shown in Table 5, for each of the three years, totalling 10,849 respondents. Note that the six waves have been combined into three years, rather than considered individually, because of the common trend for autumn survey results to be more positive than spring survey results.

Year Sample size

2012 3,714

2013 3,561

2014 3,574

Table 5 Combined NRPS and Bugle sample size for each year

Page 70: Train punctuality: the passenger perspectived3cez36w5wymxj.cloudfront.net/migrated/Train... · England, Scotland and Wales in March 2015 (taking place in Cardiff, Glasgow, London

68

3. Passenger satisfaction observations This section gives an insight into passengers’ responses with respect to satisfaction with punctuality and overall satisfaction.

3.1 Application of weighting – gender and age

Figure 2 outlines the proportion of NRPS survey respondents based on gender and age for the last three years. This is simply based on the number of respondents in each category.

Figure 2 Unweighted NRPS respondent proportion based on gender and age

To illustrate the explanation in Section 2.1.1, if the weighting for each response in NRPS is used, the proportions change slightly. Figure 3 shows the weighted proportion of NRPS respondents based on gender and age, and is more reflective of AGA’s passengers. This illustrates that Transport Focus had surveyed too few male passengers, and thus applied a higher weighting to the responses received from males; likewise for 26-34, 35-44, 45-54 and 65-69 year olds.

Figure 3 Weighted NRPS respondent proportion based on gender and age

The unweighted results show that 53.7 per cent of survey respondents for the past six waves are female. 23.9 per cent of respondents are between the age of 45 and 54 with respondents over the age of 81 forming less than one per cent of survey respondents.

46.3%

53.7%

Male Female

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

Age groups

49%51%

Male Female

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

Age groups

Page 71: Train punctuality: the passenger perspectived3cez36w5wymxj.cloudfront.net/migrated/Train... · England, Scotland and Wales in March 2015 (taking place in Cardiff, Glasgow, London

69

3.2 Satisfaction by gender and age

This section outlines overall satisfaction and satisfaction with punctuality based on the NRPS respondents’ gender and age. In terms of both overall satisfaction (Figure 4) and satisfaction with punctuality (Figure 5), female respondents are more satisfied with punctuality than male respondents. Between 2012 and 2014, overall satisfaction among female respondents remained static whereas male respondents became more satisfied, reducing the gap between the two.

Figure 4 Overall satisfaction by gender

The difference between male and female satisfaction with punctuality is less pronounced than for overall satisfaction; the gap reduced to just two percentage points in 2014.

Figure 5 Satisfaction with punctuality by gender

Figure 6 outlines the variations in overall satisfaction by different age categories. For the three years of study, respondents in age categories 26-34, 35-44 and 45-54 are the least satisfied age groups. Respondents in age categories 65+ are generally more satisfied in terms of overall satisfaction.

83% 80%83%

72%75% 76%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2012 2013 2014

Prop

ortio

n of

pas

seng

ers

satis

fied

Year

Female Male

79%76% 77%

72% 73% 75%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2012 2013 2014

Prop

ortio

n of

pas

seng

ers

satis

fied

Year

Female Male

Page 72: Train punctuality: the passenger perspectived3cez36w5wymxj.cloudfront.net/migrated/Train... · England, Scotland and Wales in March 2015 (taking place in Cardiff, Glasgow, London

70

Figure 6 Overall satisfaction by age

Figure 7 shows how satisfaction with punctuality varies according to the defined age group categories. The trend of increasing satisfaction with age is more pronounced for satisfaction with punctuality with each age range taking a distinct step up. The only exception is in 2014, where 16-25 year olds are more satisfied than 26-34 year olds. This does not impact significantly on the observation.

Figure 7 Satisfaction with punctuality by age

3.3 Satisfaction by time of day

This section considers whether time of travel has an impact on satisfaction with punctuality. The results displayed in Figure 85 are based on NRPS respondents’ journey departure time. Using departure time makes definition of ‘peak’ more difficult; AM peak is usually defined by the time of arrival at the train’s destination. The term ‘peak’ in this report refers to passengers departing between 0700 and 1000 and between 1600 and 1900.

Figure 8 shows there is a notable decline in satisfaction during the peak hours. Section 3.5 discusses the difference in satisfaction between commuters and other travellers, stating that commuters are generally less satisfied, which could be the reason for the decline. In order to provide clarity, the train and passenger punctuality needs to be considered. Sections 5.1.1 and 6.2, respectively, look at this.

5 Due to significantly lower number of respondents using services before 0600 and after 2000, the outcome displayed is limited to hours between 0600 and 2000.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

16-25 26-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+

Prop

ortio

n of

pas

seng

ers

satis

fied

Age groups

2012 2013 2014

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

16-25 26-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+

Prop

ortio

n of

pas

seng

ers

satis

fied

Age groups

2012 2013 2014

Page 73: Train punctuality: the passenger perspectived3cez36w5wymxj.cloudfront.net/migrated/Train... · England, Scotland and Wales in March 2015 (taking place in Cardiff, Glasgow, London

71

Figure 8 Satisfaction with punctuality by time of day

3.4 Satisfaction by route

In order to better understand the franchise, the NRPS data were categorised according to the routes described in Table 3. For context, Figure 9 shows the distribution of NRPS respondents based on the routes they travel on; over 60 per cent of respondents travel on GE routes. To understand the extent of the remapping, 29 per cent of demand is to be transferred to either London Overground or Crossrail in 2015.

Figure 9 Weighted respondent proportions by route

Figure 10 shows that, in comparison with 2012, overall satisfaction in 2014 increased on all routes, with the exception of Rural. Respondents using Stansted Express services have the highest level of overall satisfaction. This may, however, relate to changes in composition of the Stansted Express building block within NRPS.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Prop

ortio

n of

pas

seng

ers

satis

fied

Departure hour

2012 2013 2014

9.2%

36.4%

4.8%

16.6%

14.5%

3.7%

14.7%

Intercity

Mainline

Rural

West Anglia Outer

West Anglia Inner

Stansted Express

Metro

Page 74: Train punctuality: the passenger perspectived3cez36w5wymxj.cloudfront.net/migrated/Train... · England, Scotland and Wales in March 2015 (taking place in Cardiff, Glasgow, London

72

Figure 10 Overall satisfaction by route

Similarly, Figure 11 displays how satisfaction with punctuality across the GA routes changed over the past three years. The results show that respondents using Stansted Express, Mainline, West Anglia Outer, Rural and Metro are more satisfied in 2014 than in 2012. Notably, Stansted Express has seen the greatest rate of improvement resulting in a level of satisfaction some 13 percentage points higher than any other routes.

Figure 11 Satisfaction with punctuality by route

3.5 Satisfaction by journey purpose

NRPS respondents can select commute, business or leisure as their journey purpose. The lowest overall satisfaction of the three is recorded by commuters with an average of just 73 per cent satisfied across the last three years, compared with 89 per cent satisfaction amongst leisure travellers. Figure 12 illustrates this, showing a higher rate of overall satisfaction in 2014 than in 2012 across all journey purposes.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Intercity StanstedExpress

Mainline West AngliaOuter

West AngliaInner

Metro Rural

Prop

ortio

n of

pas

seng

ers

satis

fied

Routes

2012 2013 2014

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Intercity StanstedExpress

Mainline West AngliaOuter

West AngliaInner

Metro Rural

Prop

ortio

n of

pas

seng

ers

satis

fied

Routes

2012 2013 2014

Page 75: Train punctuality: the passenger perspectived3cez36w5wymxj.cloudfront.net/migrated/Train... · England, Scotland and Wales in March 2015 (taking place in Cardiff, Glasgow, London

73

Figure 12 Overall satisfaction by journey purpose

A repeat of the above analysis for satisfaction with punctuality shows that the commuter impact is more pronounced, with 68 per cent of commuters satisfied in comparison with 90 per cent of leisure travellers. When considering satisfaction by time of day in parallel (Figure 8), there is a clear link between poor peak satisfaction and poor commuter satisfaction. The cause of this will become clearer when considering the punctuality data in latter sections.

Figure 13 Satisfaction with punctuality by journey purpose

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2012 2013 2014

Prop

ortio

n of

pas

seng

ers

satis

fied

Year

Business Leisure Commute

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2012 2013 2014

Prop

ortio

n of

pas

seng

ers

satis

fied

Year

Business Leisure Commute

Page 76: Train punctuality: the passenger perspectived3cez36w5wymxj.cloudfront.net/migrated/Train... · England, Scotland and Wales in March 2015 (taking place in Cardiff, Glasgow, London

74

4. Influence of satisfaction with punctuality As part of each NRPS publication, Transport Focus publishes a supporting document6 known as the Multivariate Analysis Report. It outlines the factors that are the biggest drivers of overall satisfaction. The results are summarised in Table 6.

4.1 Influence of punctuality on overall satisfaction

Over the history of the NRPS, the results show that passengers are most likely to be satisfied with their journey if they are satisfied with punctuality/reliability. However, the statistics show a reduction in strength of the relationship between punctuality and overall satisfaction for the Greater Anglia franchise. In Spring 2012, punctuality/reliability contributed 43 per cent as a driver of overall satisfaction. This declined to 31 per cent in Spring 2014. Other factors, such as cleanliness of the inside of the train, are having an increasing impact on overall satisfaction. This is common on routes where punctuality has improved.

Multivariate Analysis Factors

Spring 2012 (Wave 26)

Autumn 2012 (Wave 27)

Spring 2013 (Wave 28)

Autumn 2013 (Wave 29)

Spring 2014 (Wave 30)

Autumn 2014 (Wave 31)

Punctuality/reliability (i.e. the train arriving/departing on time)

42.8% 36.4% 34.2% 36.7% 31.0% 26.0%

The cleanliness of the inside of the train

11.5% 13.2% 19.3% 19.3% 23.1% 21.4%

The length of time the journey was scheduled to take (speed)

6.3% 11.8% 10.7% 11.2% 10.6% 9.2%

The ease of being able to get on and off the train

4.3% 1.8% 5.2% 3.5% 6.8% 12.3%

Sufficient room for all the passengers to sit/stand

4.7% 3.0% 3.2% 3.8% 3.8% 6.3%

Other (5 per cent or less per factor (based on wave 31 results)

30.4% 48.0% 27.4% 25.5% 24.7% 24.8%

Total Variance 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Table 6 Influence of NRPS factors on overall satisfaction

Nevertheless, it is clear that satisfaction with punctuality is still the main driver. Therefore a strong relationship between overall satisfaction and satisfaction with punctuality is still expected to be evident in this study.

Figure 14 compares overall satisfaction with satisfaction with punctuality across AGA. As expected, with increased satisfaction with punctuality, overall satisfaction also increases. This does not prove a relationship, but suggests the presence of one. Note that the values in this graph are sourced from the NRPS report, representing the full sample of passengers surveyed.

6 Downloaded from http://www.transportfocus.org.uk/research/rail-research

Page 77: Train punctuality: the passenger perspectived3cez36w5wymxj.cloudfront.net/migrated/Train... · England, Scotland and Wales in March 2015 (taking place in Cardiff, Glasgow, London

75

Figure 14 Overall satisfaction and satisfaction with punctuality

To further investigate this relationship, and to draw a conclusion regarding the relationship between satisfaction with punctuality and other NRPS criteria (Section 4.2) the following approach has been applied to compare the responses to two different NRPS questions.

In responding to NRPS survey questions, respondents have five options available to them (excluding the option to ignore the question), namely:

Very satisfied;

Fairly satisfied;

Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied;

Fairly dissatisfied; and

Very dissatisfied.

Figure 15 illustrates that each response option is assessed in isolation. This means, for all passengers who answered that they are very satisfied with punctuality, the proportion of these passengers who are very satisfied with the second criteria is calculated, along with the proportion who are fairly satisfied and so on.

Figure 15 Approach to determining influence of satisfaction with punctuality

The outcome of the analysis is displayed in matrices using a coloured format where any relationship between punctuality and the selected NRPS criteria is defined based on the following.

74% 78% 80%70%

75% 76%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

2012 2013 2014

Prop

ortio

n of

pas

seng

ers

satis

fied

Year

Overall satisfaction Satisfaction with punctuality

Page 78: Train punctuality: the passenger perspectived3cez36w5wymxj.cloudfront.net/migrated/Train... · England, Scotland and Wales in March 2015 (taking place in Cardiff, Glasgow, London

76

As an example, Figure 16 is an illustration of a scenario where there is no relationship between satisfaction with punctuality and the other criteria. Note, in this and all matrices, each column adds up to 100 per cent, emphasising that the group of respondents who answered ‘very satisfied’ with punctuality are considered in isolation from those who answered ‘fairly satisfied’ with punctuality. In this example, the split of satisfaction with the second NRPS criteria is identical regardless of the response to satisfaction with punctuality. As a result, regardless of whether a passenger is very satisfied or very dissatisfied with punctuality, they have a 45 per cent chance of being very satisfied with the second criteria. This results in the colours being consistent row by row.

Figure 16 Example of a matrix that indicates no relationship between satisfaction with punctuality and other NRPS criteria

Figure 17, conversely, illustrates an example of a strong relationship. In this example, if a passenger is very satisfied with punctuality, they are more likely to be very satisfied with the other criteria. As a result, if a passenger is very satisfied with punctuality, there is a 75 per cent chance they are very satisfied with the second criteria. However, if they are very dissatisfied with punctuality, there is zero per cent chance of them being very satisfied with the second criteria. This results in a green diagonal across the matrix.

Very Weak Very StrongStrongNeutralWeak

Very Dissatisfied

Fairly Dissatisfied

NeitherFairly

SatisfiedVery

Satisfied

1 2 3 4 5

Ver

y D

issa

tisfie

d

1 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%

Fai

rly

Dis

satis

fied

2 10% 10% 10% 10% 10%

Nei

ther

3 15% 15% 15% 15% 15%

Fai

rly

Sat

isfie

d

4 25% 25% 25% 25% 25%

Ver

y S

atis

fied

5 45% 45% 45% 45% 45%

Satisfaction with Punctuality

NR

PS

Crit

eria

Page 79: Train punctuality: the passenger perspectived3cez36w5wymxj.cloudfront.net/migrated/Train... · England, Scotland and Wales in March 2015 (taking place in Cardiff, Glasgow, London

77

Figure 17 Example of a matrix that indicates a strong relationship between satisfaction with punctuality and other NRPS criteria

Before considering, other NRPS criteria, this approach is applied to Overall Satisfaction to further understand the relationship. Figure 18 provides a comparison between the responses to satisfaction with punctuality and overall satisfaction in the AGA NRPS results for 2012, 2013 and 2014. While the green diagonal is not as obvious as the example above, it is still present, particularly relating to the higher levels of satisfaction. It shows that when passengers are satisfied with punctuality they are more likely to be satisfied overall. However, at low levels of satisfaction with punctuality, the overall satisfaction is spread. This indicates that satisfaction with punctuality drives overall satisfaction, strengthening the view that the two are closely linked. The same cannot be said for dissatisfaction; a passenger dissatisfied with punctuality is not necessarily dissatisfied overall.

Figure 18 Comparison of satisfaction with punctuality and overall satisfaction

4.2 Influence of punctuality on other NRPS criteria

As demonstrated in Table 6, passengers’ satisfaction with punctuality influences their satisfaction with other factors measured by NRPS. This has been tested through the production of a series of the matrices described in Section 4.1 looking at the relationship with:

Scheduled journey time;

Very Dissatisfied

Fairly Dissatisfied

NeitherFairly

SatisfiedVery

Satisfied

1 2 3 4 5

Ver

y D

issa

tisfie

d

1 75% 15% 8% 2% 0%

Fai

rly

Dis

satis

fied

2 15% 60% 15% 8% 2%

Nei

ther

3 8% 15% 54% 15% 8%

Fai

rly

Sat

isfie

d

4 2% 8% 15% 60% 15%

Ver

y S

atis

fied

5 0% 2% 8% 15% 75%

NR

PS

Crit

eria

Satisfaction with Punctuality

Very Dissatisfied

Fairly Dissatisfied

NeitherFairly

SatisfiedVery Satisfied

1 2 3 4 5

Ver

y D

issa

tisfie

d

1 19% 3% 1% 1% 0%

Fai

rly

Dis

satis

fied

2 32% 19% 8% 3% 1%

Nei

ther

3 24% 31% 34% 13% 3%

Fai

rly

Sat

isfie

d

4 25% 42% 50% 68% 39%

Ver

y S

atis

fied

5 2% 4% 6% 16% 57%

Satisfaction with Punctuality

Ove

rall

Sat

isfa

ctio

n

Page 80: Train punctuality: the passenger perspectived3cez36w5wymxj.cloudfront.net/migrated/Train... · England, Scotland and Wales in March 2015 (taking place in Cardiff, Glasgow, London

78

Value for money;

Sufficient space to sit and stand;

Ease of being able to get on and off the train; and

Cleanliness of the inside of the train.

4.2.1 Influence of punctuality on satisfaction with scheduled journey time

Figure 19 considers how passenger satisfaction with punctuality impacts on satisfaction with the scheduled journey time. The green diagonal axis indicates a reasonable correlation between the two. This says either:

a. Passengers cannot distinguish between scheduled journey time and delay; or

b. Passenger’s view of scheduled journey time is influenced by their views of punctuality.

Given that the highest values are skewed towards the right hand corner of the matrix, it indicates that, for this measure, satisfaction drives satisfaction. As a result, if a passenger is satisfied with punctuality they are also more likely to be satisfied with scheduled journey time.

Figure 19 Comparison of satisfaction with punctuality and journey time

4.2.2 Influence of punctuality on satisfaction with value for money

The relationship with value for money is slightly different (Figure 20). The green diagonal axis is more definitive towards the low satisfaction end of the matrix, meaning passengers are very unlikely to be satisfied with value for money if they are dissatisfied with punctuality. For this, the conclusion drawn is that dissatisfaction with punctuality drives dissatisfaction with value for money.

Very Dissatisfied

Fairly Dissatisfied

NeitherFairly

SatisfiedVery Satisfied

1 2 3 4 5

Ver

y D

issa

tisfie

d

1 26% 4% 3% 1% 0%

Fai

rly

Dis

satis

fied

2 15% 19% 10% 4% 2%

Nei

ther

3 26% 27% 38% 8% 3%

Fai

rly

Sat

isfie

d

4 27% 42% 43% 73% 17%

Ver

y S

atis

fied

5 6% 9% 6% 14% 78%

The

leng

th o

f tim

e th

e jo

urne

y w

as s

ched

uled

to

take

(s

peed

)

Satisfaction with Punctuality

Page 81: Train punctuality: the passenger perspectived3cez36w5wymxj.cloudfront.net/migrated/Train... · England, Scotland and Wales in March 2015 (taking place in Cardiff, Glasgow, London

79

Figure 20 Comparison of satisfaction with punctuality and value for money

4.2.3 Influence of punctuality on satisfaction with available space

Considering passengers’ responses to the question about sufficient space to sit or stand (Figure 21) shows passengers are unlikely to be dissatisfied with space if the train is on time. This may be because a high proportion of these trains are not crowded. It may also be because passengers who board crowded trains tolerate having to stand if the train takes its scheduled time, but become less satisfied if it is late. This is reflected by an increased tendency to be dissatisfied with availability of space when satisfaction with punctuality decreases.

Figure 21 Comparison of satisfaction with punctuality and crowding

4.2.4 Influence of punctuality on satisfaction with ease of getting on and off the train

With respect to ease of being able to get on and off the train, the strength of influence from satisfaction with punctuality is insignificant. In all columns, the level of response is not significantly different to be able to determine a relationship (Figure 22).

Very Dissatisfied

Fairly Dissatisfied

NeitherFairly

SatisfiedVery Satisfied

1 2 3 4 5

Ver

y D

issa

tisfie

d

1 63% 42% 32% 18% 7%

Fai

rly

Dis

satis

fied

2 18% 30% 31% 27% 16%

Nei

ther

3 9% 16% 23% 24% 19%

Fai

rly

Sat

isfie

d

4 6% 11% 10% 26% 31%

Ver

y S

atis

fied

5 3% 1% 3% 5% 27%The

val

ue f

or m

oney

for

the

pric

e of

you

r tic

ket

Satisfaction with Punctuality

Very Dissatisfied

Fairly Dissatisfied

NeitherFairly

SatisfiedVery Satisfied

1 2 3 4 5

Ver

y D

issa

tisfie

d

1 31% 20% 13% 7% 2%

Fai

rly

Dis

satis

fied

2 16% 16% 14% 10% 4%

Nei

ther

3 16% 19% 29% 19% 8%

Fai

rly

Sat

isfie

d

4 25% 35% 33% 48% 38%

Ver

y S

atis

fied

5 13% 11% 11% 16% 47%

Satisfaction with Punctuality

Suf

ficie

nt r

oom

for

all

the

pass

enge

rs t

o si

t/st

and

Page 82: Train punctuality: the passenger perspectived3cez36w5wymxj.cloudfront.net/migrated/Train... · England, Scotland and Wales in March 2015 (taking place in Cardiff, Glasgow, London

80

Figure 22 Comparison of satisfaction with punctuality and ease of being able to get on and off the train

4.2.5 Influence of punctuality on satisfaction with train cleanliness

Comparing satisfaction with punctuality and cleanliness of the inside of the train, there is also no significant relationship. Cleanliness of the inside of the train is noted as the second biggest driver of overall satisfaction in Table 6. In order for it to be a key driver alongside punctuality, it is reasonable to expect the two to have differing characteristics. In all columns, the proportion of people who are satisfied is reasonably consistent in comparison to other criteria (Figure 23).

Figure 23 Comparison of satisfaction with punctuality and train cleanliness

Very Dissatisfied

Fairly Dissatisfied

NeitherFairly

SatisfiedVery Satisfied

1 2 3 4 5

Ver

y D

issa

tisfie

d

1 11% 4% 3% 2% 1%

Fai

rly

Dis

satis

fied

2 10% 8% 6% 4% 2%

Nei

ther

3 23% 22% 32% 17% 7%

Fai

rly

Sat

isfie

d

4 40% 51% 49% 59% 42%

Ver

y S

atis

fied

5 16% 14% 10% 18% 48%

Satisfaction with Punctuality

The

eas

e of

bei

ng a

ble

to g

et o

n an

d of

f th

e tr

ain

Very Dissatisfied

Fairly Dissatisfied

NeitherFairly

SatisfiedVery Satisfied

1 2 3 4 5

Ver

y D

issa

tisfie

d

1 17% 10% 6% 4% 2%

Fai

rly

Dis

satis

fied

2 23% 21% 16% 13% 7%

Nei

ther

3 21% 27% 34% 21% 12%

Fai

rly

Sat

isfie

d

4 32% 36% 38% 52% 48%

Ver

y S

atis

fied

5 8% 6% 4% 9% 31%

Satisfaction with Punctuality

The

cle

anlin

ess

of t

he in

side

of

the

trai

n

Page 83: Train punctuality: the passenger perspectived3cez36w5wymxj.cloudfront.net/migrated/Train... · England, Scotland and Wales in March 2015 (taking place in Cardiff, Glasgow, London

81

5. Train punctuality observations This section looks at how AGA’s train punctuality at terminus has changed over the past three years. This includes analysis of punctuality by route and by time of day, limited to the NRPS survey dates. This section takes into account all the train services that were not subject to cancellation.

5.1 Overview

Within the NRPS survey dates for the past three years, the proportion of trains arriving early or on time (‘right-time’) has decreased from 70 per cent in 2012 to 68 per cent in 2014, while the proportion within five minutes of scheduled time (RT5) has remained consistent at around 91%. There is, on average, a 23 percentage points difference between the proportion of ‘right-time’ and the proportion of RT5. This is comparable with the latest information published by Network Rail showing a 91 per cent Moving Annual Average (MAA). Figure 24 outlines the variations in ‘right-time’ and RT5 services across AGA over the three years of the study.

Figure 24 Train punctuality by year

5.1.1 Punctuality by time of day

This section considers how the proportion of services arriving at their destination on time varies by time of day. As shown in Figure 257, the proportion is generally lower in peak departure hours compared with those departing in off peak hours. This conclusion supports the analysis in Section 3.3 on passenger satisfaction, where satisfaction is generally lower in peak hours.

7 Due to significantly lower number of respondents using services before 0600 and after 2000, the outcome displayed below is limited to hours between 0600 and 2000.

70% 68% 68%

92% 91% 92%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2012 2013 2014

Prop

ortio

n of

trai

ns

Year

Arriving early or on time (RT) Arriving within five minutes of scheduled arrival time (RT5)

Page 84: Train punctuality: the passenger perspectived3cez36w5wymxj.cloudfront.net/migrated/Train... · England, Scotland and Wales in March 2015 (taking place in Cardiff, Glasgow, London

82

Figure 25 Trains arriving early or on time by departure hour

5.1.2 Punctuality by route

Figure 26 outlines the proportion of services arriving early or on time at their destination across the franchise, illustrating an improvement in punctuality across West Anglia, including Stansted Express. The Stansted Express results reflect the large improvement in passenger satisfaction seen on this route in Figure 10, which may be because of changes to the definition of the NRPS building block. However, Figure 10 also shows improvements in satisfaction on Great Eastern routes, where train performance worsened. The only route that shows worsening train performance and worsening passenger satisfaction is Rural.

Figure 26 Trains arriving early or on time by route

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Prop

ortio

n of

trai

ns

Departure hour

2012 2013 2014

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Intercity StanstedExpress

Mainline West AngliaOuter

West AngliaInner

Metro Rural

Prop

ortio

n of

trai

ns

Routes

2012 2013 2014

Page 85: Train punctuality: the passenger perspectived3cez36w5wymxj.cloudfront.net/migrated/Train... · England, Scotland and Wales in March 2015 (taking place in Cardiff, Glasgow, London

83

6. Passenger punctuality analysis

This section looks at how the punctuality of the train service at intermediate stations impacts on the punctuality experienced by the passenger. While train punctuality is measured at train destination, a high proportion of passengers do not alight there. This section, therefore, considers the punctuality of passengers when they arrive at their destination.

6.1 Overview

Figure 27 outlines the variations in the proportion of passengers arriving early or on time and those arriving within five minutes of the scheduled arrival time across the franchise for the three years of the study. These follow a similar trend to those for train destination with a decrease in the level of ‘right-time’ arrivals. The proportion of respondents arriving early or on time declined to 60 per cent in 2014 in comparison with 63 per cent in 2012. However, the proportion of respondents arriving within five minutes of their scheduled arrival time (RT5) improved by two percentage points to 91 per cent.

Figure 27 Passenger punctuality by year

6.2 Punctuality by time of day

Sections 3.3 and 5.1.1 showed that both satisfaction with punctuality and actual punctuality of trains are at their lowest in peak hours. Figure 28 is more difficult to draw conclusions from as the sample of passengers is considerably smaller than the sample of trains. On average, for 2014, 57 per cent of passengers arrived on time in the AM peak, 58 per cent in the PM peak and 64 per cent in the off-peak. Therefore, at a high level, punctuality in the peaks is lower for passengers as well as for trains, and explains passenger satisfaction with punctuality being lower in these periods.

89% 88%91%

63%56%

60%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2012 2013 2014

Prop

ortio

n of

pas

seng

ers

Year

Arriving within five minutes of scheduled time (RT5) Arriving early or on time (RT)

Due to significantly lower number of respondents using services before 0600 and after 2000, analysis by time of

day is limited to hours between 0600 and 2000.

Page 86: Train punctuality: the passenger perspectived3cez36w5wymxj.cloudfront.net/migrated/Train... · England, Scotland and Wales in March 2015 (taking place in Cardiff, Glasgow, London

84

Figure 28 Passengers arriving early or on time by departure hour

6.3 Punctuality by route

When considering passenger punctuality by route, the results are very similar to those seen in Section 5.1.2. Improvements in ‘right-time’ arrivals have been seen on West Anglia routes; most notably on Stansted Express. The improvements seen on Stansted Express are more significant from a passenger perspective than they are from a train perspective, and are more aligned with the scale of improved satisfaction seen in Section 3.4, which, as noted, may be because of changes in how the Stansted Express building block is defined within NRPS. The worsening punctuality seen on Great Eastern routes is not reflected in passenger satisfaction with punctuality and would require further consideration.

Figure 29 Passengers arriving early or on time by route

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Prop

ortio

n of

pas

seng

ers

Departure hour

2012 2013 2014

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Intercity StanstedExpress

Mainline West AngliaOuter

West AngliaInner

Metro Rural

Prop

ortio

n of

pas

seng

ers

Route

2012 2013 2014

Page 87: Train punctuality: the passenger perspectived3cez36w5wymxj.cloudfront.net/migrated/Train... · England, Scotland and Wales in March 2015 (taking place in Cardiff, Glasgow, London

85

Considering the full breakdown of lateness at route level indicates that, on most routes, the proportion of respondents arriving significantly late is notably low, reflecting the PPM levels of around 90 per cent. Exceptions to this are Mainline and Intercity routes which see nearly five per cent of services arrive more than 15 minutes late.

Figure 30 Distribution of passenger lateness by route

6.3.1 Punctuality by time of day and route

Due to small sample size in some time bands, the trends seen by time of day at route level are not presented here. The charts have been retained in the Appendix for reference.

6.4 Passenger punctuality vs train punctuality

The analysis in Section 6 is based on passenger lateness. It is important to note that this can be significantly different from train lateness, whether Public Performance Measure (PPM) or ‘right-time’. When comparing the recorded train punctuality with actual passenger experience – as seen in Figure 31 – there is a distinct gap between the two. This demonstrates that, even though a train arrives on time, some passengers do not.

Figure 31 Train lateness vs passenger lateness

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Intercity StanstedExpress

Mainline West AngliaOuter

West AngliaInner

Metro Rural

Prop

ortio

n of

pas

seng

ers

Routes

RT or Early 1-4 minutes late 5-14 minutes late

15-29 minutes late 30-59 minutes late 60+ minutes late

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 171819 20 21 22 23 24 25 2627 28 29 30Prop

ortio

n pa

ssen

gers

/trai

ns

Lateness (minutes)

Passenger Train

Page 88: Train punctuality: the passenger perspectived3cez36w5wymxj.cloudfront.net/migrated/Train... · England, Scotland and Wales in March 2015 (taking place in Cardiff, Glasgow, London

86

Figure 32 further emphasises this by considering only services travelling away from London. These trains are selected because the destination of the passenger and the train is likely to be different. The graph shows a bigger lag, of over one minute, between the two lines. This means:

If a train from London is reported as being on time, the average passenger is one minute late; and

On train services departing London, 69 per cent arrive at the ultimate destination on time or early, compared with 56 per cent of passengers.

Figure 32 Train lateness vs passenger lateness for services departing London

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415161718192021222324252627282930

Prop

ortio

n of

pas

seng

ers/

trai

ns

Lateness (minutes)

Passenger Train

Page 89: Train punctuality: the passenger perspectived3cez36w5wymxj.cloudfront.net/migrated/Train... · England, Scotland and Wales in March 2015 (taking place in Cardiff, Glasgow, London

87

7. Relationship between satisfaction with punctuality and actual punctuality The previous sections have considered satisfaction with punctuality and actual punctuality in isolation. This section brings these together to establish how the two are related. The first point to note is that passenger satisfaction with punctuality follows a similar trend for both ‘right-time’ and arrivals up to five minutes late. As Figure 33 illustrates, all measures increased since 2013.

Figure 33 Comparison of satisfaction with punctuality and actual passenger punctuality

7.1 Satisfaction with punctuality by lateness

Using the approach defined in Section 2.3, a dataset was produced with each respondent mapped to the actual level of delay they experienced on the day of the survey. This dataset enables consideration of how satisfaction changes as the passenger lateness – or delay experienced – increases. Note that weighting is not applied as part of this process, so any differences between graphs in this section and those in previous sections should be attributed to weighting of responses.

In the similar study published in 2009, titled “Examining the links between Train Performance Measures and Customer Satisfaction”, graphs similar to Figure 348 were produced demonstrating three defining factors of a passenger’s perception of punctuality.

1. The intercept on the vertical axis, which determines how satisfied a passenger is with punctuality, even when the train is on time or early. In Figure 34, below, the value is 83.8 per cent.

2. The gradient, which defines by how much satisfaction reduces for each minute of additional delay. In Figure 34 the value is just over three percentage points.

3. The tipping point, at which the curve takes a notable increase in gradient. This is the point at which passengers’ sensitivity to delay heightens. Figure 34 does not have a tipping point, implying that passengers perceive delay from the minute they experience it and satisfaction falls consistently as delay increases.

These findings are important to reiterate.

8 Due to significantly lower number of respondents experiencing delays in excess of 20 minutes, analysis on these were proved to be not accurate. In this section, results associated with lateness are limited to 20 minutes of delay.

89% 88% 91%

63%56%

60%

73% 72% 75%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2012 2013 2014

Prop

ortio

n of

pas

seng

ers

satis

fied

Year

Proportion of passengers arriving within five minutes of scheduled time (RT5)

Proportion of passengers arriving early or on time (RT)

Satisfaction with punctuality

Page 90: Train punctuality: the passenger perspectived3cez36w5wymxj.cloudfront.net/migrated/Train... · England, Scotland and Wales in March 2015 (taking place in Cardiff, Glasgow, London

88

1. Even when passengers arrive at their destination on time or early, not all are satisfied with punctuality; in fact close to 18 per cent of passengers surveyed are not satisfied, even when on time.

2. With an increase in lateness, satisfaction decreases linearly; Figure 34 shows this is three percentage points for every additional minute of lateness.

3. Even at high levels of delay, some passengers are still satisfied; 51 per cent of passengers are satisfied with delays between 12 and 15 minutes.

Figure 34 Satisfaction with punctuality vs passenger lateness

7.1.1 By gender

Figure 35 shows how satisfaction with punctuality varies among female and male respondents. Section 3.2 showed that female respondents are usually more satisfied across the NRPS surveys and this is no different. As expected, the analysis in this section shows a close and consistent pattern of satisfaction decline with an increase in lateness experienced, with the gradient of both being at around three percentage points per minute, with no tipping point being evident.

Figure 35 Satisfaction with punctuality vs passenger lateness by gender

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10-11 12-15

Prop

ortio

n of

pas

seng

ers

satis

fied

Lateness (minutes)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10-11 12-15Prop

ortio

n of

pas

seng

ers

satis

fied

Lateness (minutes)

Female Male

Page 91: Train punctuality: the passenger perspectived3cez36w5wymxj.cloudfront.net/migrated/Train... · England, Scotland and Wales in March 2015 (taking place in Cardiff, Glasgow, London

89

7.1.2 By age

The NRPS groups respondents into multiple age categories. However, to maintain sufficient sample for analysis, some amalgamation of groups has taken place, resulting in the following age ranges.

16-25 26-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+

As outlined in Figure 36 and Figure 37, satisfaction with punctuality across the age groups is relatively consistent in terms of decline as lateness increases. The sample size makes inferences difficult, but there appears to be a steeper gradient for 26-34 year olds, indicating a higher sensitivity to increasing lateness. While Section 3.2 shows younger people to be generally less satisfied with punctuality, they are more forgiving of delays in excess of nine minutes.

Figure 36 Satisfaction with punctuality vs passenger lateness by age (1)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10-11 12-15

Prop

ortio

n of

pas

seng

ers

satis

fied

Lateness (minutes)

16-25 26-34 35-44

The following observations are noted on sample size:

The number of respondents in age category 16-25 who experienced delays in excess of seven

minutes is significantly lower (an average of three respondents per minute of lateness in

comparision with an average of 49 respondents per minute of lateness overall) which results in an

inaccurate representation of satisfaction level; and

The number of respondents in age category 26-34 who experienced delays in excess of eight

minutes is significantly lower (an average of three respondents per minute of lateness in

comparision with an average of 72 respondents per minute of lateness overall) which results in an

inaccurate representation of satisfaction level.

The following observations are noted on sample size:

The number of respondents in age category 65+ who experienced five minutes and eight minutes of

delays is significantly lower (an average of four respondents per minute of lateness in comparision

with an average of 48 respondents per minute of lateness overall) which results in an inaccurate

representation of satisfaction level; and

The number of respondents in age category 55-64 who experienced delays between 12-15 minutes is

significantly lower (an average four respondents per minute of lateness in comparision with an

average of 51 respondents per minute of lateness overall) which results in an inaccurate

representation of satisfaction level.

Page 92: Train punctuality: the passenger perspectived3cez36w5wymxj.cloudfront.net/migrated/Train... · England, Scotland and Wales in March 2015 (taking place in Cardiff, Glasgow, London

90

Figure 37 Satisfaction with punctuality vs passenger lateness by age (2)

7.1.3 By journey purpose

An additional parameter that influences satisfaction is the journey purpose (e.g. commuter, business or leisure). Figure 38 outlines the satisfaction with punctuality by journey purpose, as given on the NRPS response.

Figure 38 Satisfaction with punctuality vs passenger lateness by journey purpose

There are clear differences between the three journey purposes with the following intercept, gradient and tipping point outlined for each.

Journey Purpose Intercept Gradient Tipping Point

Commuter 74.9 per cent 5 percentage points None

Business 91.0 per cent 2 percentage points 5 minutes

Leisure 94.0 per cent 1 percentage point 8 minutes

Overall 83.8 per cent 3 percentage points None

Intercept

This shows that, even when a service arrives on time (i.e. ‘right-time’ or early), satisfaction with punctuality is just 74.9 per cent for commuters, 91 per cent for business travellers and 94 per cent for leisure travellers.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10-11 12-15

Prop

ortio

n of

pas

seng

ers

satis

fied

Lateness (minutes)

45-54 55-64 65+

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10-11 12-15

Prop

ortio

n of

pas

seng

ers

satis

fied

Lateness (minutes)

Leisure Commuters Business

Page 93: Train punctuality: the passenger perspectived3cez36w5wymxj.cloudfront.net/migrated/Train... · England, Scotland and Wales in March 2015 (taking place in Cardiff, Glasgow, London

91

The ‘shortfall’ below 100 per cent could provide some indication of the influence that previous journeys has on satisfaction with punctuality ‘today’. The finding that leisure travellers are more influenced by today’s travel than commuters is consistent with this, given the average frequency of travel for these groups. The National Rail Travel Survey (NRTS) suggests that 77 per cent of commuters travel five-days per week, whereas 70 per cent of leisure passengers travel less than once every month (or have not travelled before).

This could indicate that commuters are not answering the NRPS survey based solely on the experiences of that day. Instead, they may be using the survey as an opportunity to express views on past performance, consciously or otherwise.

Gradient

While commuters are less happy than leisure and business passengers when trains are on time, they are also more sensitive to delay, with each additional minute of delay costing five percentage points in satisfaction. For leisure passengers it is one percentage point per minute of delay and for business travellers, two percentage points per minute.

Tipping point

Where it has previously been difficult to identify a tipping point, it becomes more evident when looking by journey purpose. While satisfaction falls from the first minute of lateness, it is evident that, for leisure passengers, the gradient increases at around eight minutes delay, and around five minutes for business passengers.

7.1.4 By route

The analysis in this section is subject to significantly lower NRPS sample size as delay increases. However, some inferences can still be drawn from Figure 39 and Figure 40. Observations include:

Respondents using Intercity services are not particularly sensitive to delay; 78 per cent of passengers are satisfied with delays of up to 15 minutes; and

All other, generally shorter distance, routes have very similar (more aggressive) characteristics regarding the rate of decrease in satisfaction; this could be due to the passenger mix on these routes, or the comparably short journey times meaning that delay is a higher proportion of overall journey time.

The following observations are noted regarding sample size:

The number of respondents using services in Rural route who experienced delays in excess of five

minutes is significantly lower (an average of three respondents per minute of lateness in comparision

with an average of 36 respondents per minute of lateness overall) which results in an inaccurate

representation of satisfaction level; and

The number of respondents using services in Metro route who experienced delays between six and

ten minutes is significantly lower (an average of eight respondents per minute of lateness in

comparision with an average of 50 respondents per minute of lateness overall) which results in an

inaccurate representation of satisfaction level.

Page 94: Train punctuality: the passenger perspectived3cez36w5wymxj.cloudfront.net/migrated/Train... · England, Scotland and Wales in March 2015 (taking place in Cardiff, Glasgow, London

92

Figure 39 Satisfaction with punctuality vs passenger lateness by route (1)

Figure 40 Satisfaction with punctuality vs passenger lateness by route (2)

7.1.5 By ticket type

A parameter that is also known to affect passenger satisfaction is ticket type. This is largely because passengers’ journey purpose and ticket type is correlated with frequency of travel. The analysis by ticket type takes into account the majority of ticket types available to passengers. However, due to sample size, they have been grouped as summarised in Table 7. Some ticket types have been excluded from the analysis due to insufficient sample size; they are also detailed in the table below.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10-11 12-15

Prop

ortio

n of

pas

seng

ers

satis

fied

Lateness (minutes)

Intercity Metro Mainline Rural

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10-11 12-15

Prop

ortio

n of

pas

seng

ers

satis

fied

Lateness (minutes)

West Anglia Outer West Anglia Inner Stansted Express

The following observations are noted regarding sample size:

The number of respondents using services in West Anglia Inner route who experience delays between

five to seven minutes and in excess of 15 minutes are significantly lower (an average of five

respondents per minute of lateness in comparision with an average of 50 respondents per minute of

lateness overall) which results in an inaccurate representation of satisfaction level; and

The number of respondents using services in West Anglia Outer route who experience delays

between seven to ten minutes is significantly lower (an average of 14 respondents per minute of

lateness in comparision with an average of 78 respondents per minute of lateness overall) which

results in an inaccurate representation of satisfaction level.

Page 95: Train punctuality: the passenger perspectived3cez36w5wymxj.cloudfront.net/migrated/Train... · England, Scotland and Wales in March 2015 (taking place in Cardiff, Glasgow, London

93

Ticket Type Ticket Type Grouping for Analysis

Anytime single/return (includes standard single/return) Anytime single/return

Anytime day single/return

Off-peak/super off-peak single/return Off-peak/super off-peak single/return

Off-peak/super off-peak day single/return

Advance Advance

Day travelcard Day travelcard

Weekly or monthly season ticket Weekly or monthly season ticket

Annual season ticket Annual season ticket

Special promotion ticket

Excluded Rail staff pass/Privilege ticket/Police concession

Free travel pass (e.g. Freedom pass)

Table 7 Ticket type groupings

Figure 41 outlines how satisfaction with punctuality varies based on increased lateness for respondents in possession of anytime single/return, off-peak/super off-peak single/return, advance and day travelcard tickets. Figure 42 covers this for season tickets users.

It is clear that passengers in possession of season tickets are generally less satisfied with punctuality. These passengers reflect commuter characteristics, while advance ticket holders more closely resemble leisure travel.

The following observations are noted regarding sample size:

The number of respondents using Day Travelcard who experienced delays between six to eight

minutes and in excess of 15 minutes are significantly lower (an average of five respondents per

minute of lateness in comparision with an average of 29 respondents per minute of lateness overall)

which results in an inaccurate representation of satisfaction level; and

The number of respondents using Advance tickets who experienced delays between 9 to 12 minutes

is significantly lower (an average of 14 respondents per minute of lateness in comparision with an

average of 45 respondents per minute of lateness overall) which results in an inaccurate

representation of satisfaction level.

Page 96: Train punctuality: the passenger perspectived3cez36w5wymxj.cloudfront.net/migrated/Train... · England, Scotland and Wales in March 2015 (taking place in Cardiff, Glasgow, London

94

Figure 41 Satisfaction with punctuality vs passenger lateness by ticket type (1)

Figure 42 Satisfaction with punctuality vs passenger lateness by ticket type (2)

7.1.6 By frequency of travel

In order to maintain a representative sample across the categories of journey frequency listed in the NRPS, they are grouped together into:

Three or more times a week;

One to eight times per month; and

Less that once a month.

Figure 43 illustrates how satisfaction with punctuality changes with increased lateness. Again, given that there is a natural correlation between frequency of travel and journey purpose, the patterns are as expected, with only 73 per cent of passengers travelling three or more times a week being satisfied with punctuality. As has been seen for commuters, this reduces by

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10-11 12-15

Prop

ortio

n of

pas

seng

ers

satis

fied

Lateness (minutes)

Anytime single/return Off-peak/super off-peak single/return

Advance Day travelcard

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10-11 12-15

Prop

ortio

n of

pas

seng

ers

satis

fied

Lateness (minutes)

Weekly or monthly season ticket Annual season ticket

Page 97: Train punctuality: the passenger perspectived3cez36w5wymxj.cloudfront.net/migrated/Train... · England, Scotland and Wales in March 2015 (taking place in Cardiff, Glasgow, London

95

approximately five percentage points for every minute of lateness.

Figure 43 Satisfaction with punctuality vs passenger lateness by frequency of travel

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10-11 12-15

Prop

ortio

n of

pas

seng

ers

satis

fied

Lateness (minutes)

Three or more times a week One to eight times per month Less than once a month

Page 98: Train punctuality: the passenger perspectived3cez36w5wymxj.cloudfront.net/migrated/Train... · England, Scotland and Wales in March 2015 (taking place in Cardiff, Glasgow, London

96

8. Relationship between overall satisfaction and actual punctuality As outlined in Section 7, there is a clear decline in satisfaction with punctuality as lateness increases. This section looks at the relationship between passenger lateness and overall satisfaction. If punctuality does have a substantial bearing on overall satisfaction, similar relationships should be apparent in this section.

Before beginning the analysis, it is important to note that some of the relationships shown below may be circumstantial. Overall satisfaction can be affected by many factors. As a result of this, only a selection of the analysis from Section 7 is repeated.

Figure 44 shows a clear reduction in overall satisfaction with increased lateness. In this graph overall satisfaction starts to reduce after two minutes of lateness, falling by 14 percentage points by six minutes lateness, and then stabilising until nine minutes of lateness, at which point there is an obvious tipping point. While the intercept with the vertical axis is at approximately the same level as for satisfaction with punctuality, the rate of decline is less aggressive.

Figure 44 Overall satisfaction vs passenger lateness

8.1 Overall satisfaction by length of delay and gender

Following a similar pattern to satisfaction with punctuality by gender (Figure 35), the overall satisfaction also declines with increased lateness (Figure 45). However, the rate of decline is lower than that for satisfaction with punctuality. Both male and female respondents react to increased lateness in the same way, with overall satisfaction reducing at approximately the same rate.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10-11 12-15

Prop

ortio

n of

pas

seng

ers

satis

fied

Lateness (minutes)

Page 99: Train punctuality: the passenger perspectived3cez36w5wymxj.cloudfront.net/migrated/Train... · England, Scotland and Wales in March 2015 (taking place in Cardiff, Glasgow, London

97

Figure 45 Overall satisfaction vs passenger lateness by gender

8.2 Overall satisfaction by length of delay and journey purpose

For journey purpose, overall satisfaction trends are consistent with those seen for satisfaction with punctuality. In the case of overall satisfaction (Figure 46), the rate of decline as lateness increases is not as aggressive as for satisfaction with punctuality (Figure 38). However, this is consistent across all journey purposes, allowing little inference to be drawn about the strength of relationship between overall satisfaction and satisfaction with punctuality by journey purpose.

Figure 46 Overall satisfaction vs passenger lateness by journey purpose

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10-11 12-15Prop

ortio

n of

pas

seng

ers

satis

fied

Lateness (minutes)

Female Male

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10-11 12-15

Prop

ortio

n of

pas

seng

ers

satis

fied

Lateness (minutes)

Leisure Commuters Business

Page 100: Train punctuality: the passenger perspectived3cez36w5wymxj.cloudfront.net/migrated/Train... · England, Scotland and Wales in March 2015 (taking place in Cardiff, Glasgow, London

98

9. Impact of remapping While, historically, Metro and West Anglia routes had lower levels of satisfaction with punctuality and overall satisfaction, our analysis suggests that they have improved sufficiently to close the gap on other routes. As a result, the remapping of these services will not result in a significant difference between the NRPS results for Abellio Greater Anglia before and after 31 May 2015. Figure 47 outlines the overall satisfaction for each year, considering the franchise as it has been, and then with the remapped routes excluded. In 2014, had Metro and West Anglia Inner routes been excluded, overall satisfaction would have been unchanged in comparison with 2013, while satisfaction with punctuality would have been one percentage point higher.

Figure 47 Overall satisfaction - route remapping comparison

Figure 48 shows satisfaction with punctuality for 2012, 2013 and 2014 considering the franchise as a whole and with the exclusion of remapped routes

Figure 48 Satisfaction with punctuality - route remapping comparison

70%75% 76%

81%77% 77%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2012 2013 2014Prop

ortio

n of

pas

seng

ers

satis

fied

Year

All AGA Remapped excluded

74%78% 80%81% 79% 80%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2012 2013 2014

Prop

ortio

n of

pas

seng

ers

satis

fied

Year

All AGA Remapped excluded

Page 101: Train punctuality: the passenger perspectived3cez36w5wymxj.cloudfront.net/migrated/Train... · England, Scotland and Wales in March 2015 (taking place in Cardiff, Glasgow, London

99

Appendix 1 – Passenger punctuality by time of day and route Figure 49 and Figure 50 show respondents arriving to their destination early or on time on GA routes on the Great Eastern and West Anglia routes.

Figure 49 Passengers arriving early or on time by hour and route (1)

Figure 50 Passengers arriving early or on time by hour and route (2)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Prop

ortio

n of

pas

seng

ers

Departure Hour

Intercity Metro Mainline Rural

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Prop

ortio

n of

pas

seng

ers

Departure Hour

West Anglia Outer West Anglia Inner Stansted Express

Page 102: Train punctuality: the passenger perspectived3cez36w5wymxj.cloudfront.net/migrated/Train... · England, Scotland and Wales in March 2015 (taking place in Cardiff, Glasgow, London

Contact Transport Focus

Any enquiries regarding this research should be addressed to:

Mike HewitsonHead of Policy and IssuesTransport Focust 0300 123 0830e [email protected] www.transportfocus.org.uk

Fleetbank House 2-6 Salisbury Square London EC4Y 8JX

Transport Focus is the operatingname of the Passengers’ Council

Published in November 2015© 2015 Transport Focus