DAB DA EVENT POST EVENT REVIEW. DAB Communications sub-group. Attribution Queries. I or X codes when animals access the track by jumping the fence. VSTP delays attribution to TOC – Plan should have been verified. Lack of access to crew diagrams.
Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
DAB Communications sub-group
I or X codes when animals access the track by jumping the fence
VSTP delays attribution to TOC – Plan should have been verified
Lack of access to crew diagrams
Fatality due to trespass at a station. – How can attribution determine whether it is a V or X code if there is no CCTV or other investigation?
What is the definition of Day 1?
Is waiting train crew report a valid reason to dispute?
Attribution process is too slow to follow
Delay attribution process is too costly
Incidents are not always recorded in real time
An overly involved Network Rail Level 3
Quick/accurate re-attribution by Network Rail after disputes are investigated or resolved
Delays in resolving ‘generic disputes’
Incidents are agreed at level 2 with the lead zone without agreement from the involved zone
Disputes are not responded to on day 1
Resolving sub-threshold delay causing threshold delay can be very time consuming. Taking longer than larger incidents
Cross Route Delays
Inconsistent approach from one area to another
Limits of TRUST reporting 4 reporting points in 2 miles then 6 miles with no intermediate points at all.
Influence on attribution process of financial considerations (Commercial take back)
Delay Attribution as a performance tool (per original intention) Vice as a financial instrument
Same issues with attribution since 2007
Follow up response by Network Rail is often post day 7
Dispute resolution too slow at level 2 &3
Dispute Resolution at level 1. Who are we supposed to speak to at Network Rail to get dispute resolved on Day 1? We dispute the incidents in TRUST but often no more is heard until Level 2 sort out the problem.
Although much improved, the DAG still has gaps in event processing charts
EG. Third Rail
Better communications required to gain accurate information to define prime root cause
Deficiencies within the DAG. i.e. timetable clashes – all NR responsibility, Doesn’t really fulfil learning objectives
Network Knowledge required to cover remotely
Over reliant on ‘principles’ rather than DAG references
Prime cause Vs Root Cause
Rulings/Guide not issued in ‘DAG’ format
DAG is becoming too prescriptive which avoids disputing/ambiguity but can destroy the performance/learning objectives & purpose of DA
Network Rail attribution cover on event days
Lack of ownership and pride in ensuring that the data is correct
Level 1 ‘template’ is over-used
Access to incident headers for TOC staff would reduce the number of phone calls or incidents disputed – just to get the title changed.
Level 2 attribution during times of major disruption is a struggle
Interpretation of passenger connections and or diversions are in the TOCs favour.
A driver’s report no longer appears to be sufficient
A lack of responsibility to investigate or follow up Off network delays – ECS class 5s in particular
Advise on root causes when appropriate
Feel that you are able to challenge appropriately and can execute a difficult discussion
Uncouple objectives from performance targets
Joint up training involving both Network Rail and Operators to be given – Training on Performance should be incorporated into the Induction training
Bi lateral sessions between operational grades
Put together joint performance teams
Share the knowledge with:
TDA level 1 staffRESOLVING DA ISSUESINDUSTRYCULTURE
How: Workshops on conflict resolution – professional body.
When: As soon as there is a plan in place, champion targets are set and agreed
Used as a performance management tool
Personalities – intimidation
Lack of understanding of the DAG
Protecting the company interest – not impartial
Perceptions may not be aligned – was the correct process followed?
How: Education – Reasons for DA
Re-instate previous DA staffing levels
Joint up training
DA boundaries – input from managers who are not directly involved in the process
Improvement of the internal attribution process
Group meetings/sessions – DAB, TOCs, FOCs, Network Rail, Operational staffRESOLVING DA ISSUESINDUSTRY CULTURE
Network Rail Route Performance Measurement Managers
Route Performance Managers
Local Operations Managers
Network Rail Development Specialist
Delay Attribution Managers Group
Operator’s Strategy Managers
Operator’s Performance Managers
Delay Attribution BoardRESOLVING DA ISSUESINDUSTRY CULTURE
DAG is more passenger focused than freight focused!
Commercial deals defeat the purpose of identifying root cause don’t they?
Attribution process is abandoned during periods of extreme perturbation
DAB perceived to be too formal
FAQ question bank
Multiple Choice Questions
What: Cross route re-attribution
How: Owning the route, lead zone to have other # sign on and responsibility
How: Network Rail Route to communicate and trust each other
What: Needless escalation to level 3
How: Level 2 Network Rail to be given authority and trust and responsibility to deal with the incidents