Article: Queensland Rail's on-time tracker site off the rails

[ozbob]

From the Couriermail click here!

Queensland Rail's on-time tracker site off the rails

Queensland Rail's on-time tracker site off the rails

    by: Robyn Ironside
    From: The Courier-Mail
    March 19, 2012 12:00AM

QUEENSLAND Rail's online report card has broken down - at the same time as the train services it is supposed to track.

As daily disruptions to southeast Queensland's rail network play havoc with commuters, QR's on-time performance updates have suddenly halted.

The website, which is normally updated daily, has been untouched since March 8.

It follows a series of service delays relating to power outages, boom-gate collisions and other network issues.

The performance results show how many trains in peak periods arrive within four minutes of schedule. Queensland Rail is expected to achieve a "benchmark" of 93.77 per cent.

Over the weekend more Gold Coast trains were held up by power problems and water issues, while 23 stations were closed for maintenance work.

Commuter advocacy group Back on Track has suggested the omission of updates may be deliberate given the election campaign.

Spokesman Robert Dow said it was "a remarkable coincidence" the figures were unavailable after a series of "shockers" for the CityTrain network.

"You do wonder what's going on," said Mr Dow. "Is the information being suppressed because they don't want adverse comment or publicity?"

He said Back On Track had contacted QR about the lack of data, but had not been provided with an explanation. The Courier-Mail was yesterday told QR was now aware of the problem and it would be rectified as soon as possible.

A spokesman denied the information blackout was in any way related to the election.

Mr Dow said commuters were already denied the "full picture" because the only on-time performance data published related to peak periods.

"Often there's disruption outside the peak times," he said. "The public has a right to know the overall performance."

QR faces a bigger threat to train services today with rail, and bus union members meeting to discuss their response to the sacking of a driver over his involvement in a platform fracas.

A Fair Work Australia hearing was held last night in an apparent attempt by QR to put orders in place preventing any industrial action by drivers.

Union secretary Owen Doogan said QR had also introduced new instructions for union delegates in the workplace, insisting they give 24-hours notice before speaking to members.

"I think they're beginning to understand they have a real problem with their workforce (in relation to their treatment of the sacked driver)," he said.

[ozbob]

http://www.queenslandrail.com.au/RailServices/City/Pages/PeakOn-TimeResults.aspx

19th March 2012 0210 hours

[ozbob]

Figures have now been updated --> http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=5737.0

[Fares_Fair]

http://www.queenslandrail.com.au/RailServices/City/Pages/PeakOn-TimeResults.aspx

19th March 2012 0210 hours

Force majeure delays MUST be included in the data, but to be fair, in a separately stated category, to gauge the real situation on the tracks.
Off peak services also MUST be included in the statistics.
Not to do so is remiss.

[ozbob]

I tweeted twice to @QueenslandRail on the 16th March, at 6.19am and 5.54pm letting them know that figures were missing.  I was ignored.

Many people follow twitter, the rest is history.

[somebody]

Force majeure delays MUST be included in the data, but to be fair, in a separately stated category, to gauge the real situation on the tracks.

An issue with the overhead is NOT force majeure!  Can't remember what the other problem was, but I doubt it was force majeure either.

[Fares_Fair]

In February, my trains were 6 minutes or more late for 11 times out of 39 journeys, that's an on-time performance of just 71.8%. according to their own rules.

[HappyTrainGuy]

Force majeure delays MUST be included in the data, but to be fair, in a separately stated category, to gauge the real situation on the tracks.

An issue with the overhead is NOT force majeure!  Can't remember what the other problem was, but I doubt it was force majeure either.

Depends on the reason for the delay. If it was out of their control it is force majeure.

[Fares_Fair]

Force majeure delays MUST be included in the data, but to be fair, in a separately stated category, to gauge the real situation on the tracks.

An issue with the overhead is NOT force majeure!  Can't remember what the other problem was, but I doubt it was force majeure either.

Depends on the reason for the delay. If it was out of their control it is force majeure.

This needs to be clarified.
e.g. if the clamp that failed was due to lack of appropriate inspections after set time periods (and this is just an example, I am not sure of the true situation) then it should not be under force majeure if regular inspections were to have ensured that it was detected before failure.
This is just an example but do you see my point?

[somebody]

Force majeure delays MUST be included in the data, but to be fair, in a separately stated category, to gauge the real situation on the tracks.

An issue with the overhead is NOT force majeure!  Can't remember what the other problem was, but I doubt it was force majeure either.

Depends on the reason for the delay. If it was out of their control it is force majeure.

I'll rephrase that - THE issue with the overhead wasn't force majeure.

I think clamps coming off is well within the control of QR.  Arguably, birds flying into transformers can be said to be too - protect the critical parts so that birds can't access them.  Terrorism would be force majeure.  Refusal to have reasonable fines for running into boom gates can be argued to be force majeure, but it seems that QR is taking control of that to some degree by prosecuting the offenders.

This needs to be clarified.
e.g. if the clamp that failed was due to lack of appropriate inspections after set time periods (and this is just an example, I am not sure of the true situation) then it should not be under force majeure if regular inspections were to have ensured that it was detected before failure.
This is just an example but do you see my point?

Who establishes the inspection regime?  That Alaska Airlines MD-80 (I think) which crashed off LA due to an insufficient maintenance regime designed by McDonnell Douglas can be called force majeure regarding Alaska Airlines, but not really McDonnell Douglas.

In QR's case it has no blame to apportion to anyone else on this one.  In any event it engaged whatever external contractors were involved.  Same could be said for Alaska Airlines, but I can't see what they could have done.

[Fares_Fair]

In the example I gave, the inspection regime would be implemented by QR in accordance with the clamp manufacturer's engineering specifications and maintenance procedures.

[#Metro]

Look, we can make all manner of adjustments and focuses and allowances and blah blah blah.

What matters is this question:


If I turn up at a train station, what is the likelyhood that my train will not be available or delayed?

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter if the train didn't run because QR didn't maintain track section X or if angels in heaven decided that a bird would fly into a transformer
that powers the core section and take out the entire train network.

The main metric should be availability measured over a 24 hour basis. Any other measure can be derived from that - peak hour, off - peak, 'Acts of God adjusted' etc.

Passengers aren't stupid at the end of the day. They KNOW that the train network is a pain in the backside, even if QR puts up signs saying the sky in purple with red polka dots.

Think about it this way- if I was a motorist driving on the M1 and it was closed 50% of the time, would I care that say, 25% was due to 'Acts of God' or 36% was due to accidents or whatever - no - a delay is a delay and a loss to my time no matter what the source of the issue is.

The main issue is that the service is closed and or unreliable. It is very subjective to decide what is within QR's control or not. One could argue that level crossing incidents are within QR control because they could pay to remove the crossings. In Montreal they built their system to be all enclosed because the weather would take out the system - is a tree falling on overhead power within QR's control too?

Making a metric that cuts out things like acts of god and so forth is saying "well commuters shouldn't care if the network is out today due to forces out of our control" and of course they DO care - the wire falling down and zapping the track side equipment or birds flying into transformers results in a cost and inconvenience generated regardless of source.

[somebody]

In the example I gave, the inspection regime would be implemented by QR in accordance with the clamp manufacturer's engineering specifications and maintenance procedures.

If they actually gave any.  I guess you could blame the clamp manufacturer for a failed clamp.

[#Metro]

The responsibility for the good operation of the network is Queensland Rail.
It might not be their cause, but they are responsible for it nonetheless. And they discharged that responsibility when they sent out people to fix the fault.

Now, the geometry of the network - where all lines are bundled and funneled through Roma Street-Central-Fortitude Valley-Bowen Hills makes the entire network
fault-intolerant. The solution is to decentralise the core (Cross River Rail) and have more redundancies (power separation) etc built in. You could justify the expenditure of
up to $1m or more on doing this.

[HappyTrainGuy]

The Alaska case was due to Alaska Airlines performing inproper maintainence by extending inspections/maintainence past the allowed manufacture spefications. No different than buying a car and being told that it must be checked by a machenic every 10,000km to ensure the expensive performance turbo doesn't fail only to have the turbo fail and damage the engine after doing 14,000km.

In the example I gave, the inspection regime would be implemented by QR in accordance with the clamp manufacturer's engineering specifications and maintenance procedures.

Yep, parts would have their recommended maintenance schedules (ie inspections) from the manufactures (From trackside infrastructure to rollingstock). For example the manufacture might say this part needs to be checked every 7-8 months but no more than 10 months at a time between inspections or it has to be checked every 12 months with a lifespan of 15 years before needing to be replaced. So QR might plan the inspection in a corridor during its planned major shutdown that happens in the corridor every 6 months or during the night (depending on what the inspection is and what it details). Then there is the side where it might be a failure by damaged from a third party such as someone throwing old computer monitors off overpasses, throwing shoes/rocks/sticks at infrastructure, obvious vandalism or the result of someone doing what ever tresspassing along the corridor. The clamp is not something that usually fails. Its the first time that I can recall this part actually failing by itself without it being helped by a derailment or a tree falling on the overheads.

[somebody]

The Alaska case was due to Alaska Airlines performing inproper maintainence by extending inspections/maintainence past the allowed manufacture spefications.

Looks like my memory fails me on that one.

[ozbob]

Couriermail vid --> http://video.couriermail.com.au/2211831478/QR-Train-tracker-not-working