DAB DA EVENT POST EVENT REVIEW

1. DAB DA EVENT POST EVENT REVIEW DAB Communications sub-group

2. 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 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?

3. Challenges to Day to Day Attribution 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

4. Challenges to Day to Day Attribution 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.

5. Challenges to Day to Day Attribution 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

6. Challenges to Day to Day Attribution 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.

7. Challenges to Day to Day Attribution 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

8. Challenges to Day to Day Attribution 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

9. Challenges to Day to Day Attribution 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

10. Challenges to Day to Day Attribution 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

11. TOP 5 DELAY ATTRIBUTION BARRIERS • GETTING IT RIGHT FIRST TIME • INDUSTRY CULTURE • LACK OF CONSISTENCY IN APPLYING THE DAG • TRAINING AND INDUSTRY KNOWLEDGE • TIME TAKEN TO RESOLVE DISPUTES

12. RESOLVING DA ISSUESGETTING IT RIGHT FIRST TIME • Provide the correct process at level1 • Improve level 2 & 3 efficiency • Provide expert training • Impart knowledge • Share resources • Remove or mitigate against the effect of target setting and money on the attribution process

13. RESOLVING DA ISSUESINDUSTRY CULTURE • What: Understanding why we have the performance regime and how this is used 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 • How: Open and honest joined up briefings 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

14. Who: Assign a champion – project leader Put together joint performance teams Share the knowledge with: Drivers Signallers Stations/customer services IMM staff Train planners Fleet technicians TDA level 1 staff RESOLVING 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

15. RESOLVING DA ISSUESINDUSTRY CULTURE • What: Financial targets – delegated authorities • What: Perverse incentivisation • KPI ‘pots’ • Responsible Managers • Budgets • How: Promote a culture where the Responsible Managers form part of the target setting process • Who should get involved: Responsible Managers

16. What: Approach to budget management – 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 staff RESOLVING DA ISSUESINDUSTRY CULTURE

17. Who: Network Rail Route Performance Measurement Managers Route Performance Managers Local Operations Managers Directors Network Rail Development Specialist Delay Attribution Managers Group Operator’s Strategy Managers Operator’s Performance Managers Delay Attribution Board RESOLVING DA ISSUESINDUSTRY CULTURE

18. RESOLVING DA ISSUESINDUSTRY CULTURE • What: Culture bred by targets • Knowledge of the purpose of attribution • How: Through education, training, cross Industry collaboration • Who: Everyone • DAB • DMAG • RPMMG • Local line managers • Senior managers • When: Start now – DAB to coordinate

19. RESOLVING DA ISSUESLACK OF CONSISTENCY IN APPLYING THE DAG 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

20. RESOLVING DA ISSUESLACK OF CONSISTENCY IN APPLYING THE DAG • What: Interpretation of the DAG – Requests for guidance • Lack of process knowledge • Forms • Jargon • Requesting for guidance is seen as last resort – ‘washing dirty linen • How: Regional sessions, informal road shows • Better sharing of best practice • More accountability • New delay code for pending report

21. RESOLVING DA ISSUESLACK OF CONSISTENCY IN APPLYING THE DAG • What: Standard of incident creation • Same quality and depth of incident creation across Routes. • How: Use EESIC [Essential Elements of Standard Incident Creation] to create incidents • EESIC to be updated and re-issued in June. RPMM’s to make sure that the EESIC is followed. • Compliance with the EESIC to be assured through an Audit process • Support to be given to the DA process by both Network Rail and the Operators. Transparency of the process and why TDA is important drives performance improvement.

22. RESOLVING DA ISSUESTRAINING AND INDUSTRY KNOWLEDGE FAQ question bank Best Practice Multiple Choice Questions Case Studies

23. RESOLVING DA ISSUESTRAINING AND INDUSTRY KNOWLEDGE • What: Practical hands on interactive training • Who:New starters • Why: Create a centralised base for all industry partners involved in the DA process • How: On-line course on the DAB website using real-time DA attribution examples/scenarios that require the person participating to use the DAG. • When: Pass out competent before becoming an attributor and also undertake an annual review

24. RESOLVING DA ISSUESTRAINING AND INDUSTRY KNOWLEDGE • What: Job specific training before starting the job • Why: Need a clear and practical understanding • Who: Who is responsible for taking ownership of training on this topic in the industry. – TOCs, FOCs, NR, DAB – We need ownership • When: Before initiating the role

25. RESOLVING DA ISSUESTRAINING AND INDUSTRY KNOWLEDGE • What: Accredited Training Courses • Why: This would raise the profile of the role and function of Delay Attribution and DAB • How: Roster training and or briefing days for Delay Attribution and Control staff • Who: All relevant staff • Efficient and effective use of the Workforce Development Specialist (Ian Heath)

26. RESOLVING DA ISSUESTRAINING AND INDUSTRY KNOWLEDGE • What: General Industry Training to Understand the Railway Better • Why: There is a need for more accurate real-time information • How: More DAB events • Database of industry contacts • Lead TDA to prepare brief for others to hear • Undertake cab rides, digital route learning information • Maps, box diagrams & photographs • Area visits and maintenance depot visits • When: On going

27. RESOLVING DA ISSUESTRAINING AND INDUSTRY KNOWLEDGE • What: Systems – Where to find information • Why: There is a need for more accurate real-time information • How: Learning from colleagues • User guides • Systems champions on an on-going basis • When: On going • Note: Issues preventing this- Scarce resources – availability of attributors to be released – budget limitations on RDW identification of who needs additional training and who can help

28. RESOLVING DA ISSUESTRAINING AND INDUSTRY KNOWLEDGE • What: Generic briefings • Why: There is a need for more joint up working • How: Joint briefings between Network Rail and Operators • When: During the DAG change briefing period

29. RESOLVING DA ISSUESTRAINING AND INDUSTRY KNOWLEDGE • What: Technical Understanding and Terminology • Why: Fundamental to right first time attribution • How: Mutual improvement led by an expert • Visits to maintenance training facilities • Depot visit to understand fleet references • Refresher training at specific times e.g. leaf-fall season to renew knowledge of TGAs, one shot sanders etc

30. RESOLVING DA ISSUESTRAINING AND INDUSTRY KNOWLEDGE • What: Standardisation of the text/freeform box use to be implemented • Why: Currently the information can be confusing and inconsistent to people that may not have the same level of knowledge and experience as the person who create the incident • How: DAG to have suggestions, definitions a guide for freeform terms to use • Provide a link to a jargon buster on the DAB website or to other websites

31. RESOLVING DA ISSUESTIME TAKEN TO RESOLVE DISPUTES 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

32. RESOLVING DA ISSUESTIME TAKEN TO RESOLVE DISPUTES • What: It’s not mine, I don’t want it, it will bust my target • How: Honest responsible managers wanting to understand issues and engagement in budget setting • What: The commercial deal • Issues: Not visible, ‘Grandfather rights’, deals are rarely reviewed • How: Fully visible commercial deals – with review and break clauses • What: Attribution at times of disruption at times of severe perturbation – reduced staff resource • How: Identify staff with relevant experience • Consider training L2 staff to undertake the task • When: During a major incident, Leaf Fall, Severe Weather

33. Event Feedback Results