rail commissioner service standard report · rail commissioner service standard report...

Rail Commissioner

Service Standard Report July-September 2012

Sample and Methodology 3

Main Findings 4-5

TRAIN

On-Time Running 7

Interior Cleanliness 8-9

Exterior Cleanliness 10

Wheelchair Ramp Deployment 11

Station Announcements 12

Passenger Service Assistants 13-14

Ticket Vending Machines 15

Validators 16

Fare Evasion 16

TRAM

On-Time Running 18

Interior Cleanliness 19

Exterior Cleanliness 20

Ticket Inspections 21

Conductor Behaviour 22-23

Fare Evasion 23

Contents

Table 1.1 – Trips Sampled

* The number of trips supplied is defined as the number of train and tram trips available in both directions for five weekdays, plus

a Saturday and Sunday.

Sample and Methodology

The sample size was derived from the number of trips supplied in any given week, with separate sample sizes defined for each

contract area, given the sample size the number of trips deemed appropriate to give a valid sample is stratified across the day

types based upon their respective proportion in a given week.

Between the 1st July and 30th September 2012:

• 400 audits onboard Rail Commissioner services.

• 170 audits on-board Train services.

• 230 audits on-board Tram services.

The trips audited represent 10.2% of the 3,940 trips supplied (defined as the number of trips available for five weekdays, plus a

Saturday and Sunday) for one whole week Sunday to Saturday. The sample base is selected from trips listed on PTS approved

timetables submitted by the Rail Commissioner.

Contract Area

Weekday Trips

Audited Saturday Trips Audited

Sunday Trips

Audited Trips Audited

Trips

Supplied

RailCommissioner Train 114 30 26 170 3,065

Rail Commissioner Tram 162 35 33 230 875

TOTAL 276 65 59 400 3,940

In relation to On-Time Running:

A train is considered to be on-time if it departs a time-point along a route no more than 1 minute early and no more than 5.59

minutes late.

• 91.2% of services ran on time.

• No services were recorded as Did Not Run.

• Early departing was recorded at 0.0%.

• Late departing totalled 8.8%.

In relation to Cleanliness:

• 99.7% of services had acceptable ratings for interior cleanliness.

• 99.4% of services had acceptable ratings for exterior cleanliness.

In relation to Driver Station Announcements:

• Station announcements were made by the driver for all stations in 99.1% of situations.

In relation to PSAs’ Customer Service:

• PSAs used Portable Reading Devices (PRDs) when checking tickets in 97.6% of cases.

• PSAs were rated as having been polite when asking to check passengers tickets in 100.0% of cases.

• A ticket offence report was issued in 14.3% of cases.

In relation to Fare Evasion:

• Overall Fare Evasion was 21.41%.

Main Findings - Train

In relation to On-Time Running:

A tram is considered to be on-time if it departs a time-point along a route no more than 1 minute early and no more than 5.59

minutes late.

• 87.4% of services ran on time.

• No services were recorded as Did Not Run.

• Early departing was recorded at 6.9%.

• Late departing totalled 5.7%.

In relation to Cleanliness:

• 100.0% of services had acceptable ratings for interior cleanliness.

• 99.6% of services had acceptable ratings for exterior cleanliness.

In relation to Conductors Customer Service:

• Tram conductors achieved acceptable ratings in relation to their acknowledgment of passengers in 99.4% of cases.

In relation to Fare Evasion:

• Overall Fare Evasion on trams was 8.74%.

Main Findings - Tram

Train

Service Standard Report July—September 2012

In July - September 2012:

• 91.2% of services departed on time.

• Early running occurred on 0.0% of services.

• Late running was 8.8%

• Services reported as Did Not Run was 0.0%.

Figure 1.2 – On Time Running Trend

April - June 2012

Table 1.2 – On Time Running

July - September 2012

Figure 1.1 – On Time Running

On-Time Running

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Oct-Dec-10 Jan -Mar-11 Apr -Jun -11 Jul -Sep-11 Oct-Dec-11 Jan -Mar-12 Apr -Jun -12 Jul -Sep-12

On-Time Late Departing Early Departing

Train On Time Running

Percentage

Train On Time Running

0.0%

91.2%

8.8%0.0%

0.0%

92.9%

7.1%0.0%

EarlyOn TimeLate

Did Not Run

Apr-Jun-12 Apr-Jun-12 Jul-Sep-12 Jul-Sep-12

Departures

10+ minutes early 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

3 to 9 minutes early 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

1 to 2 minutes early 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

On Time* 158 92.9% 155 91.2%

6 to 9 minutes late 10 5.9% 9 5.3%

10+ minutes late 2 1.2% 6 3.5%

Did Not Run 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

TOTAL 170 100.0% 170 100.0%

Arrivals

10+ minutes late 1 0.6% 5 2.9%

Number of Carriages Audited

Train Vehicle Interior Cleanliness

0.0%

94.6%

5.1%0.3%

1.2%

94.2%

4.7%0.0%

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

Figure 1.3 – Train Interior Cleanliness

Figure 1.4 – Interior Cleanliness

April - June 2012 July - September 2012

Interior Cleanliness

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Oct-Dec-10 Jan-Mar-11 Apr -Jun -11 Jul -Sep-11 Oct-Dec-11 Jan-Mar-12 Apr -Jun -12 Jul -Sep-12

Wear and tear-none Scratched windows-none Other vandalism-none

Train Vehicle Interior

Percentage

Table 1.3

Interior Cleanliness


• The vehicles interior was acceptable in 99.7% of trips surveyed.

• There was evidence of wear and tear on 0.3% of services.

• There were scratched windows on 98.6% of services.

• There was no evidence of graffiti on 68.3% of services.

• There was no evidence of other vandalism on 98.9% of services.


Vehicle interior clean

Excellent 4 1.2% 0 0.0%

Good 324 94.2% 331 94.6%

Fair 16 4.7% 18 5.1%

Poor 0 0.0% 1 0.3%

TOTAL 344 100.0% 350 100.0%

Evidence of wear and tear

None 344 100.0% 349 99.7%

Slight 0 0.0% 1 0.3%

Medium 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Severe 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

TOTAL 344 100.0% 350 100.0%

Scratched windows

None 9 2.6% 5 1.4%

Slight 284 82.6% 335 95.7%

Medium 51 14.8% 10 2.9%

Severe 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

TOTAL 344 100.0% 350 100.0%

Evidence of graffiti

None 249 72.4% 239 68.3%

Slight 91 26.5% 103 29.4%

Medium 4 1.2% 8 2.3%

Severe 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

TOTAL 344 100.0% 350 100.0%

Evidence of other vandalism

None 342 99.4% 346 98.9%

Slight 2 0.6% 4 1.1%

Medium 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Severe 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

TOTAL 344 100.0% 350 100.0%




• Acceptable ratings for exterior cleanliness were 99.4%.

• Exterior graffiti was not evident on any services audited.

Table 1.5 – Exterior Cleanliness

Figure 1.5 - Exterior Cleanliness

Figure 1.6 - Exterior Cleanliness Trend

Exterior Cleanliness Train Vehicle Exterior Cleanliness

0.0%

97.7%

1.7%0.6%

0.0%

99.7%

0.3%0.0%

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor


Vehicle exterior cleanliness

Excellent 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Good 343 99.7% 342 97.7%

Fair 1 0.3% 6 1.7%

Poor 0 0.0% 2 0.6%

TOTAL 344 100.0% 350 100.0%

Evidence of exterior graffiti

None 344 100.0% 350 100.0%

Slight 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Medium 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Severe 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

TOTAL 344 100.0% 350 100.0%


75

80

85

90

95

100

Oct-Dec-10 Jan-Mar-11 Apr-Jun-11 Jul-Sep-11 Oct-Dec-11 J an-Mar-12 Apr-Jun-12 Jul-Sep-12

Exterior Cleanliness (Exc/Good) Interior Cleanliness (Exc/Good)

Train Vehicle Cleanliness

• The wheelchair ramp was deployed for a passenger in 100.0% of cases.

• The ramp was deployed in 96.6% of these occasions by the Driver.

Table 1.5 - Wheelchair Ramp Deployment

Wheelchair Ramp Deployment


Yes 30 96.8% 29 100.0%

No 1 3.2% 0 0.0%

TOTAL 31 100.0% 29 100.0%

Driver 26 83.9% 28 96.6%

PSA 5 16.1% 1 3.4%

Passenger 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

TOTAL 31 100.0% 29 100.0%

Who deployed the wheelchair ramp?

Wheelchair ramp deployed for disabled/ wheelchair bound passengers?


Table 1.6 – Station Announcements

In July - September 2012;

• 99.1% of drivers announced all stations and were clearly audible.

• The driver did not announce any stations in 0.0% of cases.

• In 0.9% of cases the driver announced some stations but not all and in 0.0% of cases the announcements were not clear.

• In situations where the driver could have announced a reason for delay, the driver did so in 76.9% of cases.

Figure 1.17 – Station Announcements

July - September 2012 April - June 2012

Station Announcements

Train Station Announcements

99.1%

1.5%

0.9%0.0%

99.4%

0.0%

0.6%0.0%

Yes

No

Announced some but not allAnnouncements weren't clear


Yes 342 99.4% 347 99.1%

No 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Announced some but not all 2 0.6% 3 0.9%

Announcements weren't clear 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

TOTAL 344 100.0% 350 100.0%

Yes 8 80.0% 10 76.9%

No 2 20.0% 3 23.1%

TOTAL 10 100.0% 13 100.0%

Did driver announce reasons for delays?


Did driver announce all stations?

Table 1.7 – PSA Personal Behavior

During July - September 2012;

• There were no instances of a Passenger Service Assistant observed to be Drinking or Smoking whilst onboard the railcar.

• There was no instances of a Passenger Service Assistant observed to be Eating.

• There was no instances of Reading the Newspaper whilst onboard the railcar.

• Acceptable ratings for the PSAs’ Response to Ticketing Enquiries was 100.0% in July - September 2012.

• In the Response to Destination/Route Enquiries category, 100.0% of relevant situations scored acceptable ratings.

Table 1.8 – PSAs’ Customer Service

Passenger Service Assistants


Eating

Yes 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

No 56 100.0% 66 100.0%

TOTAL 56 100.0% 66 100.0%

Drinking

Yes 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

No 56 100.0% 66 100.0%

TOTAL 56 100.0% 66 100.0%

Smoking

Yes 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

No 56 100.0% 66 100.0%

TOTAL 56 100.0% 66 100.0%

Reading Newspaper

Yes 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

No 56 100.0% 66 100.0%

TOTAL 56 100.0% 66 100.0%



Excellent 2 7.7% 2 5.3%

Good 24 92.3% 30 78.9%

Fair 0 0.0% 6 15.8%

Poor 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

TOTAL 26 100.0% 38 100.0%

Excellent 2 20.0% 1 12.5%

Good 7 70.0% 3 37.5%

Fair 1 10.0% 4 50.0%

Poor 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

TOTAL 10 100.0% 8 100.0%

Response to ticketing enquiries

Response to destination/route enquiries



• 97.6% of applicable cases the PSA used a PRD (Portable Reading Device) to check passenger tickets.

• Of the 41 cases in which the PSA conducted a ticket check, a ticket offence report was issued 14.3% of the time.

• The PSA was rated as being polite when asking to view passengers tickets in all cases.

Table 1.9 – PSA’s Customer Service

Figure 1.8 - PSA Behaviour

Passenger Service Assistants


Yes 26 100.0% 41 97.6%

No 0 0.0% 1 2.4%

TOTAL 26 100.0% 42 100.0%

Yes 3 11.5% 6 14.3%

No 23 88.5% 36 85.7%

TOTAL 26 100.0% 42 100.0%

One 2 4

Two 1 0

Three 0 0

Four + 0 2

TOTAL 3 N/A 6 N/A

Yes 26 100.0% 42 100.0%

No 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

TOTAL 26 100.0% 42 100.0%

Did the PSA use a PRD to check passenger's tickets?

Was a ticket offence report issued?

If yes, how many?

Was the PSA polite when asking to see passenger's tickets?


0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5


Eating Drinking Smoking Reading Newspaper

Train PSA Behaviour

Percentage

Table 1.10 – TVM Operating

Ticket Vending Machines were present on all audited railcars in July - September 2012.

• In 65.1% of railcars, the Ticket Vending Machine, when used, was functioning correctly.

• In 6.0% of cases the Ticket Vending Machine was not functioning due to equipment failure.

• There were zero reported cases of the Ticket Vending Machine not functioning because of vandalism.

Figure 1.9 – Ticket Vending Machine within Railcar


Ticket Vending Machines Train Ticket Vending Machines

100.0%

0.0%

100.0%

0.0%

Yes No


Yes 344 100.0% 350 100.0%

No 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

TOTAL 344 100.0% 350 100.0%

If yes was it operating?

Operating 210 61.0% 228 65.1%

Not operating (broken) 21 6.1% 21 6.0%

Not operating (vandalised) 1 0.3% 0 0.0%

Not used 112 32.6% 101 28.9%

TOTAL 344 100.0% 350 100.0%


Was there a ticket vending machine in the railcar?

Figure 1.10 – Stamp on Test Tickets

Test tickets are inserted in each validator in each railcar at the commencement of each trip audited. This is to verify that the

validators are functioning correctly and this also verifies that the correct trip information has been entered into the Crouzet system

by the driver.

In July - September 2012 test tickets with correct trip details stamped on the ticket amounted to 93.1% of instances.


Validators Stamp on Test Ticket

93.1%

5.7%

1.1%

87.8%

11.3%

0.9%Yes

No

Trip Identifier

Fare Evasion

Fare Evasion Rail

Jul-Sep-09 12.09%

Oct-Dec-09 11.16%

Jan-Mar-10 10.39%

Apr-Jun-10 9.26%

Jul-Sep-10 10.80%

Oct-Dec-10 9.50%

Jan-Mar-11 11.42%

Apr-Jun-11 10.96%

Jul-Sep-11 17.07%

Oct-Dec-11 15.74%

Jan-Mar-12 15.54%

Apr-Jun-12 18.76%

Jul-Sep-12 21.41%

Table 1.11– Train System Fare Evasion

Tram

Service Standard Report July—September 2012



• 87.4% of services departed on time.

• Early running occurred on 6.9% of services.

• Late running was 5.7%

• Services reported as Did Not Run was 0.0%.



On-Time Running

Table 2.1 – On Time Running

Tram On Time Running

7.0%

87.4%

5.7% 0.0%6.5%

86.5%

7.0%0.0% Early

On Time

Late

Did Not Run


Departures

3+ minutes early 3 1.3% 1 0.4%

1 to 2 minutes early 12 5.2% 15 6.5%

On Time* 199 86.5% 201 87.4%

6 to 9 minutes late 12 5.2% 13 5.7%

10+ minutes late 4 1.7% 0 0.0%

Did Not Run 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

TOTAL 230 100.0% 230 100.0%

Arrivals

10+ minutes late 0 0.0% 0 0.0%


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


On-Time Late Departing Early Departing

Tram On Time Running

Percentage


• The vehicles interior was acceptable in 100.0% of trips surveyed.

• There was evidence of wear and tear on 0.0% of services.

• There were scratched windows on 67.0% of services.

• There was no evidence of graffiti on 100.0% of services.

• There was no evidence of other vandalism on 98.3% of services.

Table 2.2 - Interior Cleanliness

Figure 2.3 – Interior Cleanliness


Interior Cleanliness Tram Vehicle Interior Cleanliness

4.3%

88.3%

7.4%

0.0%3.9%

90.0%

6.1%

0.0%Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor


Vehicle interior clean

Excellent 9 3.9% 10 4.3%

Good 207 90.0% 203 88.3%

Fair 14 6.1% 17 7.4%

Poor 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

TOTAL 230 100.0% 230 100.0%

Evidence of wear and tear

None 229 99.6% 230 100.0%

Slight 1 0.4% 0 0.0%

Medium 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Severe 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

TOTAL 230 100.0% 230 100.0%

Scratched windows

None 97 42.2% 76 33.0%

Slight 133 57.8% 154 67.0%

Medium 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Severe 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

TOTAL 230 100.0% 230 100.0%

Evidence of graffiti

None 226 98.3% 230 100.0%

Slight 4 1.7% 0 0.0%

Medium 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Severe 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

TOTAL 230 100.0% 230 100.0%

Evidence of other vandalism

None 225 97.8% 226 98.3%

Slight 5 2.2% 4 1.7%

Medium 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Severe 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

TOTAL 230 100.0% 230 100.0%


Figure 2.4– Exterior Cleanliness


• Acceptable ratings for exterior cleanliness were 99.6%.

• Exterior graffiti was evident on 1.3% services audited.

Table 2.3 – Exterior Cleanliness


Exterior Cleanliness

Figure 2.5 – Exterior and Interior Cleanliness Trend

Tram Vehicle Exterior Cleanliness

3.5%

91.7%

4.3%0.4%

2.6%

94.3%

3.0%0.0% Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor


Vehicle exterior cleanliness

Excellent 6 2.6% 8 3.5%

Good 217 94.3% 211 91.7%

Fair 7 3.0% 10 4.3%

Poor 0 0.0% 1 0.4%

TOTAL 230 100.0% 230 100.0%

Evidence of exterior graffiti

None 230 100.0% 227 98.7%

Slight 0 0.0% 3 1.3%

Medium 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Severe 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

TOTAL 230 100.0% 230 100.0%


70

75

80

85

90

95

100

Oct-Dec-10 Jan-Mar-11 Apr -Jun -11 Jul -Sep-11 Oct-Dec-11 Jan-Mar-12 Apr -Jun -12 Jul -Sep-12

Exterior Cleanliness (Exc/Good) Interior Cleanliness (Exc/Good)

Tram Vehicle Cleanliness

Percentage

Table 2.4– Ticket Inspections

Figure 2.6– Ticket Inspection


Figure 2.7– Tram Conductor Behavior

Ticket Inspections

• There were 24 cases (10.4%) in which a Ticket Inspection was carried out by an inspector in July - September 2012.

• There were 13 instances of a PRD being used to check tickets.

Tram Ticket Inspections

10.4%

89.6%

9.1%

90.9%

Yes

No


Was a ticket inspection carried out?

Yes 21 9.1% 24 10.4%

No 209 90.9% 206 89.6%

TOTAL 230 100.0% 230 100.0%

Did the Inspector use a PRD to check tickets?*

Yes 2 9.5% 13 54.2%

No 19 90.5% 11 45.8%

TOTAL 21 100.0% 24 100.0%

*Percentage base excludes not applicable cases


65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

Oct-Dec-10 Jan -Mar-11 Apr -Jun -11 Jul -Sep-11 Oct-Dec-11 Jan -Mar-12 Apr -Jun -12 Jul -Sep-12

Acknowledging Passengers exc/good Interaction with Passengers exc/good

Response to Ticketing Inquiries exc/good Response to Destination/Route Inquiries exc/good

Tram Conductor

Percentage

• Acceptable ratings of the Conductor’s Acknowledging Passengers category was 99.4% in July—September 2012.

• In the Conductor’s Interaction with Passengers category 100.0% were rated as acceptable.

Figure 2.8 – Conductor Behavior

Table 2.5 – Conductor Courtesy

Conductor Behaviour


Acknowledging passengers*

Excellent 16 8.4% 23 14.3%

Good 156 82.1% 119 73.9%

Fair 16 8.4% 18 11.2%

Poor 2 1.1% 1 0.6%

TOTAL 190 100.0% 161 100.0%

Interaction with passengers*

Excellent 14 8.0% 22 13.9%

Good 138 78.9% 121 76.6%

Fair 22 12.6% 15 9.5%

Poor 1 0.6% 0 0.0%

TOTAL 175 100.0% 158 100.0%

Response to ticketing enquiries*

Excellent 10 6.4% 14 11.5%

Good 136 86.6% 101 82.8%

Fair 11 7.0% 7 5.7%

Poor 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

TOTAL 157 100.0% 122 100.0%

Response to destination/route enquiries*

Excellent 5 9.8% 9 21.4%

Good 43 84.3% 31 73.8%

Fair 3 5.9% 2 4.8%

Poor 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

TOTAL 51 100.0% 42 100.0%


0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10


Eating Drinking Smoking Reading Newspaper

Tram Conductor Behaviour

Percentage

Table 2.6 – Conductor Behaviour


• There was no instance of the conductor drinking while in the railcar.

• There were no instances of a conductor eating.

• There were no instances of smoking while in the railcar.

• There were no instances of the conductor reading a newspaper.

Conductor Behaviour


Eating

Yes 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

No 56 100.0% 66 100.0%

TOTAL 56 100.0% 66 100.0%

Drinking

Yes 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

No 56 100.0% 66 100.0%

TOTAL 56 100.0% 66 100.0%

Smoking

Yes 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

No 56 100.0% 66 100.0%

TOTAL 56 100.0% 66 100.0%

Reading Newspaper

Yes 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

No 56 100.0% 66 100.0%

TOTAL 56 100.0% 66 100.0%


Table 2.7 – Tram Fare Evasion

Fare Evasion Fare Evasion Tram

Jul-Sep-09 3.01%

Oct-Dec-09 2.55%

Jan-Mar-10 5.09%

Apr-Jun-10 5.87%

Jul-Sep-10 3.74%

Oct-Dec-10 3.03%

Jan-Mar-11 2.38%

Apr-Jun-11 3.41%

Jul-Sep-11 6.21%

Oct-Dec-11 7.16%

Jan-Mar-12 8.21%

Apr-Jun-12 8.00%

Jul-Sep-12 8.74%

rail commissioner service standard report · rail commissioner service standard report...

Documents