Reliability and Resilience

The consultation paper noted that previous feedback (including from ferry-dependent communities, key stakeholders and reports conducted throughout the CHFS2 contract period), has highlighted that resilience and reliability of ferry services need to be addressed as a priority due to the impact on business and communities when ferry services are disrupted.

General themes

In addition to answering the specific consultation questions, many respondents raised general issues about the ferry services in the Clyde and Hebrides area. These issues were most likely to have been highlighted at Questions 1 or 2, but also recurred throughout, and tended to focus on levels of service, and the impact on individuals, businesses, and communities.

A consistent theme was the unreliability of recent and current services, with particular reference to timetable changes and reduced services, as well as short notice or last-minute delays or cancellations of scheduled sailings. These concerns were raised in relation to many routes and locations, with some referring to the service being at crisis point, as not-fit-for-purpose or as the worst they could ever remember. There were references to:

• The average age and design of the existing fleet and delays in getting new vessels into service.
• The lack of any reserve or replacement vessels able to stand in, and ensure a degree of continuity, when there are break-downs.
• Problems with the design and repair of existing port facilities, and failure to upgrade facilities to modern standards in a timely manner.
• An increasing number of services cancelled because of poor weather, with some suggestions that old and inappropriate vessels and port infrastructure are contributing to weather-related cancellations.
• Problems with the booking system introduced in 2023.

The types of problems referred to with the booking system included services coming up as unbookable online, respondents having to visit a port office to book travel, and ferries showing as being full, but spaces being available. There were also references to the booking system not being user friendly or easy to navigate.

Poor communication was also seen as an issue, with references to not knowing services had been cancelled until the last minute. In terms of the problems caused by poor and unreliable services, there were references to being unable to rely on ferries as a means of commuting, including not being able to access employment opportunities as a result.

Respondents also wrote of difficulties getting to medical or other important appointments and of it being difficult, if not impossible, to plan ahead. In addition to the impact on individual travellers, the problems created for businesses were highlighted, including in terms of the movement of goods (both acquiring necessary supplies and distributing products) and staff. In addition to general supply issues, the challenges connected to movement of perishable goods or livestock was highlighted. Negative impacts on the tourism economy were also suggested if potential visitors have lost confidence in ferry services.

Linked to these concerns were criticisms of both the day-to-day management and strategic planning of ferry services. CalMac, Transport Scotland and the Scottish Government were most likely to be referenced.

Performance measures

The consultation paper included a link to information on performance monitoring on CalMac’s website, where monthly performance statistics are displayed under headings of reliability and punctuality. Reliability is reported in terms of: ‘operated sailings’; ‘additional sailings’; ‘diverted sailings’; ‘cancelled sailings’; and ‘cancelled sailings after relief events’. Categories for reporting punctuality are: ‘scheduled sailings’; ‘on time’; ‘level 1 lateness’; ‘level 1 lateness after relief events’; ‘level 2 lateness’; and ‘level 2 lateness after relief events’.

Recent performance figures and further information on definitions of level 1 and level 2 lateness are available on the Information on Performance Monitoring section of the CalMac website.

Please explain your answer.

Responses to Question 1 by respondent type are set out in Table 9 below.

Table 9: Responses to Question 1 by respondent type

Organisations	Yes	No	Total
Community Council or Development Trust	0	6	6
Farming or land management organisation	0	3	3
Ferry Board, Committee or Group	1	5	6
Haulage company or representative body	0	2	2
Local Authority or HSCP	1	2	3
Public Body	0	2	2
Tourism business	1	2	3
Trade Union	0	1	1
Transport Partnership	0	2	2
Voluntary sector organisation	2	0	2
Other business or representative body	0	2	2
Total organisations	5	27	32
% of organisations	16%	84%	Not Applicable
Individuals	87	276	363
% of individuals	24%	76%	Not Applicable
All respondents	92	303	395
% of all respondents	23%	77%	Not Applicable

A majority of all respondents – 77% of those who answered the question – did not think that the current performance measures are the right ones, while 23% thought that they are. Organisations were less likely than individuals to think the performance measures are the right ones (at 84% and 76% respectively).

Around 325 respondents made a comment at Question 1.

Most of those respondents who thought the current performance measures are the right ones made no further comment. Others noted that the current measures seem appropriate, although also that they could be improved upon, or that awareness of the problem is not the same as providing solutions.

Among respondents who did not think the current performance measures are the right ones, many highlighted the general themes outlined above. In addition to impacts on residents and existing businesses, there were concerns that growth opportunities may be affected, with reports that projects are being put on hold. A small number of respondents argued that the viability of some island communities is being put at risk, with one highlighting an associated threat to the viability of Gaelic as a community language.

One Local Authority respondent noted that unless performance measures are improved with a greater focus on user experience, they would not support a direct award of the CHFS3 contract to CalMac. However, there was also a view that CalMac staff and crews provide a good quality service, given the limitations of the vessels and port infrastructure that are available to them, and that Caledonian Maritime Assets Limited (CMAL) as owner of the vessels and ports, should be held accountable for failure to invest in future provision.

Existing performance measures

A Transport Partnership and a Trade Union were among a small number of respondents who noted that the performance measures associated with the current CHFS contract are not explained in the consultation paper. There was an associated concern that this may reduce the scope for informed responses to this question.

There were also comments on the number of ‘relief events’ that do not incur financial penalties and are excluded from current performance statistics. These were reported to include: cancellation due to bad weather, in accordance with safety procedures; redeployment of a vessel to elsewhere on the network; and delays caused by restricted harbour facilities or by waiting for the arrival of other public transport connections. A Local Authority respondent noted that they are not clear how relief events are measured.

Reliability

Reflecting the range of ‘relief events’ noted above, a frequent view among Individual respondents in particular was that the performance figures for reliability presented on CalMac’s website do not reflect their own experience of the frequency of cancellations and disruption. Going forward, it was argued that performance data must be presented more clearly, with fewer or no exclusions and specifically that:

• Performance should be measured against the published, core timetable not an amended version. It was argued that, at present, timetables are altered to ensure that reliability and performance measures are met.
• Weather-related cancellations should be included in performance data.
• Data for individual routes should be reported on a regular basis, both to drive improvement and because monthly statistics are useful for tourism businesses. It was noted that no performance figures for individual routes have been published since the introduction of the new booking system in May 2023 and there was concern regarding development of CHFS3 performance measures without this information.
• Cancellation of longer or less frequent sailings should be weighted to reflect the greater impact of their loss relative to shorter, more numerous crossings.
• More detail on the effects of disruptions/cancellations on service users should be provided.

While agreeing that relief events should be reviewed, a Trade Union respondent argued that the Scottish Government should be realistic about what can be delivered with an ageing fleet.

Punctuality

With respect to punctuality, comparisons were drawn with what were seen as more demanding performance measures set for other forms of public transport where, it was argued, published data on late running services more closely reflects passenger experience. It was suggested that the current CHFS standards should be revised, with a small number of organisations, including Local Authority, Transport Partnership and Ferry Board, Committee or Group respondents, making specific suggestions. Their proposals including that late running should be reported for:

• 2 minutes on crossings under 10 minutes;
• 5 minutes on crossings of under 1 hour;
• 5 minutes on crossings of under 2 hours;
• 10 minutes for crossings of 1 - 3 hours;
• 10 minutes for crossings of over 2 hours;
• 20 minutes for sailings of 3 - 6 hours.

Other suggestions with respect to punctuality included that:

• Late departures should be recorded even if time is made up during the crossing as passengers lose their bookings if not checked in 45 minutes before the scheduled departure time.
• Early departures should not be permitted, particularly for infrequent services where the ability to board a service shortly before sailing may be of great importance.

Other performance measures in CHFS2

A Local Authority respondent noted that, in addition to reliability and punctuality, the CHFS2 contract includes further performance measures relating to Compliance, Customer Care and Accessibility Process, Services - Vehicle Accommodation and Call Centre but that it is not clear how these are reported to Transport Scotland.

Although only a relatively small number of other respondents addressed these issues, there were calls for reporting of performance in respect of telephone answering and other customer response times, with one suggestion that this should extend to local ports as well as the Gourock call centre. It was also suggested that statistics for passengers booking assistance (wheelchair, wheelchair and lift, lift) or presenting as turn up and go requiring assistance should be monitored and published.

Responses to Question 2 by respondent type are set out in Table 10 below.

Table 10: Responses to Question 2 by respondent type

Organisations	Yes	No	Total
Community Council or Development Trust	6	0	6
Farming or land management organisation	3	0	3
Ferry Board, Committee or Group	6	0	6
Haulage company or representative body	2	0	2
Local Authority or HSCP	3	0	3
Public Body	1	1	2
Tourism business	2	1	3
Trade Union	1	0	1
Transport Partnership	2	0	2
Voluntary sector organisation	2	0	2
Other business or representative body	2	0	2
Total organisations	30	2	32
% of organisations	94%	6%	Not Applicable
Individuals	278	74	352
% of individuals	79%	21%	Not Applicable
All respondents	308	76	384
% of all respondents	80%	20%	Not Applicable

A majority of all respondents – 80% of those who answered the question – thought that there are additional or alternative performance measures that could be introduced, while 20% did not think so. All but two of the organisations answering the question thought additional or alternative performance measures could be introduced.

Around 325 respondents made a comment at Question 2. Some issues raised, for example with respect to improving communication or the quality of timetables, are addressed in more detail at later questions and are referenced only briefly below.

Improving resilience and reliability in the new contract

If resilience and reliability are to improve, it was suggested that the CHFS3 contract should include:

• A definition of ‘lifeline service’ that should set the standard against which performance is measured, with indicators including maintaining continuity of service for both scheduled and unscheduled non availability of vessels.
• A requirement to comply fully with EU Regulation 1177/2020 concerning the rights of passengers when travelling by sea, and with related guidance on the obligations of carriers and terminal operators in the event of interrupted travel. Specifically, it was argued that the CHFS3 contract should include the provision of suitable accommodation in such circumstances.
• Community involvement in framing performance measures and more formal island input into how ferry services are run. It was argued that island communities should be represented on relevant forums to evaluate performance and seek improvement or changes, via a formal mechanism for contract variation proposals or service changes to be made to Transport Scotland and/or the Operator.
• Performance indicators relating to community/customer satisfaction rates.
• Improved alignment of ferry timetables with other elements of the public transport system.
• Greater flexibility – for example to increase capacity at peak times or in response to special events, to run ‘catch up services’ after disruption, or to introduce additional freight services. This could extend to leasing additional vessels on a short-term basis.

It was suggested that the CHFS3 contract could have flexibility built in, for example, setting a requirement to operate a minimum number of sailings per day on a particular route rather than a fixed number as at present. However, a Trade Union respondent noted that flexibility around additional sailings would raise potential welfare and safety issues requiring consultation with ferry staff and their unions.

A number of respondents highlighted the need to reduce the average age of the fleet to improve the reliability of ferry services with one proposal that the Scottish Government should commit to a permanent standard for the maintenance of assets, including with respect to the average age of vessels, life-extending maintenance, and long-term investment in renewal. Some respondents simply called for newer ferries, ferries that can operate in adverse weather conditions, or for smaller vessels and more frequent services.

Reporting reasons for all disruptions

As at Question 1, it was argued that there needs to be greater transparency in reporting of performance data, most frequently that there should be regular reporting of detailed reasons for all delays and cancellations with separate reporting of operational and weather-related issues, on a regular basis, against published timetables, and by individual routes.

Operational issues

With respect to operational delays and cancellations it was suggested that reporting should include both details of the nature of the problem and the time it will take to resolve.

There were also calls for improvements to repair and maintenance programmes and for:

• Reporting of days that vessels are out of service for annual overhauls and other planned/unplanned maintenance, and whether these activities are taking longer than was previously the case.
• Setting performance indicators for contingency plans relating to the impact of overhauls and vessel non availability on lifeline routes.
• Making in-water surveys that can reduce drydock times a contractual undertaking identified as a performance indicator.
• Saving repair time by using locally based divers when divers are required to respond to technical problems.

Weather related delays and cancellations

In the context of a perceived increase in the number of weather-related cancellations, it was suggested that performance data should include evidence-based information on the types and extremities of weather patterns, and how these directly link to increased disruption events. A Community Council respondent was among those expressing a view that some operational cancellations are being misreported as weather-related.

It was also argued, by respondents including a Ferry board, Committee or Group respondent, that factors such as the age or suitability of vessels, issues relating to port infrastructure and staff training may all influence weather-related cancellations and that these should be recorded and addressed. There was a suggestion that decisions to cancel made by different masters operating the same route with the same vessel should be compared, with some respondents voicing an opinion that there is now a more risk-averse culture than was previously the case, and that improved staff training could provide greater confidence to operate in severe weather.

Quantifying the impact of amendments and cancellations

A number of suggestions for additional performance measures related to documenting the impacts of amended services, delays and cancellations on passengers, rather than simply reporting the frequency of such events. Proposals included reporting of:

• Transport volumes rather than the number of sailings, reflecting reduced capacity if routes are served by smaller vessels than planned.
• The number of individual bookings cancelled or rescheduled by CalMac.
• Knock-on impacts of previous cancellations or traffic volumes on island residents being unable to travel on a particular sailing.
• Impacts of winter maintenance schedules on islanders’ access to mainland services.
• The number of days an island has been cut off or the number of passengers stranded when a service is full.
• Alterations in route that may cause added cost and inconvenience to customers.
• What assistance/alternative transport is provided to passengers in the event of delays/cancellations.
• Impacts on island supply chains and on transport of the Royal Mail.

Assessing demand

There were also calls for assessment of unmet demand, although it was acknowledged that this may be challenging to record systematically. Suggestions included:

• Recording how often it is not possible to book on a particular sailing, with a suggestion that lack of capacity may have more impact on local residents who need to travel at short notice than tourists who are likely to book well in advance.
• Splitting unmet demand to show separate impacts on island residents, recreational visitors and commercial vehicles to help to inform both policy issues relating to priority booking and fares and overall capacity requirements.

It was also suggested that data on the purposes for a journey should be collected as part of the booking process to better understand customer needs.

Improving the booking system

Respondents highlighted a number of issues associated with operation of the booking system introduced in May 2023, with calls for improvements in the ability to book online or to stop sailings showing as full online when there is space available when the vessel departs. On the latter point it was suggested that the system of block bookings by haulage companies should be reviewed as freight bookings may be cancelled at short notice leaving unused deck space. It was suggested that management of block bookings could be a reportable statistic.

Points were also raised with respect to the publication of timetables which, it was suggested, should be available for booking six months before their commencement date, since late publication impacts business and particularly the tourism industry. Community involvement in the development of timetables is considered at Question 7.

Improving communication

A requirement to improve communication with service users was highlighted with specific suggestions including reporting of:

• The time between an event causing a cancellation and the time at which passengers are notified.
• Telephone answering times both at the Gourock call centre and local ports.
• Times taken to respond to customer enquiries.

Measuring customer satisfaction

The importance of a system to gather customer feedback and to record customer satisfaction was emphasised with a view that inclusion of customer service metrics as performance criteria will ensure that lived experience is properly recorded. How and when customer feedback might be sought is discussed further at Questions 18 and 19.

Staff training

A Trade Union respondent highlighted recent problems caused by shortages of suitably trained staff, and suggested a performance measure relating to training, including delivery of Modern Apprenticeships, to increase supply of skilled workers across the business.