FCC fined £75k over "absolute shambles"

[maniacmartin]

I thought fines were supposed to be punitive. If the fine is less than the cost of doing the right thing in the first place, then the fine isn't enough

 

[Flamingo]

It's a business. EVERYTHING has a cost-benefit analysis at some level. This is not unique to the private sector, and from personal experience I would say that the public sector is a lot more ruthless with it's decisions - but that's an argument for another thread.

 

[AndyPJG]

... I'd also have the DOR on standby at a moments notice to take over the TOC if they really wouldn't learn.

And who pays for them to be on standby?

 

[LateThanNever]

It's probably cheaper to just pay the fine than it would be to employ more people so that incidents such as this can be better managed in the future.

Anyway, the management has been 'rectified' so that's alright then.

It's a business. EVERYTHING has a cost-benefit analysis at some level. This is not unique to the private sector, and from personal experience I would say that the public sector is a lot more ruthless with it's decisions - but that's an argument for another thread.

Of course you are right but it is also a reflection on the disastrous short term franchise system. Decent management would think outside the box a bit more and, say, could require new recruits to have additional skills that would mean they could be coopted into other areas of operation when required. This might provoke union opposition but it could be an easy sell to the public if it were shown to be the path to a same priced, better managed, safer railway. The management (who have in this particular instance been shown to be useless anyway) have no incentive to drive through changes that may take a few years to show results - probably for the next franchise holder! Instead, muddle through and 75k isn't much to loose... What a way to run a railway!

 

[Taunton]

The RAIB does not exist to apportion blame or levy penalties. Honestly, I thought we'd been over this already.

O L Leigh

Penalties, no, those are for a court. But identifying blame and being forthright about dangerous nonsenses, yes. This happened in the old days of the Railway Inspectorate, where the inspectors themselves, invariably ex-military officers, did not pull any punches or use wishy-washy civil service waffle about serious lapses - there was none of this 'learning points' whitewash in those days. It also happens much more straightforwardly with the aviation equivalent, the AAIB, whose were meant to have mentored the approach of the RAIB, but whose ideas got watered down by the DfT (to the annoyance of the AAIB personnel involved).

Quite honestly, I am fed up with First Group constantly wittering on about how they have changed procedures since an incident, so nothing more to discuss, The Kentish Town RAIB report does list a whole catalogue of previous incidents where passengers were stranded for unacceptable periods, just on FCC, and lists how after these the response is regularly that they have 'changed procedures' - and then it happens again and again. Most recently exactly the same thing happened yet again on First Great Western, passengers stranded for hours. They obviously have not changed major delay procedures and clearly have no intention of doing so. How can the DfT not notice, and continue to have them on the tender list for new franchises? How can an organisation which is, in all truth, nothing more than the jumped-up Aberdeen Corporation Bus Department, be allowed to run major public services in this manner? How can such a company be headed up by a Chief Executive who lives in the USA - and who after all these incidents I find extraordinary has not been removed by the board of directors, which would certainly have happened at most professional companies.

 

[The Box Photter]

It's a business. EVERYTHING has a cost-benefit analysis at some level. This is not unique to the private sector, and from personal experience I would say that the public sector is a lot more ruthless with it's decisions - but that's an argument for another thread.

That's the point, it isn't a business, its a public service. Frankly I'm astonished that anyone on here feels able to take FCC's side. Its the same attitude I see from railway staff who see passengers as an unfortunate inconvenience and wish we'd go away and let them play with their big train set.

I'm a passenger and a taxpayer, you work for me, and as a passenger and taxpayer, I'm entitled to my opinion.

We seem to be living in a country where I need to buy my gas from an electricity company, my electricity from a water company and my water from Tesco. In Stevenage, they've just taken the step of removing the privatised Surgicenter from its current (incompetent) management, who happen to be a building contractor and have given it back to the NHS. The reasoning behind the decision? The builders killed four patients by not employing enough trained and qualified staff. Can you see the parallel? How long until corporate cost cutting results in an avoidable railway accident?

It has been mentioned that Serco is a provider of rail services, well that's appropriate since the majority of trains I get to travel on have all the ambience of a dust cart.

By the way, this isn't trolling, I'm really exasperated by what is happening to this country in front of my eyes.

 

[A-driver]

Of course you are right but it is also a reflection on the disastrous short term franchise system. Decent management would think outside the box a bit more and, say, could require new recruits to have additional skills that would mean they could be coopted into other areas of operation when required. This might provoke union opposition but it could be an easy sell to the public if it were shown to be the path to a same priced, better managed, safer railway. The management (who have in this particular instance been shown to be useless anyway) have no incentive to drive through changes that may take a few years to show results - probably for the next franchise holder! Instead, muddle through and 75k isn't much to loose... What a way to run a railway!

It's a nice idea but not as simple as that. Every driver would need to be trained to work in control and would need to work there a certain amount of times to keep their competency up. And then you need to get those drivers to the control room if dusruption happens, possibly from the other end of the network. And if they are stuck on a train with no spare drivers sitting around (I assure you it's very rare to find many spare drivers on FCC) then they are no use anyway.

I like the thinking but it's quite a complicated idea in reality and you may find that it's more trouble than its worth logistically once disruption strikes.

 

[LateThanNever]

It's a nice idea but not as simple as that. Every driver would need to be trained to work in control and would need to work there a certain amount of times to keep their competency up. And then you need to get those drivers to the control room if dusruption happens, possibly from the other end of the network. And if they are stuck on a train with no spare drivers sitting around (I assure you it's very rare to find many spare drivers on FCC) then they are no use anyway.

I like the thinking but it's quite a complicated idea in reality and you may find that it's more trouble than its worth logistically once disruption strikes.

I agree vey much that it is not easy, but for the greatest happiness for the greatest number (to quote John Stewart Mill) it is essential - as the taxpayer (ie the greatest number) is paying. So incisive solutions are essential for them - and me - and all of us who travel! If the taxpayer complains then he who pays the piper &c..

 

[67018]

Sigh. There appears to be a lot of ranting about how bad it is on here, and not many practical and cost effective suggestions on how to make it better. Driven, it seems, by a lack of appreciation of just how complex a job it is to run a high intensity rail network.

There is precious little sign of fare or tax payers lining up to pay more to have spare staff, rescue trains or whatever lined up for very rare occasions when things go wrong. Modern business and public services are run to keep costs low because that's what most people want, as judged by their behaviour not their words.

What's really needed in incidents like these is a detailed and rational appraisal of what went wrong and what could be done better. By all means throw the book at those responsible if it keeps on happening, but the fact is that these incidents are extremely rare and serious injuries and fatalities even rarer.

 

[EM2]

Box Photter - why is FCC (and any other TOC you care to name) a public service?
The railways were built with private money, by investors and speculators.
If it were a true public service, the railways would have been taken into public ownership as soon as practically possible, probably in the late 19th century.
Even when the railways were under national control, which came about because they had been so ravaged by war that the private companies were on their knees, the Government expected them to make a profit, which, seeing as the LNER never made one, was almost impossible.
If they were a public service, they would be run by Government, with substantial investment and subsidy, to keep fares low and services efficient.

 

[Oswyntail]

It's a nice idea but not as simple as that. Every driver would need to be trained to work in control .....

I think the basic idea could be simpler than you describe.
In any organisation there are workers performing tasks that have to be performed continually at a set level (in this case, say, drivers), some performing tasks that are desirable as continual, but can be given less priority (such as selling tickets), and some performing tasks that, while necessary, are not necessary at any one given moment (such as penalty attribution staff). If members of the latter two groups (but not the first) were given sufficient training to perform useful tasks at incidents (such as crowd calming), or even to provide assistance at control (intelligently manning the phones) an "emergency workforce" would be available.

 

[swj99]

There are certain services, and I believe the railway is just one of many examples, that are essential to the efficient running of the country, and as such, should be run in the interests of the country and the people in it, not for the benefit of shareholders and investors.

The railways are a public service because they are there to serve the public. If it wasn’t for the public, who would use the trains ?

There are too many pigs with their snouts in the trough. So one solution would be to send them to market, the slaughter house, or in this case, the job centre. Then scrap the trough and remove the franchises from incompetent companies.

I think the profit motive needs to be taken out of the equation. All the time it is there, it means there is another drain on the precious resources (ie money) which we are told by government and the banks is in short supply.

 

[EM2]

I think the profit motive needs to be taken out of the equation. All the time it is there, it means there is another drain on the precious resources (ie money) which we are told by government and the banks is in short supply.

But this is the central issue, in that no Government in this country has been or is ever likely to be, willing to subsidise the industry to that extent.

 

[A-driver]

I think the basic idea could be simpler than you describe.
In any organisation there are workers performing tasks that have to be performed continually at a set level (in this case, say, drivers), some performing tasks that are desirable as continual, but can be given less priority (such as selling tickets), and some performing tasks that, while necessary, are not necessary at any one given moment (such as penalty attribution staff). If members of the latter two groups (but not the first) were given sufficient training to perform useful tasks at incidents (such as crowd calming), or even to provide assistance at control (intelligently manning the phones) an "emergency workforce" would be available.

But you seem to think its simpler than it is.

You can have as many people answering phones in control as you like but you may aswell just employ a handful if secretaries on minimum wage as there can only be one or two actual decision makers who are the ones drivers etc need to speak to. Otherwise you end up with too many cooks spoiling the broth. And then things start unravelling even quicker.

And you never know when an incident like this will occur so you need to try and track down those trained in crowd control and try to get them through service disruption or rush hour traffic to a train which may be stranded in the middle or nowhere.

 

[AndrewP]

That's the point, it isn't a business, its a public service..

Its a service business and there needs to be a balance between profit (whether spent on cross subsidy or investment or returned to shareholders - which may be the government) and cost and service levels.

Frankly I'm astonished that anyone on here feels able to take FCC's side. Its the same attitude I see from railway staff who see passengers as an unfortunate inconvenience and wish we'd go away and let them play with their big train set.

My experience with First Group is generally good (Hull Trains, TPE and Great Western) - I don't use FCC enough to comment on them. However in all industries and the public sector there is a mix of good and bad staff and this has nothing to do with company or whether public or private sector. However, by being a contracted service the level of public service can be specified and penalties introduced if they are not met - very difficult in the public sector. The question is - were there included in the franchise agreements

I'm a passenger and a taxpayer, you work for me, and as a passenger and taxpayer, I'm entitled to my opinion.

Actually they don't work for you they work for an organisation you are a stakeholder in.

We seem to be living in a country where I need to buy my gas from an electricity company, my electricity from a water company and my water from Tesco. In Stevenage, they've just taken the step of removing the privatised Surgicenter from its current (incompetent) management, who happen to be a building contractor and have given it back to the NHS. The reasoning behind the decision? The builders killed four patients by not employing enough trained and qualified staff. Can you see the parallel? How long until corporate cost cutting results in an avoidable railway accident?

There is no evidence that ownership impacts on health and safety however, capability, competence and monitoring do. You have to keep commercial organisations from being greedy and public organisations from being complacent.

It has been mentioned that Serco is a provider of rail services, well that's appropriate since the majority of trains I get to travel on have all the ambience of a dust cart.

Actually they outsource the cleaning of their trains and their waste which always strikes me as a bit strange.

By the way, this isn't trolling, I'm really exasperated by what is happening to this country in front of my eyes.

Not trolling at all - thought provoking and interesting

 

[Oswyntail]

But you seem to think its simpler than it is.

No incident is ever anything other than a Byzantine mess!

You can have as many people answering phones in control as you like but you may aswell just employ a handful if secretaries on minimum wage as there can only be one or two actual decision makers who are the ones drivers etc need to speak to. Otherwise you end up with too many cooks spoiling the broth. And then things start unravelling even quicker.

Perhaps my key word was "intelligent". These people would field the calls, eg from upper management seeking reassurance, while leaving the actually critical ones to "control". I am certain that being overwhelmed by communication is one of the reasons for delay and muddled thinking.

And you never know when an incident like this will occur so you need to try and track down those trained in crowd control and try to get them through service disruption or rush hour traffic to a train which may be stranded in the middle or nowhere.

If everyone outside the "essential" roles is trained, and can be called on as part of their job, there is no need to track anyone down.
Handling incidents in any walk of life requires "footsoldiers" who have just enough knowledge and capability to follow instructions.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Or just give those trained in incident management a pager. Very 1990's, but they work.

The FCC incident has proved how TOCs simply have to get better at incident management. What happened was not acceptable, and there certainly should not be a repeat of it.

In the first 30 minutes of any incident it is accepted that it will not be well controlled. After that, managers need to start getting a grip of things.

 

[Pumbaa]

Or just give those trained in incident management a pager. Very 1990's, but they work.

The FCC incident has proved how TOCs simply have to get better at incident management. What happened was not acceptable, and there certainly should not be a repeat of it.

In the first 30 minutes of any incident it is accepted that it will not be well controlled. After that, managers need to start getting a grip of things.

SWT are all kitted out with BlackBerrys, but even these can lead to the more important messages getting lost in between the bumph about lack of cleaning reported on a Chessington Shuttle. Can't comment on other TOCs but I'm fairly sure other ones uses BlackBerrys too.

 

[tsr]

SWT are all kitted out with BlackBerrys, but even these can lead to the more important messages getting lost in between the bumph about lack of cleaning reported on a Chessington Shuttle. Can't comment on other TOCs but I'm fairly sure other ones uses BlackBerrys too.

Southern's on-train customer service staff have them, but, again, some useful information can easily get lost. If my phone is not low on battery or out of signal, I have on prior occasions been able to look up information on the Southern/RTT websites, or Twitter feeds, in a much more effective way, and in some cases relay it to the staff when requested. However, things can usually get through eventually with a BlackBerry, it seems.

 

[sbt]

Jumping back to the RAIB not apportioning blame, despite being under the same restriction the MAIB are more robust. Its not routine, but its not unusual, to address a Recommendation to the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, or an official body in another country, that they 'Consider whether X is a fit and proper person to hold Qualification Y' or similar wording with regard to a person or organisation.

Sadly they seem to have stopped making pragmatic statements like 'Whilst a formal Risk Assessment was not produced it is clear from the manner in which the vessel was managed that one was carried out' (followed by a Recommendation for a formal one) after a change of Chief Inspector. They still have a serious downer on 'tick box' RA and those done by external 'experts' that bear no relation to the actual risks aboard a vessel however.

Finally, they seem much more ready to describe a person or organisations actions as 'Commendable' than the RAIB and AAIB - investigations are not just about finding out what went wrong, they are also about what went right.

 

[PR1Berske]

That's the point, it isn't a business, its a public service. Frankly I'm astonished that anyone on here feels able to take FCC's side. Its the same attitude I see from railway staff who see passengers as an unfortunate inconvenience and wish we'd go away and let them play with their big train set.

Check out the "Railway Myths" thread for evidence of how many people on this forum, railway staff almost to a man, see passengers as fairly inconvenient and annoying secondary factors.

 

[Tom B]

319s and 377s are not compatible. Different couplers for a start so would need a fitter to bring an adaptor in a van for that to work.

Is there physically no way of coupling the two classes - even with some emergency equipment (i.e. wouldn't provide lighting etc but just release/apply brakes and have a mechanical connection) - to be used only for such emergencies?

If not - why not?!

Many of the problems are a symptom not only of FCC being incompetent but the structure of the industry as a whole. As another poster said Kentish Town is only 10 minutes or so away in a taxi. LUL have emergency response vans which can run under blues and twos - it's a shame that this resource cannot be expanded to cover NR lines, too.
And I'm sure there were locomotives closer than the unit which had to be tipped out and shunted etc before coupling up!

 

[A-driver]

Check out the "Railway Myths" thread for evidence of how many people on this forum, railway staff almost to a man, see passengers as fairly inconvenient and annoying secondary factors.

That isn't really true at all. I don't think any staff see passengers as inconvenient or annoying at all. Staff certainly comment on annoyances they have with certain peoples behavior but that isn't the same as finding them annoying. Its only a joke when people comment that the railway would work better without passenger-none of us really think that to be true.

When trains are constantly delayed as almost everyone tries to get on and off from 1 single door leaving the other 15 unused it is frustrating and I see no problem with saying things like that. It certainly dosnt mean we view passengers as annoying or an inconvenience.

Perhaps find some quotes from here to back up your point or else refrain from making such sweeping accusations (and I mean quotes said in seriousness, not ones which are clearly a joke). I don't think I've seen any posts on here from staff saying things like "I was trying to have a nice quiet sit down in the platform office when a passenger disturbed me by asking a question-would be a much easier job without them" which is what you are implying. More likely staff will say things like "why do passengers insist on, having walked past 2 departure screens saying 'Cambridge train', seeing and hearing onboard announcements saying 'cambridge train' still feel the need to ask 'is this the Cambridge train'" and I think those comments are fair enough and certainly only taken as light hearted.

I think you just have an anti staff agenda so are resorting to false sweeping statements to make a non existent point.

Is there physically no way of coupling the two classes - even with some emergency equipment (i.e. wouldn't provide lighting etc but just release/apply brakes and have a mechanical connection) - to be used only for such emergencies?

If not - why not?!

Many of the problems are a symptom not only of FCC being incompetent but the structure of the industry as a whole. As another poster said Kentish Town is only 10 minutes or so away in a taxi. LUL have emergency response vans which can run under blues and twos - it's a shame that this resource cannot be expanded to cover NR lines, too.
And I'm sure there were locomotives closer than the unit which had to be tipped out and shunted etc before coupling up!

If you had read the rest of that post properly you would see that infact there is a way involving an emergency coupler. But as I said in that post, it would be far quicker, simpler and much safer to use another unit from the same class and that is why they pursued that option. The emergency coupler would be a last resort.

Of course had the FCC control room crystal ball have been working properly that day then they would have been able to predict the further complications and go for the emergency coupler option instead. But setting up an emergency coupler is a much longer and more involved job requiring additional staff rather than simply getting another 377 which can just drive onto the failed unit and within seconds you are good to go.

 

[swt_passenger]

...it's a shame that this resource cannot be expanded to cover NR lines, too.

It can be, because the SWT/NR alliance already have an emergency response vehicle that can run under 'blues and twos'.

Of course when it was discussed here a little while ago a number of posters felt an ordinary TOC shouldn't be allowed to do this, but LU's issues were somehow different...

 

[Flamingo]

Check out the "Railway Myths" thread for evidence of how many people on this forum, railway staff almost to a man, see passengers as fairly inconvenient and annoying secondary factors.

We don't see passengers as annoying - we just see you as annoying. Stop confusing the general with the specific.

 

[PR1Berske]

We don't see passengers as annoying - we just see you as annoying. Stop confusing the general with the specific.

Oh how very droll.

 

[A-driver]

Oh how very droll.

Well stop posting such rubbish just to try and rub people up the wrong way and people will stop posting stuff back at you! Not rocket science is it!

And you are still yet to provide any evidence whatsoever to back up your claims that rail staff see passengers as an annoyance and inconvenience so I assume you have failed to find any, therefore making your claims absolute rubbish and wrong...?

 

[W230]

We don't see passengers as annoying - we just see you as annoying. Stop confusing the general with the specific.

 

[PR1Berske]

Well stop posting such rubbish just to try and rub people up the wrong way and people will stop posting stuff back at you! Not rocket science is it!

And you are still yet to provide any evidence whatsoever to back up your claims that rail staff see passengers as an annoyance and inconvenience so I assume you have failed to find any, therefore making your claims absolute rubbish and wrong...?

The Rail Myths thread is a constant run of anti-passenger remarks, some very subtle, some blatant.

 

[455driver]

Oh how very droll.

But very accurate!