DfT prepares to wage war on train drivers

[dk1]

No that's a complete straw man argument. The argument is that market conditions currently favour overworked and overpaid drivers (which, incidentally has led to and over the years been reinforced by DOO). I would like to see more drivers and lower barriers to entry and better, safer conditions with less pressure - in exchange there would be some consolidation of wages. There should also be smaller gradients between operators to help discourage poaching and longer franchise terms to encourage firms to invest more in their workforce. This will all be cheaper and better for everyone involved. Hopefully I have now managed to explain that a little bit more authentically than Mr Wilkinson!

Nothing will change for the worse & my conditions as a driver will improve further. I do not consolidate. You have explained no better than Wilko & your opinion although welcome matters as little as his.

 

[Starmill]

Wouldn't you feel under less pressure? Wouldn't the Unions be happier? Wouldn't there be more scope to cover additional trains, unexpected increases in sickness and other exogenous risks? Wouldn't that be a safer working environment? Wouldn't morale be higher? And wouldn't you enjoy more time off? Personally I'm a great believe that all of these kinds of things are worthwhile, and that being overworked is a risk sometimes people don't realise they might be taking. Money is not everything.

Of course my view doesn't matter in terms of influence. Not at present anyway

 

[380101]

No that's a complete straw man argument. The argument is that market conditions currently favour overworked and overpaid drivers (which, incidentally has led to and over the years been reinforced by DOO). I would like to see more drivers and lower barriers to entry and better, safer conditions with less pressure - in exchange there would be some consolidation of wages. There should also be smaller gradients between operators to help discourage poaching and longer franchise terms to encourage firms to invest more in their workforce. This will all be cheaper and better for everyone involved. Hopefully I have now managed to explain that a little bit more authentically than Mr Wilkinson!

By "lower barriers to entry" are you suggesting that drivers entrance assessments be made easier? If that is the case we better make it easier to get into medical school to gain more junior doctors also!

The only barriers to entry into the grade of train driver are whether or not the person applying is capable of.passing the assessments. There is nothing else stopping anyone becoming a driver - apart from TOCs reluctance to fulfil their franchise obligations and attempt to run services on the bare minimum of staffing levels.

 

[A-driver]

So we have 10 drivers at £50k each. Total annual cost £500K.



If each of them do £10K worth of Overtime the annual cost would be £600K



Take on more Drivers and pay them less;



We now have 20 Drivers on £35K each. It now costs £700K. You now need to supply double the Uniform, double the kit, double the line managers, more lockers, larger messrooms......



Where's the saving.

Higher recruitment costs, psychometric costs, periodic medical bills, annual leave, it's a fairly endless list. There is a reason many TOCs like Sunday's outside and a reliance on OT-it's far, far, far, far cheaper.

 

[Starmill]

Not quite. I mean it should be cheaper and easier to train more train drivers / doctors. The best way to do that is to exploit economies of scale by running bigger courses and at regular intervals so there are enough experienced trainers. Having every TOC do their own thing inevitably means this is the opposite of what happens, so training costs a disproportionate amount and it becomes easier to just pay the existing drivers more.

 

[A-driver]

Wouldn't you feel under less pressure? Wouldn't the Unions be happier? Wouldn't there be more scope to cover additional trains, unexpected increases in sickness and other exogenous risks? Wouldn't that be a safer working environment? Wouldn't morale be higher? And wouldn't you enjoy more time off? Personally I'm a great believe that all of these kinds of things are worthwhile, and that being overworked is a risk sometimes people don't realise they might be taking. Money is not everything.

Of course my view doesn't matter in terms of influence. Not at present anyway

I don't feel under pressure and my union are very happy until some numpty starts declaring war and making threats against its members.

There would be scope to cover more trains and unexpected cover but TOCs don't want to pay for the extra staff on a 'just incase' basis. The working environment is one of the safest in the world and I can enjoy time off on my 4-5day rostered week. Overtime working is optional so I can choose between extra pennies or days off. Moral would be higher if management and their superiors stopped trying to reduce our conditions and making threats to our pay and conditions.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Not quite. I mean it should be cheaper and easier to train more train drivers / doctors. The best way to do that is to exploit economies of scale by running bigger courses and at regular intervals so there are enough experienced trainers. Having every TOC do their own thing inevitably means this is the opposite of what happens, so training costs a disproportionate amount and it becomes easier to just pay the existing drivers more.

What do you then do with all these drivers you are training who are then not needed by TOCs and who end up running out of competency thus requiring re-training from scratch?

Very little can be saved on training. When you scrimp on driver training you end up going down the exact path which led to Ladbroke Grove.

 

[455driver]

No that's a complete straw man argument.

I was answering a question, hence the quote! :roll:

The argument is that market conditions currently favour overworked and overpaid drivers (which, incidentally has led to and over the years been reinforced by DOO).

Got the 'overpaid' bit in there well done! :roll:
Bearing in mind your obvious excellent knowledge of what we do how much do you think we should be paid?

Tell us what you do and we can trash your job, pay and conditions with our 'extensive' knowledge, it only seems fair!

I would like to see more drivers

So would I, then I can do a two day week!

and lower barriers to entry

Certainly not, the tests are there for a reason!

and better, safer conditions with less pressure - in exchange there would be some consolidation of wages.

Nice words, no detail! :roll:

There should also be smaller gradients between operators to help discourage poaching and longer franchise terms to encourage firms to invest more in their workforce.

Its a privatised industry, how are you going to do that without state interference?

This will all be cheaper and better for everyone involved. Hopefully I have now managed to explain that a little bit more authentically than Mr Wilkinson!

Nope, not even close!

 

[Chrisgr31]

So we have 10 drivers at £50k each. Total annual cost £500K.

If each of them do £10K worth of Overtime the annual cost would be £600K

You now have drivers earning £60k pa which sounds very much like the figure that Mr Wilkinson gave! Although they would not be working a 3 day week!

Part of the problem I suspect is that drivers aren't obliged to work rest days etc (understandably admittedly) but if the timetable depends on drivers working rest days then you have a problem if they stop or refuse to do so.

The solution is to employ more drivers so you don't rely on rest days but that doesn't really suit drivers who want to do overtime!

Oh I am glad I dont need to solve this conundrum!

 

[A-driver]

You now have drivers earning £60k pa which sounds very much like the figure that Mr Wilkinson gave! Although they would not be working a 3 day week!



Part of the problem I suspect is that drivers aren't obliged to work rest days etc (understandably admittedly) but if the timetable depends on drivers working rest days then you have a problem if they stop or refuse to do so.



The solution is to employ more drivers so you don't rely on rest days but that doesn't really suit drivers who want to do overtime!



Oh I am glad I dont need to solve this conundrum!

Companies deliberately understaff and leave substantial gaps in the rosters to save money and fill the uncovered work with overtime. Any driver relying on OT to live off is very, very stupid. No driver would have any right complaining if OT dried up due to over staffing.

And yes, 60k is easily achievable through OT. 70k isn't too difficult either but you need to be prepared to put in the extra hours and days. But claiming drivers are paid 60k for a 3 day week is still incorrect and a lie...

 

[455driver]

You now have drivers earning £60k pa which sounds very much like the figure that Mr Wilkinson gave! Although they would not be working a 3 day week!

Part of the problem I suspect is that drivers aren't obliged to work rest days etc (understandably admittedly) but if the timetable depends on drivers working rest days then you have a problem if they stop or refuse to do so.

The solution is to employ more drivers so you don't rely on rest days but that doesn't really suit drivers who want to do overtime!

Oh I am glad I dont need to solve this conundrum!

It also doesn't suit Management either who would have to pay all the extra uniform, Management time, training, pension (overtime is not pensionable, the extra drivers pay would be) etc etc.

 

[Chrisgr31]

It also doesn't suit Management either who would have to pay all the extra uniform, Management time, training, pension (overtime is not pensionable, the extra drivers pay would be) etc etc.

I would assume that uniform costs on the scale of things are pretty negligible, management time ought to fairly limited as well although I suspect in reality it is not. Training we already know is a big issue for various reasons. Pension is probably heading to dangerous ground depending on how much is contributed by staff, whether it is final salary based etc. Plenty of people are grumpy having had their pensions changed!

Anyway this will become irrelevant soon for Southern and maybe Thameslink as I think as the same infamous meeting it was stated that Southern would be up to full driver complement by September.

 

[talltim]

I think drivers are paid about the right amount for the skills, responsibility and antisocial hour of their role. The problem is that other jobs with similar levels of skills, responsibility and anti social hours aren't paid nearly enough

 

[380101]

I would assume that uniform costs on the scale of things are pretty negligible

They are if they buy the uniforms Abellio have for ScotRail. they're the cheapest, nastiest crap going! I'd take the First uniform back tomorrow and we all thought it was bad at the time!

 

[notadriver]

Unlike yours, my assessment is economic rather than emotional. It would be nice if we lived in a world where people are adequately rewarded for the job they do, but if that were the case we might be paying stay-at-home-parents thousands of pounds a year when actually they receive nothing. There is very little cost pressure on the Industry because of the unique way in which it is organised:

-Franchises are relatively short, so there isn't much time to gain any benefits from negotiating change or from doing more recruitment.
-TUPE is a barrier to the way in which other roles change over time
-Poaching is a serious problem that can drive up wages without getting better quality or improving efficiency. This can lead to expensive higher staff turnover, higher training costs and a two-tiered system of employment which really isn't conducive to adequately but efficiently remunerating a workforce.

All of this contributes to constant upward wage pressure which can also be very bad for drivers - see the accounts of overworking that have been mentioned. This is what my point about reduced responsibilities is intended to cover - we need more safeguards to prevent this kind of thing and one of them is lower wages in exchange for improved conditions and more robust rights. The other thing this will encourage is more drivers, less turnover and therefore more efficient training of new entrants. The way the industry is currently structured is not an environment where this kind of thing will happen, and that has led to some train companies paying way over the odds over time which makes the service too expensive to run. Most of this is about the privatisation model we have adopted because it created a situation in which drivers were in high demand and short supply, with the cost rocketing as a result. That is why you are paid so much - not because you do something superhuman.

Can you explain why the privatisation model which you say is to blame worked well from the governments point of view in the bus industry as wages, terms and conditions fell and drivers became practically expendable ?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

No that's a complete straw man argument. The argument is that market conditions currently favour overworked and overpaid drivers (which, incidentally has led to and over the years been reinforced by DOO). I would like to see more drivers and lower barriers to entry and better, safer conditions with less pressure - in exchange there would be some consolidation of wages. There should also be smaller gradients between operators to help discourage poaching and longer franchise terms to encourage firms to invest more in their workforce. This will all be cheaper and better for everyone involved. Hopefully I have now managed to explain that a little bit more authentically than Mr Wilkinson!

I think the ideal situation you want is similar to Minicab drivers. They are only paid for the time they actually driving. I'm assuming they paid for their own training too. And driving is train is really easy. It's just pushing and pulling a lever so there is plenty of scope to lower barriers entry as you say.

Bloody overpaid drivers. Sack the lot I say. Get those on the dole queue to do it!

 

[ComUtoR]

-TUPE is a barrier to the way in which other roles change over time

TUPE is not specific to the Railway. TUPE is also a very important part of employment law.

It's a shame that you would hold such a belief.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
£10k is approximately 40 days overtime (for me). So you have to ask yourself a few questions.

If that is a single Driver then how many days are being used so that the average pay is £60k for all Drivers ?

How many days overtime are being used ?

Why does a TOC need that much overtime ?

Why is it still cheaper to use overtime than employ more Drivers ?

If everyone is doing this level of overtime then why are so many trains still cancelled due to staff shortages ?

Why, if we are so overpaid, do people still work overtime ?

 

[whoosh]

Anyway I was saying that whilst there have been lots of comments saying the information was wrong no one has posted what the truth is. I did go along to the ASLEF site and its all as clear as mud! It appears that Southern drivers earn £47,500 pa for a 4 day week working 32 hours a day, with 6 weeks annual holiday (presumably equates to 4 weeks plus 2 weeks bank holidays) additional leave is earnt when a rest day falls on a bank holiday and it appears the rota is meant to work so they get 5 consecutive days off every 3 weeks.

There is no indication of what extras one is paid for working rest days etc nor what the average total pay is for a driver.

A 4 day week working 35 (THIRTY FIVE) hours a week (on average). This excludes Sundays which at Southern are paid at time+12%. It should be noted that Southern have never tried to negotiate Sundays into the working week.

I believe Rest Days are paid at 'normal time' at Southern.

There are no 'unsocial hours payments', or any extra for working Driver Only Operated trains.

You are right that not all companies pay the same basic rate of pay, pay the same for overtime, or have the same Sunday arrangements.

What's needed is a modern, efficient railway....

....If I were King for a day I might suggest that drivers should have easier shifts and work fewer hours - but at lower rates of pay and with rather more of them.

Starmill, what??
You want a modern efficient railway that has more drivers than there are now, who would be less productive?! Erm...?(!) Are you insane?
At lower rates of pay? Right...


So what you want is British Rail then? When Drivers used to get a lower wage, and were less productive and had an easier time.
I hate to tell you this, but those were the INEFFICIENT ways of the past, and they've been NEGOTIATED between TOCs and ASLEF into new agreements to pay a higher rate of pay in exchange for PRODUCTIVITY.


So, how about paying drivers less, but having two drivers in the cab at speeds over 110mph? That would be less stressful. Or how about paying more, but only having one driver to worry about/pay National Insurance on/Manage/supply a uniform for/arrange periodical medicals for/arrange periodical rules assessments for?

All the Intercity operators were quick to make an offer in the early days of privatisation to get rid of that inefficiency - Negotiation for Productivity.

Mileage was another one: Did you know that in BR days drivers (both of them!) would earn an additional 12 hours 50minutes pay for a return trip from Kings Cross to Newcastle? Kings Cross to Leeds paid an additional 7 hours 20 minutes.
That's right, I said "additional". On top of their basic pay.
When people say Train Drivers only earnt £12,000 a year before privatisation, that's rubbish. That was their basic wage NOT their take home pay. As part of simplifying payroll, enhancements (DOO payments, Irregular & Unsocial hours Payments, Variable Roster Payments, enhanced rates for nights and Saturdays) were done away with and a higher 'clean' salary offered instead.

Did you know that when the TOCs who went from a five day 37 hour week, to a 4 day 35 hour week - that 50% of the reduction was self-financing - by getting rid of 'unproductive' time?
For five days a week, drivers got ten minutes 'booking on time' (to book on for duty/read notices/pick up their diagram etc.) and ten minutes 'booking off time' (to establish their next working/complete reports etc.).
'Booking off time' was got rid of, so that's 5x10minutes =50 minutes, and then a four day week instead of five got rid of 1x10 minutes 'booking on time'. So that's 1 hour. One hour of unproductive time got rid of.

But hang on! Also there was a 30 minute break that was unproductive on the fifth day that isn't being given now, so that's actually an hour and a half in total. Only half an hour's work has been surrendered by the TOCs for two hours on paper - easily clawed back by more flexible positioning of breaks than previously. So, actually, it wasn't 50% was it? It was all self-financing.


Those are some examples of NEGOTIATION where basic pay was increased, or hours reduced, but the TOCs gained productivity - 'more bang for their buck'.

And you want Drivers to get paid less but work less, and increase the head count of drivers as well. Because you want a 'modern efficient railway'?
That's backwards.

 

[theageofthetra]

As someone who is new to the rail industry but old to life let me add my contribution.

I worked for just over 20 years in banking- High St and Investment. Unfortunately courtesy of media manipulation most see 'bankers' as a bunch of coke snorting braying old Etonians who destroyed the economy and 'you' are all paying for it.

All the banks licensed to operate in the UK were actively encouraged by the Blair and unelected Major/Brown governments to make available to all cheap credit, regardless of the ability to repay. I personally saw people with zero security easily able to obtain £50k+ of unsecured (e.g not against property) debt.

This was encouraged to a far greater extent in the US (and nearer to home- Ireland) and it imploded with catastrophic results.
.It was a pyramid scheme but with the backing of those YOU elected.

Getting back to the purpose of this forum-Rail.

There will be many on here who are old enough to remember that cities like London, Manchester, Liverpool and Birmingham were in the 80's depopulating -inconceivable now but even during 'Red Kens' GLC Tube line closures were considered.

Now as a result of 20+ years of deliberate mass uncontrolled immigration and population growth we now have a situation where 'government' has finally realised that the creaking underinvested infrastructure that allows the 'worker bees' to service the hive isn't up to it.

As is all too common with incompetent reactive policy, those who's mismanagement caused the problem is to try to find a new scapegoat. In the 70's/80's it was the 'Miners/Unions' etc in the new century it was 'The Bankers'. As we are about to enter the -'Snoring Twenties'? Its time for a new target?- Junior Doctors, Train drivers, and the Bankers (obvs)

 

[richieb1971]

As someone who is new to the rail industry but old to life let me add my contribution.

I worked for just over 20 years in banking- High St and Investment. Unfortunately courtesy of media manipulation most see 'bankers' as a bunch of coke snorting braying old Etonians who destroyed the economy and 'you' are all paying for it.

All the banks licensed to operate in the UK were actively encouraged by the Blair and unelected Major/Brown governments to make available to all cheap credit, regardless of the ability to repay. I personally saw people with zero security easily able to obtain £50k+ of unsecured (e.g not against property) debt.

This was encouraged to a far greater extent in the US (and nearer to home- Ireland) and it imploded with catastrophic results.
.It was a pyramid scheme but with the backing of those YOU elected.

Getting back to the purpose of this forum-Rail.

There will be many on here who are old enough to remember that cities like London, Manchester, Liverpool and Birmingham were in the 80's depopulating -inconceivable now but even during 'Red Kens' GLC Tube line closures were considered.

Now as a result of 20+ years of deliberate mass uncontrolled immigration and population growth we now have a situation where 'government' has finally realised that the creaking underinvested infrastructure that allows the 'worker bees' to service the hive isn't up to it.

As is all too common with incompetent reactive policy, those who's mismanagement caused the problem is to try to find a new scapegoat. In the 70's/80's it was the 'Miners/Unions' etc in the new century it was 'The Bankers'. As we are about to enter the -'Snoring Twenties'? Its time for a new target?- Junior Doctors, Train drivers, and the Bankers (obvs)

This thread is all about the demeanor in which something is said and how accurate it is.


I do feel that Wilkinsons agenda has got lost in the wind somewhere though.

 

[the sniper]

I wish there was a like button on this forum. Whoosh's post is very true and well worth Starmill's full attention.

 

[theageofthetra]

Agreed.

 

[A-driver]

I would assume that uniform costs on the scale of things are pretty negligible, management time ought to fairly limited as well although I suspect in reality it is not. Training we already know is a big issue for various reasons. Pension is probably heading to dangerous ground depending on how much is contributed by staff, whether it is final salary based etc. Plenty of people are grumpy having had their pensions changed!



Anyway this will become irrelevant soon for Southern and maybe Thameslink as I think as the same infamous meeting it was stated that Southern would be up to full driver complement by September.

Having the depots at compliment is irrelevant to training. People are still due to retire over the next few years, some will leave the industry, some will move to other TOCs, some will be taken off driving due to health or incidents, there will be a LOT of training across GN/TL/SN with new routes, trains, new signalling systems etc and so the training will most certainly need to be ongoing. Plus in some areas of the franchising bringing a depot up to compliment still means you don't have quite enough staff when taking into account annual leave, average sickness etc.

Management costs are set as there are strict limits on how many drivers you can allocate to a manager. Drivers need regular assessments-rules, traction, ride outs, downloads etc and you need a certain amount of managers to do this. Hiding a few extra drivers could force them to also hire an extra manager.

Uniform isn't a lot but equipment can be. Drivers need a lot of gear which meets standards and generally anything which meets railway standards comes with a heavy price tag. And the cost of all the publications each driver needs soon mounts up to. Uniform may not be lots but when you are talking perhaps an extra 100 drivers all needing full uniform allocation and a top up every year for general wear and tear it all soon adds up and isn't an insignificant cost. I'm sure my polo shirts are a few pence each but factor in I have 7 of them, will get another 7 this year, add in everything else we get and multiply that by the workforce and it's not an insignificant amount.

And just because pensions are changing elsewhere it dosnt mean we should have to accept changes. Once again that's the stupid 'we don't have it so why should you' argument.

 

[new2this]

http://www.croydonadvertiser.co.uk/...rain-drivers/story-28783309-detail/story.html



Is it professional for a senior government official to use this kind of provocative language?

I would like Mr Wilkinson to show me one train driver who works a three-day week and earns 60 grand a year.

I previously felt the guy was pretty sound and had some good points. I guess I will be disappointed again.

I wonder whether Mr Wilkinson realizes that the railway industry is supposed to be a family. :roll: Your industry? I am sure plenty of railway staff will not hesitate to tell him to "get the hell out of my industry" too.

With you there, I wish my company paid me 60 large and only work for three days a week and not have Sundays in the working week, that sounds like an absolute dream job, please tell me where to sign up as I want one ha ha ha.

This guy must be on drugs, what a complete tool.

 

[A-driver]

http://www.aslef.org.uk/information/143959/mick_s_letter_to_mcloughlin/

A letter from ASLEF to the transport secretary regarding this.

bizarre - and extremely offensive - remarks made at a public meeting in Croydon by DfT official Peter Wilkinson prompted Mick Whelan, ASLEF's general secretary, to demand an apology. Wilkinson, you may remember, called train drivers 'muppets.' Wilkinson also lied about drivers' salaries and got a string of facts wrong. It is not clear whether he knew, or knows, they were wrong (in which case he was lying about these, too) or is simply not across his brief. Ironic as Wilkinson, director of rail passenger services at the Department for Transport, earns £265,000 a year. You would think, for that sort of salary, he would know what he is talking about. Here is the text of the letter Mick has sent Patrick McLoughlin, the Secretary of State for Transport.

Dear Secretary of State,
I am writing further to reported comments made by Peter Wilkinson, managing director of passenger services at the Department for Transport, on 18 February at a public meeting in Croydon hosted by Gavin Barwell, MP for Croydon Central. I would be interested to know the extent to which you think Mr Wilkinson’s reported views reflect those of the Department for Transport.
You may aware that during this meeting Mr Wilkinson was reported as describing train drivers as “muppets”who earned £60,000 for working three days a week. He was also reported as saying that drivers still had the same rest stops as they did during the era of steam trains. I am sure you will appreciate that these statements are completely untrue. I have no doubt a man of Mr Wilkinson’s experience must have known this himself. Do you agree that Mr Wilkinson deliberately misled the public while speaking in his capacity as a senior DfT official? Also do you think that the term “muppet” is appropriate language to use about the staff who deliver the rail services we rely on every day?
Mr Wilkinson was then reported to have said that he has a plan to enforce changes to drivers’ conditions. He was reported as commenting that “we’re going to have punch ups and we will see industrial action and I want your support” He was reported to have told the meeting“we have got to break them…They have all borrowed money to buy cars and got credit cards. They can't afford to spend too long on strike and I will push them into that place.”
I thought it was in the interests of the DfT and all rail industry stakeholders particularly passengers to try and avoid breakdowns in industrial relations and not to seemingly relish it. Can you confirm it is the DfT’s position to “break” train drivers and by extension their trade union ASLEF?
You will know that railway relies on the good will of train drivers in terms of flexibility and the provision of overtime to function. This will be necessary going forward to meet requirements for future electrification, and the introduction of new rolling stock. I find Mr Wilkinson’s comments to be both offensive and deplorable as well as being insulting to all hard working rail industry employees. All of this surely leaves Mr Wilkinson’s position untenable?
I look forward to your observations of the comments above.
Yours sincerely,
Mick Whelan

 

[Mojo]

Can you explain why the privatisation model which you say is to blame worked well from the governments point of view in the bus industry as wages, terms and conditions fell and drivers became practically expendable ?

Mismanagement and political interference. Let us not forget; privatisation was "sold" to stakeholders on the grounds that it would deliver an improved service, but more importantly cost less money. Indeed; between 1996 and 2003, regulated fare increases were capped at either RPI or RPI-1%.

In 1997, South West Trains made around 70 drivers redundant. Within weeks they were cancelling huge numbers of trains; up to 39 per day according to some news reports I've read, leading to penalties being imposed on the operator. With the workforce already downsized, when really they should have been increasing staffing levels (Aslef at the time said there was a shortage of about 450 train drivers nationwide), there was a real struggle to recruit and train in order to deliver the service the operator wanted to. As a result; increase the salaries slightly and look at the T&Cs and seek to recruit qualified drivers from other operators. Other operators then face a driver shortage and have the same problems, but on a much smaller scale, and so the problem just continues.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Did you know that when the TOCs who went from a five day 37 hour week, to a 4 day 35 hour week - that 50% of the reduction was self-financing - by getting rid of 'unproductive' time?

The problem, as mojo has pointed out with what happened at South West Trains, is that not all of this time was quite as "unproductive" as first appeared.

I pick on London Midland because I used them, but all the TOCs are very similar. In an effort to extract the maximum work from staff the rotas are now so tight that there is no room for recovery in the event of disruption. If a guard or driver arrives five minutes late on an incoming service they will depart five minutes late, and will still be five minutes late at the time they clock off at the end of their shift. That gets rid of all that "unproductive" time waiting between services in stations, sure, but the result is that there is no margin for error or disruption. It is not coincidence that London Midland are regularly cancelling some mid-evening trains from Euston due to a lack of train crew.

I agree with many of your points, but a big issue with the industry is how a member of staff who isn't on a train or on a PNB is "unproductive", as though having resilience in a system isn't worthwhile.

 

[ComUtoR]

I agree with many of your points, but a big issue with the industry is how a member of staff who isn't on a train or on a PNB is "unproductive", as though having resilience in a system isn't worthwhile.

That is my pet hate.

When I first started you could sit about SP and still have every diagram covered. That was seen as Drivers being unproductive and the consequence was that establishments were reduced and % SP diagrams reduced. As well as the usual diagramming productivity improvements.

The system simply broke. Exactly what you state happened. Turns are so tight that if it arrives late, then it goes out late. There is zero flexibility in the roster that the needs of the buisness are not met and your using rest days to cover when Drivers are booked work but need a LADD day, FDA, Medical etc. Couple all that with lack of recruitment and natural wastage and the system broke further.

They have tried to address it but every time they make slight inroads they still see things being unproductive and time just gets cut back again.

We are now approaching a 4 day week and there is a rush to recruit as the work it generates is far exceeding the current staffing level.

We lose staff faster than we gain. The demand for increased productivity and increase in the number of trains we are being asked to run is far exceeding recruitment. Even if we get taken over by the Dft and Tfl I just don't see it changing any time soon. You could change my T&C's tomorrow but that still wouldn't change things for the better. If anything, there would be an initial transition period where things would be dire.

 

[A-driver]

The problem, as mojo has pointed out with what happened at South West Trains, is that not all of this time was quite as "unproductive" as first appeared.



I pick on London Midland because I used them, but all the TOCs are very similar. In an effort to extract the maximum work from staff the rotas are now so tight that there is no room for recovery in the event of disruption. If a guard or driver arrives five minutes late on an incoming service they will depart five minutes late, and will still be five minutes late at the time they clock off at the end of their shift. That gets rid of all that "unproductive" time waiting between services in stations, sure, but the result is that there is no margin for error or disruption. It is not coincidence that London Midland are regularly cancelling some mid-evening trains from Euston due to a lack of train crew.



I agree with many of your points, but a big issue with the industry is how a member of staff who isn't on a train or on a PNB is "unproductive", as though having resilience in a system isn't worthwhile.

I would agree if I didn't happen to know what the TOCs attitude to what you say is. Our union challenged a set of diagrams under FCC which removed all of the recovery times and paved the way to the current diagrams with no recovery times in driver diagrams. The response from the company was that it works on paper and that train planning do not plan for disruption.

If a driver is late delaying another train because of a signalling fault then network rail pick up the bill and the TOC do not loose out financially. That's the attitude, cheaper to remove recovery time and charge whoever is responsible for the disruption.

You are looking at this completely differently to how the industry looks at this. The railways are not there to give the best possible service to the public. They are there as a business designed to generate money for the private operators. I'm not saying I agree with that, just stating how it actually is.

 

[87015]

You are looking at this completely differently to how the industry looks at this. The railways are not there to give the best possible service to the public. They are there as a business designed to generate money for the private operators. I'm not saying I agree with that, just stating how it actually is.

Its not an industry mode of operation, its certain TOC / Owning Groups. Others are far more sensible.

 

[A-driver]

Its not an industry mode of operation, its certain TOC / Owning Groups. Others are far more sensible.

That's dependant on what kind of work the TOC operates. Long distance operators need to attract custom as they have very real competition from airlines, roads etc and so people will turn elsewhere if they don't provide a certain service level. Commuter tocs, on the other hand, look at the franchise as a money making machine and that's it. They know they can continuously that their customers as badly as they want and they will still be back tomorrow for more. If they can find a loophole or way of making more money they will exploit it-removing recovery time is one very real way of doing this. Even when presented wi evidence by the Union of "this train has never arrived on time in the last 6months and you have still given us a minimum PNB after working it" got the reply "it works on paper so it's staying like that".

 

[Tetchytyke]

You are looking at this completely differently to how the industry looks at this. The railways are not there to give the best possible service to the public. They are there as a business designed to generate money for the private operators. I'm not saying I agree with that, just stating how it actually is.

I would be interested to see whether it was a false economy. There are plenty of 10 minute delays on the southern WCML caused by and attributable to the TOC not Network Rail. We all know that a 5L arrival becomes a 10L departure because of a missed slot, and then a 10L departure becomes a 15L arrival because it's stuck behind a stopper. I know London Midland's favoured tactic is to then just cancel intermediate stops (especially Apsley and Kings Langley *growl*) but that still costs money.

I'm not talking about having scores of drivers sitting around in case the signals fall over, but cutting out every last bit of recovery and resilience because it is "unproductive" doesn't seem the best idea either.

They know they can continuously that their customers as badly as they want and they will still be back tomorrow for more.

If I'd said that I'd be labelled "anti railway"