Northern's Problems in the North West

[driver_m]

Funny how's there's suddenly concern for staff safety over all this, where has that been for the last X amount of years? When I get blamed for Northern's delays or various other TOC's issues and I don't even work for them, I can just imagine the response if I get the violins out and start moaning to these other TOC's. I'd get laughed at! I'm not buying that concern thing one iota.

 

[Lemmy99uk]

What he was pointing out is that Northern knew about cancellations in advance but did not inform anyone, as the e-mail shows. Some of the journeys which were not covered may have ended up being covered, but that does not mean that Northern did not know in advance that there would be others which were not covered. What else did he say that was not correct ?

An uncovered turn is NOT a cancellation. It would be ludicrous to advise customers in advance of an uncovered turn as that it no indication of wether a service will run or not.

I’ve seen daily sheets where 25% of the turns have no cover, but on the day everything runs.

 

[Carlisle]

Anyway, no-one told Northern to put itself over a barrell by depending on RDW. They could always just employ enough drivers, and create a more stable situation in general

Do you remember reading on here a few months back about severe disruption/cancellations for a couple of weekends on VTWC due to drivers having a bee in their bonnet about a certain issue.
Well that happened on a TOC that’s considered well run, pays good wages and is adequately staffed, so demonstrates the destructive power of industrial action either official or unofficial on an industry like rail, its not always a case of just solving everything by replacing a few bad managers or the complete franchise.

 

[B&I]

Do you remember reading on here a few months back about severe disruption/cancellations for a couple of weekends on VTWC due to drivers having a bee in their bonnet about a certain issue.
Well that happened on a TOC that’s considered well run, pays good wages and is adequately staffed, so demonstrates the destructive power of industrial action either official or unofficial on an industry like rail, its not always a case of just solving everything by replacing a few bad managers or the complete franchise.

But it's not what's happening on Northern, the subject of this thread. Thus making your weird obsession with blaming everything on trade unions look even more weird than usual

 

[B&I]

I think you've misread what Andy Burnham is doing. Northern are responsible for the mess and Andy Burnham is saying that. He isn't targetting TfN or the DfT but prompting them to take some action to ensure Northern sort out their mess because Northern have made it clear they're not going to and are only interested in trying to blame Network Rail.

Sorry, I meant targetting more widely the bodies with some responsibility for sorting things out

 

[Eccles1983]

Funny how's there's suddenly concern for staff safety over all this, where has that been for the last X amount of years? When I get blamed for Northern's delays or various other TOC's issues and I don't even work for them, I can just imagine the response if I get the violins out and start moaning to these other TOC's. I'd get laughed at! I'm not buying that concern thing one iota.

It might be down to threats of violence increasing, and the small fact that some scrote tried to baseball bat a driver in the last 4 weeks and ended up putting the cab window in.

It's got progressively worse since widescale cancellations are taking place with the blame firmly being put on traincrew from everyone from MP's, the company and even auto anne is at it!

 

[Carlisle]

But it's not what's happening on Northern, the subject of this thread. Thus making your weird obsession with blaming everything on trade unions look even more weird than usual

Where do I mention blame ? Sorry for the slightly inconvenient real life example suggesting your theory of a new train operator + almost complete appeasement of unions probably won’t actually deliver anything remotely resembling the rail utopia you appear to believe it will.

 

[B&I]

Where do I mention blame ? Sorry for the slightly inconvenient real life example suggesting your theory of a new train operator + almost complete appeasement of unions probably won’t actually deliver anything remotely resembling the rail utopia you appear to believe it will.

It is an actual obsession with you, isn't it ? How can Northern employing enough drivers ro run the service they're obliged to amount to appeasement of the unions ? If you stand on a Lego brick in your bare feet, do you find some way of blaming Len McCloskey for it ?

 

[Bwlch y Groes]

An uncovered turn is NOT a cancellation. It would be ludicrous to advise customers in advance of an uncovered turn as that it no indication of wether a service will run or not.

I’ve seen daily sheets where 25% of the turns have no cover, but on the day everything runs.

Exactly. Even Burnham admits in his letter that a third of the services in the "Cancelled services" email weren't actually cancelled! This is why he's being misleading - his letter totally ignores the wider context of how rostering crew for services actually works in the real railway, and he knows full well that the media will just report this in the same way

 

[BlueFox]

Exactly. Even Burnham admits in his letter that a third of the services in the "Cancelled services" email weren't actually cancelled! This is why he's being misleading

How is it being misleading if what he's saying is true?


As a passenger I'd like to know in advance if there's a two thirds chance of a train being cancelled, then I can adjust my plans accordingly.

 

[northernchris]

How is it being misleading if what he's saying is true?


As a passenger I'd like to know in advance if there's a two thirds chance of a train being cancelled, then I can adjust my plans accordingly.

But what if you adjust your plans only to later discover your initial service ran? It's not that uncommon to see on Northern's JourneyCheck that services have been reinstated

 

[driver_m]

Do you remember reading on here a few months back about severe disruption/cancellations for a couple of weekends on VTWC due to drivers having a bee in their bonnet about a certain issue.
Well that happened on a TOC that’s considered well run, pays good wages and is adequately staffed, so demonstrates the destructive power of industrial action either official or unofficial on an industry like rail, its not always a case of just solving everything by replacing a few bad managers or the complete franchise.

Just shows you are letting your prejudice about industrial action get in the way of the facts. Because I'm one of those drivers youre referring to and you've got your facts wrong about it.

 

[BlueFox]

But what if you adjust your plans only to later discover your initial service ran? It's not that uncommon to see on Northern's JourneyCheck that services have been reinstated

I'd rather that happen than turn up for the train and it not run, which is twice as likely to happen.

 

[Bwlch y Groes]

How is it being misleading if what he's saying is true?

As a passenger I'd like to know in advance if there's a two thirds chance of a train being cancelled, then I can adjust my plans accordingly.

Because of the juxtaposition in the letter. He's inferring that this email of "services likely to be cancelled" proves Northern are lying about how there are no planned cancellations because it contradicts the line of "there are no cancellations planned" in the earlier statement - except that it isn't, because "services likely to be cancelled" =/= services cancellations being planned in advance. They are two entirely different things - one is a list of services which are at risk of being cancelled if the turns on the roster aren't covered; the other is formal cancellation. But Burnham is claiming they are essentially the same thing, which is misleading and incorrect

 

[muz379]

That said it's high time that the railway stopped relying on volunteers to operate services both during the week (Rest days) and Sundays. This practice harks back to the days when drivers (for example) were poorly paid and needed to do the overtime.

However the real disruption is being caused by drivers having to be released for the masses of training that is currently ongoing . Even with a full compliment of drivers TOC's use RDW as a way to cover training because otherwise they would have tons of drivers sat around spare the majority of the time .

Sundays are a case in point as many TOCs are expanding their Sunday services to cater for demand. All TOCs need to ensure that Sundays are brought into the working week. Yes, they will have to employ more staff but that is what is needed rather than this ad-hoc arrangement we have now. No doubt the unions will have something to say but if I was management then why not employ new staff on a new contract that has Sundays in the working week. That's what happens in other industries.

Unions are generally in favour of Sunday in the working week because it means more members . They obviously want it to be done in a way which benefits current members which I would say is fair enough given their purpose . ASLEF reps and officers at Northern had looked at Sundays inside the week and the unions position on it remains that they aspire to bring them inside I am led to believe that this aspiration is not compatible with the finances.

However, it is common in other (even high unionised) industries to introduce new contracts. In fact, the unions can do nothing about it as the new contracts would not be offered to their members they would be new entrants (ergo not members of ASLEF, RMT etc). Of course, if a current member want to move to a 'new' contract they could.

I wouldn't say that the unions can do nothing about it . Just one step they could take is to point blank refuse a RDW sanction for existing members . Recruiting new employees in the same grade on different T's&C's in an environment with such active collective bargaining machinery is simply not going to be anywhere near successful .

You'll note I've never once said whether or not I think "Northern management" are doing a good or bad job - the honest answer is I have absolutely no idea. All I've said is that 1) this situation's a lot more complex than some posters here are making out and no single organisation is solely to blame, 2) "Northern management" largely have their hands tied and there's very little they can realistically do to resolve this in the immediate term, and 3) politicians and the media are not helping by misrepresenting this to the public and essentially rounding on Northern, creating a hostile atmosphere where staff members are concerned with their safety

Whilst I agree that the situation is somewhat complex and there are other organisations at play that are also causing issues I do feel that Andy Burnham is doing exactly what he was elected as Mayor to do . A number of residents of Greater Manchester have contacted him with concerns about the degradation to rail services and he has contacted relevant people to raise the issue and ask that it be investigated . Its only like when you write to your MP about an issue , if the issue is sufficiently serious your MP will address your concerns to the relevant minister .

Granted it does appear from his letters that he does not have a full and proper understanding of the situation however with the number of actors at play and the confusing position of the Rail North body is it at all surprising . I doubt even Grayling himself has a proper understanding of exactly what is going on. The details of it are after all mostly left to civil servants .But the fact of the matter is a lot of passengers pay a heck of a lot of money for a service that comes nowhere near close to their expectations , and as the Mayor hearing about this he is obviously going to want to address that. Perhaps because Burnham is so far off the mark , yourself or Northern should contact him to provide a better explanation .

As for the leaked email and what this leaked email means . My understanding is that the email leaked is an example of one sent of an evening detailing all uncovered services for the following day . If this is correct then I think it is fair to say given the sources of this information that there is a high likelihood that some of these services will be cancelled . Indeed that seems to be confirmed by the fact that 2/3rds did end up being cancelled from this one example . The information contained on this list will be the most up to date list of services that are uncovered . This wont be from the roster produced days in advance . This will be from shift managers after they have explored what can be covered by spare crew at depot and with cross cover . The only chance then of covering these services will be if either someone resumes from sick or restricted duties at short notice or if train crew on the day agree to work overtime . For that reason I think it would therefore be prudent to start warning passengers of the services that are relying on one of those two options to run . If the service is then reinstated this information can be updated to make passengers aware .

I personally do not feel that my safety is compromised by Burnham sending letters asking for an investigation into the poor service some passengers are experiencing . If anything I feel that this is redressing the notion that the current poor levels of service are in any way caused by front line staff and im sure the findings of the investigation confirming this will be made public and reported by the media .

 

[theironroad]

I'm not in Northern Rail land so don't know the minutiae but reading through this thread and Burnham's letters it appears there is a lot of route training going on. I think Northern said 400 of their 1500+ drivers needed to undergo training.

This has clearly been known from day 1 of the project commencing, so Northern knew they would be short of drivers. Unless Northern thought they'd just wing it and take the cancellations on the chin, I just don't understand why Northern managers didn't approach the drivers reps to agree a fdw agreement. Fdw agreements are normally time limited, so Northern could easily have offered a 1 year deal with a number of free days guaranteed to drivers in their roster at say 1.25 base rate pay with an average shift minimum. Above the minimum guarantee could be offered on a as required basis. I'd pretty much guarantee that the cancellations due to driver shortage would have disappeared.

To wait for all the cancellations to happen and then talk about approaching reps for an agreement is a severe lack of forward planning.

 

[driver_m]

As we've previously pointed out. ASLEF are usually ok with RDW for training purposes. That's always been the case for justifying it at my TOC . If anyone does write a letter to Burnham, Make sure you point this out. Northern should answer why they chose not to. That letter they've published is interesting as much in what it omits, as to what it includes.

 

[B&I]

I'm not in Northern Rail land so don't know the minutiae but reading through this thread and Burnham's letters it appears there is a lot of route training going on. I think Northern said 400 of their 1500+ drivers needed to undergo training.

This has clearly been known from day 1 of the project commencing, so Northern knew they would be short of drivers. Unless Northern thought they'd just wing it and take the cancellations on the chin, I just don't understand why Northern managers didn't approach the drivers reps to agree a fdw agreement. Fdw agreements are normally time limited, so Northern could easily have offered a 1 year deal with a number of free days guaranteed to drivers in their roster at say 1.25 base rate pay with an average shift minimum. Above the minimum guarantee could be offered on a as required basis. I'd pretty much guarantee that the cancellations due to driver shortage would have disappeared.

To wait for all the cancellations to happen and then talk about approaching reps for an agreement is a severe lack of forward planning.

Don't be daft, the drivers should volunteer to work on their days off, and probably do it for free. That seems to be the attitude of some on here, for whom a private company could never be expected to take responsibility for anything

 

[Carlisle]

Just shows you are letting your prejudice about industrial action get in the way of the facts. Because I'm one of those drivers youre referring to and you've got your facts wrong about it.

Ok obviously Im unaware of the finer minutiae of that particular dispute but as it’s merely one of several similar happenings at various TOCs over recent years, my point about the dubiousness of seemingly endless concessions to certain unions merely to keep a significantly taxpayer funded public service operational , still stands up to scrutiny.

 

[superkev]

Aren't industrial relations on the railway in a mess and don't we live in a greedy society. As for rest day working over £30 an hour not a bad days work.. Strange the unions advocate renationalisation when some of there members have seen their earnings elevated beyond that of a surgeon.
Difficult to see a way forward. End of moan.
K

 

[theironroad]

Aren't industrial relations on the railway in a mess and don't we live in a greedy society. As for rest day working over £30 an hour not a bad days work.. Strange the unions advocate renationalisation when some of there members have seen their earnings elevated beyond that of a surgeon.
Difficult to see a way forward. End of moan.
K

Here we go again for the umpteenth time, someone moaning about driver pay. I'd have thought most surgeons are at consultant level (I'm not familiar with the NHS ) but a quick look online at the BMA website suggests that the starting salary for a consultant is £76,761 rising to £103,490 depending on length of service.

Consultant starting salary is way above any train drivers pay and there is no increments for length of service. A driver with no additional responsibilities with 40 years service will get the same as the driver with 2 years productive service.

 

[nedchester]

I wouldn't say that the unions can do nothing about it . Just one step they could take is to point blank refuse a RDW sanction for existing members . Recruiting new employees in the same grade on different T's&C's in an environment with such active collective bargaining machinery is simply not going to be anywhere near successful .

Very true which is why both the TOCs and the unions need to get together and sort issues like RDW and Sunday work. The TOCs need to accept that they will need to take on more staff which will cost them more and the unions need to accept that some of the practices like volunteering for Sunday's (which really belong in another era when driver's were very poorly paid and had to work Sunday's to make up a decent wage) need to change. Either that or TOCs need to bite the bullet and start employing new staff on new contracts as happens in many other industries.

I think there will probably be a need for a limited amount of volunteering for shifts on the railway and many staff are more than willing to take up the offer of some extra pay. However, relying a whole train service on volunteers is foolhardy in the extreme. Northern today started with an expansion of its Sunday services, how is this sustainable using a volunteer workforce?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Either that or TOCs need to bite the bullet and start employing new staff on new contracts as happens in many other industries.

I'd propose this. All new staff to work Sunday every week for the foreseeable future unless for actual religious reasons (i.e. you *actually* attend Church) or unless booking annual leave (to accommodate family events, booking of single Sundays could be permitted). It'll then filter through.

If you know that's what you're getting when you apply, if you don't like it don't apply. Working for the railway is so popular they'll still get more than enough applicants.

And RDW is not an entitlement so it (and overtime generally) should be phased out except in cases of disruption - i.e. overtime should never be used to cover a planned shift, only where disruption has occurred, be that delays in excess of expected, or be that sickness in excess of expected. If nothing else it's less safe than staff being expected to take their rest days - they will be more tired.

 

[theironroad]

I'd propose this. All new staff to work Sunday every week for the foreseeable future unless for actual religious reasons (i.e. you *actually* attend Church) or unless booking annual leave (to accommodate family events, booking of single Sundays could be permitted). It'll then filter through.

If you know that's what you're getting when you apply, if you don't like it don't apply. Working for the railway is so popular they'll still get more than enough applicants.

And RDW is not an entitlement so it (and overtime generally) should be phased out except in cases of disruption - i.e. overtime should never be used to cover a planned shift, only where disruption has occurred, be that delays in excess of expected, or be that sickness in excess of expected. If nothing else it's less safe than staff being expected to take their rest days - they will be more tired.

Not really going to help for a while. Even if a new driver started tomorrow on the new contract you propose (I suppose a few people wouldn't mind working EVERY Sunday for the foreseeable future ( I see you don't put a time limit on it, which is handy), it's going to be around 12 months before they work their first productive turn on any day of the week, let alone Sunday.

Maybe the new contracts should also allow Muslims not to work Friday or Jews to have every Saturday off if they both 'actually' attend Mosque/Synagogue. Maybe they'd have to get their diary stamped by the Iman/rabbi to show they 'actually' attended.......

 

[IanXC]

As for the leaked email and what this leaked email means . My understanding is that the email leaked is an example of one sent of an evening detailing all uncovered services for the following day . If this is correct then I think it is fair to say given the sources of this information that there is a high likelihood that some of these services will be cancelled . Indeed that seems to be confirmed by the fact that 2/3rds did end up being cancelled from this one example . The information contained on this list will be the most up to date list of services that are uncovered . This wont be from the roster produced days in advance . This will be from shift managers after they have explored what can be covered by spare crew at depot and with cross cover . The only chance then of covering these services will be if either someone resumes from sick or restricted duties at short notice or if train crew on the day agree to work overtime . For that reason I think it would therefore be prudent to start warning passengers of the services that are relying on one of those two options to run . If the service is then reinstated this information can be updated to make passengers aware .

Surely for an operator as large as Northern (and with as many depots as Northern) such an email would be needed for different shift managers to understand what they can cover for other depots? I would have thought that your description of the order of events is a bit out, and that this email is probably earlier in the process than you describe.

 

[nedchester]

Not really going to help for a while. Even if a new driver started tomorrow on the new contract you propose (I suppose a few people wouldn't mind working EVERY Sunday for the foreseeable future ( I see you don't put a time limit on it, which is handy), it's going to be around 12 months before they work their first productive turn on any day of the week, let alone Sunday.

Maybe the new contracts should also allow Muslims not to work Friday or Jews to have every Saturday off if they both 'actually' attend Mosque/Synagogue. Maybe they'd have to get their diary stamped by the Iman/rabbi to show they 'actually' attended.......

No, religion shouldn't come into it. If you can't work a particular day for such reason then you don't apply.

I accept that it would take a whilebut in the long term it seems me to be the only solution.

 

[theironroad]

No, religion shouldn't come into it. If you can't work a particular day for such reason then you don't apply.

I agree. Maybe I wasn't clear, but just highlighting the absurdity that had been suggested by another poster that people who 'actually' go to church should be exempted.

I work for a toc that has had Sundays as part of the working week for years, it's just another day at base pay. If you want the day off you book leave or try to do a mutual swap with another driver. If not, you work it!

 

[Bletchleyite]

I agree. Maybe I wasn't clear, but just highlighting the absurdity that had been suggested by another poster that people who 'actually' go to church should be exempted.

I only said it because I thought it might be illegal not to accommodate it. If it is legal, yes, by all means just make it "all new drivers and guards will work Sundays every week until things filter through".

 

[theironroad]

I only said it because I thought it might be illegal not to accommodate it. If it is legal, yes, by all means just make it "all new drivers and guards will work Sundays every week until things filter through".

Well the collective bargaining agreement I work under currently has me liable to work on any of the 365 days a year. However, rosters are negotiated between management and union reps and no roster would be agreed that had a driver working every single Sunday.

As a driver, I've never worked under the older systems of Sundays being overtime and outside the working week so I know no difference.

 

[nedchester]

I only said it because I thought it might be illegal not to accommodate it. If it is legal, yes, by all means just make it "all new drivers and guards will work Sundays every week until things filter through".

Pretty sure it is not illegal when advertising jobs to make Sunday or whatever day compulsory