If passengers keep being driven away from the railway as the current “safeguards” are doing, then you, I and many other posters on this forum will be looking for new jobs before long. The population is vaccinated and the signs are good re. Omicron. We have done all we can and it’s time to get on with our lives. Possibly more of a discussion for the Covid section!
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Transpennine Industrial Relations
- Thread starter geoffk
- Start date
- Status
If passengers keep being driven away from the railway as the current “safeguards” are doing, then you, I and many other posters on this forum will be looking for new jobs before long. The population is vaccinated and the signs are good re. Omicron. We have done all we can and it’s time to get on with our lives. Possibly more of a discussion for the Covid section!
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
It's probably a good job you're not making the decision then? It's been explained adequately.
What do you think that the senior management team are trying to do? Option one is that they just don't like their staff and want them all to get Omicron so they can all have a good laugh while they're at home. Option two is that they've been informed of the urgency of the financial position and requested to provide efficiencies. Staff make up for a very large component of costs, so although work will no doubt be ongoing in all areas, there is no way that efficiencies can be delivered without looking at changing staffing. Some changes will be much, much more disruptive than others. This change, in that context, is a relatively 'easy win' to show improvement. If no improvements whatsoever are shown because all options are considered too difficult and everything stays as it is, management are likely to be replaced with rather more heavy handed individuals.
Which seems more likely?
O L Leigh
Established Member
And that relates to spare cover how...?
Prior to the current Omicron crisis , I think you’ll find TPE had amongst the worst cancellation levels of any TOC not recently embroiled in a long term dispute of one kind or another.
Last edited:
Most tocs are really struggling to cover services, there are just no spares from home at the depot I'm based.
Just covering services is a huge challenge as the sickness levels are rising quickly, my personal experience is traincrew have worked hard throughout the pandemic in very challenging times.
I've not experienced working from home except for a safety course and training course from home during the pandemic.
There's a lot of negativity towards traincrew on here, I've lost colleagues at work due to covid and its not nice to see how some people perceive traincrew.
O L Leigh
Established Member
And that relates to spare cover how...?
They are not going to be failing to utilise spare cover while still cancelling trains as a consequence of traincrew shortages.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Well I was trying to avoid that and wanted to keep it pertinent to the topic of spares at home, as discussed.
They are not going to be failing to utilise spare cover while still cancelling trains as a consequence of traincrew shortages.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Well I was trying to avoid that and wanted to keep it pertinent to the topic of spares at home, as discussed.
Last edited:
I'm afraid you can't just keep asking obtuse questions to win an argument. It has been explained. At the most basic level if you wish to have 'service protection' turns, this costs more money than not having them does. It is to be robustly questioned if there's value for money in that spend, and if there's too much of it relative to the value of the service being 'protected'. It's always the way during austerity with intangibles like reliability.
O L Leigh
Established Member
The problem is that you haven't actually made your point. Simply saying that "there's change a-coming" doesn't answer the question.
You've been making bold claims about "spare at home" being inefficient and I've yet to see the evidence of this. The question I ask is not obtuse. Please can you explain why you feel that this is the case.
Did you see the content of posts 139 and 142? I'm not sure how a more full explanation could be provided!
O L Leigh
Established Member
Yes I read them, and I questioned them at the time because they are statements of opinion rather than of fact and are based on a number of assumptions and (so far) unsupported assertions. Questions have been raised arising from these two posts which are still outstanding.
All I can tell you is that they're not based on assumptions about what has happened inside TPE. If you're unwilling to believe me, or the content of the posts, then I'm afraid that's up to you.
If you're hoping for someone to come back and post "Driver A B on 23rd January 2021 spare at home. XXXX service from Y to Z cancelled due to insufficient time to attend from spare at home" several hundred times, nobody is going to share anything that specific. Sorry.
Post 139 is theoretical claims and inaccurate
There is no proof whatsoever that spare from home leads directly to an increase service cancellations anymore than a ‘normal’ spare turn would.
If a 0600 train needs a driver and they’re on a shift that’s spare from home 0600-1500, it wouldn’t make a difference than if they were on a spare turn 0700-1600
So in other words, it does make a difference? Hm.
Not caused by staffing though
Most cancellations have resulted on the Scottish route having speed restrictions due to severe weather, the Hull route having issues with Selby swing bridge failing multiple times this year, and the South route saw several freight train’s blocking the line, and again failure of the swing bridge.
*with the exception of a particularly bad month which saw Covid cases spread through the depot like wildfire resulting in more than half of a link self-isolating
O L Leigh
Established Member
Then you will have to concede that the point is unproven and, therefore, theoretical. As a theory that's fine, but it is not reflective of the actual staffing situation which has been explained ably in post 166.
It doesn’t.
In theory if someone was spare at home at that time, there is another member of staff on ‘spare’ at the depot.
My point was simply that if you’ve got a train with no traincrew at 6am, regardless of wether you have staff spare or spare at home, neither are available to cover it regardless.
It won't, I imagine, be proven on a public forum to your satisfaction. Indeed proofs of anything are nearly impossible in the universe, unless you're really good at physics.
However, most of us consider the available evidence and come to a view based on what's most likely going on. What's your view? That there's pressure to end 'spare at home' because management just wants to inconvenience train crews?
Post 166 deals with the situation at a different operator where doubtless things are done differently.
O L Leigh
Established Member
See, it's churlish comments like that which get people annoyed. This is a discussion, not a battle.
My view, as it happens, is that it doesn't matter whether the driver is spare at home or at the depot because it make no practical difference. A driver spare at home needs to phone-in in advance of their booking-on time to speak to the traincrew supervisor (TCS) to find out if they're needed immediately so that they can attend in time. If needs be, they can still get to work by their booking-on time. The driver remains contactable throughout the shift and can be called in when required (subject to travel time).
The cost implications are also no different. If a driver is spare it is because they are not immediately needed at the time the daily alteration sheets are published nor at the time they book-on. If they are not required on the day then they will sit around drinking tea and staring out of the window until they are released by the TCS. In this instance it doesn't matter whether they're at home or in the depot.
If there is a need for short-notice cover, this will be dealt with by the standby driver. This is different from spare because it is a rostered turn and requires the driver to attend. As was explained earlier, if there is a need to replace that standby driver then a spare can be called in.
That's the procedure. In practice, various factors currently at play mean that no-one is spare. I haven't been spare for so long that I have no idea whether or not we're even still doing spare at home. The spare cover built into the roster is being fully utilised at the daily mark-up stage and still isn't covering all the gaps (even with a reduced service), hence my comment about the consequence of reducing spare coverage.
Where there is still spare cover on the day, the TCS is usually well aware of what issues he/she will have to deal with in advance such that the travelling time of a spare to attend from home is not an issue. It is commonly the case that when you speak to the TCS you are told what you are required to do several hours in advance. While this does not mean that the need for a short-notice cover driver does not exist, it is usually limited to major disruption events which would allow the TCS to redeploy the existing on-duty drivers as necessary due to service cancellations.
Actually I'm not expecting court-levels of proof. I simply believe that any comment that masquerades as a fact should be capable of substantiation and that I should not simply believe something because you or anyone else says so unless I know that they are a trusted and knowledgeable source. Therefore, statements like those that suggest that "spare at home" is causing service disruption should be capable of being backed-up or should otherwise be clearly phrased to show that this is the poster's opinion.
If we're being brutally honest, it's actually not that it's causing service disruption in itself that's driving the willingness to change. It's that, like all spare, it's costing money. And it's likely to be costing more money relative to the protection it provides because it provides inferior protection when there's a wait while train crew travel. I can't put it more simply than that.
matacaster
On Moderation
Why not just examine the CCTV security cameras in the comfort of your office?
O L Leigh
Established Member
So we're back to "there's change a-coming and you'd better get used to it". You don't want to address anything I've explained about "spare at home"...?
Yes I know that change is on the cards. I read enough of the industry press to be aware of it. The problem is that until we know what that change will be this forum will be alive with bright ideas, many of which will not be even considered never mind taken forward. I've heard them all, but frankly until anything actually changes, nothing is changed. You may say that spare cover is an expensive luxury. Well, we shall have to wait and see if you're proved right.
But none of this has any bearing on the topic of TPE (or many other TOCs for that matter). Any reduction in spare cover would, as I stated above, mean more services would be cancelled. Spare cover across many companies is being fully utilised at daily mark-up stage to ensure that those services that can be run are run, meaning that spare cover on the day is costing the industry nothing. Cut back on the number of drivers and you won't need a maths degree to work out what will happen.
Train crew traveling from a spare at home position are notified well in advance of the service they are required to cover. There is still on site contingency staff which are actually rostered jobs.
O L Leigh
Established Member
Except that it's obvious that it's only relevant when all of the spares in the depot are unavailable, usually because they've already been used for something else. Which is a very common occurance.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Indeed nothing is changed until something is changed. The proposal for this very change has already been made, and it's not difficult to see why. It probably won't quite work itself out as it would have now though because circumstances regarding Omicron will almost certainly see a new emergency timetable.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
The number of train services which can be delivered will be reduced, yes. That's precisely what is happening in several areas.
O L Leigh
Established Member
You mean the rostered standby?
Well they tend to only get used for short jobs like set swaps and the like. You don't send the standby away from the depot to cover a long distance unless something unexpected happens (e.g. fatality). In this instance, the standby is never far away and, even if they're doing something at that moment, will be back soon. If you need a driver to work a train up to wherever, you bring in a spare which, as I explained above, is something the TCS usually knows about far enough in advance for the spare driver's travelling time not to matter.
I dispute that its a very common occurrence as you claim, though.
And we'll see what gets made of the proposal. I'm old enough to know that just sometimes the industry can do something really monumentally stupid like cutting back spare coverage, but once the consequences of such a decision is felt it is normally reversed.
...as at my place of work too.
But this does not undermine the principle of having spare coverage within the roster. Annual leave, sickness, training and so on all require to be covered, which means that every roster needs to have a number of staff spare to cover such situations. Even pre-Covid, very few of these drivers remained spare at the daily mark-up stage and actually sat spare and unused throughout their shift. If this indicates anything it is that the proportion of spare to rostered drivers is probably about right.
Perhaps that's how it works in your depot. But it has been made pretty clear that it's not the way it is turning out everywhere. Indeed TPE was clearly among the most problematic judging by the number of cancelled services prior to the termination of the rest day working agreement.
Do you have any evidence that supports this? I am personally not aware of it at all.
As another memeber posted in this thread several hours ago, in the past 18 months there were very few issues with traincrew, but cancellations to do with infrastructure and traction
Spares are a good thing. You don't need to convince me of that. Unfortunately I'm not the one paying.
O L Leigh
Established Member
We're going around in circles.
Let me get this straight. You are blaming the cancellations on TPE prior to the expiry of the RDW agreement solely on TPE's utilisation of spare and standby coverage...?
Yes, the fact that they want spares on site and not at home!
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Of course not. I've said several times before that moving away from 'spare at home' will only make a small improvement in the grand scheme of things.
- Status