What happens if a driver is late?

[Krokodil]

I find it amazing how criticism of Traincrew planners is rife on here yet before every timetable change the union reps scrutinise the diagrams to agree them and can alter anything they deem to be a performance risk (certainly at my company and I know we’re not alone in this).

The reps here can only refuse a diagram if it is 'illegal' - in terms of complying with the rules around working hours, breaks etc. They may have the opportunity to shuffle work between diagrams but can't just refuse one because it is a performance risk. We had one where it constantly resulted in delays of 20 minutes, we had to get the performance team to produce reams of data before we could get it changed, it took months to resolve something that the staff side said wouldn't work from the start.

At GWR meanwhile, Plymouth drivers had a turn where they would arrive at Paddington, have the barest minimum time to walk to the messroom, take their break, and walk back to their next train. "We don't plan for delays" was the answer when they objected. Which went well...

 

[CAF397]

A rather unfair comment. The people who make these diagrams don't deliberately make them as tight as possible; indeed, after the software spits out a set of diagrams, planners would usually be expected to go through them to see if there's anything obviously wrong with them, or that could be made better by swapping work around between diagrams. Similarly, at most TOCs, diagrams are consulted with local union reps before coming into effect.

At my TOC the reps don't get to see the diagrams until they are produced, often in the same week that links have to be agreed. This allows little to no flexibility to sort out any problems with diagrams.

I do wish that management would have a better relationship with the unions, so when working on diagrams they can either be jointly discussed, or produced in time to sort any issues.

The consistent running down or trivialising of any railway employee who isn't frontline crew demonstrates incredible naivety. Just because you don't understand someone else's job doesn't make it worthless or an easy target for criticism. It takes a lot of people to run a railway, and that does include people who work in offices...

I think the view most traincrew have of diagramming is that too much faith is put into the system that compiles the diagram.

Very good points mentioned above, that walking time and allowances are agreed, but also there should also be an extra allowance - call it contingency planning, to ensure it does indeed allow for delays.

Stations and times changed, but this was my diagram yesterday.

Drive from station A to C, arrive 12:00.

Relieved by a driver (1)
Walking time (5)
Break (40)
Walking time (5)

Depart 12:52 passenger from station C to B and take over the train back to station A.

When you add up all the allowances on the diagram, that comes to 51 minutes.

There is 52 minutes between train arriving and departing. I have to be relieved by another driver, who does the disposing of the train because there is not enough time to do that in my allowances.

The train is the same train I work in to station C that I then travel on to station B and take forward.

So if I am delayed arriving into Station C, I have to take my break. They either hold the train for me to finish my break, or it goes without me and I have to travel on the next train to station B to pick it up.

Which ever way you look at it, this diagram was not produced with contingency, but it is 'legal' on all parameters.

For the sake of clarity, I would never not take my break, or take a shortened break just to keep a train running to time because if an incident was to arise it is me who has to explain to the ORR/Police why I didn't take my mandated rest. The company would not back me up, so I never take shortcuts.

 

[75A]

For the sake of clarity, I would never not take my break, or take a shortened break just to keep a train running to time because if an incident was to arise it is me who has to explain to the ORR/Police why I didn't take my mandated rest. The company would not back me up, so I never take shortcuts.

Wise man.

 

[Deafdoggie]

I know it's very different. But in the bus industry I know a few companies tried giving drivers the minimum legal break. But drivers were then "stuck in traffic" and late in, causing chaos for the rest of the day as spares were then being sent out and drivers were having to take out other turns and it all fell apart quite quickly!
Then, of course, the companies gave longer breaks, but maximised driving hours...again drivers were "stuck in traffic" miles from depot and out of hours.
Eventually, most agreed to rota around four and a half hours driving (maximum is 5 & half) and a 45 minute break (minimum is 30 minutes) and it all flows (mostly, anyway) quite smoothly.

 

[richfoz84]

I’ve been late to work a train twice this week, because the DSM has no one to cover trips so they allowed both services to leave approx 10 mins late.

Drivers have to take their full break, to stay “legal”.

It’s not uncommon for dispatch staff to be unaware of lates being planned to depart late as control haven’t informed them OR been informed themselves by the DSM.

 

[dk1]

Yay I was actually late to a train today. This thread must’ve talked it up. Delayed 25 minutes outside Ipswich awaiting a platform meaning my next working was waiting.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Sep 2023 ==

First time in must be 15 years.

 

[CAF397]

Yay I was actually late to a train today. This thread must’ve talked it up. Delayed 25 minutes outside Ipswich awaiting a platform meaning my next working was waiting.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Sep 2023 ==

First time in must be 15 years.

There was once quite major disruption at a major Northern station one evening because of that very scenario!

Train blocking one of the few through platforms waiting for a driver, who had travelled passenger on a late running train which was stood outside the station awaiting a platform. No one knew this, or if they did they never told Network Rail.

Mexican standoff.

 

[dk1]

There was once quite major disruption at a major Northern station one evening because of that very scenario!

Train blocking one of the few through platforms waiting for a driver, who had travelled passenger on a late running train which was stood outside the station awaiting a platform. No one knew this, or if they did they never told Network Rail.

Mexican standoff.

So frustrating as was my only chance in a 3hr period to grab a coffee

 

[GordonT]

Which of following is better practice on TOCs which use conductors and operate a very standard fleet?

i) As far as possible a driver and conductor pair work the same journeys throughout their shift and as far as possible shifts are constructed to minimise the number of different traction units and routes worked in a shift;
or
ii) Drivers and conductors diagrams have minimal commonality and within a shift traincrew will work several different units and routes.

 

[CAF397]

The former make operational sense, as it mitigates against delays, cancellations and helps recovery in disruption.

The latter, though, was part of TPEs problems. It has been promised that more through crew working where possible will be in place from December which will hopefully help things work.

 

[skyhigh]

i) As far as possible a driver and conductor pair work the same journeys throughout their shift and as far as possible shifts are constructed to minimise the number of different traction units and routes worked in a shift;
or
ii) Drivers and conductors diagrams have minimal commonality and within a shift traincrew will work several different units and routes.

i) is generally better for minimising disruption but ii) results in better optimised diagrams which = lower cost so is obviously the way most TOCs go (which is understandable, given the financial constraints on the industry).

 

[Krokodil]

i) will result in a much more robust operation, but is less productive because there are occasions within a diagram where you need a driver but don't need a guard (shunts, ECS moves)
ii) will be more efficient but falls apart at the slightest disruption.

 

[Wyrleybart]

It works on paper. People in offices don't know real life exists. The railway only operates from 09.00 until 16.24 on Mondays to Fridays except Bank and Public Holidays

Sorry but that is rubbish. If a company use a computer to create crew diagrams the company use a set of parameters for the computer to build them. That doesn't mean nine til fivers are to blame for the diagrams. It is more likely the TOC having pressure from within the industry to use a particular software provider to create the diagrams. ie a company based in Darlington

 

[WAB]

I think the view most traincrew have of diagramming is that too much faith is put into the system that compiles the diagram.

Very good points mentioned above, that walking time and allowances are agreed, but also there should also be an extra allowance - call it contingency planning, to ensure it does indeed allow for delays.

Any decent traincrew diagrammer will be able to configure the parameters for their diagramming software reasonably well, and will be able to work through the diagrams manually and remove any particular clangers.

However...

1. Close attention has always been paid to optimising diagrams to within an inch of their life ever since franchise days, and this is not something that has been relented on. Your suggestions of contingency allowance for service resilience would be pounced on very quickly by the powers that be...
2. Train planning units are generally kept lean so the additional workload associated with major infrastructure projects and industrial action put time pressure on the teams so issues with diagrams will be less likely to be picked up, and this in turn leads to...
3. … a lack of understanding of frontline ops as planning units don't have the capacity to release their planners to engage with frontline teams and see how it's done...
4. … and this also means that unions cannot be given the diagrams so far in advance.
5. Turnover is an issue throughout ops on the railway, so depending on the area, it is possible that the planners for that area may be inexperienced or shorthanded, and therefore more reliant on what the computer spits out with no manual alteration.

 

[philthetube]

Depends why they were late. If they were late booking on duty, its their fault.
If they were late because their previous working was late, its the railway's fault.
If they were late because they misread their workings or whatever, its their fault.
If they were late because their diagram was wrong, its the railway's fault

It may not be their fault, if late because of cancelled trains preventing them getting to work it is not their fault.

 

[306024]

Any decent traincrew diagrammer will be able to configure the parameters for their diagramming software reasonably well, and will be able to work through the diagrams manually and remove any particular clangers.

This is where the diagrammers job has changed out of all recognition from the days of producing diagrams manually. Diagramming manually you built up a picture in your head as you went along, looking at every move in detail. Now you are instantly presented with an answer all at once and have to sort the wheat from the chaff. Personally I think it has destroyed the enjoyment of doing the job, certainly made my retirement decision easier.

Most of the time the computer will produce fewer diagrams, which is why finance directors like the results, but the debate is ongoing whether they are sufficiently operationally sound, and as efficient as they look when it comes to putting them in a roster.

It is more likely the TOC having pressure from within the industry to use a particular software provider to create the diagrams. ie a company based in Darlington

Other software is available.

All of which is getting a long way from the original question, where it could have just been the drivers watch was slow, or simply didn't give themselves enough time for whatever reason, we’ll never know.

 

[Class800]

It may not be their fault, if late because of cancelled trains preventing them getting to work it is not their fault.

I'm not sure I'd agree with that if they haven't already booked on. If they are travelling to work and not yet booked on, it surely wouldn't be any different than an accountant, a college lecturer or a vicar travelling to work. They have to get there on time or it is their fault. Whatever train or bus cancellations or heavy traffic there is, they have to take responsibility for being on time. Not sure we should see this any differently. Delays within the operational day are different

 

[Dai Corner]

I'm not sure I'd agree with that if they haven't already booked on. If they are travelling to work and not yet booked on, it surely wouldn't be any different than an accountant, a college lecturer or a vicar travelling to work. They have to get there on time or it is their fault. Whatever train or bus cancellations or heavy traffic there is, they have to take responsibility for being on time. Not sure we should see this any differently. Delays within the operational day are different

Though the accountant can work through his lunch break or stay late to catch up, students can do some reading while they wait for their lecture to begin or a congregation can pray privately if their service is delayed. A train driver not being available to take his train out on time can disrupt the railway for hours.

Is it common to have traincrew sitting spare to cover colleagues booking on late these days?

 

[Deafdoggie]

Though the accountant can work through his lunch break or stay late to catch up, students can do some reading while they wait for their lecture to begin or a congregation can pray privately if their service is delayed. A train driver not being available to take his train out on time can disrupt the railway for hours.

Is it common to have traincrew sitting spare to cover colleagues booking on late these days?

Whenever anyone on these forums complain about being delayed, everyone always says they should have allowed more time if important. Train drivers are the same. They should allow suffient time to get there! I guess, however, few train drivers travel to work (from home) by train.

 

[Dai Corner]

Whenever anyone on these forums complain about being delayed, everyone always says they should have allowed more time if important. Train drivers are the same. They should allow suffient time to get there! I guess, however, few train drivers travel to work (from home) by train.

How much contingency should they allow for road traffic accidents causing delays, trespassers on the railway or buses or trains failing en route?

 

[Class800]

How much contingency should they allow for road traffic accidents causing delays, trespassers on the railway or buses or trains failing en route?

Same as anyone else I'd say.

 

[Meglos]

British Airways have longhaul staff who rely on their staff travel benefits to commute to work, and then have a room in a flat share in the middle of their roster. In the 1990's one of the captains got disiplined for regularly missing his roster, as relying on commuting from Cape Town to London on staff travel (standby) meant that his attendance rate was well below par.

 

[Krokodil]

I'm not sure I'd agree with that if they haven't already booked on. If they are travelling to work and not yet booked on, it surely wouldn't be any different than an accountant, a college lecturer or a vicar travelling to work. They have to get there on time or it is their fault. Whatever train or bus cancellations or heavy traffic there is, they have to take responsibility for being on time. Not sure we should see this any differently. Delays within the operational day are different

I would draw the line at when the train to work was disrupted. If he checked before leaving home and everything was running fine, only for the train to get cancelled/severely delayed while he was on his way to the station (or indeed after he boarded the train) then he has taken all reasonable steps to be in on time.

If however he could have known that the train was cancelled/disrupted before he left the house then he should have made other arrangements - pretty much every railway employer I know is clear that you should be able to get to work when public transport is not running.

Is it common to have traincrew sitting spare to cover colleagues booking on late these days?

Some key locations have standby turns there in order to keep things moving if crew become displaced. Availability of spare crews however depends upon how many of them were already marked up to cover full turns, covering for annual leave/sickness/vacancies etc. You might have half a dozen spares sitting in the messroom on one day, but on the next they've all been given jobs.

Whenever anyone on these forums complain about being delayed, everyone always says they should have allowed more time if important. Train drivers are the same. They should allow suffient time to get there! I guess, however, few train drivers travel to work (from home) by train.

And if they've allowed sufficient time (including reasonable contingency) but something outside of their control has happened? Road traffic collisions, flat tyres, points failures etc.

 

[riceuten]

When I see things on Twitter etc saying "the driver couldn't be bothered coming to work", or "where is he eating doughnuts", I usually say "waiting to be recruited"....

That sort of stuff is SO prevalent. Usually followed by massive exaggerations about pay, and terms & conditions taken directly from the Daily Mail and Express.

"Surely it's just pushing a button, isn't it ?"

 

[TreacleMiller]

Whenever anyone on these forums complain about being delayed, everyone always says they should have allowed more time if important. Train drivers are the same. They should allow suffient time to get there! I guess, however, few train drivers travel to work (from home) by train.

Id say at my TOC and most others at my stations MOST drivers get a train to work. I do when I can which is about 50% of my shifts. I use my own TOC where possible and ideally pickup my own set earlier in its route.

Odds are if a driver is in disruption on the railway there day would have been impacted once booked on anyway.

 

[dk1]

Train drivers are the same. They should allow suffient time to get there! I guess, however, few train drivers travel to work (from home) by train.

I do whenever possible and check all is running well before I venture to the station. If it goes wrong after that then its unfortunate.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Sep 2023 ==

Prefer to train rather than car as it costs me nothing.

 

[75A]

Reminds me of getting stopped by the Police on the A27 on 4 consecutives nights around 3-30 am enroute to a 4am sign on!

 

[Tomnick]

Fascinating to see how much (or little) some TOCs let their reps get involved with LTP diagramming, and the extent to which optimisation and efficiency takes precedence over resilience and fatigue management.

Where I am, as reps, we've been scrutinising December's diagrams since the start of this week. That gives us plenty of time to chop and change, to offer an alternative proposal. As long as the set of diagrams that we propose is no greater in number than the original set produced by Planning, then they're generally happy to just accept what we've produced. As drivers ourselves, we can spot those diagrams that are "legal" but potentially problematic either from a resilience or operational safety point of view, and we can also pick up issues that'll trip us up when it comes to compiling links (e.g. too many jobs requiring a combination of route knowledge that mean that they can only go in one particular link, or even jobs that are impossible to link for route knowledge). We've even had management support for creating an extra diagram to give us more room to swap things around. and deal with tight spots.

Whenever anyone on these forums complain about being delayed, everyone always says they should have allowed more time if important. Train drivers are the same. They should allow suffient time to get there! I guess, however, few train drivers travel to work (from home) by train.

The last time I was late booking-on, I'd decided to enjoy a nice walk to the station to catch the train to work. I think I must've left the car at work the previous day or something. I'd planned to catch the train before the one that I really needed to be on. Between leaving home and getting to the station, that train had been cancelled, and the next one (which should've still got me there with about 20 minutes to spare) had been caught up in some farce and was now running the best part of an hour late. They arranged a taxi for me from the station but that took about 30 minutes to come too! I arrived in time to at least get my first train out pretty much right time.

How far do I have to go to allow for all eventualities? The latest that I've ever known someone book-on for work was about 7 hours, having been caught up in a motorway closure en-route - you can't plan for that!

The problem is that we're increasingly expected to live within an hour's travel time of work, and our employers assess our fatigue risk on that basis. If we're then expected to allow even more time to get to work, to account for all eventualities, then that throws out those fatigue calculations.

 

[357]

Let's put this another way: at every TOC I've ever worked for being late because of train delays didn't make it ok but it was accepted.

If we started being reprimanded for being late when the trains are late, the goodwill during disruption will evaporate overnight.

No more of the "I'll drive it to X because I live there anyway, if you can find someone to relieve me when I get there", no more continuing past your hours to read the destination (when you're within your rights to demand closest available depot/siding/bay platforms off of the mainline) and more. The disruption will become much much worse without the goodwill of the staff on the front line. I feel that staff goodwill is a reoccurring theme on this website over the past couple of years...

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Sep 2023 ==

The problem is that we're increasingly expected to live within an hour's travel time of work, and our employers assess our fatigue risk on that basis. If we're then expected to allow even more time to get to work, to account for all eventualities, then that throws out those fatigue calculations

Yep. Can't say "you must live within an hour but leave two hours before your shift".

 

[75A]

The problem is that we're increasingly expected to live within an hour's travel time of work, and our employers assess our fatigue risk on that basis. If we're then expected to allow even more time to get to work, to account for all eventualities, then that throws out those fatigue calculations.

I think an hour is the norm outside of the railway.

Working for BT, my office was changed and I was expected to do an hours travelling each way in my own time, but for the first 3 years they provided wheels & fuel.