Another Cross Country nightmare

[BanburyBlue]

A couple of queries, firstly do XC announce on their social media if one unit is out of use on their double Voyagers? This would at least give potential passengers some idea of where on the platform to wait to give themselves a fighting chance of a seat space to stand on the train.

Secondly what happens with splits? For example 1V64 ex-Edinburgh splits at Bristol Parkway, with one unit going to Plymouth and the other to Cardiff. If one is out of use how do they decide which unit goes to its destination and which gets cancelled - do they toss a coin?

In my experience it's totally random. Not social media I know, but I've been at stations where it was announced it was a 9 car and then find a set locked out of use, and also seen it announced that it is a 4 car and a 9 car rocks up with both units open.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Retail Managers stepping up to be TM's - can't see 'the Brothers' in the Union being happy about that happening.

And there we have it, the actual reason.

Nothing to do with the union, so far as I understand, more to do with the fact that XC don't want their Retail Service Managers to be safety-trained and pay them accordingly. The TMs, as far as I understand, do not have an issue with RSMs working in the front coach. As far as I understand the issue is with XC management.

Of course if the RSMs no longer have any safety-critical role then they are more easily dispensed with or outsourced...

 

[Russel]

Nothing to do with the union, so far as I understand, more to do with the fact that XC don't want their Retail Service Managers to be safety-trained and pay them accordingly. The TMs, as far as I understand, do not have an issue with RSMs working in the front coach. As far as I understand the issue is with XC management.

Of course if the RSMs no longer have any safety-critical role then they are more easily dispensed with or outsourced...

Easiest solution, XC Management stipulate that the TM should be in the rear set, that way there is a safety critical member of staff in each set with the driver in the front in case of emergency.

As I've said already, the same TOC runs doubled up, non gangway 170s with only 1 conductor, as do other TOCs such as Chiltern and WMR, so this really is an issue that shouldn't be happening...

The only reason I can think of that XC Management wouldn't implement this is because the unions wouldn't like it.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Easiest solution, XC Management stipulate that the TM should be in the rear set, that way there is a safety critical member of staff in each set with the driver in the front in case of emergency.

You misunderstand the point. XC management don’t want the RSM being in charge of the front set. It is nothing to do with the unions, who you will note have not previously objected to that arrangement for over 20 years.

 

[ThatBloke]

You misunderstand the point. XC management don’t want the RSM being in charge of the front set. It is nothing to do with the unions, who you will note have not previously objected to that arrangement for over 20 years.

Are you able to share what underlies AXC's approach(logic?) on this?

 

[Russel]

You misunderstand the point. XC management don’t want the RSM being in charge of the front set. It is nothing to do with the unions, who you will note have not previously objected to that arrangement for over 20 years.

Where has it been said management don't want the RSM being in charge? From what I understand from former colleagues still with XC, it's all down to the additional payment being withdrawn.

But, as I said multiple times on here, the same TOC already operates Turbostars without a TM/Conductor in both sets, so WHY, do the Voyagers need two, weather that's two TM's or RSM's covering? It can't be anything to do with safety as the Turbostar routes duplicate Voyager routes in places and many other TOC's run non-gangway stock without conductors in each set...

This really is an unacceptable situation with an easy fix and it's baffling me as to why it's being allowed to continue.

 

[daveo]

No doubt GBR will fix it!!!!!!

 

[Russel]

No doubt GBR will fix it!!!!!!

Wishful thinking, things are too far gone for, XC management are rotten to the core and the unions spit their dummies out at the slightest hint of change.

 

[Tetchytyke]

it's all down to the additional payment being withdrawn.

Well there you go. Why would you do extra work for no additional money?

RSMs have been doing it since Virgin days, and getting paid for it. As your say, an easy solution.

 

[Russel]

Well there you go. Why would you do extra work for no additional money?

RSMs have been doing it since Virgin days, and getting paid for it. As your say, an easy solution.

So nothing to do with "XC management don’t want the RSM being in charge of the front set."...

Yes, easy solution, remove the need for a second TM or person covering the role as it simply isn't needed, it saves money and it would also greatly reduce any future risk of double sets running around with 1 set locked out of use.

 

[Tetchytyke]

So nothing to do with "XC management don’t want the RSM being in charge of the front set."...

Except it is, and I stand by what I said.

There needs to be someone in both sets. Until recently they used the RSM. Its worked for 20 years. XC management stopped rostering RSMs to do it because they didn’t want to pay the RSMs. They want to deskill the RSMs. Why? You can’t outsource the current RSM roles to RailGourmet, but if all they do is push a trolley then maybe you can…

 

[Hairyspotter]

As I posted in the other thread, one other reason for the requirement for a competent person to be present in the second set is that the Call for Aid system in a Voyager DOES NOT alert the driver. I imagine it's part of PRM legislation that if the system is activated, a member of staff attends the location concerned on the train to assist as required, usually to find that mum or dad has let little Johnny press the red button by the wheelchair space, or someone in the toilet has failed the find the flush button and concluded that the red button clearly labelled "alarm" must be the one to use instead. On class 170s there is ONLY a passcom system, and this WILL sound in the driving cab. Thus the staffing agreement for multiple 170 operation is Driver in front set, SC in rear set and whichever set the passcom operates in, the person in that set resets the passcom and deals with the issue causing it to have been operated (99.99% of which involve toilets and an inability to read, based on real life experience). And no, I don't want the call for aid routed to the cab in a Voyager, not least because the trains would never get anywhere if drivers have to stop every 5 minutes and go into the train to reset a button to silence the alarm. The solution is to employ enough people, and equally value the people that you do employ. This time of year is always a challenge with families wanting to spend time together, as well as the drunken and anti-social behaviour from once a year drinkers, unsurprisingly people aren't keen to volunteer for overtime to have to deal with that and nobody should blame them.

To answer the question regarding single TM operation, if there is only one TM for a double set, there will be only one set opened up for passenger use. As to which set that is, I'm not entirely certain but I'm sure there are reasons that one particular set (front or rear) is in use.

 

[Russel]

Except it is, and I stand by what I said.

There needs to be someone in both sets. Until recently they used the RSM. Its worked for 20 years. XC management stopped rostering RSMs to do it because they didn’t want to pay the RSMs. They want to deskill the RSMs. Why? You can’t outsource the current RSM roles to RailGourmet, but if all they do is push a trolley then maybe you can…

Whatever games the management at XC are playing, is up to them, but the reality is, it's a situation that could be solved by removing the requirement for a second TM/RSM, as I've said and you've ignored multiple times, it works at many other TOCs day in day out. As a passenger, I don't really care who the RSM works for, I just want a seat and as things stand the RSM role is loosing value on a daily basis anyway because at many times of the day, you can't get to them and they can't get through the train, so all this is doing is speeding up their demise, even with the sky high prices, I doubt catering turns a profit....

As I posted in the other thread, one other reason for the requirement for a competent person to be present in the second set is that the Call for Aid system in a Voyager DOES NOT alert the driver. I imagine it's part of PRM legislation that if the system is activated, a member of staff attends the location concerned on the train to assist as required, usually to find that mum or dad has let little Johnny press the red button by the wheelchair space, or someone in the toilet has failed the find the flush button and concluded that the red button clearly labelled "alarm" must be the one to use instead. On class 170s there is ONLY a passcom system, and this WILL sound in the driving cab. Thus the staffing agreement for multiple 170 operation is Driver in front set, SC in rear set and whichever set the passcom operates in, the person in that set resets the passcom and deals with the issue causing it to have been operated (99.99% of which involve toilets and an inability to read, based on real life experience). And no, I don't want the call for aid routed to the cab in a Voyager, not least because the trains would never get anywhere if drivers have to stop every 5 minutes and go into the train to reset a button to silence the alarm. The solution is to employ enough people, and equally value the people that you do employ. This time of year is always a challenge with families wanting to spend time together, as well as the drunken and anti-social behaviour from once a year drinkers, unsurprisingly people aren't keen to volunteer for overtime to have to deal with that and nobody should blame them.

To answer the question regarding single TM operation, if there is only one TM for a double set, there will be only one set opened up for passenger use. As to which set that is, I'm not entirely certain but I'm sure there are reasons that one particular set (front or rear) is in use.

It's 2025, modifying the call for aid system wouldn't be a difficult task, especially as they are currently stripping and rebuild the Voyagers! We should be removing as many of these areas as possible where passengers suffer because there is a staff vs management disagreement going on in the background.

 

[Hairyspotter]

Whatever games the management at XC are playing, is up to them, but the reality is, it's a situation that could be solved by removing the requirement for a second TM/RSM, as I've said and you've ignored multiple times, it works at many other TOCs day in day out. As a passenger, I don't really care who the RSM works for, I just want a seat and as things stand the RSM role is loosing value on a daily basis anyway because at many times of the day, you can't get to them and they can't get through the train, so all this is doing is speeding up their demise, even with the sky high prices, I doubt catering turns a profit....



It's 2025, modifying the call for aid system wouldn't be a difficult task, especially as they are currently stripping and rebuild the Voyagers! We should be removing as many of these areas as possible where passengers suffer because there is a staff vs management disagreement going on in the background.

Which part of "distracting the driver" are you struggling with? Drivers have enough to deal with without another alarm sounding incessantly because of frequent misuse. Yes it could be modified, but in my opinion it shouldn't be. Customer service is best dealt with by a TM or similar, not a cheesed off driver having to reset the same button 15 times in a journey.

There's also an argument to be made that routing it through to the cab then brings DOO capability into the mix (in conjunction with the silent proliferation of CD indicators that have been part of most of the recent designating schemes). That's perhaps a can of worms for another day.

It's clear you have a bee in your bonnet about trade unions and seemingly blame them for everything wrong here, but they aren't the only stumbling block. Yes, it's appalling for passengers, but the solution exists. Perhaps you might like to apply to be a TM to help alleviate the shortage?

 

[Willie Bee]

Just as a matter of interest, if you book a seat and end up standing the whole way can you get any form of compensation ?

I've only once been on XC, from NCL to DHM .. that was long enough (12 minutes) as the train was chock a block

 

[ThatBloke]

Just as a matter of interest, if you book a seat and end up standing the whole way can you get any form of compensation ?

I've only once been on XC, from NCL to DHM .. that was long enough (12 minutes) as the train was chock a block

Would be one for a consumer law/contracts law expert to respond.
I assume the conditions of carriage would not place any obligations on the TOC to provide a seat.

 

[Watershed]

Just as a matter of interest, if you book a seat and end up standing the whole way can you get any form of compensation ?

I've only once been on XC, from NCL to DHM .. that was long enough (12 minutes) as the train was chock a block

If you have an actual seat reservation (i.e. a coach letter and seat number) then clearly you have not received what you were promised when booking, thus you are entitled to a modicum of compensation. Most long distance TOCs have a scheme set out in their Passenger Charter.

XC's is very stingy as they only offer 5% back as a National Rail Voucher - and even then, only if you stand for 20 minutes or more and get your ticket endorsed, which will often be impossible to do given the levels of overcrowding often seen on XC services...

In most cases you could instead pursue a claim under the Consumer Rights Act (CRA), as the failure to honour a booked reservation will amount to a failure to comply with terms implied into the contract (i.e. that you will have a booked seat), and the failure to perform the service with reasonable care and skill. Both of these would entitle you to a "price reduction" under the CRA, i.e. getting back some of the money that you paid.

A price reduction is always of a "reasonable amount", as judged by the circumstances. On a long journey, I don't think 5% is anywhere close to a reasonable amount of compensation for having to stand when you had a seat reservation. Other TOCs recognise this - indeed LNER offer 100% back under their Seat Guarantee scheme. Whilst I wouldn't expect quite that much under the CRA, 5% is clearly not a "reasonable" amount in most circumstances.

 

[Snow1964]

XC's is very stingy as they only offer 5% back as a National Rail Voucher - and even then, only if you stand for 20 minutes or more and get your ticket endorsed, which will often be impossible to do given the levels of overcrowding often seen on XC services...

XC are very stingy

Compare it with GWR who offer 50% off cost of single ticket, or 25% off return ticket, but only if have to stand as no alternative seat available

 

[Russel]

Which part of "distracting the driver" are you struggling with? Drivers have enough to deal with without another alarm sounding incessantly because of frequent misuse. Yes it could be modified, but in my opinion it shouldn't be. Customer service is best dealt with by a TM or similar, not a cheesed off driver having to reset the same button 15 times in a journey.

There's also an argument to be made that routing it through to the cab then brings DOO capability into the mix (in conjunction with the silent proliferation of CD indicators that have been part of most of the recent designating schemes). That's perhaps a can of worms for another day.

It's clear you have a bee in your bonnet about trade unions and seemingly blame them for everything wrong here, but they aren't the only stumbling block. Yes, it's appalling for passengers, but the solution exists. Perhaps you might like to apply to be a TM to help alleviate the shortage?

I'm not struggling with anything, thank you, drivers have to deal with said distractions on many routes where they have no guard or second member of staff at all and are compensated accordingly and looking at Southeastern in particular, are some of the lowest paid drivers on the network..

I also don't have a bee in my bonnet about anything, I am however becoming disillusioned with how the staffing model on the railway seems to be stuck in the past, I wouldn't go as far as suggesting full DOO, but, I would suggest that guards faffing with doors and dispatch etc is simply no longer needed given the technology at our disposal and is only still in place, because no one wants to rock the boat, any second member of staff should be limited to customer service and revenue protection with the train still being able to run if no one is available...

 

[Hairyspotter]

I can assure you, pushing that model as proposed by the DfT previously will end up with the same result as last time. No trains running and industrial action. And a train without a second safety critical member of staff is DOO by default, however much it's dressed up and given a fancy name.

Of course, the DfT might like to invest in new, more suitable rolling stock for XC, which would alleviate the overcrowding if long enough, and come with DOO kit as standard, but of course that costs money that nobody is willing to spend, so we are stuck with Voyagers until their end of life, and that includes their operational requirements.

 

[Russel]

I can assure you, pushing that model as proposed by the DfT previously will end up with the same result as last time. No trains running and industrial action. And a train without a second safety critical member of staff is DOO by default, however much it's dressed up and given a fancy name.

Even the most militant driver will agree to DOO if compensated suitably, everyone goes to work for the same reason at the end of the day.

If a 10 car 720 or 707 can be operated without a second member of safety critical staff, then so can a 10 car Voyager, with the right modifications.

 

[Hairyspotter]

Not everyone worships the Kings Shilling.

And, if they can spend money on that and modifying Voyagers, equally they can spend money on employing sufficient people in the first place, or paying the Higher Grade Duty rate to the catering staff that has led to this situation in the first place and is arguably far cheaper and less politically volatile a move, albeit not one that will ever satisfy your particular biases.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Whatever games the management at XC are playing, is up to them, but the reality is, it's a situation that could be solved by removing the requirement for a second TM/RSM, as I've said and you've ignored multiple times

Or XC can go back to what has worked for twenty years and pay the RSMs to do it. Why do you think that XC have recently changed it? I don't suppose it has entered your mind to question why XC have suddenly made the decision, because you seem determined to blame the trade unions for everything. Even though the trade unions don't run the railways and the trade unions don't make these decisions.

Just as a matter of interest, if you book a seat and end up standing the whole way can you get any form of compensation ?

I've only once been on XC, from NCL to DHM .. that was long enough (12 minutes) as the train was chock a block

If you decide not to travel because your reservation will not be honoured then you are entitled to a full refund, with no admin fee, under section 30.1 of the Conditions of Travel.

Otherwise it is as @Watershed explained and, yes, it is disgraceful. But XC don't care.

 

[Taunton]

It would be the thin end of a wedge that reduces the number of staff needed.

As the key issue here with the union is about loss of their own union income from the subs paid by a lesser number of members, why don't the operators just pay the union whatever would the total of the union subs be for such additional staff. It will be only a small fraction of having to actually train and employ someone not needed.

 

[185]

As the key issue here with the union is about loss of their own union income from the subs paid by a lesser number of members

The key issue here is Arriva hiring a rather abrasive managing director from Amazon plc, who has since brought several of her Amazonian friends with her and hopes that the labour conditions & negotiations which worked for her at H.M.P. Prime delivery centres would also work on a UK railway operation. Union bashing and management bashing aside, a pragmatic and permanent solution to this needs looking at.

Perhaps Alstom reform the entire voyager fleet to 7 cars each (6 standard, 1 first) supplemented by a small fleet of new trains. Buffet back in, stuck between the two classes, catering staff can do both the shop and the first class serving.
or
Retain the current fleet status and train the existing catering staff on evacuation, assisting traincrew with call for aids / passcoms, and offer to pay the TMs & catering staff to accept this change of working practices. Hire a substantial number of new minimum wage+commission catering staff to work the rear sets.

 

[Chriso]

I’m suprised anybody pays on XC as the guards appear to have given up ticket checks even on quiet trains.

Really sad to see how Arriva and their S**t management have ruined it. The usual Arriva curse strikes again everything they touch fails

 

[testertrev]

1E63 from Exeter on Friday was a double 221 (previous 3 XC services having been cancelled) but for some reason the rear 1st class coach was locked out of use. Trolley was in the front half and TM dispatching from the aforementioned coach!

 

[Russel]

Or XC can go back to what has worked for twenty years and pay the RSMs to do it. Why do you think that XC have recently changed it? I don't suppose it has entered your mind to question why XC have suddenly made the decision, because you seem determined to blame the trade unions for everything. Even though the trade unions don't run the railways and the trade unions don't make these decisions.

You aren't actually reading what I'm writing, are you? Rather, selectively responding to points to suite your narrative.

If removing the requirment to have a second member of staff reduces cost and increases capacity by not having to lock a set out of use while burning diesel to move it up and down the country empty them whaf reason is there for not doing it?

 

[Russel]

Not everyone worships the Kings Shilling.

And, if they can spend money on that and modifying Voyagers, equally they can spend money on employing sufficient people in the first place, or paying the Higher Grade Duty rate to the catering staff that has led to this situation in the first place and is arguably far cheaper and less politically volatile a move, albeit not one that will ever satisfy your particular biases.

Spending in the short term saves in the long term.

 

[father_jack]

1E63 from Exeter on Friday was a double 221 (previous 3 XC services having been cancelled) but for some reason the rear 1st class coach was locked out of use. Trolley was in the front half and TM dispatching from the aforementioned coach!

1V50 was same today coach "I" locked out. It's because of short platforms on a 9 (1V50 today) or 10 (1E63 Friday) car.