Another Cross Country nightmare

[Russel]

Half the train locked OOU through the busiest section of the route......

This part I find most unacceptable.

Tax payers are subsiding a train to run from Birmingham to Leeds that they cannot board.

 

[Steve Harris]

Agree entirely. Staff work, managers manage.

Or should that be staff work, managers mismanage??

 

[Hairyspotter]

Maybe I'm cheesed off with you laying the blame for everything at the feet of trade unions regardless of the actual reality of a situation

 

[357]

There's a difference between being rostered to work today and being asked to work today.

I'm sure most people outside the railway wouldn't give up their day off today - I don't understand why it's always seen by certain groups as unacceptable that railway staff don't want to give up their day off.

I'm at work right now and I don't hold anything against staff who turned down overtime today.

I also support the Tesco temporary staff who got letters recently saying their last day is today, and walked out the job to spend this week with their families.

 

[Mag_seven]

Didn't the previous Transport Secretary put XC "on notice" that unless their performance improved action would be taken?

 

[Angmering1974]

Didn't the previous Transport Secretary put XC "on notice" that unless their performance improved action would be taken?

IMO if they didn't specify exactly what performance had to improve by when and what the penalties would be, it was just posturing

 

[Hairyspotter]

I'm not sure if that would make much difference or is much of a threat. They are still working with the same amount of staff, under the same conditions. And I imagine the owning Vulture Capitalists who run Arriva would still get their contractual payments up to the specified break point in the contract, so arguably they would actually come out of it with less reputational damage

 

[YorkshireBear]

Or should that be staff work, managers mismanage??

Clumsy and unfair, specific people in leadership roles may be doing a bad job. Plenty of managers out there do a fine job and without them the staff would be screwed.

 

[dmncf]

I'm travelling on CrossCountry today. It's a shame to see approximately 10 Voyager units sitting unused at Central Rivers depot and a further 2 Voyager units at Bristol Barton Hill depot. I guess CrossCountry might be reluctant to run more trains as double units, due to the ongoing issue about staffing double unit trains.

 

[Steve Harris]

Clumsy and unfair, specific people in leadership roles may be doing a bad job. Plenty of managers out there do a fine job and without them the staff would be screwed.

I did ask it as a question, not a statement of fact.
I've met some good managers and some blinking awful ones and as this thread is about cross country and that currently staff relations are not good at that TOC, I don't think my question is "clumsy" at all, in fact I'd say its rather diplomatic!

 

[YorkshireBear]

There's a difference between being rostered to work today and being asked to work today.

I'm sure most people outside the railway wouldn't give up their day off today - I don't understand why it's always seen by certain groups as unacceptable that railway staff don't want to give up their day off.

I'm at work right now and I don't hold anything against staff who turned down overtime today.

I also support the Tesco temporary staff who got letters recently saying their last day is today, and walked out the job to spend this week with their families.

First line for me. That's the key and the two are being mixed up in this thread. And it's like a broken record, but have enough staff to operate your business...

 

[InkyScrolls]

In my corner of the world the railway is fully staffed today, including by me this morning. I didn't expect an enhanced rate for coming in as booked - but I certainly would not have volunteered for overtime had I been on a rest day!

 

[Russel]

Maybe I'm cheesed off with you laying the blame for everything at the feet of trade unions regardless of the actual reality of a situation

That's not what I'm saying though, is it?

You're selectively choosing which parts of what I'm saying to respond to, being unnecessarily confrontational in the process and not accepting others view points.

To clarify, I don't have an issue with trade unions defending their members jobs, it's what they are their for, however, I do fully support moving to a DOO arrangement with a second member of staff there for customer service and revenue protection only, on all services, with services still able to run in their absence, removing situations like we're seeing here, on top of that, the passengers would actually see a staff presence which in turn improves safety and would reduce fare evasion.

As I've already said, the whole railway staffing model needs overhaul, but it would be too politically toxic.

 

[a_c_skinner]

I hope the government don't use GBR as an excuse to delay sorting this out, it needs sorting out now

Is it worth enough votes to be worth HMG making the effort or spending money?

 

[Hairyspotter]

Whereas I am fundamentally opposed to DOO for several reasons, as well as reducing staffing levels further - given there aren't enough to do some jobs now, having even fewer isn't going to fix anything, and imposing radical and fundamental changes will only lead to more disputes and fewer trains running overall.

One thing we do both agree on is that the present situation isn't good enough.

 

[dmncf]

My hypothesis about CrossCountry is that it has been allowed to become so bad because in (nearly) all political constituencies it's not the main train operator, e.g. north east MPs focus on LNER, south west MPs focus on GWR.

 

[class 9]

My hypothesis about CrossCountry is that it has been allowed to become so bad because in (nearly) all political constituencies it's not the main train operator, e.g. north east MPs focus on LNER, south west MPs focus on GWR.

Add in it doesn't serve London, so out of sight out of mind for MPs, this is despite serving virtually all the major conurbations nationwide.

 

[Andyh82]

My hypothesis about CrossCountry is that it has been allowed to become so bad because in (nearly) all political constituencies it's not the main train operator, e.g. north east MPs focus on LNER, south west MPs focus on GWR.

And pretty much all north of England MPs, mayors, media outlets all focus on Northern, Occasionally Transpennine Express

 

[Harpo]

Add in it doesn't serve London………

Which means it can’t prop up revenue with exorbitant London anytime fares.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Which means it can’t prop up revenue with exorbitant London anytime fares.

Are you saying that Anytime fares set by XC aren't exorbitant?

 

[Russel]

Whereas I am fundamentally opposed to DOO for several reasons, as well as reducing staffing levels further - given there aren't enough to do some jobs now, having even fewer isn't going to fix anything, and imposing radical and fundamental changes will only lead to more disputes and fewer trains running overall.

One thing we do both agree on is that the present situation isn't good enough.

Most fundamental opposition to DOO is generally just emotive, there is 30 years of evidence to prove it's a sound operating practice.

However, I do not advocate for reducing staffing numbers, I'd actually increase them, but as I said, my suggested changes would remove the traditional conductor element of the role and have them based in the saloon undertaking revenue protection and customer service activities which would prevent the train from not running if a second member of staff was unavailable.

I agree it would lead to mass industrial action though, so will never happen, which brings us to the stalemate we are at now.

 

[Hairyspotter]

Without wishing to rehash the DOO debate, but if a train can run without a second member of staff, before long that becomes the norm rather than the exception. Sadly, recent disputes have eroded any form of trust in people sticking to agreements, and "spirit of" wording isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

 

[Russel]

Without wishing to rehash the DOO debate, but if a train can run without a second member of staff, before long that becomes the norm rather than the exception. Sadly, recent disputes have eroded any form of trust in people sticking to agreements, and "spirit of" wording isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

Unfortunately, I agree with you fully regarding agreements and trust.

 

[Zerothebrake!]

Which means it can’t prop up revenue with exorbitant London anytime fares.

The elderly lady that was sat across the table from me last Friday had paid £550 for a First Class return from Retford to Plymouth.

 

[Harpo]

The elderly lady that was sat across the table from me last Friday had paid £550 for a First Class return from Retford to Plymouth.

XC undoubtedly has some exorbitant fares. If it had trains full of those customers in the way that other InterCity TOCs do, it might be in a better position than it is.

 

[Bikeman78]

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.

Which services are you travelling on where the call for aid is being set off every five minutes? In my travels, I reckon I hear it go off a few times a year. Why is it okay for the driver to be distracted on a 170 but not a 220 or 221? Are passengers on the latter fundamentally more likely to activate the call for aid spuriously? Ironically ramming people into four cars rather than letting them all have a seat in eight cars is more likely to result in disorder or medical episodes.

It's all a moot point for me. I'll do everything I can to avoid XC until the Voyagers are scrapped. They still smell of poop after 25 years.

 

[Russel]

Which services are you travelling on where the call for aid is being set off every five minutes? In my travels, I reckon I hear it go off a few times a year. Why is it okay for the driver to be distracted on a 170 but not a 220 or 221? Are passengers on the latter fundamentally more likely to activate the call for aid spuriously? Ironically ramming people into four cars rather than letting them all have a seat in eight cars is more likely to result in disorder or medical episodes.

It's all a moot point for me. I'll do everything I can to avoid XC until the Voyagers are scrapped. They still smell of poop after 25 years.

It's highly exaggerated, if it was a real issue, we'd see it on Greater Anglia 720s out of Liverpool Street, or c2c 357's out of Fenchurch Street etc.

 

[Hairyspotter]

Which services are you travelling on where the call for aid is being set off every five minutes? In my travels, I reckon I hear it go off a few times a year. Why is it okay for the driver to be distracted on a 170 but not a 220 or 221? Are passengers on the latter fundamentally more likely to activate the call for aid spuriously? Ironically ramming people into four cars rather than letting them all have a seat in eight cars is more likely to result in disorder or medical episodes.

It's all a moot point for me. I'll do everything I can to avoid XC until the Voyagers are scrapped. They still smell of poop after 25 years.

They smell of excrement because the waste outlet pipe runs adjacent to the hot exhaust pipe within the body of the vehicle. I'm afraid that needs taking up with the CAD wielding geniuses who failed to realise that hot exhaust and cold effluent would react thus, and unfortunately it can't be changed at this stage of the trains life.

Can't speak for the volume of call for aids by traction type but I'm quite sure that drivers have more than enough to be focused on without something else adding to the workload unnecessarily.

 

[Hairyspotter]

It's highly exaggerated, if it was a real issue, we'd see it on Greater Anglia 720s out of Liverpool Street, or c2c 357's out of Fenchurch Street etc.

Or is it that these newer trains have a more logically and clearly placed call for aid system that greatly reduces the amount of spurious call for aid alarms? Certainly when I think of, for example, class 350s, the CFA is beneath a lift up flap with plenty of additional signage.

On a 170 the toilet flush button is on the rear wall and masked by the raised lid. In my experience the majority of passcoms on 170s (as 170s don't have a separate CFA system) are people pressing the passcom red button rather than a genuine emergency. See also leaning bikes on passcom buttons and inquisitive children pressing them.

All of this could and arguably should have been addressed during the refurbishment program (and I believe EMR 170s are having the flush button moved specifically to eliminate this issue).

 

[Russel]

Or is it that these newer trains have a more logically and clearly placed call for aid system that greatly reduces the amount of spurious call for aid alarms? Certainly when I think of, for example, class 350s, the CFA is beneath a lift up flap with plenty of additional signage.

On a 170 the toilet flush button is on the rear wall and masked by the raised lid. In my experience the majority of passcoms on 170s (as 170s don't have a separate CFA system) are people pressing the passcom red button rather than a genuine emergency. See also leaning bikes on passcom buttons and inquisitive children pressing them.

All of this could and arguably should have been addressed during the refurbishment program (and I believe EMR 170s are having the flush button moved specifically to eliminate this issue).

None of these are problems that are impossible, or even difficult to resolve though, fitting plastic flaps over the pas-com buttons in the toilet would go a long way to reducing accidental activations, there is no reason other than the typical XC "Can't be bothered" attitude.

That said, train toilets with sliding doors have been commonplace for 20+ years and so many people still haven't worked out what the lock button does, so who knows?