Late train further delayed by rest break

[TUC]

A number of trains on the ECML were delayed today due to a level crossing issue near Doncaster. At Kings Cross there was a quick turnaround by most of them, except for the 1348 Hull Trains service to Hull.

This was delayed by the incoming service due in at 1307 actually arriving at 1345. At this stage the departure board was saying it would depart at 1351 which seemed rather heroic and I was not surprised to see this slip as the minutes went on. However, after 1359, the departure board changed to it simply showing 'delayed'. After a few minutes there was also a call over the PA system for the Hull Trains representative to go to the duty manager's office.

There were several announced apologies for the delay but no further explanation. Eventually boarding was announced, I think around 1418 and the train departed at 1422.

On board, an apology was given for the late departure with the explanation that this was due to a level crossing issue near Doncaster delaying the incoming train-which was an explanation for why the incoming train was late, but not why the departure had been delayed. This explanation was repeated at subsequent stations.

I asked the guard what the reason was for the late departure and he said that the law required him to have a rest break and he wasn't prepared for safety reasons for this not to happen.

In the thread on the East Coast issues on 27 December there has been discussion on whether rest breaks (in the context of drivers) are a legal requirement (for which the answer appeared to be 'no') and I'm not seeking to reopen that debate. However, I have to say that this is the first time I've come across rest breaks (especially bearing in mind this was the guard, not the driver) being the reason for delaying further an already late train. My impression in most experiences I've had where a train is significantly delayed due to an incoming service being delayed is that staff put every effort into a very quick turnaround.

Some may say that with bigger TOCs there could be cases of rest break issues in such situations being easier to manage by greater ability to switch around who is operating which service at the last minute. However, my experience with Hull Trains and Grand Central in the past is that the staff have very much provided quick turnarounds which makes today's situation all the more surprising. (As a comparison, Grand Central's 1253 to Sunderland was delayed by the incoming service. This arrived into Kings Cross at 1324 and the service back out departed at 1331.)

I'm particularly disappointed at the lack of honesty with passengers in the announcements both at Kings Cross and on the train. I can see why they may not want to say 'the train has been delayed because a member of staff is insisting on taking their rest break' but they could at least have said that the train was awaiting crew and given a revised planned departure time rather than leaving everyone waiting on the platform puzzled and, on train, fobbing them off with an explanation that wasn't to do with the real reason for the delay. Similarly, I tweeted Hull Trains to ask about the reason for the delay, saying I knew about the level crossing issue, but asking why had the train been further delayed at Kings Cross. I got a reply stating that the train had been delayed due to the level crossing incident, entirely missing the point of what my query asked!

Has anyone else come across this kind of situation causing further delay to a late train?

 

[Clip]

Yes and on some routes they state 'Awaiting train crew' or something similar.

No point being annoyed at the cross though as they only relay the information they are told. If theyre told its being delayed then that's it. The rest is between the guard, his company and the signallers who will have to route other trains around them

 

[TUC]

Yes and on some routes they state 'Awaiting train crew' or something similar.

No point being annoyed at the cross though as they only relay the information they are told. If theyre told its being delayed then that's it. The rest is between the guard, his company and the signallers who will have to route other trains around them

I've come across s number of occasions when an individual train is announced as delayed due to ' awaiting traincrew'. My point was that I hadn't come across this being a cause of further delay in the context of multiple service delays where everyone else is pulling out all the stops to get back on schedule.

I wasn't blaming those doing the announcements at KX . It was the lines they were being given I was complaining about.

 

[NX]

When we have to complete reports, one of the 1st questions is "when did you last have a break". We as Traincrew are assigned breaks of varying lengths depending the length of our turns.

If we work through the PNB or don't take the full diagramed length, we will be screwed to the floor should anything and I mean anything go wrong and it's cause be either fully or in part down get actions of the crew.

Delay the train as I need my PNB or face dismissal or prison? Screw the train, my job and liberality is more important. In this circumstance I always tell the passengers why as in I was required to have a XX legnth break, and then should anyone ask me personally, I explain as above why.

For example, my depot has services which have 45 minute turn rounds at the end of the service, before we go back. This 45 minutes includes disposing of the train (ensuring its empty and locking it up), walking to the messroom 5 minutes each way, then our PNB. So we have about 3 minutes leeway. Any delay of more then that over a 200 mile service then the next train is late 'awaiting crew'.

NX

 

[Flamingo]

Just to clarify for the OP, it is not "a member of staff is insisting on taking their rest break" but "management, following a risk-assessment, have decided a break is mandatory for staff at this point"...

 

[reb0118]

Are traincrew breaks covered under "Hidden" legislation?

 

[455driver]

I see the OP is of the opinion that drivers (or guards) are not legally entitled to a rest break so I don't see the point of another thread moaning about train crew.

Breaks for train crew are a legal requirement just as they are for bus, coach or lorry drivers, why people (incorrectly) think otherwise is beyond me!

 

[TUC]

I was careful in the OP to not construct this as an issue about whether staff are legally entitled to rest breaks. My point was that, where there are multiple trains delayed, there must usually be flexible approaches being demonstrated. Otherwise there would be times of days at terminal stations like Kings Cross when platforms were blocked for extended period by trains due to staff who all started work at a similar time early morning all hitting their maximum point before a rest break at a similar time. Clearly stations like Kings Cross do not operate on the basis of any platform being blocked for long periods.

Moreover, the fact that the train was initially shown to have a revised departure time of 1351 suggests that this issue was not anticipated. The fact that the Hull Trains representative was called to the duty manager's office also suggests that something unexpected was happening.

It also comes back to the fact that leaving passengers standing on a platform with just a 'delayed' message rather than at least giving an anticipated revised departure time is poor customer service.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Just to clarify for the OP, it is not "a member of staff is insisting on taking their rest break" but "management, following a risk-assessment, have decided a break is mandatory for staff at this point"...

You may wish that was how the situation was expressed to me but that was not the case.

 

[dtaylor84]

I was careful in the OP to not construct this as an issue about whether staff are legally entitled to rest breaks.

Really? Because I can't see what other issue you've constructed. And it's nothing to do with "entitled to" take them, it's more about whether they are "required to".

You may wish that was how the situation was expressed to me but that was not the case.

I think that was more a suggestion as to what was actually the case, regardless of how it was expressed to you, by a no doubt stressed employee.

 

[Hadders]

I'm no expert here (and as it happens I was also at the Cross when this was going on) but perhaps the revised departure time of 1351 was based on what might have been possible had the train arrived in and was immediately turned around. At this point whoever put up 1351 was probably unaware that the guard would require a PNB.

It is a difficult one, on the one hand as passengers we see the train in the platform, want to get going asap yet can't understand why we can't get going asap.

On the other hand how long had the guard already been working, maybe he needed something to eat, a visit to the toilet etc. We shouldn't be harsh on the guard in the circumstances.

Also, the train probably required preparing. It's not a commuter service that can be turned straight away. Did a litter pick need doing, supplies for the catering need loading, water for the toilets need replenishing, seat reservations need putting out.

As has already been said a small train operator will be harder hit by delays - a larger one could swap trains or staff if it helped.

 

[TUC]

I'm no expert here (and as it happens I was also at the Cross when this was going on) but perhaps the revised departure time of 1351 was based on what might have been possible had the train arrived in and was immediately turned around. At this point whoever put up 1351 was probably unaware that the guard would require a PNB.

It is a difficult one, on the one hand as passengers we see the train in the platform, want to get going asap yet can't understand why we can't get going asap.
d.

But that does not explain why not display a revised anticipated departure time as soon as the issue became apparent, nor why the situation was significant enough for thee Hull Trains representative to be summoned.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Also, the train probably required preparing. It's not a commuter service that can be turned straight away. Did a litter pick need doing, supplies for the catering need loading, water for the toilets need replenishing, seat reservations need putting out.
.

Yes, all the trains needed preparing but this did not lead to delays for the others including, as noted above, for the Grand Central service which probably faced similar challenges but which was turned around very quickly.

 

[ExRes]

In my experience I would put the blame entirely down to the station, when we were operating Project Rio we would drive from either St Pancras or Leicester to Manchester and, on late arrival, would find that the station staff had allowed all the southbound passengers to stand along the platform expecting to leave within a couple of minutes of the trains arrival, they had no hassle as they had normally become non existent until the two sets of passengers had pushed past each other getting on and off the train

As for the staff, you could get out of the cab after a 3+ hour run and find the signal already pulled off to depart, forget toilet requirements, cleaning the train, reservations, any refreshment needs, contact with Control etc and they would get the huff big time when you told them you weren't going for another 3 hour trip within 5 minutes of arrival

I'm fully aware that the station want their platforms cleared asap in order to run the best service possible but you can't just sit back and blame the train crews for selfishly demanding their PNBs, which happened all too often

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Has anyone else come across this kind of situation causing further delay to a late train?

Yes.
It's not uncommon in times of disruption.

There are 'spare' staff booked in at Kings Cross, Newcastle and Edinburgh, but it doesn't take much for those staff to be allocated to trains leaving no 'spare'. When you see the platforms empty at Kings Cross, you can be sure that this situation will arise when the trains start coming through again.
(I left KGX on the 19:00 which was on time, but incoming crews were on short turnaround).

 

[Hadders]

The Hull Trains representative could have been called for all manner of reasons. It could simply have been to tell them that the platform was changing.

Looking at RTT, the incoming service was due to arrive at 1307 but did not arrive until 1348. My suspicion is that whoever puts the stuff up on the board anticipated a 1351 departure.

The problem probably only became apparent after the incoming service arrived at 1348 and the guard said he needed his PNB. This probably took a little time to communicate to whoever was doing the departure boards (presumably a new path for the train would also need to be found) so I can understand why there would be a delay in displaying the new departure time.

I was on the 1408 so I don't know what time the departure time was eventually announced.

 

[ComUtoR]

Are traincrew breaks covered under "Hidden" legislation?

Breaks for all employees are covered under employment law.

I was careful in the OP to not construct this as an issue about whether staff are legally entitled to rest breaks. My point was that, where there are multiple trains delayed, there must usually be flexible approaches being demonstrated. Otherwise there would be times of days at terminal stations like Kings Cross when platforms were blocked for extended period by trains due to staff who all started work at a similar time early morning all hitting their maximum point before a rest break at a similar time. Clearly stations like Kings Cross do not operate on the basis of any platform being blocked for long periods.

There is a flexible approach and it does get used. However; the exact issue which you describe happened at Blackfriars a couple of days ago. Due to flooding a Driver reached the point where he REQUIRED (in bold and caps for a reason...) his break meant that a unit sat on the through platform for around 10 minutes.

My impression in most experiences I've had where a train is significantly delayed due to an incoming service being delayed is that staff put every effort into a very quick turnaround.

Where possible staff will usually turn around and keep the service on time. however you can get to a critical point where the REQUIREMENT to have a break is reached. There is then nothing you can do except take your break. As outlined above by another poster. If you fail to take your break there will be questions asked if you have an incident.

Although I hate it. There is a comparison with transport workers. Lorry drivers are also mandated by the law to take their breaks. There have been a significant number of incidents where they have caused crashes due to lack of breaks. Again by that same analogy there have been incidents of all type happening on the railway due to fatigue.

 

[TDK]

This has been explained, it is mandatory that a driver, guard or any safety critical staff take their designated PNB, it is the same as continuous driving hours for drivers. There are guidelines in place that have been agreed by management and the unions on how long the break is depending on length of turn, when it should be taken and also it has to be a designated PNB facility. If a member of staff knowingly works through their break and subsequently has an incident the employee is liable for not taking their own break and could end up either with disciplinary action, dismissal or jail. Trains being delayed due to staff taking their designated break is a daily occurrence. Personally I would not want the passengers to know as the majority of them do not understand the consequences of failing to take a break and then you get abuse off them.

 

[thelongestroad]

Is the OP for real? Or are you just trolling? You seem to have an answer for everything but without a real grasp on reality.

What would the OP say if the guard was involved in an incident which caused injury or death as a result of the guard's fatigue?

How many people would complain about the train being late due to crew breaks, but then be first in the line for the compo at InjuryLawyers4u if something untoward happens?

It happens all the time. All TOCs will have standby or perhaps spare crew too, but they can't be everywhere. Train crew will usually get the train turned as quickly as possible, but breaks are there to be taken.

 

[talltim]

So many people on the defensive for something the OP didn't say.
He wasn't querying the need for a PNB, he was querying the (lack of) info provided to the passengers.
It was known the train would be late arriving.
It should have been known that the crew would need a PNB.
The information was given to passengers that the train would be leaving soon after arriving.
When this did not happen no further info was given, with no later departure time or information on the cause for the further delay.
When the OP queried this on Twitter they answered the wrong question.

 

[Llanigraham]

But that does not explain why not display a revised anticipated departure time as soon as the issue became apparent, nor why the situation was significant enough for thee Hull Trains representative to be summoned.

You don't know why the representative was summoned, but are making a presumption it was about this. It could have been about something totally unconnected.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Breaks for all employees are covered under employment law.

Cough!
Not always!
Signallers in single manned boxes get no breaks!

 

[Tracky]

I would echo the above comment.

Always best to explain the reason as fully and as clearly as possible.

Some passengers may take issue with "driver/guard taking a break delaying their journey home" but the majority - particularly on a journey like this, will understand after a drive from Hull to London, some rest is required before a drive back. Guards do come up against the, "couldn't you take your break on the train" argument but it's the passengers problem in that case.

As for the requirement to take a break, it's complexity is in agreements with the union and the risk assesses. Both will have a different view. I can't comment on Hull Trains. There will be walking time and and a minimum break allowence. The booked break may be longer, so some of that can be forefeited. All of that will fit into a longer layover.

 

[Greenback]

I think it's always best to be honest and to give customers/passengers as much information as possible. Clearly something went wrong on this occasion, and I'd agree that it was probably down to communication problems on the day.

It isn't possible to have spare staff standing by at all times at every possible location. Sometimes a delay because of having to take a break is unavoidable. Rest breaks are mandatory in many places, and the railway is one of those. It's not an option whether to take a break or not, it's compulsory to do so, as has already been pointed out by other contributors.

 

[455driver]

So many people on the defensive for something the OP didn't say.

Really-

From the opening post-

In the thread on the East Coast issues on 27 December there has been discussion on whether rest breaks (in the context of drivers) are a legal requirement (for which the answer appeared to be 'no')

So he has questioned whether staff need breaks, well actually he has incorrectly stated that we dont, which we do! :roll:

Oh when I am in that position I simply ask Control if they are going to accept responsibility if anything goes wrong if I dont take my (legally required) minimum PNB, funnily enough they never are so I take my (legally required) minimum PNB!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I would echo the above comment.

Always best to explain the reason as fully and as clearly as possible.

Some passengers may take issue with "driver/guard taking a break delaying their journey home" but the majority - particularly on a journey like this, will understand after a drive from Hull to London, some rest is required before a drive back. Guards do come up against the, "couldn't you take your break on the train" argument but it's the passengers problem in that case.

And the standard reply is "who is in charge of the train if (the guard) is on PNB"?

 

[Flamingo]

Just to clarify, when a member of staff takes their break on the train, that means they are a passenger, and another member of staff of the same grade is on the train performing their duties (or in the case of Catering, the buffet is closed).

 

[GB]

You don't know why the representative was summoned, but are making a presumption it was about this. It could have been about something totally unconnected.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Cough!
Not always!
Signallers in single manned boxes get no breaks!

Think the difference is that you get no rostered pnbs. Breaks are to be taken as convenient.

 

[notadriver]

When I was a conductor a train was forced to wait 20 minutes for me due to my inbounds service being late. In fact when I arrived a number were poking their heads out of the doors in anticipation of my arrival. Having got the train going and making my apologies over the PA which I'm sure the driver had done already I carried out a ticket check. I was then moaned out as to why my presence was required for the train to run as the driver was there and ALL I DID WAS RING THE BELL!!!!

 

[bb21]

I don't think I would feel comfortable telling already delayed passengers that they were further delayed because I needed my, albeit legally required, break if I were in that situation, if the amount of huff and puff plus abuse staff got the last two occasions I witnessed this happen, once at Norwich with a late-incoming EMT, the other funnily enough at King's Cross with Grand Central, were anything to go by.

Also how do you know that the responses given were dishonest? The departure was indeed delayed because of the level crossing incident (the root cause of it all, hence delayed incoming arrival, hence delayed PNB, hence delayed departure), and for all we know, the twitter team may only have this information. They are not ground staff so they probably don't have all the details of staff PNBs, etc. Similarly that may be the only information King's Cross information centre (or whatever they are called) have before they received notification of PNB from the HT representative.

 

[TDK]

I think it;s always best to be honest and to give customers/passengers as much information as possible. Clearly something went wrong on this occasion, and I'd agree that it was probably down to communication problems on the day.

You think so? Only the other week I was on a break and the train HAD to leave 15 minutes late, the guard had told the passengers that the driver was on a break and it is a safety issue but it didn't stop me getting verbally abused by more than one passenger saying "enjoy you cupper did you, your just a little prick who has now caused me to be late for a meeting" I didn't reply but told the guard and he chucked him off at the next station so he was even later for that meeting. This isn't an isolated case, I am afraid many passengers don't give a toss about the train crew in the slightest and will verbally abuse them whenever a train is late even if they know the valid reason, even when there is a fatality they harp on about being late and why is the driver not moving the train, I am sorry but there are things you tell passengers and things you don't and train crew on a break is something I will never openly admit as a delay reason.

 

[LowLevel]

Just to clarify, when a member of staff takes their break on the train, that means they are a passenger, and another member of staff of the same grade is on the train performing their duties (or in the case of Catering, the buffet is closed).

Depends on the TOC - at ours we have conductors and train managers - the train managers don't have PNBs and take their breaks en route for a bit more basic pay on the grounds that all of their trains have full catering facilities which they may use. No one else covers them.

Conductors have rostered PNBs still and a lower basic (though higher than most conductors elsewhere as following a Central Trains settlement they were regraded as senior conductors - I don't bother typing senior as it seems a bit pretentious) and have no on train facilities in any case despite working some 3 or 4 hour journeys.

 

[Greenback]

I didn't mean that the passengers should be told that someone is having a break. I meant that the information should be honest in the sense of 'awaiting for train crew' as mentioned earlier in the thread.

I just meant that there is no need for lies and that information such as 'Delayed' only irritates people.

I'm sorry, I should have been clearer about that.

 

[carriageline]

Also, could the fact it's a smaller TOC be more of a hinderance? I have seen the bigger TOCs step up drivers/guards when there is problems, but the smaller ones won't necessarily have that slack!