Northern cancellations, Friday 24th May '24

[Snow1964]

Very well explained

Base rosters (aka links) are a negotiable item as part of the collective bargaining agreement at most (if not all) TOC's. So the reps have input into the base roster , but also ultimately with it being a negotiable item it can only be implemented by agreement with the management as well .

And the base roster should be interlinked with the planned timetable, after all the starting point is operate 100% of what you plan.

They also check the diagrams that form that base roster for legality

A step that shouldn't really be needed, because shouldn't plan an illegal roster, although I can't ever remember a dispute citing this solely as a reason, so guess it is not common.

But the whole point of a base roster is it gives everyone a clear understanding of the resources required to operate the timetable .

It is actually a two way street, timetable planning takes good part of 2 years, agreeing to a timetable without matching it to rosters to actually achieve it is just dumb. To be fair some reps are not that proactive at this, and just wait until problems happen later.

If the timetable cannot be run reliably then the issue lies in the depost establishment or complement , any route knowledge deficits , the allocation of work between depots . These are factors the company ultimately controls .

Again with timetable planning taking upto 2 years, and often being advised to Union reps during the process, there are some reps who in past haven't been proactive in avoiding future problems.

If there is a driver that has a huge route knowledge deficit , lets say because they have transferred depots , its not the unions job to arrange for that driver to be released to learn the new routes at the new depot

This comes down to HR, ensuring resources are available and properly trained. Although not strictly the unions job, it is in their interest to ensure it happens, because next time they enter pay negotiation, they are in a stronger position if they are representing a fully trained workforce, than if there are some that can't do the role.

If the company allocates 20 trips over one route to one depot and only 5 to another meaning drivers at the second depot lose or struggle to maintain competency over that route how can the union be blamed for that ?

Again weak management, if they can't plan so that competency is lost due to lack of covering whole task periodically, then need to go back to basics and make sure base rota has minimum routings in at intervals to maintain it. (Actually want to be above minimum as percentage will not happen due to sick days and holidays). If competency will be lost due to poor base rosters, then it really ought to be spotted and pointed out at same point as scanning for legality as above.

If there isn't enough spare coverage built into the base roster for the timetable to be reliably provided against the average levels of sickeness, annual leave and release from duty for other matters that really is not the unions fault the establishment figure needs looking at

Very true, should aim to have enough trained staff allowing for holiday levels and average sickness levels, without needing excessive overtime. The union should also be aiming to treat all members fairly and be happy to have higher membership, so sometimes needs to step back a bit if they are trying to implement policies that put new staff at back of queue for certain tasks, or policies which give preference to longer serving staff, because these are negatives against having full moving from a shortage of staff to a complement of staff.

 

[ComUtoR]

And the base roster should be interlinked with the planned timetable, after all the starting point is operate 100% of what you plan.

It is.

A step that shouldn't really be needed, because shouldn't plan an illegal roster, although I can't ever remember a dispute citing this solely as a reason, so guess it is not common.

muz mentioned 'diagrams' to be checked. No matter how good the computer system is, it will still spit out random diagram anomalies. What also happens is that some of the safeguards in the computer are turned off. Human interaction is needed both to help spot mistakes and to help smooth out the junk it often spits out. Checking the diagrams means that future issues are prevented. What used to happen is that a Driver turns up on the day and spots an error and then refuses to work that portion.

Again, this still applies to the roster. The computer systems can only do so much and having that squishy ball of flesh at the last point checking will often make the roster work more efficiently. Rosters are a great example where Union and Management work together.

It is actually a two way street, timetable planning takes good part of 2 years, agreeing to a timetable without matching it to rosters to actually achieve it is just dumb.

At my TOC, the diagrams often only come out a few weeks before the timetable change. Those diagrams are then put into the roster.

Again with timetable planning taking upto 2 years, and often being advised to Union reps during the process, there are some reps who in past haven't been proactive in avoiding future problems.

Clarity please. Are you suggesting that the Reps should be able to predict issues 2yrs in advance without having any knowledge of what the roster would look like or what diagrams will exist in the future ?

Again weak management, if they can't plan so that competency is lost due to lack of covering whole task periodically, then need to go back to basics and make sure base rota has minimum routings in at intervals to maintain it.

It's not the roster. It is the Diagrams. If a TOC decides that Depot A only has 25 diagrams to cover their booked work. They need to have the available work content to support routes/traction. What has crept in over the years is that a depot/TOC will have multiple traction and multiple routes due to increased productivity and then the workload is spread so thin that they have limited work on a specific traction/route. We also have a situation at my Depot where we have no booked work over one of our routes as this route is worked by a neighbouring TOC and it changed to being a diversionary only. How many paths can be booked over that route for route learning without impacting the TOC that delivers the service for the passengers ? Every single time you then have a diagrammed roads day you lose Drivers for your service. These days destroy productivity.

If competency will be lost due to poor base rosters, then it really ought to be spotted and pointed out at same point as scanning for legality as above.

Which is what the Union will do. However, the TOC will often refuse to put in roads days or work so close to the edge to be at the absolute minimum 'legal' requirement.

Very true, should aim to have enough trained staff allowing for holiday levels and average sickness levels, without needing excessive overtime. The union should also be aiming to treat all members fairly and be happy to have higher membership, so sometimes needs to step back a bit if they are trying to implement policies that put new staff at back of queue for certain tasks, or policies which give preference to longer serving staff, because these are negatives against having full moving from a shortage of staff to a complement of staff.

The problem here is that the TOC's "magic formula" no longer compensates for the current generation of Drivers or working culture. Our 'formula' hasn't changed in forever :/

There is also a case that length of service does impact the roster and does impact productivity for various reasons. One of which is getting new Drivers out with 'core routes'. There needs to be a fine balance between getting Drivers trained and 'productive' but also managing their workloads as new Drivers with high risk of incident. Same goes with 'Senior' Drivers who are winding down their careers and many TOCs have a senior Driver or 'Old man's' link. Chuck in part time/maternity/reduced hours (which never used to exist) and you start to see how the 'Modern Railway' is getting less and less productive. When the new flexible working law kick in, I fully expect it to get worse.

 

[43066]

For now maybe. But continuing poor performance regardless of the reasons will have an impact in time. There will be a tolerance limit for the travelling public beyond which passenger numbers could start to fall, especially given that the rises you mention are more around leisure than commuting, so they are therefore likely to be more sensitive to worsening reliability.

Experience shows that passengers tend to return even after long periods of unreliability. In this case maybe it will, maybe it won’t, but until the current approach changes things are unlikely to improve.

Whilst its true the current / outgoing government are ideologically opposed to it, the reality is that any government still has to at least try to balance the books. They will still need to set budgets for every sector, and potentially set limits on what percentage of each budget can be used for pay and performance payments. And regardless of government the pressure to cut costs and improve overall performance will continue to exist. I know during the last Labour government, they made massive changes to various parts of the public sector in order to drive down costs and drive up performance. So don't expect an incoming Labour cabinet to simply rubber stamp deals through, they're going to be in for a nasty economic shock on day one I suspect.

Again, none of this has anything to do with the current northern cancellations, the solution for which is obvious and could be achieved overnight. It’s odd that people seem quick to complain about the cancellations, but also seem not to want to acknowledge the reasons why.

 

[ricoblade]

Visitors yesterday just had to walk or cadge a lift!

Was there a bus option from Edale? I'm sure I've seen a bus stop outside the station cafe but not sure I've ever seen a bus there!

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Was there a bus option from Edale? I'm sure I've seen a bus stop outside the station cafe but not sure I've ever seen a bus there!

Possibly the 62 Castleton / Buxton (High Peak) bus was running. Departures from Edale on a Sunday, round to Hope/Castleton at 0900, 1000, 1255, 1340, 1620 and 1710. And to Buxton via Chapel at 1041, 1421 and 1821.

 

[Starmill]

On the hand it is being argued that all that is happening is drivers choosing not to work on their days off. On the other hand you are arguing that all that is needed is for Northern to manage industrial relations better, which presumably implies drivers then being more willing to work on their days off.

That's one solution, but it's just as much a legitimate solution to say 'yes, you deserve your days off, so we won't ask you to work them. We'll hire other staff who can flexibly cover those other shifts'.

This is one of those things that sounds attractive at first and then when you actually look at it more closely falls apart.

Hiring staff at the same grade on different terms at the same location might bring some small improvements in productivity, but you have to set that against the additional administration costs of managing it. You need a different set of local management to do a good job, which duplicates unnecessarily. The difference in terms you're proposing would unlikely be minor so work may not be able to be shared between them easily either. No doubt there would also be a request for twice as much rep time. I'm not saying it could never work and EMR conductors did it OK, but the reality is that it's better to go the other way, and reduce the number of different sets of terms, not increase them.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 May 2024 ==

That is a mischaracterisation, if the industry needs people who are prepared to do ongoing overtime and members of staff are not prepared to do overtime then in is probably best for their health to leave. The attitude in your comment suggests that in order to fit their preferences the industry must change to not need overtime. Whilst understanding that is what you believe is fair, life does not always allow such fairness to be afforded.

This is really a losing argument. Nobody has to give a reason to work only to their contracted hours, so you don't know why they aren't. Nobody does. Sounds like what you're really arguing for is lengthened contracted hours. A different kettle of fish, as they say.

 

[Bantamzen]

Experience shows that passengers tend to return even after long periods of unreliability. In this case maybe it will, maybe it won’t, but until the current approach changes things are unlikely to improve.



Again, none of this has anything to do with the current northern cancellations, the solution for which is obvious and could be achieved overnight. It’s odd that people seem quick to complain about the cancellations, but also seem not to want to acknowledge the reasons why.

Quite frankly at this point few people away from the industry care as to the reasons why any more, if they did at all. Unreliability has been baked into rail services for decades, its been a running joke since the 80s. And no matter which side you listen to, its always someone else's fault.

I think this spoof advert on YouTube just about how most people feel about Northern and the wider industry today.

 

[trainophile]

I'm surmising that it wouldn't be economically viable for Northern to be offered a very generous lump payment like Avanti for working on a rest day? In any case they wouldn't be allowed to go against the ASLEF overtime ban I suppose?

Forgive any ignorance demonstrated above, I'm just a passenger.

 

[muz379]

A step that shouldn't really be needed, because shouldn't plan an illegal roster, although I can't ever remember a dispute citing this solely as a reason, so guess it is not common.

To be fair in my experience checking diagrams is not just useful for spotting illegalities with them ,ive never known of cases of LTP diagrams being illega because generally they will be produced by software . Have however heard of it with STP diagrams that sometimes have an element of human intervention in their design .

it can also be helpful however to spot potential performance issues with diagrams , minimum turnarounds at peak time in locations where its generally accepted its impossible for example . These can then be fed back in. Sometimes the company takes note , sometimes they dont .

Again with timetable planning taking upto 2 years, and often being advised to Union reps during the process, there are some reps who in past haven't been proactive in avoiding future problems.

Yes some reps are better than others , just like some management teams are better than others . But ultimately the management side are the ones who should have service delivery as a key priority . And should be the ones that are performance managed against delivering a reliable service . Reps dont get any sort of formal training for this kind of thing

This comes down to HR, ensuring resources are available and properly trained. Although not strictly the unions job, it is in their interest to ensure it happens, because next time they enter pay negotiation, they are in a stronger position if they are representing a fully trained workforce, than if there are some that can't do the role.

Arguably you are in a stronger position if a fully trained up on all routes driver is a scarcer resource . But tbh I think you are somewhat stretching it to say such local level issues make it to pay talks arenas anyway .

Again weak management, if they can't plan so that competency is lost due to lack of covering whole task periodically, then need to go back to basics and make sure base rota has minimum routings in at intervals to maintain it. (Actually want to be above minimum as percentage will not happen due to sick days and holidays). If competency will be lost due to poor base rosters, then it really ought to be spotted and pointed out at same point as scanning for legality as above.

Depending on the agreements at the TOC though if the company insist that the work is allocated in that way , then the union reps cannot really do anything about that .

Quite frankly at this point few people away from the industry care as to the reasons why any more, if they did at all. Unreliability has been baked into rail services for decades, its been a running joke since the 80s. And no matter which side you listen to, its always someone else's fault.

I think this spoof advert on YouTube just about how most people feel about Northern and the wider industry today.

This seems a bit of a bizzare statement tbh , I mean obviously contributors on a rail forum , both working in the industry or with a keen interest in it will have greater appetite for discussion around the issues in the indsutry than the average passenger stood on the platform just wanting to get to their destination . Regardless of how reliable or otherwise the service generally is .

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 May 2024 ==

I'm surmising that it wouldn't be economically viable for Northern to be offered a very generous lump payment like Avanti for working on a rest day? In any case they wouldn't be allowed to go against the ASLEF overtime ban I suppose?

Forgive any ignorance demonstrated above, I'm just a passenger.

There is or was already a rest day agreement with an enhanced rate afaik

But if the union has announced an overtime ban in an employer with such high membership density then its generally accepted that nobody will volunteer .

 

[anothertyke]

Reducing the service to the correct level for the number of staff I 100% agree with. I believe some TOC's did that with a change to the timetable.



By working what is required, it would.



Wanting to come to work and do just that; work. Is something employees want.



Doing your job to the letter is not a power game. How difficult is it to understand that people have a life outside work with various commitments. I myself, have two children to look after. I also have an ageing Mother who continually requires my help and support. My family comes first. I don't work rest days to play games. I am not required to and neither do I want to sacrifice my family to do so.

But are there other drivers who depend on RDW and overtime? Just supposing there was a move towards recruitment to full complement and little or no reliance on RDW, would that be universally welcome?

 

[skyhigh]

But are there other drivers who depend on RDW and overtime?

I doubt there are many passenger drivers who depend on RDW. It's really not uncommon for there to be no RDW, the last agreement here was for 6 months from the outset and there hadn't been an agreement for about 2 years prior to that.

 

[Bantamzen]

This seems a bit of a bizzare statement tbh , I mean obviously contributors on a rail forum , both working in the industry or with a keen interest in it will have greater appetite for discussion around the issues in the indsutry than the average passenger stood on the platform just wanting to get to their destination . Regardless of how reliable or otherwise the service generally is .

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 May 2024 ==

I mean the travelling public as a whole, not just members of this forum.

 

[TUC]

[/QUOTE]

This is one of those things that sounds attractive at first and then when you actually look at it more closely falls apart.

Hiring staff at the same grade on different terms at the same location might bring some small improvements in productivity, but you have to set that against the additional administration costs of managing it. You need a different set of local management to do a good job, which duplicates unnecessarily. The difference in terms you're proposing would unlikely be minor so work may not be able to be shared between them easily either. No doubt there would also be a request for twice as much rep time. I'm not saying it could never work and EMR conductors did it OK, but the reality is that it's better to go the other way, and reduce the number of different sets of terms, not increase them.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 May 2024 ==

Why would it need different sets of management? You see what can be covered by full time staff within their normal working hours, and then use the flexible arrangements for the rest.

 

[skyhigh]

Why would it need different sets of management? You see what can be covered by full time staff within their normal working hours, and then use the flexible arrangements for the rest.

That's not the only consideration

Where do you train the staff? How is that funded? You have all of the training cost of a full time driver.
You'd at least need more management staff - part time drivers require the same number of periodic assessments as full time drivers.
How do you manage route and traction competence with 'ad hoc' staff?
You've trained up a driver for a zero hours contract - what do you think will happen as soon as a full time role becomes available?

You'd end up with crew who are less useful than full time crew and also cost more per shift to employ. In reality you'd be better spending the money raising establishment levels to gain fully productive staff and a level of base cover that means rest day overtime isn't required.

 

[TUC]

That's not the only consideration

Where do you train the staff? How is that funded? You have all of the training cost of a full time driver.
You'd at least need more management staff - part time drivers require the same number of periodic assessments as full time drivers.
How do you manage route and traction competence with 'ad hoc' staff?
You've trained up a driver for a zero hours contract - what do you think will happen as soon as a full time role becomes available?

You'd end up with crew who are less useful than full time crew and also cost more per shift to employ. In reality you'd be better spending the money raising establishment levels to gain fully productive staff and a level of base cover that means rest day overtime isn't required.

Presumably though the number of additional staff hours required in any given week do not necessarily add up to full-time roles, and so thst approach could lead to over- provision?

Plenty of businesses have a combination of full and part- time staff. There's no inherent reason where rail should be different.

 

[Starmill]

Presumably though the number of additional staff hours required in any given week do not necessarily add up to full-time roles, and so thst approach could lead to over- provision?

Plenty of businesses have a combination of full and part- time staff. There's no inherent reason where rail should be different.

If you look at other highly trained roles such as doctors of medicine, their ad-hoc rates are so much higher than the employee contracted hours rate that it's always far more expensive to arrange short notice cover than to work off standard hours.

 

[skyhigh]

Plenty of businesses have a combination of full and part- time staff. There's no inherent reason where rail should be different.

But Rail does have part time staff. There are plenty of part time staff, though unless it's a qualified driver easing into retirement it just doesn't add up for crew.

It's not cheap and it's not quick.

Not to mention that your idea of flexible zero hour contracts where those staff fill gaps at short notice aren't going to be particularly desirable.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Thank-you both. There's a pattern forming with both LNER & Northern management who are both are scoring own goals. Then again when you give the DfT too much involvement this seems to happen time & time again

If you don't have those "overseas-based" TOC that the RMT were always harping on about in press releases and the current organisation running the services, who else is in line to run matters?

 

[TUC]

But Rail does have part time staff. There are plenty of part time staff, though unless it's a qualified driver easing into retirement it just doesn't add up for crew.

It's not cheap and it's not quick.

Not to mention that your idea of flexible zero hour contracts where those staff fill gaps at short notice aren't going to be particularly desirable.

Who says it has to be zero hours contracts? Annualised hours contracts, still based upon an average part-time working week, would be just as workable.

 

[D6130]

But Rail does have part time staff. There are plenty of part time staff, though unless it's a qualified driver easing into retirement it just doesn't add up for crew

There are also a small number of female drivers and guards who have arranged to work part-time due to child care issues.

 

[TUC]

If you look at other highly trained roles such as doctors of medicine, their ad-hoc rates are so much higher than the employee contracted hours rate that it's always far more expensive to arrange short notice cover than to work off standard hours.

That's because of a reliance upon agency staff rather than about being part-time.

 

[Meole]

Surely rail could use some of these 18 year old volunteers to fill the gaps at weekends, there has already been a call for teenage drivers for the future.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

So the employee who is giving 100% should seek work elsewhere because 100% is not enough and its their fault ?

Does what you say about "giving 100%" apply to all the staff. There are not many companies in which such total dedication is par for the course.

 

[43066]

Quite frankly at this point few people away from the industry care as to the reasons why any more, if they did at all. Unreliability has been baked into rail services for decades, its been a running joke since the 80s. And no matter which side you listen to, its always someone else's fault.

This is just a rant with no basis in reality, as many parts of the railway are very reliable, and you don’t speak for most people. You’ve said you don’t use the railway so, if you aren’t interested in understanding the reasons behind these issues, it’s a little difficult to understand why you are contributing to the discussion!?

Plenty of businesses have a combination of full and part- time staff. There's no inherent reason where rail should be different.

Because, as has been pointed out to you many times, nobody is going to pay £100k+ to train people up only to work on a part time basis. It’s a solution looking for a problem, and it also wouldn’t do anything to solve the issue in this case of management not sticking to agreements and causing industrial action, which I note you haven’t said a word about.

 

[muz379]

The idea of part time train drivers working to different T's & C's as a solution to this is IMO a non starter , even if you ignore the fact that it would spark a dispute immediately.

The occassions that I have seen drivers (or guards) work part time contracts because of a job sharing arrangement for those nearing retirement or working family friendly hours to be able to carry out caring responsibolities , said drivers or guards have had a very small route card and basically do the same job or small number of jobs all the time because of their inability to maintain competency over their previous linked route card .

You would still have to as a minimum surely indicate to these part time staff members what days and shifts they are going to be working , unless you really think that people are going to stick around in the sort of job thats like "We will tell you thursday afternoon if and for what hours you are required at weekend " To be honest to buy that sort of flexibility the wages would have to be extremely good for the little hours that are worked . Any TOC that introduced this would just end up training part time crew up , then losing them to other TOC's or FOC's that advertised FT vacancies .

Part time traincrew can work , if they are built into the planning that was also discussed earlier in this thread but ad hoc traincrew just would not work for maintaining any decent level of route or traction knowledge , as previously discussed in this thread that represents a challenge already in some cases for full time traincrew .

 

[dk1]

If you don't have those "overseas-based" TOC that the RMT were always harping on about in press releases and the current organisation running the services, who else is in line to run matters?

Obviously no one in the current circumstance. Just shows up how rotten everything is internally at the moment.

 

[Killingworth]

Was there a bus option from Edale? I'm sure I've seen a bus stop outside the station cafe but not sure I've ever seen a bus there!

Minibus replacement to Hope during blockades but road up the valley or over Mam Nick is too narrow for regular service buses. Previous attempts to do so failed.

If I knew I was stranded in Edale for 2 or 3 hours I'd walk via Hollins Coss to Castleton for a bus. Not for everyone that.

 

[Llandudno]

Possibly the 62 Castleton / Buxton (High Peak) bus was running. Departures from Edale on a Sunday, round to Hope/Castleton at 0900, 1000, 1255, 1340, 1620 and 1710. And to Buxton via Chapel at 1041, 1421 and 1821.

The 62 is a brand new bus service starting on 30 June and will be operating daily.
Timetables shown on High Peak Buses website and no doubt will appear on Derbyshire CC website soon

 

[IanXC]

What events would those be unless you can see fire and rehire on the horizon I cannot see anyone budging

The whole situation is wrapped up in the ongoing pay negotiations. Once some progress is made on that, and no I don't anticipate anything earth shattering, just a situation where TOCs can actually negotiate and agreements can actually be reached, then the whole atmosphere will become much more receptive. After all theres previously been plenty of pressure placed on ASLEF reps by their members to allow drivers to work rest days and overtime, hence the previous 3 weeks yes, 1 week no strategy.

Compare that to the time it would take to develop a proper reduced timetable service (one which doesn't involve simply removing every third train for instance), bidding for that with Network Rail, agreeing new rosters to reflect the reduced service, and implementing it on a suitable timetable change date. Maybe just possibly by May 2025? Well I suspect said pay negotiations will make progress somewhat sooner than that once the next government enter office....

 

[skyhigh]

Who says it has to be zero hours contracts? Annualised hours contracts, still based upon an average part-time working week, would be just as workable.

Annualised hours but they're just plugging gaps so no guarantee they'll actually be required for all those hours or what they'll be working?