The TPE position is significantly affected by the amount of training underway for diversions due to the upgrade project. That’s a hard deadline that won’t go away (or at least, not easily). The strikes to date have had an impact on this, as has the RDW ban of course. It’s also been affected by a Full time ASLEF rep who by all accounts is ‘somewhat challenging’ (to put it mildly) and has been shifting the goalposts.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
ORR Press Release - Late-Notice Cancellations
- Thread starter purple-Azumas
- Start date
- Status
The TPE position is significantly affected by the amount of training underway for diversions due to the upgrade project. That’s a hard deadline that won’t go away (or at least, not easily). The strikes to date have had an impact on this, as has the RDW ban of course. It’s also been affected by a Full time ASLEF rep who by all accounts is ‘somewhat challenging’ (to put it mildly) and has been shifting the goalposts.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
There isn't a shortage of train crew. There is a massive reduction in route knowledge and traction competency however.
Route cards have been slashed accross all depots and the crossover that was available pre covid is obsolete.
TPE management wanted the route cards cut and this was started ore covid, no ide a why.
Staff members asked to keep the the route knowledge and where refused.
Depot diagrams and journeys where chopped. So instead of having potentially the same driver and guard throughout the journey 3+ change of both drivers and guards is not uncommon on one trip.
This staff sickness and training backlog is a smokescreen.
I can guarantee you tomorrow, the back end of mine and the drivers diagram will be p coded tomorrow, as it has been for the past few weeks, no idea why.
The new excuse is short notice change to the timetable but God knows what that means...
VauxhallNova
Member
So it is a FirstGroup issue....
Nicholas Lewis
Established Member
that was known about so a competent operator would have told DfT we cant deliver the timetable proposed and train drivers to cover the diversionary routes currently and recommend what service was deliverable surely?
Interesting priorities for something that is supposed to be a public service and not a business, if you ask me.
Nicholas Lewis
Established Member
Maybe but they are there to incentivise good performance which in theory ought to drive revenue improvement of course reality has turned out to be something else.
It makes sense when you remember it’s only a vital public service when the government want to attack the rights of those who work for it. When they want to cut services and fleece those who use it, it’s a hard nosed commercial business
.yes - that’s what they did!
Nicholas Lewis
Established Member
why the high level of cancellations then - all down to lack of RDW agreement?
a variety of things, including that.
Clarence Yard
Established Member
- Joined
- 18 Dec 2014
- Messages
- 3,266
No - it’s a DfT issue. They have been fixated on driver numbers and driver costs for a number of years. They and their consultants absolutely love these optimisation packages that, in theory, reduce the need for route and traction training. They have been pushing this way of working on several TOCs. TPE isn’t the only TOC that this is happening to.
The problem with an optimised diagram structure is when you are short of crew and/or there is disruption - the job stops in very short order. I would ban the practise.
It also costs serious money to reverse out of this kind of optimised mess. Money that the DfT has, hitherto, seemed reluctant to fully commit to.
Bertie the bus
Established Member
- Joined
- 15 Aug 2014
- Messages
- 3,216
You keep saying that it is the fault of the DfT and the issues affecting TPE aren't unique to them but never actually name these other TOCs that are affected or adequately explain why if other TOCs are affected by the same DfT decisions they don't cancel anything like the number of services TPE do.
If there aren't enough train crew with the requisite route knowledge and traction competency to operate the advertised service, then there is a de facto shortage of train crew.
An attempt to divert attention from the truth - a shortage of suitable crew due to the reasons you describe.
Probably because the various issues have compounded especially badly for TPE compared to other TOCs.
TPE drivers are currently being balloted for industrial action due to the company continuesly breaking their terms and conditions.
How is a full time officer challenging and how have they been shifting goalposts? Genuinely intrigued by that comment (although off topic).
Bertie the bus
Established Member
- Joined
- 15 Aug 2014
- Messages
- 3,216
So it's TPE's fault then.
Depends how much was in their control and how much was mandated that they had to do, despite the known impact to performance. That I do not know.
Bertie the bus
Established Member
- Joined
- 15 Aug 2014
- Messages
- 3,216
If multiple companies have the same external pressures and influences but most manage to operate a relatively adequate service then it is clear those external pressures and influences by themselves don’t cause the issues. Therefore, one has to ask why does it cause a catastrophic failure in companies like TPE and the only logical answer is the management or lack of at that company.
Clarence Yard
Established Member
- Joined
- 18 Dec 2014
- Messages
- 3,266
The difference in TOCs is nearly all down to the number of crew you had in March 2020. If you had more than enough (because you were going to run services which then didn’t run), you were going to be in better shape to weather the next two years (COVID, lack of training, cost cutting and disputes) than those that didn’t. You needed that substantial buffer in your staffing.
TPE was just about the worst TOC in March 2020, thanks to the severe (one might say terminal) damage inflicted on it by the previous MD. But, since they have effectively taken control, the DfT have been too slow off the mark to fully reverse that damage and are still wanting to improve things on the cheap, as shown by the current route knowledge policy.
You have the person who negotiated the whopping increase in GWR driver numbers (thankfully completed just before March 2020 otherwise they would be in the cart too) as the MD at TPE so he knows what to do. But the damage that has been done to that TOC is (and remains) enormous.
TPE was just about the worst TOC in March 2020, thanks to the severe (one might say terminal) damage inflicted on it by the previous MD. But, since they have effectively taken control, the DfT have been too slow off the mark to fully reverse that damage and are still wanting to improve things on the cheap, as shown by the current route knowledge policy.
You have the person who negotiated the whopping increase in GWR driver numbers (thankfully completed just before March 2020 otherwise they would be in the cart too) as the MD at TPE so he knows what to do. But the damage that has been done to that TOC is (and remains) enormous.
VauxhallNova
Member
To what extent do you think it was all the previous MD's fault? Did FirstGroup not know what was going on?
That will come out in time.
The answer to that is that TPE had more external pressures and influences than anyone else.
Perfect explanation!
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
TPE drivers already have a mandate for strike action. Are they going to be on strike twice at the same time?
VauxhallNova
Member
On the contrary, the (pre-Covid) franchise agreement actually required TPE to have more drivers than their establishment.
26. Driver resourcing levels
26.1 The Franchisee shall, with the Management Accounts to be provided in relation to the penultimate Reporting Period of the previous Franchisee Year pursuant to paragraph 3.2 of Schedule 13 (Information and Industry Initiatives) notify the Secretary of State of its calculated Establishment Requirement for the following Franchisee Year. The Franchisee shall notify the Secretary of State of the Establishment Requirement for the first Franchisee Year at least four weeks prior to the Start Date.
26.2 During each period of 12 consecutive months, the Franchisee shall employ such numbers of qualified Train Drivers such that the Establishment Requirement, notified to the Secretary of State pursuant to paragraph 26.1 and applicable to the relevant Franchisee Year, shall be exceeded on a moving annual average basis by at least [redacted]
I wonder what the redacted number was?
Snow1964
Established Member
Ah, that is being obscure, MD says not shortage of train crew, but reality is they are not trained to be able to undertake their required duties.
Shouldn't there be sufficient to cover training. I once worked for an employer where it was compulsory to do at least 5 days training per year (refresher or upgrade, or learning new equipment or roles).
Clarence Yard
Established Member
- Joined
- 18 Dec 2014
- Messages
- 3,266
The key point here is what the establishment was and whether it could really sustain the service that was projected to be operated at that time or in the future. If the establishment level was the result of over-optimised diagrams and route knowledge assumptions, then you are starting off from a very poor position.
Stick all the events that have happened since 2020 into the mix (including the ending of that franchise and the settling up of the finances) and it becomes clear that the TOC has been steadily unwinding into operational chaos because it has no in-built resilience in either its (trained) staff numbers or where they can work.
The real cancellation levels show just how poor the position has become.
VauxhallNova
Member
Agree with this, thanks.
I happen to know one of the analysts who worked with the relevant TPE director on the 2018 crew optimisation.
Certainly the franchise structure, where the TOC took full commercial risk on cost and revenue, drove some aggressive cost cutting behaviour when TOCs started losing significant amounts of money versus their planned bid revenue line.
"The circumstances" including that they have to work under the DfT. More funding and less meddling will solve that problem.
43096
On Moderation
- Joined
- 23 Nov 2015
- Messages
- 18,770
It’s been suggested on another forum that this was in First’s franchise bid for TPE. In other words, it is what they planned.
So when people blame the DfT, that’s not the whole story.
Last edited by a moderator:
A bid which the DfT decided that it preferred instead of another bid.
Clarence Yard
Established Member
- Joined
- 18 Dec 2014
- Messages
- 3,266
It was indeed in the franchise bid and others too. It became a bit of a fashion and, of course, you were at risk of not winning if you didn’t do it, especially as the DfT’s operating consultants were so keen.
It originated in this country with Central Trains where their planning guru was keen on both crew and stock optimisation and timed his trains and diagrammed his staff and stock to get the most out of them. Combining disparate service groups was another of his wheezes. He got people thinking.
It started to gain momentum in around 2005 and, in bids, there was a bunch of Australians that you sent your trains to and they would do the diagramming. I remember having to debug the GWR 2006 diagrams after the actual service was found to be unreliable. One Banbury to Pad Turbo changed drivers twice en-route! As a former Thames & Chiltern manager who had been “away” from the patch for a few years, I didn’t know whether to laugh, cry or get very, very angry.
The Wilkinson era at the DfT has seen a definite change in the mood music around train crew and a general wish to simplify train crew training and keep establishments down. I remember my colleagues on the TPE bid coming back very frustrated from DfT meetings where they were “encouraged” to beat the establishments down further. Similar bids of that era (i.e. the last contests) had the same issue.
So, if you really wanted to win, you had to play the game. Of course, the best bids would try and cover their backsides by having just enough actuals over establishment to show “resilience” or, even better, you tried for re-openers if it went wrong and you could hang it on someone else!
The end of the franchises and the willingness of the DfT to settle them all up for a financial contribution was manna from heaven for those TOCs who at the time were, or were going to be, in trouble for crew. It saved them millions.
What has been fairly unforgivable is that the DfT have been in charge in 3 years, know all about the issues that have been causing the cancellations and have been far too slow in getting to grips with it.
It originated in this country with Central Trains where their planning guru was keen on both crew and stock optimisation and timed his trains and diagrammed his staff and stock to get the most out of them. Combining disparate service groups was another of his wheezes. He got people thinking.
It started to gain momentum in around 2005 and, in bids, there was a bunch of Australians that you sent your trains to and they would do the diagramming. I remember having to debug the GWR 2006 diagrams after the actual service was found to be unreliable. One Banbury to Pad Turbo changed drivers twice en-route! As a former Thames & Chiltern manager who had been “away” from the patch for a few years, I didn’t know whether to laugh, cry or get very, very angry.
The Wilkinson era at the DfT has seen a definite change in the mood music around train crew and a general wish to simplify train crew training and keep establishments down. I remember my colleagues on the TPE bid coming back very frustrated from DfT meetings where they were “encouraged” to beat the establishments down further. Similar bids of that era (i.e. the last contests) had the same issue.
So, if you really wanted to win, you had to play the game. Of course, the best bids would try and cover their backsides by having just enough actuals over establishment to show “resilience” or, even better, you tried for re-openers if it went wrong and you could hang it on someone else!
The end of the franchises and the willingness of the DfT to settle them all up for a financial contribution was manna from heaven for those TOCs who at the time were, or were going to be, in trouble for crew. It saved them millions.
What has been fairly unforgivable is that the DfT have been in charge in 3 years, know all about the issues that have been causing the cancellations and have been far too slow in getting to grips with it.
True, but equally some of it may be due to the nature of the obligations of the franchise, TPE has a sprawling network with lots of different stock - that's a more complicated problem than a theoretical single mainline with one unit type. Things that work fine on say, LNER, may not work as well at a TOC with more variety.
- Status