Sharing Resources - Trains and Crew

[Masbroughlad]

When BR was sectorised, cross-sector resource sharing was more difficult. Shadow TOCs and then privatisation made this more entrenched and it feels fairly set in stone now.

Will this change under GBR?

For example, if at Euston, a West Coast Pendolino InterCity service was lacking, could a 350 be stepped up on, say, a Liverpool service? Provided there was crew knowledge?

Will GBR run freight or are they solely passenger? So, no scope to drop a freight loco to rescue a passenger? (If compatible). I suppose privatisation has lead to so many incompatibilities that it will take years for true operational flexibility?

 

[The Planner]

When BR was sectorised, cross-sector resource sharing was more difficult. Shadow TOCs and then privatisation made this more entrenched and it feels fairly set in stone now.

Will this change under GBR?

For example, if at Euston, a West Coast Pendolino InterCity service was lacking, could a 350 be stepped up on, say, a Liverpool service? Provided there was crew knowledge?

Will GBR run freight or are they solely passenger? So, no scope to drop a freight loco to rescue a passenger? (If compatible). I suppose privatisation has lead to so many incompatibilities that it will take years for true operational flexibility?

Freight will remain open access as now. I doubt you'll see stock sharing as you suggest.

 

[LowLevel]

I doubt it'll be too widespread, there's a lot of differences.

It's not unheard of now though - EMR/EMT and XC have a long history of providing short notice cover for each other between Leicester/Derby/Nottingham in the evenings (albeit not too often) with EMR between Derby and Nottingham and XC between Nottingham and Leicester using their empty stock workings to cover each other's trains if necessary and feasible.

 

[KNN]

When BR was sectorised, cross-sector resource sharing was more difficult. Shadow TOCs and then privatisation made this more entrenched and it feels fairly set in stone now.

Will this change under GBR?

For example, if at Euston, a West Coast Pendolino InterCity service was lacking, could a 350 be stepped up on, say, a Liverpool service? Provided there was crew knowledge?

Even if that is the plan you'd think it won't happen for a long while.

It would make sense to me that there was some standardisation of the stock, for example, a commuter type, an intercity type, etc. so they could be swapped around as required.

 

[Mugby]

Derby would be a very good example of a location where it could be facilitated quite easily.

EMR and XC both work Derby - Sheffield and EMR also signed Wakefield - Leeds - York until fairly recently.
Both work Derby - Nottingham every day.
Most XC crews know Derby - Loughborough - Leicester because it's used occasionally for diversions.
EMR could easily add North Stafford Junction - Birmingham to their route knowledge.
One or two branches could be added to XC knowledge if necessary; Matlock/Newark & Lincoln etc.

Traction is pretty much the same at the moment with 170s, 220/221/222s Derby is the principal EMR depot and I believe XC have a drivers booking on point there although I don't think TMs or Conductors do.
If the will was there it could be done and provide some valuable pooling of resources in the shorter term. However, ultimately there won't (or shouldn't) be an EMR or an XC but one depot with staff wearing a common uniform and crewing trains with a single identity.

 

[baz962]

Well some could possibly work . However even if you can get the training done , you still could have problems with different companies on different terms and pay etc. Also length of the day as it could be longer at some companies than others etc .

 

[zwk500]

When BR was sectorised, cross-sector resource sharing was more difficult. Shadow TOCs and then privatisation made this more entrenched and it feels fairly set in stone now.

Will this change under GBR?

The simple answer is nobody knows, because nobody yet knows for sure what GBR will actually look like.

 

[LowLevel]

Derby would be a very good example of a location where it could be facilitated quite easily.

EMR and XC both work Derby - Sheffield and EMR also signed Wakefield - Leeds - York until fairly recently.
Both work Derby - Nottingham every day.
Most XC crews know Derby - Loughborough - Leicester because it's used occasionally for diversions.
EMR could easily add North Stafford Junction - Birmingham to their route knowledge.
One or two branches could be added to XC knowledge if necessary; Matlock/Newark & Lincoln etc.

Traction is pretty much the same at the moment with 170s, 220/221/222s Derby is the principal EMR depot and I believe XC have a drivers booking on point there although I don't think TMs or Conductors do.
If the will was there it could be done and provide some valuable pooling of resources in the shorter term. However, ultimately there won't (or shouldn't) be an EMR or an XC but one depot with staff wearing a common uniform and crewing trains with a single identity.

The main bun fight will be the privatisation induced T&Cs. Having crews on different conditions interworking would seem to be most unlikely. Despite XC and EMR senior conductors as an example having previously been the same job and employer until 2007 since then things have diverged a lot and XC crews are paid more than EMR ones and have better conditions having not had 12 years of Stagecoach standard industrial relations strategies to contend with.

 

[Harpo]

GBR’s role as timetable specifier will be interesting, especially how it deals with engineering scenarios and whether holistic specifications can improve on collections of TOC-centric plans.

I’m not expecting any changes to diversionary capabilities though.

 

[Class15]

Freight will remain open access as now.

Surely that defeats the point of nationalisation?

 

[zwk500]

Surely that defeats the point of nationalisation?

The 'point' of nationalisation is entirely focused on regular passenger services.

 

[Class15]

The 'point' of nationalisation is entirely focused on passenger services.

BR worked well partly because locos like 37s, 47s, 86s and 90s could be shared between freight and passenger operations. It gave them much more flexibility and also allowed the freight operations to be centrally-run, rather than multiple companies all competing to an extent that much of it ends up on the roads.

This Labour ‘renationalisation’ is not that in my opinion if freight is not done too.

 

[zwk500]

This Labour ‘renationalisation’ is not that in my opinion if freight is not done too.

Remember it's a political project not a railway one.

 

[43066]

BR worked well partly because locos like 37s, 47s, 86s and 90s could be shared between freight and passenger operations. It gave them much more flexibility and also allowed the freight operations to be centrally-run, rather than multiple companies all competing to an extent that much of it ends up on the roads.

This Labour ‘renationalisation’ is not that in my opinion if freight is not done too.

I don’t think it’s ever been stated that the intention is to replicate BR - indeed the continuation of open access and freight underlines this.

 

[CW2]

BR worked well partly because locos like 37s, 47s, 86s and 90s could be shared between freight and passenger operations. It gave them much more flexibility and also allowed the freight operations to be centrally-run, rather than multiple companies all competing to an extent that much of it ends up on the roads.

This Labour ‘renationalisation’ is not that in my opinion if freight is not done to

Arguably the most successful UK locomotive in recent decades has been the class 66, and its cousin the class 59. These were built for specific purposes by the private freight sector. The private sector wasn't obliged to compromise the design to meet public sector passenger aspirations.

Compare and contrast with the class 92, which has caused endless problems since it was designed to meet an international melange of freight and passenger work.

I support the "renationalisation" programme, but let's not be blind to the faults of the past.

 

[74A]

I've no doubt sharing of resources will come in. How at what speed is the question.

For example GWR have a small depot at Weymouth. Would make sense to merge it with the SWR depot. Makes a saving on buildings/admin. Also more flexibility with traincrew.

In the early days of privatisation Cross Country would hire in Great Western train crew to work their engine and coaches trains from Paddington to Oxford on occasion.

 

[43066]

For example GWR have a small depot at Weymouth. Would make sense to merge it with the SWR depot. Makes a saving on buildings/admin. Also more flexibility with traincrew.

The issue here, as alluded to upthread, will be siloed traction and route knowledge, and also different Ts and Cs which have diverged significantly over thirty years or so, all of which will be difficult (ie expensive) to harmonise.

I’d be surprised if there are many savings to be made by expanding route and traction knowledge; it’s telling that the tendency under the privatised railway has been to do the opposite.

 

[The Planner]

Surely that defeats the point of nationalisation?

Its not nationalisation in the BR sense, anyone expecting that needs to take the rose tinted specs off.

 

[30907]

Let's suppose you have

For example GWR have a small depot at Weymouth. Would make sense to merge it with the SWR depot. Makes a saving on buildings/admin. Also more flexibility with traincrew.

I wonder how it actually worked pre-privatisation? Eg Dorchester SR closed in 1956 (and there was a regular Weymouth GW working to Bournemouth) - but did the rosters eventually merge, or was there still segregation even within the one mess-room (anecdotes, not from that she'd, point that way...).
Or take Fratton, where both electric routes used the same ex-SR stock in the 60s and same/compatible BR(S) units into the 80s - how did the rosters actually work?

Genuine question, it's not my specialist subject!

 

[Harpo]

I’d be surprised if there are many savings to be made by expanding route and traction knowledge; it’s telling that the tendency under the privatised railway has been to do the opposite.

Yes. Cross-training at multi-TOC locations would cost a fortune and push many depots back to shortages and service cancellations.

Plus, you gain the headache of competency retention across a greater number of staff and an expanded assessment programme.

Another one for the suppliers of rose tints.

 

[JonathanH]

BR worked well partly because locos like 37s, 47s, 86s and 90s could be shared between freight and passenger operations.

There is definitely no plan to put locomotive hauled passenger trains back on the network as a product of nationalisation.

 

[43066]

Let's suppose you have

I wonder how it actually worked pre-privatisation? Eg Dorchester SR closed in 1956 (and there was a regular Weymouth GW working to Bournemouth) - but did the rosters eventually merge, or was there still segregation even within the one mess-room (anecdotes, not from that she'd, point that way...).
Or take Fratton, where both electric routes used the same ex-SR stock in the 60s and same/compatible BR(S) units into the 80s - how did the rosters actually work?

Genuine question, it's not my specialist subject!

Also interested to know. Certainly on the NSE region there were depots with mixed rosters where drivers (and I believe guards?) would work both freight trains and passenger trains. Hither Green was one such example.

Unthinkable these days.

 

[Harpo]

Also interested to know. Certainly on the NSE region there were depots with mixed rosters where drivers (and I believe guards?) would work both freight trains and passenger trains. Hither Green was one such example.

Unthinkable these days.

Common right across BR. The SR term was ‘mixed traction depots’.

Freight-only depots were also useful for helping out passenger depots in summer peaks. Pantyfynnon’s guards would refresh DMUs to assist Swansea in the summer for example.

 

[6Gman]

Common right across BR. The SR term was ‘mixed traction depots’.

Freight-only depots were also useful for helping out passenger depots in summer peaks. Pantyfynnon’s guards would refresh DMUs to assist Swansea in the summer for example.

The lack of refreshing caused all sorts of issues in the early privatisation days. I recall a loco and support coach move from Bury to Liverpool that had three men at the back for much of the way with requirements of stock and route knowledge!