Transpennine Express boss apologises for poor services (BBC)

[158801]

May I put a slightly different slant on the traincrew diagram issues,,,,

TPE are desperately short of drivers. It takes (let’s assume) 2 months for TPE Liverpool Driver to sign/learn all routes - this includes going all the way to Newcastle.
By just getting them to learn to Leeds takes 1 month. TPE can therefore have a productive driver 1 month sooner.

In the old system, Mavis, a Liverpool TPE Driver is scheduled to drive the 0900 to Newcastle with Unit “A”. When they get to Newcastle they have a break and bring back unit “B” to Liverpool.
unit “A” is will be driven by Harold (a Newcastle driver) from Newcastle to Liverpool. However, Harold has gone sick. So unit “A” is going to be stuck in Newcastle - blocking a platform for 7 hours until it’s next scheduled trip. Is network rail going to be happy about that? So, even with end to end drivers diagrams there’s still going to be issues and possible cancellations as drivers need a rest, traction doesn’t so you can’t stay with the same train all day.

 

[Parjon]

Shortening training by 1 month as a priority really would smack of poor leadership at the top.

Do it right, do it once.

The example given of end to end being suboptimal neglects to add that the situation given could be avoided by having adequate staff to cover illness. And that the identical issue appears multiple times through the route by changing staff every 5 minutes while restricting them to patches beyond which they cannot go.

Keep it simple.

 

[Killingworth]

Indeed, they've had plenty of time to get used to three train fleets.

Look at how many fleets Northern has - they're managing to run their timetable.

Be fair, TPE have 4 train fleets to manage. We were expecting them to release some 185s but currently they seem unable to turn out enough to run the 6 coach trains passengers need. 185s make up about half the number of their units, but only when run in 3 car formations.

 

[irish_rail]

May I put a slightly different slant on the traincrew diagram issues,,,,

TPE are desperately short of drivers. It takes (let’s assume) 2 months for TPE Liverpool Driver to sign/learn all routes - this includes going all the way to Newcastle.
By just getting them to learn to Leeds takes 1 month. TPE can therefore have a productive driver 1 month sooner.

In the old system, Mavis, a Liverpool TPE Driver is scheduled to drive the 0900 to Newcastle with Unit “A”. When they get to Newcastle they have a break and bring back unit “B” to Liverpool.
unit “A” is will be driven by Harold (a Newcastle driver) from Newcastle to Liverpool. However, Harold has gone sick. So unit “A” is going to be stuck in Newcastle - blocking a platform for 7 hours until it’s next scheduled trip. Is network rail going to be happy about that? So, even with end to end drivers diagrams there’s still going to be issues and possible cancellations as drivers need a rest, traction doesn’t so you can’t stay with the same train all day.

Yes, but with end to end drivers the risk of the pack of cards falling down is far smaller. In your scenario there are 2 drivers involved. In the current reality there are say a total of 8 drivers, therefore far more chance one of those 8 goes sick/ gets held up/ etc etc. If you want a resilient service you want end to end drivers as much as is reasonably possible. Trouble is TPE seem to be set up around depots at Manchester and York, with the depots at the extreme seemingly more marginal, whereas in an ideal world you would have the bigger depot at Liverpool and not Manchester.

 

[Spartacus]

May I put a slightly different slant on the traincrew diagram issues,,,,

TPE are desperately short of drivers. It takes (let’s assume) 2 months for TPE Liverpool Driver to sign/learn all routes - this includes going all the way to Newcastle.
By just getting them to learn to Leeds takes 1 month. TPE can therefore have a productive driver 1 month sooner.

In the old system, Mavis, a Liverpool TPE Driver is scheduled to drive the 0900 to Newcastle with Unit “A”. When they get to Newcastle they have a break and bring back unit “B” to Liverpool.
unit “A” is will be driven by Harold (a Newcastle driver) from Newcastle to Liverpool. However, Harold has gone sick. So unit “A” is going to be stuck in Newcastle - blocking a platform for 7 hours until it’s next scheduled trip. Is network rail going to be happy about that? So, even with end to end drivers diagrams there’s still going to be issues and possible cancellations as drivers need a rest, traction doesn’t so you can’t stay with the same train all day.

I'll second what the Irish Pilgrim has said, plus with wider route knowledge such a situation's less likely to occur as it's so much easier to use spare drivers, or step them up, in such a situation. Given some notice a spare driver in many places could potentially be utilised if everyone has wide route knowledge.

Also, the eternal problem with crews passing out quickly on one route is the difficulty of then widening that route knowledge, taking much, much, longer than if they'd just continued learning, so you end up with crews who only sign tiny areas practically forever. 2 months 100% productive with resilient diagrams and easy service recovery vs 1 month 25% productive with diagrams like a house of cards and no practical service recovery.

 

[gimmea50anyday]

That's also what spare cover is for, currently the situation is newcastle cant cover liverpool work if liverpool crews are short because neither sign beyond leeds, BUT THEY USED TO!!!! so now you have unnecessary cancellations while crews are sitting spare.
Only last month Newcastle crews were told they no longer need 185s on their cards because they have no 185 work. So an 802 is replaced by a 185 to keep the service running? Not any more. Thats another unnecessary cancellation. Nor do they need Leeds-Huddersfield on their route cards any more. Only a month ago this was done, so not only are the route and traction cards been cut, they are STILL being cut despite it being proven that cutting route cards and the associated lack of flexibility is costing the industry money in cancelled services, lost fares, delay repay - but nobody cares because the DfT/Treasury is bank rolling it, not TPE!

 

[GordonT]

Yes, but with end to end drivers the risk of the pack of cards falling down is far smaller. In your scenario there are 2 drivers involved. In the current reality there are say a total of 8 drivers, therefore far more chance one of those 8 goes sick/ gets held up/ etc etc. If you want a resilient service you want end to end drivers as much as is reasonably possible. Trouble is TPE seem to be set up around depots at Manchester and York, with the depots at the extreme seemingly more marginal, whereas in an ideal world you would have the bigger depot at Liverpool and not Manchester.

That's a good point. Since privatisation, Anglo-Scottish services have suffered from smaller TOCs "dabbling" in their provision e.g. Northern Spirit, TPE, Cross Country and Caledonian Sleeper. Each will small depots at the Scottish end with little or no spare resources (human or mechanical) sometimes spread even more thinly between a base in Edinburgh and a base in Glasgow. For this reason TPE were a misnamed misfit for Scottish provision even before they descended into farce.

 

[gimmea50anyday]

TPE used to have multiple fleets, 158, 170, 175 and 185 were all in use at the same time, managed by keeping 170 on Hull work, 175 on NW workings to blackpool while the 158s ran alongside 185s until fleet introduction was conplete. Crews maintained traction knowledge on both until the 158s were withdrawn. Only then was 158 removed off the cards.
It took me just 2 days to "convert" 185 to 802 knowledge and only one day refreshing every 6 months so maintaining knowledge shouldnt be difficult. Granted drivers need far more time but this time could be used while spare. Yet whenever people put route or traction reviews they get declined.
The usual reason, "because the depot "does not have any booked work on x route or y traction"
If MG wants the company to improve then he needs to take a look at whats going on in planning and resourcing and find out who keeps cutting and why. Thats where the problems lie and I have been saying that for several years. The very same concerns I expressed back in 2019 to management no longer in the business and I was told "i agree with you, Im all for maximum flexibility of route and traction knowledge"

But what do I know, I merely work for the company...

 

[GordonT]

Focusing just on TPE's Anglo-Scottish services - today's "short notice changes to the timetable":

0704 ex Manchester Airport - Glasgow Central cancelled
1204 and 2004 ex Manchester Airport - Edinburgh cancelled
0906 ex Glasgow Central - Manchester Airport starting from Preston
0812 and 1612 ex Edinburgh to Manchester Airport cancelled
1734 ex Edinburgh - Newcastle cancelled
1911 ex Edinburgh - Liverpool terminating at Newcastle
2101 ex Newcastle - Edinburgh cancelled.

Will this scenario continue indefinitely, be resolved soon or will "an honest timetable" be reinstated?

 

[mike57]

because the DfT/Treasury is bank rolling it, not TPE!

And in turn TPE have zero risk, so even if the whole system grinds to a halt, apart from reputational damage, there is no financial penalty. And the cancelling the night before loophole is another example of bad financial management by the people who set the rules.

 

[Krokodil]

In the old system, Mavis, a Liverpool TPE Driver is scheduled to drive the 0900 to Newcastle with Unit “A”. When they get to Newcastle they have a break and bring back unit “B” to Liverpool.
unit “A” is will be driven by Harold (a Newcastle driver) from Newcastle to Liverpool. However, Harold has gone sick. So unit “A” is going to be stuck in Newcastle - blocking a platform for 7 hours until it’s next scheduled trip. Is network rail going to be happy about that? So, even with end to end drivers diagrams there’s still going to be issues and possible cancellations as drivers need a rest, traction doesn’t so you can’t stay with the same train all day.

You're more likely to have a spare driver in Newcastle than you are in Leeds. As another poster has also pointed out the above scenario only has two points of potential failure, not eight.

Quite apart from the fact that varied route cards increase job satisfaction and help stop TPE losing drivers hand-over-fist to freight operators as they are at the moment.

 

[CAF397]

In the run up to the December 2019 timetable change, the previous MD, Leo Goodwin, pressed the panic button and cancelled all route learning and traction training, placing priority on the 802 introduction.

This impacted greatly on a number of other depots who did not have anything to do with 802s.

The '3 new fleets' discussion is also somewhat complex. The WCML depots are basically standalone in TPE, there is very little crossover between other depots, so the 397 fleet are somewhat isolated. As indeed it was when 350s were on the route.

The current state of the Nova 3 fleet is a direct result of both late introduction, training being suspended prior to December 2019, and then the onset of Covid on early 2020. That fleet has yet to reach its full potential nearly 3 and a half years after entering service.

 

[gimmea50anyday]

LG panicked whenever anyone approached him....

Think the NIMBYs in Scarborough also played a part in that. The depot built specifically for the N3's isnt used to its potential either because of the complaints of noise from idling 68's. Plans to stable and service overnight were pulled as a result. Hopefully that will change with the new locos, 93's i think, that are being scoped to replace them ...

And in turn TPE have zero risk, so even if the whole system grinds to a halt, apart from reputational damage, there is no financial penalty.

And as long as this remains the case nothing will improve brcause there isnt any need to improve. Contractually FG are ticking all of DfTs boxes and getting paid for it. Great for shareholders and Government ministers and, carps on everyone else, especially the passengers reliant on the service and the staff unable to provide the service!

 

[CAF397]

Think the NIMBYs in Scarborough also played a part in that. The depot built specifically for the N3's isnt used to its potential either because of the complaints of noise from idling 68's. Plans to stable and service overnight were pulled as a result. Hopefully that will change with the new locos, 93's i think, that are being scoped to replace them ...

I think from December 2022 it's back in use, albeit performing maintenance and servicing during the day as opposed to overnight.

But I agree, a solution wasn't found that would have benefitted TPE or the local users, and that caused no end of problems with locos needing fuel at Scarborough, and having to be dragged back to longsight!

 

[Tetchytyke]

So, even with end to end drivers diagrams there’s still going to be issues and possible cancellations as drivers need a rest, traction doesn’t so you can’t stay with the same train all day.

Indeed. But in that example, if the driver is actually booked, as an example, Newcastle-Leeds-York-Leeds-Newcastle then you have units stuck in Newcastle, Leeds and York without a driver.

Missing drivers will always cause problems, but the more tightly you diagram their work the less resilience there is and the further the problem spreads.

There is always a compromise or trade-off between efficiency and resilience, but I think TPE have gone too far one way. It's exactly the same issue WMT/LNR had before Covid.

 

[VauxhallNova]

In the run up to the December 2019 timetable change, the previous MD, Leo Goodwin, pressed the panic button and cancelled all route learning and traction training, placing priority on the 802 introduction.

This impacted greatly on a number of other depots who did not have anything to do with 802s.

The '3 new fleets' discussion is also somewhat complex. The WCML depots are basically standalone in TPE, there is very little crossover between other depots, so the 397 fleet are somewhat isolated. As indeed it was when 350s were on the route.

The current state of the Nova 3 fleet is a direct result of both late introduction, training being suspended prior to December 2019, and then the onset of Covid on early 2020. That fleet has yet to reach its full potential nearly 3 and a half years after entering service.

I don't know of any other depot that requires units or locos to idle all night, only ones where there is no suitable power supply installed. Another cost "efficiency".

Both the CAF fleets were delayed initially because it took 6 months to sign the contracts. Northern had signed their deals within a month after signing the franchise agreement, whereas for TPE it took until May 2016 to agree the 397 and Mk5As.

Interesting to hear that traction and route knowledge was pulled to support extra ECML services in December 2019.

 

[Solent&Wessex]

The lack of crew route and traction knowledge is one of the biggest issues at TPE at the moment.

Ok, there are some issues with flexibility (or lack thereof) in the way they can roster drivers due to various old but still current agreements with ASLEF, but in the main these would be mitigated by having route and traction knowledge like they used to do.

As mentioned up thread, you can discount the 397s from the mix as the WCML route is pretty much standalone in terms of the traincrew depots - i.e. they do that route and nothing else. It was the same when the 350s were in use. However on the North and South Routes 185s and 170s operated together without the same issues as they have now. They only have 3 fleets now on those routes which is by no means excessive.

The lack of knowledge also affects spare coverage which makes it very difficult to cover when someone is missing.

If you had good route and traction knowledge then lets assume Manchester and Liverpool depots both sign the same core routes and tractions. If you find you are short of a driver or guard for an 802 in Liverpool, but you have spare staff in Manchester, then you can use the Manchester crew to cover. It's not too far to get them to Liverpool and even if they only go as far as York then you only need one more crew at York to take the train to Newcastle.

However, there are no Guards or Drivers in Manchester who sign 802s. So there is no cross cover available. In addition, only one of the drivers links signs the routes from Manchester to Liverpool, the other does not. The other link used to sign Liverpool as well, but TPE took all the work away from that link and when driver's put in for route reviews so they could keep their competence it was rejected by TPE who said they don't need to sign Liverpool any more. Guards in Manchester also used to sign Liverpool but they have been told to remove it from their knowledge as it "isn't efficient" for them to have work there.

The result is that the only way to provide cover for Liverpool 802 work is to use crew from York. Even assuming someone is spare there, the amount of dead mileage wasted getting them to or from Liverpool makes the whole excercise almost pointless.

The end result is that rather than needing 1 or possibly 2 people to cover one vacant duty at Liverpool you need a far greater number, most of which will spend the time travelling around PASS and thus wasting time and money. In all likelihood you don't have that many spare people at York so the train just gets cancelled.

Yet you could have spare crews in Manchester!


To give a further example of the lack of flexibility:

The trains from Manchester to Hull used to normally operate with the same crew end to end. Until December. They were worked by Hull or Manchester crews. Occasionally there would be a crew change at Leeds.

Now they run to Liverpool. The driver's link at Manchester that signs Hull does not sign Liverpool - they used to but TPE actively removed the knowledge from them. Hull crews don't sign beyond Manchester and Liverpool crews don't sign beyond Leeds. So you now ALWAYS, without exception, need at least 2 crews to work the service - normally with a crew change at Manchester Victoria. If any of those 3 depots are short of staff then you cannot cross cover with another as the only overlap is the Manchester to Leeds bit.

Far more scope to go wrong, and far more resource needed to cover when someone is missing.

Maximising efficient diagrams ONLY works if ALL depots are fully resourced both in terms of numbers and competency ALL of the time and the train service never meets with delays or disruptions. Which with the best will in the world is never ever ever ever the case at all.

 

[CAF397]

I don't know of any other depot that requires units or locos to idle all night, only ones where there is no suitable power supply installed. Another cost "efficiency".

The locos weren't left idling all night, but whilst cleaning and/or prepping they would need to be running, which is obviously the noise the nearby households complained about.

Shore supply was installed, but due to an accident was not authorised to be used for a while.

Now, trains go onto the depot in the early evening, are cleaned and prepped and shut down, and the first one comes off in the morning to work the 0845 to Manchester.

 

[mike57]

because of the complaints of noise from idling 68's

Off topic, but what is it with the 68s, the noise seems really penetrating. On a calm morning you could hear them leave Scarborough at Seamer station, and I am more than a bit deaf, and when one is idling in Scarbrough the whole train shed seems to vibrate.

 

[Spartacus]

Off topic, but what is it with the 68s, the noise seems really penetrating. On a calm morning you could hear them leave Scarborough at Seamer station, and I am more than a bit deaf, and when one is idling in Scarborough the whole train shed seems to vibrate.

It's been mentioned elsewhere before but it's the deep base tone that's particularly penetrating, not helped by it echoing off Oliver's Mount. I was always surprised the depot wasn't initially built with sound deadening on that side, even with no housing there. Those sort of issues are well known.

 

[Grumpy]

Did they have to apply for Planning Permission for the fuelling etc facility at Scarborough?
Usually the planning officer would take advice from environmental health where there is the possibilty of noise affecting residential properties and the applicant required to demonstrate how this might be mitigated.

 

[Clarence Yard]

No, they don’t have to. But noise nuisance has to be mitigated, irrespective. The class 68 noise has been a problem wherever they have stabled. It’s really penetrating.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

The lack of crew route and traction knowledge is one of the biggest issues at TPE at the moment.

Ok, there are some issues with flexibility (or lack thereof) in the way they can roster drivers due to various old but still current agreements with ASLEF, but in the main these would be mitigated by having route and traction knowledge like they used to do.

As mentioned up thread, you can discount the 397s from the mix as the WCML route is pretty much standalone in terms of the traincrew depots - i.e. they do that route and nothing else. It was the same when the 350s were in use. However on the North and South Routes 185s and 170s operated together without the same issues as they have now. They only have 3 fleets now on those routes which is by no means excessive.

The lack of knowledge also affects spare coverage which makes it very difficult to cover when someone is missing.

If you had good route and traction knowledge then lets assume Manchester and Liverpool depots both sign the same core routes and tractions. If you find you are short of a driver or guard for an 802 in Liverpool, but you have spare staff in Manchester, then you can use the Manchester crew to cover. It's not too far to get them to Liverpool and even if they only go as far as York then you only need one more crew at York to take the train to Newcastle.

However, there are no Guards or Drivers in Manchester who sign 802s. So there is no cross cover available. In addition, only one of the drivers links signs the routes from Manchester to Liverpool, the other does not. The other link used to sign Liverpool as well, but TPE took all the work away from that link and when driver's put in for route reviews so they could keep their competence it was rejected by TPE who said they don't need to sign Liverpool any more. Guards in Manchester also used to sign Liverpool but they have been told to remove it from their knowledge as it "isn't efficient" for them to have work there.

The result is that the only way to provide cover for Liverpool 802 work is to use crew from York. Even assuming someone is spare there, the amount of dead mileage wasted getting them to or from Liverpool makes the whole excercise almost pointless.

The end result is that rather than needing 1 or possibly 2 people to cover one vacant duty at Liverpool you need a far greater number, most of which will spend the time travelling around PASS and thus wasting time and money. In all likelihood you don't have that many spare people at York so the train just gets cancelled.

Yet you could have spare crews in Manchester!


To give a further example of the lack of flexibility:

The trains from Manchester to Hull used to normally operate with the same crew end to end. Until December. They were worked by Hull or Manchester crews. Occasionally there would be a crew change at Leeds.

Now they run to Liverpool. The driver's link at Manchester that signs Hull does not sign Liverpool - they used to but TPE actively removed the knowledge from them. Hull crews don't sign beyond Manchester and Liverpool crews don't sign beyond Leeds. So you now ALWAYS, without exception, need at least 2 crews to work the service - normally with a crew change at Manchester Victoria. If any of those 3 depots are short of staff then you cannot cross cover with another as the only overlap is the Manchester to Leeds bit.

Far more scope to go wrong, and far more resource needed to cover when someone is missing.

Maximising efficient diagrams ONLY works if ALL depots are fully resourced both in terms of numbers and competency ALL of the time and the train service never meets with delays or disruptions. Which with the best will in the world is never ever ever ever the case at all.

The issue at hand is do TPE have a deliverable plan to resolve this or not? The last DfT spending report showed them receiving 17-18m/railway period so over 200m pa although even with their naff service they've probably had improved revenue but they receive 2nd highest subsidy after Northern/passenger carried.

If they dont have a robust plan, and that should be in the public domain given money being expended, then hand it over to OLR but that will need a further 18-24mths disruption to passengers.

 

[sheff1]

I think TPE and all the others are contractually obligated to clear their public comms with the government though. They can't just say the actual cause of all this because the government won't let them (because it's their fault!)

If what you say is true and the managing director is deliberately lying to his customers because the govenment told him too, then he is most certainly not my idea of a "good bloke". The government, of course, would think he was wonderful.

 

[LittleAH]

If what you say is true and the managing director is deliberately lying to his customers because the govenment told him too, then he is most certainly not my idea of a "good bloke". The government, of course, would think he was wonderful.

It isn't true. Certainly about the performance.

 

[Bald Rick]

The issue at hand is do TPE have a deliverable plan to resolve this or not?

Yes they do.

They also have far, far more drivers on the books than they ever have. The issue has been getting them sufficiently competent (ie enough Route knowledge). There have been some massive IR issues in this respect. Not helped by the full time rep, who let’s say has a ‘reputation’.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Yes they do.

They also have far, far more drivers on the books than they ever have. The issue has been getting them sufficiently competent (ie enough Route knowledge). There have been some massive IR issues in this respect. Not helped by the full time rep, who let’s say has a ‘reputation’.

Then about time the managers managed - the service its that poor so what if ASLEF kick back

 

[Bertie the bus]

Yes they do.

They also have far, far more drivers on the books than they ever have. The issue has been getting them sufficiently competent (ie enough Route knowledge). There have been some massive IR issues in this respect. Not helped by the full time rep, who let’s say has a ‘reputation’.

If they do have a plan it might have been a good idea for the MD to say that when he was interviewed on the news last week. The most positive thing he could come up with was he hoped the service might resemble an actual service this time next year and he hoped he was still in the job to see it. Just saying he hoped for improvements really didn't indicate he had a plan or even a clue.

 

[Facing Back]

Then about time the managers managed - the service its that poor so what if ASLEF kick back

I'm sorry, I don;t quite understand what you meant

 

[Clarence Yard]

TPE used to have multiple fleets, 158, 170, 175 and 185 were all in use at the same time, managed by keeping 170 on Hull work, 175 on NW workings to blackpool while the 158s ran alongside 185s until fleet introduction was conplete. Crews maintained traction knowledge on both until the 158s were withdrawn. Only then was 158 removed off the cards.
It took me just 2 days to "convert" 185 to 802 knowledge and only one day refreshing every 6 months so maintaining knowledge shouldnt be difficult. Granted drivers need far more time but this time could be used while spare. Yet whenever people put route or traction reviews they get declined.
The usual reason, "because the depot "does not have any booked work on x route or y traction"
If MG wants the company to improve then he needs to take a look at whats going on in planning and resourcing and find out who keeps cutting and why. Thats where the problems lie and I have been saying that for several years. The very same concerns I expressed back in 2019 to management no longer in the business and I was told "i agree with you, Im all for maximum flexibility of route and traction knowledge"

But what do I know, I merely work for the company...

MG does know all of this but TPE hasn’t got the money to reverse it all out. The DfT also believe that restricting traction and route knowledge and optimising train crew diagrams is the way to keep train crew numbers and costs down. TPE isn’t the only TOC where this has been happening.

Until sufficient money is forthcoming to increase traction and route training and to employ enough staff to ease out the diagrams, as well as sorting out the time it takes to learn routes (which at TPE is a long time), irrespective of the current Pay and RDW disputes, TPE will continue to be a basket case.

Of course, if OLR took over, the management fees that FG earn will go to help - a cynical political move perhaps but one I can see the DfT making.