Why do Govia Thameslink Railway not have enough planning staff?

[43066]

Quite common in the industry. GTR, XC, SWR, LO - all offer placement programs (or have recently) that are very popular amongst transport graduates.

I’d argue these are a positive - recruiting young blood into train planning to address a very stark skills shortage.

It is. However they do need to pay competitive rates to attract people, offer a decent long term career structure, and all the other things graduates want. Especially if they want good graduates, with degrees in sensible subjects, from proper universities.

I wonder if the current industry woes put people outside the industry off applying. They would me!

 

[12LDA28C]

Why is this issue not occurring with other TOCs. Is that because they have a different make up of staff in the different unions for the issue not to occur? At least not the other ones I use, as far as I am aware.

It is happening at other TOCs. Planners at the moment are stretched to the limit and beyond. They are busy enough normally with LTP, STP, engineering blocks and so on. Throw an ongoing industrial dispute into the mix and it's a wonder any planning staff stay in the job. Sometimes there literally aren't enough hours in the day to get everything done.

 

[Surreytraveller]

It is happening at other TOCs. Planners at the moment are stretched to the limit and beyond. They are busy enough normally with LTP, STP, engineering blocks and so on. Throw an ongoing industrial dispute into the mix and it's a wonder any planning staff stay in the job. Sometimes there literally aren't enough hours in the day to get everything done.

And then controllers have to pick up the pieces on the day when the unfinished, or badly-done planning, manifests itself.
With passengers suffering the inconvenience

 

[Bald Rick]

Why is this issue not occurring with other TOCs.

It is. Multiple other TOCs.

So is the issue more that GTR interact with more TOCs than other operators and that is why it is harder for them to modify their timetables?

yes, this is part of the issue. Hence why the 2018 timetable took a decade to develop.

another is the diagram structure combined with the ongoing much higher rate of unavailability of staff - persistently high for 3 years now.

 

[Horizon22]

So is the issue more that GTR interact with more TOCs than other operators and that is why it is harder for them to modify their timetables?

I work in an industry that can be under resourced and stuff just doesn't get done as a result. So I was coming at this with that perspective in mind.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 31 May 2023 ==


Would that not be the case for many other TOCs or are their crew diagrams less complicated? After all wouldn't all TOCs rely on overtime?

I originally thought the reason they can't run a bigger timetable was due to needing more staff for overtime but then I read in another thread that wasn't the issue, it was the planning of timetable.

That will certainly be a part. Also they run other 5 different NR routes and might potentially have to deal with not running through the core. It’s also one of the most extensive and detailed networks with 4 “sub-brands” which can’t help

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 31 May 2023 ==

And then controllers have to pick up the pieces on the day when the unfinished, or badly-done planning, manifests itself.
With passengers suffering the inconvenience

And as much as I’m sure some would like controllers aren’t planners!

A poorly thought out STP plan is a real hassle for controllers to unpick.

You can tell which TOCs have good will amongst planners, decent staffing levels and the right management by which ones are able to revert timetables back after a short notice cancellation of strike action.

 

[Bald Rick]

You can tell which TOCs have good will amongst planners, decent staffing levels and the right management by which ones are able to revert timetables back after a short notice cancellation of strike action.

That’s more about service and diagram complexity.

 

[43066]

much higher rate of unavailability of staff - persistently high for 3 years now.

At what point is “a much higher rate of unavailability or staff” acknowledged to simply mean “not enough staff”?

I seem to remember some fairly major issues stemming from not enough staff - sorry I mean “a much higher rate of unavailability of staff ” - in 2018, too. And that was more than three years ago.

(Not that I’m cynical ).

 

[Peregrine 4903]

That will certainly be a part. Also they run other 5 different NR routes and might potentially have to deal with not running through the core. It’s also one of the most extensive and detailed networks with 4 “sub-brands” which can’t help

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 31 May 2023 ==



And as much as I’m sure some would like controllers aren’t planners!

A poorly thought out STP plan is a real hassle for controllers to unpick.

You can tell which TOCs have good will amongst planners, decent staffing levels and the right management by which ones are able to revert timetables back after a short notice cancellation of strike action.

Yeah I'd agree with @Bald Rick. It all comes down to service complexity.

 

[Horizon22]

That’s more about service and diagram complexity.

Primarily, but I've known some TOC have had planners come in on a weekend (on overtime; most are Monday-Friday) to help resolve it, and others haven't and stuck with the strike plan.

 

[Bald Rick]

Primarily, but I've known some TOC have had planners come in on a weekend (on overtime; most are Monday-Friday) to help resolve it, and others haven't and stuck with the strike plan.

GTR do that

 

[Horizon22]

GTR do that

Fair enough. As I said firstly, the GTR network is quite a beast, so I am not surprised they struggle with the time constraints available. Planners have taken a battering over the past 2-3 years!

 

[Bald Rick]

At what point is “a much higher rate of unavailability or staff” acknowledged to simply mean “not enough staff”?

Good question. I suppose that comes down to the rate of unavailability, and whether the person taking the decisions believes it will return to the previous norms.

if, say, the rate of unavailability has doubled, do you assume it will reduce in time, or do you go out and recruit to fill the newly large gap? And if you recruit, and availability recovers, what do you do?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 31 May 2023 ==

Fair enough. As I said firstly, the GTR network is quite a beast, so I am not surprised they struggle with the time constraints available. Planners have taken a battering over the past 2-3 years!

3 years and 3 months to be precise!

 

[43066]

whether the person taking the decisions believes it will return to the previous norms.

What do previous norms really mean in the context of a shortage we both acknowledge dates back to 2018?

Over that timescale I’d suggest the shortage has itself become the norm.

if, say, the rate of unavailability has doubled, do you assume it will reduce in time, or do you go out and recruit to fill the newly large gap? And if you recruit, and availability recovers, what do you do?

Well, I might start by asking whether I had enough staff to man the staffing levels required by the timetable in front of me, covering clearly defined holiday, training, projected sickness etc. (all of which are known values) without reliance on overtime.

If I didn’t, I’d consider recruiting sufficient additional staff. But of course the DfT wouldn’t allow me the budget to do that, and would instruct me to blame existing staff for not working enough overtime…

Hence the mess the industry is currently in.

 

[JonathanH]

If I didn’t, I’d consider recruiting sufficient additional staff. But the DfT wouldn’t allow me the budget to do that, and would blame existing staff for not working enough overtime…

Hence the mess the industry is currently in.

But the other way to square the circle is to cut and simplify the number of services those staff are trying to provide.

What seems to be missing is the DfT linking the traincrew establishment that it is prepared to pay for with a service that can be delivered by that establishment.

I get that on a network as complex as GTR it isn't as simple as recasting the timetable to deliver a reliable service with the traincrew available but something has got to give. Clearly that comes back to the overworked planners though to define the deliverable service so they can't win.

The other factor on the GTR network is the seemingly unique nature of each weekend's revised service to cater for engineering work. You would think by now that most combinations of engineering work had happened by now at least once such that plans could be recycled, but seemingly not. This must also be a huge draw on their planning resource.

 

[43066]

But the other way to square the circle is to cut and simplify the number of services those staff are trying to provide.

You couldn’t easily do that on GTR given how busy it is, the bits of the country it serves, and would knacker, and which are now properly busy again.

TPE clearly matters way less to the powers that be, given the parts of the country it serves. We all know that’s the harsh reality.

What seems to be missing is the DfT linking the traincrew establishment that it is prepared to pay for with a service that can be delivered by that establishment.

The establishment they have is perfectly sufficient, with substantial reliance on overtime. The issue (at all TOCs) is the DfT being neither prepared to fund the overtime, nor the increase in staffing numbers required to run without.

And round and round we go…

 

[sleepinghobby]

Senior planners/training development managers at GTR are responsible for forming the timetable during industrial action. Presumably, the core planning team continue to work on their respective STP assignments.

I imagine whilst this is no easy task, it is certainly achievable. My guess is matching train crew to particular services is where the problems start to arise. The planners/resource team would have to do this and they already have their own duties to complete.

I expect the team can get this done but there probably is no appetite or will to do so. There is no incentive to run a passenger friendly service and it easy to circulate 'due to an ASLEF overtime ban...' on socials.

 

[WAB]

Quite common in the industry. GTR, XC, SWR, LO - all offer placement programs (or have recently) that are very popular amongst transport graduates.

I’d argue these are a positive - recruiting young blood into train planning to address a very stark skills shortage.

It's very important to get new talent in. However, the number of trainees and placement students relative to experienced staff does seem a little excessive. Using them to fill the gaps sounds unsustainable, as does the reduced training and mentorship opportunities as a result of the ratio.

It’s certainly competitive for the TOCs, Network Rail and the consultancies to get placement students and graduates who are interested in the industry and able to do the job. I understand that some firms have had recruitment difficulties this year. I imagine it’s a fairly small pool of youngsters who actively want to go into train planning!

It is. However they do need to pay competitive rates to attract people, offer a decent long term career structure, and all the other things graduates want. Especially if they want good graduates, with degrees in sensible subjects, from proper universities.

I wonder if the current industry woes put people outside the industry off applying. They would me!

In train planning, there are few opportunities within the discipline for progression so many move to other departments over time. Salaries remain quite flat even with additional specialism or responsibility, which doesn’t help.

Transport specific courses - Leeds and Aston are the primary sources of transport graduates now. With other subjects, they are likely to be more tempted by better offers from other industries (e.g. if they have a Russel Group 2:1 in mathematics)

In planning, I’d be concerned about whether there’ll be more automation reducing the headcount and taking away the lower rungs of the ladder within the specialism. How much of a future will train planners starting in five years’ time have in train planning? It’s ripe for at least partial automation. In the industry as a whole, it seems like you’re jumping into an absolute mess, so graduates may dodge it to avoid a full in-tray within seconds of getting through the door.

It is happening at other TOCs. Planners at the moment are stretched to the limit and beyond. They are busy enough normally with LTP, STP, engineering blocks and so on. Throw an ongoing industrial dispute into the mix and it's a wonder any planning staff stay in the job. Sometimes there literally aren't enough hours in the day to get everything done.

I wonder why there is such a high turnover of planning staff

And then controllers have to pick up the pieces on the day when the unfinished, or badly-done planning, manifests itself.
With passengers suffering the inconvenience

It’s inevitable, when there are hard deadlines involved. I get the impression that no-one likes sending out a shoddy STP week, but you can’t postpone a week by a month.

 

[The Planner]

In planning, I’d be concerned about whether there’ll be more automation reducing the headcount and taking away the lower rungs of the ladder within the specialism. How much of a future will train planners starting in five years’ time have in train planning? It’s ripe for at least partial automation. In the industry as a whole, it seems like you’re jumping into an absolute mess, so graduates may dodge it to avoid a full in-tray within seconds of getting through the door.

That was the view back in 2010 when iTPS, the new train planning system was introduced (the i for integrated got dropped afterwards) and the centralisation to Milton Keynes with associated headcount and corporate knowledge loss. Its still not happened yet and there are now more staff than before. Validation errors are now somewhat automated, but planning itself certainly isn't.

 

[Tramfan]

The other factor on the GTR network is the seemingly unique nature of each weekend's revised service to cater for engineering work. You would think by now that most combinations of engineering work had happened by now at least once such that plans could be recycled, but seemingly not. This must also be a huge draw on their planning resource.

If your LTP base plan (timetable, unit diagrams or Traincrew diagrams/rosters) has changed since that engineering work last happened then unfortunately it will make it difficult to just recycle a plan

 

[Peregrine 4903]

But the other way to square the circle is to cut and simplify the number of services those staff are trying to provide.

What seems to be missing is the DfT linking the traincrew establishment that it is prepared to pay for with a service that can be delivered by that establishment.

I get that on a network as complex as GTR it isn't as simple as recasting the timetable to deliver a reliable service with the traincrew available but something has got to give. Clearly that comes back to the overworked planners though to define the deliverable service so they can't win.

The other factor on the GTR network is the seemingly unique nature of each weekend's revised service to cater for engineering work. You would think by now that most combinations of engineering work had happened by now at least once such that plans could be recycled, but seemingly not. This must also be a huge draw on their planning resource.

This just isn't true again.

 

[87015]

This just isn't true again.

Just stop bothering, tory toc mouthpiece knows it all.

 

[Roger1973]

A few random thoughts from an outsider -

GTR advertised for trainee planners in 2019 on a training salary around 25 K, (I happen to have kept the detail as I went as far as applying, but decided against taking it further. I really must clear out some of my hard drive...) I would be surprised if there has been a significant reduction in the starting pay since then.

You can have national rates for a job and 'London weighting' - this happens in the civil service and to some extent still happens within local authorities. I don't know enough about the old BR to know if it applied in BR as well, but I'm not sure that anyone could impose a national wage rate on multiple employers.

But a lot of employers have adopted the 'what's the lowest we can get away with?' approach to setting pay and conditions, and in many lines of business, this has been coming back to bite them in the last few years, and I think it's taken some employers / sectors by surprise. Some employers were thinking a couple of years ago - in some cases a bit too eagerly - about redundancies and cuts to pay and conditions in the expected post-covid recession (see bus driver shortage threads.)

I expect I'm right in saying that it takes longer to recruit and train someone to be a train planner than the notice period in the contracts of experienced train planners. And a lot of jobs have seen a higher than usual number of people leave following Covid for a whole host of reasons. And in an era after compulsory ages, it's probably harder to do succession planning when you don't know if Mr X will opt for retirement at 60 or carry on working in to his 70s.

And there can be something of a spiral once you get short staffed, in that the remaining staff are at full stretch doing the day to day work, and training new staff requires an investment of time that you just don't have (I've been there in other jobs.)

From the perspective of an outsider, the talk of forming Great British Railways, and potentially merging functions of the TOCs and NR at a yet to be decided HQ location would certainly have put me off applying for anything. I appreciate that may be inaccurate / an over-simplification, but is the general impression that's been given. I did know one or two people whose jobs in Network Rail were down for transfer to Milton Keynes - one managed to stay in their home location, one left NR.

 

[Bald Rick]

But a lot of employers have adopted the 'what's the lowest we can get away with?'

Every employer does that. It’s called the market…

 

[infobleep]

Thanks for all the replies. It has been an interesting thread.

 

[sleepinghobby]

If anyone is interested, an undergraduate placement has been released with a bump in pay.

GTR Careers

We are the UK’s largest railway franchise, operating Southern, Thameslink, Great Northern and Gatwick Express.

gtrailwaycareers.com

However, this vacancy closes after 6 days.

 

[WAB]

If anyone is interested, an undergraduate placement has been released with a bump in pay.

GTR Careers

We are the UK’s largest railway franchise, operating Southern, Thameslink, Great Northern and Gatwick Express.

gtrailwaycareers.com

However, this vacancy closes after 6 days.

£30k for unqualified placement students who they can only keep for a year?! With free GTR travel and a PRIV thrown in? Sounds like quite the opportunity...

Makes EMR's specialist position for only £4k more look like less of a good deal...

 

[Watershed]

£30k for unqualified placement students who they can only keep for a year?! With free GTR travel and a PRIV thrown in? Sounds like quite the opportunity...

Makes EMR's specialist position for only £4k more look like less of a good deal...

And here lies the problem. EMR may be paying on the lower end of the scale for planning roles, but broadly speaking you aren't going to be able to earn a lot more unless you progress into management - which clearly, not everyone will even want to do, let alone be cut out for.