Robertj21a
On Moderation
- Joined
- 22 Sep 2013
- Messages
- 7,520
Presumably, it would only take a small increase in staff, but steadily year on year, to gradually reduce the level of overtime that causes problems.
Presumably, it would only take a small increase in staff, but steadily year on year, to gradually reduce the level of overtime that causes problems.
Where does it say it was fully staffed and non DOO? On a guarded train this is very unlikely to happen because a guard sees who is getting on and off and the train doesn't go until they say. It doesn't rely on the driver having x ray vision or mind reading skills.
Love the way a pro Tory paper manages to blame only people on the front line. Never the company or government policy.
There is more than just a 'numbers game' happening. Increasing staffing levels does not specifically reduce overtime. It also brings more complications as you are increasing everything staff related. That itself; increases overtime again.
Factors to consider :
- Rostering
- Depot establishment levels
- Route knowledge
- Incidents
- Learning and development days
- Assessment days
- Sickness
- Staff turnover
- Training time
- Recruitment
- Union
- Health and safety
- Industry groups
- Driver self development
- PT&R
This list is not exhaustive and each can be expanded upon further
I have just had some enjoyable rail travel in Switzerland and Germany courtesy of SBB (thanks Schengen!) , and there were no guards standing sombrely by the doors and the Drivers did not have or require superhuman qualities, but nevertheless the journey was entirely safe, and the on train staff were able to devote themselves to revenue protection and assisting passengers continuously (including elderly and disabled non German speakers). The OBS moved through the train with more speed than a UK guard having to monitor stops. Disabled passengers were reassured and their destinations were noted by the OBS and assistance was not lacking when required, though not sure whether this was a formal process or just good communication. i have other observations on the efficiency and safety of SBB but I can save them. It's the ever present sense of victimhood and vindication here dressed up as care for passengers sometimes prompts a response. You see there is a world of difference between care for passengers as a kind of abstract need and real personal care on a one to one basis at the time and place it is needed. I don't need or trust my care to someone using my condition merely as a stick to beat their employers and their political opponents.
A nice long list, but I struggle to believe that recruitment of more staff won't reduce the problem overtime. If more staff doesn't help then I'd suggest there's a bigger problem to be resolved somewhere.
There is more than just a 'numbers game' happening. Increasing staffing levels does not specifically reduce overtime. It also brings more complications as you are increasing everything staff related. That itself; increases overtime again.
Factors to consider :
- Rostering
- Depot establishment levels
- Route knowledge
- Incidents
- Learning and development days
- Assessment days
- Sickness
- Staff turnover
- Training time
- Recruitment
- Union
- Health and safety
- Industry groups
- Driver self development
- PT&R
This list is not exhaustive and each can be expanded upon further
SBB doesn't have OBS in Switzerland. The train is staffed with a guard or it's DOO. There might be random ticket inspections on DOO trains. But there is a lot of security staff on DOO trains for obvious reasons, especially on Friday / Saturday nights.I have just had some enjoyable rail travel in Switzerland and Germany courtesy of SBB (thanks Schengen!) , and there were no guards standing sombrely by the doors and the Drivers did not have or require superhuman qualities, but nevertheless the journey was entirely safe, and the on train staff were able to devote themselves to revenue protection and assisting passengers continuously (including elderly and disabled non German speakers).
You forgot passengers.
Yes there is a bigger problem; hence the list.
As to why more staff doesn't specifically equal less overtime. Each time you add a member of staff you need to deal with their requirements too. Each member of staff will require :
Initial training and development. This requires an Instructor to be available and there is many off track days that need to be covered, typically requiring overtime to cover the lost productivity days. This is an ongoing process where you need to train staff.
Routes and traction training. As per above this usually requires time off track. Even after they become productive you still need to keep this up in the long term. As each new member of staff progresses they will typically need more routes and potentially more traction. My TOC has more than one traction and not all links sign all units.
With training every time you add new staff, especially from scratch, you have to allow for their training requirements. In the long term where you have new staff you still have to allow for situations where you have a full compliment of staff but due to the constraints of new Drivers they are unable to cover all work at a depot. This is typical where you have link working. Drivers with experience and who do sign all routes and traction can only have their work covered by those that are competent to cover it. Ergo rest day working will still be required.
Employment requirements. Each member of staff still needs to have things like Annual Leave. Typically leave is covered by rest day working as their is a lack of cover available in the base rosters. Every new member of staff requires a portion of their work to be covered. More staff can give you more flexibility but there is an issue where you will have too many staff to cover the days of leave required. My depot is around 100 Drivers. Each requires 28 days leave per year. Increasing the establishment level and increasing the number of staff just adds more days to be covered. We already have (at my depot) 9 Drivers off on leave at any one time and that's just rostered leave.
Following on from that there are the operational requirements. This means more staff are off at the same time and more staff need to be briefed. Semi on topic; we have just undergone 700 traction training and because the sheer volume of staff required to be trained its taken time and is still ongoing. More staff just exacerbates this. Link working is good when you can split work and reduce training requirements. Large depots suffer when there is change because of the sheer number of Drivers.
You need to remember that in other industries you can drop in staff whenever you feel and there is little difference between new and existing staff. I have a retail background and it is much more of a numbers game but there you have flexible working etc.
Hope that helps in some way.
It's been discussed at length before on this forum about the complexities of it all. There is a huge culture change that is needed.
You forgot passengers.
SBB doesn't have OBS in Switzerland. The train is staffed with a guard or it's DOO. There might be random ticket inspections on DOO trains. But there is a lot of security staff on DOO trains for obvious reasons, especially on Friday / Saturday nights.
The network and the Train-Platform Interface are designed for DOO operation, the train driver isn't supposed to overlook the whole train or every door before starting the train. DOO operation wasn't "just introduced", there was a clear plan and a lot of (expensive) technical upgrades to the rolling stock and the infrastructure. Most infrastructure and a lot of trains are Wheelchair accessible without help. I can't see this happening in GB at the moment.
I guess you may be referring to the 2 and 3 car units I used to use travelling between Slough and Reading. It was always reassuring to have an on board staff presence and I agree that without one the train is less secure, but as a passenger the perceived threat comes from other passengers rather than the running of the train. I do support your argument that true "DOO" (no on train staff) is ridiculous and unsafe in anything other than an exceptional situation.The GWR train had no on board staff, nor do most of the trains I drive, including many we were assured would have one to replace the guard. And I object to your accusations of victimhood and vindication. Maybe if British railways were run more like those on the continent in terms of how staff are treated and passengers are expected to behave then I wouldn't have to be posting a response at all.
Thanks for the information. When you say it's staffed with a guard, is that the job title rathan the role, because the staff on the expresses between Zurich Flughafn and Konstanz seemed to be what is envisaged as an OBS in the UK.
SBB doesn't have OBS in Switzerland. The train is staffed with a guard or it's DOO. There might be random ticket inspections on DOO trains. But there is a lot of security staff on DOO trains for obvious reasons, especially on Friday / Saturday nights.
The network and the Train-Platform Interface are designed for DOO operation, the train driver isn't supposed to overlook the whole train or every door before starting the train. DOO operation wasn't "just introduced", there was a clear plan and a lot of (expensive) technical upgrades to the rolling stock and the infrastructure. Most infrastructure and a lot of trains are Wheelchair accessible without help. I can't see this happening in GB at the moment.
They aren't, they close the doors and dispatch, albeit using a rather dangerous procedure involving giving RA with doors still open.
That's a proper "guard". He is actually despatching the train. He can't close the doors though, because the rolling stock was built for DOO operations and isn't suposed to have a guard on board :roll:Thanks for the information. When you say it's staffed with a guard, is that the job title rathan the role, because the staff on the expresses between Zurich Flughafn and Konstanz seemed to be what is envisaged as an OBS in the UK.
It is a financial issue. The TOC in Switzerland are obliged to have step free access from 2024 at all stations and on all trains / trams (exceptions possible).I agree about the train - platform interface however and I also agree that there are clear organisational problems in the UK with the separation of Network Rail from the Operators, which militates against the kind of planned rollout that you describe.
Agreed , plus I've heard a number of my bosses over the years claim they're not over keen to recruit additional staff largely due to the hassle of covering their holidays etc.There is more than just a 'numbers game' happening. Increasing staffing levels does not specifically reduce overtime. It also brings more complications as you are increasing everything staff related. That itself; increases overtime again.
Factors to consider :
- Rostering
- Depot establishment levels
- Route knowledge
- Incidents
- Learning and development days
- Assessment days
- Sickness
- Staff turnover
- Training time
- Recruitment
- Union
- Health and safety
- Industry groups
- Driver self development
- PT&R
This list is not exhaustive and each can be expanded upon further
Yes there is a bigger problem; hence the list.
As to why more staff doesn't specifically equal less overtime. Each time you add a member of staff you need to deal with their requirements too. Each member of staff will require :
Initial training and development. This requires an Instructor to be available and there is many off track days that need to be covered, typically requiring overtime to cover the lost productivity days. This is an ongoing process where you need to train staff.
Routes and traction training. As per above this usually requires time off track. Even after they become productive you still need to keep this up in the long term. As each new member of staff progresses they will typically need more routes and potentially more traction. My TOC has more than one traction and not all links sign all units.
With training every time you add new staff, especially from scratch, you have to allow for their training requirements. In the long term where you have new staff you still have to allow for situations where you have a full compliment of staff but due to the constraints of new Drivers they are unable to cover all work at a depot. This is typical where you have link working. Drivers with experience and who do sign all routes and traction can only have their work covered by those that are competent to cover it. Ergo rest day working will still be required.
Employment requirements. Each member of staff still needs to have things like Annual Leave. Typically leave is covered by rest day working as their is a lack of cover available in the base rosters. Every new member of staff requires a portion of their work to be covered. More staff can give you more flexibility but there is an issue where you will have too many staff to cover the days of leave required. My depot is around 100 Drivers. Each requires 28 days leave per year. Increasing the establishment level and increasing the number of staff just adds more days to be covered. We already have (at my depot) 9 Drivers off on leave at any one time and that's just rostered leave.
Following on from that there are the operational requirements. This means more staff are off at the same time and more staff need to be briefed. Semi on topic; we have just undergone 700 traction training and because the sheer volume of staff required to be trained its taken time and is still ongoing. More staff just exacerbates this. Link working is good when you can split work and reduce training requirements. Large depots suffer when there is change because of the sheer number of Drivers.
You need to remember that in other industries you can drop in staff whenever you feel and there is little difference between new and existing staff. I have a retail background and it is much more of a numbers game but there you have flexible working etc.
Hope that helps in some way.
It's been discussed at length before on this forum about the complexities of it all. There is a huge culture change that is needed.
Yes there is a bigger problem; hence the list.
As to why more staff doesn't specifically equal less overtime. Each time you add a member of staff you need to deal with their requirements too. Each member of staff will require :
Initial training and development. This requires an Instructor to be available and there is many off track days that need to be covered, typically requiring overtime to cover the lost productivity days. This is an ongoing process where you need to train staff.
Routes and traction training. As per above this usually requires time off track. Even after they become productive you still need to keep this up in the long term. As each new member of staff progresses they will typically need more routes and potentially more traction. My TOC has more than one traction and not all links sign all units.
With training every time you add new staff, especially from scratch, you have to allow for their training requirements. In the long term where you have new staff you still have to allow for situations where you have a full compliment of staff but due to the constraints of new Drivers they are unable to cover all work at a depot. This is typical where you have link working. Drivers with experience and who do sign all routes and traction can only have their work covered by those that are competent to cover it. Ergo rest day working will still be required.
Employment requirements. Each member of staff still needs to have things like Annual Leave. Typically leave is covered by rest day working as their is a lack of cover available in the base rosters. Every new member of staff requires a portion of their work to be covered. More staff can give you more flexibility but there is an issue where you will have too many staff to cover the days of leave required. My depot is around 100 Drivers. Each requires 28 days leave per year. Increasing the establishment level and increasing the number of staff just adds more days to be covered. We already have (at my depot) 9 Drivers off on leave at any one time and that's just rostered leave.
Following on from that there are the operational requirements. This means more staff are off at the same time and more staff need to be briefed. Semi on topic; we have just undergone 700 traction training and because the sheer volume of staff required to be trained its taken time and is still ongoing. More staff just exacerbates this. Link working is good when you can split work and reduce training requirements. Large depots suffer when there is change because of the sheer number of Drivers.
You need to remember that in other industries you can drop in staff whenever you feel and there is little difference between new and existing staff. I have a retail background and it is much more of a numbers game but there you have flexible working etc.
Hope that helps in some way.
It's been discussed at length before on this forum about the complexities of it all. There is a huge culture change that is needed.
Whenever I read a list like this - all specified in the rule book - I think of the contrast with the road transport industry. The idea that if a trained driver moves to a new depot to drive a different make of truck on unfamiliar routes that they would be given weeks of training before they could be allowed out on their own? It's no wonder that rail freight finds it so difficult to compete except for long distance bulk haulage.
It's also no wonder that many believe driverless trains are inevitable.
Whenever I read a list like this - all specified in the rule book - I think of the contrast with the road transport industry. The idea that if a trained driver moves to a new depot to drive a different make of truck on unfamiliar routes that they would be given weeks of training before they could be allowed out on their own? It's no wonder that rail freight finds it so difficult to compete except for long distance bulk haulage.
It's also no wonder that many believe driverless trains are inevitable.
Agree absolutely. ASLEF are forcing the government & rail industry to go down the driverless path. If only Aslef could agree to train drivers being as flexible & productive as bus & lorry drivers then there would be no need for driverless trains except on metro lines & reserved freight routes. There are many in ASLEF who are sensible & pragmatic, I wish they could persuade the few ASLEF dinasaurs that their obduracy will do their children & them out of train driving jobs. Look what is happening in Sydney australia. A new quite long distance commuter line is coming into service very soon without any staff aboard, because Sydney's ASLEF equivalent refused to allow DOO. Take heed! There are very close links between Australian & UK rail management.
Of course it isn't a level playing field, but the railway industry has no influence over the other end of the pitch. It can only make changes in its own half.
I know it's crazy. The slightest incident on the railway and the uproar is such that we nearly get a public enquiry, yet 10 people die every day on the roads. Somehow the deaths due to trespass, whether suicide or not, are the railway's fault. If the same rules applied on our streets we would have continuous railings and lifting barriers at the designated crossing points!
The result is that millions of tonnes of freight, and millions of people are forced to use a more dangerous and more polluting means of transport because the safe, clean one is too expensive.
The solid gold safety procedures of the railway produces a safe railway. It doesn't produce a safe transport system.
The painful question must be asked: if some of the training and assessment procedures listed in the post were dropped, it would certainly make railway operations a little less safe, but if it made them much cheaper, so that, say, rail freight became much more economical, would it make our transport system safer?
Agree absolutely. ASLEF are forcing the government & rail industry to go down the driverless path. If only Aslef could agree to train drivers being as flexible & productive as bus & lorry drivers then there would be no need for driverless trains except on metro lines & reserved freight routes. There are many in ASLEF who are sensible & pragmatic, I wish they could persuade the few ASLEF dinasaurs that their obduracy will do their children & them out of train driving jobs. Look what is happening in Sydney australia. A new quite long distance commuter line is coming into service very soon without any staff aboard, because Sydney's ASLEF equivalent refused to allow DOO. Take heed! There are very close links between Australian & UK rail management.
Whenever I read a list like this - all specified in the rule book - I think of the contrast with the road transport industry. The idea that if a trained driver moves to a new depot to drive a different make of truck on unfamiliar routes that they would be given weeks of training before they could be allowed out on their own? It's no wonder that rail freight finds it so difficult to compete except for long distance bulk haulage.
It's also no wonder that many believe driverless trains are inevitable.
I don't know what can be done. But can I repeat. We have an overall transport system which is dangerous and polluting because the railway may be safe, but is too expensive for most purposes.