Why do drivers work directly for a TOC and not Network Rail?

[TheSeeker]

Given that the "shortage of drivers" story comes up quite often wouldn't it make more sense to run driver management, hiring, training, allocation etc. at a national level?

It might avoid duplication of many functions and allow a central organisation to have a longer term view of what skills and posts are required.

Was it a policy of privatisation? Or simply a practical choice given the very different regional situations.

 

[Ken H]

BR started this with sectorisation. They argued that if each sector had their own staff, then knock on delays between sectors would not happen. Like a driver off a late running inter city service being late to take a regional service out.

 

[A Challenge]

By all means have it sectored, but have Network Rail train all drivers and have all train drivers and have them all under one set of conditions, along with freight drivers.

 

[LAX54]

Pretty sure NR are not allowed to have their own drivers, think that was down to the fact that they are an Engineering Co and not an Operator, even NR's own trains have to be run with hired in Drivers

 

[cuccir]

It also reflects practices in other sectors. Doctors are employed by hospitals, local NHS trusts or GP surgeries, not the NHS. Teachers are employed by schools, academies trusts or local education authorities, rather than (say) the Department for Education. I suspect there's a lot of practical reasons to have these things operate at some sort of lower scale than the national level.

 

[GB]

By all means have it sectored, but have Network Rail train all drivers and have all train drivers and have them all under one set of conditions, along with freight drivers.

Train crew within the same company are often on different T&Cs depending when and where they started and has proved extremely difficult to harmonise them all. Thats never going to happen at a national level...at least not without nationalisation.

 

[A Challenge]

The biggest difference is safeguarded/non-safeguarded, which applies throughout the country.

 

[HH]

The biggest difference is safeguarded/non-safeguarded, which applies throughout the country.

Not true at all. Safeguarded just refers to a few benefit perks, like staff travel, which have no effect on the day to day running of the trains. Compared to differences like number of working hours, which days are part of the core week and rostering patterns (etc. etc.), it is like saying that the colour of car is the biggest differentiator, rather than engine size, number of seats, included extras, etc.

 

[Shoeburysam]

Some drivers/shunters get paid more than others. Some have better T’s and C’s. Imagine if all driving staff were employed by Network Rail! Then every single TOC would be effected by strike action.

 

[ComUtoR]

Given that the "shortage of drivers" story comes up quite often

The shortage of Drivers is due to a few factors and is an umbrella term. I'm not sure how being employed on a national level would resolve this.

wouldn't it make more sense to run driver management, hiring, training, allocation etc. at a national level?

There is a move towards training being moved outside of the TOC

 

[Tio Terry]

Given that the "shortage of drivers" story comes up quite often wouldn't it make more sense to run driver management, hiring, training, allocation etc. at a national level?

It might avoid duplication of many functions and allow a central organisation to have a longer term view of what skills and posts are required.

Was it a policy of privatisation? Or simply a practical choice given the very different regional situations.

Network Rail are not a Train Operating Company, they don't run trains, why would they want to employ and train drivers?

 

[Highlandspring]

NR do actually directly employ a handful of train drivers for High Output Track Renewal OTMs.

 

[Tio Terry]

NR do actually directly employ a handful of train drivers for High Output Track Renewal machines.

Yes, but they don't actually run trains in that no revenue is earned from any of their Engineering trains.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Network Rail's job is to manage the infrastructure.
It earns its money by charging TOCs to run their trains on the infrastructure.
Why would it want to employ the key resources that the TOCs need to run their trains?
There's also only one infrastructure provider, but many TOCs (some of which are privately owned open access or freight companies).
The TOCs each have their own priorities, processes, safety case and access agreements.
There is no way Network Rail would want to own the allocation of such a critical resource for the individual TOCs, in potential conflict with its access contracts with the TOCs. .
BR ended with resources divided between the business sectors, and today's system is much the same but with the sectors subdivided into TOCs.
The rule at privatisation was that if it moved it belonged to a TOC, if it didn't it belonged to Railtrack/Network Rail.
So train crew, and anything linked to train operation, belong to TOCs.

 

[Highlandspring]

It’s a bit like asking why doesn’t NATS employ all UK airline pilots.

 

[pdeaves]

It’s a bit like asking why doesn’t NATS employ all UK airline pilots.

Or even why there isn't a central body that employs all supermarket checkout people.

 

[DarloRich]

Yes, but they don't actually run trains in that no revenue is earned from any of their Engineering trains.

I best tell my railway operations colleagues to knock off then NR run trains. Lots of them. What NR don't do is crew most of them or earn commercial revenue from them.

NR do actually directly employ a handful of train drivers for High Output Track Renewal OTMs.

Correct.

 

[Whistler40145]

Pretty sure NR are not allowed to have their own drivers, think that was down to the fact that they are an Engineering Co and not an Operator, even NR's own trains have to be run with hired in Drivers

As far as I'm aware, Colas Railfreight provide traction and drivers for Network Rail trains

 

[Mojo]

I suspect it was a deliberate policy as one of the original stated aims of privatisation was to reduce the costs and increase the efficiency of the industry (indeed, original fares policy set regulated fare rises to be at a level below inflation). Given that the Train Operating Companies don't really own anything, one of the few ways they could cut costs is with its labour bill. Around 1997, South West Trains offered severance to a number of its train drivers who left the organisation; a number of problems them followed because they had perhaps cut too much.

 

[Whistler40145]

I suspect it was a deliberate policy as one of the original stated aims of privatisation was to reduce the costs and increase the efficiency of the industry (indeed, original fares policy set regulated fare rises to be at a level below inflation). Given that the Train Operating Companies don't really own anything, one of the few ways they could cut costs is with its labour bill. Around 1997, South West Trains offered severance to a number of its train drivers who left the organisation; a number of problems them followed because they had perhaps cut too much.

That's a great and concise answer Mojo.

 

[GB]

NR do actually directly employ a handful of train drivers for High Output Track Renewal OTMs.

Directly employed as in they are trained, paid/pensioned and routinely assessed by Network Rail or simply long term hire in from the likes of Colas, DB FLHH?

 

[talltim]

That's a great and concise answer Mojo.

I suspect it was a deliberate policy as one of the original stated aims of privatisation was to reduce the costs and increase the efficiency of the industry (indeed, original fares policy set regulated fare rises to be at a level below inflation). Given that the Train Operating Companies don't really own anything, one of the few ways they could cut costs is with its labour bill. Around 1997, South West Trains offered severance to a number of its train drivers who left the organisation; a number of problems them followed because they had perhaps cut too much.

That worked well in keeping driver wages down, didn't it?...

 

[Mojo]

That worked well in keeping driver wages down, didn't it?...

I thought better of writing words to that effect in my post

 

[Highlandspring]

Directly employed as in they are trained, paid/pensioned and routinely assessed by Network Rail or simply long term hire in from the likes of Colas, DB FLHH?

The former. They are directly employed by Network Rail and all aspects of their operational competence, assessments etc.. are managed in house.

 

[Carlisle]

It’s a bit like asking why doesn’t NATS employ all UK airline pilots.

Since the dawn of commercial aviation I wasn’t aware NATS or its predecessors ever owned the skies, airports and airlines, if so then it’s not really comparable.

 

[The Box Photter]

Given that the "shortage of drivers" story comes up quite often wouldn't it make more sense to run driver management, hiring, training, allocation etc. at a national level?

It might avoid duplication of many functions and allow a central organisation to have a longer term view of what skills and posts are required.

Was it a policy of privatisation? Or simply a practical choice given the very different regional situations.

Good idea. Perhaps to avoid there being a shortage of trains all the rolling stock could be owned by one company too and moved around to the routes where it's most needed. You could have a single set of management too, nationally and the same livery with a single national timetable, where trains are designed to link conveniently with each other to provide a service for people.

Nah! That would never work, would it?

 

[philthetube]

Even if this is not the way to go forward something needs to be done, particularly to sort out poaching issues, these cause problems to companies such as northern who have big expenses training for companies such as Chiltern to poach a percentage of them and then be able to pay higher wages because they have no training costs.

 

[BallastMonkey]

Network Rail have a handful of internal drivers who drive and operate their On Track Machinery such as the Tamper. Also it does receive revenue from regions for its work on the infrastructure. On the other hand Network Rail also have a lot of safety policies and procedures which mean other OTMs are hauled to site by FOCs who are hired.

Network Rail is in charge of most of the countries infrastructure, including its renewal and maintenance. However, if it were to start operations along with a TOC or as a TOC that would definitely be interesting.

 

[DarloRich]

As far as I'm aware, Colas Railfreight provide traction and drivers for Network Rail trains

Not all of them. Most infrastructure trains hauled by the other FOC's

 

[Whistler40145]

Not all of them. Most infrastructure trains hauled by the other FOC's

Thanks for confirming this @DarloRich