• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Financial Difficulty at Northern?

Status
Not open for further replies.

hwl

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2012
Messages
7,354
The "sparks effect" doesn't traditionally take place during electrification, rather afterwards when the improved service is up and running, not during the upheavel of electrification itself.

The Bolton electrification suffered from a prolonged period of implementation upheaval which merged into a lot of other industrial relations/staffing issues. There was never going to be a "Sparks effect" until that lot was sorted.

Indeed a lot happens 12-24 months afterwards rahter than during or immediately afterwards.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,818
Location
Yorks
It'll need a massive rise just to recover the damage the works did, never mind getting anywhere near filling a 319. The improved service to achieve this consists only of consistently 4 coach trains rep!acing the randomness before, with minimal decrease in journey times and at certain stations actually a reduction in frequency compared to when the works started.

But assuming there are staff to run them, a reliable service of four carriage trains will provide exactly the sort of boost to capacity and overall quality of service, that will generate a sparks effect.

It's precisely the sort of thing the railway should be doing, particularly in the urban North.
 

158756

Established Member
Joined
12 Aug 2014
Messages
1,426
But assuming there are staff to run them, a reliable service of four carriage trains will provide exactly the sort of boost to capacity and overall quality of service, that will generate a sparks effect.

It's precisely the sort of thing the railway should be doing, particularly in the urban North.

Approximate passenger numbers for Bolton, Horwich and Chorley, the three busiest stations on the line since electrification work started in 2014:

2013/14: 5.2m
14/15: 4.85m
15/16: 4.1m
16/17: 4.6m
17/18: 4.2m

So the 319s need to generate a 25% increase just to break even with the old diesel service. That's a lot to ask of what is basically just a long sprinter offering an almost identical service. Should that be copied across the North - well, closing the Transpennine route for a number of years would certainly solve the overcrowding problem.
 

AndrewE

Established Member
Joined
9 Nov 2015
Messages
5,071
Approximate passenger numbers for Bolton, Horwich and Chorley, the three busiest stations on the line since electrification work started in 2014:

2013/14: 5.2m
14/15: 4.85m
15/16: 4.1m
16/17: 4.6m
17/18: 4.2m

So the 319s need to generate a 25% increase just to break even with the old diesel service. That's a lot to ask of what is basically just a long sprinter offering an almost identical service. Should that be copied across the North - well, closing the Transpennine route for a number of years would certainly solve the overcrowding problem.
If Northern could reliably run them to the timetable, including at weekends, I wouldn't think 25% would be at all difficult after what have been effectively decades of suppressed demand.
It will be interesting to see what happens when they reliably run electric trains to the timetable, including at weekends!
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,818
Location
Yorks
Approximate passenger numbers for Bolton, Horwich and Chorley, the three busiest stations on the line since electrification work started in 2014:

2013/14: 5.2m
14/15: 4.85m
15/16: 4.1m
16/17: 4.6m
17/18: 4.2m

So the 319s need to generate a 25% increase just to break even with the old diesel service. That's a lot to ask of what is basically just a long sprinter offering an almost identical service. Should that be copied across the North - well, closing the Transpennine route for a number of years would certainly solve the overcrowding problem.

You're not appreciating quite the level of ongoing disruption that has blighted North Western train services for a couple of years now. Given a period of reliable service, this line will recover and have capacity to expand.

TPE does need to be electrified. Why would the line be closed "for several years" ? The Great Western and Midland routes haven't been closed "for several years".

The Bolton line seemed to have particular issues with mining subsidence which drew out the electrification process. One would hope that NR would have learnt to operate more quickly as they have gone on.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,818
Location
Yorks
Indeed, the normal fare paid on annual season tickets is about the same as off-peak walk-up tickets ant they travel on trains that some times only make one or two return journeys per day. Many staff are required to operate the service for 2-3 hours per morning and evening peaks requiring complicated shift working if wasteful levels in the intervening hours are to be avoided. Unless there is sufficient patronage to fill at least some trains between the peaks, subsidies would have to rise dramatically, even above current Northern levels.

Trains being used for the peak then sitting around the rest of the day, isn't really a phenomenom up here. There isn't the stock or the staff. In this respect, Northern services are already much more effeciently run than the South.

Compare the number of GWR/GA services run by two coach trains to the number of Northern services run by two coach trains... Northern clearly has a much bigger percentage of its franchise taken up by such short services... "hiding" those services inside a franchise that also included TPE would still leave them sticking out like a sore thumb... can't hide these things, however much some people may wish to pretend that you can.

Why does it even matter what number two carriage trains GWR/GA run (although it's actually quite a lot since you ask - try standing on Norwich station for a few hours and see). If you need to run a two/three carriage rural service in the North, and you need to run a two/three carriage rural service in Anglia, what's the difference, except that one is subsidised within a franchise, whilst the other is subsidised outside of it. It doesn't make any difference to:
  • The profitability/subsidy profile of either of the routes in question.
  • The cost of running the railway system as a whole
  • The benefits of running rural railway services.
The only thing it does make a difference to, is that one artificially drawn set of railway lines looks more profitable than another another artificially drawn set of railway lines. If Northern were split and combined with the InterCity main lines and London commuter services in the manor of the Big 4, those companies subsidy profiles would look very different.

It does seem strange that you can't seem to comprehend a railway outside of the framework of TOC's artificially created at privatisation. Perhaps its nostalgia for the early privatisation era ?

Personally, I don't think that the costs of heavy rail (two members of staff spread between thirty passengers, signalling costs, infrastructure maintained to much higher standard than light rail...) is appropriate for a number of the lines that Northern serves.

So you have an idealogical belief in a smaller railway network. Given that this is the case, it seems illogical to single out a lightly used railway in the North over a lightly used railway elsewhere, simply because of an accident of history in how the lines happenned to be bundled together in the mid 1990's.

How many Northern services are "overcrowded" (and how many of these are off-peak) and how many are carrying round so few passengers that they could be accommodated by a minibus?

My observations can only be anecdotal, however outside of my commute, most of the services I travel on are off-peak and tend to be very busy. Far too busy for a mini-bus. The only exceptions I can think of are some late evening services and the new service between Castleford and Huddersfield, which is still finding it's feet.

Some of the most crowded off-peak services I've been on (i.e. full and standing) have been Leeds - Lancaster and Middlesborough - Whitby, Calder Valley and the Hope Valley stopper. Generally busy services I've been on have included the Hallam line, the Cumbrian Coast, the Tyne Valley, the S&C, the Atherton Line, Liverpool - Manchester (via Warrington and Newton), Yorkshire Coast, Southport line (the list could go on and on).
 

js1000

Member
Joined
14 Jun 2014
Messages
1,011
Northern's passenger figures will probably see massive increases over the next 2 years as Saturday passengers are counted again. The big problem facing Arriva now is that from year 4 of the franchise the subsidy from the DFT reduces massively as the business model forecast huge passenger growth and revenue growth to match. I've heard off several sources that revenue is nothing like what was forecast so whilst Northern is making a modest profit now, this will become a loss when subsidy reduces.
'Cap and collar' used to come in after year 4 I believe. I believe they got rid of it to stop franchises bidders pocketing profit upto year 4 then providing unrealistic revenue/passengers numbers after year 4 when 'cap and collar' kicked in. Although all they seem to have done from what you have said is simply reduce the subsidy significantly after year 4 and the same flawed logic can be applied as 'cap and collar'.

I think Northern has really pushed away the bread and butter that is the commuters and it's a terrible mistake. Large numbers of passengers arriving at predictable times, willing to pay much higher fares than young people like me, using their railcard to get a cheap off peak to go see their mates or nip to the shops. What these passengers really need is reliability and space during peak times. Perhaps some messing round with train lengths and nabbing some cars off trains going back against the flow at peak times. At the very least, making sure no short forms will be going into at 7/8am or out of at 5/6pm Manchester or other major cities
Commuters are not bread and butter revenue. Relying on the revenue from their fares to pay for the scale of infrastructure and rolling stock required to prevent mutinies by masses of angry commuters is not a way to profitability. Commuters are not willing to pay much higher fares, and with the majority of them using season tickets, do not pay higher fares. Indeed, the normal fare paid on annual season tickets is about the same as off-peak walk-up tickets ant they travel on trains that some times only make one or two return journeys per day. Many staff are required to operate the service for 2-3 hours per morning and evening peaks requiring complicated shift working if wasteful levels in the intervening hours are to be avoided. Unless there is sufficient patronage to fill at least some trains between the peaks, subsidies would have to rise dramatically, even above current Northern levels. In the US and some other car-centric nations, the governments have grudgingly acknowledged that accommodating ever increasing tidal commmuter volumes on public roads cannot be tolerated. They are prepared to commit considerable levels of public funds maintaining financially inefficient peak-only suburban rail systems. So far, the UK has managed to keep a rail system that the general public sees as an asset for off-peak and importantly optional leisure travel. The revenue for that travel helps to defray the massive costs of subsidising commuter's fares.
I agree that Northern have failed their 'bread and butter'. The morning and evening commute is critical to the franchise revenue model. To somehow say because commuters pay for 'cheaper tickets' this negates their importance is rather wide of mark given it is footfall/quantity of passengers that makes up for this. There is an strong argument that commuters who buy season tickets are preferred by TOCs as it's cash up front. All businesses prefer this as it helps with cashflow and less admin at financial level. As someone else, outside of morning and evening peak you would be challenged to find a Northern service that is 'profitable'. Also, Northern do not really do long distance services that can make money from business travellers with high walk-on fares - it's leisure travellers and commuters.
 

glynmonhughes

Member
Joined
31 Mar 2014
Messages
20
What are you talking about, nationalisation would instantly result in an improved service with zero increased running costs to the passengers or taxpayer... ;)

I'd argue overambitious tenders for the existing infrastructure by the DAfT and lobbying by local interests to get their connections to Manchester Airport or other various places is at least partly to blame for the current mess.

Honestly, seeing how poorly the government tries to tender infrastructure projects such as electrification, etc with their flood or famine tactics, I wouldn't want them anywhere near everyday operations!

IF you nationalised the railways, the government would be in charge, so you ave negated your own argument within three lines. BR was quite appalling in many cases. Dirty trains, absolutely no compensation for late running, unreliability, no apology if anything went wrong and staff who were often rude and disinterested. I know. I used them enough in the 1970s and 1980s.
 

quantinghome

Established Member
Joined
1 Jun 2013
Messages
2,262
IF you nationalised the railways, the government would be in charge, so you ave negated your own argument within three lines. BR was quite appalling in many cases. Dirty trains, absolutely no compensation for late running, unreliability, no apology if anything went wrong and staff who were often rude and disinterested. I know. I used them enough in the 1970s and 1980s.

Personally I find our 'privatised' railways no different in terms of reliability or customer service compared to late-era BR. One thing's different though, it's more expensive. BR could design a decent train too - IC125 went from concept to passenger service in half the time it's taken for its IET replacement. The difference you observe is down to investment. If BR had the level of government spending seen over the last 15 years it would have delivered in spades.

In any case the government is already 'in charge' - it owns the infrastructure and micro-manages franchises. However its obsession with privatisation means the railways are stymied with an inflexible operating structure where improvements are delayed and disjointed due to having to work within franchising schedules.
 

Djgr

Established Member
Joined
30 Jul 2018
Messages
1,638
IF you nationalised the railways, the government would be in charge, so you ave negated your own argument within three lines. BR was quite appalling in many cases. Dirty trains, absolutely no compensation for late running, unreliability, no apology if anything went wrong and staff who were often rude and disinterested. I know. I used them enough in the 1970s and 1980s.

With due respect you present a very simplistic argument.

A more compelling pro and con argument can be developed through comparing the contemporary situation of the railways in Great Britain with those in Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic, whose railways are owned and run by the State.
 

AndrewE

Established Member
Joined
9 Nov 2015
Messages
5,071
IF you nationalised the railways, the government would be in charge, so you ave negated your own argument within three lines. BR was quite appalling in many cases. I know. I used them enough in the 1970s and 1980s.
I did too, and I didn't find BR "appalling." You need to recognise that BR did what it could within the money that was made available to it by Government. It might have been scruffy and under-staffed in places, but that was down to the politicians (as they had presumably authorised the parallel investment that was going on.) Perhaps you think that no investment should have been allowed if current operations were less than perfect, but that's life. You should have been lobbying your MP!

Personally I find our 'privatised' railways no different in terms of reliability or customer service compared to late-era BR. One thing's different though, it's more expensive. BR could design a decent train too - IC125 went from concept to passenger service in half the time it's taken for its IET replacement. The difference you observe is down to investment. If BR had the level of government spending seen over the last 15 years it would have delivered in spades.
I agree (although modern railway rolling stock -and cars - are ludicrously over-complicated, to the point where a simple failed sensor can stop a vehicle running altogether.) There aren't many complaints about the Mk 4s either, in fact there is a thread discussing where these reliable trains can be used when they are displaced. I hope that quite a lot are retained ready-to-run at strategic locations to cover for the failures of the replacement stock, or leased by "challenger" operators to give an economical alternative to the big boys.
 

sheff1

Established Member
Joined
24 Dec 2009
Messages
5,459
Location
Sheffield
I did too, and I didn't find BR "appalling."

Same here. I don't recall BR cancelling trains week in, week out "due to a shortage of train crew" which has been the situtation on Northen (& TPE) for yonks and which I do think is appalling.
 

Dr Hoo

Established Member
Joined
10 Nov 2015
Messages
3,910
Location
Hope Valley
Same here. I don't recall BR cancelling trains week in, week out "due to a shortage of train crew" which has been the situtation on Northen (& TPE) for yonks and which I do think is appalling.
Plenty of trains were ‘permanently’ taken out of Southern Region timetables due to chronic shortages of guards in particular in the early 1980s. Today’s franchise obligations do not allow for such changes, of course, so we get regular ‘short notice’ cancellations instead.
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
67,433
Location
Yorkshire
If there are any developments regarding financial difficulties at Northern, please use the report function and let us know what you'd like to post and we will consider reopening the thread.

We've had the Nationalisation debate many times before on the forum. If someone wants to put forward their point of view and feels that they have something significant to add that hasn't been said before, then feel free to create a new thread in the Speculative Ideas section; equally if anyone wishes to post about their experiences of BR (without making proposals about the future) we have a History & Nostalgia section too.
 

Starmill

Veteran Member
Fares Advisor
Joined
18 May 2012
Messages
23,224
Location
Bolton
There has been further evidence in support of the position that Northern cannot be sustained in its current form until the end of the contract. In the leaked document the government confirms that in the event that Northern default on their contract the Government will step in to ensure trains continue running.

In related news the leak says that pacer trains will remain in Greater Manchester after New Year.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_20191010_211701.jpg
    IMG_20191010_211701.jpg
    66.8 KB · Views: 139

Jozhua

Established Member
Joined
6 Jan 2019
Messages
1,856
There has been further evidence in support of the position that Northern cannot be sustained in its current form until the end of the contract. In the leaked document the government confirms that in the event that Northern default on their contract the Government will step in to ensure trains continue running.

In related news the leak says that pacer trains will remain in Greater Manchester after New Year.

Clearly the level of subsidy given to Northern is not sustainable either, I don't know how them losing the current franchise would plug the £25m hole yearly outside of more government funding. Staffing is evidently short, which was made obvious in May 2018 when the timetables were shredded.

I have a feeling some of the contracts were drawn up with the impression there would be some savings running services DOO which despite this continuing, members of staff will be remaining on the trains due to clashes with RMT and strikes.

Planned electrification has also not happened, which might have saved Northern a tad on vehicle energy/maintenance. Other projects like Castlefield upgrades, Hope Valley Upgrades, etc have been cancelled since the Northern contracts were signed.

On top of all this, Northern has introduced new trains which likely have a much higher leasing cost than the outgoing pacers! Maintenance and fuel might be a tad lower, but that's about it.

I don't think Pacers remaining in Manchester after the new year is too bad, Northern say it will only be a few weeks. More short forms and people left on platforms would be worse!

Obviously Northern is performing poorly, but I don't think it can be entirely blamed on the operator in this case. Obviously it seems like they may not be the most competent, but I doubt that they intentionally want things to have gone as badly as they have.

I think contracts have been signed, with the impression that all these changes would come that increase profitability, therefore the DFT gives the new TOC less subsidy. Planned projects are cancelled/delayed after Northern comes in which compounds the issues of an incompetent operator, creaking infrastructure and trains that should have been replaced 10 years prior.

Wonder what everyone else thinks might have caused it all to go wrong?
 

Djgr

Established Member
Joined
30 Jul 2018
Messages
1,638
Clearly the level of subsidy given to Northern is not sustainable either, I don't know how them losing the current franchise would plug the £25m hole yearly outside of more government funding. Staffing is evidently short, which was made obvious in May 2018 when the timetables were shredded.

I have a feeling some of the contracts were drawn up with the impression there would be some savings running services DOO which despite this continuing, members of staff will be remaining on the trains due to clashes with RMT and strikes.

Planned electrification has also not happened, which might have saved Northern a tad on vehicle energy/maintenance. Other projects like Castlefield upgrades, Hope Valley Upgrades, etc have been cancelled since the Northern contracts were signed.

On top of all this, Northern has introduced new trains which likely have a much higher leasing cost than the outgoing pacers! Maintenance and fuel might be a tad lower, but that's about it.

I don't think Pacers remaining in Manchester after the new year is too bad, Northern say it will only be a few weeks. More short forms and people left on platforms would be worse!

Obviously Northern is performing poorly, but I don't think it can be entirely blamed on the operator in this case. Obviously it seems like they may not be the most competent, but I doubt that they intentionally want things to have gone as badly as they have.

I think contracts have been signed, with the impression that all these changes would come that increase profitability, therefore the DFT gives the new TOC less subsidy. Planned projects are cancelled/delayed after Northern comes in which compounds the issues of an incompetent operator, creaking infrastructure and trains that should have been replaced 10 years prior.

Wonder what everyone else thinks might have caused it all to go wrong?

Lack of general competence.
An inability to engage appropriately with multiple stakeholders (customers, local politicians etc).
Responsibility for local trains in four major conurbations and yet apparently managed remotely from all of them.
 

Mogster

Member
Joined
25 Sep 2018
Messages
902
I think this is a myth. The Off Peak fares in Greater Manchester were doubled in 3 years between 2015 and 2018. Fares in the afternoon "peak" including the contra-flow are very uncompetitive.

The off peak fares are now higher than the tramway in most cases (where the reverse used to be true in nearly all cases), and Metrolink offers a far superior service for reliability and frequency, in all cases (sometimes Northern have the superior journey time, but only by a few minutes).

The other crucial point is that the train fare is often more expensive than driving. Lets say a couple who live in Westhoughton are going to the cinema on a Friday afternoon in Manchester, leaving on the 1601. You can park right on the edge of the city centre for £2. If you're buying a cinema ticket, you can potentially park right in the city centre, in a secure multi-storey for that price. What's the price of the train? £18.80 for both. In other words, the full whack commuter rate that would be charged to someone going in on the busiest train in the morning and coming back from town on one of the busiest in the evening. That fare is hopelessly uncompetitive.

What demonstrates most clearly that local fares are horribly uncompetitive is that Northern have brought back half price tickets after 1830 in an attempt to get a few more people onto their trains. Just as used to exist before 2014.

The last trains to Wigan from Manchester have always left around 23:20 (edit I see there is 23:37 now). There is no night service. I’ve always thought that was a factor also. Then there’s the issue that people just don’t feel they can rely on the service, “my last train was cancelled previously...”

Having said that I’ve always found the evening trains pretty full to packed.
 
Last edited:

Killingworth

Established Member
Joined
30 May 2018
Messages
4,811
Location
Sheffield
The Northern position underlines the inherent flaws in the franchising model. Bids are made on forecasts that prove to be inaccurate. The optimism at the takeover point slowly withers away as the reality becomes apparent.

North-West electrification delays.
New rolling stock delays.
Refurbished rolling stock delays.
Manchester/Northern hub delays.
Various other delays at all levels
Industrial relations issues.

The reality is that Northern signed up to a package that would only have worked if all the above had not happened - and passenger revenue had increased accordingly.

Growing cynicism is now seen among rail staff, passengers and the general public who don't even use the railway. The press will always jump on an easy story. That can be regurgitating countless spun good news stories of new stock introduction when order made, first train arrived, first train in service, etc. That is more than offset when trains are cancelled and frequently delayed. Angry users are very easy to find, particularly in Manchester.

All the over lapping delays conspire to produce multiple management challenges when forecasting what happens next. If new units aren't arriving from Spain no change of franchisee will make them appear faster. If 769s don't work as designed they can't be used. 319s were found to be unsuitable to match many timetable expectations.

Adding to the challenges are lots more little details. Removing Pacers and replacing with new longer, heavier and more sophisticated DMUs adds to running costs, yet the target is to substantially reduce consumption of diesel fuel. Square that circle!

If anyone else is asked to take control the fundamentals will still remain. We can't get better services without enough rolling stock that works, and staff willing and able to operate it 7 days a week. Accountants can be forgiven for wanting to chew the carpet!
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,539
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
If anyone else is asked to take control the fundamentals will still remain. We can't get better services without enough rolling stock that works, and staff willing and able to operate it 7 days a week.

True, but that requires some realism. If you don't have the units and the staff, you need to cut the service to a level that it can be operated reliably. The pre-1998 service was rather less frequent than today's on most of the network but it was at least reliable. I'm not necessarily suggesting going all the way back there, but the network should be simplified and the service reduced to a level that a watch can be set for it, before progressively upgrading it (but keeping the simplicity) once staff and units are available.
 

Llama

Established Member
Joined
29 Apr 2014
Messages
1,955
Why are there so many staffing-related cancellations, then? Or is it purely the spectre of needing to pull Sunday into the working week? I thought the issue was hitting Saturdays too, though?
The number of drivers who are competent in all their booked work is insufficient.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,539
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
The number of drivers who are competent in all their booked work is insufficient.

So there's a training rather than a staffing issue...still needs resolving of course!

FWIW, the number of drivers competent in all their booked work should be 100%. Any other figure and the diagramming department is grossly incompetent. A driver should not be booked for any work they are not competent to do!
 

ComUtoR

Established Member
Joined
13 Dec 2013
Messages
9,398
Location
UK
So there's a training rather than a staffing issue...

They tend to go hand in hand. You need sufficient number of staff to enable release for people to get training. We are currently on our annual briefing days and we lose about 3 Drivers a day per course. Those 3 need their work covered. You can't do that without having staff levels to cover. When you have traction courses that can take a week so your significantly increasing the amount of work to cover.

TOCs really don't like to have a surplus. Anyone sitting about spare and Management see it as having an excess of staff and costing them money. When you run your staffing right on the edge, anything additional, just tips it over.
 

mandub

Member
Joined
4 Mar 2013
Messages
180
They tend to go hand in hand. You need sufficient number of staff to enable release for people to get training. We are currently on our annual briefing days and we lose about 3 Drivers a day per course. Those 3 need their work covered. You can't do that without having staff levels to cover. When you have traction courses that can take a week so your significantly increasing the amount of work to cover.

TOCs really don't like to have a surplus. Anyone sitting about spare and Management see it as having an excess of staff and costing them money. When you run your staffing right on the edge, anything additional, just tips it over.

Yep, there is pretty much zero route learning at my depot at the moment. All driver training release is for 195/331 new trains. So some drivers who passed out 2+ years ago still don't sign all their routes and won't for a good while yet
 

AndrewE

Established Member
Joined
9 Nov 2015
Messages
5,071
The Northern position underlines the inherent flaws in the franchising model. Bids are made on forecasts that prove to be inaccurate. The optimism at the takeover point slowly withers away as the reality becomes apparent.

North-West electrification delays.
New rolling stock delays.
Refurbished rolling stock delays.
Manchester/Northern hub delays.
Various other delays at all levels
Industrial relations issues.

The reality is that Northern signed up to a package that would only have worked if all the above had not happened - and passenger revenue had increased accordingly...
Don't forget that Northern's decision not to honour the franchise commitment is entirely down to them. Not running L/H Mk3 trains has had several adverse consequences, including capacity improvement lost, plus traincrew familiarisation with working locos and hauled stock put off until now - causing an overlap with the training needs for their other new stock so trains being cancelled today because of work not done 2 years ago.

They tend to go hand in hand. You need sufficient number of staff to enable release for people to get training. We are currently on our annual briefing days and we lose about 3 Drivers a day per course. Those 3 need their work covered. You can't do that without having staff levels to cover. When you have traction courses that can take a week so your significantly increasing the amount of work to cover.

TOCs really don't like to have a surplus. Anyone sitting about spare and Management see it as having an excess of staff and costing them money. When you run your staffing right on the edge, anything additional, just tips it over.
Public transport is a utility and essential to the effective functioning of society. Why do we allow companies to screw up people's lives to further their own interests? Would we tolerate similar failure to deliver in the sewerage system, or drinking water supply?
I would recommend people see the story of Manchester's water supply that is told in the Liverpool Road museum: contractors giving the city the run-round, never delivering reliably or completing the system. Resolved only by the council taking it over and doing it themselves.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,539
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Yep, there is pretty much zero route learning at my depot at the moment. All driver training release is for 195/331 new trains. So some drivers who passed out 2+ years ago still don't sign all their routes and won't for a good while yet

So they are understaffed then. To be fully staffed you need enough staff to have them do everything you need them to (training included), not just for the basic work.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,539
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Don't forget that Northern's decision not to honour the franchise commitment is entirely down to them. Not running L/H Mk3 trains has had several adverse consequences, including capacity improvement lost, plus traincrew familiarisation with working locos and hauled stock put off until now - causing an overlap with the training needs for their other new stock so trains being cancelled today because of work not done 2 years ago.

That's TPE, not Northern. Northern have never proposed running Mk3 LHCS.
 

ComUtoR

Established Member
Joined
13 Dec 2013
Messages
9,398
Location
UK
Why do we allow companies to screw up people's lives to further their own interests?

Probably because they are a private company and run their business how they see fit. The consequence of forcing these companies to hire more staff means the costs will go up and the customer has to pay higher prices.

Resolved only by the council taking it over and doing it themselves.

Nationalization isn't gonna happen. It isn't better when being run by the government they will do exactly the same. TOCs under staffing, relying on over time etc has been happening for years. It isn't going to change.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top