Are TOCs given enough time to improve?

[nuneatonmark]

A year and a bit a go or so, all the chat on here was about the diabolical service on GTR, new trains, new timetable, all going to pot and talk about it being nationalised. GTR reigned back the timetable changes, introducing changes slower etc and now they hardly get a mention. Almost the exact same thing happens with Northern, Transpennine and to a lesser extent West Midlands/London Northwestern. Now Northern is being nationalised and WMR/LNR were threatened with it. Should they have all been allowed more time just like GTR were? How can this chaos be prevented in the future when big changes happen?

 

[ComUtoR]

How can this chaos be prevented in the future when big changes happen?

Don't make promises you can't keep.

 

[Djgr]

A year and a bit a go or so, all the chat on here was about the diabolical service on GTR, new trains, new timetable, all going to pot and talk about it being nationalised. GTM reigned back the timetable changes, introducing changes slower etc and now they hardly get a mention. Almost the exact same thing happens with Northern, Transpennine and to a lesser extent West Midlands/London Northwestern. Now Northern is being nationalised and WMR/LNR were threatened with it. Should they have all been allowed more time just like GTM were? How can this chaos be prevented in the future when big changes happen?

Well to be fair Northern were given at least a year to demonstrate improvement.

 

[Bertie the bus]

Indeed. Northern had exactly the same amount of time as GTR to improve. As for TransPennine Express things have been getting worse since May 2018. How long should companies get?

 

[AM9]

A year and a bit a go or so, all the chat on here was about the diabolical service on GTR, new trains, new timetable, all going to pot and talk about it being nationalised. GTM reigned back the timetable changes, introducing changes slower etc and now they hardly get a mention. Almost the exact same thing happens with Northern, Transpennine and to a lesser extent West Midlands/London Northwestern. Now Northern is being nationalised and WMR/LNR were threatened with it. Should they have all been allowed more time just like GTM were? How can this chaos be prevented in the future when big changes happen?

I agree that ComUtoR is correct but that is the baggage that comes with the politicians promise of 'competition and choice'.
You have specificallly called out GTR, (I assume that the two 'GTM's were typos) but the GTR deal was a Management Contract and quite different to the Franchises that are now under scrutiny. The Southern/Thameslink/Great Northern/Gatwick Express deal was set up in a time when there were many risk factors that might not result in a competitive bidding process, e.g.:

The Thameslink programme was in full swing with numerous civil works, - the complete rebuilding of London Bridge, the segregation of the approaches from Waterloo East/Blackfriars/Cannon St, a grade separated segregation of the SE approaches with the Bermondsey diveunder, the extension of and various platform lengthening sites north of the core.
The testing, training for and launching in service of over 1000 new EMU cars onto one of the busiest commuter corridors in the South-East.
The complete resignalling of the core with ETCS to enable up to 24/30 trains per hour including all installation work through the Canal Tunnels to connect with the GN lines.
The launching of a completely new timetable affecting all four brands in the GTR network.​

All four of the above groups of activity had a major involvement from Network Rail, which inevitably GTR took the hit for as par as the average traveller was concerned. Arguably, GTR did make a ham-fisted job of their part in the new timetable, especially in not admitting their shortage of route-trained drivers, but even there, Network Rail were involved as the issuing of timetables were delayed.
Had tenders for a normal franchise been invited, there would have been so many exclusions of or dependencies on NR activities that the franchise would have been unworkable. The management contract was a mechanism to pay GTR to run the service with a commercially viable profit whtever the impact of the risks were, that being carried mainly by the DfT.

 

[hwl]

I agree that ComUtoR is correct but that is the baggage that comes with the politicians promise of 'competition and choice'.
You have specificallly called out GTR, (I assume that the two 'GTM's were typos) but the GTR deal was a Management Contract and quite different to the Franchises that are now under scrutiny. The Southern/Thameslink/Great Northern/Gatwick Express deal was set up in a time when there were many risk factors that might not result in a competitive bidding process, e.g.:

The Thameslink programme was in full swing with numerous civil works, - the complete rebuilding of London Bridge, the segregation of the approaches from Waterloo East/Blackfriars/Cannon St, a grade separated segregation of the SE approaches with the Bermondsey diveunder, the extension of and various platform lengthening sites north of the core.
The testing, training for and launching in service of over 1000 new EMU cars onto one of the busiest commuter corridors in the South-East.
The complete resignalling of the core with ETCS to enable up to 24/30 trains per hour including all installation work through the Canal Tunnels to connect with the GN lines.
The launching of a completely new timetable affecting all four brands in the GTR network.​

All four of the above groups of activity had a major involvement from Network Rail, which inevitably GTR took the hit for as par as the average traveller was concerned. Arguably, GTR did make a ham-fisted job of their part in the new timetable, especially in not admitting their shortage of route-trained drivers, but even there, Network Rail were involved as the issuing of timetables were delayed.
Had tenders for a normal franchise been invited, there would have been so many exclusions of or dependencies on NR activities that the franchise would have been unworkable. The management contract was a mechanism to pay GTR to run the service with a commercially viable profit whtever the impact of the risks were, that being carried mainly by the DfT.

The big reason the GTR timetable chaos was lack of drivers trained on the new routes which has now been mostly solved (still a training gap in Cambridgeshire?? and ETCS/ATO training in the core only ramping up recently).

Catching up on driver training and slowing down the rate at which the training is needed solved most of the issues.

TfL (both Crossrail /ARL) see to be the only realistic TOCs as regards managing training for change. Crossrail/TfLrail being unusual in that they start the training more than 6 months before and maintain/retain competency (or reassess if timed out) as needed as they seen to understand well the limits on driver training rates that are achievable. Everyone else just want to do it once and not maintain etc.

 

[fusionblue]

I have joked about it, but Southeastern has had 14 years yet in that time they couldnt even manage to paint the entire fleet a uniform scheme. It's really relative as to what franchise has had "enough time" to do what they aimed to do.

Indeed, SE had all that time to "business as usual" for the most part and did exactly that.

 

[hwl]

I have joked about it, but Southeastern has had 14 years yet in that time they couldnt even manage to paint the entire fleet a uniform scheme. It's really relative as to what franchise has had "enough time" to do what they aimed to do.

Indeed, SE had all that time to "business as usual" for the most part and did exactly that.

Se were actually on a large number of short term direct awards for most of the last decade! so blame DfT for not much happening (or allowing it too)

 

[js1000]

Are TOCs given enough time to improve? Of course they are.

ComUtoR hits the nail on the head:

Don't make promises you can't keep.

Overbid to win the franchise with promises that cannot be delivered. Cost cutting starts with short staffing of drivers and cleaners going. Even Failing Grayling realised the LNER was a car crash before it all happened and the bid was unrealistic and they should never had won in the first place. The idea that "something is too good to be true then it probably is" is not something that seem to exist in the minds of the people at the DfT.

The combination of the need for new rolling stock and increasing competitive nature of train franchise over the past 5-10 years has led to unsustainable franchises that are gambling on unrealistic growth and looking for a quick profit in the first few years operation before handing the keys back to the taxpayer when inevitably things go wrong.

 

[Horizon22]

How can this chaos be prevented in the future when big changes happen?

Stop the DfT from setting overly ambitious franchise targets (and cracking down on ridiculous over-bidding) which will prevent TOCs trying to change too much, too soon. Unfortunately to do that you'd need either a) a change of government, or b) franchising model ripped up. Although the latter might be fairly close.

 

[Dr Hoo]

SNIP

Overbid to win the franchise with promises that cannot be delivered. Cost cutting starts with short staffing of drivers and cleaners going.

SNIP

Which particular franchises did you have in mind (specifically 'short staffing' drivers and getting rid of cleaners)? Any comparative establishment figures?

(I think that South West Trains back in the 1990s was too long ago to be relevant to this thread.)

 

[Tetchytyke]

Everyone involved with franchising- DfT, politicians, the RDG- believe in the fallacy of "private sector efficiency". Stagecoach came in to EC thinking they could make "efficiency savings" and keep motoring on. After all, DOR (as a state-owned company) must be useless and inefficient.

Which particular franchises did you have in mind (specifically 'short staffing' drivers and getting rid of cleaners)?

Stagecoach had publicly committed to sacking 100 ticket office staff and- according to the RMT- were planning on massive cuts to on-board staff before they went bump.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Don't make promises you can't keep.

Perfectly stated. I would have been more verbose by saying” under promise and over deliver rather than over promise and under deliver”.

 

[HH]

TfL (both Crossrail /ARL) see to be the only realistic TOCs as regards managing training for change. Crossrail/TfLrail being unusual in that they start the training more than 6 months before and maintain/retain competency (or reassess if timed out) as needed as they seen to understand well the limits on driver training rates that are achievable. Everyone else just want to do it once and not maintain etc.

This is not a coincidence. Both these franchises (ARL as LOROL) had the benefit of the person in charge of their driver planning - the now sadly deceased Les Bird. Les was one of the few people in the industry that both knew his stuff and was able to convince managers to back his plans.

Which particular franchises did you have in mind (specifically 'short staffing' drivers and getting rid of cleaners)? Any comparative establishment figures?

Southeastern are heavily dependent on RDW, despite being on what they consider full establishment and more. If new Rolling Stock is introduced I wouldn't be surprised to see them in trouble.

Stagecoach had publicly committed to sacking 100 ticket office staff and- according to the RMT- were planning on massive cuts to on-board staff before they went bump.

Also GTR had plans on closing Ticket Offices (plus shorter hours at others), which seem to have been quietly shelved after objections from all sides.

 

[Dr Hoo]

This is not a coincidence. Both these franchises (ARL as LOROL) had the benefit of the person in charge of their driver planning - the now sadly deceased Les Bird. Les was one of the few people in the industry that both knew his stuff and was able to convince managers to back his plans.

Southeastern are heavily dependent on RDW, despite being on what they consider full establishment and more. If new Rolling Stock is introduced I wouldn't be surprised to see them in trouble.

Also GTR had plans on closing Ticket Offices (plus shorter hours at others), which seem to have been quietly shelved after objections from all sides.

Thank you, HH (and others), for responses.

Even as a former BR 'Operations' Manager in the South East (many years ago now) I struggle to understand how a TOC can be "full establishment and more" for drivers but apparently still heavily dependent on rest day working. Especially as Southeastern's overall operation is currently fairly stable with no new stock and routes to train on, Thameslink routes hived off and fairly bedded in, London Bridge works and associated disruption all finished, etc.

Do train crew establishments have to be agreed with the unions (and DfT) these days?

I note the comments about booking office staffing but that would (a) not seem to really impact directly on things like cancellations and delays and (b) tend to reflect fundamental changes in ticket retailing and purchasing technology and habits. Even non-franchised operations, most obviously LUL/TfL, seem to have reduced ticket office coverage.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Even as a former BR 'Operations' Manager in the South East (many years ago now) I struggle to understand how a TOC can be "full establishment and more" for drivers but apparently still heavily dependent on rest day working.

Northern, even more bizarrely, say they're 150 over full complement. No doubt it's commercially sensitive information, but I'd love to know whether the definition of "full complement" has changed over time. My hunch is that the "efficiency saving" is in reducing that full complement. Not so very different to what SWT did all those years ago, really, but achieved much more discreetly through natural wastage.

Aggressive rosters can allow you to reduce headcount that way. I think this is why LNR/WMT have been rostered so aggressively that now services fall over if someone farts in the wrong direction near Bletchley.

Even non-franchised operations, most obviously LUL/TfL seem to have reduced ticket office coverage

I make no judgment on whether they are right to reduce headcount that way, just that that is what they were/are planning. And given how VTEC's onboard service noticeably deteriorated, I'd say it was happening with onboard crew too.

 

[ComUtoR]

If new Rolling Stock is introduced I wouldn't be surprised to see them in trouble.

Kinda the crux of the argument really isn't it. New stock at Southeastern is imminent and has been on the books for a long while now. It has been kicked into touch because of the franchise issues and will be on the back boiler for the next few years at least. So who's responsibility is it ? The existing franchise holder or the TOC who takes over ? Is it the DfT for delaying the tendering process and helping move the goalposts ? The ROSCO that fail's to deliver on time ? Or will it be Network Rails fault because the new stock has nowhere to be stored ? At what point will any actual preparation for new rolling stock begin ?

Even as a former BR 'Operations' Manager in the South East (many years ago now) I struggle to understand how a TOC can be "full establishment and more" for drivers but apparently still heavily dependent on rest day working.

As has been discussed, at length, many times. The problem with establishment levels and how the rostering system works, is, in part, the calculation of spare/cover/as required turns. You can have a full establishment but the second someone goes sick or needs a medical or they need to train for that shiny new train... the roster breaks and you need rest day working. It is far cheaper to use overtime to cover the work because its seen as temporary. One of my biggest frustrations is that the TOC see Drivers sitting about as surplus and being paid to do nothing. If you have a full establishment and everyone is working, you potentially have 10% sitting idle, getting paid.

Consider establishment levels to be the point in which the elastic band is stretched just before it snaps back and bites you.

 

[Horizon22]

It is far cheaper to use overtime to cover the work because its seen as temporary. One of my biggest frustrations is that the TOC see Drivers sitting about as surplus and being paid to do nothing. If you have a full establishment and everyone is working, you potentially have 10% sitting idle, getting paid.

Consider establishment levels to be the point in which the elastic band is stretched just before it snaps back and bites you.

Very true. It's a very fine line some TOCs like to play between having too many staff sitting spare and the hit to budget, and cancellations due to train crew shortages. Franchises that are fairly stable (SE for instance) get by with the ad-hoc RDW for 'business as usual' sickness / training / medical / vacancy etc. Bring in a load more rolling stock and all the training requirements, the classic franchise cliff with regards recruitment and "morale issues" if staff conditions are changing, and its much more likely you will have cancellations.

 

[HH]

Northern, even more bizarrely, say they're 150 over full complement. No doubt it's commercially sensitive information, but I'd love to know whether the definition of "full complement" has changed over time. My hunch is that the "efficiency saving" is in reducing that full complement. Not so very different to what SWT did all those years ago, really, but achieved much more discreetly through natural wastage.

Aggressive rosters can allow you to reduce headcount that way. I think this is why LNR/WMT have been rostered so aggressively that now services fall over if someone farts in the wrong direction near Bletchley.

Far from rosters being aggressive, one of the problems with many TOCs is that rostering expertise in management is very thin on the ground; often the union reps write the rosters. Whoever writes them, they are not operationally efficient. So, despite having a full headcount, as agreed by ASLEF, there are often not enough staff on particular days.

Full complement means establishment, and usually a bit more; said establishment being agreed with Council. However, despite there being an official RDG guide to calculating establishment, some think they can do better and some just don't understand the basics (i.e. they try to use the RDG method but make errors). I should note that most TOCs allow for greater cover than in BR days, but caveat that with the fact that they need to; changes in T&Cs have generally meant increased cover needs.

 

[HH]

Kinda the crux of the argument really isn't it. New stock at Southeastern is imminent and has been on the books for a long while now. It has been kicked into touch because of the franchise issues and will be on the back boiler for the next few years at least. So who's responsibility is it ? The existing franchise holder or the TOC who takes over ? Is it the DfT for delaying the tendering process and helping move the goalposts ? The ROSCO that fail's to deliver on time ? Or will it be Network Rails fault because the new stock has nowhere to be stored ? At what point will any actual preparation for new rolling stock begin ?

I expect to see Class 707s being rolled in no matter whether it's Govia or OLR running SEF come April. It's an obvious sticky plaster to convey some 'good news'. Even though the fleet is small, there will likely be as many drivers to train as if it were a complete fleet replacement. Once again long-term operational sense will give way to a minor political gain.

 

[Dr Hoo]

Getting back to the spirit of the original question (rather than concentrating on just one TOC) an overall message seems to be 'be realistic' in terms of introducing change. The situation has been quite strained recently with a spike in new rolling stock deliveries, electrification schemes being completed, the accessibility deadline, Thameslink, etc. all 'having' to be delivered on largely immovable dates.

Whilst there are undoubtedly still some major challenges ahead, e.g. in Wales, hopefully at least some future changes, such as a cascade of some newer units to Southeastern can be planned at an achievable rather than arbitrary pace.

I know that things have changed since BR's day when, for example, what are now purely passenger depots often used to have variable freight, engineering and seasonal (adhesion and ice treatment) work as well but expertise in 'the numbers' was a key management skill. I used to dream about N-F ratios and A & U returns. (Hope I've remembered that right!)

 

[ComUtoR]

Getting back to the spirit of the original question (rather than concentrating on just one TOC) an overall message seems to be 'be realistic' in terms of introducing change.

I would hesitate to agree about being realistic. On principle yes. However, no matter how realistic you can give a timescale or flexible you are with your plans, there is still the case of having to be reliant on others. With GTR they made promises to deliver a new fleet, new timetable, new depots, and magic fairy dust. The 700s were delayed. Not the fault of GTR but it caused a cascade of problems. New depots were promised but then various issues cropped up with planning permission and the new timetable was indeed such an immovable date that everything crumbled.

TOCs should only promise things based on what they have control over. Then yes, be realistic with your timescales, costs and plans etc. Most of all. Plan ahead and plan properly :/

 

[F Great Eastern]

Don't make promises you can't keep.

I too, agree that the Department of Transport should stop doing that.

 

[hwl]

I too, agree that the Department of Transport should stop doing that.

I was going to post "only believe DfT XX% of the time" - note a max of 2 digits...

 

[Tetchytyke]

I was going to post "only believe DfT XX% of the time" - note a max of 2 digits...

Pretty sure that should read 0.XX%.

TPE's plan of introducing three entirely separate fleets and a new, more intensive, timetable all at the same time was courageous, as Sir Humphrey would say. Arriva have- fortunately for them- copped all the flack.

Arriva I actuslly have a fair bit of sympathy for. The electrification delays caused them massive issues: it's not like you can train on electric trains until the wires are up, and some drivers lost route knowledge because the delays were so long. The rest of it was, and is, poor industrial relations, those poor industrial relations being primarily caused by the DfT trying to impose DOO through bullyboy tactics.

Perhaps there's the real moral: get Peter Wilkinson to do his own dirty work.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Far from rosters being aggressive, one of the problems with many TOCs is that rostering expertise in management is very thin on the ground; often the union reps write the rosters. Whoever writes them, they are not operationally efficient.

What on earth happened with LNR/WMT then? I thought the whole point of the complex interworking of staff was precisely to increase operational efficiency?

 

[hwl]

What on earth happened with LNR/WMT then? I thought the whole point of the complex interworking of staff was precisely to increase operational efficiency?

It only works if you have a highly reliable operating pattern without significant reactionary delay and they changed to one that wasn't.
But DfT liked Abellio's simpler (but less reliable in practice timetable) in preference to Govia offering - the only real bid difference in terms of service provision.

 

[HH]

What on earth happened with LNR/WMT then? I thought the whole point of the complex interworking of staff was precisely to increase operational efficiency?

Really? It might decrease theoretical numbers, but that's hardly the same thing, is it?

There are plenty of depots that sign routes that make no sense at all from an operational standpoint. In my experience this has usually come about because of staff side "requests".