Does less trains running now mean less staff employed?

[infobleep]

Apologies if this has already been asked but I couldn't see anything recent.

With some train companies running fewer trains are they employing less staff than before the pandemic? Or are they using the spare staff to avoid the need for as much overtime by other staff?

 

[dk1]

Apologies if this has already been asked but I couldn't see anything recent.

With some train companies running fewer trains are they employing less staff than before the pandemic? Or are they using the spare staff to avoid the need for as much overtime by other staff?

They are not allowed to cut back on agreed driver establishments at depots. All vacancies have to be filled as per rest day working agreements with ASLEF. There really aren’t that many less services operating and even though you’d expect there to be spare drivers there is still a large amount of rest day working and overtime at mine.

Conductor courses are constant along with advertised vacancies for these and catering staff.

 

[306024]

There is usually an agreed formula between management and unions that determines how many traincrew are required, known as the ‘establishment’. It can be complex, and while the number of instances of work drives the formula, it can be a bit subjective depending on how much spare cover you realistically want. From time to time some depots will be over established, others under established resulting in vacancies.

Given the relatively long timescales for recruitment and training, it would be foolish to reduce establishments just because of Covid. Those TOCs who took their eye off the ball have paid a heavy price since with cancellations.

 

[irish_rail]

Traincrew numbers as far as I can tell continue to rise. Its largely due to inefficient rostering where services are broken up into several crew to work them. For example , having a Penzance to Paddington train with a driver change at Plymouth, Exeter, and Reading, when previously all trains on this route would have one driver change at either Plymouth or Exeter. The synic in me wonders if it is a ploy by Dft to justify the often spouted line that traincrew inefficiency is the reason why no payrise can be justified......

 

[dk1]

Traincrew numbers as far as I can tell continue to rise. Its largely due to inefficient rostering where services are broken up into several crew to work them. For example , having a Penzance to Paddington train with a driver change at Plymouth, Exeter, and Reading, when previously all trains on this route would have one driver change at either Plymouth or Exeter. The synic in me wonders if it is a ploy by Dft to justify the often spouted line that traincrew inefficiency is the reason why no payrise can be justified......

It is sometimes due to built in resourcefulness. The service falls apart even more without it at times of disruption. On the other hand TPX went too far with crew changes. No TOC would intentionally cost itself more with traincrew recourse for no reason.

 

[Phil R]

Fewer (not less), because you can realistically count them (potentially).

 

[WAB]

Traincrew numbers as far as I can tell continue to rise. Its largely due to inefficient rostering where services are broken up into several crew to work them. For example , having a Penzance to Paddington train with a driver change at Plymouth, Exeter, and Reading, when previously all trains on this route would have one driver change at either Plymouth or Exeter. The synic in me wonders if it is a ploy by Dft to justify the often spouted line that traincrew inefficiency is the reason why no payrise can be justified......

From a resource perspective, that may well be more efficient as it reduces the number of traincrew required as crew diagrams can be tightened up, and there are fewer costs associated with route knowledge and retention. Of course, we know that it often just does not work in reality but it still saves on crew.

 

[irish_rail]

From a resource perspective, that may well be more efficient as it reduces the number of traincrew required as crew diagrams can be tightened up, and there are fewer costs associated with route knowledge and retention. Of course, we know that it often just does not work in reality but it still saves on crew.

As you rightly point out, the reality rarely pans out as the computer simulation predicts. On GwR however there is absolutely no sign of traincrew diagrams being tightened up, indeed most diagrams now involve several hours of "passing". I'm sure on paper, the idea of minimal route knowledge works, but in reality , as TPX for example have found out, it really really doesn't, and ends up costing the taxpayer and fare payer more.

 

[306024]

The more times you swap crews, the more the potential for things to go wrong, and the harder it is to recover the service when they do.

The whole diagram efficiency / route knowledge / traction knowledge / rostering link structure / rostering efficiency is a complex equation. But like anything in life, you need balance. While too much flab is expensive, a rough rule of thumb is the tighter you make the resource plan, the harder it is to operate a punctual and reliable service.

 

[45107]

The more times you swap crews, the more the potential for things to go wrong, and the harder it is to recover the service when they do.

The whole diagram efficiency / route knowledge / traction knowledge / rostering link structure / rostering efficiency is a complex equati. While too much flab is expensive, a rough rule of thumb is the tighter you make the resource plan, the harder it is to operate a punctual and reliable service.

It all works on paper when everything is on time
The ‘efficient’ diagramming falls apart whenever the job falls apart.
The task of recovering the service then becomes a little bit of an issue.

 

[infobleep]

They are not allowed to cut back on agreed driver establishments at depots. All vacancies have to be filled as per rest day working agreements with ASLEF. There really aren’t that many less services operating and even though you’d expect there to be spare drivers there is still a large amount of rest day working and overtime at mine.

Conductor courses are constant along with advertised vacancies for these and catering staff.

Well take South Western Railway. Monday to Saturday one of the trains on the Portsmouth Direct isn't running for most hours. The Guildford to Waterloo via Epsom is mostly 1 an hour now too.

What are they doing with the staff that would have run the additional services?

 

[dk1]

Well take South Western Railway. Monday to Saturday one of the trains on the Portsmouth Direct isn't running for most hours. The Guildford to Waterloo via Epsom is mostly 1 an hour now too.

What are they doing with the staff that would have run the additional services?

Training them on 701s maybe?

 

[railfan99]

Fewer (not less), because you can realistically count them (potentially).

Yes, a common error for so many in my country as well.

Even some journalists do not know when to use 'fewer' instead of 'less'. Thank you for pointing it out.

 

[chuff chuff]

I'm sure on paper, the idea of minimal route knowledge works

Yeah it probably does but after years and years of wanting and buying more flexibility from us THEY make us less useful.

 

[infobleep]

Training them on 701s maybe?

Not sure if that has started yet. Someone will correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[TEW]

Well take South Western Railway. Monday to Saturday one of the trains on the Portsmouth Direct isn't running for most hours. The Guildford to Waterloo via Epsom is mostly 1 an hour now too.

What are they doing with the staff that would have run the additional services?

Guards' agreed a reduction in their working week in 2021, so although there is a broadly similar number of guards as in 2020, they are now working less.

 

[Krokodil]

Given the relatively long timescales for recruitment and training, it would be foolish to reduce establishments just because of Covid. Those TOCs who took their eye off the ball have paid a heavy price since with cancellations.

SWT learned that lesson in the early days of privatisation.

From a resource perspective, that may well be more efficient as it reduces the number of traincrew required as crew diagrams can be tightened up, and there are fewer costs associated with route knowledge and retention. Of course, we know that it often just does not work in reality but it still saves on crew.

Often though it doesn't save any diagrams. A few days of route learning saved maybe, but a driver working four hours from Liverpool to Newcastle, having a break and then working four hours back is as productive as a diagram can get. Having them instead just shuttle repeatedly between Liverpool and Man Vic or Leeds is far less productive as there will always be some down time between each train.

That's aside from the issue of making sure that there will be a forward driver to take the train at a location where you don't have a depot (and hence no spare/standby crews on hand).

 

[DMckduck97]

It will be interesting to see what happens in regards to tightening up diagrams. Rumour has it SWR will have an AI build for all diagrams to increase productivity when the 701s come in. How far productivity is pushed will also be clear by how messy it will get even in times of light disruption

 

[driverd]

Often though it doesn't save any diagrams. A few days of route learning saved maybe, but a driver working four hours from Liverpool to Newcastle, having a break and then working four hours back is as productive as a diagram can get. Having them instead just shuttle repeatedly between Liverpool and Man Vic or Leeds is far less productive as there will always be some down time between each train.

Sure - and that's the ideal, but as any driver will know, you get the efficient jobs as above, and also the super inefficient jobs (like 3 depots say). The optimisation software basically makes the super slack 3 depot days way more intense, and breaks down the handful of super efficient diagrams. They'll save a number of traincrew hours, even if they don't necessarily look like that for the end user.

That's aside from the issue of making sure that there will be a forward driver to take the train at a location where you don't have a depot (and hence no spare/standby crews on hand).

Basically sharing this spare work out across the various depots to save a few hours.

The cost is always service resilience but it really depends on how many hours you're saving in total. There's always a compromise to make. Plenty of examples listed above, however, where its quite rightly noted the pendulum has swung too far.