LNER unreliability caused by staff shortages

[43066]

Which are of course reciprocated, let's be fair and unbiased about it.

Huh?

 

[Llanigraham]

That should read 120 hours in 3 weeks!

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Huh?

I'm respectfully adding that it cannot rightfully be said that customers have spoken abusively about the situation without addressing the unpleasant way a minority of railway staff have spoken about (or to) non-railway personnel since the severe and regular service cuts began across the network. I'm simply saying that the situation has brought out hostility from some on both sides, not just one.

 

[Watershed]

Referring back to my 15:03 vs 15:33 example, if the same staff would refuse both to work the 15:33 and the 15:03 if it was delayed to 15:33 that’s understandable and I’m not complaining about that, because the objection is to working extra time. What I’m saying isn’t understandable is if the staff for the 15:03 wouldn’t work the 15:33, but would be happy to work the 15:03 delayed departing til 15:33, as it’s basically nitpicking over a headcode and nothing else. If both trains are traction they sign, routes they sign, departing at the same time and would get them off shift at the same time, why should they refuse to work one but not the other?

The difference is that one is planned and intentional, and the other is unplanned and definitely not intentional. There are many of these limits that I don't agree with, but this one is perfectly reasonable - you should only be forced to do overtime beyond the end of your shift if it's unavoidable.

As a passenger I really couldn’t care less if the DFT has to find more money to make things work, that’s not my concern. My concern is whether the train can be trusted to turn up and currently it can’t. I suggested something that I thought would work - revised rostering and an uplift in staff numbers. I’m more than happy to see alternative suggestions that’d work better than my suggestion if anyone has them, but the only other suggestion I’ve seen so far is to cut services, ok as a short term measure but in the long term it isn’t really viable unless we want the railway to go into a slow continuous decline.

Unfortunately it is your concern as a passenger how much this sort of thing costs. Whilst the principle you propose might make things slightly more reliable, you will achieve a far greater "bang for your buck" simply by increasing the spare ratio. Of course, given a fixed complement, that means reducing the number of diagrams, which means reducing the number of services...

The sad reality is that the rail industry is already in decline in many ways, and the government is quite content for that to continue.

Before I see a suggestion of higher fares to pay for it, we’ve seen that the ECML is capable of turning a profit without higher fares as it did so under East Coast. If LNER isn’t currently making a profit, one has to ask why as we’ve seen that operation is capable of turning a profit and passenger numbers are higher than they’ve ever been. And that profit is then where the money to pay for sorting the situation out should come from. If that isn’t enough, the DFT should have to fund it - unlikely to happen in the current political climate sadly.

That is a completely different issue. First of all, whilst the EC operation (in all its guises) has long returned franchise premia to the government, that doesn't take into account the huge subsidies paid to Network Rail. When distributed, this meant that the EC operation was only "profitable" for the short period where Stagecoach were funding VTEC's unsustainable premia.

And regardless of whether it is profitable, ultimately the DfT wants to minimise costs regardless of the consequences. If a given operator is "profitable", that simply means more money with which to prop up the other loss-making ones.

 

[43066]

I'm respectfully adding that it cannot rightfully be said that customers have spoken abusively about the situation without addressing the unpleasant way a minority of railway staff have spoken about (or to) non-railway personnel since the severe and regular service cuts began across the network. I'm simply saying that the situation has brought out hostility from some on both sides, not just one.

I can assure you passengers don’t just “speak abusively”, staff are regularly physically and verbally assaulted, spat at etc. Unless you are seriously suggesting staff go around doing the same to passengers, the two are simply not comparable… It’s a little odd that you’d even suggest they might be.

 

[skyhigh]

I’m more than happy to see alternative suggestions that’d work better than my suggestion if anyone has them

Employ more staff. That is a much better option than reducing the efficiency of the existing staff as you simply cannot switch to your idea of rostering while keeping the current number of staff and number of services without increasing the contracted hours accordingly.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

I can assure you passengers don’t just “speak abusively”, staff are regularly physically and verbally assaulted, spat at etc. Unless you are seriously suggesting staff go around doing the same to passengers, the two are simply not comparable… It’s a little odd that you’d even suggest they might be.

I assumed the OP referred to the general way in which the situation has been referred to, in terms of both public opinion and press coverage that speaks disparagingly of the situation.
Naturally, if staff are being genuinely abused due to service cuts, it goes without saying that such occurrences are abhorrent and completely unacceptable.

 

[muz379]

What I’m saying isn’t understandable is if the staff for the 15:03 wouldn’t work the 15:33, but would be happy to work the 15:03 delayed departing til 15:33, as it’s basically nitpicking over a headcode and nothing else. If both trains are traction they sign, routes they sign, departing at the same time and would get them off shift at the same time, why should they refuse to work one but not the other?

Sometimes though you dont have much choice if you are away from depot , wheras if asked at the start of day you would refuse .

Lets say I book on at 06:00 and the last train on my diagram is the 15:03 back to my depot to arrive at say 16:00 - At that point the Shift manager/control asks me if I would work the 15:33 instead - I am invariably going to say no .

However lets say I am now at the station waiting to work the 15:03 back to my depot and because of disruption that has occurred during the course of the day the 15:03 is delayed until 15:33 then in that instance I need to get back to my home depot anyway so wether the train has the headcode of the 15:03 or the 15:33 I am going to work it back to get home .

Which are of course reciprocated, let's be fair and unbiased about it.

Not quite sure its reciprocated at the same rate or in many cases with the same severity it is fairly rare and generally results in severe penalties if a member of rail staff assaults a passenger for example , anyway we were talking about the current situation in the context of it being good for staff . I was suggesting that there are some aspects of it that are not so good for staff .

I would also suggest that those that take pride in their work and go to work to do their best probably are not the same subset of staff who would be anything considered abusive towards customers .

 

[GordonT]

The Inverness service from what I keep reading seems to cause more hassle than it’s worth. I don’t know how busy it is north of Edinburgh as I’ve not used it there since the HST era, but if it isn’t overly busy one does have to wonder if it would be better to axe it north of Edinburgh entirely or to cut it back to either Perth or Stirling. Cutting it back to Edinburgh or Stirling would have the additional benefit of reducing the number of diagrams that can’t use 801s.

From memory whenever this is suggested someone will point out that the Newcastle driver who finishes his/her shift in Inverness on Day 1 drives south from Aberdeen on Day 2 whilst another Newcastle driver works north to Aberdeen on Day 1 and drives south from Inverness on Day 2. This is to enable sufficient hours off between driving turns. Therefore hacking the Inverness leg would require the Aberdeen leg to lose a round trip also.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Not quite sure its reciprocated at the same rate or in many cases with the same severity it is fairly rare and generally results in severe penalties if a member of rail staff assaults a passenger for example , anyway we were talking about the current situation in the context of it being good for staff . I was suggesting that there are some aspects of it that are not so good for staff .

I would also suggest that those that take pride in their work and go to work to do their best probably are not the same subset of staff who would be anything considered abusive towards customers .

Unfortunately I've got so used to people referring to genuine negative criticism on here as "unfair abuse" (and people on here do this a lot) that I assumed that was what was being referred to. If people are being actually physically abused purely over the situation, then that's horrendous, and I wouldn't wish to comment further on that.

 

[Bletchleyite]

From memory whenever this is suggested someone will point out that the Newcastle driver who finishes his/her shift in Inverness on Day 1 drives south from Aberdeen on Day 2 whilst another Newcastle driver works north to Aberdeen on Day 1 and drives south from Inverness on Day 2. This is to enable sufficient hours off between driving turns. Therefore hacking the Inverness leg would require the Aberdeen leg to lose a round trip also.

There is an argument to say that the "international trains" should just go to Glasgow and Edinburgh, with ScotRail providing connections further afield. That'd likely happen if Scotland secedes anyway.

 

[43066]

Unfortunately I've got so used to people referring to genuine negative criticism on here as "unfair abuse" (and people on here do this a lot) that I assumed that was what was being referred to. If people are being actually physically abused purely over the situation, then that's horrendous, and I wouldn't wish to comment further on that.

I can’t remember seeing anyone on here refer to criticism as “unfair abuse”. In any case I think it’s clear that the OP was talking about what happens in the real world during disruption.

Worryingly at my TOC assaults and anti social behaviour are now above where they were pre Covid, despite passenger numbers still (slightly) lagging. I’m fortunate not to be exposed to it much, but behaviour has noticeably worsened since Covid and the lockdowns - we can only speculate as to why!

 

[Mag_seven]

I think we need to get back to the topic of LNER please - discussion of abuse, assaults etc is off topic.

thanks

 

[Bald Rick]

As it does seem very similar to the Avanti situation, I am now simply wondering how long it will be before all TOCs begin to suffer from this issue. It's a worrying thought. Nationwide drastic service cuts are difficult and inconvenient enough for a few (although rapidly becoming more than a few) strike days a year, but as a permanent timetable as a result of insufficient staff will make railway journeys very trying and difficult indeed.

Many ROCs already are, and as has been said previously LNER have effectively been in this position for the last couple of months anyway. They join Avanti, XC, TPE and Northern.

It is, of course, playing right into DfTs hands.

 

[DanNCL]

Unfortunately it is your concern as a passenger how much this sort of thing costs. Whilst the principle you propose might make things slightly more reliable, you will achieve a far greater "bang for your buck" simply by increasing the spare ratio. Of course, given a fixed complement, that means reducing the number of diagrams, which means reducing the number of services...

The sad reality is that the rail industry is already in decline in many ways, and the government is quite content for that to continue.

How much a government controlled rail service is costing the Treasury isn’t my concern as a passenger, just like how much NHS treatment costs the Treasury isn’t my concern as an NHS patient. They’re public services, it’s for the government to commit as much money to them as they require.

Both are my concern as a taxpayer but that’s different.

Which are of course reciprocated, let's be fair and unbiased about it.

I would say they’re reciprocated by a very small minority of staff not the majority, and I’m saying that as (like many on this thread have noticed!) someone who moans about staff conduct on a regular basis. 99.9% of railway staff would never conduct themselves in such a vile manner. There’s going to be the 0.1% in every workplace.

Said minority usually find themselves sacked very quickly.

I’ve encountered unprofessional staff on many occasions, but never once have I witnessed staff attack passengers in anything resembling the manner I’ve seen many passengers attack staff.

 

[Bow Fell]

I do think the current rostering is a bit mad, but if you’re all happy with it and can actually make it work then that’s great. But something clearly has to change somewhere, if it’s not the rostering then it needs to be staffing numbers, otherwise we stay in the same cycle of never getting anywhere.

I think it’s a nice to have a fresh perspective of someone outside looking in, sometimes it’s needed. And you are obviously passionate about the subject, maybe if a job comes up you should apply, give some fresh ideas.

However, I will say that you do need to understand why your rostering ideas just don’t work and are simply just not cost effective. That’s not being obstructive or saying we can’t or we won’t! But it just doesn’t work like that!

For example your suggestion about traincrew working a 8hr45 4 day roster in a week. A simple 35 hour week each time in the link as a line of work. It could work, but my word it would be unproductive!

The railway runs to the minute.

So at the moment, a line of work could be

0700-1613, 0530-1413, 0805-1628, 0605-1213

Now instead you replace that with a simple 0600-1445 every day, how do you account for the different times trains start/finish.

What if the first train including walking and prep time isn’t until 0643? That would mean traincrew sitting around, which I’m sure wouldn’t be popular if passengers knew that!

Or what if their last train finished at 1423, include, 5 mins to dispose of the unit and 5 mins walk time that gives an official 1433 finish. Those 12 minutes until 1445, do the traincrew just sit round, no they’ll just go home, again if that happened everyday, it’s unproductive, not cost-effective and imagine the outrage if passengers knew that traincrew were getting a 12 minute early dart every day!

I think people do genuinely forget just how flexible the railway as a whole really is! And don’t get me wrong that’s what you sign up for!

I’m not traincrew but in my line of work, I have a “Spare” week, now I can’t plan anything that week, because I could be on anything, I could get an early, late or a night turn that week! Or I could be down to an early turn but due to sickness and with notice be moved to a night turn, and the early turn is easier to cover with OT! It’s not ideal, but that’s part of what you get paid for and shows the flexibility!

 

[HamworthyGoods]

Before I see a suggestion of higher fares to pay for it, we’ve seen that the ECML is capable of turning a profit without higher fares as it did so under East Coast. If LNER isn’t currently making a profit, one has to ask why as we’ve seen that operation is capable of turning a profit and passenger numbers are higher than they’ve ever been. And that profit is then where the money to pay for sorting the situation out should come from. If that isn’t enough, the DFT should have to fund it - unlikely to happen in the current political climate sadly.

Passenger numbers are higher but revenue figures are lower, they aren’t linked.

Business travel to Leeds has fallen off a cliff edge for example and this was often high revenue tickets. So what is happening is we are now seeing ‘peak’ trains with lower loadings than previously and busier off peak services.

At the moment the revenue just doesn’t match up and that’s before you apply increased costs with inflation and the increased energy charges.

 

[43066]

How much a government controlled rail service is costing the Treasury isn’t my concern as a passenger, just like how much NHS treatment costs the Treasury isn’t my concern as an NHS patient.

The point you’re perhaps overlooking is that the cost to the treasury of your passenger journey on an LNER service is also very much the concern of the taxpayer. Hence the longstanding decision to load more of the costs of the railway onto fare payers and away from general taxation.

On that basis there’s a strong case for continuing to increase ticket prices and perhaps removing discounts such as advanced fares.

They’re public services, it’s for the government to commit as much money to them as they require.

How is that working with the NHS, do you think? It gets steadily worse with each and every passing year, despite the annual budget allocation continually rising!

 

[NEDdrv]

As a passenger I really couldn’t care less if the DFT has to find more money to make things work, that’s not my concern. My concern is whether the train can be trusted to turn up and currently it can’t. I suggested something that I thought would work - revised rostering and an uplift in staff numbers. I’m more than happy to see alternative suggestions that’d work better than my suggestion if anyone has them, but the only other suggestion I’ve seen so far is to cut services, ok as a short term measure but in the long term it isn’t really viable unless we want the railway to go into a slow continuous decline.

Before I see a suggestion of higher fares to pay for it, we’ve seen that the ECML is capable of turning a profit without higher fares as it did so under East Coast. If LNER isn’t currently making a profit, one has to ask why as we’ve seen that operation is capable of turning a profit and passenger numbers are higher than they’ve ever been. And that profit is then where the money to pay for sorting the situation out should come from. If that isn’t enough, the DFT should have to fund it - unlikely to happen in the current political climate sadly.


Maybe I don’t fully understand, but I don’t think my point has been fully understood either.

Referring back to my 15:03 vs 15:33 example, if the same staff would refuse both to work the 15:33 and the 15:03 if it was delayed to 15:33 that’s understandable and I’m not complaining about that, because the objection is to working extra time. What I’m saying isn’t understandable is if the staff for the 15:03 wouldn’t work the 15:33, but would be happy to work the 15:03 delayed departing til 15:33, as it’s basically nitpicking over a headcode and nothing else. If both trains are traction they sign, routes they sign, departing at the same time and would get them off shift at the same time, why should they refuse to work one but not the other?

I do think the current rostering is a bit mad, but if you’re all happy with it and can actually make it work then that’s great. But something clearly has to change somewhere, if it’s not the rostering then it needs to be staffing numbers, otherwise we stay in the same cycle of never getting anywhere.

The difference is if I was rostered the 15.03 but running late I would be committed to work it if it was late, at the present time goodwill has gone so would not work the 15.33 if it meant overtime. As an example as not a LNER drv

 

[43066]

The difference is if I was rostered the 15.03 but running late I would be committed to work it if it was late, at the present time goodwill has gone so would not work the 15.33 if it meant overtime.

The point there really is that, if it’s a train home, you’ll work it. If it’s the start of an out and back that’ll get you back to base later then the agreed margin for delays which you have to accept (30 mins in our case) then you’ll refuse in the absence of goodwill.

 

[dk1]

The point there really is that, if it’s a train home, you’ll work it. If it’s the start of an out and back that’ll get you back to base later then the agreed margin for delays which you have to accept (30 mins in our case) then you’ll refuse in the absence of goodwill.

Yes & only chance of covering it is if the Duty Traincrew Manager crosses your palm with silver. If there’s an overtime ban on going then that’s never going to be agreed of course.

 

[43066]

Yes & only chance of covering it is if the Duty Traincrew Manager crosses your palm with silver. If there’s an overtime ban on going then that’s never going to be agreed of course.

“We will pay you 12 hours” is usually the line for a favour.

Given the length of many of our jobs these days, it’s not that much of an incentive!

 

[dk1]

“We will pay you 12 hours” is usually the line for a favour.

Given the length of many of our jobs these days, it’s not that much of an incentive!

Has to be 2hrs off roster on top No point doing it otherwise.

 

[LowLevel]

Has to be 2hrs off roster on top No point doing it otherwise.

Hate to say it but with my career in the double figures I will still try and help sort out the train service when it's in a mess even if there's nothing in it for me. I have found that actually 95% of humans are fairly pleasant creatures trying to go about their lives and it doesn't make me happy walking to the car park to drive home seeing them hanging around waiting for someone to try and sort out buses/taxis when they've entrusted their arrangements to the railway and we've cocked it up, whether within our control or not.

I can genuinely say that whenever the proverbial has hit the fan in my personal life the railway has had my back so I will alway return the favour. If the TCS or Control ask me "any chance you could..." unless I'm really up against it with something else the answer will be yes, 100%.

 

[43066]

Hate to say it but with my career in the double figures I will still try and help sort out the train service when it's in a mess even if there's nothing in it for me. I have found that actually 95% of humans are fairly pleasant creatures trying to go about their lives and it doesn't make me happy walking to the car park to drive home seeing them hanging around waiting for someone to try and sort out buses/taxis when they've entrusted their arrangements to the railway and we've cocked it up, whether within our control or not.

I can genuinely say that whenever the proverbial has hit the fan in my personal life the railway has had my back so I will alway return the favour. If the TCS or Control ask me "any chance you could..." unless I'm really up against it with something else the answer will be yes, 100%.

Re the “can you work 12 hours” this is generally where people are being asked to come in early/late at short notice, to bail out the TOC.

During disruption most people will still help out, but this flexibility often seems to only go one way and patience is wearing thin.

 

[dk1]

Hate to say it but with my career in the double figures I will still try and help sort out the train service when it's in a mess even if there's nothing in it for me. I have found that actually 95% of humans are fairly pleasant creatures trying to go about their lives and it doesn't make me happy walking to the car park to drive home seeing them hanging around waiting for someone to try and sort out buses/taxis when they've entrusted their arrangements to the railway and we've cocked it up, whether within our control or not.

I can genuinely say that whenever the proverbial has hit the fan in my personal life the railway has had my back so I will alway return the favour. If the TCS or Control ask me "any chance you could..." unless I'm really up against it with something else the answer will be yes, 100%.

Oh yes I am pretty much the same. I was replying more to the fact that 43066 mentioned the length of the jobs being such that being offered 12hrs wasn’t much of an incentive then hence the off roster payment.

 

[66701GBRF]

“We will pay you 12 hours” is usually the line for a favour.

Given the length of many of our jobs these days, it’s not that much of an incentive!

Has to be 2hrs off roster on top No point doing it otherwise.

Flip it to a 12 RDW. That’s what tends to happen here.

 

[yorksrob]

Many ROCs already are, and as has been said previously LNER have effectively been in this position for the last couple of months anyway. They join Avanti, XC, TPE and Northern.

It is, of course, playing right into DfTs hands.

It is funny how it is all the TOC's serving the North that are put in the thumbscrews. And all at the behest of a junta with no legitimacy or mandate to govern.

 

[Bald Rick]

It is funny how it is all the TOC's serving the North that are put in the thumbscrews.

but which organisation is applying the thumbscrews in removing rest day working?

 

[12LDA28C]

ASLEF strike announced on LNER for Saturday 26th November, along with many other TOCs.