LNER unreliability caused by staff shortages

[DanNCL]

I'm not sure you understand how diagramming actually works. In the link some weeks have more hours in than others, but over the link they match up exactly to an average which is the total contracted hours. So anything longer than the booked diagram is overtime.

That’s exactly why I clarified.

I don’t know any other workplace where such an arrangement would happen. You’d have your weekly hours, your shifts would usually exactly match the contracted hours, and if for whatever reason they came in under that if they asked you to work longer to take you up to your weekly hours you’d have to do it.

Simply because it adds cost. If you want extra hours, you either need to raise the contracted hours or add more staff. This is why the railway has run on overtime for decades.

One day the DFT will realise that all this tinkering about will cost them more in lost revenue than fixing the problem would have cost them in extra staffing costs.

 

[skyhigh]

I don’t know any other workplace where such an arrangement would happen. You’d have your weekly hours, your shifts would usually exactly match the contracted hours, and if for whatever reason they came in under that if they asked you to work longer to take you up to your weekly hours you’d have to do it.

You'd have to completely tear up the rostering agreements and start again. At the moment in my link one week is around 51 hours, the next week is 22 hours. The contracted number of hours is 34.5hrs per week. Over the course of 32 weeks they average out at exactly 34.5hrs per week. If you're suggesting I should be forced to work an extra 12.5hrs on the 22hr week you'll need to reduce the other weeks. Making every week 34.5hrs would just end up with very unproductive diagrams.

 

[TheBigD]

That’s exactly why I clarified.

I don’t know any other workplace where such an arrangement would happen. You’d have your weekly hours, your shifts would usually exactly match the contracted hours, and if for whatever reason they came in under that if they asked you to work longer to take you up to your weekly hours you’d have to do it.


One day the DFT will realise that all this tinkering about will cost them more in lost revenue than fixing the problem would have cost them in extra staffing costs.

Train crew hours will vary throughout the roster. Whilst notionally a 35 hour week, it doesn't break down in to a neat 4 x 8hr45 jobs.
For instance you could be an 10hr30 job on the Monday, a short 6hr48 job the next day, a 9hr56 hour one the 2 days afterwards meaning 37hr06 that week. The folllowing week you could be just 33 hours.
Over the course of the link your total hours will not exceed the average of 35 hours.
A 24 link, 35 hour roster will have 840 rostered hours. You would work no more than 840 hours over the 24 weeks.

 

[DanNCL]

You'd have to completely tear up the rostering agreements and start again. At the moment in my link one week is around 51 hours, the next week is 22 hours. The contracted number of hours is 34.5hrs per week. Over the course of 32 weeks they average out at exactly 34.5hrs per week. If you're suggesting I should be forced to work an extra 12.5hrs on the 22hr week you'll need to reduce the other weeks. Making every week 34.5hrs would just end up with very unproductive diagrams.

It’s how everyone else in just about every other line of work does it. I don’t know any other industry where someone contracted to work 34.5 hours a week would be allowed to work just 22 of them on the basis that the next week they worked 51 hours. One also has to question how tired someone will be at the end of a 51 hour working week and whether they should really be driving a train after that much time at work rather than resting. I know I wouldn’t be comfortable driving a car for 51 hours in a week as I’d be exhausted by the end of it.

The only possibility I can think of where such an arrangement might apply is aircraft crew.

Train crew hours will vary throughout the roster. Whilst notionally a 35 hour week, it doesn't break down in to a neat 4 x 8hr45 jobs.
For instance you could be an 10hr30 job on the Monday, a short 6hr48 job the next day, a 9hr56 hour one the 2 days afterwards meaning 37hr06 that week. The folllowing week you could be just 33 hours.
Over the course of the link your total hours will not exceed the average of 35 hours.
A 24 link, 35 hour roster will have 840 rostered hours. You would work no more than 840 hours over the 24 weeks.

It really is cost cutting. How it should be done is a 35 hour week, diagram an amount under that, say approx 33 hours, and then the rest of the time to take them up to their contracted hours should be flexible for exactly the sort of situation I mentioned above.

 

[HSTEd]

Ultimately the only way to fully escape vulnerability to staff shortages is to reduce the number of staff required.

 

[LowLevel]

It’s how everyone else in just about every other line of work does it. I don’t know any other industry where someone contracted to work 34.5 hours a week would be allowed to work just 22 of them on the basis that the next week they worked 51 hours. One also has to question how tired someone will be at the end of a 51 hour working week and whether they should really be driving a train after that much time at work rather than resting. I know I wouldn’t be comfortable driving a car for 51 hours in a week as I’d be exhausted by the end of it.

The only possibility I can think of where such an arrangement might apply is aircraft crew.


It really is cost cutting. How it should be done is a 35 hour week, diagram an amount under that, say approx 33 hours, and then the rest of the time to take them up to their contracted hours should be flexible for exactly the sort of situation I mentioned above.

BR went out of their way to get flexible rostering in. Averaged hours works to give efficient diagrams to fit work and the staff like it too - you get a mix of longer and short days. "Spare" days are usually the contracted daily hours (so 8 hrs 45 mins here) and you can be moved with 48 hours notice on to other work outside the hours, and inside 48 hours do anything within those hours or out by agreement.

If a depots work was all the same length it might make sense but where I am there are anything from 8 hour round trips to 1 hour short workings - just because you reckon it sounds ridiculous doesn't mean it is.

 

[DanNCL]

Ultimately the only way to fully escape vulnerability to staff shortages is to reduce the number of staff required.

Or employ more of them.

 

[12LDA28C]

It’s how everyone else in just about every other line of work does it. I don’t know any other industry where someone contracted to work 34.5 hours a week would be allowed to work just 22 of them on the basis that the next week they worked 51 hours. One also has to question how tired someone will be at the end of a 51 hour working week and whether they should really be driving a train after that much time at work rather than resting. I know I wouldn’t be comfortable driving a car for 51 hours in a week as I’d be exhausted by the end of it.

The only possibility I can think of where such an arrangement might apply is aircraft crew.


It really is cost cutting. How it should be done is a 35 hour week, diagram an amount under that, say approx 33 hours, and then the rest of the time to take them up to their contracted hours should be flexible for exactly the sort of situation I mentioned above.

Why should the railway change practices that work and have been in place for generations because that's not how things are done in 'any other industry'?

Staff work an average of a certain number of hours per week, averaged out over a set period. It's quite simple. If you work less hours one week you would most likely work more the next, due to differing shift lengths or more or less Rest Days each week. Should rail staff also work 9 to 5 Monday to Friday, as that's what happens in 'other industries'?

 

[dk1]

Or employ more of them.

Beat me to it lol

 

[TheBigD]

It really is cost cutting. How it should be done is a 35 hour week, diagram an amount under that, say approx 33 hours, and then the rest of the time to take them up to their contracted hours should be flexible for exactly the sort of situation I mentioned above.

If you can produce a roster where all the weeks work out at 35 hours exactly tly then every TOC planning unit will welcome your CV.

In reality when your jobs will be either Lincoln and back, Leeds and back or Newcastle and back from King's Cross you will have different shift lengths. Add in different early morning/late evening stopping patterns and even shifts to the same destination and back will have different lengths.

If you just round up the weeks where there is less than 35 hours to 35 hours, how are you dealling with the weeks that are over 35 hours?

As I said, it is based over the number of weeks in your link, not each individual week. Local reps and management will generally produce a working roster with the appropriate spare turns* to cover leave, training, sickness etc etc.
*some TOCs (yes i know they arent TOCs anymore!) will have fixed 8hr45 spares, some will have variable length spares depending on the Ts & Cs

 

[Watershed]

It’s how everyone else in just about every other line of work does it. I don’t know any other industry where someone contracted to work 34.5 hours a week would be allowed to work just 22 of them on the basis that the next week they worked 51 hours. One also has to question how tired someone will be at the end of a 51 hour working week and whether they should really be driving a train after that much time at work rather than resting. I know I wouldn’t be comfortable driving a car for 51 hours in a week as I’d be exhausted by the end of it.

The only possibility I can think of where such an arrangement might apply is aircraft crew.

Whilst I agree that this method of rostering can lead to some very long weeks, it has been established practice in the transport industry for many decades. As you say, airlines do exactly the same thing. Provided that there are absolute limits to the amount of rostered hours in a week, as well as sufficient breaks within shifts and rest between shifts, history shows it is perfectly capable of being safe.

It really is cost cutting.

I think that's a question of semantics. As I've said, it is a well-established practice across many operators and countries.

How it should be done is a 35 hour week, diagram an amount under that, say approx 33 hours, and then the rest of the time to take them up to their contracted hours should be flexible for exactly the sort of situation I mentioned above.

And that is broadly how things worked up until the "flexible rostering" dispute of the 1980s. But it's inherently inefficient, as explained in this contemporary TV piece on the subject.

With a 4-day working week, if you had to limit the total number of diagrammed hours to 33, this would give very little opportunity to make use of the maximum shift length. You could have at most one or two long shifts and then the remainder would have to be less efficient short ones, or spare turns.

 

[skyhigh]

I don’t know any other industry where someone contracted to work 34.5 hours a week would be allowed to work just 22 of them on the basis that the next week they worked 51 hours.

Funnily enough that's exactly how two of my previous jobs worked. One in retail, one in the Police.

One also has to question how tired someone will be at the end of a 51 hour working week and whether they should really be driving a train after that much time at work rather than resting.

Have you heard of the Hidden Rules? Not named as such because they're a secret, but based on recommendations from the report by Sir Anthony Hidden. They are rules on rest and shift lengths that most if not all of the rail industry opt to comply with.

How it should be done is a 35 hour week, diagram an amount under that, say approx 33 hours, and then the rest of the time to take them up to their contracted hours should be flexible for exactly the sort of situation I mentioned above.

Which ends up with really, really unproductive crew. There is a reason it has been done this way for decades.

 

[DanNCL]

BR went out of their way to get flexible rostering in. Averaged hours works to give efficient diagrams to fit work and the staff like it too - you get a mix of longer and short days. "Spare" days are usually the contracted daily hours (so 8 hrs 45 mins here) and you can be moved with 48 hours notice on to other work outside the hours, and inside 48 hours do anything within those hours or out by agreement.

If a depots work was all the same length it might make sense but where I am there are anything from 8 hour round trips to 1 hour short workings - just because you reckon it sounds ridiculous doesn't mean it is.

What I said was ridiculous was the idea of someone rostered for a service refusing to work the one behind it when they’d have been happy to work their originally rostered service in the path of the one they were asked to move to. I really don’t think you can dispute that one is ridiculous! Obviously if they’d have refused to work the first one in the path of the second too that’s different.

From how it sounds BR was better than the current mess. And I honestly never thought I’d say that with all the negatives I hear about BR!

Why should the railway change practices that work and have been in place for generations because that's not how things are done in 'any other industry'?

Staff work an average of a certain number of hours per week, averaged out over a set period. It's quite simple. If you work less hours one week you would most likely work more the next, due to differing shift lengths or more or less Rest Days each week. Should rail staff work 9 to 5 also, as that's what happens in 'other industries'?

It’s clearly not working though is it, as if it was we’d not be in the level of chaos that we find ourselves in. I’m sure it works well for the staff, but it doesn’t work for anyone else. The railway needs to work for everyone, which includes the staff but also includes the passengers who are ultimately the ones suffering.

If you can produce a roster where all the weeks work out at 35 hours exactly tly then every TOC planning unit will welcome your CV.

In reality when your jobs will be either Lincoln and back, Leeds and back or Newcastle and back from King's Cross you will have different shift lengths. Add in different early morning/late evening stopping patterns and even shifts to the same destination and back will have different lengths.

If you just round up the weeks where there is less than 35 hours to 35 hours, how are you dealling with the weeks that are over 35 hours?

As I said, it is based over the number of weeks in your link, not each individual week. Local reps and management will generally produce a working roster with the appropriate spare turns* to cover leave, training, sickness etc etc.
*some TOCs (yes i know they arent TOCs anymore!) will have fixed 8hr45 spares, some will have variable length spares depending on the Ts & Cs

No, what I’m suggesting was reasonable diagrams below the contracted hours. So for example, someone is contracted 35 hours a week, but a diagram could come up to 33 hours and 42 minutes. The remaining 1 hour and 18 minutes would be flexible for situations such as what I described earlier.

And that is broadly how things worked up until the "flexible rostering" dispute of the 1980s. But it's inherently inefficient, as explained in this contemporary TV piece on the subject.

I’m sure it is inefficient, but if it’s what’s needed to get things running reliably again then it’s what should be done. The current method might be more efficient for the DFT and the TOC and liked by staff but it clearly isn’t working for the passengers.

Have you heard of the Hidden Rules? Not named as such because they're a secret, but based on recommendations from the report by Sir Anthony Hidden. They are rules on rest and shift lengths that most if not all of the rail industry opt to comply with.

I have heard of them though I haven’t read them. But if it says 51 hour working weeks are a wise idea than I do have to wonder if they’re strict enough.

 

[TheBigD]

No, what I’m suggesting was reasonable diagrams below the contracted hours. So for example, someone is contracted 35 hours a week, but a diagram could come up to 33 hours and 42 minutes. The remaining 1 hour and 18 minutes would be flexible for situations such as what I described earlier.

You would either need to run less trains, or have more staff.
And making your existing staff less efficient (33hr42 of work and 1hr18 of just in case) will certainly have significant cost implications.

There's a reason why the airlines, buses, trains, retail and a whole host of other industries have flexible rostering.

 

[LowLevel]

Our drivers have an hour contractual overtime. Signallers are I believe the same.

Guards don't, so can refuse to do anything that might make them late - though generally most will help out when things are going awry.

 

[skyhigh]

What I said was ridiculous was the idea of someone rostered for a service refusing to work the one behind it when they’d have been happy to work their originally rostered service in the path of the one they were asked to move to. I really don’t think you can dispute that one is ridiculous! Obviously if they’d have refused to work the first one in the path of the second too that’s different.

If the delay is known about before the crew leave their home depot, i.e. they are booked to do a York-London-York but the outward is running say 60 late meaning with the turnaround time the return will also be 30 late back to their depot, they can refuse it. For obvious reasons if they leave on time but get to London and find the return is 30 late for unforseen reasons, it's a little silly to refuse to work it back. That's the general principle, although LNER may be a little different. As @LowLevel says, some crew will have a level of contractual overtime - but that may only be for unforseen reasons rather than preplanned.

 

[Watershed]

What I said was ridiculous was the idea of someone rostered for a service refusing to work the one behind it when they’d have been happy to work their originally rostered service in the path of the one they were asked to move to. I really don’t think you can dispute that one is ridiculous! Obviously if they’d have refused to work the first one in the path of the second too that’s different.

There is a difference between disruption, which by its nature is unplanned and not something the TOC wants, and TOCs deliberately deciding to alter timetables/diagrams. It would be completely impractical if the slightest bit of disruption entitled traincrew to go home; by contrast, it is quite reasonable for there to be limits on the ability of a TOC to force overtime.

From how it sounds BR was better than the current mess. And I honestly never thought I’d say that with all the negatives I hear about BR!

These principles of rostering haven't really changed since BR days. The difference is that in BR days, wages were significantly lower and so withdrawing overtime was a much more serious step that wouldn't be taken as lightly, as it would impose financial difficulty on far more members.

It’s clearly not working though is it, as if it was we’d not be in the level of chaos that we find ourselves in. I’m sure it works well for the staff, but it doesn’t work for anyone else. The railway needs to work for everyone, which includes the staff but also includes the passengers who are ultimately the ones suffering.

The principle works just fine. The issue lies in the level of spare coverage and the reliance on rest day working to cover everyday sickness/unavailability.

I’m sure it is inefficient, but if it’s what’s needed to get things running reliably again then it’s what should be done. The current method might be more efficient for the DFT and the TOC and liked by staff but it clearly isn’t working for the passengers.

I don't think you really understand what everyone is trying to explain to you.

 

[skyhigh]

The principle works just fine. The issue lies in the level of spare coverage and the reliance on rest day working to cover everyday sickness/unavailability.

100%

I’m sure it works well for the staff, but it doesn’t work for anyone else.

Oh I'd be quite happy to have shorter and more even working weeks. But there is a reason it doesn't work like that. The alternatives are less services, or higher costs. Both not great for passengers.

 

[LAX54]

Our drivers have an hour contractual overtime. Signallers are I believe the same.

Guards don't, so can refuse to do anything that might make them late - though generally most will help out when things are going awry.

Signallers whose roster is under 12 hours still have the 'extra hour' in the T&C's, those on 12's, can do 13, but it obvioulsy needs their agreement, and a lot of paperwork by the Manager to makes sure its safe

 

[12LDA28C]

It’s clearly not working though is it, as if it was we’d not be in the level of chaos that we find ourselves in. I’m sure it works well for the staff, but it doesn’t work for anyone else. The railway needs to work for everyone, which includes the staff but also includes the passengers who are ultimately the ones suffering.

It would work perfectly well if TOCs employed sufficient staff so that they did not have to rely on overtime to run the advertised service, but of course that's a cheaper option than recruiting and training up X amount of new drivers to make up the shortfall.

I have heard of them though I haven’t read them. But if it says 51 hour working weeks are a wise idea than I do have to wonder if they’re strict enough.

51 hours is perfectly safe, the Hidden report actually recommended that the maximum number of hours a driver should work in one week is 72 and you'll probably find some drivers do just that, particularly on the freight.

Hidden also recommends breaks at certain points in the working day, maximum length of turn worked, maximum number of consecutive days worked and minimum hours rest between shifts and these considerations form the basis of drivers' rosters up and down the country.

 

[DanNCL]

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.

I don't think you really understand what everyone is trying to explain to you.

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.

 

[43066]

It's all down to the T&Cs at the end of the day and some TOCs are suffering because, just like the NRCoT, some T&Cs are ambiguously drafted - leading to arguments over interpretation!

I think generally the issue isn’t so much one of bad drafting/ambiguity, it’s that TOCs rely on routinely tearing up agreements to paper over the cracks and keep the show on the road (whether that’s inadequate staff, mistakes in planning or whatever). That’s fine so long as staff will agree to change shift times at short notice and do various favours, and in my experience the overwhelming majority of traincrew routinely show a great deal of flexibility to help out.

The problem is this approach relies on goodwill, which has now been stretched up to and beyond breaking point!

Diagrams should be shorter than contracted hours, yes? So the contracted hours would hopefully be long enough to cover it. If it’s within contracted hours frankly it should be tough luck if someone doesn’t like it.

No - that’s exactly the point. You can revert everyone to spare the day before, but you can only then give them jobs within their booked hours. This will almost always be less efficient than them simply working their booked diagrams.

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.

As noted above the current system is used in just about every other industry that relies on rostering staff. It relies on goodwill which is currently through the floor. The simplest way to get things working again would be to address this.

 

[12LDA28C]

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 contents of a driver's working day are worked out and planned to the last minute, literally. They will have a schedule card which lists which trains they are booked to drive, that is what they work to. If their 1503 train is delayed, it's still their train and they will most likely drive it, as booked, regardless of the delay. They are NOT booked to work the 1533 and can be asked to work it if required, eg if the 1503 is cancelled but are not obliged to. Of course if the 1503 were their 'going home train' and they would naturally be heading home as a passenger on the 1533 then they would be foolish to refuse to drive it if it meant the train would be cancelled as a result meaning a later finish for them.

Hopefully that explains things a little more clearly.

 

[DanNCL]

As noted above the current system is used in just about every other industry that relies on rostering staff. It relies on goodwill which is currently through the floor. The simplest way to get things working again would be to address this.

I’m not disputing that but I think there’s a bigger issue of relying too heavily on goodwill.

The contents of a driver's working day are worked out and planned to the last minute, literally. They will have a schedule card which lists which trains they are booked to drive, that is what they work to. If their 1503 train is delayed, it's still their train and they will most likely drive it, as booked, regardless of the delay. They are NOT booked to work the 1533 and can be asked to work it if required, eg if the 1503 is cancelled but are not obliged to. Of course if the 1503 were their 'going home train' and they would naturally be heading home as a passenger on the 1533 then they would be foolish to refuse to drive it if it meant the train would be cancelled as a result meaning a later finish for them.

Hopefully that explains things a little more clearly.

You’re effectively saying what I was trying to say but worded differently!

 

[43066]

I’m not disputing that but I think there’s a bigger issue of relying too heavily on goodwill.

That’s inherent whenever too few staff are employed to cover the work required. The alternative is less reliance on rest day working, more spare coverage, Sundays inside for everyone ie lots more staff, who nobody is willing to pay for.

In the example above of splitting a train. If someone is sitting spare they can be asked to do it. If nobody is spare you are going to have to ask someone to cut short a break or finish later. That’s fine if there’s goodwill, if there isn’t the answer will be “not my problem”.

 

[Llanigraham]

Why should the railway change practices that work and have been in place for generations because that's not how things are done in 'any other industry'?

Staff work an average of a certain number of hours per week, averaged out over a set period. It's quite simple. If you work less hours one week you would most likely work more the next, due to differing shift lengths or more or less Rest Days each week. Should rail staff also work 9 to 5 Monday to Friday, as that's what happens in 'other industries'?

From friends it isn't just the railway that work like this. I have two friends that work in local government where their contract states they will work a certain number of hours a month, since they are both "on call", so they could work 1 hours in three weeks, but then can be "not available" after working 20 hours in week four. Anything over 140 hours is paid as overtime if they wish to work it.

Signallers whose roster is under 12 hours still have the 'extra hour' in the T&C's, those on 12's, can do 13, but it obvioulsy needs their agreement, and a lot of paperwork by the Manager to makes sure its safe

Agreed, and I did it once due to my relief being snowbound, and it needed both my LOM and the District Manager to sign it off.
(The line still shut though!)
And signallers on a 12 week, 12 hour roster get a extra day off every 12 weeks so their average works out at 35 hours a week,

 

[muz379]

It’s how everyone else in just about every other line of work does it. I don’t know any other industry where someone contracted to work 34.5 hours a week would be allowed to work just 22 of them on the basis that the next week they worked 51 hours. One also has to question how tired someone will be at the end of a 51 hour working week and whether they should really be driving a train after that much time at work rather than resting. I know I wouldn’t be comfortable driving a car for 51 hours in a week as I’d be exhausted by the end of it.

Id saythe example given of 51 hours is I would say fairly extreme and outside the norm . At my 35hr/wk toc they tend to vary from 30-40 hours which is fairly normal . And to be honest even before I came to the industry and I worked a 37.5hr office job . Some weeks I found myself working 45/50 hours to meet a deadline or something , and then the week after the deadline id take a friday off and start late one or two days to even it out , sometimes id been on call and worked 13/14 hours to fix a problem so I took the next morning off . I really dont think that flexibility is that unusual in other lines of work .

Ultimately the only way to fully escape vulnerability to staff shortages is to reduce the number of staff required.

Or increase the number of staff available .

If you can produce a roster where all the weeks work out at 35 hours exactly tly then every TOC planning unit will welcome your CV.

I imagine the recruitment department would have a hard time sifting through the volume of applicants .

I’m sure it works well for the staff, but it doesn’t work for anyone else.

It depends on your outlook as a member of staff .

As with any large group of people there are differing views on this , but the railway does have people who take pride in doing a good job / dont enjoy going to work to do a bad job . The current environment is not going to be a good environment for that kind of person . The embarassment doesn't leave people going home feeling great , and of course the abusive reactions of some passengers to the current situation does get to staff as well . So I guess depending on what grade you are in and how operations are in your toc the current situation might not be working well for you .

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

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.

 

[johncrossley]

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.

That's my concern as well. With both the WCML and ECML under restrictions, that makes long distance trips up north by train too risky for the forseeable future. I was planning to visit family by train next month but it looks like it has to be by car.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

the abusive reactions of some passengers

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