This morning for Leeds-Kings Cross, the 0740 hd already been cancelled due to staff shortages. The following train, 0815, is starting short at Doncaster 'due to more trains than usual needing repairs at the same time.'.
Given that LNER already know that the 0740 was cancelled, it is frustrating that they did not rearrange train sets and crew to at least ensure that the next service from Leeds was not effectively cancelled as well.
It would be good for LNER to be explicit about that, if that is the case, and let the public respond as they choose. They are a publicly owned company so transparency is important.But I suppose if working to rule, traincrew will refuse to come off roster so it was most likely not possible. Nobody is going to do anything to help out.
It would be good for LNER to be explicit about that, if that is the case, and let the public respond as they choose. They are a publicly owned company so transparency is important.
In this particular case it'll be down to the the crew and set for the second service being in Doncaster, with a set not signed by all crews being in Leeds for the first service that was cancelled throughout.“Cancelled due to staff shortages” covers that perfectly well?
It isn’t as simple as just rearranging crews at the drop of a hat due to the need for breaks and impact on what’s happening for the rest of the their diagrams.
In this particular case it'll be down to the the crew and set for the second service being in Doncaster, with a set not signed by all crews being in Leeds for the first service that was cancelled throughout.
Most of those are down to tomorrow's strike action.Today's alterations from what I can see:
0933 Kings Cross - Harrogate cancelled
1003 Kings Cross - Leeds cancelled
1200 Kings Cross - Inverness terminating at Edinburgh
1400 Kings Cross - Aberdeen terminating at York
1530 Kings Cross - Glasgow terminating at Newcastle
1700 Kings Cross - Edinburgh terminating at Newcastle
1818 Kings Cross - Newcastle terminating at York
1903 Kings Cross - Leeds cancelled
2200 Kings Cross - Newcastle terminating at York
2300 Kings Cross - York terminating at Doncaster
No they are not. Not a single of the cancellations/alterations today are to do with tomorrows strike.Most of those are down to tomorrow's strike action.
No company will publicly announce the intricate details hence why just shortage of traincrew which it is.It would be good for LNER to be explicit about that, if that is the case, and let the public respond as they choose. They are a publicly owned company so transparency is important.
Yes, they are. The trains not serving destinations north of Edinburgh, or terminating short later in the day are doing so because of the strike.No they are not.
As I said all of todays alteration are nothing to do with the strike.Yes, they are. The trains not serving destinations north of Edinburgh, or terminating short later in the day are doing so because of the strike.
I’m not having ago, when I looked at it I thought it was aimed at todays on the day amendments.Yes, I simply posted those that were altered compared to the WTT, as I didn’t have time to look into the specifics of each alteration.
I didn’t think you were having a go I just wished to clarify my postI’m not having ago, when I looked at it I thought it was aimed at todays on the day amendments.
Anyone without an axe to grind would find it perfectly normal for staff of any company, in any industry, to turn up for work and do that for which they are paid. Which is, after all, what "working to rule" means.It would be good for LNER to be explicit about that, if that is the case, and let the public respond as they choose.
Anyone without an axe to grind would find it perfectly normal for staff of any company, in any industry, to turn up for work and do that for which they are paid. Which is, after all, what "working to rule" means.
Of course, there are those who will demand others (but not themselves, of course) should just donate their own free time as if they aren't entitled to it. If, when staff are doing what they are paid to do, all work is not covered, it can't be the staff to blame, we've already established they're working to [company] rule, after all.
It would be good for LNER to be explicit about that, if that is the case, and let the public respond as they choose.
This was the previous days 2205 from London to York which was 65 late at York. Was that due to the WSP fault and is this not usually a 91 set?1Y00 0440 York to Kings Cross (801210 WSP fault at York)
It is usually a Mark 4 set but was worked by 801210 last night. Not sure if this was pre planned or an on the day swap.This was the previous days 2205 from London to York which was 65 late at York. Was that due to the WSP fault and is this not usually a 91 set?
It is normally a mk4 but was an Azuma last night, delayed on 1N36 due to a brake fault, not sure if connected to this mornings fault.This was the previous days 2205 from London to York which was 65 late at York. Was that due to the WSP fault and is this not usually a 91 set?
2300 reinstated and running to York.23:00 Kings Cross - York now cancelled throughout instead of terminating at Doncaster.
There’s a cancellation to/from Lincoln now too but can’t remember which one(s)
I didn’t think you were having a go I just wished to clarify my post
I doesn't cover it well tbh if it is a staff absence that in non-dispute times would likely have been covered perfectly well.“Cancelled due to staff shortages” covers that perfectly well?
It isn’t as simple as just rearranging crews at the drop of a hat due to the need for breaks and impact on what’s happening for the rest of the their diagrams.
Are LNER allowing travel on other services with advance tickets for trains turning up as 5 vice 9/10 cars?Most trains are full leaving London, starting with the very first train.
Add in all these cancellations and amendments, well, I wouldn’t like to be attempting to travel on LNER.
If staff were being asked to work outside of their shift times for that day, that is clearly up to them whether to agree. However, if it is a change that would still keep the staff member within their shift hours and get them back to the same base at the end of their shift then that is surely just a kind of change that I or many others in multiple industries would consider to be one that an employer is perfectly entitled to make.If LNER were explicit, and said "staff are turning up and doing exactly what they are paid to do", which would be a factual statement, I suspect I know how the public would respond.
I'm sure this is what TUC means, he's surely not suggesting the company should misinform the public by suggesting people doing what they're contracted to are in some way letting the public down? I mean, that would be remarkably bizarre, and factually inaccurate, he'd not advocate that sort of dishonesty, would he?
It all depends on particular depots rostering agreements.If staff were being asked to work outside of their shift times for that day, that is clearly up to them whether to agree. However, if it is a change that would still keep the staff member within their shift hours and get them back to the same base at the end of their shift then that is surely just a kind of change that I or many others in multiple industries would consider to be one that an employer is perfectly entitled to make.
Doing so would be a very silly idea for the reason emboldened, but simply "staff shortages" would surely be an accurate enough reason without prompting attitudes of contempt for staff, as you said above.I wonder if that previous poster means that he thinks TOCs should be making explicit announcements to blame traincrew for trains not running, so putting all visible frontline staff at even more risk of abuse and assault than they normally face. That would be a pretty despicable viewpoint, so I imagine something else might have been intended.
This is poor treatment from LNER. Usually they're rather good at letting you use other services where expecting you to stick to the booked service is unreasonable..One customer who had an advance ticket from Darlington, was told on Twitter to stick to his booked service even though, at the time, it was running 105 late (1E03 from Stirling). Needless to say, he gave up and went home (hopefully with a fee-free refund!)
If LNER were explicit, and said "staff are turning up and doing exactly what they are paid to do", which would be a factual statement, I suspect I know how the public would respond.
I'm sure this is what TUC means, he's surely not suggesting the company should misinform the public by suggesting people doing what they're contracted to are in some way letting the public down? I mean, that would be remarkably bizarre, and factually inaccurate, he'd not advocate that sort of dishonesty, would he?
I doesn't cover it well tbh if it is a staff absence that in non-dispute times would likely have been covered perfectly well.
I recognise that it is not always simple or possible, but swops of crews or trainsets are part of everyday business,
If staff were being asked to work outside of their shift times for that day, that is clearly up to them whether to agree. However, if it is a change that would still keep the staff member within their shift hours and get them back to the same base at the end of their shift then that is surely just a kind of change that I or many others in multiple industries would consider to be one that an employer is perfectly entitled to make.
It would be good for LNER to be explicit about that, if that is the case, and let the public respond as they choose. They are a publicly owned company so transparency is important.
Doing so would be a very silly idea for the reason emboldened, but simply "staff shortages" would surely be an accurate enough reason without prompting attitudes of contempt for staff, as you said above.