Station was very busy though not full, loads of police, no ketteling of passengers however. I noticed the Crowborough train was only 2 coaches too!
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
London Bridge - new timetable during reconstruction works commencing 5th January 2015
- Thread starter TimG
- Start date
- Status
Station was very busy though not full, loads of police, no ketteling of passengers however. I noticed the Crowborough train was only 2 coaches too!
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
southern442
Established Member
I saw in the Standard yesterday that Southern had been 'given' three months to improve services or be stripped of 'its franchise'. This confused me for several reasons.
First, Southern is just a brand, not a franchise. This is like saying that 'if the Highland Chieftain didn't run to Inverness on time, it will be stripped of its franchise', would it not? Secondly, in the (now I realize very poorly written) article, the only mention of GTR was that it 'owned the Southern franchise'. If this hypothetical situation were to happen, would the whole franchise be discontinued or just the Southern routes (If it was the latter, this would do nothing), and who decides what routes the Southern ones are?
Also as a side, if it were to happen, the Southern routes would be operated 'directly by the government' presumably DOR. When people see how good they are, some other MP's etc (like those on the Southeastern side) will want their line nationalised. This will annoy the Tories and make lefty Corbynites such as my good self happy
is this really what they want to be doing?
First, Southern is just a brand, not a franchise. This is like saying that 'if the Highland Chieftain didn't run to Inverness on time, it will be stripped of its franchise', would it not? Secondly, in the (now I realize very poorly written) article, the only mention of GTR was that it 'owned the Southern franchise'. If this hypothetical situation were to happen, would the whole franchise be discontinued or just the Southern routes (If it was the latter, this would do nothing), and who decides what routes the Southern ones are?
Also as a side, if it were to happen, the Southern routes would be operated 'directly by the government' presumably DOR. When people see how good they are, some other MP's etc (like those on the Southeastern side) will want their line nationalised. This will annoy the Tories and make lefty Corbynites such as my good self happy
is this really what they want to be doing?I saw in the Standard yesterday that Southern had been 'given' three months to improve services or be stripped of 'its franchise'. This confused me for several reasons.
First, Southern is just a brand, not a franchise. This is like saying that 'if the Highland Chieftain didn't run to Inverness on time, it will be stripped of its franchise', would it not? Secondly, in the (now I realize very poorly written) article, the only mention of GTR was that it 'owned the Southern franchise'. If this hypothetical situation were to happen, would the whole franchise be discontinued or just the Southern routes (If it was the latter, this would do nothing), and who decides what routes the Southern ones are?
Also as a side, if it were to happen, the Southern routes would be operated 'directly by the government' presumably DOR. When people see how good they are, some other MP's etc (like those on the Southeastern side) will want their line nationalised. This will annoy the Tories and make lefty Corbynites such as my good self happy
It would be the franchise, so all of GTR. There is no provision to take part of a franchise back, it's all or nothing.
Of course if it did happen, the only difference would be that a few people at the top would go, everyone else would be the same. And instead of GTR losing money, the DfT would, which wouldn't be popular with the Treasury. And if anything went wrong, either with the service day to day, or any major projects being implemented like, say, the largest ever new fleet of trains, or the first ever introduction of Automatic Train Operation on the national rail network, the DfT would have no one to blame, which wouldn't be popular with the SoS Transport.
So what do you think?
Tbh I don't see it happening. The only franchises which have ever been removed have been related money connex and east coast for example.
FCC never lost their franchise and I think things were worse under them and they had many MP 'warnings' but because it was not about money it was not stripped from them.
Also worth bearing in mind that GTR are under contract with DfT to do hundreds and hundreds of specific improvements, almost all of which they are achieving AIUI.
However GTR are not under contract to achieve any specific level of punctuality at franchise or route level.
All DfT can call them on is self caused cancellations which as is widely reported has been largely caused by train crew availability. But then DfT would have to take a long look at itself as to how and why this happened, as it certainly didn't suddenly become an issue when GTR took over.
All will be revealed in my book, publication sometime before 2035 (the year, not just after half eight).
However GTR are not under contract to achieve any specific level of punctuality at franchise or route level.
All DfT can call them on is self caused cancellations which as is widely reported has been largely caused by train crew availability. But then DfT would have to take a long look at itself as to how and why this happened, as it certainly didn't suddenly become an issue when GTR took over.
All will be revealed in my book, publication sometime before 2035 (the year, not just after half eight).
You said in the your previous post that the dft would loose money terminating GTR I am not sure how, would that be because of a penalty they would have to pay?
Surely they would have money as it would same operation minus the profit GTR makes?
That assumes GTR are making a profit...
southern442
Established Member
As it's been said, I don't think the DfT will be ecstatic about the idea. If it did happen, then we could presumably expect a much better service, echoing the situation with East Coast. It might then start another push for privatization, which won't please the DfT. There is the possibility that is will scare GTR into putting their heads together and sorting the mess out, and that could lead to some good results. Back when I used to live in South London 5 or so years ago, I never remember having any regular problems, just the occasional thing.
GTR has made a loss
Quote
"Under its new direct award contract, Southeastern delivered a strong financial performance in the year to 27 June 2015, with an increase in revenue of 8.5% year on
year. This strong performance more than offset the weakness in GTR, which reported a loss in the year due to additional costs incurred as it sought to rectify the
issues at the beginning of the contract in September 2014. These issues were quickly identified by GTR’s management team and improvement plans were put in place.
Investment has been made in temporary rolling stock and permanent drivers, with the largest ever driver training programme in the UK currently underway"
Source (page 6)
http://www.go-ahead.com/content/dam...2015/Full year results press release 2015.pdf
Quote
"Under its new direct award contract, Southeastern delivered a strong financial performance in the year to 27 June 2015, with an increase in revenue of 8.5% year on
year. This strong performance more than offset the weakness in GTR, which reported a loss in the year due to additional costs incurred as it sought to rectify the
issues at the beginning of the contract in September 2014. These issues were quickly identified by GTR’s management team and improvement plans were put in place.
Investment has been made in temporary rolling stock and permanent drivers, with the largest ever driver training programme in the UK currently underway"
Source (page 6)
http://www.go-ahead.com/content/dam...2015/Full year results press release 2015.pdf
Last edited:
southern442
Established Member
What actually happened with regards to the driver shortage? There were a few weeks where it was absolute mayhem due to this shortage of drivers but it seems to have gone away again.
Agreed, I moved to Forest Hill in 2009 and had a good few years with barely an issue. I think I remember from earlier last year someone posting that the reduction in platforms and the need for precise minute accuracy exposed that Southern's entire operation was a previously hidden house of cards.
Lutherans improvement plan update published in December did have some figures on drivers and the numbers trained, but it's now been replaced by the January version which isn't as detailed.
My suspicion is that, as we know, Southern rely on rest day working. In the run up to Christmas the crews don't want to work their rest days and want to rest and relax, shop etc like the rest of us. You therefore get severe crew shortages in December. Southern did additionally blame training requirements due to need to train crew on new trains.
At Southern, Drivers Annual Leave year runs from 1st January, the issue in December is drivers using up what is left of their leave combined with a lower chance of getting cover as a) it's December when drivers have other things to do in the run up to Christmas, and b) with other drivers on leave there are fewer to ask.
The annual leave clock resets on 1st January, and the problem reduces significantly. On top of that the Christmas bills start coming in, and suddenly overtime looks more attractive...
It's been the same for years, not just the last two. And not just Southern.
Indeed and they get away with it every year with no punishment with the same excuses.
Oh it costs them cash, penalties to the DfT and NR for every cancellation.
What has changed is that drivers are becoming less willing to work overtime. But let's not go down that road, it has been discussed repeatedly on this forum elsewhere.
southern442
Established Member
So it was just pure bad luck that there were too many drivers away? Perhaps a case of 'The wrong kind of Christmas'
Always the way, not much rostered leave in January so train crew availability is much better plus as you say the Christmas bills start coming in.
When I was rostering January by far was the easiest month to cover work.
One solution is to have annual leave start from the day you joined and not 1st January. That is how it works where I'm employed. It means you don't have everyone using up annual leave at once. What's the downside of that?
The AL leave system is a pain. It gets to December, you have two days left to take, and the sheets are full. Its a use it or loose it system. Even just letting us carry them into Jan, or perhaps feb might ease the situation a bit more.
My first thought is tracking each employee.
That's what HR IT systems are for. It is more complicated but better than everyone needing annual leave at once with no space.
What happen if there is no space. Do Tey have to grant all of the holiday even though no space exists?
It's needless complication for little gain.
If my leave year starts in June and Jim's starts in January there is little difference. Both of us still want summer off and both of us still want Christmas off.
With a depot of 100 and each one needing 28 days leave you can begin to understand how leave can have an impact. It is difficult already to get leave agreed within the leave year so you do often carry days over. Even then it is a handful of people with a handful of days.
Rostering is already complex. The basic systems need to be as simple as possible.
If my leave year starts in June and Jim's starts in January there is little difference. Both of us still want summer off and both of us still want Christmas off.
With a depot of 100 and each one needing 28 days leave you can begin to understand how leave can have an impact. It is difficult already to get leave agreed within the leave year so you do often carry days over. Even then it is a handful of people with a handful of days.
Rostering is already complex. The basic systems need to be as simple as possible.
I guess it's less of a problem where I work because it's more office based.
I honestly don't think I have been in a job where annual leave hasn't caused some sort of issue.
The idea is laudable but falls flat when you scale up or have other complicated rostering issues. It's just as bad when you scale down and small businesses and places where you have a minimal employee base leave is again an issue.
Industries like the railway suffer because the workload cannot be shifted. There isn't anyone else to do the work (many issues here) and it cannot be deferred till later. If I'm honest I do not see any real solutions. Anything worth suggesting brings in more complications and often an increase in costs.
Just to keep your mind ticking. Another complication is what shift you take your leave on. I generally take my adhoc leave on late shifts or before/after my long weekends. We have a 24/7 work environment so there is a lot of operational time to cover.
I don't really have any right to comment on an office based job because it isn't something I have ever done but where I have worked (and done the rostering for) where it's been 9-5 / monday to friday it has certainly been easier to manage staffing.
One employer I know moved their leave year so it ends in the month of your birthday to stop the issue of everyone desperately taking leave at end of holiday year. For a large organisation it shouldn't matter what leave year system you use because you will have the IT and staff to manage it.
A change away from all staff having the same leave year is the only way to stop an issue of everyone taking remaining leave at the end of the year, well unless you move to a system like my wifes whereby you book your leave at the beginning of the year, and if you are lucky you get what you asked for, if you are unlucky you get something else! Invariably she actually gets a mixture, some of what she wanted but not all of it.
A change away from all staff having the same leave year is the only way to stop an issue of everyone taking remaining leave at the end of the year, well unless you move to a system like my wifes whereby you book your leave at the beginning of the year, and if you are lucky you get what you asked for, if you are unlucky you get something else! Invariably she actually gets a mixture, some of what she wanted but not all of it.
southern442
Established Member
could you potentially have part-time (either junior or semi-retired) drivers covering for the main pool at these times of the year?
- Status