New South Western franchise: Awarded to First/MTR

[TEW]

An oddly logical way to go about this would be to not allow any/all staff to book leave during such periods until the company was happy that there were enough staff to work a normal service - not possible to rely on staff doing overtime. Many would remove your hand when the offer came in, others would not.

It doesn't work like that. Each depot has a quota for the number of drivers and guards who can be on leave at one time. Provided there are not large number of vacancies, having that number of train crew on leave should not lead to any issues. Of course, in reality, there are normally vacancies, so if the full quota of staff are on leave, there may be shortages. People have a right to their holidays, and people need to know when they are going to have them in advance, so they can actually book holidays up. What you're proposing would mean people finding out 36 hours in advance.

 

[3141]

The direct quote is:

The Franchisee shall by no later than 1 February 201830 submit to the Secretary
of State a report setting out its view as to how the provision of passenger services
by both the Franchisee and other Train Operators can be optimised in relation to
each of the Specified Routes by reference to: (etc.)

I read that as SWR are to produce the report, but not be the operator of the services (although they could be).

Also for reference the routes listed are:

(a) Brighton - Exeter via Southampton and Salisbury;
(b) Portsmouth - Southampton – Bristol;
(c) Bristol – Yeovil/Weymouth;
(d) Southampton Airport – Salisbury – Swindon; and
(e) Reading – Guildford – Gatwick Airport (North Downs Line)

Some interesting reading for someone, I do wonder if it will be made public.

In relation to Portsmouth – Southampton – Bristol, there’s an interesting hint about what that might mean in the draft of Table 160 issued by SWR for their consultation last autumn on timetable changes for December 2018.

At present, there are four SWR trains on Mondays – Fridays that go to Bristol. In the draft timetable there are five. The additional one is the 16.25 from Waterloo, which would split at Salisbury, with one portion continuing to Exeter and the other to Bristol.

In the table below, the centre column is the proposed 16.25 from Waterloo, and the right-hand column is an existing GWR all-stations train from Warminster to Bristol TM.

Drat! There isn't a table below, because this website won't paste a table from Word. So to summarise:-

The Bristol portion from the proposed 16.25 from Waterloo will depart from Salisbury at 17.58, Warminster 18.18, arrive Westbury 18.26. depart 18.28, arrive Bristol TM 19.11.

The current all-stations GWR service departs Warminster 18.18, arrive Westbury 18.26, depart 18.38, arrive Bristol TM 19.29.

The proposed SWR service will do the journey more quickly because of the shorter wait at Westbury and having fewer stops.

It is unlikely that SWR would have proposed running in part of the path of an existing GWR train without consulting them about it (relatively easy to do as both TOCs are run by First). There must also be a draft GWR timetable which shows the changes proposed to the GWR service. It will be interesting to see whether the term "optimise" in the quotation above means a better service for passengers or the more economical use of resources.

 

[theironroad]

An oddly logical way to go about this would be to not allow any/all staff to book leave during such periods until the company was happy that there were enough staff to work a normal service - not possible to rely on staff doing overtime. Many would remove your hand when the offer came in, others would not.

Are you kidding? Stopping staff taking leave that may have been booked months in advance just because the company cannot recruit enough staff to cover. As TEW has already said there are only a limited amount of peopl e allowed leave any any one time. This figure varies on how big the depot is and is agreed via the collective bargaining agreement between the company and relevant union.

This is not the dock gate, where crew doff their hats to the foreman and beg for a day of leave entitlement.

Also plenty of drivers and guards get their leave request declined when the depot quota is exhausted.

 

[Wychwood93]

It doesn't work like that. Each depot has a quota for the number of drivers and guards who can be on leave at one time. Provided there are not large number of vacancies, having that number of train crew on leave should not lead to any issues. Of course, in reality, there are normally vacancies, so if the full quota of staff are on leave, there may be shortages. People have a right to their holidays, and people need to know when they are going to have them in advance, so they can actually book holidays up. What you're proposing would mean people finding out 36 hours in advance.

Point taken. However, what I was not suggesting was the 36 hours in advance bit. I would stand roughly behind my initial intent. Staff are indeed entitled to holidays etc. but the dinky print at the bottom probably states something along the line of 'subject to the requirements of the service'. I am sure that what we all want and, for the passenger, require, is that we do what is says on the tin. Do you ever find your local corner shop shut when it should be open? I doubt it. The railway needs to be the same.

 

[Wychwood93]

Are you kidding? Stopping staff taking leave that may have been booked months in advance just because the company cannot recruit enough staff to cover. As TEW has already said there are only a limited amount of peopl e allowed leave any any one time. This figure varies on how big the depot is and is agreed via the collective bargaining agreement between the company and relevant union.

This is not the dock gate, where crew doff their hats to the foreman and beg for a day of leave entitlement.

Also plenty of drivers and guards get their leave request declined when the depot quota is exhausted.

Calm down. My general comment would be to see the post I just posted - I am oddly aware that booked leave would be honoured, because it was already granted. It is more about managing matters to keep the customers happy and have a train there - if you are still on the railway then these are the people, along with the rest of us through subsidy, who pay the wages of the staff.

 

[Helvellyn]

Point taken. However, what I was not suggesting was the 36 hours in advance bit. I would stand roughly behind my initial intent. Staff are indeed entitled to holidays etc. but the dinky print at the bottom probably states something along the line of 'subject to the requirements of the service'. I am sure that what we all want and, for the passenger, require, is that we do what is says on the tin. Do you ever find your local corner shop shut when it should be open? I doubt it. The railway needs to be the same.

Nope, as has been said there is a quota based on the depot establishment. This is long standing contractual arrangements so can't just be ripped up. Also, it is actually something that makes sense because Drivers and Guards also have most of their leave allocated (block leave). It is not just book it when you want. For Guards five weeks are allocated (two Summer; one Autumn; one Winter; one Spring) and eight days to book ad hoc. There are limits on how many people can be allocated block leave and ad hoc requests then take it up to a depot limit. Things like sickness, vacancies, off track Guards/Drivers (can't do safety critical work), training, etc. can reduce the availability of staff. And it can be that there are spare Guards/Drivers but they are too far away from uncovered duties in the roster to be moved to them (e.g. Guards can only be moved two hours either way from a spare turn).

It is simply that school holidays are popular times for leave and all the factors above can combine to make rostering hard. Come back in April - start of the Guard leave year and hardly anyone is off.

 

[theironroad]

Calm down. My general comment would be to see the post I just posted - I am oddly aware that booked leave would be honoured, because it was already granted. It is more about managing matters to keep the customers happy and have a train there - if you are still on the railway then these are the people, along with the rest of us through subsidy, who pay the wages of the staff.

Cut out the patronising comments please.

Maybe you're deliberately trolling people, but if you think staff shouldn't be allowed leave because the customers won't be happy because the employer refuses to employ enough staff to run the timetable then you're sorely mistaken.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Drat! There isn't a table below, because this website won't paste a table from Word.

Take a screenshot of the table and post the screenshot...?

 

[700007]

In relation to Portsmouth – Southampton – Bristol, there’s an interesting hint about what that might mean in the draft of Table 160 issued by SWR for their consultation last autumn on timetable changes for December 2018.

At present, there are four SWR trains on Mondays – Fridays that go to Bristol. In the draft timetable there are five. The additional one is the 16.25 from Waterloo, which would split at Salisbury, with one portion continuing to Exeter and the other to Bristol.

In the table below, the centre column is the proposed 16.25 from Waterloo, and the right-hand column is an existing GWR all-stations train from Warminster to Bristol TM.

Drat! There isn't a table below, because this website won't paste a table from Word. So to summarise:-

The Bristol portion from the proposed 16.25 from Waterloo will depart from Salisbury at 17.58, Warminster 18.18, arrive Westbury 18.26. depart 18.28, arrive Bristol TM 19.11.

The current all-stations GWR service departs Warminster 18.18, arrive Westbury 18.26, depart 18.38, arrive Bristol TM 19.29.

The proposed SWR service will do the journey more quickly because of the shorter wait at Westbury and having fewer stops.

It is unlikely that SWR would have proposed running in part of the path of an existing GWR train without consulting them about it (relatively easy to do as both TOCs are run by First). There must also be a draft GWR timetable which shows the changes proposed to the GWR service. It will be interesting to see whether the term "optimise" in the quotation above means a better service for passengers or the more economical use of resources.

Part of it is also to do with better integration with GWR services, so SWR is working with GWR to have trains better spaced out, used more resourcefully to match demand and so on. SWR might 'take that journey' with GWR running later or deploying that train to work another duty.

The 1st Feb deadline has been pushed back for a while from what I've heard, so that front will remain quiet for a bit.

SWR is looking into further options in regards to the Bristol services on calling patterns and 'variations of routings' as part of this - whether these do get implemented or put onto the back burner, who knows.

 

[3141]

Take a screenshot of the table and post the screenshot...?

Thanks for that suggestion, Peter, but it's too late as I didn't save the document containing the table after I'd found I couldn't use it.

 

[swt_passenger]

Regarding the Southampton - Westbury corridor there's also this ongoing proposal about combining the GWR Swindon - Westbury and the SWR Salisbury Romsey into one through service. Supposed to be gaining support with the various local authorities on the route.

 

[3141]

Part of it is also to do with better integration with GWR services, so SWR is working with GWR to have trains better spaced out, used more resourcefully to match demand and so on. SWR might 'take that journey' with GWR running later or deploying that train to work another duty.

The 1st Feb deadline has been pushed back for a while from what I've heard, so that front will remain quiet for a bit.

SWR is looking into further options in regards to the Bristol services on calling patterns and 'variations of routings' as part of this - whether these do get implemented or put onto the back burner, who knows.

That's very interesting information - thank you. My particular concern about the 16.25 from Waterloo in the draft timetable is that it was going to omit stops at Overton and Grateley. The current 16.20 does stop at those stations. I wondered whether one reason for the proposed omissions was to help ensure that the train would leave Salisbury at the scheduled time. It would be most annoying if SWR were worsening the service for passengers in their core area for the benefit of passengers from Warminster westwards. I've been told (in a letter written from my MP) that SWR are reviewing the proposal and considering retaining those two stops. I hope they'll do the same for the 20.25 as well.

March is the month when SWR said they'd publish their new proposals, so I'm looking forward to seeing what they are.

 

[Muzer]

Wait, first class is becoming 2+2 on 444s? I was genuinely considering upgrading to a first class season. Definitely not now.

 

[TEW]

Wait, first class is becoming 2+2 on 444s? I was genuinely considering upgrading to a first class season. Definitely not now.

Yes, and the 158s and 159s eventually.

 

[Muzer]

Yes, and the 158s and 159s eventually.

That at least I can understand, since there aren't nearly enough 158s and 159s. Not sure why they have to do the 444s and 450s first since they're usually much less busy than the 158s/159s...

 

[theironroad]

That at least I can understand, since there aren't nearly enough 158s and 159s. Not sure why they have to do the 444s and 450s first since they're usually much less busy than the 158s/159s...

They're doing it as the size of the first class compartment is shrinking to allow more standard class seats to be put in the same coach. At a guess the coach is currently 1/3 standard and 2/3 first in terms of size. Again, guessing, but probably will be closer to 50/50. So to try to maintain the number of first seats they're going 2+2. Not sure if the seat size is shrinking at all or just a pretty narrow aisle. The seats are going to be some sort of leather texture/lookalike though apparently.

On peak services first is generally pretty full.

 

[superalbs]

They're doing it as the size of the first class compartment is shrinking to allow more standard class seats to be put in the same coach. At a guess the coach is currently 1/3 standard and 2/3 first in terms of size. Again, guessing, but probably will be closer to 50/50. So to try to maintain the number of first seats they're going 2+2. Not sure if the seat size is shrinking at all or just a pretty narrow aisle. The seats are going to be some sort of leather texture/lookalike though apparently.

On peak services first is generally pretty full.

The renders showed 2+2 FISA LEAN seats in First, which are most definitely thinner. Standard Class is keeping the Grammer E3000. I wonder if we'll have another odd case of Standard Class being better than First Class.

 

[theironroad]

The renders showed 2+2 FISA LEAN seats in First, which are most definitely thinner. Standard Class is keeping the Grammer E3000. I wonder if we'll have another odd case of Standard Class being better than First Class.

That's not so good. Do the fisa lean have individual arm rests between them or a shared one?

 

[superalbs]

That's not so good. Do the fisa lean have individual arm rests between them or a shared one?

Think the render showed shared, but it is a render so may be inaccurate.
https://southwesternrailway-newsroom.prgloo.com/resources/444-interior-1st-class

 

[Kite159]

That's very interesting information - thank you. My particular concern about the 16.25 from Waterloo in the draft timetable is that it was going to omit stops at Overton and Grateley. The current 16.20 does stop at those stations. I wondered whether one reason for the proposed omissions was to help ensure that the train would leave Salisbury at the scheduled time. It would be most annoying if SWR were worsening the service for passengers in their core area for the benefit of passengers from Warminster westwards. I've been told (in a letter written from my MP) that SWR are reviewing the proposal and considering retaining those two stops. I hope they'll do the same for the 20.25 as well.

March is the month when SWR said they'd publish their new proposals, so I'm looking forward to seeing what they are.

I noticed those two seemingly odd services which called at Whitchurch & Andover only [between Basingstoke & Salisbury] (I think the other one was later on around 21:00).

Fingers crossed for a hourly Sunday service though

 

[theironroad]

Think the render showed shared, but it is a render so may be inaccurate.
https://southwesternrailway-newsroom.prgloo.com/resources/444-interior-1st-class

Definitely looks like a downgrade. Is there a public link to other images of the other changes being made?

 

[700007]

Regarding the Southampton - Westbury corridor there's also this ongoing proposal about combining the GWR Swindon - Westbury and the SWR Salisbury Romsey into one through service. Supposed to be gaining support with the various local authorities on the route.

Indeed, it's part of a wider project called 'TransWilts' - which is why one of the routes the DfT wants SWR to look into is Swindon - Westbury - Southampton. I think SWR is to operate the service using 158s, with the aim of having Romsey, Dean and Mottisfont stations transferred under their management as well.

It's essentially going to start either December or early next year apparently, from somewhere in or near Southampton (i.e. Romsey), go via the Airport, come up to Salisbury, Westbury, Melksham and then terminate in the bay at Swindon once every two hours (although a once an hour service will continue to operate Southampton - Salisbury). Then progressively in one of the following timetable changes, it will become a standard hourly service all the way to Swindon once passenger numbers begin to drum up.

It will require about 5 trains for a full hourly service all the way to Swindon. The arrangement on the Southampton end is still to be confirmed as there's a few questions that have been raised in regards to reliability and punctuality of the line if it continues to terminate at Romsey (with only 4 minutes turnaround time, that's all you get after a 120 or so minute journey). The smallest delay could somewhat impact the following journey.

I've been an advocate to have it start at Southampton Central and work it's way round Chandler's Ford and then go onto Salisbury / Swindon. It's more practical to work the line this way. However Millbrook and Redbridge obviously lose out on this, so to compensate, have a stopping Desiro service make additional calls there (either the one from Portsmouth - Weymouth or the proposed London Waterloo - Southampton service then extended to Brockenhurst also calling at Totton). The latter option to London Waterloo is the better one as the two stations will continue to hold a direct link all stations up to Eastleigh (which is useful for the Airport access too).

That's very interesting information - thank you. My particular concern about the 16.25 from Waterloo in the draft timetable is that it was going to omit stops at Overton and Grateley. The current 16.20 does stop at those stations. I wondered whether one reason for the proposed omissions was to help ensure that the train would leave Salisbury at the scheduled time. It would be most annoying if SWR were worsening the service for passengers in their core area for the benefit of passengers from Warminster westwards. I've been told (in a letter written from my MP) that SWR are reviewing the proposal and considering retaining those two stops. I hope they'll do the same for the 20.25 as well.

March is the month when SWR said they'd publish their new proposals, so I'm looking forward to seeing what they are.

No worries. A lot of things have been mentioned in regards to the table 160 services (West of England), particularly around stops between London and Salisbury. Campaigning from an MP has potentially resulted in all Exeter services calling at Clapham Junction, and omitting Woking. For the smaller stations between Basingstoke and Salisbury, it has also resulted in slightly less trains in the peak hours which wasn't obviously welcomed either, such as the example you mentioned. The following trains after that all do call at Overton and Grateley providing a half-hourly service. Oddly Whitchurch gets the call on the 1625, though.

The Sunday service, as part of the franchise commitment, should hopefully go up at these stations as well.

 

[superalbs]

Definitely looks like a downgrade. Is there a public link to other images of the other changes being made?

This link has all the information.
https://southwesternrailway-newsroo...nts-siemens-for-train-refurbishment-programme

Note that the Class 444 Standard Class image is wrong.

 

[theironroad]

This link has all the information.
https://southwesternrailway-newsroo...nts-siemens-for-train-refurbishment-programme

Note that the Class 444 Standard Class image is wrong.

Thanks.

 

[infobleep]

Probably outstanding leave for Drivers needs to be used up by the end of April. Across all the depots max leave quotar may have been reached, add in sickness and not enough rest day workers volunteering on certain days leads to driver shortage.

Which running a train without a guard won't resolve .

 

[infobleep]

They're doing it as the size of the first class compartment is shrinking to allow more standard class seats to be put in the same coach. At a guess the coach is currently 1/3 standard and 2/3 first in terms of size. Again, guessing, but probably will be closer to 50/50. So to try to maintain the number of first seats they're going 2+2. Not sure if the seat size is shrinking at all or just a pretty narrow aisle. The seats are going to be some sort of leather texture/lookalike though apparently.

On peak services first is generally pretty full.

Of first class is alreasy pretty full, will be get the situation whereby there are not enough first class seats and first class pass3mgers have to stand in first class or actually sit in standard class / stand in standard class?

 

[WrongRoad]

Which running a train without a guard won't resolve .

Totally agree

 

[3141]

No worries. A lot of things have been mentioned in regards to the table 160 services (West of England), particularly around stops between London and Salisbury. Campaigning from an MP has potentially resulted in all Exeter services calling at Clapham Junction, and omitting Woking. For the smaller stations between Basingstoke and Salisbury, it has also resulted in slightly less trains in the peak hours which wasn't obviously welcomed either, such as the example you mentioned. The following trains after that all do call at Overton and Grateley providing a half-hourly service. Oddly Whitchurch gets the call on the 1625, though.

The Sunday service, as part of the franchise commitment, should hopefully go up at these stations as well.

If that's the final version, there will be many complaints. Currently, after 1600 - when I guess the peak begins, since that's the point at which the Super Off-Peak Return stops being valid - there are nine trains that stop at Overton and Grateley: Waterloo departures from 1620 to 2020 inclusive. Thereafter it's an hourly service on the route. In the draft timetable, there were seven: 1655 to 1955 inclusive. The next one would be 2055. This represents a substantial worsening of the service, and having a more frequent service on Sundays doesn't compensate for it. I don't know how many alight from the 1620 at Grateley, but it's anything between 15 and 30 at Overton. So all those people will be adding to the new 1655.

The proposals did include a half-hourly service throughout the evening, but still only hourly to Overton and Grateley, and the later evening clientele is obviously different from the people travelling out of London at 1620 or 1625.

 

[BestWestern]

Apologies if it's here somewhere, but for those who missed it at the time is there a link anywhere to whatever the new timetable proposals were, assuming anything was published?

 

[3141]

Apologies if it's here somewhere, but for those who missed it at the time is there a link anywhere to whatever the new timetable proposals were, assuming anything was published?

It's here somewhere, and it was a link to the timetable consultation on the SWR website last autumn. But when I looked there a few days ago all I could find was a statement thanking those who responded and saying they were looking at what had been said. It makes sense that, now that the consultation is over, the documents that formed the basis of it are now longer there. But I do have downloaded copies of some of the draft timetables, and I expect some others do too.