Northern cancellations, Friday 24th May '24

[richfoz84]

That is not breach of agreements territory and is conveniently subjective. Sounds like Primary school stuff. Got to be more than that.

They’ve declined to publish more than this about the “issues” they’re in dispute over. I guess they can’t or won’t publish specific facts over staff treatment, but they believe punishment of staff for whatever the reason, has been unjust and unfair, by senior managers, on multiple occasions.

 

[HullRailMan]

But Burnham et al told us all Northern’s problems were down to the evil Arriva and state control would fix everything - who knew politicians could be so wrong?

Mayors call for Northern franchise to be terminated

Mayors Andy Burnham and Steve Rotheram made the call 12 months from last May’s rail timetable chaos

www.greatermanchester-ca.gov.uk

 

[Confused52]

They’ve declined to publish more than this about the “issues” they’re in dispute over. I guess they can’t or won’t publish specific facts over staff treatment, but they believe punishment of staff for whatever the reason, has been unjust and unfair, by senior managers, on multiple occasions.

They may well have a point but we are always expected to believe one side of the dispute with nothing to balance it. In other spheres lack of specifics leads to doubt of the significance of what is claimed.

 

[Geeves]

I think your "nothing is going to change in the current climate" is going to be overtaken by events, which mean that any such change is likely to take longer to implement than the resolution of the underlying dispute.

What events would those be unless you can see fire and rehire on the horizon I cannot see anyone budging

 

[Lewisham2221]

The reality is that as the service still relies on overtime, and they have decided to withdraw that support. Their change in personal choice, though lawful has the effect of seriously impairing service. Given that choice and that maintaining the service to the public is not what now motivates them, perhaps it would be better for all concerned if they sought employment elsewhere not on the railway. The public will understand their decision and their ire can be directed at the true cause of the inevitable reduction in service. The public will only be continuing to suffer for the convenience of those that make that choice, so nothing will have changed!

So you think all the drivers who do not wish to work their rest days (the clue is in the name ) should leave and get another job? Brilliant. Now there's nobody to drive the trains on the other 4 days of the week either.

 

[ComUtoR]

The reality is that as the service still relies on overtime, and they have decided to withdraw that support. Their change in personal choice, though lawful has the effect of seriously impairing service. Given that choice and that maintaining the service to the public is not what now motivates them, perhaps it would be better for all concerned if they sought employment elsewhere not on the railway. The public will understand their decision and their ire can be directed at the true cause of the inevitable reduction in service. The public will only be continuing to suffer for the convenience of those that make that choice, so nothing will have changed!

So the employee who is giving 100% should seek work elsewhere because 100% is not enough and its their fault ?

 

[Carlisle]

That is not breach of agreements territory and is conveniently subjective. Sounds like Primary school stuff. Got to be more than that.

Essentially it illustrates the fragility of the whole set up operating the railway, ie rightly or wrongly it’s pretty easy to declare a dispute leading to industrial action over virtually anything you choose provided it meets ballot thresholds.

 

[Confused52]

So the employee who is giving 100% should seek work elsewhere because 100% is not enough and its their fault ?

That is a mischaracterisation, if the industry needs people who are prepared to do ongoing overtime and members of staff are not prepared to do overtime then in is probably best for their health to leave. The attitude in your comment suggests that in order to fit their preferences the industry must change to not need overtime. Whilst understanding that is what you believe is fair, life does not always allow such fairness to be afforded.

 

[12LDA28C]

The reality is that as the service still relies on overtime, and they have decided to withdraw that support. Their change in personal choice, though lawful has the effect of seriously impairing service. Given that choice and that maintaining the service to the public is not what now motivates them, perhaps it would be better for all concerned if they sought employment elsewhere not on the railway. The public will understand their decision and their ire can be directed at the true cause of the inevitable reduction in service. The public will only be continuing to suffer for the convenience of those that make that choice, so nothing will have changed!

If you seriously believe that train drivers work their Rest Days so that a better service is provided for passengers then I'm afraid I've got some bad news for you. They don't. Suggesting that drivers choosing not to work during their rostered time off should leave the industry is laughable.

Maybe you should direct your ire at the people responsible for the situation which has resulted in an entire industry (as Northern are certainly not unique in this respect) relying on staff working overtime in order to provide the advertised service.

 

[ComUtoR]

That is a mischaracterisation, if the industry needs people who are prepared to do ongoing overtime and members of staff are not prepared to do overtime then in is probably best for their health to leave.

So you must be prepared to work extra or leave ?

The attitude in your comment suggests that in order to fit their preferences the industry must change to not need overtime.

It isn't a preference to do your job 100% That's what is required of the employee. Why should anyone be required to do extra or quit ? An yes, the industry must change. Reliance on overtime is a fools errand and clearly not working. I assume that you believe that the industry should rely on overtime and that this current state of affairs is acceptable ?

Whilst understanding that is what you believe is fair, life does not always allow such fairness to be afforded.

Life isn't always fair. I totally agree. You are welcome to take your custom elsewhere. As everyone seems to say, the car is always an option. The Law is also an Ass and legally I do not have to work. Maybe the law should be changed to say that everyone should work 3 days overtime a week or the employer can sack them.

 

[12LDA28C]

That is a mischaracterisation, if the industry needs people who are prepared to do ongoing overtime and members of staff are not prepared to do overtime then in is probably best for their health to leave. The attitude in your comment suggests that in order to fit their preferences the industry must change to not need overtime. Whilst understanding that is what you believe is fair, life does not always allow such fairness to be afforded.

So you think the current state of affairs, where less drivers are employed than are required to run the advertised service is adequate and not in need of change? Right.

 

[Confused52]

So you think the current state of affairs, where less drivers are employed than are required to run the advertised service is adequate and not in need of change? Right.

No, I said that the service should be decreased to take account of those that leave, but implied that those left should make sure that the service actually does run. Wanting the service to exist and run the timetable is not an unreasonable thing for passengers to do. The service is not just there for the staff to play power games with.

 

[ComUtoR]

No, I said that the service should be decreased to take account of those that leave

Reducing the service to the correct level for the number of staff I 100% agree with. I believe some TOC's did that with a change to the timetable.

, but implied that those left should make sure that the service actually does run.

By working what is required, it would.

Wanting the service to exist and run the timetable is not an unreasonable thing for passengers to do.

Wanting to come to work and do just that; work. Is something employees want.

The service is not just there for the staff to play power games with.

Doing your job to the letter is not a power game. How difficult is it to understand that people have a life outside work with various commitments. I myself, have two children to look after. I also have an ageing Mother who continually requires my help and support. My family comes first. I don't work rest days to play games. I am not required to and neither do I want to sacrifice my family to do so.

 

[Carlisle]

So you must be prepared to work extra or leave ?

No I suspect they’re just wanting the Railway to be similar to most other industries where those who like overtime are free to work it whilst those who don’t, do little or none of it.

 

[12LDA28C]

No I suspect they’re just wanting the Railway to be similar to most other industries where those who like overtime are free to work it whilst those who don’t, do little or none of it.

And that's exactly how the railway operates most of the time, although there is a certain amount of goodwill / give and take necessary on both sides for that arrangement to work satisfactorily. It's hardly surprising then, if management don't stick to their side of the bargain that drivers are rather less willing to do the same.

 

[muz379]

but implied that those left should make sure that the service actually does run.

That isn't really a drivers job , their job is to come to work and drive the trains they are rostered to , to the places they are supposed to go .

Organising the service patterns, planning resourcing ,and all the other stuff that goes into actually making a service run is what the management of the train operating companies should be doing .

If the planned service pattern cannot be reliably delivered with the planned resources maybe the management need to be the ones the ire is directed at .

 

[dk1]

That isn't really a drivers job , their job is to come to work and drive the trains they are rostered to , to the places they are supposed to go .

Organising the service patterns, planning resourcing ,and all the other stuff that goes into actually making a service run is what the management of the train operating companies should be doing .

If the planned service pattern cannot be reliably delivered with the planned resources maybe the management need to be the ones the ire is directed at .

Exactly this. My job as a train driver expects me to adhere to my booked roster, nothing more nothing less hours wise.

 

[Confused52]

That isn't really a drivers job , their job is to come to work and drive the trains they are rostered to , to the places they are supposed to go .

Organising the service patterns, planning resourcing ,and all the other stuff that goes into actually making a service run is what the management of the train operating companies should be doing .

If the planned service pattern cannot be reliably delivered with the planned resources maybe the management need to be the ones the ire is directed at .

So the person who said that recently ASLEF members do the rosters was incorrect? That would help resolution of the current dispute since one of the requests from the RDG was that the management compile the rosters and the union members implement them. It seems strange that a point of disagreement should concern current practice but what do I know? Thanks for the good news.

 

[muz379]

So the person who said that recently ASLEF members do the rosters was incorrect? That would help resolution of the current dispute since one of the requests from the RDG was that the management compile the rosters and the union members implement them. It seems strange that a point of disagreement should concern current practice but what do I know? Thanks for the good news.

I think you have fundamentally misunderstood what was meant by that comment .

Base rosters (aka links) are a negotiable item as part of the collective bargaining agreement at most (if not all) TOC's. So the reps have input into the base roster , but also ultimately with it being a negotiable item it can only be implemented by agreement with the management as well .

. They also check the diagrams that form that base roster for legality , and depending on how cordial relationships are between reps and train planning / management they can also propose minor changes to diagrams as well . But ultimately the design of diagrams is undertaken by train planning as directed by the management of the train operating company . And the links as above can only be made up of those diagrams .

But the whole point of a base roster is it gives everyone a clear understanding of the resources required to operate the timetable .

If the timetable cannot be run reliably then the issue lies in the depost establishment or complement , any route knowledge deficits , the allocation of work between depots . These are factors the company ultimately controls .

If there is a driver that has a huge route knowledge deficit , lets say because they have transferred depots , its not the unions job to arrange for that driver to be released to learn the new routes at the new depot

If the company allocates 20 trips over one route to one depot and only 5 to another meaning drivers at the second depot lose or struggle to maintain competency over that route how can the union be blamed for that ? . In my experience in fact its quite often the union that fights to have work more equitably distributed to avoid these issues .

If there isn't enough spare coverage built into the base roster for the timetable to be reliably provided against the average levels of sickeness, annual leave and release from duty for other matters that really is not the unions fault the establishment figure needs looking at .

 

[dk1]

I think you have fundamentally misunderstood what was meant by that comment .

Base rosters (aka links) are a negotiable item as part of the collective bargaining agreement at most (if not all) TOC's. So the reps have input into the base roster , but also ultimately with it being a negotiable item it can only be implemented by agreement with the management as well .

. They also check the diagrams that form that base roster for legality , and depending on how cordial relationships are between reps and train planning / management can propose minor changes to diagrams as well . But ultimately the design of diagrams is undertaken by train planning as directed by the management of the train operating company .

But the whole point of a base roster is it gives everyone a clear understanding of the resources required to operate the timetable .

If the timetable cannot be run reliably then the issue lies in the depost establishment or complement , any route knowledge deficits , the allocation of work between depots . These are factors the company ultimately controls .

If there is a driver that has a huge route knowledge deficit , lets say because they have transferred depots , its not the unions job to arrange for that driver to be released to learn the new routes at the new depot

If the company allocates 20 trips over one route to one depot and only 5 to another meaning drivers at the second depot lose or struggle to maintain competency over that route how can the union be blamed for that ? . In my experience in fact its quite often the union that fights to have work more equitably distributed to avoid these issues .

If there isn't enough spare coverage built into the base roster for the timetable to be reliably provided against the average levels of sickeness, annual leave and release from duty for other matters that really is not the unions fault the establishment figure needs looking at .

You have explained that extremely well mate.

 

[skyhigh]

but implied that those left should make sure that the service actually does run

So say 10% of drivers at one depot retire, but the TOC decided to reduce the number of timetabled services/diagrams by 5% - the staff should then be compelled to work additional overtime to make up for the company's staffing plan?

 

[Starmill]

Essentially it illustrates the fragility of the whole set up operating the railway, ie rightly or wrongly it’s pretty easy to declare a dispute leading to industrial action over virtually anything you choose provided it meets ballot thresholds.

The contrasting Transport for Wales approach has been shown to relatively solid in terms of running the best available services on Sundays and at popular holiday weekends etc. They're also the only large operator in Great Britain who've had no serious disruption due to their own staff taking industrial action.

 

[TUC]

So say 10% of drivers at one depot retire, but the TOC decided to reduce the number of timetabled services/diagrams by 5% - the staff should then be compelled to work additional overtime to make up for the company's staffing plan?

No, but many more additional staff on flexible hours contracts would address the issue without affecting existing staff's terms and conditions. I recognise the training costs, but in terms of giving a way forward it would be worth it.

 

[muz379]

The contrasting Transport for Wales approach has been shown to relatively solid in terms of running the best available services on Sundays and at popular holiday weekends etc. They're also the only large operator in Great Britain who've had no serious disruption due to their own staff taking industrial action.

Bringing sundays inside the working week is seemingly beyond the imagination of the key protagonists at the DFT , or is beyond the spending power of the treasury .

 

[43066]

What are these breaches of agreements with ASLEF? They must be very serious and therefore worth telling us all about if they are sufficiently bad to justify what is being clearly implied as deliberate disruption to services.

So long as the membership is happy, there’s no requirement to justify it to anyone. The fact you’ve chosen to focus on the union’s response, while casually dismissing the issues giving rise to it, rather suggests you have an axe to grind.

No I suspect they’re just wanting the Railway to be similar to most other industries where those who like overtime are free to work it whilst those who don’t, do little or none of it.

What you’ve described above is exactly how the railway generally operates.

No, but many more additional staff on flexible hours contracts would address the issue without affecting existing staff's terms and conditions. I recognise the training costs, but in terms of giving a way forward it would be worth it.

This comment shows how little you understand the situation. It’s somewhat hilarious to suggest that drivers don’t work flexibly already, working rotating shifts of earlies, lates and nights! It costs circa. £100k to train a driver up, so no, it wouldn’t be considered “worth it” to train up many more additional staff, it would also take a long time.

The much more obvious way forward here, as noted above, is simply for Northern to manage its industrial relations rather better. It really isn’t that difficult and most other operators manage it. Things won’t improve until that happens; it really is that simple!

 

[TUC]

This comment shows how little you understand the situation. It’s somewhat hilarious to suggest that drivers don’t work flexibly already, working rotating shifts of earlies, lates and nights! It costs circa. £100k to train a driver up, so no, it wouldn’t be considered “worth it” to train up many more additional staff, it would also take a long time.

The much more obvious way forward here, as noted above, is simply for Northern to manage its industrial relations rather better. It really isn’t that difficult and most other operators manage it. Things won’t improve until that happens; it really is that simple!

On the hand it is being argued that all that is happening is drivers choosing not to work on their days off. On the other hand you are arguing that all that is needed is for Northern to manage industrial relations better, which presumably implies drivers then being more willing to work on their days off.

That's one solution, but it's just as much a legitimate solution to say 'yes, you deserve your days off, so we won't ask you to work them. We'll hire other staff who can flexibly cover those other shifts'.

 

[Bantamzen]

The general public expects a service as set out in the timetable - except a large number are finding that's not what they'll get. Final position was 5 hourly return services missing yesterday on the Hope Valley line 3 in a row in the late afternoon (a very long gap) and the final 2 of the day. I note from X comments that other lines had similar problems.

Those of us trying to encourage greater use of the railway are driven to despair. There's no point pouring more money into new rolling stock, electrification, improved infrastructure and reopened lines if trains can't run reliably all and every day. They're shunned.

I suspect most forum members are car drivers and can see very clearly the public's preference for the flexibility of road transport. Recently over 400 men a day were working to improve the railway near me. They'd all got there by road - no alternative.

So why is so much self inflicted deterrence to travel considered the industry norm? I know, it's been the same for generations. It's likely to continue.

I also know that I face any railway journey with trepidation. Will I get there? Will I be able to get back? If you live in Edale you'll carry on using the 4x4 and ignore the train. Visitors yesterday just had to walk or cadge a lift!

I don't drive, but in recent years have had to adapt my travels to reduce my dependence on rail. Its quite simply a reality for the travelling public that the railways are not going to meet their needs as much as they perhaps once used to. For me personally the advent of the £2 capped bus fairs means more local journeys are made by bus, even when the service is "normal", for UK longer trips such as football away days local supporter group buses are now the default, and holidays / travelling I plan to fly wherever possible or just avoid trips that require dependence on rail with no alternatives.

And as long as the railways are financed through the Treasury the problems will continue to get worse. Under private ownership, TOCs had more incentive to settle disputes because of both pressure from investors / shareholders for returns, and having the ability to simply shift additional costs back to the passengers. However under public ownership, the incentives are lessened because there are no investors / shareholders to appease, but there are additional pressures to cut costs and deliver value for money to the taxpayers, as well of course as competing with all other publicly funded areas for limited resources. Every single year publicly funded bodies jostle for their cut, and every single year many get less than they need to settle disputes like this.

 

[skyhigh]

On the hand it is being argued that all that is happening is drivers choosing not to work on their days off. On the other hand you are arguing that all that is needed is for Northern to manage industrial relations better, which presumably implies drivers then being more willing to work on their days off.

That's one solution, but it's just as much a legitimate solution to say 'yes, you deserve your days off, so we won't ask you to work them. We'll hire other staff who can flexibly cover those other shifts'.

So essentially you want staff on zero hours contracts to plug the gaps?

 

[43066]

That's one solution, but it's just as much a legitimate solution to say 'yes, you deserve your days off, so we won't ask you to work them. We'll hire other staff who can flexibly cover those other shifts'.

But that isn’t the solution being offered by anyone! So the choice is between drivers working rest days, in which case industrial relations being better managed, or the current situation of mass cancellations when overtime is withdrawn.

I’d suggest most passengers would prefer the former, so that the service actually operates.

For me personally the advent of the £2 capped bus fairs means more local journeys are made by bus, even when the service is "normal", for UK longer trips such as football away days local supporter group buses are now the default, and holidays / travelling I plan to fly wherever possible or just avoid trips that require dependence on rail with no alternatives.

You personally might do that, but it doesn’t change the fact that passenger numbers on the railway are growing rapidly. Coaches and buses are seen as poor substitutes by most rail users.

However under public ownership, the incentives are lessened because there are no investors / shareholders to appease, but there are additional pressures to cut costs and deliver value for money to the taxpayers, as well of course as competing with all other publicly funded areas for limited resources. Every single year publicly funded bodies jostle for their cut, and every single year many get less than they need to settle disputes like this.

Not necessarily. See the TfL run bits of the railway, for example. The issue isn’t public funding per se, it’s a government that is ideological opposed to properly finding public services and, certainly in the case of Northern, an OLR that for whatever reason isn’t competently running the operation.

 

[Bantamzen]

You personally might do that, but it doesn’t change the fact that passenger numbers on the railway are growing rapidly. Coaches and buses are seen as poor substitutes by most rail users.

For now maybe. But continuing poor performance regardless of the reasons will have an impact in time. There will be a tolerance limit for the travelling public beyond which passenger numbers could start to fall, especially given that the rises you mention are more around leisure than commuting, so they are therefore likely to be more sensitive to worsening reliability.

Not necessarily. See the TfL run bits of the railway, for example. The issue isn’t public funding per se, it’s a government that is ideological opposed to properly finding public services.

Whilst its true the current / outgoing government are ideologically opposed to it, the reality is that any government still has to at least try to balance the books. They will still need to set budgets for every sector, and potentially set limits on what percentage of each budget can be used for pay and performance payments. And regardless of government the pressure to cut costs and improve overall performance will continue to exist. I know during the last Labour government, they made massive changes to various parts of the public sector in order to drive down costs and drive up performance. So don't expect an incoming Labour cabinet to simply rubber stamp deals through, they're going to be in for a nasty economic shock on day one I suspect.