Rationale behind which routes crew at a given depot sign

[InkyScrolls]

What is the rationale behind which routes crew at a given depot sign? As an example, Northern crews based at Carlisle sign Carlisle > Skipton > Leeds and Carlisle > Newcastle, but don't sign anywhere along the Cumbrian Coast - not even as far as Workington. This means that Workington crews have to be taxied to and from Carlisle in the morning/evening for the first and last two services of the (week)day. But Carlisle crews sign 156s, so it's only the route they don't sign, not the traction. Why is this?

In some cases there is an operational reason (e.g. only Machynlleth and Pwllheli depots sign the Cambrian line due to the use of ERTMS which would require complete retraining of additional crews were Shrewsbury drivers to sign the route), but in other cases there doesn't seem to be such a reason. So my question is why do certain depots not sign routes which would appear obvious for them to do so?

 

[JonathanH]

A lot of it appears to be historical and about how routes were split at privatisation.

In the case of Workington and Carlisle, the former was North West division and the latter was North East. Cumbrian Coast was North West work and Carlisle to Leeds / Newcastle was North East work.

If Carlisle take Workington work on, it leads to there being less work for Workington traincrew. Ultimately it could lead to a smaller establishment at Workington threatening jobs there.

 

[306024]

Big subject, but in principle crews should be based at locations, and work routes and traction that make them as productive as possible, while minimising overall traincrew cost.

Which is all well and good if you are starting from a blank sheet of paper, but there will be many historical reasons why things are what they are, all made more difficult when the industry became so fragmented.

Increasing or decreasing depot establishments (the number of crew employed at a depot) is a bit like getting an oil tanker to turn. Changes quite rightly need to be agreed with the appropriate trade union, which isn’t to say it can’t be done, but it has to be demonstrated it has been done fairly, for a good reason.

Can’t fully answer your specific question, but to give you an idea, if you transferred the first and last two diagrams from Workington to Carlisle, that’s about 6 - 7 fewer drivers required at Workington, and the same number more at Carlisle. And it’s not just Monday to Friday. The proportion of weekend working needs to be shared out equitably too, both for fairness between all depots involved, and to be able to produce a workable roster.

Back in the day, putting the word Taxi on a diagram was a last resort, but a diagrammer had more options, even mixing passenger and freight in the same turn. Today it seems to be an easy (or necessary) option, but some TOCs taxi costs do cause a few finance directors to ask the same question you have!

 

[scrapy]

The same finance directors will however look at the cost of paying wages for route learning, (for example a link of 24 drivers and 24 guards needing a few days each costs tens of thousands of pounds), possible redundancy pay involved from reducing the size of a depot, the fact new drivers and guards will likely need to be trained from scratch at Carlisle, possible costs of industrial action.

They will likely see a taxi as being the cheaper option, and there's no guarantee the timetable won't change in the future meaning that taxi may no longer be required. (For example an earlier departure from Workington instead of the unit stabling at Carlisle)

 

[NSE]

Whilst I totally get everything that has been said, you do wonder why you couldn’t have a handful of Carlisle staff trained on the Cumbrian Coast, literally just so they could head down there to retrieve pax from a stranded unit or something like that. Even if it was just the most senior drivers with an agreement not to roster any scheduled work.

 

[endofthetunnel]

I understand what you’re suggesting but if there’s nothing rostered then they will lose their competence in 6 months or so - depending on TOCs - so need to do refreshers anyway taking them off their normal work. Those few staff then need to be available at the depot at the time of this random work requirement, so I suppose you’d need a fair few drivers to be trained to allow one standby each day? Etc etc…

I’m sure you can see how quickly it becomes unsustainable without a proper agreed change to the systems and hence why it’s basically left how it is.

 

[Cheshire Scot]

In the case of Workington and Carlisle, the former was North West division and the latter was North East. Cumbrian Coast was North West work and Carlisle to Leeds / Newcastle was North East work.

If Carlisle take Workington work on, it leads to there being less work for Workington traincrew. Ultimately it could lead to a smaller establishment at Workington threatening jobs there.

Worth noting too that in that era all Cumbrian Coast stock was stabled at Workington (or Barrow) so no Taxi's were required and there was e.g. an early ECS Workington to Maryport to then work Maryport to Barrow the modern equivalent of which will be a Carlisle starter.

 

[Class 170101]

It should be noted that what appears to be this train

Realtime Trains | 2C40 0619 Carlisle to Barrow-in-Furness | 12/10/2022

Real-time train running information for 2C40 0619 departure from Carlisle to Barrow-in-Furness on 12/10/2022. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

was covered on a trial by DRS from Kingmoor with their own driver and guard with Northern guard doing revenue.

I guess it might have been possible to cover them when they were introduced using a small link of Carlisle based crew with fewer HR issues but now they are established that seems unlikely.

 

[craigybagel]

The other way around it would be to give Workington some of Carlisle's work to balance things out - in other words, having Workington crews learn the route from Carlisle to Newcastle at the same time as Carlisle learning to Workington.

That would give a greater cost for route learning but a long term saving in taxi fares - and if Northerns T&Cs allow cross depot working it would make both depots more efficient as well.

It would be a big outlay in cost though, so usually in cases like that accountants seem to prefer to stick with the status quo.

 

[185]

At one operator, one depot kicks off every time a new long distance route is begun, demanding it is given to them. Then they run short of staff and priority is given to their high frequency, short local route and regularly abandon the (infrequent) long distance express route.

Depots should never have work allocated on the basis of a vocal union company council - should only ever be the operationally logical choice.

 

[dk1]

Depots should never have work allocated on the basis of a vocal union company council - should only ever be the operationally logical choice.

I know that may sound the logical choice but when it comes to depot establishment routes & agreements that would never be permitted.

 

[D6130]

And yet Carlisle Northern crews work the first and last ScotRail services to and from Dumfries - and possibly one or two during the day as well - so Dumfries-based ScotRail crews don't have to be taxied into and out of Carlisle in the early morning and late evening. Carlisle crews have a long history of working the G&SW line - including through to Glasgow and Ayr - but they also used to work some services on the Cumbrian Coast line as far as Whitehaven until comparatively recently.

 

[craigybagel]

And yet Carlisle Northern crews work the first and last ScotRail services to and from Dumfries - and possibly one or two during the day as well - so Dumfries-based ScotRail crews don't have to be taxied into and out of Carlisle in the early morning and late evening. Carlisle crews have a long history of working the G&SW line - including through to Glasgow and Ayr - but they also used to work some services on the Cumbrian Coast line as far as Whitehaven until comparatively recently.

Not anymore - they lost that work this year. I'm not sure if it's had any effect on the headcounts either at Dumfries or Carlisle.

 

[bunnahabhain]

A lot of it can be historical through rationalisation or changes to working practices. for example Nottingham guards gained a lot of routes over the years, such as March to Norwich and Great Yarmouth as a result of the run up to privatisation when the Central Trains operating unit was established and the Liverpool to Norwich service was created, likewise Lincoln to Peterborough was gained through a combination of the line being part time and the depot at Peterborough closing with some of crews at Peterborough I believe being transferred to Nottingham depot!

It's all a long way before my time but that can provide a reason for some of the stranger routes.

 

[dalesrail]

Up until the recast in December 2008, Liverpool were the only depot to work the shuttle service between Lancaster and Heysham, despite being located many miles away and there being other depots which were much closer. This was a throwback to the days when there was a direct service between Lime Street and Heysham and so that depot retained the knowledge.

Eventually the route was learned by Barrow crews and transferred over to them, which may make more sense geographically.

 

[craigybagel]

Up until the recast in December 2008, Liverpool were the only depot to work the shuttle service between Lancaster and Heysham, despite being located many miles away and there being other depots which were much closer. This was a throwback to the days when there was a direct service between Lime Street and Heysham and so that depot retained the knowledge.

Eventually the route was learned by Barrow crews and transferred over to them, which may make more sense geographically.

Even if for a while when the service was changed to come from Leeds via Skipton it was booked to be worked by a 150 - which Barrow didn't sign. So Skipton crews had to stay on to work the train while Barrow piloted them!

 

[InkyScrolls]

The other way around it would be to give Workington some of Carlisle's work to balance things out - in other words, having Workington crews learn the route from Carlisle to Newcastle at the same time as Carlisle learning to Workington.

That would give a greater cost for route learning but a long term saving in taxi fares - and if Northerns T&Cs allow cross depot working it would make both depots more efficient as well.

It would be a big outlay in cost though, so usually in cases like that accountants seem to prefer to stick with the status quo.

Northern does allow this, yes. As an example only link one at Leeds sign Skipton > Carlisle, and they're frequently short of staff for their one service a day, so it's not uncommon for a Skipton conductor (all of whom sign to Carlisle) to cover the job for them. Conversely Leeds crews often cover Skipton 'Triangle' jobs if there's a Skipton > Lancaster service uncovered, as it frees up the Skipton conductor to work the latter (as only Skipton crews sign Settle Jct. > Carnforth Station Jct.*).

* As a point of trivia: Settle Jct. to Carnforth Station Jct. is the longest signal section in the UK at 24·5 miles, which can lead to some very long delays.

 

[TheBigD]

A lot of it can be historical through rationalisation or changes to working practices. for example Nottingham guards gained a lot of routes over the years, such as March to Norwich and Great Yarmouth as a result of the run up to privatisation when the Central Trains operating unit was established and the Liverpool to Norwich service was created, likewise Lincoln to Peterborough was gained through a combination of the line being part time and the depot at Peterborough closing with some of crews at Peterborough I believe being transferred to Nottingham depot!

It's all a long way before my time but that can provide a reason for some of the stranger routes.

When Peterborough shut (1993 if my memory is correct) the guards went to a combination of Nottingham, Cambridge, Kings Cross, and Norwich.
Prior to closure they had a pretty large route card as well. (Manchester, Birmingham, Cambridge, Norwich, Doncaster etc etc). I'm years gone by you could have added Kings Cross, Cleethorpes, York and others to the list vice Birmingham and Manchester.

I can get a full list from a close friend who was there when it shut. (He transferred to Nottingham).

 

[dk1]

When Peterborough shut (1993 if my memory is correct) the guards went to a combination of Nottingham, Cambridge, Kings Cross, and Norwich.
Prior to closure they had a pretty large route card as well. (Manchester, Birmingham, Cambridge, Norwich, Doncaster etc etc). I'm years gone by you could have added Kings Cross, Cleethorpes, York and others to the list vice Birmingham and Manchester.

I can get a full list from a close friend who was there when it shut. (He transferred to Nottingham).

Yes it was around then that Cambridge depot took over all Birmingham services & Norwich crews then signed both routes to Nottingham. They previously never signed beyond Peterborough. This decision led to almost all Norwich services serving Liverpool rather than the alternating between Birmingham/North West as they did when the Express network launched in May 88.

 

[Whisky Papa]

Up until the recast in December 2008, Liverpool were the only depot to work the shuttle service between Lancaster and Heysham, despite being located many miles away and there being other depots which were much closer. This was a throwback to the days when there was a direct service between Lime Street and Heysham and so that depot retained the knowledge.

Eventually the route was learned by Barrow crews and transferred over to them, which may make more sense geographically.

Was it as late as Dec 2008 Barrow took over? I only ask because I was doing STP unit diagrams for Northern prior to then, and I recall causing a problem during some Sunday engineering works by diagramming a 150 onto the Heysham train, which as mentioned elsewhere in the thread was a type Barrow didn't sign but Liverpool would have done.

 

[dalesrail]

Yeah, up until then Liverpool still signed between Lancaster and Preston and then onto Morecambe and Heysham. In the same recast, Liverpool also lost work between Wigan and Man Vic via Bolton. At the May 2018 recast they lost Man Vic to Huddersfield. Up until that point, they still did the occasional duty up that way.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

Up until the recast in December 2008, Liverpool were the only depot to work the shuttle service between Lancaster and Heysham, despite being located many miles away and there being other depots which were much closer. This was a throwback to the days when there was a direct service between Lime Street and Heysham and so that depot retained the knowledge.

TBF pre VHF there was a regular 2-hourly service between Lime Street and Morecambe so having Liverpool crews work those services was as logical as any other choice. As such the Heysham working was a simple add-on.

 

[craigybagel]

One thing I've noticed since I created the thread listing the route cards of every TOC depot - whilst there has been some additions since I completed the list, I've done an awful lot more deleting of routes from route cards.

 

[ComUtoR]

One thing I've noticed since I created the thread listing the route cards of every TOC depot - whilst there has been some additions since I completed the list, I've done an awful lot more deleting of routes from route cards.

Probably a few more, come december

 

[craigybagel]

Probably a few more, come december

Funnily enough not very long after making that comment I received a PM about more cuts to two depots route cards!

 

[InkyScrolls]

May I ask which ones, if it's not still 'classified'?

 

[craigybagel]

May I ask which ones, if it's not still 'classified'?

TPE Scarborough & York. The forme will no longer go west of Leeds, and one link at the latter is losing Liverpool. I should probably start commenting on that post every time I edit it so people know changes have been made now I think of it....

 

[busestrains]

Before GTR went DOO on most services i remember there was the odd situation that Guards at Brighton depot were the only ones who signed the class 442 trains. But the only class 442 trains that had Guards were the once a day in each direction Eastbourne to London and London to Eastbourne services. So surely it would have made more sense for Guards at Eastbourne depot to sign them instead. I always wondered why it was Guards at Brighton depot instead of Guards at Eastbourne depot who signed them.

 

[InkyScrolls]

TPE Scarborough & York. The former will no longer go west of Leeds, and one link at the latter is losing Liverpool. I should probably start commenting on that post every time I edit it so people know changes have been made now I think of it....

Interesting; I wonder if that's an attempt at saving money, given the current shambles that is TPE.

 

[Surreytraveller]

Before GTR went DOO on most services i remember there was the odd situation that Guards at Brighton depot were the only ones who signed the class 442 trains. But the only class 442 trains that had Guards were the once a day in each direction Eastbourne to London and London to Eastbourne services. So surely it would have made more sense for Guards at Eastbourne depot to sign them instead. I always wondered why it was Guards at Brighton depot instead of Guards at Eastbourne depot who signed them.

Did the 442 stoppers that called at the stations south of Haywards Heath not have guards on them?