South Western Railway - a mixed start to life as a TOC?

[TheManBehind]

I'm not getting into debate about this incident, but suffice to say that you said pretty much exactly the same things after the snow and stranded trains debacle and that's pretty much control are almost perfect with just a slight chink in their process.

Who knows if anything has changed, certainly doesn't seem to have. Even if the control echo chamber thinks it's done a good job, there is very little confidence among many drivers and guards and frontline station staff to get good, rapid decisions made and to get that information disseminated to staff and public alike. While control isn't responsible for the train failure or infrastructure issues, their major role is clearing up the mess and restoring service after the event.

You can deny there is a problem as much as you like, but to use your own defence of control staff, you should try walking in the shoes of those front line, passenger facing staff who have to take the abuse and the polite passengers who, not unreasonably, want to know what is going on and why their trains are so delayed or cancelled.

Of course there's a problem, but that problem isn't SWRs doing.

Who didn't invest in better systems and better information facilities, upgrading teams to have better equipment and better processes and KPIs?
Who used the alliance system to leave their controllers paid £10k under the national expected, leading to an exodus of experience?
Who, despite running one of the busiest networks in the UK, didn't make any attempt to invest in any sort of traffic management support or decision making tool? Who decided that 3 controllers and maybe one lookahead are adequate, and that a satellite site at Waterloo would be a superb idea for communication chains?

SWR, however, are investing in these things to fix them. You don't magic in a working network overnight, or even in a year - this is going to take most of the franchise to fix. To get that experience back, to get those improved systems, to get the processes in place.

There is certainly no echo chamber in control - they're fully aware of their failings and that decisions can't get made quick enough to manage disruption. It's been known for years but only now are senior management actually looking at it and realising the scale of improvements that need to be made.

 

[infobleep]

Of course there's a problem, but that problem isn't SWRs doing.

Who didn't invest in better systems and better information facilities, upgrading teams to have better equipment and better processes and KPIs?
Who used the alliance system to leave their controllers paid £10k under the national expected, leading to an exodus of experience?
Who, despite running one of the busiest networks in the UK, didn't make any attempt to invest in any sort of traffic management support or decision making tool? Who decided that 3 controllers and maybe one lookahead are adequate, and that a satellite site at Waterloo would be a superb idea for communication chains?

SWR, however, are investing in these things to fix them. You don't magic in a working network overnight, or even in a year - this is going to take most of the franchise to fix. To get that experience back, to get those improved systems, to get the processes in place.

There is certainly no echo chamber in control - they're fully aware of their failings and that decisions can't get made quick enough to manage disruption. It's been known for years but only now are senior management actually looking at it and realising the scale of improvements that need to be made.

They might just be in place in time for the next franchisee holder to decide they are not required.

Thing may well have improved in recent months but I can't say I've noticed it. Not saying it's all bad, just not noticed the improvements.

 

[Krisj159]

As an SWR driver I obviously have to be careful what I say. What I can say though is when SWT set up the the centralised Control centre, they probably spent millions to save pennies. It just doesn't work. We used to have a local T.C.S. who were normally ex drivers. They knew all the routes, knew all the staff, their whereabouts and what stock was locally available; they were also able to work with the local signalbox and make independent decisions. We really need to go back to local control and let the signalboxes/centres make the decision as to what trains can be run. Unfortunately accountants look at what was saved by getting rid of the T.C.S. role and not what the costs are involved with major disruption. SWR could rectify SWT's mistake and make a vast improvement when things go wrong.

 

[dorsetdesiro]

There's an article on SurreyLive about the new 701s and briefly mentions the return of 442s. This is hardly news, SWR may have sent this out to SL as a diversion from the problems like the recent upset in Twickenham & Richmond by repeating the planned improvements.

This is probably bad reporting or writing by SL, it says "Mr Dominey said there will also be changes to the fleet, including the introduction of the red 701 trains made by Bombardier, which will all feature a toilet, as well as more seats".

So the new 701s are coming with the Stagecoach metro red livery then?! Mmm, interesting...

 

[swt_passenger]

There's an article on SurreyLive about the new 701s and briefly mentions the return of 442s. This is hardly news, SWR may have sent this out to SL as a diversion from the problems like the recent upset in Twickenham & Richmond by repeating the planned improvements.

This is probably bad reporting or writing by SL, it says "Mr Dominey said there will also be changes to the fleet, including the introduction of the red 701 trains made by Bombardier, which will all feature a toilet, as well as more seats".

So the new 701s are coming with the Stagecoach metro red livery then?! Mmm, interesting...

More likely to be a red version of the SWR livery surely? It’s really the multicoloured vinyls at the cab ends that make it Stagecoach, not the base red.

 

[Krisj159]

Probably a future TFL livery : D

 

[TheManBehind]

As an SWR driver I obviously have to be careful what I say. What I can say though is when SWT set up the the centralised Control centre, they probably spent millions to save pennies. It just doesn't work. We used to have a local T.C.S. who were normally ex drivers. They knew all the routes, knew all the staff, their whereabouts and what stock was locally available; they were also able to work with the local signalbox and make independent decisions. We really need to go back to local control and let the signalboxes/centres make the decision as to what trains can be run. Unfortunately accountants look at what was saved by getting rid of the T.C.S. role and not what the costs are involved with major disruption. SWR could rectify SWT's mistake and make a vast improvement when things go wrong.

I understand that SWR will be returning to TCS structures, but decision-making remains centralised to control - they will decide on use of service plans, etc - the role of the TCS will be focused around getting them enacted. The issue is the control room has 8 controllers over 24 hours covering 1700 services - this is fine when nothing goes wrong but the moment there's disruption systems don't allow decisions to be made nearly quick enough to manage. Each decision can take between 3 and 5 minutes to process - so a maximum of 20 decisions an hour, depending on experience.

Centralised control is the international norm these days and works extremely well (see just about any other country that does do it well) - the difference is investment in systems and traffic management. The UK (and in particular Wessex) simply hasn't to the degree needed to give people using trains and working directly on them any confidence in the management of disruption.

 

[Krisj159]

I've heard the rumour that SWR are thinking of reinstating the TCS role but the management haven't said anything. The problem we have is control insists on running every train and won't normally cancel one because of the penalty charge. They then block up major arteries by having too many trains in one place and the traincrew are not there to work them or are due a PNB/over hours etc. When you suggest to them what needs to be done with your train (e.g. turn it round at Woking and start 'right time'), they overule you and keep compiling the problem. More often than not though when it goes 'Tittus Uppicus' you can't get hold of anybody because the phones are constantly engaged, but you normally used to be able to get through to the TCS. A DSM (now DM) would often come in to help the TCS in times of disruption too. It worked - if it ain't broke don't fix it.

 

[HowardGWR]

^^^Getting tla overload. TCS? DSM? DM? I can guess but it would be a stab at it. PNB is personal needs break isn't it?

 

[Matt Taylor]

Train Crew Supervisor, they would notify staff of any changes in their diagram and allocate work at short notice to spare crew if required etc and were invaluable in times of disruption.

 

[43096]

I've heard the rumour that SWR are thinking of reinstating the TCS role but the management haven't said anything. The problem we have is control insists on running every train and won't normally cancel one because of the penalty charge. They then block up major arteries by having too many trains in one place and the traincrew are not there to work them or are due a PNB/over hours etc. When you suggest to them what needs to be done with your train (e.g. turn it round at Woking and start 'right time'), they overule you and keep compiling the problem. More often than not though when it goes 'Tittus Uppicus' you can't get hold of anybody because the phones are constantly engaged, but you normally used to be able to get through to the TCS. A DSM (now DM) would often come in to help the TCS in times of disruption too. It worked - if it ain't broke don't fix it.

What I'm reading in to this is that they only have themselves to blame for Tuesday's fiasco. If the uncontrolled evacuation on 2C64 did take place as stated, then it is not exactly surprising when you send it up from Clapham (and 2U64 behind it as well!) knowing full well there was no platform available for it and that it will have a load of passengers on from Ascot races who have probably had a significant amount of alcohol.

 

[Krisj159]

^^^Getting tla overload. TCS? DSM? DM? I can guess but it would be a stab at it. PNB is personal needs break isn't it?

Train Crew Supervisor - BR days used to be an ex driver or a driver as a panel man but gradually towards the end they used guards. DSM - Driver Standards Manager. DRM is a Driver Resources Manager - a small number of these in more remote locations replaced the TCSs but unable to make decisions regarding running of the service unless under authority of Control. You sometimes, but more rarely now, hear 'Caped' (cancelled). This goes back to steam days when they would but a cape over the coal on a tender to keep it dry when the loco was O.O.U. out of use. Going for a run out (rare nowadays) - going for a Jimmy. Jimmy Riddle....piddle (to put it politely.) PNB - correct.

 

[pompeyfan]

Train Crew Supervisor - BR days used to be an ex driver or a driver as a panel man but gradually towards the end they used guards. DSM - Driver Standards Manager. DRM is a Driver Resources Manager - a small number of these in more remote locations replaced the TCSs but unable to make decisions regarding running of the service unless under authority of Control. You sometimes, but more rarely now, hear 'Caped' (cancelled). This goes back to steam days when they would but a cape over the coal on a tender to keep it dry when the loco was O.O.U. out of use. Going for a run out (rare nowadays) - going for a Jimmy. Jimmy Riddle....piddle (to put it politely.) PNB - correct.

CAPEd is an abbreviation of Cancelled At Point of Entry as I understood it.

 

[Krisj159]

CAPEd is an abbreviation of Cancelled At Point of Entry as I understood it.

Could be but that's not what the old steam boys told me.

 

[TheManBehind]

I've heard the rumour that SWR are thinking of reinstating the TCS role but the management haven't said anything. The problem we have is control insists on running every train and won't normally cancel one because of the penalty charge. They then block up major arteries by having too many trains in one place and the traincrew are not there to work them or are due a PNB/over hours etc. When you suggest to them what needs to be done with your train (e.g. turn it round at Woking and start 'right time'), they overule you and keep compiling the problem. More often than not though when it goes 'Tittus Uppicus' you can't get hold of anybody because the phones are constantly engaged, but you normally used to be able to get through to the TCS. A DSM (now DM) would often come in to help the TCS in times of disruption too. It worked - if it ain't broke don't fix it.

A lot of that comes down to the fact that a lot of service recovery has been overseen by NR as SWT used the alliance to cut back on TOC control management - everything was led by NR which means decisions and contingency plans are based around minimising costs and preserving infrastructure, not moving customers.

SWT spent significant time on implementing "full crew working" but the number of crews who have short turnarounds and stock changes at Waterloo means that it's useless as not a lot can be turned short of destination.

SWR have already employed a new Head of Control Projects (an ex-GWR Head of Control) who has the ears of directors and carries significant weight. Lots of significant experience being brought in to review and plan changes. But it all takes time. New contingency plans are likely to be focused much more on slicing service to manageable levels and get things back to normal more quickly.

What I'm reading in to this is that they only have themselves to blame for Tuesday's fiasco. If the uncontrolled evacuation on 2C64 did take place as stated, then it is not exactly surprising when you send it up from Clapham (and 2U64 behind it as well!) knowing full well there was no platform available for it and that it will have a load of passengers on from Ascot races who have probably had a significant amount of alcohol.

That comes largely from the fact that the decision probably couldn't be made in time. Signallers will rightly focus on keeping trains moving unless they're told otherwise, and control have no live feed to understand train loadings - something that's not beyond the wit of any SME to put together. There's no way to prioritise the decisions aside from "first train in the queue". That isn't control's fault, but the people that manage them and chose not to invest any more than the bare minimum.

 

[Carlisle]

SWT spent significant time on implementing "full crew working" but the number of crews who have short turnarounds and stock changes at Waterloo means that it's useless as not a lot can be turned short of destination.
.

Full crew working sounds like an great concept in the steam age allowing the same crew to share the considerable workload involved in preparing, operating or disposal of the engine etc, but largely irrelevant to the modern suburban railway .

 

[Krisj159]

Full crew working sounds like an good concept in the steam age allowing the same crew to share the workload in preparing, operating or disposal of the engine etc, but largely irrelevant to the modern suburban railway .

Ah but we're not just suburban, we're long distance too, Portsmouth, Weymouth and Exeter. When the guard is in one place during disruption and the driver another things inevitability fall apart.

 

[43096]

That comes largely from the fact that the decision probably couldn't be made in time. Signallers will rightly focus on keeping trains moving unless they're told otherwise, and control have no live feed to understand train loadings - something that's not beyond the wit of any SME to put together. There's no way to prioritise the decisions aside from "first train in the queue". That isn't control's fault, but the people that manage them and chose not to invest any more than the bare minimum.

But they must have known by the time it passed Vauxhall. Much better to have terminated it at Vauxhall (with stock going on to Waterloo when a platform was available) as that gives Underground and bus connections than have the punters sat/stood on it for another hour.

I don't buy control not having a live feed of train loadings in this case. They had been running additionals all day for Ascot which they must have been involved with (and indeed there was one behind 2C64, which they fed into the chaos as well!!). It is pure common sense that trains from Ascot/Reading would have been very busy - that is why they are running additionals! If control really cannot grasp that then they are even more clueless than I thought.

 

[TheManBehind]

But they must have known by the time it passed Vauxhall. Much better to have terminated it at Vauxhall (with stock going on to Waterloo when a platform was available) as that gives Underground and bus connections than have the punters sat/stood on it for another hour.

I don't buy control not having a live feed of train loadings in this case. They had been running additionals all day for Ascot which they must have been involved with (and indeed there was one behind 2C64, which they fed into the chaos as well!!). It is pure common sense that trains from Ascot/Reading would have been very busy - that is why they are running additionals! If control really cannot grasp that then they are even more clueless than I thought.

Yes, I agree - it would have been better to turf everyone out at VXH, then at least if it's going to Waterloo it's just the crew stuck on board.

Considering the time of day this happened - every train is busy. Busy compared to 2C64 on a normal day, sure, but busy compared to the late-running, first-advertised-train-in-an-hour that also needs an intervention too? It's a bit of an oversimplification to say "well they must have known it was busy" - they're all busy. Do you focus on the commuters or on the racegoers?

 

[43096]

Considering the time of day this happened - every train is busy. Busy compared to 2C64 on a normal day, sure

True - it was adding in the day at Ascot in the sun and no doubt copious quantities of alcohol that I was thinking of in terms of increasing the risk of uncontrolled evacuation.

 

[TheManBehind]

True - it was adding in the day at Ascot in the sun and no doubt copious quantities of alcohol that I was thinking of in terms of increasing the risk of uncontrolled evacuation.

Oh, absolutely - and in reality, with any adequate staffing, decisions could have been made to turn them far sooner - Richmond, Clapham, or Vauxhall, all have decent links into London. It's just having the resource and experience to get those decisions made that SWR don't have because SWT decided that the bare minimum was enough. Its clear to everyone that it hasn't worked, and it's clear the control simply doesn't perform in anything other than perfect service ultimately.

 

[TEW]

Full crew working sounds like an great concept in the steam age allowing the same crew to share the considerable workload involved in preparing, operating or disposal of the engine etc, but largely irrelevant to the modern suburban railway .

Full crew working must be one of the simplest ways to aid service recovery. If a train has a guard, it has a driver and vice versa. No need for extra time wasted trying to match the available drivers and guards up together. No having one platform with a train clogging it up as it has a driver and not a guard, whilst in the next platform there is a train clogging it up with a guard and not a driver.
SWT/SWR have been reducing the amount of full crew working slowly over the last few years for no readily apparent reasons.

 

[TEW]

Yes, I agree - it would have been better to turf everyone out at VXH, then at least if it's going to Waterloo it's just the crew stuck on board.

Of course, not long after that detrainment, the decision was made to terminate every up train at Vauxhall.

 

[theironroad]

Full crew working must be one of the simplest ways to aid service recovery. If a train has a guard, it has a driver and vice versa. No need for extra time wasted trying to match the available drivers and guards up together. No having one platform with a train clogging it up as it has a driver and not a guard, whilst in the next platform there is a train clogging it up with a guard and not a driver.
SWT/SWR have been reducing the amount of full crew working slowly over the last few years for no readily apparent reasons.

If swr get their way with the new trains to be introduced in 2020, full crew working will become a footnote as as long as there is a driver, the train will run.

 

[TEW]

If swr get their way with the new trains to be introduced in 2020, full crew working will become a footnote as as long as there is a driver, the train will run.

I was trying to avoid going there on this thread. A cynic may suggest that they are reducing the amount of full crew working at present in order to inflate the very low number of cancellations caused by the unavailability of a guard, to try and further their argument.

 

[Shafina patel]

I've heard the rumour that SWR are thinking of reinstating the TCS role but the management haven't said anything. The problem we have is control insists on running every train and won't normally cancel one because of the penalty charge. They then block up major arteries by having too many trains in one place and the traincrew are not there to work them or are due a PNB/over hours etc. When you suggest to them what needs to be done with your train (e.g. turn it round at Woking and start 'right time'), they overule you and keep compiling the problem. More often than not though when it goes 'Tittus Uppicus' you can't get hold of anybody because the phones are constantly engaged, but you normally used to be able to get through to the TCS. A DSM (now DM) would often come in to help the TCS in times of disruption too. It worked - if it ain't broke don't fix it.

I'm sure under SWT whenever there was an incident they usually cancelled everything for a short while, enough for them to recover, then send trains along their way.

 

[theironroad]

I was trying to avoid going there on this thread. A cynic may suggest that they are reducing the amount of full crew working at present in order to inflate the very low number of cancellations caused by the unavailability of a guard, to try and further their argument.

Fair enough. Nothing would surprise me

 

[43096]

Full crew working must be one of the simplest ways to aid service recovery. If a train has a guard, it has a driver and vice versa. No need for extra time wasted trying to match the available drivers and guards up together. No having one platform with a train clogging it up as it has a driver and not a guard, whilst in the next platform there is a train clogging it up with a guard and not a driver.
SWT/SWR have been reducing the amount of full crew working slowly over the last few years for no readily apparent reasons.

I was told that SWT wanted full crew working, but couldn’t implement it as staff side didn’t want it. I can see the problem if you can’t harmonise driver and guard turn lengths; it’s two different unions and different groups of people, so it is not easy to do.

 

[TEW]

I was told that SWT wanted full crew working, but couldn’t implement it as staff side didn’t want it. I can see the problem if you can’t harmonise driver and guard turn lengths; it’s two different unions and different groups of people, so it is not easy to do.

Staff side have no reason to object to full crew working itself. Differing T&Cs for the two grades mean that it may be less efficient on paper to have more full crew working, as it increases the number of crews required. SWT went for a high percentage of full crew working around 5 years ago now (100% is managed quite happily on weekends), but this has been slowly reduced ever since. Drivers have a longer average turn length than guards, but in practice this often works out well, as drivers turns often are longer than a guards turn, even when working the same trains, when you take into account the need to perhaps prepare a unit, or take a unit out of some sidings.

 

[bb21]

Of course, not long after that detrainment, the decision was made to terminate every up train at Vauxhall.

Why did you have to say that?