Teflon Lettuce
Established Member
- Joined
- 22 Aug 2013
- Messages
- 1,750
I've heard a rumour that all Thameslink trains from the north will terminate at King's X to aid reliability... apparently they realised platform 9 3/4 was being under utilised
The worst thing about all this is GN was a pretty reliable railway just a few years ago. Whilst it was fragile in that things could fall apart quickly once something comparatively small went wrong, nonetheless a lot of effort had been put in by National Express to get the basics right, such that most of the time things didn't go wrong and the service generally ran on time. First Capital Connect continued this, and whilst they weren't to everyone's taste they did at least maintain a good service operationally, increased capacity, and had a good flow of information such that when disruption did happen people generally knew what was going on.
Since the 2000s this railway *should* have got even better - with additional platforms at Peterborough and Cambridge, the Hitchin flyover, extra tracks available in the Alexandra Palace/Finsbury Park area, an extra platform at King's Cross, extra trains, and more reliable and quicker 387s replacing the 317s/321s. Instead, thanks to the Thameslink Programme and its associated TSGN franchise, this dependable rail service has been totally destroyed, and I just can't see it recovering to anything like the same level of dependability unless the whole programme is looked at again.
I hear there have been issues at High Barnet with the station car park filling up unusually early, I wonder why that is?!
With 2 tph Bedford - Brighton and 2 tph St Albans - Sutton , the trains that run are extremely busy. A service well below the norm.
So there must be a large cadre of drivers "not required" , hopefully used to good effect in training. Or not.
.
"Not" I am afraid to say.
In my neck of the woods, being spare or "not required" does not mean you can be allocated to training.
Indeed if you are spare you are allowed home when the last job you can cover within your allocated shift time has passed with you unneeded. It can be as short as 2 hours from book on, but is usually about 4 or sometimes 5 hours. A nice short day unless the mess room bore bears down on you.
It needs changing, but who wants to challenge ASLEF at any time, specially now. You get your P45 as per recent news.
WHAT!!!!!!!! it's not RMT's fault?????Of course the TOC could have employed enough drivers in the first place, and ensured sufficient training had taken place before the timetable change, which has been known about for years, but that would have required some level of competence on behalf of TOC management - therefore completely unachievable!
But of course it’s all ASLEF’s fault .
Of course the TOC could have employed enough drivers in the first place, and ensured sufficient training had taken place before the timetable change, which has been known about for years, but that would have required some level of competence on behalf of TOC management - therefore completely unachievable!
But of course it’s all ASLEF’s fault .
WHAT!!!!!!!! it's not RMT's fault?????
Bring on driverless trains, sack the lot of them etc.
but surely they have got enough drivers? from what I've seen of the planned timetable it was just a matter of transferring services from one brand of the franchise to another with no real increase in services... therefore no increase in drivers needed... Surely the problem is that whereas drivers only worked A to B they are now required to work A to B A to C B to D etc?This is what I'm struggling to understand. Surely if you're introducing any kind of project, you assemble additional resources well in advance of the implementation date, in order to provide cover for training. Ideally you'd introduce the ThamesLink/ service as an appendage to the legacy service as far as possible so that your new resources can be dedicated to that.
Am I missing something obvious? Perhaps the only issue could be availability of instructors and trainers, but - again - how many years have they had to plan for this? This method may well result in an eventual small surplus of staff, which over time will be eroded with retirements, resignations, promotions (etc), but given the overall cost of the Thameslink Programme surely this wouldn't have been that much of a wastage in the grand scheme of things?
The unions are never going to stand in the way of something which involves increasing the driver headcount - more members, more subscriptions!
One simply can't help but form the impression that the root cause of all this is the Thameslink Programme simply overestimated their ability to deliver what they envisaged.
If the issue is/was simply that they were unable to get together enough drivers (for whatever reason) then they should not have attempted to implement the timetable. Have a go/no go point sufficiently far in advance that sufficient notice can be given to staff. It doesn't help that there's now more inter-dependency between areas, which of course has exposed another inherent flaw with the Thameslink concept.
Am I missing something obvious? Perhaps the only issue could be availability of instructors and trainers, but - again - how many years have they had to plan for this? This method may well result in an eventual small surplus of staff, which over time will be eroded with retirements, resignations, promotions (etc), but given the overall cost of the Thameslink Programme surely this wouldn't have been that much of a wastage in the grand scheme of things?
The unions are never going to stand in the way of something which involves increasing the driver headcount - more members, more subscriptions!
but surely they have got enough drivers? from what I've seen of the planned timetable it was just a matter of transferring services from one brand of the franchise to another with no real increase in services... therefore no increase in drivers needed... Surely the problem is that whereas drivers only worked A to B they are now required to work A to B A to C B to D etc?
but surely they have got enough drivers? from what I've seen of the planned timetable it was just a matter of transferring services from one brand of the franchise to another with no real increase in services... therefore no increase in drivers needed... Surely the problem is that whereas drivers only worked A to B they are now required to work A to B A to C B to D etc?
I got the impression (with no inside knowledge, just a hunch) that the turnover in drivers has been high. Losing them as quickly as employing them. They seemed to be constantly advertising for drivers over the last few years. Unless there is an absence of suitable candidates in the first place.TL has never had enough drivers and has always relied heavily on overtime to run the service.
This issue has been further compounded by the fact the current (woefully inadequate) complement of drivers hasn’t received the required training.
I got the impression (with no inside knowledge, just a hunch) that the turnover in drivers has been high. Losing them as quickly as employing them. They seemed to be constantly advertising for drivers over the last few years. Unless there is an absence of suitable candidates in the first place.
Your hunch is wrong, turnover is low. TL drivers are well paid and have petty good T&Cs, including "circadian rostering". Indeed it is the latter that gives rise to a greater need for drivers per diagram than many other L&SE services.I got the impression (with no inside knowledge, just a hunch) that the turnover in drivers has been high. Losing them as quickly as employing them. They seemed to be constantly advertising for drivers over the last few years. Unless there is an absence of suitable candidates in the first place.
Thanks for the explanation. It was just a hunch, looking from the outside. Sounds like some serious issues. Rotten management from top to bottom?Your hunch is wrong, turnover is low. TL drivers are well paid and have petty good T&Cs, including "circadian rostering". Indeed it is the latter that gives rise to a greater need for drivers per diagram than many other L&SE services.
The problem is, and has been for some time, (to put it bluntly) piss poor management. There has been the occasional diamond in the rough, however they generally give up in disgust and move on to greener pastures. Several Ops Directors, and even Managing Directors, have been fired, but the situation never improves. Basically it needs a vigorous pruning from top to bottom and a complete change of culture.
Your hunch is wrong, turnover is low. TL drivers are well paid and have petty good T&Cs, including "circadian rostering". Indeed it is the latter that gives rise to a greater need for drivers per diagram than many other L&SE services.
Circadian Rostering? Thats a new one on me.
I've only being paying attention to Great Northern, which is the smaller part of this mess. But... overall... are there any signs that things are getting better? Thursday was a good day for GN and might have given hope, but then Friday was a bad one again, and today has also been pretty grim.
Looks fairly normal on GN this morning.
Inners running ok.
Outers badly effectively closing stations such as Foxton, Meldreth, Shepreth, Knebworth and Welwyn North.
I must admit now I am more surprised if anything is running on Sunday. Cockfosters seems much busier at weekends.
Journey planner did offer 2342 to Letchworth and pick up the last southbound back to Hitchin but that would mean additional tickets.
Not rotten; just incompetent. There's an industry problem with Operations Management lacking the necessary understanding or aptitude to properly plan and manage train crew resource, but GTR are worse than most and need it more than any.Thanks for the explanation. It was just a hunch, looking from the outside. Sounds like some serious issues. Rotten management from top to bottom?
On Thameslink what it means is that drivers get a regular roster where they get 2 rest days from 6 (Mon-Sat) in a pattern M/T, W/Th, F/S. I believe it started with Brighton as a test case under BR and spread to Bedford and Blackfriars when Thameslink was created. Because Saturdays generally have less trains than weekdays it means that if you have enough drivers for weekdays, you have too many for Saturdays; this is why it requires more drivers than regular rostering.It’s not a particularly new concept... 1980s perhaps? Don’t know how long it’s been in the transport industry...
Shifts are staggered so that there is less of a chance for ‘sleep debt’ to build and for the body to be able to adjust its circadian rhythm more effectively than a nurse on a night shift of 1930-0830 for instance.
My understanding is this.This is what I'm struggling to understand. Surely if you're introducing any kind of project, you assemble additional resources well in advance of the implementation date, in order to provide cover for training.
My understanding is this.
Thameslink is a Direct Operation contract with the DfT, not a Franchise. Therefore DfT lay down what they will fund, probably not in huge detail but in general financial terms. Of course, it's not enough. This would be someone at DfT being "clever" and "keeping GTR on their toes". So all the money goes on daily operations, no extra drivers, no extra training. The Horton regime becomes customer focused, and they only have one customer - the DfT. Every month the issue is rolled forward, GTR tell DfT they need more money, the request is ignored/lost in government, and on you go. Of course, Horton should have been more vocal and honest about it, but may be seen as rocking the boat.
It's management by spreadsheet. The only important thing is this month's actual costs are within the budget. No vision. This is why Horton had to go, he led the pack and this approach.
The whole "no training possible on the Canal Tunnel" thing is a smokescreen. Have railways never opened new before? There have been substantial blockades over long weekends which install a completely different layout, different signals, yet everyone is able to operate OK on the first morning after, layouts far more complex that a double track connection with a couple of signals each way.
That is worth bearing in mind. I don’t think I’ve seen a revenue inspector on a train since these operational incidents began.Aren't the current published GN/Thameslink rules that you can catch whatever trains you like which might vaguely get you somewhere near your destination, irrespective of the normal rules. So in this circumstance doubling back would have been fine (and probably allowed for a Delay Repay claim as well).
It ran. Didn’t stop anywhere. Many services 30+ late, skip stopping etcGood start from Hatfield - they've not yet run a train into King's Cross this morning. Now 6.07 showing 'delayed', presumed cancelled.
Edit: Looks like the first one will be the 6.25. Not a good start to the week. Does not inspire confidence.