Thameslink Services/Timetable from May 20th 2018

[Teflon Lettuce]

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

 

[Hadders]

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?!

I agree with all of this. The Achilles heal of GN was always the 4 car off peak services on the stoppers. This could’ve been easily solved without the need to put everything through the core.

 

[XDM]

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.

 

[Bromley boy]

"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.

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 .

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

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?????

 

[bramling]

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 .

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.

 

[Bromley boy]

WHAT!!!!!!!! it's not RMT's fault?????

Yes it’s their fault too. It must be something to do with the bloody militant unions.

Lazy overpaid guards, lazy overpaid drivers. It’s only pushing a button after all.

Bring on driverless trains, sack the lot of them etc.

 

[Failed Unit]

Bring on driverless trains, sack the lot of them etc.

I bet GTR would screw that up as well .
Program the wrong stops in trains etc.

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

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.

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?

 

[Bromley boy]

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!

No - you aren’t missing anything obvious - although, when things are this bad, I can well understand why you might question that!

I also completely agree with your second paragraph - the unions would prefer enough drivers employed to run the service without relying on overtime - as I believe is the case on LU.

 

[bramling]

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?

Perhaps, but you simply cannot do that without an increase in headcount if it means learning new routes and/or traction, as your existing quota of drivers are already committed to fulfilling rostered duties. There simply isn't that much slack in a typical driver roster to do much more than deliver your "business as usual" activities -- and learning miles and miles of new route certainly isn't one of those!

So this leaves you with three options: (1) don't implement your change programme, (2) plan a temporary increase in driver establishment, or (3) implement your change programme without the resources in place and have some degree of meltdown. Evidently the latter is what we have.

In any case, it we take the GN side, there's an increase in services, so I'd be amazed if the new timetable didn't require some increase in driver numbers.

On top of this the GN side has also had two new train fleets come on stream in the last couple of years, so any slack available for training would also have been taken up with that.

The more one things about this the more it comes across as such a complete monumental incompetent failure.

 

[Bromley boy]

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?

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.

 

[OwenB]

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.

 

[bramling]

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.

If these factors are true, then simple reality is they shouldn't have implemented the May timetable, at least not in the way they attempted.

 

[HH]

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.

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.

 

[OwenB]

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.

Thanks for the explanation. It was just a hunch, looking from the outside. Sounds like some serious issues. Rotten management from top to bottom?

 

[Class 170101]

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.

 

[Bayum]

Circadian Rostering? Thats a new one on me.

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.

 

[jon0844]

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.

I think Wednesday was the best. I think there are signs that for some stations the weekday service is now pretty stable, with the same cancellations each day so you can at least begin to plan. It will of course depend on what app you use to plan (such as where they get the data from) but what shows on the day should be right now. Buses will also show too, with many buses running concurrently with trains - so even if the train runs in the end, so will the bus. This then gives a useful backup.

Weekends are a shambles still. Today there were a few 3 hour gaps in service that I could see, and even a Moorgate to WGC train cancelled (so much for taking the slow train as a failsafe!). I was lucky to get the 2002 Cambridge train from King's Cross (387 not 700). On a Sunday with many trains 1tph, you'd surely think they could run all of them.

Sure we have the usual Sunday issue with driver availability, but there are so few trains running that it is quite amazing to have so many cancelled. What's more, this afternoon I was looking at a train to take to London and it was on time right up until the departure time at Cambridge when it was caped. Sadly, I didn't notice until I was already at the station because I stupidly assumed they'd be able to run what they have in the emergency weekend timetable.

 

[Hitchincommute]

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.

With the Ed Sheehan concert on Saturday night the 8 Car 2315 to Peterborough was crush loaded with passengers struggling to board. This would have been an ideal situation for a 12 Car class 700 to show its worth.

Also there appeared to be an hour’s gap from 2350 to 0050 for direct trains from London arriving at Hitchin which compares to previous times when there were additional fasts around midnight on Friday and Saturday nights.

Journey planner did offer 2342 to Letchworth and pick up the last southbound back to Hitchin but that would mean additional tickets.

 

[MikeWM]

Today would appear to have been an utter shambles on the Cambridge side, with fasts, semifasts and stoppers all very badly affected.

Currently on a GN train that is miraculously on time and rather quiet - though that’s because the train that was meant to connect into it was cancelled (2212 KGX-CBG)! Happily they’ve run it anyway.

GA from/to Cambridge was much busier than usual for a Sunday - not quite as busy as when the GN route is shut for engineering, but is ramping up quickly week on week.

 

[sefton]

Journey planner did offer 2342 to Letchworth and pick up the last southbound back to Hitchin but that would mean additional tickets.

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).

 

[MikeWM]

As an aside, I’m aware that I wrote two weeks ago that something would get sorted out the following week as Parliament was back. I’m sorry I was quite so wrong. Seriously though, this situation is a complete embarassment now, and the fact nothing is being visibly done to improve it leaves me utterly astonished and incredulous.

 

[HH]

Thanks for the explanation. It was just a hunch, looking from the outside. Sounds like some serious issues. Rotten management from top to bottom?

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.

For example, one issue has been the way that they train drivers on new stock and routes. They do not train them in such a way as to maximise the benefit of the training, so that there will be certainty of a trained driver in the roster, but instead you get a situation that a rostered driver may not know the traction or be up to date on route changes and has to be replaced. This is done by another driver rest day working and then that RDW is not available when they need it for other reasons (sorry, this is all quite complex for those who don't know how these things work). In other words, it's not just that they don't have enough drivers, they don't manage the ones they do have very efficiently.

 

[HH]

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.

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.

There are many rules around driver rosters (and diagrams) designed to minimise fatigue, which also generally mean that Tuesday's shift will start a little later than Monday's, etc.

 

[Taunton]

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.

 

[Robsignals]

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.

It's a classic example of a large project not having one person in overall control slip sliding to disaster. All the underlying problems look to trace back to DfT mandarins who may even have failed to fully brief Grayling and Johnson though they will know the importance of 'plausible denyability' and only hearing what they want to hear.

A major remodel on a route that drivers know is quite different to the new Canal Tunnels which then take drivers onto routes completely new to them.

 

[Hitchincommute]

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).

That is worth bearing in mind. I don’t think I’ve seen a revenue inspector on a train since these operational incidents began.

 

[OwenB]

Good 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.

 

[Failed Unit]

Good 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.

It ran. Didn’t stop anywhere. Many services 30+ late, skip stopping etc

Typical morning on Great Northern.