Cancellations and changes this morning

[whole diary]

[BBM]

The 0630 from Oxford was also a casualty....

Yes, this service which should have started at Worcester SH instead started at Oxford and was a 3-car Turbo instead of an HST^▸ (High Speed Train) (which did not please MAI^▸ (Maidenhead station) commuters seeing as the preceding service at 0702 was a 3-car Turbo vice 6. )

[IndustryInsider]

The 0630 from Oxford was also a casualty....

Yes, this service which should have started at Worcester SH instead started at Oxford and was a 3-car Turbo instead of an HST^▸ (High Speed Train) (which did not please MAI^▸ (Maidenhead station) commuters seeing as the preceding service at 0702 was a 3-car Turbo vice 6. )

Could well be the same tomorrow.  This train (as far as Oxford) is covered by a night shift driver from Oxford. This is currently uncovered again tonight - usually if there's nobody available it is a prime Rest Day Work shift - but that option is currently unavailable to the rostering team.

[NickB]

The 0630 from Oxford was also a casualty....

Yes, this service which should have started at Worcester SH instead started at Oxford and was a 3-car Turbo instead of an HST^▸ (High Speed Train) (which did not please MAI^▸ (Maidenhead station) commuters seeing as the preceding service at 0702 was a 3-car Turbo vice 6. )

Yes, Maidenhead was not a pleasant place to be boarding this morning.  Many were left on the platforms as a result of the 7.02 and 7.08 shortform - the two busiest services of the morning.  They both arrived simultaneously which didn't help any 'overflow' between them.  Also the automatic platform announcements were still expecting an HST with 'first class to the front' etc.  Very very messy.

I assume that what has been done is to split the 7.02 in to 2 services??  This is allowing GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) to refute 'cancellation' refunds on twitter this morning, despite the fact that the 7.08 was cancelled and the 7.02 just arrived on two platforms.

[Jason]

08/04 - My usual hop-on train for RDG^‡(resolve)->PAD^» (Paddington (London) - next trains) morning commute was cancelled due to a shortage of drivers, according to the SMS I received.

http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/C50604/2016/04/08/advanced  cites an 'issue with the train crew' having run from Worcester to Gloucester

[TaplowGreen]

08/04 - My usual hop-on train for RDG^‡(resolve)->PAD^» (Paddington (London) - next trains) morning commute was cancelled due to a shortage of drivers, according to the SMS I received.

http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/C50604/2016/04/08/advanced  cites an 'issue with the train crew' having run from Worcester to Gloucester

According to GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) Twitter feed, "the traincrew shortage is due to Annual Leave over the Easter period", so sounds like bad planning, however that would suggest that all will return to normal over the next week or so! 

[IndustryInsider]

According to GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) Twitter feed, "the traincrew shortage is due to Annual Leave over the Easter period", so sounds like bad planning, however that would suggest that all will return to normal over the next week or so! 

Not 'bad planning' as such, but it was no doubt due to Annual Leave over the Easter period.  At that time the maximum, or near maximum, number of drivers allowed by their depots agreements would have taken holiday.  The vacant shifts would then usually be covered by drivers willing to work Rest Days who are currently prevented from doing so.

The situation should improve a little over the next few weeks as there won't be quite as many drivers wanting to take leave, but as soon as we hit the summer period then the same thing will happen again if this Rest Day ban is still in force.  That's a big 'if' though as I would expect the situation to have been resolved by then.

[TaplowGreen]

According to GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) Twitter feed, "the traincrew shortage is due to Annual Leave over the Easter period", so sounds like bad planning, however that would suggest that all will return to normal over the next week or so! 

Not 'bad planning' as such, but it was no doubt due to Annual Leave over the Easter period.  At that time the maximum, or near maximum, number of drivers allowed by their depots agreements would have taken holiday.  The vacant shifts would then usually be covered by drivers willing to work Rest Days who are currently prevented from doing so.

The situation should improve a little over the next few weeks as there won't be quite as many drivers wanting to take leave, but as soon as we hit the summer period then the same thing will happen again if this Rest Day ban is still in force.  That's a big 'if' though as I would expect the situation to have been resolved by then.

That's one perspective, but allowing the maximum numbers of drivers to take Annual Leave, knowing that shifts will be left uncovered and services will be cancelled as a result, is bad planning.

Nothing is "preventing" drivers from working rest days, it's their own decision.

[IndustryInsider]

I would certainly agree that you could say it's bad planning in so much as the railway industry as a whole (not just GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway)) has relied on Rest Day Working, for as long as I've been involved in it, to cover shifts.  There would be no way of reducing the total number of drivers allowed to take annual leave because of the time of year or the fact there's as Rest Day Work ban because they are agreements with the union and the company.  Currently, because of the dispute drivers are being prevented from working rest days whether they'd like to or not.

It might help if I explain how annual leave works for drivers within GWR:

All drivers have four block weeks allocated to them per year.  They are split between one between Jan-Apr, two weeks together between May and September, and one further week between October and December.  Each depot has a maximum number of people that can be allocated a particular week, but as long as that maximum is not exceeded drivers can swap between their allocated weeks.  Especially if you have children it is not surprising that you would want to swap your week in February to the Easter week, so you often end up with a couple of drivers on leave for a February week and the full quota off for Easter week - the same applies in the school summer holidays.  That maximum number is defined as a percentage of the total number of drivers at each depot.

On top of that you then have 'ad hoc' leave where drivers use up their remaining annual leave for days off of their choosing.  Again there is a maximum quota of people that can be off at the same time on either an early or late shift depending on the size of the depot.  That number can be exceeded, but only if there is cover available on the day.  If there isn't they get refused.

In an ideal world, all shifts should be covered by the additional 'spare' capacity at the depot - there's usually about a third of drivers at any one time who are 'spare' and get moved to cover the shift nearest to them that is uncovered on a given day, but at times of peak demand (such as Easter) there is traditionally a reliance on drivers working additional shifts.  With that currently being prevented there's no surprises that there's a shortfall.

[ChrisB]

That's one perspective, but allowing the maximum numbers of drivers to take Annual Leave, knowing that shifts will be left uncovered and services will be cancelled as a result, is bad planning.

I think the dispute arose *after* the holiday was booked. So you're accusing the union of bad (err, good in their opinion, more disruption ensues) planning. The TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company) can hardly cancel holiday already booked!

[IndustryInsider]

The TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company) can hardly cancel holiday already booked!

As I tried to explain in my last post, the TOC can't 'cancel' any holiday whether booked before or after the dispute.  As long as an application for a day off doesn't exceed the maximum quota at the depot, a driver will be guaranteed it off - they are the agreements with the union and company.

[Billhere]

Industryinsider is correct. There is a thing called the National Rostering Principles, the industry wide and agreed system for the making of rosters, rostering and the taking of annual leave. It is a hang back to BR^▸ (British Rail(ways)) days, and has never been superseded, although they are being rewritten at the moment.

As II says leave is taken as one week Spring, 2 weeks Summer, 1 week Autumn in line with the NRP. They also deal with the hours off between shifts (12), no shift before 32 hours of if there is a day off involved, and 52 if there are two days off. It is to avoid fatigue which then brings the Fatigue Index into play. Each set of rosters is put through the Fatigue Index to ensure that duty days between days off do not exceed a certain figure, and if they do are deemed to be not acceptable and must be revamped.

As for staffing, cutting it to the bone is not unusual in the industry now. We have a new roster (NRP compliant) that actually leaves two days each week where we have no spare man, so if somebody wants a day off on one of those a colleague has to agree to work a day off to cover him. No volunteers the day off is refused, although that does not happen because we are a close knit group who work together.

I am afraid the cover is subject to a certain amount of goodwill, which seems to have disappeared here.

[TaplowGreen]

I would certainly agree that you could say it's bad planning in so much as the railway industry as a whole (not just GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway)) has relied on Rest Day Working, for as long as I've been involved in it, to cover shifts.  There would be no way of reducing the total number of drivers allowed to take annual leave because of the time of year or the fact there's as Rest Day Work ban because they are agreements with the union and the company.  Currently, because of the dispute drivers are being prevented from working rest days whether they'd like to or not.

 With that currently being prevented there's no surprises that there's a shortfall.

Sorry to labour the point, but define "prevented" in this context? A Union can advise or request its members to take a particular course of action, but it can't, to the best of my knowledge, oblige them to do so...........unless they are being intimidated of course?

[IndustryInsider]

Happy to try, TG - the world of industrial relations is difficult enough for the likes of myself to understand!

The rest day working agreement is an agreement with the union and the TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company).  At any time the union can withdraw that agreement if they believe it is not being properly followed.  If they do that then no driver can work a rest day, whether they make themselves available or not.  That is the current situation - no driver is being 'booked out' on their rest day.

They can still do overtime at the end of the shift, or come in earlier/later than their rostered shift (though not many are doing that), but no driver is currently working on a rest day.

[Gordon the Blue Engine]

To brand the present Rest Day working ban as some kind of gratuitously bolshy action by ASLEF^» (Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen - about) is, I think, somewhat wide of the mark.  From what I know I think it^s more to do with management not always being aware of, or willing to abide by, existing agreements relating to rostering.

[Henry]

.