Why are GWR *still* routinely short of train crew

[whole diary]

[grahame]

08:10 Warminster to Swindon due 09:02
08:10 Warminster to Swindon due 09:02 will be cancelled.
This is due to a shortage of train crew.

22:10 Taunton to Bristol Temple Meads due 23:14
22:10 Taunton to Bristol Temple Meads due 23:14 will be cancelled.
This is due to a shortage of train crew.

15:18 Penzance to London Paddington due 20:32
15:18 Penzance to London Paddington due 20:32 will be cancelled.
This is due to a shortage of train crew.

From start to end of service, from London to Penzance, trains are cancelled today because of a shortage of crew - 22 of them so far.   A further 20 services are "updated" and in most cases that means short running

15:42 Exeter St Davids to Cardiff Central due 18:01
15:42 Exeter St Davids to Cardiff Central due 18:01 will be started from Bristol Temple Meads.
It will no longer call at Exeter St Davids, Tiverton Parkway, Taunton, Bridgwater, Highbridge & Burnham, Weston-Super-Mare, Worle, Yatton and Nailsea & Backwell.
This is due to a shortage of train crew.

Why is this still happenning 18 years after First won the FGW^▸ (First Great Western)/GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) franchise?

It strikes me that staff taking industrial action and withdrawing their labour on specific days prior to the election being called are not actually working any more now.  Rather, their days off are spread out much wider and the overall service becomes less predictable.

[GBM]

Strangely I've just posted a similar cry on the shortage of staff page.
Looking at the Train Running link has been depressing over the weekend.

I would have also thought that those in Control when trying to find crew and stock must also get depressed.

[JayMac]

One reason.

Sun's out.

[bobm]

It isn't just GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) staff though.

A signalling issue at Newton Abbot yesterday became protracted because there were no technical staff on duty in the area.  Eventually someone was sent from mid-Cornwall to effect the repair with a five minute job.

[grahame]

It isn't just GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) staff though.

A signalling issue at Newton Abbot yesterday became protracted because there were no technical staff on duty in the area.  Eventually someone was sent from mid-Cornwall to effect the repair with a five minute job.

Indeed.   I would suggest that the way the rail privatisation model was done, a number of decades ago, encouraged and still encourages each of the companies providing elements of the service to control costs so tightly that they fail to deliver when there is the slightest pressure.   It's cheaper for them to pay financial penalties when they underperform than it would be to spend the money performing properly in the first place.       I look at Railtrack as an example outside of the Train Operating Company arena, and much of that approach (as you example here, BobM) has transferred to Network Rail

There IS a discussion to be had as to how much money you spend on getting those final few reliability points - and much of that is a law of diminishing returns.   If you want to go up from operating 90% of trains (which is the figure for GWR at Melksham over the last 12 weeks) to the 98% target, should they spend an extra 1% or 8%, or 20%, or 50%?   What is the acceptable level of failure?  Should the financial rewards and penalties be adjusted to make it worthwhile for the shareholder (who may be the government in some cases) to invest in resources to sort out the issues?

[Wizard]

Because people don’t like working weekends. Especially in the summer. And drivers won’t change hours to help cover stuff because of the ongoing dispute.

[a-driver]

Because people don’t like working weekends. Especially in the summer.

That’s a largely irrelevant excuse. Only so many staff are guaranteed leave on a daily basis based on the size of the depot.
Equally there are potentially a lot of individuals who don’t have family/children and so prefer working weekends in favour of a day off in the week when life is a little bit quieter.

[TaplowGreen]

It isn't just GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) staff though.

A signalling issue at Newton Abbot yesterday became protracted because there were no technical staff on duty in the area.  Eventually someone was sent from mid-Cornwall to effect the repair with a five minute job.

Guess the question is.......why were there no technical staff on duty in the area, necessitating such a long, inefficient haul for a simple fix, inconveniencing numerous customers as a result?

[grahame]

It isn't just GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) staff though.

A signalling issue at Newton Abbot yesterday became protracted because there were no technical staff on duty in the area.  Eventually someone was sent from mid-Cornwall to effect the repair with a five minute job.

Guess the question is.......why were there no technical staff on duty in the area, necessitating such a long, inefficient haul for a simple fix, inconveniencing numerous customers as a result?

That comes back to my earlier question ...

There IS a discussion to be had as to how much money you spend on getting those final few reliability points - and much of that is a law of diminishing returns.   If you want to go up from operating 90% of trains (which is the figure for GWR at Melksham over the last 12 weeks) to the 98% target, should they spend an extra 1% or 8%, or 20%, or 50%?   What is the acceptable level of failure?

And it's not only about how many incidents of inconvenience there are, but how long they take to fix.   I would suspect that having an on call technical person somewhere in South Devon would cost a great deal and result in precious few call outs anyway.   

When we ran a 24x7 operation, we had the issue that we could have spent a lot of money - an awful lot of money - on having people waiting around to provide service for only a tiny proportion of the time.  We dealt with this by having multi-facetted staff who could be on duty and doing work that was not time critical, but had the ability (and very much the disposition) to look after immediate custom stuff at the drop of a hat.

[Electric train]

It isn't just GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) staff though.

A signalling issue at Newton Abbot yesterday became protracted because there were no technical staff on duty in the area.  Eventually someone was sent from mid-Cornwall to effect the repair with a five minute job.

Could be down to NR^» (Network Rail - home page)'s "modernising maintenance" re org it went though last year. Tech rostered differently, quite a number of maintenance Techs were given severance.  Some disciplines and depots are a bit stretched 

[Wizard]

Because people don’t like working weekends. Especially in the summer.

That’s a largely irrelevant excuse. Only so many staff are guaranteed leave on a daily basis based on the size of the depot.
Equally there are potentially a lot of individuals who don’t have family/children and so prefer working weekends in favour of a day off in the week when life is a little bit quieter.

I think the problem comes in because a fairly large proportion of drivers don’t work any Sundays at all. That means that those who want to can basically pick and choose which ones to do. But the problem is that sometimes they can’t (late turn Saturday to early turn Monday) or don’t want to, and at times like school holidays in the summer, some of them decide they’d rather be with family/friends

[a-driver]

I think the problem comes in because a fairly large proportion of drivers don’t work any Sundays at all. That means that those who want to can basically pick and choose which ones to do. But the problem is that sometimes they can’t (late turn Saturday to early turn Monday) or don’t want to, and at times like school holidays in the summer, some of them decide they’d rather be with family/friends

The vast majority of drivers at GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) now have a commitment to working Sundays in their contracts.

[Wizard]

I think the problem comes in because a fairly large proportion of drivers don’t work any Sundays at all. That means that those who want to can basically pick and choose which ones to do. But the problem is that sometimes they can’t (late turn Saturday to early turn Monday) or don’t want to, and at times like school holidays in the summer, some of them decide they’d rather be with family/friends

The vast majority of drivers at GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) now have a commitment to working Sundays in their contracts.

A commitment, not a requirement. What is the penalty for failing to show up for overtime? (all Sundays are classed as overtime, ‘commitment’ or not).

[a-driver]

A commitment, not a requirement. What is the penalty for failing to show up for overtime? (all Sundays are classed as overtime, ‘commitment’ or not).

All Sundays are overtime, correct.  The fact is, regardless of wether it’s a commitment or a requirement, GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) drivers are contractually required to work Sundays unless you can find your own cover.  The penalty for not showing up is the same as not showing up for a shift any other day.

[GBM]

It isn't just GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) staff though.

A signalling issue at Newton Abbot yesterday became protracted because there were no technical staff on duty in the area.  Eventually someone was sent from mid-Cornwall to effect the repair with a five minute job.

Guess the question is.......why were there no technical staff on duty in the area, necessitating such a long, inefficient haul for a simple fix, inconveniencing numerous customers as a result?

That comes back to my earlier question ...

There IS a discussion to be had as to how much money you spend on getting those final few reliability points - and much of that is a law of diminishing returns.   If you want to go up from operating 90% of trains (which is the figure for GWR at Melksham over the last 12 weeks) to the 98% target, should they spend an extra 1% or 8%, or 20%, or 50%?   What is the acceptable level of failure?

And it's not only about how many incidents of inconvenience there are, but how long they take to fix.   I would suspect that having an on call technical person somewhere in South Devon would cost a great deal and result in precious few call outs anyway.   

When we ran a 24x7 operation, we had the issue that we could have spent a lot of money - an awful lot of money - on having people waiting around to provide service for only a tiny proportion of the time.  We dealt with this by having multi-facetted staff who could be on duty and doing work that was not time critical, but had the ability (and very much the disposition) to look after immediate custom stuff at the drop of a hat.

Change in terms and conditions of employment from doing a few jobs to doing a bit more of 'other peoples jobs' and being offered a bit more money to do so.
That sounds like the current dispute doesn't it - i.e reducing staff numbers, and offering those that remain additional money for a change in their terms and conditions.