How would you like GWR to handle their inability to crew all trains timetabled?

[whole diary]

[UstiImmigrunt]

It (The diagram) conforms to terms and conditions.

We don't plan for late running.

Meanwhile in real life....

[grahame]

Poll concluded; I analyse ...

Run a reduced timetable   - 29%
Run a guaranteed train timetable with extras where possible   - 35%
Run as many as they can on the day   - 6%
It's more complicated - 30%

For those who voted on detail of thinning out (less than a half of voters answered this question):

When thinning out, remove alternate trains   - 30%
When thinning out, run at least one every 2 hours   -  70%
When thinning out, close services completely   - 0% (not a single vote)

It makes for interesting reading; a substantial majority of our members favour a reduced temporary timetable to make it more reliable, as indeed other train operators have done. GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway), however, have decided against this option.  I have written to my key contacts pointing out the customer sentiment shown by this poll, and the very real damage done to customer journeys and relations by us not knowing what will and what won't be running until a few hours - sometimes less - before a train is to run.   I have yet to get a response, I indeed I get one; my understanding is that GWR currently have the flag nailed to the mast and do not intend to reconsider their policy

[lbraine]

I think the results are very interesting and contain merit that GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) (and others) should well do to examine.

My observations, generally and from yetersday afternoons Paddington debacle, is that actually the Great British Public are an understanding bunch. There was an abundance of sympathy for GWR's plight at Paddington - which started to wane after the 4th train change.

We understand these events are exceptional and are preapred to cut the operators of public services some slack as they try to cope. No one expects a full on-time, full diagrammed timetable to operate when these events happen.

Execept for perhaps the TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company)' ( and for this forum GWR).

Most customers just want to know they can reach their final journey - evenutally. If that journey takes longer or contains additional stops to support cancelled services or even goes by another route in some cases or had to use alternative stock or (and the list goes on) - so be it.

These plans CAN be drawn up in advance. We know, from multiple events, where the weak points in the railway's resilience are. So where is plan B. Or even plan C. If there is a B and C - then operating difficulties can be mitigated in a lot of cases and, perhaps this is most critical, timely, well informed, reliable information can be provided to staff and the travelling public.

The trust element of the informal realtionship contract a customer has with a service provider is that the service provider will do there utmost/damnest to deliver the service. I politely suggest that this trust element has long gone with the approach GWR take to running our railway.


 

[ChrisB]

I don't think that enough voted to actually give any definitive answer

[Chris from Nailsea]

Hmm.

The total number of votes cast was only 35 - of whom 16 voted 'it's more complicated'.

CfN.

[grahame]

I don't think that enough voted to actually give any definitive answer

Hmm.

The total number of votes cast was only 35 - of whom 16 voted 'it's more complicated'.

CfN.

I'm in agreement too - it's too small a sample and too biased to be definitive.  But it is a pointer to take into consideration. The question would / should have been asked differently (and probable with survey software with more flexibility) had we wanted to go further.

P.s. - 46 votes cast, Chris not 35 "They should run a core service AND it's complicated" was a valid response; 2 selections allowed.

[Chris from Nailsea]

Thanks, grahame. 

Purely for the record, I did vote - for 'Run a reduced timetable'. 

CfN.

[Chris from Nailsea]

Oh, sorry: I was looking at the total number of voters, not 'the numbers of votes cast'. 

[Electric train]

Hmm.

The total number of votes cast was only 35 - of whom 16 voted 'it's more complicated'.

CfN.

That's because it is complex, if it was a simple fix it would have been done

[Wizard]

The only reliable number of trains that could be operated on a Sunday is 0. No drivers are obliged to work Sundays. Plenty do but many more do not. You’ll find it’s always the same few faces working on a Sunday, there are a good number who never work any. So if some of those ‘few faces’ are on leave or have other plans the service falls apart. And the problem at the moment is the few have become fewer as a result of the payrise.

Is that on the few for taking a couple of Sundays off or the many who don’t work any at all?

[froome]

Have Sundays always been completely reliant on overtime workers, or was there a time (in the recent past) when people were rostered to work on Sundays?

[IndustryInsider]

Have Sundays always been completely reliant on overtime workers, or was there a time (in the recent past) when people were rostered to work on Sundays?

All drivers (except for a small number on special ‘accommodated’ rosters due to personal circumstances) are rostered to work Sundays.

Many drivers, in recent post privatisation history at least, have always had a committed rostered Sunday agreement.  They should work them unless they or rostering department can cover them with someone else.

You can’t take a day off from your annual leave allocation and if you go sick you don’t get sick pay.

The HSS^▸ (High Speed Services) drivers (and a few others, notably Paddington GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway)) have an agreement whereby with 5 days notice they can make themselves unavailable without having to find cover for their rostered shift.

The phrase ‘reliant on overtime workers’ is therefore both correct and incorrect if that makes sense?

[Chris from Nailsea]

The phrase ‘reliant on overtime workers’ is therefore both correct and incorrect if that makes sense?

To be fair, it does to me: thank you for your 'clarification', IndustryInsider. 

CfN 

[Wizard]

Have Sundays always been completely reliant on overtime workers, or was there a time (in the recent past) when people were rostered to work on Sundays?

All drivers (except for a small number on special ‘accommodated’ rosters due to personal circumstances) are rostered to work Sundays.

Many drivers, in recent post privatisation history at least, have always had a committed rostered Sunday agreement.  They should work them unless they or rostering department can cover them with someone else.

You can’t take a day off from your annual leave allocation and if you go sick you don’t get sick pay.

The HSS^▸ (High Speed Services) drivers (and a few others, notably Paddington GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway)) have an agreement whereby with 5 days notice they can make themselves unavailable without having to find cover for their rostered shift.

The phrase ‘reliant on overtime workers’ is therefore both correct and incorrect if that makes sense?

A commitment that’s not worth the paper it’s written on. I know drivers who for every committed Sunday phone in ‘fatigued’ or ‘sick’ the night before and then resume on the Sunday evening for Monday. No disciplinary action can be taken because it is classed as overtime, and you can’t discipline someone for not doing overtime.

There are also plenty who email rosters on Tuesday when the Sunday sheets are issued saying they’re not coming in, and don’t, and nothing more is said. Because it’s still overtime. They don’t get paid but that’s fine because they don’t want to be paid because they don’t want to work overtime.

You’ve got some conscientious drivers who don’t do either, but I would hazard a guess they are in the minority.

[IndustryInsider]

At the depot I am most familiar with, either of those situations you describe is incredibly rare.

A driver who regularly blows out of Sundays by not following the agreed procedures would very quickly get a very bad reputation amongst his/her colleagues who have to pick up their work as a result.