GTR Timetable Change 2018

[jim.snowdon]

And then to plonk his bags on the adjacent seat so no other first class or GTR member of staff can use that seat. Totally contradicts the announcement OBS often put out to keep bags off seats so others can use them.

People like him will only make matters worse between Tocs and passenger's, sorry customers but then GTR don't keep the revenue do they.

But then, customers never understand that the back end of the train is going to the same place as the front end (except when the train divides en-route), with the result that an averagely loaded train can be full and standing at one end, and with seats going spare at the other. At that point, I have little sympathy for passengers complaining that the train is over-crowded.

 

Technically, he had every right to do what he did, but when he is visibly a member of Southern staff, and Southern's "first class" is little more than an anti-macassar on the seats and a notice in the window, it doesn't help matters.

 

Jim

[locoholic]

OK perhaps 'snide' was perhaps not the most suitable adjective to use but the general gist still stands that it is far more preferable to actually provide clarity as to what the issue is. We don't all have photographic minds and remember everything we have posted for the past 6 weeks or whatever.

 

However I confess to still not understanding what the issue is with my previous post which quite clearly illustrated that relying only on 'a thick skin and a brass neck' is insufficient to be a success in your career as a whole.

 

Equally its a bit rich to try and insinuate that Mr Boon is 'typical' of railway industry employees - while there are no doubt others with similarly skewed viewpoints, the reality is most are not. You also can find plenty of examples of 'Mr Boon' attitudes in other industries if you look hard enough.

 

Finally as I have mentioned before, like quite a few of those struggling with Autistic tendencies I like to speak my mind on matters I find important. If they come over as being undiplomatic there is not much I can do about it - in any case I'm through with hiding in the corner in case I upset anyone.....

The point I was trying to make, maybe not as clearly as I could have done, is that it is often the case on here that opinions and arguments put forward by non-railway people are dismissed and even ridiculed by RMWebbers who are past or present railway staff, some of whom give the impression that simply working on the railway bestows upon them the gift of infallibility. So, for instance, problems on the railway are usually attributed to interference from the Dept of Transport, rather than ever being poor decisions taken by railway employees or management, or inherent faults in the franchising system.

 

The episode with Mr Boon (an ironic name in the circumstances) simply illustrates that some of those working on the railway are very far from infallible or even sensible, and that is no bar to promotion. Therefore, non-railway staff RMWebbers are entitled to question opinions, whatever the background of the person who posted them. Cromptonnut's comment above certainly fits with my experiences in a range of employment, that it is often those least suitable for seniority that actually attain it, and there is no system in place to ensure that does not also apply on the railway.

[locoholic]

No. Just as many cancellations and long delays either side of the core (presumably waiting for pilot drivers) as when it first began. And of course that is on top of the fact that the majority of the May timetable has been "disappeared" from the timetable. Some elements are predictable - like 2 of the Bedford services through East Croydon each hour being cancelled, but many more are random.

 

With the cancellations on top of the disappeared trains, gaps of 50 minutes between trains between London Bridge and Blackfriars are still common. It seems like every remaining Southern fast service to London Bridge is making additional calls at Norwood Junction this week to replace the Thameslink service.

 

The July 15th timetable seems to have a much more even distribution of trains than the current thinned out timetable, but still a lot more than seem to be running this week. If they can't run their current thinned out timetable, they haven't got a hope in hell of running the July timetable. 

 

Comments on Railforums.co.uk seem to suggest the route learning backlog has actually got worse as they struggle to run what they can rather than divert shifts to support training, little route learning (or none, some posts seem to suggest) has actually taken place.

 

 

 

Justin

That is depressing. It suggests that the TOC's business model is cut so close to the bone that recovery from such a major crisis is not possible. If that is the case, Grayling will not be able to duck responsibility indefinitely, and the terms of any new franchise will have to be more generous to the point where it becomes unpalatable to the DfT. Something's got to give, though.

[justin1985]

Very revealing comment below the line at London Reconnections:

 

 

TL DRIVER 9 July 2018 at 19:40

Re: 130, Timbeau and others.

 

The best comment i’ve read regarding this (and I can’t remember who made it but Malcolm had a hand in it…) is that we (as a company) seem to think because we got through London Bridge, the 700 shortages and other various debacles that we can get through this one.

 

It’s plain to see we can’t. There is just too great a backlog. You could paraphrase it maybe as closing the door after the horse has bolted. There are around 240 ‘drivers’ within the company at different levels of training but prior to becoming qualified, none of which are productive. Most, although not all of these, are waiting for a driver instructor. This problem is simply not going to go away. More ‘trainee drivers’ are being recruited every month but without the driver instructors the problem will persist and the bottle neck remains. Some driver instructors have been borrowed to aid training trains and route learning but then this causes further delays in the system. They have now been sent back to try and cover jobs resulting in qualified, usually productive drivers unable to take a route assessment because there are no managers/driver instructors to assess them.

 

Some 30+ recent trainees were fully trained by South Eastern and came over to GTR as planned to improve the roll out of qualified staff. However, they too are struggling to get the support to learn their routes. A recent group of trainees have been sent the other way after waiting more than a year(!) for a driver instructor. That’s 12 months stood still doing nothing only to now be sent off to SE to learn Networkers and 375s, do their handling then back to GTR for another 700 course and….here comes the issue…learning TL routes again. For those that SE can’t train on our behalf – they can do some route learning but they will still have to do their handling hours so it will not speed the process up because they’re still waiting for DI’s. The frustrating thing is that the driver instructor shortages were highlighted by outside consultants three years ago but were either ignored or it was put in the too hard to deal with pile.

 

Its increasingly clear (to me at least) that whatever the truth about Network Rail and the timetable, the simple core of the problem is driver route knowledge, and it doesn't sound like TL would have been able to do this anyway, even if they had the industry standard amount of time. 

 

If TL don't have driver instructors, the last few months aren't leading to any progress. Other comments suggest they're compelling managers with signed route and traction knowledge to drive from the 15th July onward. Which means there will be even less capacity for route and traction training, and this will prevent them from rolling out the new units for the Moorgate line, by all accounts.

 

They are a very long way up the creek, and there is no sign of any paddle ...

 

Justin

Edited July 12, 2018 by justin1985

[jjb1970]

Most senior managers get there not on merit and skills, but on connections and backstabbing other people as they climb over them on their way up the corporate ladder.  It's why most large companies (not just the railways) are in such a mess these days.  Especially when they are 'outsiders' coming into roles because of experience in other industries, so they have no idea of what the people below them are doing, yet they issue instructions to change things they don't understand and cut back on staff (which cost) so they can hit their targets and get their bonuses, completely unaware of the struggles of those they are supposed to be 'managing', having never done the job themselves.

That's a gross generalisation and unfair to an awful lot of people. Most large companies don't appear to be in a mess (at least no more than they ever are) and depite the Peter principle people who climb the greasy pole tend to have a certain degree of competence and drive. For what it's worth I can't remember encountering senior level managers and leaders who weren't acutely aware of the impact of their decisions for those working for them.

[locoholic]

That's a gross generalisation and unfair to an awful lot of people. Most large companies don't appear to be in a mess (at least no more than they ever are) and depite the Peter principle people who climb the greasy pole tend to have a certain degree of competence and drive. For what it's worth I can't remember encountering senior level managers and leaders who weren't acutely aware of the impact of their decisions for those working for them.

I think you've been quite fortunate. Maybe "A lot of senior managers" would have been more accurate, rather than "most". But as you say yourself, most large companies are habitually in a mess, and I'm surprised that you dismiss the Peter Principle so lightly. I don't think anyone has suggested that incompetence is a new thing. All that is happening is that the wiggle-room that used to give companies the chance to keep functioning through cock-ups has been lost in the drive for a competitive edge in the global economy, or through austerity-driven cuts in search of value for money.

[jjb1970]

I think you've been quite fortunate. Maybe "A lot of senior managers" would have been more accurate, rather than "most". But as you say yourself, most large companies are habitually in a mess, and I'm surprised that you dismiss the Peter Principle so lightly. I don't think anyone has suggested that incompetence is a new thing. All that is happening is that the wiggle-room that used to give companies the chance to keep functioning through cock-ups has been lost in the drive for a competitive edge in the global economy, or through austerity-driven cuts in search of value for money.

It depends how you define in a mess. Any large organisation will have components that perform better than others and have problem areas. Some of these companies operate 10,000's of people globally, is every single leader in these organisations blemish free? Probably not, however rather than judging companies and the people that work for them by the outliers who are not especially commendable I think it is more realistic to look at an overall average (I suspect those who see the glass half full would object to a suggestion that we base our assessment on the top 10% of star performers). The Peter principle is one of those generalisations which resonates with people because I suspect most of us have met somebody that could be held up as an example of it in action but all it is basically just another management idea, one amongst 1000's.

 

Funnily enough, the Peter principle itself doesn't support the argument in the post that led to mine as the underpinning argument of the Peter principle is that the skills required to do one job do not necessarily translate to another job. We see a lot of complaints along the lines of "railway industry managers can't drive trains or do the job of a guard", well that may well be true but they haven't been employed to be a train driver or a guard and I suspect (I admit I am speculating now) that few train drivers or guards could move into the CEOs role. Notwithstanding that, more senior leaders that you might expect could go back to the shop floor if they wanted to. I've worked in three industries and in each of them a high percentage (a very high percentage in two of them) had extensive experience in technical and operational roles within their respective industries.

[ess1uk]

So glad I’m not commuting into London regularly now, twice last week was enough with one train home cancelled due to lack of driver.

This will rumble on for quite a while I fear

[John M Upton]

I have noticed the much spoken about 'twenty four trains an hour through the Core' claim for 2019/2020 seems to have quietly disappeared....

[rodent279]

Just to add my thoughts, for what they're worth, which is probably not a lot.... In the industry I work in (telecoms, particularly mobile), I've met many managers who are fully competent, fully aware of what those below them do, and could do their jobs if needed.

I have also had managers who haven't done those jobs below them, but are still competent, and able to understand what they are asking of people and the implications of their actions. Long experience does not necessarily make a person a good manager.

Of course there are exceptions, we've all met managers who get there by basically being bullies, or who are not competent, or who simply don't want to manage.

Like air crashes, they tend by their very nature to be the ones that stick in your mind, but my experience is they are the minority.

Edited July 17, 2018 by rodent279

[hayfield]

I think you've been quite fortunate. Maybe "A lot of senior managers" would have been more accurate, rather than "most". But as you say yourself, most large companies are habitually in a mess, and I'm surprised that you dismiss the Peter Principle so lightly. I don't think anyone has suggested that incompetence is a new thing. All that is happening is that the wiggle-room that used to give companies the chance to keep functioning through cock-ups has been lost in the drive for a competitive edge in the global economy, or through austerity-driven cuts in search of value for money.

 

Lots of good theories here and I agree with the Peter principal, I believe a lot of the problems today are caused by the Human Resource industry and their drive for being transparent

 

I see the managers today where I work being a product of this industry, where their ability to follow a predetermined program designed to find the right recruits. But all it does in reality is identify those who have the ability to follow the program rather than just those who can grow into the job. Where I work I guess is the same as everywhere else, many good hard working competent managers with a few who should not be there

 

Back in the 70's I worked for a company and after a couple of years enquired about becoming a manager. My then manager took me aside and told me the things I needed to do to become noticed and considered. The company never advertised managerial vacancies and always promoted from within. In short over the following 7 years I enjoyed several promotions, each and every one I was selected and invited to take the position. This selection process worked by selecting those showing the ability to take the next step

 

I left the industry to follow a different career. I am back now sort of in a similar industry and working for a company which is smaller than the previous company despite being much older. It has an HR run selection system, what disappoints me is the number of very capable individuals who for what ever reason do not want to follow the prescribed method and whose talents are lost, but with a bit of encouragement and direction would have been great assets to the company, Sadly now its seen as more important what you have on paper rather than what abilities you have

 

Back on to the thread, listening to parts of the select committees enquiry what surprised me was those tasked with overseeing the implementation were so indecisive when assessing all the redflags about where GTL were in the implementation process. It seemed the date was sacrosanct rather than the companies abilities to be ready. A lesson now seemingly learnt and many involved were seasoned industry professionals    

[Zomboid]

I have noticed the much spoken about 'twenty four trains an hour through the Core' claim for 2019/2020 seems to have quietly disappeared....

Probably the one bit that's possible since it's ATO. Just getting on/off the core that's the trouble...

[cromptonnut]

 For what it's worth I can't remember encountering senior level managers and leaders who weren't acutely aware of the impact of their decisions for those working for them.

 

I've encountered a few that are acutely aware of the impact of their decisions for those working for them - and simply don't care as long as they reach their targets and get their bonuses, whatever the cost.

[locoholic]

Probably the one bit that's possible since it's ATO. Just getting on/off the core that's the trouble...

Or even getting on/off the trains?!

[locoholic]

Probably the one bit that's possible since it's ATO. Just getting on/off the core that's the trouble...

Of course!! Suddenly the cause of this chaos is clear! It was done deliberately, to justify the extension of ATO over the rest of the network. After that, no need to bother with driver's route knowledge and all that nonsense.

[phil-b259]

Of course!! Suddenly the cause of this chaos is clear! It was done deliberately, to justify the extension of ATO over the rest of the network. After that, no need to bother with driver's route knowledge and all that nonsense.

Erm, since when has ATO meant the driver does not require traditional route knowledge?

 

While obviously under ATO mode the finer points like braking points, signal locations, etc don't matter - what happens when ATO goes wrong?

 

The Thameslink core retains lineside signals and manual driving is still permitted - (however under this mode of operation the maximum TPH  falls significantly) so drivers still need traditional route knowledge. In fact it wouldn't surprise me if the occasional trip is still driven this way (just as with service alterations to maintain diversionary route knowledge)

[Coryton]

So basically Network Rail has admitted, and made public, its inability to do the jobs that it is supposed to do.  Not can't it manage to deal with the principal timetable change date for the whole national rail network but it can't even manage the relatively simple task of getting information onto Informed Traveller systems as late as 12 weeks before its operational date; what a shambles!

 

Note for NR - the horizon for releasing timetable change information to public availability throughout the rest of the European rail network is 26 weeks, and in all but very rare instances they have no trouble in achieving it (apart from the Italians).  Oh and through the European Timetable Conference NR is actually signed-up to that 26 week horizon, I wonder if it realises that?

 

Hmmm.

 

I have a (rail) trip planned between Austria and Switzerland in about 5 weeks time.

 

For quite a few months the journey planner has been warning that due to a line closure there will be a bus substitution over part of the route (and I don't think they have been accepting reservations) - further information to be made available later.

 

The train timings had changed, but they were shown as running through the closed section, albeit with added dwell time further down. So it was not at all clear what was happening.

 

It's only in the last week or so that they have shown the journey properly along with rail replacement buses (with the ultimate arrival time the same as when it looked as if the trains were running all the way through).

 

The difference from the UK is that they still seemed happy to sell advance purchase fixed-train tickets even though reservations weren't avalable.

 

Also, in the last few weeks, the Swiss travel planner has started mentioning summer line closures and saying that people should re-check their journeys on the travel planner.

[locoholic]

Erm, since when has ATO meant the driver does not require traditional route knowledge?

 

While obviously under ATO mode the finer points like braking points, signal locations, etc don't matter - what happens when ATO goes wrong?

 

The Thameslink core retains lineside signals and manual driving is still permitted - (however under this mode of operation the maximum TPH  falls significantly) so drivers still need traditional route knowledge. In fact it wouldn't surprise me if the occasional trip is still driven this way (just as with service alterations to maintain diversionary route knowledge)

1. I wasn't being serious (but now I think about it, maybe I was right...)

 

2. Worrying about when things go wrong is no longer part of the remit for the national rail network. Instead, all you need is the phone number for a bus operator.

[Coryton]

The Thameslink core retains lineside signals and manual driving is still permitted - (however under this mode of operation the maximum TPH  falls significantly) so drivers still need traditional route knowledge. In fact it wouldn't surprise me if the occasional trip is still driven this way (just as with service alterations to maintain diversionary route knowledge)

 

I remember reading a while ago that on the London Underground Central line the drivers were allowed to take manual control outside the rush hour when there is a less intense service.

 

2. Worrying about when things go wrong is no longer part of the remit for the national rail network. Instead, all you need is the phone number for a bus operator.

 

I think we are still doing OK when it comes to diverting trains round trouble (and doing what it takes to keep up route knowledge for such diversions) - the problems come when there is no diversionary route and for various reasons it seems to be a lot harder now to keep things moving than it used to be.

 

2. Worrying about when things go wrong is no longer part of the remit for the national rail network. Instead, all you need is the phone number for a bus operator.

 

A bit harsh. I'd say.

[caradoc]

2. Worrying about when things go wrong is no longer part of the remit for the national rail network. Instead, all you need is the phone number for a bus operator.

 

When I worked for the national rail network worrying about when things go wrong was the major part of my job, and both Network Rail and Train Operator Controls make every possible effort to maintain what train service they can, the closure of the WCML in Scotland at Lamington in early 2016 being a case in point. Sometimes however bus substitution is used, either because there is simply no other choice, or to allow repairs and therefore resumption of normal working sooner, but it is not the automatic solution to every incident. 

[hayfield]

When I worked for the national rail network worrying about when things go wrong was the major part of my job, and both Network Rail and Train Operator Controls make every possible effort to maintain what train service they can, the closure of the WCML in Scotland at Lamington in early 2016 being a case in point. Sometimes however bus substitution is used, either because there is simply no other choice, or to allow repairs and therefore resumption of normal working sooner, but it is not the automatic solution to every incident. 

 

 

On one of the select committee interviews it was stated that the plans (timetables & roatas) would be run through a computer several times to find conflicts each time tweaking and running the program again. This was not done as they had run out of time, in hindsight it was stated that the implementation of the timetable should have been postponed until all due processes had been carried out and issues resolved. Lets hope lessons have been learnt. But this means staff have to say how it actually is, rather than say what they think their bosses want to hear

[The Stationmaster]

On one of the select committee interviews it was stated that the plans (timetables & roatas) would be run through a computer several times to find conflicts each time tweaking and running the program again. This was not done as they had run out of time, in hindsight it was stated that the implementation of the timetable should have been postponed until all due processes had been carried out and issues resolved. Lets hope lessons have been learnt. But this means staff have to say how it actually is, rather than say what they think their bosses want to hear

 

It also suggested to me that maybe there simply aren't the staff there with either the experience and competence and/or the time to do the job any other way.  Usually if a trainplan is unlikely to work it isn't over difficult to become aware of that from looking at just a part of it but if it is a complex plan,  like the new Thameslink TT,  you have to know which parts to look at.  As already mentioned I have been very surprised at what appears to have been the way the service was built up using a straight line approach from timetable to diagrams, this sort of method was increasingly out of use on BR from the 1980s onwards because it was so wasteful.

 

And it seems to have not worked the right way here as, for example, people being unaware of how many sets would be needed and where stabling for them was required - that should be a starting point as much as anything else.  Oddly I found a very similar problem in NSW when I was analysing risks and shortcomings in the Sydney suburban service TT development process.   Net result was that the TT could not deliver the required reliability but also it was not delivering the best set maintenance reliability either because of the way the set diagrams were issued to stabling locations (easily put right) but even more amazing was that an agreed set availability figure was not used at the start of timetable planning.

[hayfield]

Clearly the issues had been raised at several of the monthly overseeing meetings, and had been for several months as a red flag concern, but GTL right up to the last meeting with 3 weeks to go were assuring the others that they would be ready with minimal cancellations. perhaps its junior in fear and telling their bosses what they wanted to hear rather than how bad the situation

[cromptonnut]

There is a Thameslink "Meet the Managers" at Blackfriars tomorrow morning.  That could be a very interesting opportunity.

[John M Upton]

There is a points failure outside London Bridge this evening. The 1803 departure to Portsmouth is starting from East Croydon and there is expected to be severe disruption to the terminating platform services for the next couple of hours.