Okehampton Railway re-opening

[Mike_Walker]

Given that the DfT have instructed GWR to remove Taunton to Bristol from the route cards of Plymouth HSS drivers even though it causes chaos if the WoE line east of Taunton is closed I can't see them wanting to pay for refreshers over multiple routes.  They actually want to stop all diversionary route knowledge!  But then they are simply clueless civil servants who think they know how to run a railway and that those that do can't be trusted.

[Not Jeremy]

Hmmm

 

All very well Mike, but on your Tavistock observation, I think the lack of progress in reconnecting that town by rail to Plymouth over thirty odd years is easily trumped by the lack of a service to Portishead over an even longer period - and that line has most of the track in place. And there are plenty of other stupidities about - there always will be.

 

You are a widely experienced operator par excellence, but there is more to whether something will happen or not than "operational considerations", important as they are.

 

More generally speaking , one simply can't take the politics out of the equation, and it is the politics (on top of the basic utility of the idea itself) that makes this idea of a "Northern Route" look slightly less dead than the extremely dead parrot that some here repeatedly make it out to be. The "green agenda" also favours rail as a mode of transport, less so air travel, which may be significant in this case as I have heard it said that it was the development and presence of Newquay airport that has up to now given Cornish politicians an extreme attack of ennui when considering rail connectivity to the rest of the UK.

 

Also there are hopes and aspirations floating around here, some folk are busy promoting "Connect Bude", Okehampton "Parkway" is happening and there are a significant number of people lobbying and cheerfully getting stuck in and clearing Barnstaple's other platform in the hope that trains may yet return to Bideford. 

 

And of course, this has to a large degree been galvanised in the last couple of years by the highly successful reopening of the railway to Okehampton.

 

Or is someone here going to tell me that the re-opening to Okehampton is in fact some sort of disaster that my "rose tinted" spectacles cloud from my view?

 

As regards money, well yes, quite. But let none of us be in any doubt that whatever vicissitudes and financial challenges face this country, politicians of all persuasions will always be able to find large amounts of money to spend on projects or ideas that were very clearly better not pursued. And then add in the percentage of anything that will inevitably be "trousered" by all the clever people in sharp suits. As Harry Enfield said all those years ago - "loadsa money".....

 

So, something that excites people, offers a better future, shows a bit of vision, uses a bit of imagination, doesn't start off with an analysis that is any more bogged down with insane minutiae than it really needs to be, and which might even interest our politicians (who really cannot all be as black hearted as some here would have us believe) still, might, just, be a possibility.

 

Or at the very least something worth discussing and promoting.

 

As I have said previously, I agree that it is not "likely" but equally cannot understand the necessity that some folk here appear to have to endlessly rubbish the idea.

 

 

 

 

Edited October 27, 2023 by Not Jeremy
add face

[St Enodoc]

9 hours ago, Mike_Walker said:

Given that the DfT have instructed GWR to remove Taunton to Bristol from the route cards of Plymouth HSS drivers even though it causes chaos if the WoE line east of Taunton is closed I can't see them wanting to pay for refreshers over multiple routes.  They actually want to stop all diversionary route knowledge!  But then they are simply clueless civil servants who think they know how to run a railway and that those that do can't be trusted.

GBR will fix that - won't it?????

[Robert Shrives]

5 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

GBR will fix that - won't it?????

Unlikely in its present format.  Removal of route knowledge means drivers only work regular work routes and can do more frequently so less required. From the operator`s bean counters this is a win - win as most diversions are a result of NR issues- direct failings or been the fall guy for external issues- bridge bash by HGV driver , suicidal person and trespass as most common problems.

 So trains stop and await timetabled route, operator wins delay minute revenue and can off cost bus cover if trains terminate short.  Operator saves on non remunerative driver pay as well. 

 

The only person who suffers at the time is the passenger or freight customers and they suffer again as the compo comes from our tax pot - either directly or due to loss of resources another vital service is compromised. 

As an operator it is very frustrating to see trains standing with fully available diversionary routes for on the day incidents and worse for planned engineering works seeing the profit grab by road operators, when a viable route is available but crews no longer sign.   The  rail driver is in a win as well - stood spare and not driving means can do no wrong, bar put on weight perhaps, while road driver moves passengers in a more stressful environment.  Also his pay clock clicks on while standing waiting NR to restore route.

 

The old adage a moving train is a happy train and an empty station is a happy station  is still true today.      Robert 

[Northmoor]

3 hours ago, Robert Shrives said:

Unlikely in its present format.  Removal of route knowledge means drivers only work regular work routes and can do more frequently so less required. From the operator`s bean counters this is a win - win as most diversions are a result of NR issues- direct failings or been the fall guy for external issues- bridge bash by HGV driver , suicidal person and trespass as most common problems.

 So trains stop and await timetabled route, operator wins delay minute revenue and can off cost bus cover if trains terminate short.  Operator saves on non remunerative driver pay as well. 

 

The only person who suffers at the time is the passenger or freight customers and they suffer again as the compo comes from our tax pot - either directly or due to loss of resources another vital service is compromised. 

As an operator it is very frustrating to see trains standing with fully available diversionary routes for on the day incidents and worse for planned engineering works seeing the profit grab by road operators, when a viable route is available but crews no longer sign.   The  rail driver is in a win as well - stood spare and not driving means can do no wrong, bar put on weight perhaps, while road driver moves passengers in a more stressful environment.  Also his pay clock clicks on while standing waiting NR to restore route.

 

The old adage a moving train is a happy train and an empty station is a happy station  is still true today.      Robert 

Thank you for that succinct explanation.  Reliability of a system is based on a number of things but flexibility is a key one; having crews routinely able to drop onto the non-scheduled route would provide that.

 

I am not normally in favour of people being paid for having certificates for skills they aren't using, but here is an example where the National Rail system should (centrally) make an exception; drivers' pay should contain an element proportional to the number or mileage of routes they are signed for.  That way they are motivated to get additional route knowledge and the trains don't stop.

 

Of course standardising trains, particularly DMU types, would achieve much more than this, but I don't see that happening any time soon.

[Mallard60022]

11 minutes ago, Northmoor said:

Thank you for that succinct explanation.  Reliability of a system is based on a number of things but flexibility is a key one; having crews routinely able to drop onto the non-scheduled route would provide that.

 

I am not normally in favour of people being paid for having certificates for skills they aren't using, but here is an example where the National Rail system should (centrally) make an exception; drivers' pay should contain an element proportional to the number or mileage of routes they are signed for.  That way they are motivated to get additional route knowledge and the trains don't stop.

 

Of course standardising trains, particularly DMU types, would achieve much more than this, but I don't see that happening any time soon.

Drivers are employed by a Company? It's the Company that needs to arrange the Training then? Contracts and all that.

Phil

[Robert Shrives]

Hi,

Nice idea the pay system and working practices for drivers would make your hair stand on end one TOC the drivers conditions runs to 147 pages and at each twist gets more complex. Understandably ASLEF support drivers to keep them safe, out of legal courts, well paid and doing the absolute minimum for a days pay -  a driver being fully paid and doing nothing in a mess room can do little wrong, even some drivers aspire to this model!! 

As each TOC was created and it veered away from the BRB model of one rate of pay then getting it back will be a battle royal, if the ongoing ones were not enough.  It will take courage and legal backing to bring drivers back in to line  ( not heal!)  and a bucket of cash to bring drivers up to a modal state.

If GBR was to happen correctly then drivers would be employed nationally and on standard conditions but  of course freight companies continue in the planned model as a private operation, instantly adding complexity and mud to the plans.  We have in addition failed as an industry to control the build of trains - not just couplings but cab controls, amazingly the HST fleet of 198 PCs were modified by the two leasing companies in cohort with the TOCs thus a driver was not able to swap powercars as while basic  controls the same - power and brake all the ancillary stuff could be positioned differently or be just plain different.  Thus the ability to swap PCs say at LA, NL or EC for XC and the other IC fleets became impossible- the holy grail of passenger first by being profitable splatted on the windscreen! trains were cancelled for want of a PC or set of stock due to lack of leadership... as a controller watching the system disintegrate has been very painful being powerless - in several ways ! 

It is all school boy error stuff and was quite predictable and outcome proved, a once national resource has decayed to a fair weather minor provider of transport opportunities, ripe for closure despite the green wash available... 

Robert      

[Not Jeremy]

5 minutes ago, Robert Shrives said:

Hi,

Nice idea the pay system and working practices for drivers would make your hair stand on end one TOC the drivers conditions runs to 147 pages and at each twist gets more complex. Understandably ASLEF support drivers to keep them safe, out of legal courts, well paid and doing the absolute minimum for a days pay -  a driver being fully paid and doing nothing in a mess room can do little wrong, even some drivers aspire to this model!! 

As each TOC was created and it veered away from the BRB model of one rate of pay then getting it back will be a battle royal, if the ongoing ones were not enough.  It will take courage and legal backing to bring drivers back in to line  ( not heal!)  and a bucket of cash to bring drivers up to a modal state.

If GBR was to happen correctly then drivers would be employed nationally and on standard conditions but  of course freight companies continue in the planned model as a private operation, instantly adding complexity and mud to the plans.  We have in addition failed as an industry to control the build of trains - not just couplings but cab controls, amazingly the HST fleet of 198 PCs were modified by the two leasing companies in cohort with the TOCs thus a driver was not able to swap powercars as while basic  controls the same - power and brake all the ancillary stuff could be positioned differently or be just plain different.  Thus the ability to swap PCs say at LA, NL or EC for XC and the other IC fleets became impossible- the holy grail of passenger first by being profitable splatted on the windscreen! trains were cancelled for want of a PC or set of stock due to lack of leadership... as a controller watching the system disintegrate has been very painful being powerless - in several ways ! 

It is all school boy error stuff and was quite predictable and outcome proved, a once national resource has decayed to a fair weather minor provider of transport opportunities, ripe for closure despite the green wash available... 

Robert      

I’d vote for you Robert!

 

Thank you very much for taking the time to share your considered and informed insights with us all.

 

We live in interesting times(!)

[rodent279]

12 minutes ago, Robert Shrives said:

Hi,

Nice idea the pay system and working practices for drivers would make your hair stand on end one TOC the drivers conditions runs to 147 pages and at each twist gets more complex. Understandably ASLEF support drivers to keep them safe, out of legal courts, well paid and doing the absolute minimum for a days pay -  a driver being fully paid and doing nothing in a mess room can do little wrong, even some drivers aspire to this model!! 

As each TOC was created and it veered away from the BRB model of one rate of pay then getting it back will be a battle royal, if the ongoing ones were not enough.  It will take courage and legal backing to bring drivers back in to line  ( not heal!)  and a bucket of cash to bring drivers up to a modal state.

If GBR was to happen correctly then drivers would be employed nationally and on standard conditions but  of course freight companies continue in the planned model as a private operation, instantly adding complexity and mud to the plans.  We have in addition failed as an industry to control the build of trains - not just couplings but cab controls, amazingly the HST fleet of 198 PCs were modified by the two leasing companies in cohort with the TOCs thus a driver was not able to swap powercars as while basic  controls the same - power and brake all the ancillary stuff could be positioned differently or be just plain different.  Thus the ability to swap PCs say at LA, NL or EC for XC and the other IC fleets became impossible- the holy grail of passenger first by being profitable splatted on the windscreen! trains were cancelled for want of a PC or set of stock due to lack of leadership... as a controller watching the system disintegrate has been very painful being powerless - in several ways ! 

It is all school boy error stuff and was quite predictable and outcome proved, a once national resource has decayed to a fair weather minor provider of transport opportunities, ripe for closure despite the green wash available... 

Robert      

So what happens when a TOC is merged/demerged into or out of another? How are drivers all placed on a level playing field?

 

Or are they? Are there drivers out there still on T&Cs dating back to the first TOCs set up after privatisation?

 

As an aside, one of the unspoken aims of the original privatisation of BR was to reduce the power of the unions, yet they seem to be if anything more able to dictate terms now.

(Any diehard union members please don't take that the wrong way, it's just an observation, not an anti-union rant).

[Robert Shrives]

NJ,

Thanks for that !  42 years in the transport industry and still going, I have worked for Ffestiniog Railway, BRB, EWS, VT with 20 years with last operator and while sat still have seen my "owner" change several times in a downward  flat spin.  It is bit like being a dog chained in the yard, kicked and fed scraps watching the kennel rot away!!   However it has been the close support of co workers - controllers, train crew  and all who make up the railway family that have made it all hang together- not quite sure how..

Back on topic

Rerouting and reopening railways  could be a success if costs were not beyond belief but recent HS2 debacle does not help the cause. But I think most have been a great success for all users however end of line reached for a few years while nation recovers from recent issues and the reported and investigated shambles that has ensued. - I think a few public executions would help national morale at this time!!           

 

In answer to Rodent 279-  a lot of talks and faffing  about at XC we now have drivers on same standards but train mangers and conductors under RMT are still on widely differing standards.  IIRC GWR has dual standards for drivers and Conductors left over from Thames trains and Wales/ west re combinations into GWR. I recall when GWT became GWR and the enthusiasm in the Duty station manager at Plymouth saying "GWR"  in conversations. Pride still exists despite  management!   But the wavering and Dft faffing over TOCs has really made it all harder but getting 27 TOCs as was down to 2x has to help in the long run and with effective re-nationlisation  of IC tocs with all being on DFT management contracts is a possible step forward, what is lacking is a creditable policy and inspirational leadership as we had under likes of the Parker/ Reid eras. ( rose tinted alert!!)

Robert        

[Mike_Walker]

4 hours ago, Robert Shrives said:

Unlikely in its present format.  Removal of route knowledge means drivers only work regular work routes and can do more frequently so less required. From the operator`s bean counters this is a win - win as most diversions are a result of NR issues- direct failings or been the fall guy for external issues- bridge bash by HGV driver , suicidal person and trespass as most common problems.

 So trains stop and await timetabled route, operator wins delay minute revenue and can off cost bus cover if trains terminate short.  Operator saves on non remunerative driver pay as well. 

 

The only person who suffers at the time is the passenger or freight customers and they suffer again as the compo comes from our tax pot - either directly or due to loss of resources another vital service is compromised. 

As an operator it is very frustrating to see trains standing with fully available diversionary routes for on the day incidents and worse for planned engineering works seeing the profit grab by road operators, when a viable route is available but crews no longer sign.   The  rail driver is in a win as well - stood spare and not driving means can do no wrong, bar put on weight perhaps, while road driver moves passengers in a more stressful environment.  Also his pay clock clicks on while standing waiting NR to restore route.

 

The old adage a moving train is a happy train and an empty station is a happy station  is still true today.      Robert 

All very true but in the case of GWR it's the result of a rare incidence of the DfT getting its way over the operator.

[Mike_Walker]

1 hour ago, rodent279 said:

So what happens when a TOC is merged/demerged into or out of another? How are drivers all placed on a level playing field?

 

Or are they? Are there drivers out there still on T&Cs dating back to the first TOCs set up after privatisation?

 

As an aside, one of the unspoken aims of the original privatisation of BR was to reduce the power of the unions, yet they seem to be if anything more able to dictate terms now.

(Any diehard union members please don't take that the wrong way, it's just an observation, not an anti-union rant).

In the case of GWR as an example, until recently they had three grades of driver:  HSS basically those originally employed but GWT/FGW;  LTV, the former Thames guys and West, the former Wessex guys.  They all basically retained their former T&Cs.  The latter two have now been replaced by a new, single grade called "GWR Driver" with enhanced conditions but HSS lives on although no new drivers will be appointed to the role so it will eventually die out although I'm told that might still take 30 years!  As HSS vacancies occur the roles are filled by GWR Drivers.

Edited October 27, 2023 by Mike_Walker

[The Stationmaster]

20 hours ago, Mike_Walker said:

Given that the DfT have instructed GWR to remove Taunton to Bristol from the route cards of Plymouth HSS drivers even though it causes chaos if the WoE line east of Taunton is closed I can't see them wanting to pay for refreshers over multiple routes.  They actually want to stop all diversionary route knowledge!  But then they are simply clueless civil servants who think they know how to run a railway and that those that do can't be trusted.

What do DafT actually now about railway work?    That sort of decision is nothing whatsoever to do with pig ignorant 'Civil' Servants - it's a railway operational matter.  That sort of naive nonsense needs to make its way into the pages of a few national newspapers and 'Private Eye'.

[The Stationmaster]

14 hours ago, Not Jeremy said:

Hmmm

 

All very well Mike, but on your Tavistock observation, I think the lack of progress in reconnecting that town by rail to Plymouth over thirty odd years is easily trumped by the lack of a service to Portishead over an even longer period - and that line has most of the track in place. And there are plenty of other stupidities about - there always will be.

 

You are a widely experienced operator par excellence, but there is more to whether something will happen or not than "operational considerations", important as they are.

 

More generally speaking , one simply can't take the politics out of the equation, and it is the politics (on top of the basic utility of the idea itself) that makes this idea of a "Northern Route" look slightly less dead than the extremely dead parrot that some here repeatedly make it out to be. The "green agenda" also favours rail as a mode of transport, less so air travel, which may be significant in this case as I have heard it said that it was the development and presence of Newquay airport that has up to now given Cornish politicians an extreme attack of ennui when considering rail connectivity to the rest of the UK.

 

Also there are hopes and aspirations floating around here, some folk are busy promoting "Connect Bude", Okehampton "Parkway" is happening and there are a significant number of people lobbying and cheerfully getting stuck in and clearing Barnstaple's other platform in the hope that trains may yet return to Bideford. 

 

And of course, this has to a large degree been galvanised in the last couple of years by the highly successful reopening of the railway to Okehampton.

 

Or is someone here going to tell me that the re-opening to Okehampton is in fact some sort of disaster that my "rose tinted" spectacles cloud from my view?

 

As regards money, well yes, quite. But let none of us be in any doubt that whatever vicissitudes and financial challenges face this country, politicians of all persuasions will always be able to find large amounts of money to spend on projects or ideas that were very clearly better not pursued. And then add in the percentage of anything that will inevitably be "trousered" by all the clever people in sharp suits. As Harry Enfield said all those years ago - "loadsa money".....

 

So, something that excites people, offers a better future, shows a bit of vision, uses a bit of imagination, doesn't start off with an analysis that is any more bogged down with insane minutiae than it really needs to be, and which might even interest our politicians (who really cannot all be as black hearted as some here would have us believe) still, might, just, be a possibility.

 

Or at the very least something worth discussing and promoting.

 

As I have said previously, I agree that it is not "likely" but equally cannot understand the necessity that some folk here appear to have to endlessly rubbish the idea.

 

 

 

 

Simon you are absolutely right about the politcs but the critical thing is that providing the money is a political decision (or really a decision influenced heavily by what the Civil Servants, various, feed to the decision makers),  If someone wants a diversionary route then lots of other someones have to calculate the costs involved before anybody can ask for the money because they need to knowk how much to ask for.

 

What I was trying to show is that the cost is a lot more than simply laying a few miles of track and sorting the bridges and drainage etc.  If someone  wants a basic railway it won't be much use for diverting anything; if they want a proper diversionary route it will cost a massive amount more and it will be an ongoing cost for a lot more than simply maintaining it.   And, alas, Mike Walker's post makes it all too clear that brainless Civil Servants don't want diversionary routes anyway so on that score you can forget anybody even thinking about building a new one. (even if those Civil Servants are idiots).

 

BTW what I meant about Tavistock is that fr 30 plus years it has emereged as scheme to reopen the SR route from Plymouth but every time it has foundered because nobody was prepared to pay for it.  pot rtishead has indeed been closed for much longer but I'm only aware of proper proposals and cost estimatesto actually do something to reopen it in far more recent years than has been the case with Tavistock.  If the latter had got the money we'd now be gettng close to celebrating its first 25 years since reopening - but we're not

[The Stationmaster]

2 hours ago, rodent279 said:

So what happens when a TOC is merged/demerged into or out of another? How are drivers all placed on a level playing field?

 

Or are they? Are there drivers out there still on T&Cs dating back to the first TOCs set up after privatisation?

 

As an aside, one of the unspoken aims of the original privatisation of BR was to reduce the power of the unions, yet they seem to be if anything more able to dictate terms now.

(Any diehard union members please don't take that the wrong way, it's just an observation, not an anti-union rant).

In answer to yor final question the answer is easy - some priavte owners were happy to buy industrial peace for what in reality amounted to relatively small sums as costs moved from 'additional hours/days earnings to the basic rate.    And in some cases - as i saw ri my total astonishment - some of these supposedly hard-headed privateers were so scared of even the faintest hint of industrial action that they gave stuff away like it was going out of fashion. 

 

Some also swept in accepting from whizzkids what on teh face of it were clever short term savings by ciutting out things like Spare Driver turns in exchange for Rest Day workin g agreements or making Sunday workin g vi oluntary.  You might say that short franchises encouraged the latter and that is possibly true but in almost every case it brought, and in some cases is still causing, short term train cancellations (after the whizzkids wis zzed off to create firther havoc elsewhere.

 

These two appoaches together  gave a clever trade union a huge opportunity.  And with a very bright chap as it General Secretary ASLE&F fully exploited that opportunity especially as its members were increasingly in a buyer's market for their skills.  But basically you can only do deals like that once and once you've got your share there's no much left to she are out in teh future so pay riseshave to comne from somewhere l else.

[Gwiwer]

2 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

What do DafT actually now about railway work?    That sort of decision is nothing whatsoever to do with pig ignorant 'Civil' Servants - it's a railway operational matter.  That sort of naive nonsense needs to make its way into the pages of a few national newspapers and 'Private Eye'.

That sort of thing is akin to Brighton main-line drivers having the Redhill route removed from their cards whilst Thameslink drivers would find the Quarry Line removed in similar fashion.  On the grounds that only one set of drivers needs to know one route never mind the fact that the two "routes" are effectively one four-track railway.

 

The Railway, capital "R", is in dire straits when this sort of decision is made.  How long until it is handed back to railwaymen (many of whom are not male) who don't have to re-invent the wheel and come up with a new set of rules every week?

[Steadfast]

How long before the FOCs are making a chunk being regularly hired to conduct passenger services on diversion? Not likely I know, however in the land of the DfT I can picture them paying way more in FOC driver hire and buses than the cost of keeping TOC driver's diversionary knowledge up.

 

Having the ability to get from A to B 2 or 3 different ways is standard for freight drivers, and that's in an industry where every penny of profit is hard fought for. If we can afford it, why can't the government...

 

Jo

[The Stationmaster]

On 27/10/2023 at 20:46, Steadfast said:

How long before the FOCs are making a chunk being regularly hired to conduct passenger services on diversion? Not likely I know, however in the land of the DfT I can picture them paying way more in FOC driver hire and buses than the cost of keeping TOC driver's diversionary knowledge up.

 

Having the ability to get from A to B 2 or 3 different ways is standard for freight drivers, and that's in an industry where every penny of profit is hard fought for. If we can afford it, why can't the government...

 

Jo

It became standard on the Western at one time. because of difficulties getting Conbductiors for diversions.  I remember one bad weekend when something was blocked in teh Swindon area and all Brstol and South Wales trains were sent down the B&H but needed Conductor Drivers to get them in many cases round the curve via Hawkeridge because the men conducting them over the B&H didn't know it.

 

I hada very hectiv c weekend getting hold of Drivers from the BRSA, their home,  and in some cases their 'girl friend's home, and the Labour Club trying to gather enough to conduct every train.  In one or two cases the approach had to be delicate because  you needed to know who was 'spending time' with somebody else's wife while her hubby was out on a similar mission although he was supposedly at the Labour Club.   I learnt quite a lot about the extra-mural activities of several of our Drivers that weekend.

 

But that started the big push on the Region to make sure proper diversionary knowledge was built up and kept up because we had amultiplicu ity of regular diversionary roures between Reading and Bristol/Stoke Gifford plus between Reading and Westbuty (and Taunton) for West of England trains.  Even when we began tot enforce far stricter  Road Knowledge norms in the very late 1980s/early '90s it could still be done at minimal cost by means of careful linking of work and specialising depots which involved taking freight and engineering train work out of some depots.

 

HSTs also helped w as it enabled reduction to be made in the number of depots doing particular jobs   Thus for example London - Torbay/Plymouth /Penzance route work involved only three depots instead of the previous five.