Franchising news this morning

[rockershovel]

3 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

“I don’t know if this is true, but I understand the point - I’d be most interested if anyone has any informed comments on this?”

 

The way APT was ‘taught’, in the sense of passed down as a lesson of how not to do it, and was written-up by good commentators in books, is that the team effectively lost, or never had, the plot on time, cost, or operational/system integration. Reasons For that were complex.

 

The final one is a classic ‘railway mistake’, of which there are examples stretching back way into the age of steam and forward into at least one current mega-project that I can think of.

 

... which is, more or less, my point that if you don’t have a balanced team of engineers from the appropriate disciplines, you are probably better off without the ones you have. 

 

[AY Mod]

6 hours ago, rockershovel said:

Interesting item on this morning’s news;

 

Can you please take when posting? I had to merge your new topic with this existing one and move it around and the title will still be misleading - especially tomorrow. 

[Nearholmer]

7 minutes ago, rockershovel said:

which is, more or less, my point that if you don’t have a balanced team of engineers from the appropriate disciplines, you are probably better off without the ones you have. 

I’ll say it again: engineers, however appropriate or good, aren’t enough. Necessary, but not sufficient.

 

Railway operations, for instance, is not an engineering discipline, but it is a tad important.

[Talltim]

6 hours ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

Even in a conventional office situation, most supervision is done via the IT Dept checking what use is being made of the computer. That can be done just as well remotely.

Working in an IT dept, we don't do that. We do block stuff, but we don't monitor it. Making sure that staff are doing their job is up to their line managers. Occasionally we do get requests for things like internet history in cases of dispute.

[LNER4479]

2 hours ago, rockershovel said:

 

APT is an interesting example. A viable concept, but I’ve heard it said more than once that it was led by the wrong engineers. Not all engineers are interchangeable, and I’ve heard the point made that the original concept was overly influenced by being based around aerospace technology, compared to what was subsequently developed elsewhere. 

 

I don’t know if this is true, but I understand the point - I’d be most interested if anyone has any informed comments on this? 

The APT was a project of BR's then new Research and Development department, centred on the brave new  world of the 1960s Railway Technical Centre (RTC) on London Road. Recruitment for the R&D department was not limited to within BR's four internal walls, to encourage free-thinking and transferable knowledge from elsewhere. So, yes, aerospace engineers were amongst those recruited.

 

Meanwhile, HST was conceived within the more mainstream BR Department of Mechanical & Electrical Engineering (D of M&EE) and there was a certain amount of competition amongst the two teams in the early 1970s as the two prototype trains were seen alongside each other.

 

I think Nearholmer has summarised well how the APT project ended up; the HST turned out rather differently ...

 

Somewhat drifted from the thread topic - but you did ask!

[rockershovel]

38 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

I’ll say it again: engineers, however appropriate or good, aren’t enough. Necessary, but not sufficient.

 

Railway operations, for instance, is not an engineering discipline, but it is a tad important.

 

In what sense, is “operations” NOT an engineering discipline? Which brings us to LNER4479, above; the HST was a highly successful project, precisely because it combined sound engineering of its new aspects, with a thorough understanding of the environment it was intended to work in. It also had the experience to draw on, of things that did and didn’t work during the conversion to diesel traction, and foreseeable developments - in short, it was operationally “right” and had the makings of success. 

 

Which brings us back OT, really. Franchising has played out as it has, precisely because it was the product of a belief in a concept which hadn’t been properly defined in operational terms. Now the operational dog seems to be wagging the tail again. 

[rab]

58 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

I’ll say it again: engineers, however appropriate or good, aren’t enough. Necessary, but not sufficient.

 

Railway operations, for instance, is not an engineering discipline, but it is a tad important.

As a certain gentleman found in recent years,

when he left a company who make and sell

railway models, and set up his own company,

thinking he could do better!

[Nearholmer]

1 hour ago, rockershovel said:

In what sense, is “operations” NOT an engineering discipline?

Railway operation is not an engineering discipline in the sense that, to the best of my knowledge, it falls outside the remit of The Engineering Council.
 

In 40+ years working life I never heard Railway operations spoken of as an engineering discipline either.
 

So far as I know it stands as an independent discipline 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institution_of_Railway_Operators Although some operators look to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chartered_Institute_of_Logistics_and_Transport

[caradoc]

I was an operator for 30 years of my 38 year railway career and in no shape or form was I an engineer; I had no engineering qualifications whatsoever, nor were they necessary for my job. I required, and hope I had, some knowledge of the various engineering functions within the rail industry, but also many other areas which were nothing to do with engineering ! 

 

 

[pete_mcfarlane]

3 hours ago, Talltim said:

Working in an IT dept, we don't do that. We do block stuff, but we don't monitor it. Making sure that staff are doing their job is up to their line managers. Occasionally we do get requests for things like internet history in cases of dispute.

Where monitoring does happen (to a limited extent) is in call centres, where the operatives are monitored via the call management system. So their managers do know how long people are disconnected from the system for fag breaks etc. 

 

But you are right about IT departments not sitting there with a big bank of screens watching the employees. We're far too busy to do that. 

 

[RichardT]

8 hours ago, LNER4479 said:

Transport for Scotland's Director of Rail is a time-served BR man and a former colleague. Top bloke

Well well - small world!

Richard T

[Ohmisterporter]

8 hours ago, corneliuslundie said:

"but not with govermental interference"

A major problem for the franchise system in recent years (and I don't like franchising) is the micromanaging by the civil service, especially as far as I can see a certain Mr W. 

 

For those of us not in the know, may I ask whom is the Mr. W to which you refer and why is he apparently so powerful?

[BR(S)]

37 minutes ago, Ohmisterporter said:

 

For those of us not in the know, may I ask whom is the Mr. W to which you refer and why is he apparently so powerful?

 

Peter Wilkinson. Promised to "get into a fight with the unions" to sort out the railway. Led to the Southern dispute over DOO working.

 

He's still at the DfT and I'd say things have just swung in their favour somewhat, given that substantial numbers of people know they can now work from home if necessary.

[corneliuslundie]

I only know from what others have written, but I gather that there is a Mr Wilkinson at the DfT in a fairly senior position, who once worked for London Underground. At one time his name was mentioned frequently in connection with DfT decisions, often in a critical manner.

Others may be able to expand on this.

Jonathan

[BR(S)]

ASLEF's response to the news:

 

https://www.aslef.org.uk/article.php?group_id=7271

 

The RMT:

 

https://www.rmt.org.uk/news/rmt-responds-to-governments-extension-of-emergency-measures/

[rockershovel]

3 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

Railway operation is not an engineering discipline in the sense that, to the best of my knowledge, it falls outside the remit of The Engineering Council.
 

In 40+ years working life I never heard Railway operations spoken of as an engineering discipline either.
 

So far as I know it stands as an independent discipline 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institution_of_Railway_Operators Although some operators look to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chartered_Institute_of_Logistics_and_Transport

 

Ops Engineers might not be an EC Institute, or a term used in the British rail sector, but there are plenty of them around https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operations_research

 

 

[Ron Ron Ron]

1 hour ago, BR(S) said:

ASLEF's response to the news:

 

https://www.aslef.org.uk/article.php?group_id=7271

 

The RMT:

 

https://www.rmt.org.uk/news/rmt-responds-to-governments-extension-of-emergency-measures/

 

What a contrast.

Aslef taking a cautious pragmatic view of events, with the interests of their members (continuing to get paid) being at the forefront.

The RMT on the other hand, going off on another political rant, without Mick Cash even recognising who pays for his dinner.

[jamie92208]

As an aside Grant Shapps has got into trouble for announcing a major policy change to the press rather than to Parliament first. According to Yesterday in Parliament this morning, Mr Deputy Speaker was not a happy bunny.

 

Jamie

[RJS1977]

I've seen a few articles suggesting that 'renationalisation' will lead to fewer delays. I'm not convinced.

 

From my experience, the majority of delays are due to things like:

 

- Points/signal failures (already in the public sector)

- Trespass & vandalism

- Bridge strikes etc

- Inclement weather (infrastructure issue so again already in the public sector)

- Passengers themselves (either through 'big' things like being taken ill, or just 'little' things like holding a door open for a late-running friend, which then leads to the train missing its path elsewhere).

 

Whilst it's possible (but far from certain) that some form of 'renationalisation' may lead to better coordinated responses to some of these issues, I think the effect will be minimal.

[rockershovel]

Welllll...... my misadventure between Hartlepool and Doncaster, three or four years ago, was caused by a bridge strike. The ensuing chaos was directly caused by the lack of effective interaction between the sundry operators involved. 

 

I posted in my blog, about the utter disorder on Cross Country during the storm a couple of years ago. Again, they clearly didn’t know either their own position or the situation on connecting lines, and a very material factor in this was their lack of effective presence at their principal hub (BNS) for commercial and contractual reasons. XC are not exactly unknown for this sort of thing and it’s difficult to avoid the conclusion that removing their management team would improve customer service. 

 

 

 

 

[Nearholmer]

There was one person who was reputed to be able to make all the trains run on time, but we all know that that ended in tears.

[Northmoor]

1 hour ago, RJS1977 said:

I've seen a few articles suggesting that 'renationalisation' will lead to fewer delays. I'm not convinced.

 

Me neither.  I was (until mid-March) a daily SWR commuter and usually a satisfied one.

 

The idea that Nationalisation would "bring railways back to the people" is fantasy politics.  I would have no more say in how the railways are run by the government than I did as a customer of a privatised operator.  Those who ask for Nationalisation, especially political leaders, do not just disagree with the decisions made by others, they don't want others to be able to make decisions they disagree with.

 

Politicians often talk about returning power to the people, but it almost always means transferring power from someone else, to them. 

Edited September 22, 2020 by Northmoor

[w124bob]

19 hours ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

 

What a contrast.

Aslef taking a cautious pragmatic view of events, with the interests of their members (continuing to get paid) being at the forefront.

The RMT on the other hand, going off on another political rant, without Mick Cash even recognising who pays for his dinner.

As a retired ex ASLEF member their response comes as no great surprise, put simply pay and conditions have always ranked higher than politics from my experience. 

[rockershovel]

18 hours ago, w124bob said:

As a retired ex ASLEF member their response comes as no great surprise, put simply pay and conditions have always ranked higher than politics from my experience. 

 

Isn’t that mostly why members pay their subs? 

[Ohmisterporter]

2 hours ago, rockershovel said:

 

Isn’t that mostly why members pay their subs? 

 

Yes it is but that seems to be forgotten by some union leaders. My own union, before I retired, has general secretaries who think that solving the world's problems is the priority; and anyone who stands against them at re-election time is hounded into giving up. 

Edited September 23, 2020 by Ohmisterporter