Swift Express Freight - Class 321 EMU

[lanchester]

20 hours ago, Arun Sharma said:

For a long time the road hauliers didn't need to train their own drivers because of the large numbers of servicemen leaving HM Forces with an HGV licence. This is less and less common now.

Getting on for ten years ago now I was told by the owner of a fairly large haulage company that employing ex-Forces drivers was becoming increasingly uneconomic because insurance companies had for some reason started to regard them as exceptionally high risk - premiums charged were significantly greater than for some kid with the ink still wet on their licence. He could see no reasoning behind this - I do wonder whether the insurers just regard every ex-squaddie as a potential PTSD case?

 

On the apprenticeship levy scheme, there are significant problems but it isn't really relevant to the driver situation - apprenticeship funding is for training of several years' duration leading to a lasting quasi-academic qualification (which could be anywhere between HNC and post-grad), not for a short courses leading to a renewable licence. 

 

You could envisage some sort of apprenticeship which combined HGV training with other more 'academic' aspects of logistics, supply chain, transport management, route planning etc and we need people like that, but they probably wouldn't settle for life as a full-time driver.

 

Incidentally, among the reasons why existing drivers are jacking it in is the increased risk of criminal activity - from hijacking to illegal immigration. While for young people contemplating a career as a driver, why would you take up a trade that most of your peer group regards as the number one enemy in the battle against climate change?

[Northmoor]

1 hour ago, lanchester said:

Getting on for ten years ago now I was told by the owner of a fairly large haulage company that employing ex-Forces drivers was becoming increasingly uneconomic because insurance companies had for some reason started to regard them as exceptionally high risk - premiums charged were significantly greater than for some kid with the ink still wet on their licence. He could see no reasoning behind this - I do wonder whether the insurers just regard every ex-squaddie as a potential PTSD case?

 

On the apprenticeship levy scheme, there are significant problems but it isn't really relevant to the driver situation - apprenticeship funding is for training of several years' duration leading to a lasting quasi-academic qualification (which could be anywhere between HNC and post-grad), not for a short courses leading to a renewable licence. 

 

You could envisage some sort of apprenticeship which combined HGV training with other more 'academic' aspects of logistics, supply chain, transport management, route planning etc and we need people like that, but they probably wouldn't settle for life as a full-time driver.

 

Incidentally, among the reasons why existing drivers are jacking it in is the increased risk of criminal activity - from hijacking to illegal immigration. While for young people contemplating a career as a driver, why would you take up a trade that most of your peer group regards as the number one enemy in the battle against climate change?

Mmm, that would be the generation that orders everything on-line and gets it delivered to them in person..... where do they think the white van man gets their parcel from, some bloke on horseback?

The issue with ex-Army driver insurance will be based on actual stats, not pre-conceived ideas, so perhaps their accidents were actually more frequent and/or more expensive.  It was known that before the Iraq and Afghan campaigns, the most common cause of death in serving British soldiers, was road accidents.

[mdvle]

7 hours ago, lanchester said:

Getting on for ten years ago now I was told by the owner of a fairly large haulage company that employing ex-Forces drivers was becoming increasingly uneconomic because insurance companies had for some reason started to regard them as exceptionally high risk - premiums charged were significantly greater than for some kid with the ink still wet on their licence. He could see no reasoning behind this - I do wonder whether the insurers just regard every ex-squaddie as a potential PTSD case?

 

At a guess, the training / skills / on the job lessons of driving in Afghanistan or Iraq probably doesn't translate well to the defensive driving on the safe roads of the UK?  Certainly TV/film show that the constant threat of ambush creates more of an aggressive form of driving...

[Fat Controller]

15 hours ago, Northmoor said:

Mmm, that would be the generation that orders everything on-line and gets it delivered to them in person..... where do they think the white van man gets their parcel from, some bloke on horseback?

The issue with ex-Army driver insurance will be based on actual stats, not pre-conceived ideas, so perhaps their accidents were actually more frequent and/or more expensive.  It was known that before the Iraq and Afghan campaigns, the most common cause of death in serving British soldiers, was road accidents.

I recollect a press campaign, started by grieving parents, about the casualty figures for certain types of light 4x4 (Was it a Land -Rover variant called the 'Wolf'?), which had a reputation for rolling over. This would have been in the 1980s

[phil-b259]

22 hours ago, exet1095 said:

Mine were not. All of my Army driving tests were more stringent than my original civilian one.

 

A few ex forces people I have worked with say that wasn't always the case 30-40 years ago, particularly if it was holding up something urgent / important...

 

I don't doubt things are different these days though.

[phil-b259]

17 hours ago, lanchester said:

Incidentally, among the reasons why existing drivers are jacking it in is the increased risk of criminal activity - from hijacking to illegal immigration. While for young people contemplating a career as a driver, why would you take up a trade that most of your peer group regards as the number one enemy in the battle against climate change?

 

Which comes back to my original point - you can pay people as much as you want but if they don't want to undertake the task then you are going to struggle to get people to commit to a career in the industry.

 

For a whole host of reasons HGV driving is not seen as a desirable occupation by youngsters starting their careers nor people needing to change careers later in life.

 

This trend is why there is so much STEM focus in education in a bid to try and change the mindset of what certain careers entail and why those working in job centres have trouble getting benefit claimants for going for certain jobs even though there are shortages. The UK is fortunate that because of the welfare state (and acknowledging its necessity for civilised society), not taking any job - but being picky about what you want to do is a possibility.

[admiles]

On 02/07/2021 at 01:02, Titan said:

 

 

Or to put it another way, HGV drivers are so badly paid that there are plenty of other jobs that pay better for less stress.  If the companies were prepared to pay more then the shortage would disappear... 

 

Not all class 1 & 2 drivers are badly paid. In a lot of cases "the company" can't afford to pay more otherwise they don't get the job and if they don't get enough jobs the company ceases to be and employs no one. Things aren't always as black and white as they may appear!

[admiles]

On 02/07/2021 at 14:15, highpeakman said:

I thought that this would be a good career move for my son a few years back but we found that obtaining an HGV licence was a major issue as we couldn't find any local transport companies willing to give any on the job training. They only wanted HGV licenced employees. So, while I was willing to pay for a training course for him, taking that course would have meant giving up the job he already had because the training period was so long plus he would have to travel a long distance every day to get to the course. As he had a young family he was unwilling to take the risk of losing the job he had. 

 

He has since got a job as a delivery driver for a car parts company so is now driving fair distances but in a large van.

 

We felt, at the time that the transport industry wasn't doing enough to support and train new drivers and maybe that is still the case.

 

 

Tricky one that and a problem I've had direct experience of from the other side of the fence. What happens is you end up paying to train other companies drivers and it really isn't cheap.

 

You'll pay to put a driver through his tests and then he leaves a month later to work for someone else paying 5p per hour more or because the other company uses Scanias instead of DAFs, etc etc. or just finds out driving isn't for them.  You end up with a classic catch 22 situation where companies only want trained and experienced drivers. Insurance for newly qualified drivers is also horrific too which only adds to the problem.

[Titan]

15 minutes ago, admiles said:

 

Not all class 1 & 2 drivers are badly paid. In a lot of cases "the company" can't afford to pay more otherwise they don't get the job and if they don't get enough jobs the company ceases to be and employs no one. Things aren't always as black and white as they may appear!

 

True, but if they don't have enough drivers they won't get the job,  and if they bid for a job without having enough drivers, or the drivers decide to pack it in and go somewhere else for more money after they have won the job, they won't be getting jobs or employing people for long either.

Edited July 6, 2021 by Titan

[admiles]

15 minutes ago, Titan said:

 

True, but if they don't have enough drivers they won't get the job,  and if they bid for a job without having enough drivers, or the drivers decide to pack it in and go somewhere else for more money after they have won the job, they won't be getting jobs or employing people for long either.

 

Nope so what's the answer? Drivers have to be happy  and the employing company has to be viable. Sometimes the two just don't meet in the middle.

[Titan]

The problem will  go away when hiring a reliable company costs less than going for the cheapest, due to the costs of no-shows, delays etc.

[Northmoor]

1 hour ago, admiles said:

 

Tricky one that and a problem I've had direct experience of from the other side of the fence. What happens is you end up paying to train other companies drivers and it really isn't cheap.

 

You'll pay to put a driver through his tests and then he leaves a month later to work for someone else paying 5p per hour more or because the other company uses Scanias instead of DAFs, etc etc. or just finds out driving isn't for them.  You end up with a classic catch 22 situation where companies only want trained and experienced drivers. Insurance for newly qualified drivers is also horrific too which only adds to the problem.

At a previous employer, people were being funded to do all sorts of training and qualifications including Masters degrees.  For a long time it was a problem when software engineers would propose (sub-optimal) specialist software as solutions for projects, because they could request training in coding that software.  They completed the training then left to work at software companies paying sometimes 50% more.  If you think the company should have paid better salaries, it couldn't, it was a public sector company so we were constrained by public servant pay and conditions.

 

However once privatised, a new process was introduced where if you left the company within 6 months, 1 year or 2 years of the training, I think you had to pay back something like 100%, 50%, 25% of the training cost.  This seemed perfectly fair to me, although it must be difficult for an employer to do and don't know if it was ever implemented against anyone. 

How do you deduct these costs from salary if it's a large amount (e.g. deduct £25k training costs from someone's monthly £5k payslip)?

Can you continue to chase former employees for the rebate?  It doesn't give a good impression to potential employees.

[frobisher]

4 hours ago, Northmoor said:

This seemed perfectly fair to me, although it must be difficult for an employer to do and don't know if it was ever implemented against anyone. 

How do you deduct these costs from salary if it's a large amount (e.g. deduct £25k training costs from someone's monthly £5k payslip)?

 

It's a reasonably simple process.  At that employee's exit interview you remind them of their contractual responsibilities and present them with an invoice for the full amount and there will probably be a very rapid conversation about how they can't afford to pay it back in one lump.  That might result in a re-payment schedule.  If they are truly valuable to their new employer, they may cover this as part of the recruitment costs.  But if payment isn't forthcoming then you pursue through the courts, which could ultimately lead to an arrestment of earnings which their new employer would be legally obliged to make (and their are reasonable guidelines for this ).

 

4 hours ago, Northmoor said:

It doesn't give a good impression to potential employees.

 

It's a pretty standard clause in most contracts (certainly in the IT sector).  The only potential employees it will discourage are those who are going to be job hopping in any case.

[mdvle]

23 hours ago, admiles said:

 

Not all class 1 & 2 drivers are badly paid. In a lot of cases "the company" can't afford to pay more otherwise they don't get the job and if they don't get enough jobs the company ceases to be and employs no one. Things aren't always as black and white as they may appear!

 

Which then begs the obvious question, is there really a shortage of drivers?  Because if the company can't raise it's prices that is a pretty clear indication that someone else can do the job - and hence that someone else has plenty of drivers...

 

My observation is that there are 2 types of shortages.

 

The first is that there actually is a shortage - in which case the consumers of the item will be willing to pay increased costs - because the alternative (having nothing to sell) is worse.  We are currently seeing this in China, where the pandemic shopping boom has resulted in to much product chasing too few containers, and the natural and expected dramatic increase in shipping costs - which the buyers pay because empty store shelves are worse than increasing prices.

 

The second shortage is more of a theoretical shortage - which in the discussion of say HGV drivers seems to indicate that there really is enough drivers (because the company can't increase prices, which is a good indication that people shipping goods can get everything shipped) but that the company owners aren't happy because there isn't a surplus of drivers - and a surplus of drivers is necessary for the owner to be able to force lower wages and/or worse working conditions to increase profit.

 

 

[Phatbob]

On 06/07/2021 at 13:22, admiles said:

 

Nope so what's the answer? Drivers have to be happy  and the employing company has to be viable. Sometimes the two just don't meet in the middle.

 

The solution is bleedin' obvious.  The country needs Doctors, nurses, engineers, scientists and what not.  So they're trained within the public sector at an affordable rate.  The country also needs HGV drivers, but this has been left to "the free market", which has clearly failed.  So the solution is to bring the training in the public sector and for your local college to offer HGV training to school leavers.  FLTs and other shortage disciplines should also be covered.  You can learn to be a plumber, or a brickie etc. at your local college, but not an HGV driver?  Makes no sense.

[Northmoor]

This very issue is making the news today:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57753277

[Arpster]

Getting back on topic slightly, it seems the Class 321 was at Euston yesterday demonstrating their use at terminus stations, and offloading (it seems to suggest into a cargo bike!) of freight onto the platform. It really shows the problem of platform height differences!

https://twitter.com/NetworkRailEUS/status/1412793616746024963

[Arpster]

Correction - that seems to be the Project ORION Class 319/769!

https://www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk/news/passenger-trains-converted-to-deliver-parcels-to-city-centre-stations