Southern's Timetable Reduction

[roundhouse]

It's been a very nice but breezy day for us in Cambridge. Trains busy from and back to KX but south there of very quiet

[Gwiwer]

On the subject of working versus public times it has always been my understanding that trains are to depart no earlier than the advertised public time whether or not that differs from the working time.  It is the public time that the public will be aware of after all.

 

A couple of anecdotes both relevant to the Southern area.  

 

There used to be an all-night service between Brighton and Victoria which after a couple of years was cut back to two trains at at 01.25 and 04.25 (IIRC) public time.  These were allowed time to run via Lewes in case of engineering work on the main line and if they ran up the main line they were booked "wrong line" in order to refresh the driver's SIMBIDS knowledge.  That involved slightly lower speeds than normal.  In consequence the advertised time to the Haywards Heath stop was around 40 minutes.  If the Lewes diversion was not required the trains left Brighton at a working time of 01.40 and 04.40 which quite a few people became used to.  More than one has arrived at the station at around 01.30 expecting to find a train waiting only to learn it departed a few minutes earlier at its advertised time.  At least Brighton can usually offer you something to while away the night hours until the next train!

 

The last down train used to be advertised as 23.59 off Victoria but the WTT showed it as 00.00½ thereby giving last-minute "runners" a critical few seconds extra to jump aboard.  It was universally known as the "Midnight".  On one occasion when something caused a problem there was a dialogue between staff at East Croydon along the lines of "The Midnight's not left Vic yet - they say it's going to be 30 down.  What shall we tell the passengers?" To which the reply was "Tell them to get on the 23.59 instead .......... " 

[caradoc]

 

 

Surely you mean the other way round?

 

Passengers arriving to catch the train at (say) 15.55 as advertised in the public book would be very miffed if it was timed earlier in the WTT to depart at (say) 15.53.

 

Sorry, I should have made myself clearer; What I was referring to are the arrival times at the train's terminating location, which is the time used in performance statistics.

[phil-b259]

And here we go again ......

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37168008

[The Stationmaster]

And here we go again ......

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37168008

 

I really wish the RMT would learn the difference between consultation and negotiation changing over to DOO(P) was always consultation in BR days so nothing being done by Southern to introduce such a change is any different from the way BR did it. 

[jjb1970]

I really wish the RMT would learn the difference between consultation and negotiation changing over to DOO(P) was always consultation in BR days so nothing being done by Southern to introduce such a change is any different from the way BR did it. 

 

It is the RMT we're talking about.

[jonathan452]

Southern Rail commuters face fresh disruption caused by 'wrong sort of train' - http://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/southern-rail-commuters-face-fresh-disruption-caused-by-wrong-sort-of-train-a3328516.html

The “wrong sort of train” today caused disruption for Southern Rail commuters.

Embarrassed rail chiefs admitted they had to cancel a Clapham to Watford train after it became stranded at Shepherds Bush.

A train equipped only to take power from the third rail had been sent out when it should have had an overhead pantograph arm as well.

When the driver tried to continue the train from Shepherds Bush, where the line switches from third rail to overhead cable, it was realised his train did not have the required roof-mounted pantograph arm to collect current.

The train was stranded for a while, blocking the line and forcing the cancellation of services behind.

 

[Claude_Dreyfus]

Oops.

 

Of course, if Southern had used the train illustrating the article, they would have had no such issues with electrical pick up...

[caradoc]

Presumably neither the staff at the depot where the set started it's day's work, the Controller who allocated the set to its diagram on the computer, or the Driver, realised that the set was 3rd rail-only - An example of the Swiss cheese theory ? Anyway, human beings do make mistakes and similar things have occurred in past, such as non-RETB fitted sets being allocated to RETB diagrams and non-compatible sets being allocated to diagrams booked to couple later in the day.  

[John M Upton]

About a hundred plus trains are to be reinstated from next Monday, mostly Metro area ones such as the Leatherhead to Guildford bit (never did quite understand why that is on Southern's books) and some of the Milton Kenes runs.

 

Rest apparently to be reintroduced in phases over the coming weeks.

[cromptonnut]

...counteracted by a strike on the 7th and 8th by RMT, and TSSA details to be announced.

[John M Upton]

And an ASLEF one once they have re-run the strike ballot they have just binned due to an alleged admin error on it.

[phil_sutters]

The villagers of Southease, 500 of them, must be grateful for this timetable, as not only do the rail replacement buses, between Seaford and Lewes, run through the village, rather than 0.5km across the Sussex Ouse, but they now seem to get a service every 30 minutes rather than the hourly train service. Add to that the lack of ticket controls operated by the myriad bus and coach companies contracted to operate the service and they could really resent the return to 'normality' when ever that will be. Some of the coaches used are a lot nicer than the 313s. Mind you on the few occasions I have used the current service only a couple of people have discovered these benefits!

[Gwiwer]

 

 

The villagers of Southease, 500 of them

 

and Rodmell for another 527.  It was always Southease and Rodmell Halt.

 

It will be interesting to see how much traffic comes back to the Seaford branch.  With the main traffic flow being Seaford / Newhaven - Brighton and the option of free bus travel along the coast for many there have been frequent reports of overcrowding on the coastal buses.  These run 10 - 11 times every hour through the daytime and are part of the normal Brighton & Hove "Coaster" services between Brighton and Eastbourne, nothing to do with rail replacements.  When was a 313 on the Seaford branch last so full it had to refuse passengers?  Other than perhaps at Falmer on match days.

[phil_sutters]

and Rodmell for another 527.  It was always Southease and Rodmell Halt.

 

It will be interesting to see how much traffic comes back to the Seaford branch.  With the main traffic flow being Seaford / Newhaven - Brighton and the option of free bus travel along the coast for many there have been frequent reports of overcrowding on the coastal buses.  These run 10 - 11 times every hour through the daytime and are part of the normal Brighton & Hove "Coaster" services between Brighton and Eastbourne, nothing to do with rail replacements.  When was a 313 on the Seaford branch last so full it had to refuse passengers?  Other than perhaps at Falmer on match days.

I doubt if many with free bus passes ever used the train to go to Brighton from Seaford & Newhaven, especially as the station is a good way from the shops & seafront. The replacement buses only run between Lewes and Seaford. There is a steadily growing commuter traffic from Seaford etc. to Brighton and indeed London. Students use the trains to Lewes and the universities at Falmer and Moulscomb. All of which can't be reached by buses within a reasonable timescale. The coastal buses are always busy in the summer and, as they run beyond Seaford into the Seven Sisters area, they don't have any real competition from rail. I doubt that many people from Brighton would come to Seaford by rail and change onto the bus there. As a frequent user I have not noticed them being any more overcrowded than usual, except during Airbourne. Having said that I do try to avoid travelling at rush-hour - or on the first buses from Eastbourne or Brighton after the bus passes start at 9.30am!. If they are extra busy in rush-hour, that will drive traffic back when the end to end rail service resumes. Just getting out of Brighton can be a painfully slow business on the road.

On match days the 3 coach 313s are replaced by 4 or 8 coach 377s. Seaford's 12 coach platform has been reinstated to accommodate them. It was fenced off at 4-5 coach lengths until three years ago.

[phil_sutters]

About a hundred plus trains are to be reinstated from next Monday, mostly Metro area ones such as the Leatherhead to Guildford bit (never did quite understand why that is on Southern's books) and some of the Milton Kenes runs.

 

Rest apparently to be reintroduced in phases over the coming weeks.

These are services, which, in the main, have been DOO staffed for sometime. So they never had the issues of conductor staff shortages, so I wonder why they were cut in the first place. Insufficient drivers to cover the school holiday absences, perhaps?

[phil_sutters]

One issue I don't remember seeing raised, and I haven't read every statement on the dispute, even in this thread, is of the additional danger of third rail operation. While on the metro style lines people are much more familiar with having the live rail, people travelling longer distances, for example coming to the south coast on holiday, may not be aware of the dangers, should there be an accident. As the drivers are in the most vulnerable position, having a second safety trained crew member further back is highly desireable. I know that accidents are thankfully rare.

Longer distance trains can be miles from the nearest station and sometimes inaccessible by road if help with an on-board incident is needed.

[Coryton]

I don't think that's entirely accurate as there's a lot more to it all than the amount paid to franchisees (and of course the amount paid by them).  Privatisation has been a very interesting process on Britain's railway but remarkably - in view of all the naysayers - one which has in many respects been copied elsewhere.  

 

Has anywhere else copied the idea of completely abolishing the state operator, rather than requiring it to bid against competitors to carry on running services? I'm not aware of it anywhere else in Europe, and I haven't even been anywhere that Intercity services (as opposed to local or regional ones) were operated by a patchwork of different operators as in the UK (not counting open access operators competing with the incumbent state company).

 

 In my mind the biggest disbenefit, by a very long distance has been the removal of the very firm buffer which existed between the Civil Service and the railway industry thereby giving the lunatics the run of the asylum.   The original idea of a Franchise Director and a Regulator effectively helped keep them at bay and we are now seeing the results of their finger poking and very naive juvenile ideas coming into focus through this particular dispute.  The problem is that the industry hasn't got anyone tough enough to stand up to them let alone a whole organisation such as the BRB to deal with them.  

 

And yet you frequently see comments in letters pages saying that re-nationalising the railways would be a disaster because if the government ran the railways they would make a mess of it.

 

I don't think that's entirely accurate as there's a lot more to it all than the amount paid to franchisees (and of course the amount paid by them).  Privatisation has been a very interesting process on Britain's railway but remarkably - in view of all the naysayers - one which has in many respects been copied elsewhere.  To get the full picture one needs to aggregate all the costs which have been taken out against any costs which have been brought in plus the benefits or disbenefits of replacing by contractual situations that which previously depended on being mates or fell apart because people were not mates.  I can tell you from personal experience dealing with Railtrack that the words 'I've got an access contract' could be very useful for putting some their minions back in their boxes.

 

None of that of course takes account in any way of franchises and infrastructure leases being sold outside the UK but that is in reality a political decision (in order to comply with EU legislation) and not a part of privatisation as such.   In my mind the biggest disbenefit, by a very long distance has been the removal of the very firm buffer which existed between the Civil Service and the railway industry thereby giving the lunatics the run of the asylum.   The original idea of a Franchise Director and a Regulator effectively helped keep them at bay and we are now seeing the results of their finger poking and very naive juvenile ideas coming into focus through this particular dispute.  The problem is that the industry hasn't got anyone tough enough to stand up to them let alone a whole organisation such as the BRB to deal with them.  This sort of thing could well get worse where management contracts are involved as the naive juveniles in DafT will then be pulling even more strings - even if they don't understand what is on the end of them.  The effects of that are far worse than franchise fees heading off to the European mainland or Canadian pension funds buying long leases on infrastructure.

 

[The Stationmaster]

Has anywhere else copied the idea of completely abolishing the state operator, rather than requiring it to bid against competitors to carry on running services? I'm not aware of it anywhere else in Europe, and I haven't even been anywhere that Intercity services (as opposed to local or regional ones) were operated by a patchwork of different operators as in the UK (not counting open access operators competing with the incumbent state company).

 

 

And yet you frequently see comments in letters pages saying that re-nationalising the railways would be a disaster because if the government ran the railways they would make a mess of it.

 

I have no doubt whatsoever that if 'the Govt ran the railways' they would make a mess of the job.  The plain facts are that there is no one in Govt competent in either knowledge or experience to 'run the railways' while no post BR trained managers have the necessary breadth of experience and knowledge either while most of those who were BR trained and are still in the industry were only in fairly junior positions at the time of privatisation.

 

The last time the railways were nationalised it took a decade or more of errors, turns in various wrong directions/reorganisations, and sundry overspends to get BR moving in approximately the right direction and that largely involved people who at least understood how the industry worked.  I did actually work within a directly Govt owned part of the railway post 1994 and it was run with an extremely light touch from Marsham Street with the actual running of our part of the railway left to the professionals and that arrangement worked well.

 

However now with a strong likelihood, and current full evidence of, direct political interference one can see exactly what sort of mess could result.  If the politicos and some less than 'civil' Civil servants van manage to create near total havoc on one part of the system just imagine what they could do if they tried to wield similar influence over all of it.  I have no particular axe to grind but just imagine if comrade Corbyn was pulling the strings in the manner he has stated that he would like to pull them - a top quality gold plated shambles, and a very expensive one at that, would be the result, he'd create an even bigger mess than the present bunch have on Southern.

 

I have worked with people from most of the railways in western Europe and with some from further afield and the most noticeable thing is that the nearer their HQs are to be being part of the state apparatus and Civil Service the worse they are at doing various things although some seem to manage despite such closeness.  Equally of course most western european railway concerns are considerably larger than BR was in its final few decades so we are hardly comparing like with like in many respects.  And I, like many others lived and worked through several decades of BR being starved not just of capital funds but also maintenance funds - by Govts of both the main shades;  I wouldn't be in the least surprised to see that repeated under full nationalisation (which in any case is never going to happen - the country hasn't got that sort of money).

[jjb1970]

I think the genie is out of the bottle in that once civil servants at DafT and politicians have got themselves used to micro-managing the railway it'd be very hard to restore an arms length BR. And with the best will in the world the track record of DafT is pretty dreadful when it comes to their efforts to manage the railways. I don't think the TOCs are perfect by any means (although I do think some of them are very good and most of them do a decent job) but it sort of amazes me that when Network Rail is nationalised and when the important decisions about passenger operations are taken by DafT with franchises being micro-managed there are politicians and plenty of the public who think that nationalisation is some sort of panacea for all the railways problems.

[phil-b259]

And an ASLEF one once they have re-run the strike ballot they have just binned due to an alleged admin error on it.

 

Is this a re-run of the "we won't drive 12 car 377s under DOO" despite them being virtually the same length as a 10 car 442 and despite Thameslink running 12 car 377 units quite successfully under DOO to Brighton for a couple of years or so.

 

If so its a pretty good demonstration of how politics (rather than a real world factual appraisal of any particular situation drives) has far to much sway in the upper eschalons of rail unions.

 

The RMT news rag still regularly features call for a new national 'General Strike' in response to the latest trades union legislation - despite the fact that any moves in that direction would cause significant hardship for its members even if the top bods would get the satisfaction of going down fighting.

[phil-b259]

I still don't see how this will help given the root cause of most of the issues affecting Southern stems from the DfTs desire to take on the Unions.

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/package-of-measures-announced-to-help-improve-resilience-of-southern-network

 

That's not to say the extra cash to be spent on infrastructure won't be useful - on a railway carrying far more trains than the mid 1980s signalling ever envisaged a big part of the infrastructure 'reliability' issues is far too much of it is life expired. However fixing it properly won't go down well with regular users because, as much as they may not like it, we desperately need more big blocades so that the problems like the situation where virtually every single sleeper within the crossovers north of Three Bridges / Gatwick are shot and need renewal can be addressed.

[Coryton]

I have no doubt whatsoever that if 'the Govt ran the railways' they would make a mess of the job.  

 

 

My point was supposed to be that most people seem to be unaware of the fact that the government already is running the railways (and to a far far greater extent than it did during nationalisation). They seem to think that re-nationalisation would result in the government making decisions currently made by private companies, when to a large extent they're already made by the government (as a look at a franchise specification shows). So whatever mess they would or wouldn't make, they are largely already making it.

 

 it sort of amazes me that when Network Rail is nationalised and when the important decisions about passenger operations are taken by DafT with franchises being micro-managed there are politicians and plenty of the public who think that nationalisation is some sort of panacea for all the railways problems.

 

I don't think it's surprising. There's no reason that most people should be particularly aware if Network Rail is or isn't private/company limited by guarantee/state-owned. And neither the government nor the TOCs are going out of their way to make it clear how much control the government has over passenger services, so it's hardly surprising that the private companies end up with the blame for what are actually government decisions, or that people might think that removing the profit motive might make things better. (Greedy train companies putting fares up every year etc...) 

 

 

  I wouldn't be in the least surprised to see that repeated under full nationalisation (which in any case is never going to happen - the country hasn't got that sort of money).

 

Why would it cost money?

 

Network Rail is already state-owned. To be a TOC doesn't require much capital, does it? Everything is leased. I don't think setting up DOR to run East Coast required large quantities of government money. Surely all that would be necessary was to wait for franchises to

run out and then set them up like East Coast?

 

There have been various reasons given here why re-nationalisation probably wouldn't be an improvement, but I don't understand why it would require money to be poured in (unlike, say, a council wanting to buy its bus company back off FirstBus).

[Gwiwer]

Word from the Western Front.

 

Southern staff at Hove and Brighton are no longer prepared to exercise any flexibility or leniency and are despatching trains precisely on time irrespective of whether or not they form an advertised connection.

 

At Hove there is a half-hourly shuttle to / from Brighton connecting out of / into the Littlehampton - Victoria trains.  It's not always that busy because there are normally four other trains each hour through from Brighton to at least West Worthing.  Under the emergency timetable the hourly Brighton - Southampton train does not run.  Not all of the others do either and still on something of a random basis according to staff availability.  The shuttles have been better used of late as a result.  

 

I have four perfectly credible reports from family that as the doors of the London unit were opened at platform one the doors of the Brighton shuttle waiting at platform two were closed and the train despatched.  Result?  A 20-minute wait, for a 3-minute ride, for  a train which everyone could have caught farther back along the line except from Littlehampton.  The same has occurred westbound.  And there are reports of "Right on time" departures from Brighton which used to be held for up to 1 minute to allow a connection if the London train was actually in the platform with passengers alighting.  

 

I can understand that in the current environment where there are / have been separate but related disputes with drivers, guards and station staff that pretty much everyone still employe by Southern is cheesed off to the back teeth.  I can understand that they are demotivated and really don't care any more.  I can understand that they may feel inclined to carry out their duties "to the letter" or to do the barest minimum required.  But to slam doors shut for the sake of 20 - 30 seconds in the face of connecting passengers who have, in all probability, already suffered enough delay and inconvenience does very little to endear these staff as fellow humans to their paying customers and is actively driving people away from the railway.

 

Or is that what GTR want given their regular (and well-founded) complaints about their trains being delayed and overcrowded?

[cromptonnut]

It's the "Right Time Railway" principle.

 

People complain if the trains are late.  People complain if they're on time.  We can't win.

 

If you are leaving zero time for a connection then unfortunately it is your fault - even if they are on adjacent platforms.