34theletterbetweenB&D Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 That could hardly be bettered as a case study in systemic management failure. Poor communication of the system state to operations staff, the apparent focus on surface not substance, insufficient capacity to act, insufficient system resources to respond to regular out of course incidents. A one hour programme is not enough, but I shall be listening very carefully in the future broadcasts for any expression of the knowledge of the present system process capability, and how that relates to volume of tickets sold. The most telling moment for me was Laxman handing over the operational tools he had acquired. Can we hope that all his operational know how has been recorded, and that he trained a few replacements before he left? I don't have a warm feeling on this one... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Nth Degree Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 Precisely my observations, 34C. The chap he was handing his lifelong career tools of his job to didn't give a t0ss. I have no idea how a Brent character could climb such an important ladder to a vital position such as this. I was both amazed and ironically laughing. The amount of political HR was also stomach-churning - the old chap was right, passengers want a service that runs on time and is as comfortable to travel in as conditions allow. If there is a problem, they want to know what it is, how long it's going to go on for and what the alternatives are. They absolutely do not want to be patronised with a smile and a, I quote, "uha, uha" without any feedback whatsoever. I found this a brilliant program about the people and state of the railway. With the retirement of Laxman a huge hole has been left gaping open and I don't think it will ever be filled. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Harvey Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 The muppet in the blue and white checked shirt with the badly fitting suite going on about how his staff looked so smart yes they did he should learn from their example as he is doing a bad job of representing East Cost and he is management, he was worse than David Brent. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
br2975 Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 The most telling moment for me was Laxman handing over the operational tools he had acquired. Can we hope that all his operational know how has been recorded, and that he trained a few replacements before he left? In my 'organisation' that would fly in the face of equality and/or diversity and fairness. By 'training a replacement' implies some form of 'succession planning' and therefore the exclusion of some candidates who may be attracted to the post (note I didn't write 'interested' only 'attracted'). In my organisation, the management would be well aware of the impending retirement of a valuable and experienced old hand like Laxman but 'scoping' for possible replacements would be unfair. . Instead, Laxman's now vacant post would not be advertised until he had retired, then there would be the recruitment process, paper sift, interview process, vetting, appointment and then a period of (a) training and ( B) corporate brainwashing. . So, in my organisation (not the railway) Laxman would have been retired six months before his replacement arrives for their first day - and I know my organisation is not alone. . Enjoy retirement Laxman, you deserve it. . Brian R Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 The most telling moment for me was Laxman handing over the operational tools he had acquired. Can we hope that all his operational know how has been recorded, and that he trained a few replacements before he left? I don't have a warm feeling on this one... It would be nice to think he had - at least in my own area this does indeed happen. Indeed, the older hand wouldn't be able to retire until his replacement was passed competant (in theory at least). I've found in time time on the railway that one of the best ways to learn is simply to listen to the experienced. Whether it's an in depth conversation about rules and operation or just entertaining anicdotes, it's a great way to learn! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve fay Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 What is it with the management bull sh!t and the crap they spout. Our Vision, Drive sales. As soon as a company gets to big for its boots they start finding all these long words and mission statements and from my own experience everyone bar the person whos mouth the dribble is spewing laughs it off as a complete waste of time. Stop the crap and just run a railway. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
34theletterbetweenB&D Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 In my 'organisation' that would fly in the face of equality and/or diversity and fairness. By 'training a replacement' implies some form of 'succession planning' and therefore the exclusion of some candidates who may be attracted to the post (note I didn't write 'interested' only 'attracted'). In my organisation, the management would be well aware of the impending retirement of a valuable and experienced old hand like Laxman but 'scoping' for possible replacements would be unfair. . Instead, Laxman's now vacant post would not be advertised until he had retired, then there would be the recruitment process, paper sift, interview process, vetting, appointment ... If that is true of your organisation, you should ask formally how running a recruitment process at the necessary time interval to permit appointment and training ahead of the known departure of an employee, in any way degrades diversity and fairness, as compared to running the same recruit and train process after the job occupant has departed. And BTW, point out that landing a newly trained employee in a backlog resulting from no staff, is clearly unfair as compared to the entirely possible planned transfer of responsibility with the current post holder able to guide the newly appointed person. Honestly, grow a pair... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
br2975 Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 If that is true of your organisation, you should ask formally how running a recruitment process at the necessary time interval to permit appointment and training ahead of the known departure of an employee, in any way degrades diversity and fairness, as compared to running the same recruit and train process after the job occupant has departed. And BTW, point out that landing a newly trained employee in a backlog resulting from no staff, is clearly unfair as compared to the entirely possible planned transfer of responsibility with the current post holder able to guide the newly appointed person. Honestly, grow a pair... Perhaps my attempt at sarcasm has eluded you ? It's not 'my' organisation, I don't own or run it - 'my' organisation should infer that I am employed within that 'orgnisation' and spent fifteen years as a pain in it's rear end, being a staff association representative. . Also, I don't need to 'grow a pair' . Brian R Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
34theletterbetweenB&D Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 Clearly I didn't perceive sarcasm, just didn't get that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium petethemole Posted February 13, 2013 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 13, 2013 The process described by Brian is not unknown to me. It saves money on staff costs. In fact, if you add in the time taken for a consultation and decision making process as to whether the post needs filling at all, you can spin it out enoutgh to save a whole year's costs for one post, while everybody else works harder to cover the work of that post. Then, as the job is apparently adequately covered, you don't refill it, you delete it, making a permanent saving. Then start on the next one. Pete Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ohmisterporter Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 The two standout poor performers for me were the women interviewing candidates. So unprofessional they were downright funny. And I have suffered the same idiotic questions such as "When did you last give a customer excellent service as opposed to good service?". Simply asking for the candidate to make up a story on the spot, perhaps that will be a requirement of the job. As for drinking from a cardboard cup during an interview, words fail me (well almost). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted February 13, 2013 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 13, 2013 Whilst there were several examples of good, hard-working front line staff, dedicated to the job and exhibiting much humanity and common sense, the overall 'feel' of the programme left me feeling rather depressed. I'm glad I'm not the only one to see the parallels with David Brent and 'The Office'.... From what I saw of trailers and press etc comments about it before it was broadcast I had decided not to watch it - I was getting an increasingly uneasy feeling that what was coming would be likely to leave me a less than happy bunny - your view on the 'feel' of the programme suggests I might have made the right decision (for me). Alas programmes that are based on picking out 'characters' can have this sort of failing and need, in my view, very great care to avoid giving a distorted or exaggerated impression. But usually they go the other way. Incidentally over 40 years ago time served railwaymen (who really were railwaymen back then) were telling the likes of a newly arrived me that the job had no future, that 'management' no longer cared, and that the railway had gone to the dogs - things change, times change, and teh railway of today is as far removed from the railway when I started as it was from the railway of 40 years earlier. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted February 13, 2013 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 13, 2013 The two standout poor performers for me were the women interviewing candidates. So unprofessional they were downright funny. And I have suffered the same idiotic questions such as "When did you last give a customer excellent service as opposed to good service?". Simply asking for the candidate to make up a story on the spot, perhaps that will be a requirement of the job. As for drinking from a cardboard cup during an interview, words fail me (well almost). I always used a china cup (but always - if drinking myself - offered a cuppa to the interview candidate and think it extremely rude not to do so). Incidentally I normally refused to have staff office/personnel/HR people present at interviews - they are an irrelevance except for answering any interviewees' questions about pay & conditions. Alas in my final big railway employer it was compulsory to have an HR person in the interview so I always made it clear to them that they were not to say anything unless they first asked me if they could do so. Good job I didn't watch - my blood pressure would have reached new heights Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chaz Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 It may be a bit unfair as I only watched half of this first episode - I couldn't be bothered to watch it all - but I thought the programme compared poorly with the earlier one on the underground (was it called "The Tube"?). Not sure I will waste any more time watching the rest.... Chaz Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Nth Degree Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 The ticket sales chap was also a 'character'. He made it quite clear he hated his job and was the most miserable bloke I've ever seen. Absolutely no customer-facing enthusiasm either. And the cleaner was just as bad. The Station Manager was awful - she sounded like she had just come out of management-speak school, with a D-. For any 'ordinary' railway person who watched this program it must have been too embarrassing to watch all the way through. They program makers have done an excellent job in portraying the absolute worst about a company's employees. I may actually watch it again as I really miss The Office. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
QuoitsPlayer Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 Did anyone else notice early on when the HST had run out of fuel that the producer/camerawoman (definitely a lady's voice) asked the East Coast staff 'Do trains regularly run out of petrol?' I'm not been pedantic but surely somebody making a documentary about railways would have a basic knowledge of what powers the trains!!! Even Thomas has 'steamies and diesels'! Well done to Laxman though, I thought it was a nice touch EC letting him go home First Class on his last day, hopefully there are many more Laxman type railwaymen at the coalface and less of the David Brent type bosses. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Fitness Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 I tried and failed to fully watch this programme. A truly nauseating piece of patronising "lets take the mickey out of the railway" clap trap. The two interviewers reading(!?) from a question script looked like they had no idea what they were asking never mind understand any answer given. The Chap taking over from Lax was definately wondering if he could have a bin to drop poor Lax's useful bits into. I doubt his replacement will offer anything like the expert and professional service that Lax did. I cringed as the "manager" asked if everybody was happy and the usual hackneyed mix of weird or world weary characters were rounded up and encouraged to embarass themselves for our entertainment. I won't be wasting my modelling time watching any more of those.... JF Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenton Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 I felt that it was far to much of a corporate video.Just the opposite for me. A union sanctioned program highlighting union issues and "complaints" of staff. The bit that stuck with me most was the driver sauntering down from his rest break to an already late train as if he had all week to make the journey. No sign of concern that he was in-part responsible for the delay, more a air of "they can dam well wait until I'm in the mood to bother myself". But there were still some other very human staff members who seemed to endure everything with a smile. The rest of the series are on the record schedule, along with the WHR and Portillo series, awaiting a rainy day and a gap in SWIMBO's viewing of American canned soap like endless reruns of the distinctly humourless Cheers, Mash, faux CSI, House blah blah. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Ian J. Posted February 13, 2013 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 13, 2013 I'm kind of glad I've missed this, judging by the comments in the thread (both positive and negative). It seems to be more of a 'people programme' than an operational one (unlike 'The Tube'), and to that extent I've seen enough 'fly-on-the-wall' documentaries (about anything) to last me a lifetime. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Georgeconna Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 Maybe someone can advise me why a Peasant hitting a train causes a delay?. Surley the Trains comes out the better? Often seen birds hit car on the road with no ill consqeuences. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium petethemole Posted February 14, 2013 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 14, 2013 It would depend where it hit. A bird strike on the windscreen at high speed could break it and possibly injure the driver; even cracked it would be unsafe to continue at speed and I expect the train would be failed at the first suitable point. Pete Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted February 14, 2013 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 14, 2013 Maybe someone can advise me why a Peasant hitting a train causes a delay?. Surley the Trains comes out the better? Often seen birds hit car on the road with no ill consqeuences. It all depends what it hits - could damage a windscreen wiper, could go underneath and cause damage. I have seen damage caused by a bird strike but it is unusual but in some circumstances it still has to be checked for - which takes time. And while it would be unusual for a pheasant (I think) birds and pantographs and ohle do not mix at all well. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold beast66606 Posted February 14, 2013 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 14, 2013 The bit that stuck with me most was the driver sauntering down from his rest break to an already late train as if he had all week to make the journey. No sign of concern that he was in-part responsible for the delay, more a air of "they can dam well wait until I'm in the mood to bother myself". The driver had taken his 30 minute break as stipulated by the rules - I'd sooner a driver was ready to drive than be forced into a quick turn around to save 5 or even 15 minutes and an accident occurs later in the journey Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glorious NSE Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 If you hit a peasant you'll probably have to wait for the police to come and pick the bits up, possibly not so bad with a pheasant though. (With tongue definately in cheek, and due apologies for pedantry!) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenton Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 The driver had taken his 30 minute break as stipulated by the rules - I'd sooner a driver was ready to drive than be forced into a quick turn around to save 5 or even 15 minutes and an accident occurs later in the journeyI'm not disputing a need for a break - I'm just disputing the apparent laissais faire attitude in returning to his train. I don't expect him to run and be out of breath, I would have expected hime to make some visible pace and attitude to the platform manager that he was at least trying to get the train out on time (or in a timely manner). I also question if it was indeed a break and not a late arrival for duty. To follow this with the union meeting in the pub did not present anything to help my opinion - just to say "we are a closed shop". I also must have missed the comment about he had only taken his allotted break, in which case with the train being over 1hr late also missed the poor management of driver resources (as presumably he would not have been scheduled to take on the train 1hr earlier - or was his break period in excess of 1hr). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.