Avanti's serial cancellations of last trains

[judethegreat]

Not running the train will incur zero running costs, so a saving.

Several trains have still run ecs

 

[mmh]

And government figures suggest only about 50% of passengers bother with delay repay claims.

Exactly. This forum will be very unrepresentative of the public at large. Indeed, even some forum members don't bother.

 

[the sniper]

Because overtime will be at least +20% of the staffing cost. Not running the train will incur zero running costs, so a saving.

Providing a coach, even at short notice, will be cheaper than paying the cost of running the train plus staff costs and overtime.

And government figures suggest only about 50% of passengers bother with delay repay claims.

So in the most extreme, unrealistic case possible, you could have bribed a TM £1000 just to come in on a RD to just work one round trip to London. Let's say it's a very quiet Saturday night, just 100 passengers onboard each way, rather than 400 or 500. Average price for each passenger's ticket, £30 (bargain for Manchester to Euston!). But instead you've just cancelled it. Let's say only 25% bother to claim delay repay, so the TOC have already lost £1500... How little are you additionally paying to get a couple of coaches at short notice on a Saturday night? That's before any industry money-go-round fines for cancelling the train are counted.

 

[Watershed]

So in the most extreme, unrealistic case possible, you could have bribed a TM £1000 just to come in on a RD to just work one round trip to London. Let's say it's a very quiet Saturday night, just 100 passengers onboard each way, rather than 400 or 500. Average price for each passenger's ticket, £30 (bargain for Manchester to Euston!). But instead you've just cancelled it. Let's say only 25% bother to claim delay repay, so the TOC have already lost £1500... How little are you additionally paying to get a couple of coaches at short notice on a Saturday night? That's before any industry money-go-round fines for cancelling the train are counted.

Indeed.

You would probably need to have less than 20 passengers for the additional expense of time + ½ (or whatever) to exceed the cost of Delay Repay, rail replacement coaches and the loss of goodwill. Hence why it has long been the policy of TOCs, and BR before that, to offer overtime premia.

The problem is that the government is dictating that this must now stop, consequences be damned.

 

[skyhigh]

If this is correct, how feasable would it be to rearrange it all so that the last (few), and indeed first (few) trains are covered on standard shifts, and all overtime is in the middle of the day, on the end of earlies/beginning of lates? Or as someone suggested, cover them on night turns?

To be fair, when last trains are uncovered in advance they are covered first if at all possible - the issue comes down to things like movement from spare (i.e. how many hours can staff be moved - if someone is on a 1200-2200 spare, can they be moved to cover an uncovered job that's 1430-0100?) or rest from duty (moving a spare to cover the last train meaning they don't have sufficient rest for the next day - this also applies to rest day work)

 

[dk1]

To be fair, when last trains are uncovered in advance they are covered first if at all possible - the issue comes down to things like movement from spare (i.e. how many hours can staff be moved - if someone is on a 1200-2200 spare, can they be moved to cover an uncovered job that's 1430-0100?) or rest from duty (moving a spare to cover the last train meaning they don't have sufficient rest for the next day - this also applies to rest day work)

But remember too that the 12:00 spare would if the staffing minutes dictate it have to be moved to the nearest open turn. Therefore if 14:30-01:00 (the last train of the day) is uncovered but so is a turn 13:15-21:40 then the 14:30 job will still remain uncovered.

My particular depot has a maximum 3hr movement from spare.

 

[muz379]

But remember too that the 12:00 spare would if the staffing minutes dictate it have to be moved to the nearest open turn. Therefore if 14:30-01:00 (the last train of the day) is uncovered but so is a turn 13:15-21:40 then the 14:30 job will still remain uncovered.

My particular depot has a maximum 3hr movement from spare.

It's also worth considering that whilst they could make an educated guess the roster clerks aren't always overly familiar with the content of the jobs they're just numbers to them .

 

[dk1]

It's also worth considering that whilst they could make an educated guess the roster clerks aren't always overly familiar with the content of the jobs they're just numbers to them .

They would have to be familiar with the content for route & traction requirements.

 

[142blue]

What happens when everyone available to work is already on, people in spare are allocated work within their hours and those wanting rest day working are in. What happens if that isn't sufficient?

Question for staff on here. When was the last time you were offered overtime or rest day working to sit spare so there was always additional cover available to cover for on the day sickness and disruption.

 

[the sniper]

Re rostering. Obviously it would be better to recruit more staff. Without that, if i understand correctly, staff work 8-ish hour shifts, plus, if they choose, 4-ish hours overtime, and certain moves are covered permanently on overtime? This is how it was in Royal Mail 30 years ago, dunno about now. If this is correct, how feasable would it be to rearrange it all so that the last (few), and indeed first (few) trains are covered on standard shifts, and all overtime is in the middle of the day, on the end of earlies/beginning of lates? Or as someone suggested, cover them on night turns?

I think there might be some misunderstanding here. All the trains are theoretically included on standard shifts/diagrams/turns, the issue is that a variable number of entire shifts/diagrams/turns will be uncovered, so all the trains on each turn will be at risk of cancellation. Either they'll try and get someone to cover the entire turn if they can as Rest Day Work, or failing that they'll break it up and try to cover individual trains. The latter will often be done by asking people to stay over their day where/if possible. They'll usually have reasonable luck covering the start of diagrams on Lates because you get the people off Earlies willing to stay on. The later you get, the less people you have booking off and willing to stay over, for obvious reasons.

These games have been played for many decades by Train Crew Supervisors (or the equivalent thereof), those who know their craft and their men/women can achieve seemingly impossible feats to cover all the work with theoretically far too few people. But things have changed over the decades. No longer do the vast majority of staff need to do 12 hours a day, 13 days a week to earn a decent wage. The diagrams have become far more intense, so people don't want to stay over or do them on RDs. Theoretically if you make the diagrams more intensive you can get away with needing less diagrams, but if you're still reliant upon RDW or OT to cover uncovered turns, you've just made it far harder to cover them.

 

[D1537]

Because overtime will be at least +20% of the staffing cost. Not running the train will incur zero running costs, so a saving.

Providing a coach, even at short notice, will be cheaper than paying the cost of running the train plus staff costs and overtime.

And government figures suggest only about 50% of passengers bother with delay repay claims.

Not running the train incurs a cancellation charge.
Even 50% of pax claiming delay repay incurs an immediate loss.
Not to mention the pax that get home hours late and go "we'll drive next time".
This thread has, if nothing else, proved that the railway is run for the benefit of the railway, not the passengers.

 

[dk1]

What happens when everyone available to work is already on, people in spare are allocated work within their hours and those wanting rest day working are in. What happens if that isn't sufficient?

Question for staff on here. When was the last time you were offered overtime or rest day working to sit spare so there was always additional cover available to cover for on the day sickness and disruption.

There are ‘cover’ jobs which are booked turns with no content to cover for no shows & disruption. Yes of course you could get asked to RDW on these turns. They are very different to being spare.

 

[142blue]

Add on a lack of willingness in the current climate too. No pay rises and no discussion to get one - why should people stay on, cover turns, drop back or work a rest day

When the working relationship between the frontline and a company break down (and I don’t mean in relation to pay) you ultimately lose the goodwill of your workforce - sadly this is the result of this.

And when working Sundays is rubbish why would anyone want to do it on rest days and overtime?

 

[A0wen]

Not running the train incurs a cancellation charge.
Even 50% of pax claiming delay repay incurs an immediate loss.
Not to mention the pax that get home hours late and go "we'll drive next time".
This thread has, if nothing else, proved that the railway is run for the benefit of the railway, not the passengers.

If anything it should be run for the benefit of the taxpayers who foot the bill.

And that means getting best value for the taxpayer - bearing in mind fewer than 20% of journeys are made by train.

 

[D1537]

If anything it should be run for the benefit of the taxpayers who foot the bill.

And that means getting best value for the taxpayer - bearing in mind fewer than 20% of journeys are made by train.

I quite agree. Not only are the horribly inconvenienced passengers mostly taxpayers, but the taxpayer pays for the cost of cancelling all of those trains.

 

[A0wen]

I quite agree. Not only are the horribly inconvenienced passengers mostly taxpayers, but the taxpayer pays for the cost of cancelling all of those trains.

But the taxpayer shouldn't be faced with the seemingly ever escalating of running a rail network.

And paying overtime to cover things is one such example. Perhaps allowing TOCs an easier route to reducing the timetable would be a sensible way forward.

 

[GordonT]

Because overtime will be at least +20% of the staffing cost. Not running the train will incur zero running costs, so a saving.

Providing a coach, even at short notice, will be cheaper than paying the cost of running the train plus staff costs and overtime.

And government figures suggest only about 50% of passengers bother with delay repay claims.

 

[43096]

This is what so many on here do not seem to grasp. Some of the comments are quite excruciating to read.

It's not exactly surprising, is it? The staff view has precious little regard for the punters, being very much that staff look after their own interests. So it's then wholly to be expected that the passengers will think the same and think about their interests - why should they give a stuff about the staff?

That said, the TOCs really do not help - and it's the same with the airlines/holiday companies in recent weeks (that's you easyJet, TUI et al). Quite simply: do not schedule and sell tickets for services you cannot resource. Avanti even seem to be dumb enough not to take advantage of the 10pm the night before amended timetable rule and still have cancellations on the day that they must have known could not be resourced well in advance.

 

[Watershed]

But the taxpayer shouldn't be faced with the seemingly ever escalating of running a rail network.

And paying overtime to cover things is one such example. Perhaps allowing TOCs an easier route to reducing the timetable would be a sensible way forward.

That would essentially mean putting the entire network on a timetable like ScotRail's current "temporary" one - i.e. a 30-50% reduction in services. Which of course will hit some places disproportionately hard - e.g. the first and last train from Mallaig to Glasgow is now at 6am!

Clearly, that's possible. But it has deleterious consequences for anyone who relies on the train. It's effectively Beeching mk 2.

 

[Failed Unit]

But the taxpayer shouldn't be faced with the seemingly ever escalating of running a rail network.

And paying overtime to cover things is one such example. Perhaps allowing TOCs an easier route to reducing the timetable would be a sensible way forward.

I always find this as a dangerous spiral. At the moment the rail service is unreliable so we drive (as the government prefer). Rail services are cut. More drive and so on. Congestion gets worse as those that never use the train have there road space taken up by those that used to. surely the government should be taking action to maximise their investment in rail? If I start driving then that does impacts someone that never uses the train.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That would essentially mean putting the entire network on a timetable like ScotRail's current "temporary" one - i.e. a 30-50% reduction in services. Which of course will hit some places disproportionately hard - e.g. the first and last train from Mallaig to Glasgow is now at 6am!

Clearly, that's possible. But it has deleterious consequences for anyone who relies on the train. It's effectively Beeching mk 2.

Or would it be more like a step back to the late 1990s timetables which weren't as frequent but were also less dramatic than those? It isn't a simple either or. And there could be other benefits - the last timetable under which Castlefield was properly punctual (in so much as it ever was) was the pre 1998 one. You would need to operate long trains, though.

 

[dk1]

It's not exactly surprising, is it? The staff view has precious little regard for the punters, being very much that staff look after their own interests. So it's then wholly to be expected that the passengers will think the same and think about their interests - why should they give a stuff about the staff?

That said, the TOCs really do not help - and it's the same with the airlines/holiday companies in recent weeks (that's you easyJet, TUI et al). Quite simply: do not schedule and sell tickets for services you cannot resource. Avanti even seem to be dumb enough not to take advantage of the 10pm the night before amended timetable rule and still have cancellations on the day that they must have known could not be resourced well in advance.

I remember the feeling of disappointment when hearing the franchise had been awarded as it had but thinking my affection for Virgin & all it stood for was clouding my judgment so decided to keep an open mind. Sadly my initial feelings have proved to be correct.

I don’t expect anybody to have any more sympathy for me in my job than I do for them in theirs. What gets my goat is when opinions that we should lose working conditions & even money just because this awful race to the bottom attitude kicks in whether that just stems out of jealousy, bitterness or misunderstanding. That’s just mental.

 

[D1537]

That would essentially mean putting the entire network on a timetable like ScotRail's current "temporary" one - i.e. a 30-50% reduction in services. Which of course will hit some places disproportionately hard - e.g. the first and last train from Mallaig to Glasgow is now at 6am!

One does have to ask, however, if having a 3tph EUS-MAN service, that can't be maintained with services being cancelled at random, is better or worse than a 2tph service that is mostly reliable.

 

[Watershed]

Or would it be more like a step back to the late 1990s timetables which weren't as frequent but were also less dramatic than those? It isn't a simple either or. And there could be other benefits - the last timetable under which Castlefield was properly punctual (in so much as it ever was) was the pre 1998 one. You would need to operate long trains, though.

Whilst that might be the solution for some TOCs, particularly those which have seen marked reductions in patronage compared to pre-Covid, there is no way Avanti will be able to fit everyone who wants to travel between Manchester and London on 1tph, as one example.

Passenger numbers have reduced around 15-20% compared to pre-Covid, but that only puts the figures back to where they were in 2012 or so. So, if rail is to serve that demand, rather than pushing it away as is frequently happening at the moment (c.f. Avanti's Advance pricing policy), it cannot possibly return to 1990s timetables.

Saying "run fewer, longer trains" is all well and good, and works on some lines - but it does not address the fact that lower frequencies result in much worse generalised journey times (particularly where connections are involved). And there are many lines where trains cannot be extended at all, or without massive expenditure.

 

[43096]

I remember the feeling of disappointment when hearing the franchise had been awarded as it had but thinking my affection for Virgin & all it stood for was clouding my judgment so decided to keep an open mind. Sadly my initial feelings have proved to be correct.

It was always going to end up like this - not known as WorstGroup for nothing, although they now like to hide that their TOCs are a Worst operation. The whole GWR re-branding of FGW was at a time of poor performance (when was GW a good performer?!) and smacked of green washing the Worst corporate image in the vain hope the passengers wouldn't realise.

 

[Bletchleyite]

One does have to ask, however, if having a 3tph EUS-MAN service, that can't be maintained with services being cancelled at random, is better or worse than a 2tph service that is mostly reliable.

It is definitely better to have a reliable but less frequent service (until you go below 0.5tph, anyway).

Edit: in Avanti's case this might mean they could lop at quieter times rather than 2tph all day, though this would require a lot of replanning. One quirk that used to exist was that the last Liverpool ran via Manchester to cover both with one set/crew.

 

[GordonT]

The "utilise overtime versus employ more staff and do away with overtime" conundrum has been rattling around the transport industry for decades. Folk will nod wisely and agree that ideally dependence on overtime should be eradicated. Invariably movement in this direction founders on a couple of rocks. The first of these is that there will usually be a significant proportion of troops on the ground who (in normal times) have such a lust for maximising their earnings that they will practically elbow their way to the front of the queue to work as much overtime as the legal hours rules will allow.
The second of these is that overtime is an efficient way to cover small bits and pieces of work which do not by any stretch of the imagination constitute a shift. Far from being a saving in terms of avoiding the +20% or whatever overtime premium, by eradicating overtime you are potentially incurring the full costs of training, shift payment, on costs such as National Insurance/Pension/Sick Pay and other costs and in some cases your requirement for most additional staff members you have recruited to eradicate overtime will perhaps just be a quarter of a typical shift in many cases.

 

[wobman]

Got any examples of this?

If I had details they would have been posted with the statement, but a member of traincrew said it had happened. With all there recent cancellations it would make sence.

 

[judethegreat]

I think there might be some misunderstanding here. All the trains are theoretically included on standard shifts/diagrams/turns, the issue is that a variable number of entire shifts/diagrams/turns will be uncovered, so all the trains on each turn will be at risk of cancellation. Either they'll try and get someone to cover the entire turn if they can as Rest Day Work, or failing that they'll break it up and try to cover individual trains. The latter will often be done by asking people to stay over their day where/if possible. They'll usually have reasonable luck covering the start of diagrams on Lates because you get the people off Earlies willing to stay on. The later you get, the less people you have booking off and willing to stay over, for obvious reasons.

These games have been played for many decades by Train Crew Supervisors (or the equivalent thereof), those who know their craft and their men/women can achieve seemingly impossible feats to cover all the work with theoretically far too few people. But things have changed over the decades. No longer do the vast majority of staff need to do 12 hours a day, 13 days a week to earn a decent wage. The diagrams have become far more intense, so people don't want to stay over or do them on RDs. Theoretically if you make the diagrams more intensive you can get away with needing less diagrams, but if you're still reliant upon RDW or OT to cover uncovered turns, you've just made it far harder to cover them.

Thanks for that explanation

 

[muz379]

They would have to be familiar with the content for route & traction requirements.

Where I am at least the rosters are produced electronically which shouldn't mark to work that isn't signed . They only manually allocating part work to spares and even then its checked electronically. I meant generally though roster clerks won't be familiar with what time services are on what jobs .