• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Cross Country Service Reductions and Alterations, 28-11-2021 onwards

Status
Not open for further replies.

507020

Established Member
Joined
23 May 2021
Messages
1,866
Location
Southport
Perhaps but it also has to pay those staff, hire managers to manage and assess them, provide adequate mess facilities for those sitting spare, make sure they have appropriate equipment, uniform etc.

It's the same reason Sundays outside arrangements persist in so many places. Companies would much rather pay an enhanced rate to get a reduced number of crew in vs having the entire depot sat spare on full pay when engineering work happens.
If those staff are paid by the hour, then they will not be paid when others are working instead of them and if they are not working overtime they will ultimately be paid a lower hourly rate to begin with. With such a large workforce many of them would be at home on days off instead of everyone sitting spare at the depot all day.

There should not be a reduced service on Sundays in the 21st century just because a Roman general executed a man known as Jesus Christ 1988 years ago and there wouldn’t need to be if staff had regular days off on other days of the week, which by definition needs a larger workforce. Has anyone ever considered bringing rail replacement buses in house and allowing train drivers to drive them during engineering works?
Possibly a result of the link that they will start in? Moving to a different TOC voluntarily results in a loss of seniority. If the link joined for new entrants at the new TOC doesn't have HST work then this is not surprising. Previous traction knowledge doesn't override the agreed linking arrangements or terms and conditions at the new TOC.
Clearly previous traction knowledge should take precedence, especially if it is for a traction type common to both TOCs, because otherwise the new TOC is throwing away the skills which it needs to run HSTs anyway which are already in short supply.

If a driver was transferring voluntarily from the InterCity Great Western division of BR to it’s InterCity CrossCountry division would be have lost knowledge of HSTs, or is this simply irrelevant because a driver at Laira depot would have routinely driven both the GW and the XC HSTs within a given area?
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Right Away

Member
Joined
18 May 2016
Messages
199
Clearly previous traction knowledge should take precedence, especially if it is for a traction type common to both TOCs, because otherwise the new TOC is throwing away the skills which it needs to run HSTs anyway which are already in short supply.

If a driver was transferring voluntarily from the InterCity Great Western division of BR to it’s InterCity CrossCountry division would be have lost knowledge of HSTs, or is this simply irrelevant because a driver at Laira depot would have routinely driven both the GW and the XC HSTs within a given area?

In BR days I would agree, however not in the privatised railway. Otherwise a driver in a junior link with limited traction/route knowledge for some time could just be leap-frogged by somebody new to the company who has more traction/route knowledge. The person who has been loyal to the company for longer would lose out to somebody who has only just joined. If you move TOC then this will be known to you and will be a factor in your decision making.
 
Last edited:

507020

Established Member
Joined
23 May 2021
Messages
1,866
Location
Southport
In BR days I would agree, however not in the privatised railway. Otherwise a driver in a junior link with limited traction/route knowledge for some time could just be leap-frogged by somebody new to the company who has more traction/route knowledge. The person who has been loyal to the company for longer would lose out to somebody who has only just joined
They may have only just joined the company but not only just joined the railway

This is exactly what has caused the problem of the HSTs being withdrawn and services cancelled. Traction knowledge can’t just be ignored by companies recruiting experienced drivers loyal to the railway

I would be disgusted if I had years experience driving HSTs and upon joining a company which operates HSTs being told I will not be allowed to drive them, only for them to be withdrawn from service due to lack of drivers! The whole thing is a farce and reminds me of teachers in schools telling me I’m not allowed to do anything without giving a reason or doing any actual teaching.
 

DorkingMain

Member
Joined
25 Aug 2020
Messages
692
Location
London, UK
If those staff are paid by the hour, then they will not be paid when others are working instead of them and if they are not working overtime they will ultimately be paid a lower hourly rate to begin with. With such a large workforce many of them would be at home on days off instead of everyone sitting spare at the depot all day.
I really don't understand what you mean here - are you suggesting zero hours contracts? The point is some weeks, a full Sunday service will run and a large number of staff are needed. Other weeks, large amounts of engineering works will mean very few staff are required. If staff are rostered to work that day (as they would need to be in a Sundays inside arrangement) then they come in and sit spare. It also means more staff are needed to cover Monday - Saturday work, as Sundays are part of their rostered hours.
 

Right Away

Member
Joined
18 May 2016
Messages
199
They may have only just joined the company but not only just joined the railway

This is exactly what has caused the problem of the HSTs being withdrawn and services cancelled. Traction knowledge can’t just be ignored by companies recruiting experienced drivers loyal to the railway

I would be disgusted if I had years experience driving HSTs and upon joining a company which operates HSTs being told I will not be allowed to drive them, only for them to be withdrawn from service due to lack of drivers! The whole thing is a farce and reminds me of teachers in schools telling me I’m not allowed to do anything without giving a reason or doing any actual teaching.

I am not sure your 'exactly' statement is accurate. The problem is actually the company being ill prepared for the non-renewal of the RDW agreement. If I moved TOC and they told me I had to lose route/traction knowledge then I wouldn't be 'disgusted', it would be up to me to decide whether I wanted to move or not with that in mind. If I decide to move then I would expect to go to the bottom of the pile as a new entrant to that TOC.
 

irish_rail

Established Member
Joined
30 Oct 2013
Messages
3,876
Location
Plymouth
Possibly a result of the link that they will start in? Moving to a different TOC voluntarily results in a loss of seniority. If the link joined for new entrants at the new TOC doesn't have HST work then this is not surprising. Previous traction knowledge doesn't override the agreed linking arrangements or terms and conditions at the new TOC.
Everyone at XC Plymouth signs HSTs plus routes wise I think they all sign the same as well, so I don't think that's the reason. I think as someone else pointed out, its just a pointless box ticking exercise, that in this instance is helping to worsen the current situation, the kind of thing one would hope the new GBR can sweep away.

In BR days I would agree, however not in the privatised railway. Otherwise a driver in a junior link with limited traction/route knowledge for some time could just be leap-frogged by somebody new to the company who has more traction/route knowledge. The person who has been loyal to the company for longer would lose out to somebody who has only just joined. If you move TOC then this will be known to you and will be a factor in your decision making.
As I alluded, the two links at Plymouth XC do, I believe, the same traction and routes, so this is not a factor.
 

birchesgreen

Established Member
Joined
16 Jun 2020
Messages
5,154
Location
Birmingham
Excellent*, the XC services in the Midlands are already the busiest trains i've been on lately, going to be absolute mayhem.

* Not really
 

irish_rail

Established Member
Joined
30 Oct 2013
Messages
3,876
Location
Plymouth
Excellent*, the XC services in the Midlands are already the busiest trains i've been on lately, going to be absolute mayhem.

* Not really
Similarly, XC trains I've been on lately south from Bristol absolutely rammed. Going to be an interesting few weeks.
 

OrangeJuice

Member
Joined
4 Jun 2018
Messages
181
I've noticed the changes on Real Time Trains having gone looking for them thanks to this thread. But are XC actually advertising the fact there shall be large gaps in services and are 'altering' the timetable?

Or because they change the timetable there's no delay repay/compensation/notice required, this seems common of train operators now as a get out for actually helping passengers/customers.
 

43055

Established Member
Joined
8 Mar 2018
Messages
2,903
With so many Nottingham to Birmingham and Nottingham to Cardiff trains not running next week the frequency of trains between Nottingham and Derby will at certain times of the day be no more than hourly. EMR are still running a reduced timetable and some hours the Nottingham to Crewe train doesn’t run and the Matlock trains are not running between Nottingham and Derby. Nottingham is really not getting a very good deal with services on local routes at the moment and this will not help.
Add in the strike at EMR next Friday and Saturday so no EMR service between Derby and Nottingham with a later start and early finish as well on what is running!
 

Peterthegreat

Established Member
Joined
22 Feb 2021
Messages
1,336
Location
South Yorkshire
Can any confirm the reason the RDW agreement was not extended?
Was it ASLEF refused (point blank)?
or XC wanted to reduce the "incentives"?
Or the DfT/Treasury would not let them?
 

geoffk

Established Member
Joined
4 Aug 2010
Messages
3,254
Nothing on National Rail Enquiries or XC website about this. Many unsuspecting passengers will be caught unawares.
 

Watershed

Veteran Member
Associate Staff
Senior Fares Advisor
Joined
26 Sep 2020
Messages
12,077
Location
UK
Yes, XC should have a Business Continuity plan. It’s clearly not worked properly here as we wouldn’t be having all of these cuts on Monday if it had.
I suspect this is exactly what the Business Continuity plan looks like. If there's no RDW agreement and not enough drivers without it... what else do you expect them to do?

Failing to provide such a significant chunk of their contracted services should in itself put them in default of their contract (not sure what type of contract XC are on currently but it shouldn’t make much of a difference to this), and therefore be grounds for the Operator of Last Resort to be at the very least mobilised, to take over in the event of the situation not be satisfactorily resolved by Arriva.
Yawn. What, precisely, would be different if an OLR were in charge? The money would still not be any more forthcoming from the DfT.

XC should certainly be doing better to advertise these changes, but ultimately it's the government that needs to be taken to task.
 

Bikeman78

Established Member
Joined
26 Apr 2018
Messages
4,558
Nothing on National Rail Enquiries or XC website about this. Many unsuspecting passengers will be caught unawares.
At least they have taken the missing Cardiff to Nottingham trains out of the booking system for next week. However, some people will already have advance tickets. Hopefully XC will contact them directly. Most journeys during the four hour gap involve taking the XX30 to Bristol Temple Meads and changing there so not ideal for people turning up expecting a train at XX45.

All the missing journeys are back in booking systems from Monday 6th December.
 

Falcon1200

Established Member
Joined
14 Jun 2021
Messages
3,652
Location
Neilston, East Renfrewshire
but ultimately it's the government that needs to be taken to task.

Why ? If XC do not employ sufficient staff to run their service, fail for whatever reason to renew an overtime agreement that dealt with the shortfall, and then have to cancel scores of services with minimal notice, that is surely a matter for XC management ? Although I would hope that somebody in Government will be aware of the situation and taking a long hard look at XC.....
 

Efini92

Established Member
Joined
14 Dec 2016
Messages
1,747
Do we know the reasoning for this change?
Apologies if you’ve already got the answer. It’s because ASLEF have not extended the rest day working agreement with XC

This doesn't make much sense. Why would you make major structural timetable and diagram changes 2 weeks before the "big" change date?
To avoid fees for cancellations? I’m not sure how they’ve been allowed to do it with such short notice. It stinks
 

Right Away

Member
Joined
18 May 2016
Messages
199
Everyone at XC Plymouth signs HSTs plus routes wise I think they all sign the same as well, so I don't think that's the reason. I think as someone else pointed out, its just a pointless box ticking exercise, that in this instance is helping to worsen the current situation, the kind of thing one would hope the new GBR can sweep away.


As I alluded, the two links at Plymouth XC do, I believe, the same traction and routes, so this is not a factor.

Many thanks for the confirmation. My hypothesis can be discarded.
 

Efini92

Established Member
Joined
14 Dec 2016
Messages
1,747
Many thanks for the confirmation. My hypothesis can be discarded.
The hst issue is between Bristol and derby. Birmingham don’t have enough drivers to cover the turns. Xc are reliant on RDW to cover them.
 

Watershed

Veteran Member
Associate Staff
Senior Fares Advisor
Joined
26 Sep 2020
Messages
12,077
Location
UK
Why ? If XC do not employ sufficient staff to run their service, fail for whatever reason to renew an overtime agreement that dealt with the shortfall, and then have to cancel scores of services with minimal notice, that is surely a matter for XC management ? Although I would hope that somebody in Government will be aware of the situation and taking a long hard look at XC.....
Are you suggesting that management have decided to refuse to negotiate a new RDW agreement?
 

railworkerdude

New Member
Joined
26 Nov 2021
Messages
1
Location
Lydney
decided to sign up after reading all of this.this through from managers today.looks like an entire month at the moment.staff being balloted too.strike looming perhaps?

so us Cardiff guys no clue what this will mean.
 

Attachments

  • B9CE0989-7237-4548-B6ED-9AB06170AF08.png
    B9CE0989-7237-4548-B6ED-9AB06170AF08.png
    1.1 MB · Views: 332
  • 6407A194-E574-4405-9503-2456E84CF863.png
    6407A194-E574-4405-9503-2456E84CF863.png
    1 MB · Views: 329
  • 310586B6-1B46-4054-B3FF-A1A6CD1489EB.png
    310586B6-1B46-4054-B3FF-A1A6CD1489EB.png
    1,007.4 KB · Views: 328

Right Away

Member
Joined
18 May 2016
Messages
199
The hst issue is between Bristol and derby. Birmingham don’t have enough drivers to cover the turns. Xc are reliant on RDW to cover them.
Indeed. My previous was a hypothesis as to why one individual at one depot wasn't allowed to retain traction knowledge. The wider issue as you say is the over reliance on RDW to cover.
 

Efini92

Established Member
Joined
14 Dec 2016
Messages
1,747
Indeed. My previous was a hypothesis as to why one individual at one depot wasn't allowed to retain traction knowledge. The wider issue as you say is the over reliance on RDW to cover.
The old link structure at new st penalised anyone transferring in. There was a few who had to take off routes and traction because the bottom link was 170’s only.
The over reliance on RDW doesn’t seem to be unique to XC. I think it’s just exasperated by the fact they have the highest aged workforce on the network.
 

class 9

Member
Joined
18 Nov 2010
Messages
955
Can any confirm the reason the RDW agreement was not extended?
Was it ASLEF refused (point blank)?
or XC wanted to reduce the "incentives"?
Or the DfT/Treasury would not let them?
It's a dispute that's been ongoing for a while, the rostering department repeatedly breaking rostering agreements that are clearly laid out.
 

DanNCL

Established Member
Joined
17 Jul 2017
Messages
4,290
Location
County Durham
I suspect this is exactly what the Business Continuity plan looks like. If there's no RDW agreement and not enough drivers without it... what else do you expect them to do?
They should be making sure they've got enough drivers so that they don't need to rely on a rest day working agreement. In nearly every other industry this wouldn't be an issue as critical services like this would not be dependent on overtime to operate.

Yawn. What, precisely, would be different if an OLR were in charge? The money would still not be any more forthcoming from the DfT.

XC should certainly be doing better to advertise these changes, but ultimately it's the government that needs to be taken to task.
Lets look at the operators that have been OLR controlled over the pandemic rather than privately operated. LNER, apart from their compulsory reservations shambles which is now ditched, have done considerably better both staff and customer relations wise than any of the privately operated companies, and, in the North East at least, so have Northern, the other operator that's been OLR operated throughout. Contrast that to the likes of XC, GWR, TPE and SWR, all privately operated, who've suffered severe issues, largely as a result of industrial relations and poor organisation on the part of the private operator. It's clear in these situations that the OLR handles them better than the private operators. The issue is not financial, at least not on the part of the DFT - Arriva are fully responsible for ensuring they have sufficient employees on shift at any time to run the service, and are more than capable of adding some of their own cash into the pot to top it up if needed. Their contract may well allow them to claim that money back from the DFT, but that'll have to be done retrospectively, not in advance as that's how we end up where we are now with services not running.

Why ? If XC do not employ sufficient staff to run their service, fail for whatever reason to renew an overtime agreement that dealt with the shortfall, and then have to cancel scores of services with minimal notice, that is surely a matter for XC management ? Although I would hope that somebody in Government will be aware of the situation and taking a long hard look at XC.....
Exactly. Arriva are contracted by the DFT to operate those services and it's their responsibility, not the DFT's, to ensure they've got enough staff.

decided to sign up after reading all of this.this through from managers today.looks like an entire month at the moment.staff being balloted too.strike looming perhaps?

so us Cardiff guys no clue what this will mean.
Thanks for sharing this. There's quite a few additional shortened/cancelled services on that list than what we were previously aware of, this is even worse than first thought.
 

221129

Established Member
Joined
21 Mar 2011
Messages
6,520
Location
Sunny Scotland
Exactly. Arriva are contracted by the DFT to operate those services and it's their responsibility, not the DFT's, to ensure they've got enough staff.
But its the DFT that are going mental about overtime... they are the ones pulling the strings and people fall for it every time.
 

Watershed

Veteran Member
Associate Staff
Senior Fares Advisor
Joined
26 Sep 2020
Messages
12,077
Location
UK
They should be making sure they've got enough drivers so that they don't need to rely on a rest day working agreement. In nearly every other industry this wouldn't be an issue as critical services like this would not be dependent on overtime to operate.
And the only way they can ensure they have enough drivers is by massively ramping up establishments. Which the DfT isn't going to sign off on. So we're back at square one.

Of course it's ludicrous, but that is the way the DfT is happy for things to be.

Lets look at the operators that have been OLR controlled over the pandemic rather than privately operated. LNER, apart from their compulsory reservations shambles which is now ditched, have done considerably better both staff and customer relations wise than any of the privately operated companies,
LNER were in a much better position than most other operators, as they didn't have much training outstanding on the eve of the pandemic, and had a comfortable establishment at most depots as a result of ramping up for planned service increases that haven't materialised yet. Paying the most of any TOC (bar Eurostar) can hardly hurt...

and, in the North East at least, so have Northern, the other operator that's been OLR operated throughout
Perhaps that's been the case in the NE (though there is still a significantly reduced timetable on some lines) but it's definitely not the case for all of Northern. They are still well behind where they need to be, and there have been several occasions in recent months where services crewed by specific depots have been summarily cut back due to a lack of RDW volunteers or simply sickness.

Contrast that to the likes of XC, GWR, TPE and SWR, all privately operated, who've suffered severe issues, largely as a result of industrial relations
Again, it's down to what the government will sign off. If the DfT agreed to give everyone a 5% payrise I suspect the vast majority of these issues would all suddenly disappear.

poor organisation on the part of the private operator
Your evidence for this being...?

It's clear in these situations that the OLR handles them better than the private operators.
It's clear that some TOCs entered the pandemic in a better state than others. And some of those happened to be OLRs.

To suggest there's a connection here seems woefully misinformed, at best.

The issue is not financial, at least not on the part of the DFT
I must be imagining the need to get DfT sign-off on even a £50 repair or additional turn! :lol:

Arriva are fully responsible for ensuring they have sufficient employees on shift at any time to run the service
On a day-to-day basis they've got an obligation to do their best. But they can't be held responsible for the DfT's decision to keep depot establishments at levels where RDW is needed to run even a skeleton service.

and are more than capable of adding some of their own cash into the pot to top it up if needed
As with every TOC (including the OLRs), they won't be spending anything they don't have authorisation for. The fact that Arriva and ultimately DB are well capitalised companies is neither here nor there; they aren't charities.

Their contract may well allow them to claim that money back from the DFT, but that'll have to be done retrospectively, not in advance as that's how we end up where we are now with services not running.
They will be extending the DfT credit on their daily expenditure, but only for expenses they know they will get back.
 

geoffk

Established Member
Joined
4 Aug 2010
Messages
3,254
I've now seen a copy of a letter sent by XC to their stakeholders stating "we have been informed by the train drivers trade union, the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen (ASLEF), that they have declined to re-sign our longstanding agreement for their CrossCountry members to participate in Rest Day Working after this expires on 27 November". Then "If ASLEF do not support the reinstatement of Rest Day Working at CrossCountry, we will do everything we can to keep all our customers moving. We shall continue to run our current timetables, although it will be necessary to cancel some services and operate others with fewer carriages. Where this will happen, we have been careful to ensure journeys using other train operators’ services are available or the time between trains is as short as possible."
 

NEDdrv

Member
Joined
23 May 2016
Messages
63
Agreement originally due to end 30/10/21 but was extended by ASLEF, with talks ongoing to provide a robust way that prevents an agreement being broken (#114 states) by the company. Staff have received an email about the ending of the agreement and lo and behold as above it is Aslef’s fault. As per usual redirection of blame by a company.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top