Back to the bad old days’: swingeing rail cuts set alarm bells ringing

[O L Leigh]

Where i agree with you is that one driver to cover a whole journey (eg Plymouth to London) is far more productive and therfore saves the railway money, compared with using 3 different drivers to cover the one trip.
It is small savings like this, that , if multiplied throughout the UK would translate into decent savings.

But even this approach doesn't make a huge difference. There is still a trade-off.

The three drivers that might have otherwise covered that one London service are still required, even if it now only needs one of them to take that particular train up to town. If the Plymouth driver had previously only taken the train as far as, say, Exeter, there would have been a requirement for them to do it more than once in a shift. If he/she is now on the way up to London there still needs to be someone else to work the other trips that would otherwise have formed their job.

I'm not sure I've explained it very well, I'll admit. The point being that it looks quite marginal from where I'm sitting. I'm sure you're aware that having one driver taking the train all the way to London doesn't save the railway two drivers. All it does is make individual jobs a little bit more productive than would be the case if the driver was having to constantly swap trains as the shift unfolds. Whether this translates into savings due to a reduction in driver establishment depends on a lot of other things, most notably the diagramming of jobs at individual depots. Maybe it would be enough to make this happen, but then again maybe not. Without the various train planning departments sitting down and having a proper look at it there is no way to know for certain. This thread contains so much spit-balling and back-of-a-fag-packet calculations, and this fits right in with that.

As I mentioned before, my crowd had a go at trying to squeeze more productivity out of us a few years back and, if I recall correctly, it reduced the driver establishment across the entire company by something like two. If this is the sort of savings that we'd be looking at realising then I wonder if it really is worth all the bother given that I'm sure we could save more than that much by other means.

But at the same time you remove the ability to cross cover and require more spares.

No you don’t. As I’ve explained already today, the number of spare drivers is not dependent on route or traction knowledge but is set by the depot establishment calculation which takes the number of diagrams as it’s starting point.

It also doesn’t necessarily preclude cross-cover, as it is extremely rare for neighbouring depots not to have overlapping route cards. Indeed it is frequently the case that two or more depot’s staff will sign a single route in it’s entirety making it very possible to provide cross-cover.

Apart from that we’re broadly in agreement.

 

[Horizon22]

No you don’t. As I’ve explained already today, the number of spare drivers is not dependent on route or traction knowledge but is set by the depot establishment calculation which takes the number of diagrams as it’s starting point.

It also doesn’t necessarily preclude cross-cover, as it is extremely rare for neighbouring depots not to have overlapping route cards. Indeed it is frequently the case that two or more depot’s staff will sign a single route in it’s entirety making it very possible to provide cross-cover.

Apart from that we’re broadly in agreement.

Perhaps I didn't explain well - the available productive of any given spare driver might well be dependent on how the depots work on average. Working this all out on any given day can get rather complex and I agree that actually many rather large consultations and changes are ultimately going to be rather marginal and might not actually be worth the effort.

I would say that Saturday & Sunday diagrams could definitely be more efficient though, although that may have gotten worse as a relatively recent phenomenon due to the amount of short-term changes and STP timetables brought about by Covid.

 

[Carlisle]

Perhaps I didn't explain well - the available productive of any given spare driver might well be dependent on how the depots work on average. Working this all out on any given day can get rather complex and I agree that actually many rather large consultations and changes are ultimately going to be rather marginal and might not actually be worth the effort.

I would say that Saturday & Sunday diagrams could definitely be more efficient though, although that may have gotten worse as a relatively recent phenomenon due to the amount of short-term changes and STP timetables brought about by Covid.

Wouldn’t potentially significant savings from increased train crew productivity have already been thoroughly researched by the TOCs just after privatisation, around the period when they negotiatited abolishing the second driver above 110 mph & Cross Country tried lodging turns, etc.?

 

[43066]

The context of the post you emboldened was important. I seem to recall that it was in response, directly or otherwise, to someone who was demanding a payrise.

Ok but hopefully you can see how that post would come across. For the record I’m not in favour of going on strike over pay rises either, it would be madness to do so at the moment. But inevitably unions will ask for more than they know they’re likely to get, which is no different to TUs any other sector (not that there are many heavily unionised sectors left!).

a device driven by GPS that displays the line limit, the distance to the next stopping station, and the next signal would surely help. It could display emergency notices for the line the train is on too, if its receiving mobile data, perhaps warning of poor adhesion. The driver would not touch it, just refer to it occasionally.
Dont the French drivers drive with a 'fiche' on their desk. Last pic I saw was paper but thats probably electronic now.

Once you sign a route to drive it, you know the speed to the point where, even if there were no speed boards, you could still drive to the correct line speed.

Certainly something giving real time access to notices, blanket speed restrictions etc. might be useful even if this was just some kind of iPad app with audiable alerts you were allowed to access when driving (there have been several incidents recently where multiple drivers have breached blanket speeds simply because they didn’t realise the limit had been imposed.)

It’s a little ridiculous that the current policy forbids you accessing an iPad under any circumstances while driving, yet you’re allowed to call the signaller while on the move (when judged safe to do so of course).

There's pros and cons for both methods of course. By reducing route knowledge at a depot, you reduce the requirement for as many refresh days. Let's say as an example one depot signs 5 routes and another 2, then that reduces the need for route refreshing and removes complexity of links etc. But at the same time you remove the ability to cross cover and require more spares. Both have associated costs. So what might be beneficial on some routes / TOCs (for example an area with lots of branches or primarily one mainline with diversions) may not be suitable elsewhere and it could get quite complex working out the most efficient system.

Thameslink is the perfect example of this. Each depot essentially signs one or two core routes (which is rather bad for St Albans who do spend their days doing constant Sutton Loops ), and sign little else. This means there’s probably very little need for drivers to do refresh days but, exactly as you say, they’re vulnerable to being unable to cross cover work.

 

[irish_rail]

There's pros and cons for both methods of course. By reducing route knowledge at a depot, you reduce the requirement for as many refresh days. Let's say as an example one depot signs 5 routes and another 2, then that reduces the need for route refreshing and removes complexity of links etc. But at the same time you remove the ability to cross cover and require more spares. Both have associated costs. So what might be beneficial on some routes / TOCs (for example an area with lots of branches or primarily one mainline with diversions) may not be suitable elsewhere and it could get quite complex working out the most efficient system.

True, but if rostered properly there is no need for route refresh days. At Plymouth now we don't have many at all.

But even this approach doesn't make a huge difference. There is still a trade-off.

The three drivers that might have otherwise covered that one London service are still required, even if it now only needs one of them to take that particular train up to town. If the Plymouth driver had previously only taken the train as far as, say, Exeter, there would have been a requirement for them to do it more than once in a shift. If he/she is now on the way up to London there still needs to be someone else to work the other trips that would otherwise have formed their job.

I'm not sure I've explained it very well, I'll admit. The point being that it looks quite marginal from where I'm sitting. I'm sure you're aware that having one driver taking the train all the way to London doesn't save the railway two drivers. All it does is make individual jobs a little bit more productive than would be the case if the driver was having to constantly swap trains as the shift unfolds. Whether this translates into savings due to a reduction in driver establishment depends on a lot of other things, most notably the diagramming of jobs at individual depots. Maybe it would be enough to make this happen, but then again maybe not. Without the various train planning departments sitting down and having a proper look at it there is no way to know for certain. This thread contains so much spit-balling and back-of-a-fag-packet calculations, and this fits right in with that.

As I mentioned before, my crowd had a go at trying to squeeze more productivity out of us a few years back and, if I recall correctly, it reduced the driver establishment across the entire company by something like two. If this is the sort of savings that we'd be looking at realising then I wonder if it really is worth all the bother given that I'm sure we could save more than that much by other means.



No you don’t. As I’ve explained already today, the number of spare drivers is not dependent on route or traction knowledge but is set by the depot establishment calculation which takes the number of diagrams as it’s starting point.

It also doesn’t necessarily preclude cross-cover, as it is extremely rare for neighbouring depots not to have overlapping route cards. Indeed it is frequently the case that two or more depot’s staff will sign a single route in it’s entirety making it very possible to provide cross-cover.

Apart from that we’re broadly in agreement.

You also need to look into other factors such as boredom. For a driver not to have variety of work leads to mental underload and is more likely to lead to safety incidents. Its no coincidence that Plymouth has one of the best safety of line records on GWR despite having more or less the biggest route and traction card.

And you are right, savings may be fairly marginal. But I'd say if every small depot in the UK could save on one driver, every medium depot saves 2 and every large depot say could save on 3, then that totalled up nationwide is millions of pounds in savings to the railway. (Oh and just to be clear this would be achieved through natural wastage and not redundancy!).

 

[Wyrleybart]

Yes spare drivers to cover jobs won't change. But there should be less jobs as drivers can be used more productively. Currently it is not unusual to have a XC driver passing on a GWR service when they could be diving. Also you would need less standby drivers.

Obviously Covid has altered the way we have worked and the diagrams for the last few months but I am intrigued by your claim that XC drivers travel on GWR services. There will be a handful of cases diagrammed obviously, but perhaps more ad hoc cross covering maybe. Birmingham Bristol and Leeds have been three depots with vacancies for whatever reason so it is not unusual for drivers to travel for cross covering purposes, but that is rarely diagrammed.

Also, take into account those drivers who travel to and from work on trains. A number of XC BR drivers live in the Taunton area so even though they are in uniform and carrying "traps" they might not be on duty. That obviously applies elsewhere too.

Wouldn’t any potentially significant savings from increased train crew productivity have already been thoroughly researched by TOCs shortly after privatisation, around the period when negotiations abolished the second driver above 110 mph & Cross Country tried lodging turns, etc.?

Cross Country didn't "try" lodging turns. They existed and worked. Derby drivers worked to Swansea, lodged and worked back the next day. Some even took their wives along, obviously behind them in the train. O L Leigh mentioned productivity and Newcastle earlier, and he is right. Derby depot is another where they sign Bristol-Newcastle via Chepstow and Worcester as well as "main line", then via Leicester, and via Castle Donn, Erewash, Old Road, S&K etc etc. Obviously Covid has ripped into a lot of the competencies but here's hoping it can be got back.

 

[O L Leigh]

True, but if rostered properly there is no need for route refresh days. At Plymouth now we don't have many at all.

Wow!! You're at a rare depot.

Certainly for main routes, rostering should be able to ensure that route and traction competency is maintained. Likewise for any diversions over which you have booked work. The problem is that there are always those little bits and pieces (sometimes quite lengthy) over which you never go except when the wheels fall off and you need to play a get-out-jail-free card, and it's those sections that you need route refresh days for because they can't be accounted for by rostering alone. Even when I worked at a suburban depot with a much smaller route card there were still a couple of routes that fell under this heading.

You also need to look into other factors such as boredom. For a driver not to have variety of work leads to mental underload and is more likely to lead to safety incidents. Its no coincidence that Plymouth has one of the best safety of line records on GWR despite having more or less the biggest route and traction card.

Totally agree. Variety was the main reason for changing employer and working where I do now.

And you are right, savings may be fairly marginal. But I'd say if every small depot in the UK could save on one driver, every medium depot saves 2 and every large depot say could save on 3, then that totalled up nationwide is millions of pounds in savings to the railway. (Oh and just to be clear this would be achieved through natural wastage and not redundancy!).

I don't disagree, but I also don't necessarily believe that there's millions of pounds of savings to be found in traincrew productivity. It's all predicated on a very big "if". As I mentioned last night, the last productivity drive where I work saved only about two drivers across the entire company. The feeling I get from talking to other traincrew working for other TOCs in other locations is that productivity has already been improved and is probably higher now than it was even 10 years ago. Whether or not there is more to be found and the likelihood of it being replicated across all operators is a big unknown. Only the train planning bods can know the answer to that for certain.

 

[Meerkat]

Can driver cuts really be done by natural wastage?
I remember when they were making big cuts to the military and they did compulsory redundancies rather than just only restrict recruitment, because doing the latter leads to a narrowing in the age profile of the workforce that eventually causes issues at promotion and retirement time.

 

[O L Leigh]

Can driver cuts really be done by natural wastage?
I remember when they were making big cuts to the military and they did compulsory redundancies rather than just only restrict recruitment, because doing the latter leads to a narrowing in the age profile of the workforce that eventually causes issues at promotion and retirement time.

It's the cheapest option compared to paying redundancy.

In this instance I'm not sure that it would matter which option they took in terms of skewing the age profile, as many of my colleagues who have openly expressed an interest in taking redundancy are the ones approaching retirement anyway. Also I don't think that railway management would care too much what it did to the age profile as that's a problem that won't need addressing until much further down the road.

What tends to skew the age profile on the railway is not redundancy but mass recruitment drives. The problem is that you have a large intake, all in a broadly comparable age range and all looking at a fairly similar length of service. Once they reach the length of service where the pension is built-up sufficiently for them to retire they all tend to go within a fairly short space of time.

 

[43066]

It's the cheapest option compared to paying redundancy.

In this instance I'm not sure that it would matter which option they took in terms of skewing the age profile, as many of my colleagues who have openly expressed an interest in taking redundancy are the ones approaching retirement anyway. Also I don't think that railway management would care too much what it did to the age profile as that's a problem that won't need addressing until much further down the road.

What tends to skew the age profile on the railway is not redundancy but mass recruitment drives. The problem is that you have a large intake, all in a broadly comparable age range and all looking at a fairly similar length of service. Once they reach the length of service where the pension is built-up sufficiently for them to retire they all tend to go within a fairly short space of time.

Also true to say there are many drivers in the 50+ bracket who are likely to retire in the near future. Then of course retirements have continued and even accelerated during Covid, whereas recruitment has been slowed down for long periods. If anything there will continue to be a shortage.

 

[Starmill]

There are still a number of operational roles in open recruitment right now, and it seems both qualified and trainee. It certainly doesn't seem to have frozen up.

 

[O L Leigh]

There are still a number of operational roles in open recruitment right now, and it seems both qualified and trainee. It certainly doesn't seem to have frozen up.

Indeed, because as of right now there is still a need for traincrew to operate the services that exist today. Until we know what service will be run tomorrow we cannot know how many diagrams there will be at each depot, and until we know that we cannot recalculate the depot establishments to ascertain whether or not certain locations are either under- or over-complement.

 

[Ken H]

If we want to encourage leisure travel, how about Boxing Day? Its busy for retail and sports. If the railway is to be relevant for leisure, it needs to be open on all bank holidays (except Christmas Day)
Not sure what will happen over Christmas this year, with Christmas Day and Boxing day on a weekends so we have 2 bank holidays on 27th and 28th.

And Scotrail perhaps needs to look AT new years day. Another busy leisure day.

 

[Horizon22]

What tends to skew the age profile on the railway is not redundancy but mass recruitment drives. The problem is that you have a large intake, all in a broadly comparable age range and all looking at a fairly similar length of service. Once they reach the length of service where the pension is built-up sufficiently for them to retire they all tend to go within a fairly short space of time.

And then you need another mass recruitment drive to replace that batch (because drivers rarely move on) and the cycle continues…

Many TOCs recruitment departments have been setup to handle these mass drives fairly well, but are much worse at ad-hoc vacancies.

 

[Greybeard33]

With your depot's location it is hardly surprising that the jobs are efficient. The same can't be said for all other depots.

There would certainly be some saving by combining depots in most places, and even if there is not a great deal of saving you would still gain an awful lot of flexibility which the industry currently lacks.

At larger depots, I don't think it would be all that different to when, before privatisation, you would have different links and eventually you work your way up. But with a greater variety of work, each link could be a little larger and include more knowledge.

Indeed. An example you yourself posted on another thread:

[TPE Glasgow] East link sign Edinburgh-Newcastle, Craigentinny depot and 802s.

Must be a cushy life in the East link with a lot of passing!

Tell me about it! Some near 10 hour jobs just to work a train from Edinburgh to Newcastle (and then pass all the way back). It's crazy.

Surely some scope for efficiency savings there if this TPE link was combined with the LNER Edinburgh depot!

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

This from this weeks weekly TSSA newsletter

I recently met the Rail Minister, Chris Heaton-Harris, and pressed him for a commitment to no compulsory redundancies across our rail industry during 2022.

Sadly, he didn't give us this. Instead, he said that with just over 5000 people having applied for voluntary severance this was enough to achieve the £2bn worth of cuts the government is seeking from our rail industry by April next year.

Must have been alot of well paid people as that equates to 400k cost per annum per role saved - i think not.

Anyhow interesting comment and suggests service levels may well plateau as they are now.

 

[43096]

Yes that’s right for commuters. But still nowhere near pre pandemic levels. I’d be astonished if there weren’t reductions in peak services (where they haven’t already been made).

That fits with my (limited) commuting since we were allowed back to the office. The service is now (since May) 50% of what it was, with the peak extras all removed, yet there's still seats in the morning, and the 1750 off Waterloo in an evening has seats free on departure, even though the 1735 no longer runs. That suggests to me that loadings are around 40-45% of pre-pandemic levels.

There is a balance to be struck, though: taking that 1735 out has pushed my normal home-bound door-to-door journey time to almost 2hrs, which is frankly way too much for a journey of about 35 miles. The consequence is that I will travel in less often, which reduces revenue for the railway.

 

[Mag_seven]

Ok folks we have decided to call halt to this thread for the moment as it has become increasingly speculative and it is based on a newspaper report about possible cuts not actual cuts. As soon as there are any actual proposals detailed we will look to reopen the thread.

There are a couple of related threads in the speculative discussion section that posters may wish to contribute to:

https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/which-services-should-be-permanently-cut-to-achieve-a-10-reduction-in-railway-expenditure.225724/

and

https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/rail%E2%80%99s-growth-agenda-evaporates-as-treasury-takes-control.224406/