SWR Longest Strike - December 2019

[Wombat]

Not much difference from a train handling perspective (if anything, the longer the train, the better the braking performance).

However, from a DOO dispatch perspective, a twelve car train gives the driver four more sets of doors to worry about.

Tbh, not a lot. Really just remembering it's 12 rather than 10. Some stop car marks are 10-12, so combined anyway. If it's a 12 car mark on its own not far from the 10 then needs to be 100% on the mark as probably a very tight length platform.

Only other issue is slight extra length when clearing speed restrictions etc.

I don't drive doo.

Thank you both!

 

[43096]

Well there needs to be a public inquiry into why SWR didn't have guards working their trains when they could of done. We need the truth as to what happened and why it happened. I suspect some of those who know the turrth don't wants us have this.

I mean did they think less guards would be avilable? Did someone simply make a mistake and miscalculate something or was it done on purpose?

If SWR try to recover losses from the RMT for Thursday or Friday, I can see this going to court, especially if staff were sat around spare.

I once worked as a contractor for an organisation where it appeared as if management were trying to erode staff rights and the chef union reps were swinging their legs. In between were those just wanting to do an honest day's work, with the terms and conditions they signed up to when they started their employment.

I suspect part of the issue is the utterly inept nature of SWR control and their complete disinterest in running the service for the benefit of passengers.

Today's absolute shocker on the first service on the Reading line....
- of the first four up, two have been planned cancellations, with one (2C12 0612 off Reading) going up ECS as it berths at Reading overnight, then works 0750 back from Waterloo to Reading.
- with the 0612 and 0642 both planned cancellations, this means no service for Earley, Winnersh Triangle and Winnersh on the up between the 0542 and the 0712 off Reading
- 2C86 0623 off Reading runs (and forms 0752 Weybridge off Waterloo), but this morning was short formed 4 vice 8 car; meanwhile 2C12 goes up ECS as a 10-car.

In any sane world, 2C12 and 2C86 would have been set swapped at Reading with 2C12 going up ECS as 4-car and 2C86 as 10-car, they can then be swapped back again at Waterloo. Of course this didn't happen - whoever made (or rather didn't make) that decision needs disciplining. As a result people were left behind at Richmond. I spoke to the guard about it, and he told me they had suggested just such a swap to control and they weren't interested. Tells you all you need to know about SWR control - frankly, they don't give a damn about those pay their wages: the passengers.

 

[theironroad]

Got a better chance of winning the lottery than getting a public enquiry for something you had advance warning for

Got a better chance of winning the lottery than SWR ever achieving PPM or there being a public enquiry....

 

[WA_Driver]

Got a better chance of winning the lottery than SWR ever achieving PPM or there being a public enquiry....

 

[infobleep]

I suspect part of the issue is the utterly inept nature of SWR control and their complete disinterest in running the service for the benefit of passengers.

Today's absolute shocker on the first service on the Reading line....
- of the first four up, two have been planned cancellations, with one (2C12 0612 off Reading) going up ECS as it berths at Reading overnight, then works 0750 back from Waterloo to Reading.
- with the 0612 and 0642 both planned cancellations, this means no service for Earley, Winnersh Triangle and Winnersh on the up between the 0542 and the 0712 off Reading
- 2C86 0623 off Reading runs (and forms 0752 Weybridge off Waterloo), but this morning was short formed 4 vice 8 car; meanwhile 2C12 goes up ECS as a 10-car.

In any sane world, 2C12 and 2C86 would have been set swapped at Reading with 2C12 going up ECS as 4-car and 2C86 as 10-car, they can then be swapped back again at Waterloo. Of course this didn't happen - whoever made (or rather didn't make) that decision needs disciplining. As a result people were left behind at Richmond. I spoke to the guard about it, and he told me they had suggested just such a swap to control and they weren't interested. Tells you all you need to know about SWR control - frankly, they don't give a damn about those pay their wages: the passengers.

Are control higher up staff in SWR or staff on similar level to drivers or guards? Obviously they don't care about things.

To be fair I don't obviously know about the polticis within SWR, and SWT before them, but if what you say is correct, then maybe upper management need to look into the practices of staff in control.

 

[Horizon22]

Are control higher up staff in SWR or staff on similar level to drivers or guards? Obviously they don't care about things.

To be fair I don't obviously know about the polticis within SWR, and SWT before them, but if what you say is correct, then maybe upper management need to look into the practices of staff in control.

Depends. A lot of Control staff at SWR are fairly new after they turfed out the old control centre at Waterloo to Basingstoke where I'm reliably informed they lost a lot of experience. Controllers normally earn maybe equal or slightly more than guards, but less than drivers. I'm all for combining operations in a ROC / Integrated Control Centre (ICC), but if its a geographic shift, you have to accept you'll lose experience. I think SWR lost a lot.

With the trains in question at Reading, I'd normally suggest you have to consider what the back-working of the empty train however it doesn't form another peak London service (contra flow 0750 so by the time it gets to Reading, it's not making a peak service back) so that does sound like a big error of judgment.

Edit: Regarding practices in Control and a high turnover that was certainly highlighted in a recent report (I forget the link or name) stating that it was a factor as to the decreasing performance since the franchise change.

 

[Carlisle]

Edit: Regarding practices in Control and a high turnover that was certainly highlighted in a recent report (I forget the link or name) stating that it was a factor as to the decreasing performance since the franchise change.

I wouldn’t be surprised if at times of major disruption, jobs such as working in control or resources are amongst the most stressful on the railway these days .

 

[Horizon22]

I wouldn’t be surprised if at times of major disruption, jobs such as working in control or resources can be amongst the most stressful on the railway these days .

The high turnover was specific to SWR and the location change, but yes it suddenly going from fairly calm to trying to prioritise 6 different lines ringing, talking (shouting) to colleagues across the room, type messages and maintain a resemblance of a service is not for everyone.

 

[Carlisle]

It'd have settled it for you, but evidently not the members.

If they'd all have just accepted a GA deal, striking in future would have been irrelevant in future
.

Unless you know differently, Its my understanding the membership in dispute on Merseyrail, Northern, SWR or WMR were never offered any kind of meaningful vote regarding acceptance or rejection of a similar GA style deal.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

Depends. A lot of Control staff at SWR are fairly new after they turfed out the old control centre at Waterloo to Basingstoke where I'm reliably informed they lost a lot of experience. Controllers normally earn maybe equal or slightly more than guards, but less than drivers. I'm all for combining operations in a ROC / Integrated Control Centre (ICC), but if its a geographic shift, you have to accept you'll lose experience. I think SWR lost a lot.

Stagecoach’s moving of the control from Waterloo to Basingstoke around Easter 2017 and the resulting loss of experience had to be SWT’s worse move during the life of its franchise and was going to set up whoever took on the new franchise later that same year for a fall.

 

[pompeyfan]

Stagecoach’s moving of the control from Waterloo to Basingstoke around Easter 2017 and the resulting loss of experience had to be SWT’s worse move during the life of its franchise and was going to set up whoever took on the new franchise later that same year for a fall.

turnover has continued to be high, with sometimes 1 person covering 3 desks. control staff keep leaving to go to different roles within the railway such as grade 5/6 signallers or roles within network rail side of control.

with the Reading incident if fleet haven’t told the train service manager of a short form then that’s not their fault. The guard said they’d tried to suggest it to control and recover the diagram. If that’s true then that’s disappointing, but it’s completely possible the guard was being efficient with the truth. Certainly I as well as many others have occasionally told the ‘not my fault guv’ blame the men in the ivory tower’ to try to deflect the blame.

 

[WA_Driver]

I suspect part of the issue is the utterly inept nature of SWR control and their complete disinterest in running the service for the benefit of passengers.

Today's absolute shocker on the first service on the Reading line....
- of the first four up, two have been planned cancellations, with one (2C12 0612 off Reading) going up ECS as it berths at Reading overnight, then works 0750 back from Waterloo to Reading.
- with the 0612 and 0642 both planned cancellations, this means no service for Earley, Winnersh Triangle and Winnersh on the up between the 0542 and the 0712 off Reading
- 2C86 0623 off Reading runs (and forms 0752 Weybridge off Waterloo), but this morning was short formed 4 vice 8 car; meanwhile 2C12 goes up ECS as a 10-car.

In any sane world, 2C12 and 2C86 would have been set swapped at Reading with 2C12 going up ECS as 4-car and 2C86 as 10-car, they can then be swapped back again at Waterloo. Of course this didn't happen - whoever made (or rather didn't make) that decision needs disciplining. As a result people were left behind at Richmond. I spoke to the guard about it, and he told me they had suggested just such a swap to control and they weren't interested. Tells you all you need to know about SWR control - frankly, they don't give a damn about those pay their wages: the passengers.

You’ll probably find that the last two days where SWR claim to be running amended timetable due to the “re-training guards” that SWR control may of been given instructions from the upper echelons as part of their “Smear campaign” against guards

 

[43096]

You’ll probably find that the last two days where SWR claim to be running amended timetable due to the “re-training guards” that SWR control may of been given instructions from the upper echelons as part of their “Smear campaign” against guards

That’s as maybe, but it doesn’t excuse the running of a 4-car when they could have run a 10-car.

 

[WA_Driver]

That’s as maybe, but it doesn’t excuse the running of a 4-car when they could have run a 10-car.

Well they did. And no doubt we continue to do so at times. At least some form of service was run, could of just cancelled it

 

[43096]

Well they did. And no doubt we continue to do so at times. At least some form of service was run, could of just cancelled it

Typical railway staff attitude: “at least it ran”. Never mind punters were left behind. It’s the do minimum attitude of a good proportion of people on the railway that makes it such a rubbish experience. Customer service doesn’t matter.

 

[TEW]

Typical railway staff attitude: “at least it ran”. Never mind punters were left behind. It’s the do minimum attitude of a good proportion of people on the railway that makes it such a rubbish experience. Customer service doesn’t matter.

That about sums up Thursday and Friday generally. A lot of people seem to have lost sight of the fact that they're meant to be providing a service for paying passengers.

 

[WA_Driver]

Typical railway staff attitude: “at least it ran”. Never mind punters were left behind. It’s the do minimum attitude of a good proportion of people on the railway that makes it such a rubbish experience. Customer service doesn’t matter.

A lot more passengers would be left behind if NO train ran

 

[43096]

A lot more passengers would be left behind if NO train ran

You seem to be missing the point.

 

[3141]

A lot of people seem to have lost sight of the fact that they're meant to be providing a service for paying passengers.

That could have been said every day during the strike in December.

 

[Goldfish62]

That could have been said every day during the strike in December.

I think the point here is that a full service couldn't be provided then due to strike action, whereas this appears to be a case of not providing a full service when there are no such mitigating circumstances.

The DfT works in mysterious ways. On the one hand it micromanages to the extent of dictating how wide a gangway has to be to the mm, yet with contracted service provision, the bit that really matters, it seems not to care.

I really hope, post-Williams Report, the DfT's involvement in running the railways comes to an abrupt end.

 

[43066]

Typical railway staff attitude: “at least it ran”. Never mind punters were left behind. It’s the do minimum attitude of a good proportion of people on the railway that makes it such a rubbish experience. Customer service doesn’t matter.

In fairness running a 4 car vice 10 car is not something operational front line staff have any control over. It’s also not something they would ever choose to do - in your example above it sounds like the guard suggested a swap which didn’t happen for reasons unknown. The fault there lies squarely with control.

Inevitably the guard on such a train is going to get a lot of grief - especially given the recent strike action. Of course the front line staff would be within their rights to refuse to operate the train at all if they considered overcrowding was becoming dangerous etc. In the example above it sounds like the staff pressed on in order to provide a service, which is to be commended.

I suspect that’s what @WA_Driver was getting at.

 

[Carlisle]

The DfT works in mysterious ways. On the one hand it micromanages to the extent of dictating how wide a gangway has to be to the mm, yet with contracted service provision, the bit that really matters, it seems not to care.
.

Which is equally true regarding the reliability of northern & TPE services

 

[43096]

In fairness running a 4 car vice 10 car is not something operational front line staff have any control over. It’s also not something they would ever choose to do - in your example above it sounds like the guard suggested a swap which didn’t happen for reasons unknown. The fault there lies squarely with control.

Inevitably the guard on such a train is going to get a lot of grief - especially given the recent strike action. Of course the front line staff would be within their rights to refuse to operate the train at all if they considered overcrowding was becoming dangerous etc. In the example above it sounds like the staff pressed on in order to provide a service, which is to be commended.

I suspect that’s what @WA_Driver was getting at.

I spoke to the guard about it - he absolutely agreed with me and told me they had asked control to do the set swap and control had refused. He wasn’t very complimentary about SWR control....

 

[theironroad]

Stagecoach’s moving of the control from Waterloo to Basingstoke around Easter 2017 and the resulting loss of experience had to be SWT’s worse move during the life of its franchise and was going to set up whoever took on the new franchise later that same year for a fall.

Probably up there with Stagecoach deciding when they took on the franchise they didn't really need train drivers and offering them voluntary redundancy, which many took meaning a emergency timetable being introduced and bribes to the remaining drivers to work every minute of overtime they could.....

 

[hooverboy]

Which is equally true regarding the reliability of northern & TPE services

so really we do need a few heads to roll at DfT,and a bit more of a lasseiz-faire approach in the department.
Not saying a complete free-for-all, just a modest relaxation in the standards that they are applying.Of course non compliance with relaxed standards should still be reprimanded.

seems to be one of the biggest stumbling blocks in my opinion.
It will work out better for operators and customers alike...with a small detriment to uber-strict seating fire regulations being waived a little bit.

 

[3141]

I think the point here is that a full service couldn't be provided then due to strike action, whereas this appears to be a case of not providing a full service when there are no such mitigating circumstances.

Sorry, I didn't make my meaning clear enough. I understood that the discussion currently was about whether a better service could have been provided now that the strike is over. I was suggesting that the comment in post #436 that "a lot of people seem to have lost sight of the fact that they're meant to be providing a service for paying passengers" might have been made many times during December by passengers about the striking guards.

 

[infobleep]

Sorry, I didn't make my meaning clear enough. I understood that the discussion currently was about whether a better service could have been provided now that the strike is over. I was suggesting that the comment in post #436 that "a lot of people seem to have lost sight of the fact that they're meant to be providing a service for paying passengers" might have been made many times during December by passengers about the striking guards.

It may have been but not by myself at least as I support the broad aims of the guards.

However when there is no strike, then the issue is different. If there is a perfectly valid reason why, then state it but don't lie, if that is what they did.

Note when I tweeted South Western Railway to say they were saying online that no buses were running between Guildford and Aldershot and there was no mention of Guildford to Farnham buses, when buses were now running to both places, due to engineering works, I got no response. I tweeted again and still no response. It was as if they chose to ignore me. I wasn't rude in my comments, just asking if it could be updated.

Where I work, if someone asks us to update something that is shown online and is wrong, we will do it. If we can't, we will let them know. It may take time but we will communicate.

During the strike itself they made no mention of Guildford to Farnham online and only Guildford to Ascot, despite the fact 14 times as many trains run from Guildford to Farnham as they do to Ascot. I've tweeted about that during mutiple strikes but nothing done.

Why they couldn't update the Web Site I don't know but I wouldn't have expected those who update the Web Site to be working as guards on the trains but maybe they were. Maybe some were on leave, it being Christmas, and there weren't enough people to do the required updates. The other strikes weren't at Chirstmas though and there was a gap between the strikes.

 

[Romsey]

Depends. A lot of Control staff at SWR are fairly new after they turfed out the old control centre at Waterloo to Basingstoke where I'm reliably informed they lost a lot of experience. Controllers normally earn maybe equal or slightly more than guards, but less than drivers. I'm all for combining operations in a ROC / Integrated Control Centre (ICC), but if its a geographic shift, you have to accept you'll lose experience. I think SWR lost a lot.

With the trains in question at Reading, I'd normally suggest you have to consider what the back-working of the empty train however it doesn't form another peak London service (contra flow 0750 so by the time it gets to Reading, it's not making a peak service back) so that does sound like a big error of judgment.

Edit: Regarding practices in Control and a high turnover that was certainly highlighted in a recent report (I forget the link or name) stating that it was a factor as to the decreasing performance since the franchise change.

A similar loss of experience happened when the joint control office for Sussex was moved from Croydon to Three Bridges. I was working in Wessex route when the move of the Control Office was suggested and pointed out that the problems that Sussex were suffering. A month before I took my retirement (from an engineering function) I was asked would I like to stay on to train new controllers! ( Half a dozen shifts in a Control Office 20 years ago is not sufficient experience!)
Never mind, NWR are consistent at reproducing mistakes. Just look at what happened with train planning moving to three centres then to Milton Keynes. Most of the experienced train planners retired, moved to a TOC/FOC, moved to possession planning or are consultants.

Cheers, Neil

 

[pompeyfan]

Mark Hopwoods first day as MD and he says in an interview with the Times that he will not give in to union demands and has ‘recruited 100s of extra guards to break the strikes’.

I’m sure there’s a bit of Murdoch smoke and mirrors going on there but even still, great way to start your tenure!!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Mark Hopwoods first day as MD and he says in an interview with the Times that he will not give in to union demands and has ‘recruited 100s of extra guards to break the strikes’.

I’m sure there’s a bit of Murdoch smoke and mirrors going on there but even still, great way to start your tenure!!

I was just thinking the other day that Hopwood had been at GWR for a very long time!