The whole National railway system in BR days was reliant on overtime to cover not only Sundays but the Monday to Saturday roster; yes railway workers were on a 6 day roster.

Even today NR maintenance and operations rely on quit heavily overtime to cover shortage of staff in key areas this becomes very acute at holiday peak times of the year.  Some of the maintenance gaps are covered by contractors but they are very expensive in the long term and the contractors call out rates are eye watering.

The whole industry suffers from skilled staff, difficult to recruit when the rates of pay and working hours / conditions are more favourable in other industries   

 
Yes, there is often some spare Sunday capacity at several depots.  This Sunday throughout the day there are eight spare/standby drivers in my local depot and one uncovered shift.

They’re just not able to help much with the depots that are short as they don’t have the traction/route knowledge.

 

That’s not the case though, because there isn’t anybody else to cover the turns so the trains get cancelled. Hence the situation we see every Sunday. If you’re in the east maybe things are different.

 
At the depot I am most familiar with, either of those situations you describe is incredibly rare.

A driver who regularly blows out of Sundays by not following the agreed procedures would very quickly get a very bad reputation amongst his/her colleagues who have to pick up their work as a result.

 

A commitment that’s not worth the paper it’s written on. I know drivers who for every committed Sunday phone in ‘fatigued’ or ‘sick’ the night before and then resume on the Sunday evening for Monday. No disciplinary action can be taken because it is classed as overtime, and you can’t discipline someone for not doing overtime.

There are also plenty who email rosters on Tuesday when the Sunday sheets are issued saying they’re not coming in, and don’t, and nothing more is said. Because it’s still overtime. They don’t get paid but that’s fine because they don’t want to be paid because they don’t want to work overtime.

You’ve got some conscientious drivers who don’t do either, but I would hazard a guess they are in the minority.

 

To be fair, it does to me: thank you for your 'clarification', IndustryInsider. 

CfN 

 

All drivers (except for a small number on special ‘accommodated’ rosters due to personal circumstances) are rostered to work Sundays.

Many drivers, in recent post privatisation history at least, have always had a committed rostered Sunday agreement.  They should work them unless they or rostering department can cover them with someone else.

You can’t take a day off from your annual leave allocation and if you go sick you don’t get sick pay.

The HSS drivers (and a few others, notably Paddington GWR) have an agreement whereby with 5 days notice they can make themselves unavailable without having to find cover for their rostered shift.

The phrase ‘reliant on overtime workers’ is therefore both correct and incorrect if that makes sense?

 
Have Sundays always been completely reliant on overtime workers, or was there a time (in the recent past) when people were rostered to work on Sundays?

 
The only reliable number of trains that could be operated on a Sunday is 0. No drivers are obliged to work Sundays. Plenty do but many more do not. You’ll find it’s always the same few faces working on a Sunday, there are a good number who never work any. So if some of those ‘few faces’ are on leave or have other plans the service falls apart. And the problem at the moment is the few have become fewer as a result of the payrise.

Is that on the few for taking a couple of Sundays off or the many who don’t work any at all?

 

That's because it is complex, if it was a simple fix it would have been done

 
Oh, sorry: I was looking at the total number of voters, not 'the numbers of votes cast'. 

 
Thanks, grahame. 

Purely for the record, I did vote - for 'Run a reduced timetable'. 

CfN.

 


I'm in agreement too - it's too small a sample and too biased to be definitive.  But it is a pointer to take into consideration. The question would / should have been asked differently (and probable with survey software with more flexibility) had we wanted to go further.

P.s. - 46 votes cast, Chris not 35 "They should run a core service AND it's complicated" was a valid response; 2 selections allowed.

 
Hmm.

The total number of votes cast was only 35 - of whom 16 voted 'it's more complicated'.

CfN.

 
I don't think that enough voted to actually give any definitive answer

 
I think the results are very interesting and contain merit that GWR (and others) should well do to examine.

My observations, generally and from yetersday afternoons Paddington debacle, is that actually the Great British Public are an understanding bunch. There was an abundance of sympathy for GWR's plight at Paddington - which started to wane after the 4th train change.

We understand these events are exceptional and are preapred to cut the operators of public services some slack as they try to cope. No one expects a full on-time, full diagrammed timetable to operate when these events happen.

Execept for perhaps the TOCs' ( and for this forum GWR).

Most customers just want to know they can reach their final journey - evenutally. If that journey takes longer or contains additional stops to support cancelled services or even goes by another route in some cases or had to use alternative stock or (and the list goes on) - so be it.

These plans CAN be drawn up in advance. We know, from multiple events, where the weak points in the railway's resilience are. So where is plan B. Or even plan C. If there is a B and C - then operating difficulties can be mitigated in a lot of cases and, perhaps this is most critical, timely, well informed, reliable information can be provided to staff and the travelling public.

The trust element of the informal realtionship contract a customer has with a service provider is that the service provider will do there utmost/damnest to deliver the service. I politely suggest that this trust element has long gone with the approach GWR take to running our railway.


 

 
Poll concluded; I analyse ...


For those who voted on detail of thinning out (less than a half of voters answered this question):


It makes for interesting reading; a substantial majority of our members favour a reduced temporary timetable to make it more reliable, as indeed other train operators have done. GWR, however, have decided against this option.  I have written to my key contacts pointing out the customer sentiment shown by this poll, and the very real damage done to customer journeys and relations by us not knowing what will and what won't be running until a few hours - sometimes less - before a train is to run.   I have yet to get a response, I indeed I get one; my understanding is that GWR currently have the flag nailed to the mast and do not intend to reconsider their policy

 
It (The diagram) conforms to terms and conditions.

We don't plan for late running.

Meanwhile in real life....

 

And as I’ve said before, some of the longer distance trains which used to be crewed by one or two drivers/TM’s for the duration of the journey, are now often crewed by 3, 4 or sometimes more swapping in and out en-route.

So, if there’s a problem with a given train theres’s a far larger chance it will create problems that will take much longer to sort out.  All because of a few marginal ‘on paper it works’ efficiency gains.

 

It's not a claim, it's a fact as I have previously posted. It's easy in a shift to spend more time out of the front seat being either sat in the back cab or waiting to travel on a late running service rather than actually driving a train.

All thanks to a "wondrous" computer program which nobody will dump.

 

There’s a lot of new drivers coming through the system. They don’t overload them initially by getting them to learn ALL the routes and traction in one hit. At some stage they then get released to learn additional routes or traction whilst new drivers are still coming through. There’s the additional assessment for newly qualified, simulator time etc.

 
I chose the 'It's More Complicated' option as the closest I could get to 'None Of The Above'.

Given the recent statement by (fairly senior?) GWR management that they do have sufficient staff these major service disruptions should obviously not be occurring. So it falls to the bosses, with input from the DfT where necessary, to sort things out.

Aside from the obvious stuff - e.g. implementation of scheduled 7 day rostering -  I would be fascinated to learn why qualified train drivers, and other on-train staff, apparently have their working days so significantly disrupted by loads of additional training. Also the claims of unnecessary intra-service crew changes, if true, should be binned because they allegedly don't make the maximum use of staff working hours.

 
Every May and December there is a new roster issued. It is a very complicated process which I'm not even going to attempt to explain...

But in summary you have booked turns and spares. On weekends those booked turns are regularly ammended but the turn number stays the same. From spare you can be moved a maximum of 2 hours either earlier or later as long as Hidden requirements are met.

The short term planners issue the diagrams for the Sunday and on the DAS a driver has a turn number allocated, whether as a long term booked number from the roster or from spare. That diagram is your booked work for the Sunday.

I can assure you that it is extremely complicated. A long term diagram maybe BTM PADD WORCESTER Stoke Gifford. But Swindon Didcot is closed so that diagram may become BTM Swindon shuttles all day as you can't get to Paddington for your booked Worcester service. And changing at Reading may not conform to break regulations plus you'd need an additional driver or drivers to work your trains Reading Paddington Reading.

Confusing enough?

 

At what point in the timescale does a driver get to know their booked turn or turns? Every month, every quarter, every ??

 
How Sunday rostering works.

HSS staff have up to 2359 on the preceding Monday to opt out of the following Sunday, I'm not sure when the cut off is for GWR drivers to request a Sunday off.

On the Tuesday as long as the short term diagrammers have been able to complete their work then the rostering team create the DAS (Daily Alteration Sheet).

Then Thursday evening around 1900 the uncovered jobs are released for the Crew Resource Managers to start mission impossible and cover all the Sunday trains. But that job doesn't officially start until the Pre planner comes in Friday morning. The night shift MIGHT be able to look Thursday but no doubt they are still trying to cover Friday. Also if Saturday is still being worked on then Sunday's work may not start until a lot later. And as the diagrams change the majority of Sundays then the pre planner looks for extended breaks and PAO (Passenger As Ordered) in the diagrams. Then negotiations start. For example a driver with a booked early Sunday but is then lates Monday will be asked to do a later start and then someone who is on earlies can cover that particular early turn. Someone who has a shed and ferry turn will have that diagram cut up so the driver is released for mainline driving.

Every driver has the right to their booked diagram and can claim that turn. So on the day the request goes in please cover a different turn they can say no and more cancellations occur.

A crazy system which relies on overtime being worked and less HSS staff are interested in that now.

 

Incorrect. More members equals more subscriptions and there will always be plenty of overtime.

And add in training time as well. It takes over a year from starting a course to completing your maiden voyage. And that's just basic route and traction knowledge. In that time there's probably been either a retirement, moving to another company, going up the management tree, removal from the driving grade for either medical or disciplinary reasons or even a sacking.

 
Hire more drivers.

But I suspect the unions and their members would be against that though. Reducing their opprtunity to earn overtime.

 

The issue here is that the unions and management could come to an agreement but when it reaches the DfT for approval it’ll be rejected.  If they want to sort it the ball is firmly in the court of the DfT.

I believe there’s a proposal for Northern Rail that’s been made to resolve the issue of Sunday’s…… and surprise, surprise, it’s basically an increase in pay.  The only thing that will solve the issue instantly in the short term.  Let’s hope the DfT gives approval for GWR to do the same.

 
Another complication is that there is no indication of which drivers might be available in which depots with which competencies on which routes on which Sundays. So developing any reduced timetable is just not going to happen.

 

The government didn’t cave in.  They made the huge mistake of trying to negotiate one pay deal covering all TOCs when every TOC has a different set of terms & conditions.

 

I think in <rant> mode you have put two negatives in there and ended up with an unintentional positive.

The railway industry is the most capable industry at undermining itself?   

 

There will never be a 100% guarantee.  If we can reduce the cancellations - from 17% (weekends at Melksham over the last 12 weeks) of 7 services each way to - say - 2% of 5 services each way, I think we would have a promotable service which we do not have at the moment.

 
The concern is is that they don't appear to be doing anything, the management need to do some managing.

The following was a conversation I had today: my other half planned to catch a train to Oxford (from Didcot) tonight. Her friend had checked the train schedules earlier in the week and found no issues. Aware of the notoriously poor Sunday service, I suggested she check the current schedule, and, unsurprisingly, she had not. Upon checking, we found that there are no trains returning from Oxford after 21:30, with only replacement bus services at 23:05 and 00:05. The last train is too early and the bus services are too late (and take too long). Had I not prompted her to check, she would likely have been stranded in Oxford for an extended period (or more likely, she would have called me to pick her up). As a result, she opted to travel by car, representing a loss of revenue for the railway.

<Rant on>
Given the above why would anybody choose to travel by train, if the management and employees don't seem to sort out this issue?
Why don't the management, staff, and unions come together to at least reach a temporary agreement?
Is the railway industry the most inept industry at undermining itself?
<Rant off>

 
The voting by Coffee Shop forum members so far is interesting: if you haven't, please do vote! 

 

And this illustrates the utter folly of the new Government caving in to the Unions demands without at least getting it on the table & moving forward with it.

 
Indeed, but you'll still get cancellations when not enough do....

 

Yes, but a reduced timetable would require fewer of them to actually volunteer - making it more realistic. 

 
Bringing Sundays into the working week is the only solution to guarantee staff on a Sunday

 
So we stick to the current fantasy timetable that will never fully operate because GWR/GBR will never get enough staff to volunteer to work Sundays? Crazy. What a way to run a service. It’s pathetic.

 

This. Drivers volunteer to work Sundays, so a reduced timetable still needs volunteers on the day.

 

Those are utterly two fears of a reduced timetable.  There is no easy answer.  "Pop down to the job centre for a few more [temporary]  staff" is not an option, offer incentives to have the skilled people work when they are reluctant is close to its limit (and DfT authority to do so is - err - difficult).

 

That's made me recall that another issue with Covid era timetabling (on rail and buses) is the services that disappeared and were never reinstated. If a temporary timetable is introduced there must be ways of ensuring that it's not the trojan horse for what is actually a spiral  of decline.

Mark

 
Traincrew availability on a Sunday will fluctuate considerably, especially in the run up to Christmas.

It would be impossible to run a reduced timetable and guarantee services would run.

 
It’s not that I want to see less trains running on weekends, I just want to see a timetable that is more reliable that matches the staff resources available until such time that GWR/GBR have a enough staff to run the current timetable. It’s crystal clear at the moment that they don’t.

 

If that turns out to be the overwhelming view of this poll, and with a significant number of votes, we will be in a strong position to give customer feedback to GWR, and to help them change to that policy by letting those who control their string know the passenger view.

 
I'm reminded of Covid era timetabling where frequency across routes were slashed, but were still subject to cancellations for all the other usual reasons creating even larger gaps between services. I've reluctantly voted to leave things as they are, but fully understand that this unreliability is driving (literally) people away, especially at weekends.

 

To continue with cancelling/short running hundreds of trains EVERY weekend rather than produce a timetable that GWR can actually run to me seems absolutely crazy and totally unpassenger friendly.

It’s obvious to any one observing the current situation that this issue of not enough train crew to run the current timetable, not just on Sundays but now Saturdays, isn’t going to go away for a long time.

So I say REVISED TIMETABLE FOR WEEKENDS NOW!

 
I am assured that Melksham is getting just the same treatment as other places with train cancellations and indeed when I look at the graphics our web site produces, it looks as bad or worse elsewhere.

Problem is that "cancel one round trip every 2 hours" as a thinning out policy reduces services to Barnstaple, and via Stroud, to a service that runs every 2 hours.  Via Melksham, it eliminates the service; yesterday, (and that was a Saturday!), nothing called headed in the Westbury direction from 11:30 until 21:37, and in the Swindon direction from 10:08 until 14:47, and then again until 20:24.

Would a policy of "never have more than about an hour to wait if the train you want is cancelled" would be much more customer focused?   Should GWR be running a reduced weekend timetable?  Should they be declaring certain trains as "strategic" ones to maintain at-least-one-every-2-hours then running what they can of the rest?

Speaking with a key contact at GWR this week, I understand that GWR are not running a reduced timetable for a while if they can possibly avoid it, but that is a decision which has been a difficult one for them - no obvious choice as to whether to do that or not.  Sadly, I am not aware of any consultation with passengers in this significant decision.  Your views, please.