Massive train timetabling amendments
Discussion
Oops, ThamesLink comparing it's abysmal ability to run a train co with Poundland has landed them in the mire and given Poundland some marvellous social media coverage
https://twitter.com/Poundland/status/1001855234635...
https://twitter.com/Poundland/status/1001855234635...
Northern deeper in the mire with every day that passes; they might just as well not have a timetable:
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/great...
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/great...
rs1952 said:
Paul said:
Finally back at Flitwick. Most memorable moment was overhearing the control radio on platform staffs radio at Bedford.
"I can't find any drivers"
"this is getting silly"
Followed by great excitement as they reinstated a cancelled train and fished it out of the sidings as they had found a driver at Luton to take it to London, announced it then discovered the train they reinstated was max 8 car and the one they fished out of the sidings was 12 car. Meanwhile an 8 car was sat in the country end siding....
"I can't find any drivers"
"this is getting silly"
Followed by great excitement as they reinstated a cancelled train and fished it out of the sidings as they had found a driver at Luton to take it to London, announced it then discovered the train they reinstated was max 8 car and the one they fished out of the sidings was 12 car. Meanwhile an 8 car was sat in the country end siding....
tight5 said:
rs1952 said:
Paul said:
Finally back at Flitwick. Most memorable moment was overhearing the control radio on platform staffs radio at Bedford.
"I can't find any drivers"
"this is getting silly"
Followed by great excitement as they reinstated a cancelled train and fished it out of the sidings as they had found a driver at Luton to take it to London, announced it then discovered the train they reinstated was max 8 car and the one they fished out of the sidings was 12 car. Meanwhile an 8 car was sat in the country end siding....
"I can't find any drivers"
"this is getting silly"
Followed by great excitement as they reinstated a cancelled train and fished it out of the sidings as they had found a driver at Luton to take it to London, announced it then discovered the train they reinstated was max 8 car and the one they fished out of the sidings was 12 car. Meanwhile an 8 car was sat in the country end siding....
But in this case that cannot be done because a new timetable has been introduced whilst there are quite simply insufficient drivers available to run the trains. Some of this is down to driver shortages, and dark rumours are starting to circulate in some railway circles that a lot of the blame for this actually rests with the DfT who have apparently been laying down the numbers of drivers that should be recruited, whilst making insufficient allowance for staff holidays, sickness and rest days.
But just as large a problem is having insufficient drivers with appropriate traction knowledge and/ or route knowledge, and this is resulting in many of the trains that do run having Pilot drivers on board, so further exacerbating the problem.
It came to light on another forum this morning that one particular centre of chaos is currently Finsbury Park, where pilot drivers are supposed to be joining trains to carry on further south (this gets a bit technical for non-railway folk but basically the pilotman has route knowledge beyond Finsbury Park but doesn't have traction knowledge, whilst the train's "real" driver has traction knowledge but doesn't have route knowledge, hence the need for two of 'em). If there's no pilotman available the train can't be stopped at Finsbury Park because it'll get in the way of everything behind it, so it gets diverted to Kings Cross and terminates there. And nobody (or at least very few) people further up or down the line is likely to know whether a pilot is available, so they are being put in the ridiculous situation of trying to answer passenger's enquiries when they don't actually know where the train is likely to terminate.
This problem isn't going to get sorted out any time soon. The best that can be hoped for is an emergency timetable that the railway can actually run, but I wouldn't hold your breath even for that.
rs1952 said:
The thing is cock-ups occur in all industries, and part of management's job is to keep up the appearance of everything running smoothly when it's all collapsing around their ears behind the scenes.
But in this case that cannot be done because a new timetable has been introduced whilst there are quite simply insufficient drivers available to run the trains. Some of this is down to driver shortages, and dark rumours are starting to circulate in some railway circles that a lot of the blame for this actually rests with the DfT who have apparently been laying down the numbers of drivers that should be recruited, whilst making insufficient allowance for staff holidays, sickness and rest days.
But just as large a problem is having insufficient drivers with appropriate traction knowledge and/ or route knowledge, and this is resulting in many of the trains that do run having Pilot drivers on board, so further exacerbating the problem.
It came to light on another forum this morning that one particular centre of chaos is currently Finsbury Park, where pilot drivers are supposed to be joining trains to carry on further south (this gets a bit technical for non-railway folk but basically the pilotman has route knowledge beyond Finsbury Park but doesn't have traction knowledge, whilst the train's "real" driver has traction knowledge but doesn't have route knowledge, hence the need for two of 'em). If there's no pilotman available the train can't be stopped at Finsbury Park because it'll get in the way of everything behind it, so it gets diverted to Kings Cross and terminates there. And nobody (or at least very few) people further up or down the line is likely to know whether a pilot is available, so they are being put in the ridiculous situation of trying to answer passenger's enquiries when they don't actually know where the train is likely to terminate.
This problem isn't going to get sorted out any time soon. The best that can be hoped for is an emergency timetable that the railway can actually run, but I wouldn't hold your breath even for that.
I think you’re confusing pilotman (NR employee used in degraded working) with conductor drivers But in this case that cannot be done because a new timetable has been introduced whilst there are quite simply insufficient drivers available to run the trains. Some of this is down to driver shortages, and dark rumours are starting to circulate in some railway circles that a lot of the blame for this actually rests with the DfT who have apparently been laying down the numbers of drivers that should be recruited, whilst making insufficient allowance for staff holidays, sickness and rest days.
But just as large a problem is having insufficient drivers with appropriate traction knowledge and/ or route knowledge, and this is resulting in many of the trains that do run having Pilot drivers on board, so further exacerbating the problem.
It came to light on another forum this morning that one particular centre of chaos is currently Finsbury Park, where pilot drivers are supposed to be joining trains to carry on further south (this gets a bit technical for non-railway folk but basically the pilotman has route knowledge beyond Finsbury Park but doesn't have traction knowledge, whilst the train's "real" driver has traction knowledge but doesn't have route knowledge, hence the need for two of 'em). If there's no pilotman available the train can't be stopped at Finsbury Park because it'll get in the way of everything behind it, so it gets diverted to Kings Cross and terminates there. And nobody (or at least very few) people further up or down the line is likely to know whether a pilot is available, so they are being put in the ridiculous situation of trying to answer passenger's enquiries when they don't actually know where the train is likely to terminate.
This problem isn't going to get sorted out any time soon. The best that can be hoped for is an emergency timetable that the railway can actually run, but I wouldn't hold your breath even for that.
tight5 said:
If it wasn't for my employers social media policy i could tell you some BIG screw ups.
Even ex-employees now working at rival companies have been ‘advised’ that it may not be too clever to detail incidents on social media that may have happened.Strange, I can’t remember signing an NDA when I resigned...
Less seriously though - I won’t forget the time I was accused of refusing duty when I was told to take a loco to Scotland in the early hours of a bleak winter morning for overhead ice clearing and dared question it.
Yeah, it was a Cl 37.
legzr1 said:
I think you’re confusing pilotman (NR employee used in degraded working) with conductor drivers
We've had this conversation before. It probably comes from pre-1948 GWR heritage of using the two terms more or less interchangeably, and I must have picked it up when at Bristol Bath Road 1971-76. Despite you picking me up on it now and in the past on here it still won't sink in... I suppose we could go on to discuss variations in shunting hand signals around the country that lasted well into the 60s if not later, which had its origins in the pre-1922 pre-grouping practices, but that won't tell us a lot about the current timetable fiasco
We've already done "signaller" and "bobby"
rs1952 said:
We've had this conversation before. It probably comes from pre-1948 GWR heritage of using the two terms more or less interchangeably, and I must have picked it up when at Bristol Bath Road 1971-76. Despite you picking me up on it now and in the past on here it still won't sink in...
No malice intended, it’s just I read your post and thought when did NR start supplying conductor drivers?!!I thought the same the last time you did it too - regular rules updates and changes of terminology are awkward enough without you adding to it
And to make it easier, up ‘here’ a pilot is a shunter loco (as opposed to a shunter who is groundstaff) such as an 08 or 09, pilot turns could use any class loco and a man on the pilot turn isn’t a pilotman.
And people moan about a 7 minute change to ‘their’ train...
I'm usually up for a couple of after work pints on Thursdays so agreed to meet up with a few mates but have just had to bail at last minute after checking out the train timetables 
Could have waited for the 18:46 train but it would likely be too rammed to even get on, can't believe what an impact this is still having two weeks in.
Could have waited for the 18:46 train but it would likely be too rammed to even get on, can't believe what an impact this is still having two weeks in.
Flooble said:
Forgive me for having no clue about this stuff, but how does the train get from Finsbury Park to Kings Cross without the pilot? I think I've misunderstood what you were saying?
Firstly, we'd better stop using the word "pilot" and use "conductor" instead The problem of route and traction knowledge has arisen with the new timetable with so many trains going from Cambridge or Peterborough to Finsbury Park, then leaving the main line to Kings Cross and instead going under the Thames through Farringdon and Blackfriars to destinations such as Brighton.
Peterborough and Cambridge drivers have been driving to Kings Cross since the railway was built, but these new services going south of the river take them onto sections of track they aren't used to, so they need to gain experience of the route and sign it off to certify their knowledge of it. What is currently happening is that these drivers are gaining route knowledge whilst on the job, so to speak, and with a conductor in the cab who already signs the route..
Its also worth mentioning that "route knowledge" in railway terms means more than, say, "knowing the way somewhere" as you might do in a car or even when driving a bus or coach. It involves knowing everything about the route which, to name but a few, would be knowing the location of every signal, every gradient, every speed restriction, every stopping point at stations for trains of various lengths, and so on.
V8 Fettler said:
The new timetables should have been modelled and stress-tested to the nth degree. There should be a fallback in case it all goes wrong, the obvious fallback being the old timetables. Sackings are needed.
Unusually for a BT&P thread I agree with you The trouble is (and especially the trouble with your last point regarding sackings) is that it was the DfT who specified the service levels; it was DfT who specified the staffing levels, and now it is Transport Secretary Chris Grayling trying to protect his department by trying to shovel all the blame onto GTR.
And the whole problem stems from the fact that he DfT do not have people who understand railways, completely different to TfL who do employ railway-orientated management who work closely in conjunction with their contractors. One could say that TfL are an informed client, whilst the DfT is an uninformed client, specifying contractual terms that they have no idea how to implement themselves, or indeed whether those terms are practically feasible.
It therefore follows that sackings are needed but they are sackings of civil servants, and civil servants don't get sacked - they get moved when they balls things up. The worst that can happen to one of them is a posting in the Min of Ag to the Outer Hebrides, not a P45...
And the oddest thing of all about all this is that there are people around who think the railways should be renationalised, so as to let the civil service meddle in railways even more than they're meddling in railways now. Funny old world, innit?
rs1952 said:
Unusually for a BT&P thread I agree with you
The trouble is (and especially the trouble with your last point regarding sackings) is that it was the DfT who specified the service levels; it was DfT who specified the staffing levels, and now it is Transport Secretary Chris Grayling trying to protect his department by trying to shovel all the blame onto GTR.
And the whole problem stems from the fact that he DfT do not have people who understand railways, completely different to TfL who do employ railway-orientated management who work closely in conjunction with their contractors. One could say that TfL are an informed client, whilst the DfT is an uninformed client, specifying contractual terms that they have no idea how to implement themselves, or indeed whether those terms are practically feasible.
It therefore follows that sackings are needed but they are sackings of civil servants, and civil servants don't get sacked - they get moved when they balls things up. The worst that can happen to one of them is a posting in the Min of Ag to the Outer Hebrides, not a P45...
And the oddest thing of all about all this is that there are people around who think the railways should be renationalised, so as to let the civil service meddle in railways even more than they're meddling in railways now. Funny old world, innit?
Well said.The trouble is (and especially the trouble with your last point regarding sackings) is that it was the DfT who specified the service levels; it was DfT who specified the staffing levels, and now it is Transport Secretary Chris Grayling trying to protect his department by trying to shovel all the blame onto GTR.
And the whole problem stems from the fact that he DfT do not have people who understand railways, completely different to TfL who do employ railway-orientated management who work closely in conjunction with their contractors. One could say that TfL are an informed client, whilst the DfT is an uninformed client, specifying contractual terms that they have no idea how to implement themselves, or indeed whether those terms are practically feasible.
It therefore follows that sackings are needed but they are sackings of civil servants, and civil servants don't get sacked - they get moved when they balls things up. The worst that can happen to one of them is a posting in the Min of Ag to the Outer Hebrides, not a P45...
And the oddest thing of all about all this is that there are people around who think the railways should be renationalised, so as to let the civil service meddle in railways even more than they're meddling in railways now. Funny old world, innit?
Cross rail shows how it can and should be done with input from the start from all stakeholders including railway-savvy management, contractors and even Unions!
Maybe V8 bleating on about sackings meant he didn’t realise its a Tory minister ultimately responsible...
V8 Fettler said:
The new timetables should have been modelled and stress-tested to the nth degree. There should be a fallback in case it all goes wrong, the obvious fallback being the old timetables. Sackings are needed.
Falling back on the old timetable is not an option because it affects too many other trains. The problem with Thameslink is that it serves so many destinations meant there is a huge knock on impact. One of the timetabling issues was the electrification works up north not being completed. This affected the trains up north, which meant the times of those that had to be changed. This meant those trains were on different times on the West Coast, East Coast and Midland mainlines. This meant that Southern and Thameslink trains on these lines had to be re-timetabled. Also trains on South Eastern had to be timetabled around Thameslink trains so you cant just roll the timetable back. Different rolling stock has been introduced with different performance etc.I suspect a temporary timetable will be introduced from Monday which will just remove a whole load of trains. As the drivers get route and traction qualified then the trains will be added back in.
legzr1 said:
rs1952 said:
Unusually for a BT&P thread I agree with you
The trouble is (and especially the trouble with your last point regarding sackings) is that it was the DfT who specified the service levels; it was DfT who specified the staffing levels, and now it is Transport Secretary Chris Grayling trying to protect his department by trying to shovel all the blame onto GTR.
And the whole problem stems from the fact that he DfT do not have people who understand railways, completely different to TfL who do employ railway-orientated management who work closely in conjunction with their contractors. One could say that TfL are an informed client, whilst the DfT is an uninformed client, specifying contractual terms that they have no idea how to implement themselves, or indeed whether those terms are practically feasible.
It therefore follows that sackings are needed but they are sackings of civil servants, and civil servants don't get sacked - they get moved when they balls things up. The worst that can happen to one of them is a posting in the Min of Ag to the Outer Hebrides, not a P45...
And the oddest thing of all about all this is that there are people around who think the railways should be renationalised, so as to let the civil service meddle in railways even more than they're meddling in railways now. Funny old world, innit?
Well said.The trouble is (and especially the trouble with your last point regarding sackings) is that it was the DfT who specified the service levels; it was DfT who specified the staffing levels, and now it is Transport Secretary Chris Grayling trying to protect his department by trying to shovel all the blame onto GTR.
And the whole problem stems from the fact that he DfT do not have people who understand railways, completely different to TfL who do employ railway-orientated management who work closely in conjunction with their contractors. One could say that TfL are an informed client, whilst the DfT is an uninformed client, specifying contractual terms that they have no idea how to implement themselves, or indeed whether those terms are practically feasible.
It therefore follows that sackings are needed but they are sackings of civil servants, and civil servants don't get sacked - they get moved when they balls things up. The worst that can happen to one of them is a posting in the Min of Ag to the Outer Hebrides, not a P45...
And the oddest thing of all about all this is that there are people around who think the railways should be renationalised, so as to let the civil service meddle in railways even more than they're meddling in railways now. Funny old world, innit?
Cross rail shows how it can and should be done with input from the start from all stakeholders including railway-savvy management, contractors and even Unions!
Maybe V8 bleating on about sackings meant he didn’t realise its a Tory minister ultimately responsible...
Chrisgr31 said:
V8 Fettler said:
The new timetables should have been modelled and stress-tested to the nth degree. There should be a fallback in case it all goes wrong, the obvious fallback being the old timetables. Sackings are needed.
Falling back on the old timetable is not an option because it affects too many other trains. The problem with Thameslink is that it serves so many destinations meant there is a huge knock on impact. One of the timetabling issues was the electrification works up north not being completed. This affected the trains up north, which meant the times of those that had to be changed. This meant those trains were on different times on the West Coast, East Coast and Midland mainlines. This meant that Southern and Thameslink trains on these lines had to be re-timetabled. Also trains on South Eastern had to be timetabled around Thameslink trains so you cant just roll the timetable back. Different rolling stock has been introduced with different performance etc.I suspect a temporary timetable will be introduced from Monday which will just remove a whole load of trains. As the drivers get route and traction qualified then the trains will be added back in.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff