"member of train crew being unavailable" - a thought for

[whole diary]

[lj2]

"member of train crew being unavailable"

I'd be interested to discover the meaning for, what seems to be, FGWs^▸ (First Great Western) new default position behind the reasons for all train trouble lately.

what exactly is "a member of train crew being unavailable", is a driver off sick? did a driver die horribly in front of a train? did a "traveling chef" have to visit the toilet and missed his train? was a ticket inspector too lazy to finish his coffee and get the train?

It seems bizzare that "member of train crew being unavailable" can derail an entire mornings timetable. Are there no backup staff available? Is there a sway of mass sick-days being called into FGW lately?

It really does bare some explanation from them, or else give us an accurate and detailed explanation behind delayed and canceled trains.

Ta for anyones thoughts!

[Btline]

"member of train crew being unavailable"

I'd be interested to discover the meaning for, what seems to be, FGWs^▸ (First Great Western) new default position behind the reasons for all train trouble lately.

what exactly is "a member of train crew being unavailable", is a driver off sick? did a driver die horribly in front of a train? did a "traveling chef" have to visit the toilet and missed his train? was a ticket inspector too lazy to finish his coffee and get the train?

It seems bizzare that "member of train crew being unavailable" can derail an entire mornings timetable. Are there no backup staff available? Is there a sway of mass sick-days being called into FGW lately?

It really does bare some explanation from them, or else give us an accurate and detailed explanation behind delayed and canceled trains.

Ta for anyones thoughts!

I find that excuse rather fishy myself!

[Chris from Nailsea]

In my (rather extensive) experience, a "member of train crew being unavailable" usually means, "we don't have a driver". However, this is not necessarily the designated driver's fault. For example, they may themselves have been delayed on a previous train, or they've reached the limit of their permitted driving hours and have to take a break. Likewise the conductor or guard. Don't shout at them when they do/are able to, arrive to take your train forward!

(For goodness' sake, I'm defending them and I don't even work for FGW^▸ (First Great Western) - but I mean it: it's not the train crews' fault!)

The real problem is that FGW do not have enough staff - drivers particularly, to cover the timetable: that's a management issue, so I'll back away quietly now.

[grahame]

I'm sure that there are many more here who will come in with a better answer than I have, but I think it's basically that there's no driver or no conductor available to run the train.  And available doesn't just mean having any old (or young!) driver or conductor.  They must know the route and be up to date on it, know the type of train they're driving / conducting and be up to date on that, be well, have taken the statutory breaks during their shift and / or not done too many shifts too close together already. And I suspect the experts will add more provisos too.

Scheduling this is a nightmare for someone, and it becomes twice as bad when things go wrong - a signalling failure means that a train crew has to stop short of final destination because their statutory time limit is up (and they can't just park up for half an hour as that would delay other services), and with the train not able to reach its final destination the relief crew that is waiting there is stranded. And while we're at it, the extra crew travelling as passengers on the train doesn't make it to their shift start either.  You'll note that the core example I've used here does NOT have its roots in an FGW^▸ (First Great Western) based failure either.

But other things exacerbate the situation.  The day to day control over what happens has been centralised where that didn't used to be the case,  there is a severe train running staff shortage (there's talk of around 50 new drivers in training, but also of a shortage of around 100), and staff morale is low which leads to the not really wanting to work overtime (their choice) up to the full limit allowed by law.

Changes to timetables and established rosters, a high rate of failure of stock leading to more "incidents", overcrowding that delays services, overrunning engineering works ... all help feed the vicious cycle.  New systems with door opening add to the delays, and management working some trains themselves worry the staff to the extent that they consider industrial action ....

Without doubling up on every crew, there will always be some "crew not available"s - and I think that's something we should accept; a 99% of 99.5% target for scheduled trains to run from start to end, calling at all intermediate stations, is reasonable in my view.  With a slightly lower target being more acceptable where "there will be another one along within the hour" and a higher standard where scheduled services are less frequent.

The road lobby quotes 44p per minute as the cost of lost time for a car driver.   Has anyone calculated the losses incurred by train cancellations and delays to passengers using this figure (or the 30p per minute figure that applies to buses?)   Just a thought ... answers gratefully received; I'll split this to a separate thread if necessary!

[gaf71]

I'm sure that there are many more here who will come in with a better answer than I have, but I think it's basically that there's no driver or no conductor available to run the train.  And available doesn't just mean having any old (or young!) driver or conductor.  They must know the route and be up to date on it, know the type of train they're driving / conducting and be up to date on that, be well, have taken the statutory breaks during their shift and / or not done too many shifts too close together already. And I suspect the experts will add more provisos too.

Scheduling this is a nightmare for someone, and it becomes twice as bad when things go wrong - a signalling failure means that a train crew has to stop short of final destination because their statutory time limit is up (and they can't just park up for half an hour as that would delay other services), and with the train not able to reach its final destination the relief crew that is waiting there is stranded. And while we're at it, the extra crew travelling as passengers on the train doesn't make it to their shift start either.  You'll note that the core example I've used here does NOT have its roots in an FGW^▸ (First Great Western) based failure either.

But other things exacerbate the situation.  The day to day control over what happens has been centralised where that didn't used to be the case,  there is a severe train running staff shortage (there's talk of around 50 new drivers in training, but also of a shortage of around 100), and staff morale is low which leads to the not really wanting to work overtime (their choice) up to the full limit allowed by law.

Changes to timetables and established rosters, a high rate of failure of stock leading to more "incidents", overcrowding that delays services, overrunning engineering works ... all help feed the vicious cycle.  New systems with door opening add to the delays, and management working some trains themselves worry the staff to the extent that they consider industrial action ....

Without doubling up on every crew, there will always be some "crew not available"s - and I think that's something we should accept; a 99% of 99.5% target for scheduled trains to run from start to end, calling at all intermediate stations, is reasonable in my view.  With a slightly lower target being more acceptable where "there will be another one along within the hour" and a higher standard where scheduled services are less frequent.

The road lobby quotes 44p per minute as the cost of lost time for a car driver.   Has anyone calculated the losses incurred by train cancellations and delays to passengers using this figure (or the 30p per minute figure that applies to buses?)   Just a thought ... answers gratefully received; I'll split this to a separate thread if necessary!

You have pretty much covered it all Grahame!

[Ollie]

There could be several reasons, for instance a train yesterday evening terminated short at Westbury and re-started at Bristol TM^‡(resolve) due to member of traincrew being unavailable, what had happened was the guard was assaulted.

So when you hear that reason it really could be anything.

[Timmer]

There could be several reasons, for instance a train yesterday evening terminated short at Westbury and re-started at Bristol TM^‡(resolve) due to member of traincrew being unavailable, what had happened was the guard was assaulted.

So when you hear that reason it really could be anything.

I guess thats the problem with using a generic reasons all the time in that they are open to interpretation but of course you couldn't post that a member of staff had just been assaulted. Hope the guard is allright BTW^▸ (by the way).

[12hoursunday]

"member of train crew being unavailable"

? did a "traveling chef" have to visit the toilet and missed his train?

Ta for anyones thoughts!

No train crew available only relates to a train missing a Driver or Guard (Train Manager/ Conductor) a train will run without a Chef, Buffet Steward or heaven forbid a First Class Host.

[Btline]

No train crew available only relates to a train missing a Driver or Guard (Train Manager/ Conductor) a train will run without a Chef, Buffet Steward or heaven forbid a First Class Host.

[/quote]


It is a guard! Train Manager is a stupid title. Their job is the safety of the train and its passengers. Managers are in the office.

And don't get me started on "First Class Host".......!

[dog box]

Something which prehaps a lot of people might not be aware of is the Fact that operational train crew cannot work trains if they are taking certain prescription medicines for illness.
So when Mr Factory Worker drags himself in to work having taken this and that, your Driver or Guard cannot and probably stays home to get better.
if say a rail incident happened ,and the staff were found after mediscreening with banned medicines in there blood stream, they would be in violation of drugs and alcohol policy then probably facing dismissal.
the list of drugs is quite long but the one i can remember off the top of my head is Night Nurse

[Superwang]

First is a bus operator dabbling in running trains to make a profit

British Rail used to have spare drivers and guards booking on duty approx every 3 hours all round the 24hr clock, to sit spare to be used just in case of somebody late for work, gone sick, absent for whatever reason or just available to cover difficulties like chaos of late running trains up line etc etc

bus operators DON'T LIKE SPARES sitting about.............DEAD MONEY.....NO PROFIT
so they reduced the numbers dramatically when privatised the railways........yeah crazy thinking for running trains, but good for increased profits.........false economy really

The Aslef and RMT^▸ (National Union of Rail, Maritime & Transport Workers) unions keep reminding the employers about this fact but just meet with opposition for the return to adequate spares working

Maybe FGW^▸ (First Great Western) passengers will understand it is not the front line traincrew that are short.....it is the spares that are inadequate to run the service in case of any problems!!!!

[Shazz]

First is a bus operator dabbling in running trains to make a profit

So are national express, arriva, etc. they don't make a mess of staffing. your point...?

[John R]

Stagecoach screwed up in the first year of running SWT^▸ (South West Trains) for exactly that reason. It thought running a commuter railway was like running a bus company.   

[Timmer]

Stagecoach screwed up in the first year of running SWT^▸ (South West Trains) for exactly that reason. It thought running a commuter railway was like running a bus company.   

Wasn't it Andrew Haines who then came along and put everything right with SWT which up until recently was a very popular TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company). Can he do the same with FGW^▸ (First Great Western)?

[Btline]

Maybe, although seeing will be believing (my view concerning FGW^▸ (First Great Western) Managing Directors)!!!!!

I am afraid that it happens so much.
Whenever I look at the FGW service updates, 9 times out of 11 trains have been cancelled due to no staff!

What is wrong with them?

Come on Andrew, hire some staff, don't just say you are going to!