Have you been hit by Southern’s emergency timetable?

I am not sure that the Office of Rail and Road, as the Regulator of the train operating companies, can do much for passengers when the root of the problem lies mainly in strike action by employees.

Introducing an emergency timetable that can be reliably delivered is a good move, replacing the haphazard disruption that has gone on for months as trains are cancelled or their stopping patterns changed unpredictably according to who turns up for work for each shift. A reduced number of longer trains is not a bad emergency solution. It will also reduce the potential for compensation claims.

Another point is that Southern is operated by Govia Thameslink Railway under a management contract for the Department for Transport and is not a franchise. There is therefore no breach of a franchise agreement to take action against through penalties. There is probably a contractual breach, but perhaps the DfT takes the view that this is a dispute worth the pain of resolving the hard way. The DfT can hardly take away the contract, and although there is the theoretical option of transferring the contract to the government’s own shadow operating company, Directly Operated Railways, the same people would be employed, the dispute would remain, and passengers would be no better served. It could actually inflame the situation.

As I understand it no staff positions will be removed, guards would become train conductors assisting passengers but with no loss of pay, and drivers would be responsible for opening and closing the doors which is normal practice in most parts of the railway system. Outside of the strike implications, staff shortages and engineering work have been cited as causes for service disruption. On their own these would not normally cause acute operational difficulties for a prolonged period; staff shortages can to a degree be addressed by the proposed train crewing arrangements. The railways are heavily dependent on train-crew undertaking voluntary rest-day working, which attracts premium rates of pay and is prized by the trade unions having been fought for long and hard under British Rail. The withdrawal of the voluntary turns by some employees leads to cancellations. Changing to fully-covered rosters would require an increase in establishment that would be just as controversial [through reducing current earnings of existing staff] as well as impacting on operating costs and therefore fares.

The Intro suggests that consumer law is being breached. I am not sure that is the case with the railways which are governed by the National Rail Conditions of Carriage which guarantee very little in return for the purchase of a ticket, and certainly not that a particular train will run, that it will call at particular stations, that it will run according to the timetable, and that it will carry every passenger that wishes to board it.

It has been suggested that the Southern management have acted in a harsh way with the dispute which has hardened attitudes in the trade unions. For instance, staff’s leisure travel privileges were peremptorily removed early in the dispute but I read that these have now been reinstated thus removing one bone of contention and hopefully easing the way to a negotiated settlement. As usual in any service industry it is the customers who suffer and in the case of the public transport services there is usually little alternative and, understandably, the trade unions use that for leverage.

A reduced number of longer trains? Really? The experience on Southern is that they have been running more and more short trains.

As a regular traveller on Underground services where the abuses of Unionised staff are infamous at holding the travelling public to ransom, I do not feel inclined to have very much sympathy with railway staff.

Thank you Brian. I read somewhere that the sickness rate among train crew on Southern had risen significantly. There are plenty of good sickness management practices available to employers and they should be deployed, if only out of fairness to other staff who have to compensate for others’ absences. Managerial intervention in sickness absence and referral to a doctor would be a good step and I am surprised that isn’t routine in such a large employer with an obligation to provide a reliable train service with all crew positions properly covered. I believe the average sickness rate in the UK is 3-4 days a year. Given that a number of employees require extended absence for certain medical conditions or treatments, that means that the vast majority of the staff have to have no sickness absence at all in order for the rate to be at that level. Once a month is nine days a year too much.

This is clearly a complex and deep-rooted problem with both sides staking a lot on prevailing. There is usually no progress in these disputes until Good Will turns up at the negotiating table, then the lawyer Solomon Binding wraps it all up in a legal agreement. Until then the passengers will continue to suffer disruption and inconvenience.

In the NHS if you take more than a specified no of sick days or are off sick for a specified time you have to meet with HR/OH & your manager. Its meant to be a chat to discuss how to improve things not to be punitive, but that depends on the people involved I guess. On return to work you normally stagger it.

I suspect that the staff sickness is due to low morale.

The Gatwick line once had trains designed specially for the route, with ample baggage racks and wide sliding doors, but the last time we travelled there those trains had been replaced with unsuitable carriages with narrow doorways and poor provision for luggage. Longer trains, better designed trains for the traffic presenting [with more luggage space and accessible toilets] – these are all on the agenda somewhere but they never seem to arrive on time.

There was a big fanfare on the Cambridge to London Kings Cross line when they extended the platforms at Cambridge to take longer trains. The extra carriages sit in sidings all day and the trains are as packed as ever. It seems that no designers or managers had noticed that many people visit Cambridge, travelling in the off-peak with their bicycles, double-basses, portmanteaux, and world-travel rucksacks. The only baggage provision is narrow overhead luggage racks and some small shelves. Luckily the trains are non-stop between terminals so the vestibules are used as storage compartments.

dieseltaylor, I totally agree that we should substantially reduce the need to commute. Establishing services, businesses, public bodies in locations where houses are cheaper, travel much reduced, and lovely countryside is on the doorstep, let alone where NOX levels are not health threatening, is something the Government should be very active in promoting. Why Which? needs more than a token presence in expensive London is perhaps something they can answer, including commuting not just from Brighton but, apparently, Devon. Why not relocate to Exeter? I’d ask them for a job. 🙂

Whether people commute from Brighton to London or in the other direction from Haywards Heath to Brighton, if they are dependent on the railway they can be greatly inconvenienced when there is disruption to their journeys. If the cause of the disruption is preventable and brought about by human resolution then it is despicable. How disruptive action can be prevented I don’t know but one has to question the public service credentials of trade unions that wilfully hold passengers to ransom as bargaining pawns, and to some extent the same applies to managements that go about their business in a contentious way. Nevertheless, companies must be free to make reasonable adjustments to the way in which they carry out their operations, and employees need to remember that, so long as what they are being asked to do is legal, safe and not detrimental, they are paid to cooperate.

Pushing people off the trains onto the roads exposes them to far greater hazards as well as much longer and more uncomfortable journeys with no room on board for the things you can take on a train. In the interests of road safety and to avoid the need for new highways, the train operating companies are paid by the taxpayer to have idle rolling stock standing about all day between the peaks; coach operators have no such safety net.

It must be very difficult to despatch trains safely from crowded platforms and those on a curve. There should always be a train despatcher on the platform at busy periods unless the train has a guard on board. But where is the guard? It’s no good being at the end of the train if the platform is crowded or on a curve. When the doors close there is an audible warning and passengers still on the platform are supposed to stand back, but they don’t. Some even try and force the doors open not realising that they are not like lift [elevator] doors; they do not have sensitive contact strips and will not spring back open. There have been terrible incidents when people have been dragged along the platform, and unfortunately some fatalities. All the railway safety authorities, however, assert that driver-only operation is safe, no worse than having a guard, and possibly slightly better because it eliminates the risk of guard/driver miscommunication. The trade unions’ response is that the Rail Safety & Standards Board would say that because they are funded by the train operators.

The UK railways [including Northern Ireland Railways which is a separate system] have by far and away the safest record in Europe and nothing should be done to compromise that. Personally I think the answer is to have enough platform staff available to ensure safe despatch – they have a much better view of the train and the numbers of people adjacent to it than a guard or driver hanging out of the window 250 metres away [on a 12-car train] or peering at a tiny TV screen. I also believe there should be an on-board operative per four carriages to assist in an emergency. They must have a routine function, however, not just sitting in a cubicle reading the papers left behind by passengers.

Guards can leave the train to ensure they get full visibility before despatching. Southern Region have some (smaller) unstaffed stations so no one to act as despatcher. It might be cheaper to employ one or two people at these stations rather than have a guard on every train?

Yes Malcolm – that works if the guard is in the rear cab so they can get back on board after closing the passenger doors and checking that the train is clear before giving the driver the authority to start. I have been wondering whether the new on-board supervisors could not also act as the train despatchers at each station en route. There might need to be a different procedure for door closing so they can get back on board and it could be difficult on crowded trains. On balance I think, as you say, the provision of despatchers on platforms in peak periods [when the trains are longest and the platforms busiest] is the best arrangement.

If 12-coach trains are having to be provided to cope with the numbers travelling and the trains are loaded substantially in excess of capacity then, in theory, there is enough money to pay for the staffing levels such a situation demands. But as Jenny A notes above, the Southern management contract is unusual as all revenue goes to the DfT; there is some profit sharing but there is little incentive for the train company to engage more staff. One of the criticisms of Southern outside the driver-only operation issue is that as a matter of policy the company has consistently refused to employ sufficient staff to cover all services, sickness absence, and other exigencies, relying instead on voluntary overtime and rest-day working which are cheaper as there is no additional national insurance and other overheads to meet.