Colin
Advisor
My preserved fire engine!
Posts: 11,346
|
Post by Colin on Feb 21, 2010 19:04:14 GMT
Thanks for the comments Colin. I am aware of how complex things can be, but do you concede the point (as many drivers who I have spoken to) that the way things are handled during disruptions is very dependent on who the controller is. No need to concede a thing - it is indeed true that some voices on the train radio will instantly fill you with either a feeling of dread or a confidence of their competence. But then controllers are humans too; wouldn't it be boring if we were all the same?!! As for the train in the platform at Leytonstone, it's a fair point you made about the driver having to get off when he did. But once they had agreed to send the train to Woodford sidings with the relief driver (and he was ready to shut the doors), why then change it again? Surely the priority should have been to get that train out of the way, anywhere, considering the number of trains that were queueing behind it. I agree with you. It's just that sometimes, given that more than one grade can influence things, it really doesn't take much for someone to throw a spanner into the works at the most inconvenient moment. Obviously I wasn't there on the day, and it is a poor show - I just hope there was a proper genuine reason behind the extended delay. Is it the driver's job to look at the DMI on the platform? Or is it control's job to inform the driver if the destination has been changed? It's a bit of both really. It is the responsibility of whoever has decided to alter a given train's working (be that the controller, duty manager or signaller) to make every effort to inform the driver. Equally, the driver should report an incorrect DMI as this could mean there's a fault that needs rectifying; the train is carrying an incorrect TD (Train Description on the signalling gubbins), or it may be picked up that the driver hasn't been told of a change. These performance indicators may look good if they say that 95% of the train service was running, but in reality they tell you nothing about the condition of the train service. To be fair, that is very true. However it is the system we are having to work to. I also think that the point you make about the spare crews is a very good one. If they had put trains away as I suggested, there would have been a spare crew on hand to remove the problem train from the platform at Leytonstone. Ah but it may depend on which train is cancelled - if the train crew hasn't got much left to do, they may be about as much use as a chocolate teapot. As I mentioned before, controllers only have crew changeovers marked up in their timetables (ie, they don't know if a driver is finishing, stepping back or having a meal relief), so they'll be looking at the best trains to cancel rather than cancelling on the basis of which will free up the most useful train crew. I daresay that there is a lot less goodwill around these days too - years ago, more people were prepared to "do a favour", i.e. stable a train even though it's offocially past their booking off time. I know that there are still dedicated people that would still do this, but today's culture is a lot different to that which was the case a few years ago. It is very different now - and with the advent of mobile phones and the internet.......well you can have the local Union rep on your back before the ink's dry on the bit paper the DMT just gave you. "Hindsight is a wonderful thing". A phrase I've heard a thousand times, which 99% of the time means, "we didn't have the foresight". Hindsight isn't holding a crystal ball, it's simply foresight that comes too late to people who can't think clearly under pressure but crumble into panic and anarchy. I make reasoned and latterly provable 'right decisions', 'at the time' without the benefit of hindsight after the event, but many of the people I work with don't. It has been commented on many times. It's simply that clear thinking is not something passed down through the ranks (in any business sector) these days in the way it was in previous generations - it has been 'factored out' of all commercial and operational discussion, either written or verbal, officially or pastorally (i.e. in mentoring). It's a great shame, but to pin down this mass failing on "not having the benefit of hindsight" is just the weakest excuse in the book. So you think being a Central line controller is a relatively simple job then? If only...... |
|
|
|
Post by superteacher on Feb 21, 2010 19:47:29 GMT
Once again, thanks for the comments Colin. It all helps to shed light on what really goes on in these situations.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tomcakes on Feb 21, 2010 20:01:14 GMT
As I mentioned before, controllers only have crew changeovers marked up in their timetables (ie, they don't know if a driver is finishing, stepping back or having a meal relief), so they'll be looking at the best trains to cancel rather than cancelling on the basis of which will free up the most useful train crew. Wouldn't it make sense for this to be given to them? Or does it change frequently, or is it "someone else's job" to worry about crews? I'd hope that those staff who throw the book at such situations and are not flexible at all (e.g. if asked to go so much as a minute over their time) are suitably denied flexibility by management in the future. In any situation I've been involved in I've always found flexibility important - and to an extent "what goes around comes around" (I've been in a situation where I've known staff who would habitually cry wolf if *they* were asked for a tiny bit of leeway by their employers, e.g. to stay later in exceptional circumstances - but then expected the employer to move heaven and earth for them when they wanted a favour. Fortunately the manager involved had a spine and told them exactly where to go). |
|
Colin
Advisor
My preserved fire engine!
Posts: 11,346
|
Post by Colin on Feb 21, 2010 20:17:49 GMT
Wouldn't it make sense for this to be given to them? Or does it change frequently, or is it "someone else's job" to worry about crews? Controllers already have enough on their plates as it is, let alone worrying about who is crewing a given train. Train crewing is very much the DMT's domain - they will know what spares they have available, who is booking on next & when, etc, etc I'd hope that those staff who throw the book at such situations and are not flexible at all (e.g. if asked to go so much as a minute over their time) are suitably denied flexibility by management in the future. In any situation I've been involved in I've always found flexibility important - and to an extent "what goes around comes around" (I've been in a situation where I've known staff who would habitually cry wolf if *they* were asked for a tiny bit of leeway by their employers, e.g. to stay later in exceptional circumstances - but then expected the employer to move heaven and earth for them when they wanted a favour. Fortunately the manager involved had a spine and told them exactly where to go). The vast majority of drivers will be quite happy to bend the odd drivers hours parameter, or do a bit extra over & above their booked duty, especially if it'll benefit them, but sometimes it's best to stick to the rules - particularly if it's safety critical related. The other point, which I hinted at, is that there may well be a Union rep within ear shot of yourself & the DMT - one has to be careful in such situations. Also, some people will quite happily make it the Union reps business to know that you may have agreed to something outside Union agreements. It's not so much about having the backbone to break agreements, but rather just using common sense - what is the point of having agreements in place if you're prepared to regularly break them? |
|
|
|
Post by Tomcakes on Feb 21, 2010 20:30:20 GMT
Of course, if staff wish to do everything exactly as per their contract (e.g. down tools the moment the clock hits x hours) then they are perfectly entitled to do so - after all, it says in their contract that they can. What I was saying, though, is that I'd hope that the management do not give such employees any leeway at all when in the future they want a "favour" as it were.
It's all very well and good having rules, agreements, contracts etc and yes if you are regularly breaking agreements then there's no point having them (but if you were regularly breaking agreements then you probably need to look at altering things so that you don't go so close to the wire). But what I was saying to say is that flexibility and the occasional favour helps everyone - even if it doesn't strictly fill every little tick box.
|
|
Colin
Advisor
My preserved fire engine!
Posts: 11,346
|
Post by Colin on Feb 21, 2010 20:34:01 GMT
LU duty managers don't tend to hold such grudges (and if any UPM DMT's are reading this, the last time I was late for an early turn was 11 months ago!!) - it is quite a grown up working environment.
I don't mean that it the way you've probably read it, but equally it just doesn't work how you suggest either.
|
|
|
|
Post by 21146 on Feb 21, 2010 20:50:39 GMT
To drag the thread back to the original subject. There is an established procedure for dealing with trains stalled in tunnels, part of which mandates that within a set period after an incident commences, the Line's Service Control team and Network Control both agree on the strategy to be adopted to deal with this (information which can then reflect the advice communicated to passengers and staff, direction of emergency services etc). The current Inquiry will presumably decide if this procedure was carried out effectively. I have some views of my own but shan't breach forum rules by saying more. ;D
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Feb 22, 2010 5:07:25 GMT
As I mentioned before, controllers only have crew changeovers marked up in their timetables (ie, they don't know if a driver is finishing, stepping back or having a meal relief), so they'll be looking at the best trains to cancel rather than cancelling on the basis of which will free up the most useful train crew. Wouldn't it make sense for this to be given to them? Or does it change frequently, or is it "someone else's job" to worry about crews? I'd hope that those staff who throw the book at such situations and are not flexible at all (e.g. if asked to go so much as a minute over their time) are suitably denied flexibility by management in the future. In any situation I've been involved in I've always found flexibility important - and to an extent "what goes around comes around" (I've been in a situation where I've known staff who would habitually cry wolf if *they* were asked for a tiny bit of leeway by their employers, e.g. to stay later in exceptional circumstances - but then expected the employer to move heaven and earth for them when they wanted a favour. Fortunately the manager involved had a spine and told them exactly where to go). On the Northern Line, the controllers do seem to pay attention to the crew diagrams -- or at least the most experienced controllers do. For example, recently when there was a disruption on the Barnet branch and a train got diverted up the Edgware branch: "Train 72 when it gets to Golders Green, put it away on 24/25 sidings, bring it back out again at 18:30 and reform into Train 34". Either he had inside knowledge or the controller made a total guess at the T/Op's second half and just happened to get the train number and pick up time right! |
|
Colin
Advisor
My preserved fire engine!
Posts: 11,346
|
Post by Colin on Feb 22, 2010 5:58:08 GMT
There may well be analysis sheets in control rooms (and yes, Cobourg does have them for the Northern), but it is not a primary reference document. Controllers have enough to worry about without spending time looking at what each individual driver is doing.
On this occasion the controller may have had the time to look at the analysis sheets, or it may be that a DMT has suggested the option to service control; either way I'm willing to bet that this sort of thing doesn't happen on a regular basis.
As I've said before, train crew management is the responsibility of the DMT.
|
|
towerman
My status is now now widower
Posts: 2,970
|
Post by towerman on Feb 23, 2010 19:04:48 GMT
I think most control rooms use analysis sheets now,we've even got one in the tower at SMD!!
|
|
SE13
In memoriam
RIP 23-Oct-2013
Glorious Gooner
Posts: 9,737
|
Post by SE13 on Feb 23, 2010 21:36:50 GMT
Hmmm..... Commuter/user head here.....
It's absolutely impossible to run a system without a problem somewhere along the line.
24tph suggests that if there is ONE failure, the knock on will last for hours, so kudos to the people that get it running again as quickly as they do.
While I'll agree that it isn't acceptable to be stuck in tunnels, there are times when there is simply no alternative, and there is absolutely nothing anyone can do about it. Much as when I was driving buses for a living, and people moaned about being stuck in traffic, if you can fly the things, feel free to take the controls........ You ain't getting us there any quicker because you can't.
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Feb 24, 2010 17:35:26 GMT
There may well be analysis sheets in control rooms (and yes, Cobourg does have them for the Northern), but it is not a primary reference document. Controllers have enough to worry about without spending time looking at what each individual driver is doing. On this occasion the controller may have had the time to look at the analysis sheets, or it may be that a DMT has suggested the option to service control; either way I'm willing to bet that this sort of thing doesn't happen on a regular basis. As I've said before, train crew management is the responsibility of the DMT. Yes, train crew management is the responsibility of the DMT. However, this is just one piece of a jigsaw, and in order for the jigsaw to be complete all the pieces need to fit together. Using the Northern Line as an example, there's no point in the controller diverting a train up the Edgware branch if the T/Op is due to finish at East Finchley and the Golders Green DMT has no spares. The DMT will be able to manage the situation, but the result will quite possibly be a cancelled train. Likewise, if you have a train go out of service at Waterloo s/b with a door problem, the action taken by the Controller may vary according to spares availability at the crew depot locations and where the driver is due meal relief or finish. If the T/Op is due a meal relief at Golders and there are no spare T/Ops at Golders, no point in taking the train to Morden Depot as there will be a problem at GG with the T/Op's booked 2nd half. But if the driver is booked to do Kennington - Edgware - Morden - Golders Green, he could take the train into Morden Depot, and then bring out a good train for the time the train should have been departing Morden. It tends to be the more experienced Controllers, and those who are ex T/Ops themselves, who do this. I can't speak for other lines, however on the Northern Line it can make the difference between a one-under incident causing a bit of out of turn working for a couple of hours, or a total meltdown of the service. |
|
