hobbayne
RIP John Lennon and George Harrison
Posts: 516
|
Post by hobbayne on Nov 11, 2019 11:48:33 GMT
Minor delays to a 'Temporary Unavailability Of Staff'.
Why dont LUL just tell the truth?
|
|
|
|
Post by goldenarrow on Nov 11, 2019 12:02:18 GMT
hobbayne , Several reasons, politics and accountability being major ones. I feel this is a prime topic for aslefshrugged.
|
|
|
|
Post by commuter on Nov 11, 2019 14:08:09 GMT
Minor delays to a 'Temporary Unavailability Of Staff'. Why dont LUL just tell the truth? What is the lie? |
|
|
|
Post by superteacher on Nov 11, 2019 18:20:53 GMT
Minor delays to a 'Temporary Unavailability Of Staff'. Why dont LUL just tell the truth? What is the lie? It implies that it’s the drivers who haven’t turned up to work, when in fact it is TFL’s consistent failure to employ sufficient numbers to cover the roster. These statuses give the general public the idea that it’s the drivers who are to blame, which isn’t on at all. In fact, it leaves them open to abuse from the press and long suffering commuters who just want someone to blame. |
|
|
|
Post by commuter on Nov 12, 2019 0:14:28 GMT
It implies that it’s the drivers who haven’t turned up to work, when in fact it is TFL’s consistent failure to employ sufficient numbers to cover the roster. These statuses give the general public the idea that it’s the drivers who are to blame, which isn’t on at all. In fact, it leaves them open to abuse from the press and long suffering commuters who just want someone to blame. Not in my opinion; they used to say “absence of train operators,” which does imply that, however this is no longer the case. Furthermore, all five Central Line depots are over establishment (i. E. they have more drivers than the number of vacancies that exist at these depots, a number based upon running duties and cover weeks on the main roster, as well as a set number of “pool” drivers, all of which added together is a number which is agreed by the union reps with management at each depot), it is therefore surely not inaccurate to describe this as what it is being announced as. Finally what has TFL (or even TfL) got to do with it?? Train Operators are employed and resourced by London Underground Ltd. |
|
|
|
Post by aslefshrugged on Nov 12, 2019 5:27:52 GMT
It implies that it’s the drivers who haven’t turned up to work, when in fact it is TFL’s consistent failure to employ sufficient numbers to cover the roster. These statuses give the general public the idea that it’s the drivers who are to blame, which isn’t on at all. In fact, it leaves them open to abuse from the press and long suffering commuters who just want someone to blame. Not in my opinion; they used to say “absence of train operators,” which does imply that, however this is no longer the case. Furthermore, all five Central Line depots are over establishment (i. E. they have more drivers than the number of vacancies that exist at these depots, a number based upon running duties and cover weeks on the main roster, as well as a set number of “pool” drivers, all of which added together is a number which is agreed by the union reps with management at each depot), it is therefore surely not inaccurate to describe this as what it is being announced as. Finally what has TFL (or even TfL) got to do with it?? Train Operators are employed and resourced by London Underground Ltd. I am on annual leave at the moment so I can't tell you what the exact reason is but... If you go on Twitter you'll find plenty of comments about "lazy" drivers not turning up for work, that the absentees should be sacked and the usual uninformed cry that driverless trains would solve the problem so some of the public obviously do think its the drivers fault. None of the depots are "over establishment" to my knowledge, we've had "ONAs" (Operator not available) on the duty sheets at Leytonstone almost every day for at least a year and it isn't getting better. Earlier this year the "pool" at Hainault consisted of two drivers, one of who was still training, when there should have been about a dozen (can't remember the exact figure) and there have been numerous retirements since then (three "east end" drivers are having a joint retirement party the weekend after next). A few times when I've been "spare" I've ended up covering other depots, mostly Hainault, occasionally Loughton, sometimes even White City and once West Ruislip so the problem isn't confined to the east end of the line. In the summer I noticed a number of trainees trotting around behind IOps which I took as a welcome sign that we'd finally be getting replacements but I was then told that all the new recruits were Night Tube part timers and we wouldn't be getting new full time drivers until just before WTT70. London Underground is part of TfL so the public and the press think we are all the same with LUL employees regularly referred to as TFL employees. |
|
|
|
Post by superteacher on Nov 12, 2019 6:07:49 GMT
It implies that it’s the drivers who haven’t turned up to work, when in fact it is TFL’s consistent failure to employ sufficient numbers to cover the roster. These statuses give the general public the idea that it’s the drivers who are to blame, which isn’t on at all. In fact, it leaves them open to abuse from the press and long suffering commuters who just want someone to blame. Not in my opinion; they used to say “absence of train operators,” which does imply that, however this is no longer the case. Furthermore, all five Central Line depots are over establishment (i. E. they have more drivers than the number of vacancies that exist at these depots, a number based upon running duties and cover weeks on the main roster, as well as a set number of “pool” drivers, all of which added together is a number which is agreed by the union reps with management at each depot), it is therefore surely not inaccurate to describe this as what it is being announced as. Finally what has TFL (or even TfL) got to do with it?? Train Operators are employed and resourced by London Underground Ltd. Sounds like a great piece of management speak. LU or TFL, who cares? TFL are still responsible for the overall service, and are directly responsible to the Mayor. In any case, there is a well documented history of service statuses which massage the true reason, so it’s no wonder that people are sceptical of anything TFL say to the public. |
|
|
|
Post by aslefshrugged on Nov 12, 2019 6:36:27 GMT
Just a thought but if we're getting new drivers for WTT70 (26 January) then I think they'd have reached the stage where they'd be in the depots with the IOps doing stock training...which means that the IOps can't do their rostered duties and we've got even more ONAs than usual.
|
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Nov 12, 2019 7:45:46 GMT
If you go on Twitter you'll find plenty of comments about "lazy" drivers not turning up for work, that the absentees should be sacked This is nothing new - I can remember in the 1970s my uncle complaining his (Southern Region) train was cancelled "because the guard hadn't turned up". It never seemed to occur to people that the staff member in question might be ill, nor that failing to report for duty without good reason is not a good ideas if you want to keep the job (and sacking a malingerer is not going to make the cancelled train run), nor indeed that it is a bad idea to let someone feeling ill take charge of a train, and responsibility for a thousand passengers at a time. My uncle never seemed to get that the problem was not staff idleness but lack of resources, specifically inadequate numbers staff to cover for sickness/bereavement etc. (There is a reason absenteeism is higher in operations like the public transport, and particularly the NHS, than in office jobs - not only are staff are more at risk of catching something from the public, but someone "driving a desk" job is unlikely to be putting public safety at risk if they try to work through a bout of flu. |
|
hobbayne
RIP John Lennon and George Harrison
Posts: 516
|
Post by hobbayne on Nov 12, 2019 9:20:22 GMT
We had about a quarter of Hainault retire recently, and West Ruislip are also struggling.
White City are not too bad, having a few long term sick back to work and a few night tubers promoted.
However WHC spares are being farmed out to other depots to run for them.
Also, It is not really a temporary shortage when it takes 3 to 4 months to train a driver up.
|
|
|
|
Post by drainrat on Nov 12, 2019 9:33:39 GMT
We had about a quarter of Hainault retire recently, and West Ruislip are also struggling. White City are not too bad, having a few long term sick back to work and a few night tubers promoted. However WHC spares are being farmed out to other depots to run for them. Also, It is not really a temporary shortage when it takes 3 to 4 months to train a driver up. 3 at Leytonstone. People believe whatever they're told by the 'controlling powers'. I don't ever remember communications being put out like they have done in past 5 years. 2009 agreement issues over roster sizes slapping now, 3 go out, 1 comes in, coupled with poor management and an automated absence system linked to line ops, that allows for little to no discretion from the Train Managers, and you're left with the workers taking the blame while the real culprits pat each other on the back for dodging the rounds again and looking at the next step on ladder 🙄 In addition, fewer drivers want to transfer due to ending up bottom of the pool (I know opinions will differ wildly on this subject, depending on perspective), which has disrupted flows of train staff movements. In my opinion, there was a combine wide seniority progression, that's no longer there, it meant junior pool drivers could've been in pool a bit longer, but it wasn't excessive |
|
|
|
Post by commuter on Nov 12, 2019 14:56:05 GMT
Not in my opinion; they used to say “absence of train operators,” which does imply that, however this is no longer the case. Furthermore, all five Central Line depots are over establishment (i. E. they have more drivers than the number of vacancies that exist at these depots, a number based upon running duties and cover weeks on the main roster, as well as a set number of “pool” drivers, all of which added together is a number which is agreed by the union reps with management at each depot), it is therefore surely not inaccurate to describe this as what it is being announced as. Finally what has TFL (or even TfL) got to do with it?? Train Operators are employed and resourced by London Underground Ltd. I am on annual leave at the moment so I can't tell you what the exact reason is but... If you go on Twitter you'll find plenty of comments about "lazy" drivers not turning up for work, that the absentees should be sacked and the usual uninformed cry that driverless trains would solve the problem so some of the public obviously do think its the drivers fault. None of the depots are "over establishment" to my knowledge, we've had "ONAs" (Operator not available) on the duty sheets at Leytonstone almost every day for at least a year and it isn't getting better. Earlier this year the "pool" at Hainault consisted of two drivers, one of who was still training, when there should have been about a dozen (can't remember the exact figure) and there have been numerous retirements since then (three "east end" drivers are having a joint retirement party the weekend after next). A few times when I've been "spare" I've ended up covering other depots, mostly Hainault, occasionally Loughton, sometimes even White City and once West Ruislip so the problem isn't confined to the east end of the line. In the summer I noticed a number of trainees trotting around behind IOps which I took as a welcome sign that we'd finally be getting replacements but I was then told that all the new recruits were Night Tube part timers and we wouldn't be getting new full time drivers until just before WTT70. London Underground is part of TfL so the public and the press think we are all the same with LUL employees regularly referred to as TFL employees. The data is all there for all to read on the Intranet. I’m not at liberty to disclose it any more but I’m sure if someone wanted to F.O.I the Train Operator head count report they might circulate it. |
|
|
|
Post by whistlekiller2000 on Nov 12, 2019 17:51:01 GMT
I am on annual leave at the moment so I can't tell you what the exact reason is but... If you go on Twitter you'll find plenty of comments about "lazy" drivers not turning up for work, that the absentees should be sacked and the usual uninformed cry that driverless trains would solve the problem so some of the public obviously do think its the drivers fault. None of the depots are "over establishment" to my knowledge, we've had "ONAs" (Operator not available) on the duty sheets at Leytonstone almost every day for at least a year and it isn't getting better. Earlier this year the "pool" at Hainault consisted of two drivers, one of who was still training, when there should have been about a dozen (can't remember the exact figure) and there have been numerous retirements since then (three "east end" drivers are having a joint retirement party the weekend after next). A few times when I've been "spare" I've ended up covering other depots, mostly Hainault, occasionally Loughton, sometimes even White City and once West Ruislip so the problem isn't confined to the east end of the line. In the summer I noticed a number of trainees trotting around behind IOps which I took as a welcome sign that we'd finally be getting replacements but I was then told that all the new recruits were Night Tube part timers and we wouldn't be getting new full time drivers until just before WTT70. London Underground is part of TfL so the public and the press think we are all the same with LUL employees regularly referred to as TFL employees. The data is all there for all to read on the Intranet. I’m not at liberty to disclose it any more but I’m sure if someone wanted to F.O.I the Train Operator head count report they might circulate it. |
|
|
|
Post by commuter on Nov 12, 2019 18:03:22 GMT
The data is all there for all to read on the Intranet. I’m not at liberty to disclose it any more but I’m sure if someone wanted to F.O.I the Train Operator head count report they might circulate it. Hence why I have not disclosed any further information. |
|
|
|
Post by whistlekiller2000 on Nov 12, 2019 18:11:15 GMT
Just a reminder that anybody who does have access to Intranet data should be extremely circumspect about publishing any information and get permission (in writing preferrably) that it is allowed for public consumption. Always worth the check as we'd not like to see staff members getting into trouble as a result. Hence why I have not disclosed any further information. |
|
Colin
Advisor
My preserved fire engine!
Posts: 11,347
|
Post by Colin on Nov 12, 2019 19:30:13 GMT
Getting back to the basic point of using the term "temporary shortage of Train Operators" and whether its appropriate......
The fact a given depot may have a shortage of Train Operators and that it may take several months to train replacements is, IMO, irrelevant in deeming whether or not the term "temporary shortage of Train Operators" is appropriate.
A given depot can easily be five or six Train Operators short but it never gets noticed because two of the missing rota lines might be on earlies, two might be on middles and two might be on lates. Spares throughout the day can easily cover the gaps. Rest days across the missing rota lines can further spread the gaps.
Sometimes you get three or four of the uncovered rota lines clash on earlies, middles or lates and then other depots may step in and help out with a spare or two.
Sometimes those on annual leave, released for annual refresher training or instructors released for other duties will clash with the uncovered rota lines.......maybe even late notice sickness will add a few uncovered duties just at the wrong time. Depending on how the pattern of uncovered duties occur, spares across a given line might well still be able to cover all the missing duties and as far as the public see, a full train service operates.
But every now and again a sweet spot occurs where the clash of uncovered duties overwhelms the spare resource on a line. When that happens we get ONA's (Operator Not Available).
On the odd extreme occasion this can lead to enough trains being cancelled that it becomes noticable - that's when the temporary shortage of Train Operators message gets put out.
For the 9am snap shot on Monday, which started this thread, the Central line had 10 trains cancelled due to ONA's.
On Sunday there was 8 trains cancelled due to ONA's at 9pm. Today there was just 1 ONA at 9am but 5 ONA's at 7pm.
A few cancelled trains dotted around the line probably wouldn't be noticed and wouldn't be advertised, but the closer you get to double figures of trains missing........well it starts to become noticable and the delay messages start going out.
Granted I've just looked at last saturday and it certainly looks like the Central line has a staffing issue at present, but it really does depend on the individual circumstances each day with regards to what's uncovered and what the spares can pick up as whether a particular day (or part thereof) is badly affected.
Given all the variables that come into play, IMO the term "temporary shortage of Train Operators" is appropriate when describing the service status. Afterall, the service status message is only meant to be a real time description of the service at that given moment in time.
What would probably be a more appropriate measure is posters in stations, emails to subscribers etc which state there is a medium term staffing issue and as such the service status may be described as delayed as a result of a temporary shortage of Train Operators from time to time.
|
|
|
|
Post by commuter on Nov 12, 2019 22:25:19 GMT
Hence why I have not disclosed any further information. sorry, I don’t know how the errant “it” got in there, I meant to just say I am at not at liberty to disclose any more, as the fact that all five depots are over establishment is public knowledge, but I am not at liberty to disclose the individual numbers. |
|
|
|
Post by whistlekiller2000 on Nov 12, 2019 22:47:59 GMT
Getting back to the basic point of using the term "temporary shortage of Train Operators" and whether its appropriate...... The fact a given depot may have a shortage of Train Operators and that it may take several months to train replacements is, IMO, irrelevant in deeming whether or not the term "temporary shortage of Train Operators" is appropriate. A given depot can easily be five or six Train Operators short but it never gets noticed because two of the missing rota lines might be on earlies, two might be on middles and two might be on lates. Spares throughout the day can easily cover the gaps. Rest days across the missing rota lines can further spread the gaps. Sometimes you get three or four of the uncovered rota lines clash on earlies, middles or lates and then other depots may step in and help out with a spare or two. Sometimes those on annual leave, released for annual refresher training or instructors released for other duties will clash with the uncovered rota lines.......maybe even late notice sickness will add a few uncovered duties just at the wrong time. Depending on how the pattern of uncovered duties occur, spares across a given line might well still be able to cover all the missing duties and as far as the public see, a full train service operates. But every now and again a sweet spot occurs where the clash of uncovered duties overwhelms the spare resource on a line. When that happens we get ONA's (Operator Not Available). On the odd extreme occasion this can lead to enough trains being cancelled that it becomes noticable - that's when the temporary shortage of Train Operators message gets put out. For the 9am snap shot on Monday, which started this thread, the Central line had 10 trains cancelled due to ONA's. On Sunday there was 8 trains cancelled due to ONA's at 9pm. Today there was just 1 ONA at 9am but 5 ONA's at 7pm. A few cancelled trains dotted around the line probably wouldn't be noticed and wouldn't be advertised, but the closer you get to double figures of trains missing........well it starts to become noticable and the delay messages start going out. Granted I've just looked at last saturday and it certainly looks like the Central line has a staffing issue at present, but it really does depend on the individual circumstances each day with regards to what's uncovered and what the spares can pick up as whether a particular day (or part thereof) is badly affected. Given all the variables that come into play, IMO the term "temporary shortage of Train Operators" is appropriate when describing the service status. Afterall, the service status message is only meant to be a real time description of the service at that given moment in time. What would probably be a more appropriate measure is posters in stations, emails to subscribers etc which state there is a medium term staffing issue and as such the service status may be described as delayed as a result of a temporary shortage of Train Operators from time to time. Cheers Colin, that does help to put some perspective into it all.  |
|
|
|
Post by aslefshrugged on Nov 13, 2019 3:24:28 GMT
I have no idea what it says on the intranet but down here in the real world we've been short of drivers for at least a year so if all the depots are "over establishment" then the establishment is far too low.
|
|
|
|
Post by pgb on Nov 13, 2019 8:19:48 GMT
To give another example. A friend of mine works as a signaller in a well known Regional Operating Centre controlling a significant chunk of mainline. In his link there are currently 10 people covering a 21 person roster. So it is everywhere. Works the same for me as well. I don't have enough people to run a standard high summer service in terms of paid staff - thankfully the volunteers are rather good at showing up!
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,772
|
Post by Chris M on Nov 13, 2019 9:34:24 GMT
I think there would be rather a lot of words said (and written) if TfL had to rely on volunteers to run a service and I wouldn't like to put a bet on whether the unions or the Evening Standard would be more verbose about it!
|
|
|
|
Post by seaeagle on Nov 13, 2019 15:32:50 GMT
I have no idea what it says on the intranet but down here in the real world we've been short of drivers for at least a year so if all the depots are "over establishment" then the establishment is far too low. The establishment of a train crew depot is made up of the roster plus a pool which is worked out at 5% of that roster, i.e. a depot with 100 rostered drivers will have a pool of 5 drivers. These 5 drivers are used week by week to cover any duty that is uncovered for whatever reason, be it sickness, outstanding or uncovered leave, training, union release, secondments, pregnancy (which is not a sickness), disciplinary matters etc the list goes on. Using my ex depot as an example as it was one shy of 100 rostered drivers, there were 3 pregnant women, two I/OP's released for training, two seconded to other jobs, (both management jobs), a backlog of outstanding leave to be taken together with a backlog of LDI's (discipline) which meant two union reps need to be released as well as the drivers being disciplined, then you have the week to week sickness on top of that plus some of the pool drivers could be on leave. Five to cover three times that amount just isn't going to work! |
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,772
|
Post by Chris M on Nov 13, 2019 16:55:03 GMT
So it sounds like the 5% figure is the one that is unrealistic in the real world. Where does that figure come from?
|
|
|
|
Post by seaeagle on Nov 13, 2019 18:57:11 GMT
So it sounds like the 5% figure is the one that is unrealistic in the real world. Where does that figure come from? Chris, I've no idea where that figure came from, it was always 5% since I started working on depot rosters. Perhaps when the 5% pool figure first appeared, (I guess with the company plan in the 90's) things were different i.e hardly any female drivers to get pregnant, no secondments as two examples. Just to make it clear, I'm not blaming females having families!!! |
|
|
|
Post by nig on Nov 13, 2019 19:28:25 GMT
So it sounds like the 5% figure is the one that is unrealistic in the real world. Where does that figure come from? its different depending on the depot it was this but think there was another agreement made this year The current numbers were agreed as part of the 2009 Agreement. The formula used to determine which “Band” a depot fell in was based on various factors, including the number of duties at a depot, the position of the depot on the line, the frequency of trains, number of remote booking locations and the proximity of the train crew to a rolling stock depot. This formula determines whether a depot is given between 20% and 25% of rostered spare duties; it also determines the number of pool drivers. |
|
|
|
Post by philthetube on Nov 13, 2019 22:30:17 GMT
Another issue is that there are far less spare duties to cover the gaps
|
|
|
|
Post by drainrat on Nov 14, 2019 4:21:17 GMT
Over establishment = likely
Enough to run a train service = most certainly not
Going back on memory and putting my old rep head on around the 2009 agreement, the whole thing revolved about saving 2 reps from one of the TUs on the functional council from going back to drive trains, all triggered by a rep review that revealed quite a large discrepancy among representatives ratio to members, and I do believe the all grade Union was showing they had more driver members than the exclusive union had, so had asked for parity on the Funcrional Council to reflect the membership.
The review was carried out and presented to the council showing there would be parity, however, the 'agreement' was already being discussed with the exclusive Union which started to restrict rosters in return for them keeping a 6:3 split in favour of the exclusive Union. As a rep of the exclusive Union I raised issue as did many others, but was told keeping 6 rep positions on the council was far more important than keeping depot rosters at the level they were pre 2009 agreement.
So, again, data, over established blah blah blah, the reality is, there isn't enough operators to run the timetables, we knew that then and we know it now 🙄
The faustian deal has placed both unions in a 'damage limitation' protocol, one Union knows it, the other believes that negotiating the '3 bags full' method is progress 😡
|
|
