Michael R N Dolbear wrote:

"Anna Noyd-Dryver" wrote in message news
. Certes wrote:

One thing I hadn't appreciated was how much of the plan depended on GBRf
drivers, because GTR didn't have enough.

The real mystery is why the government persists with rail privitisation
when
its just one disaster after another. You'd think eventually reality would
creep in to their collective conciousness but it would been not. I'm a
long
way from being a socialist but this is one of the areas privitisation
just
has not worked and it would be better run as a single not for profit
organisation.

If London Reconnections is to be believed, the former franchisee stopped
hiring drivers when they discovered that they would be recruiting and
training them for the benefit of a rival company. That's certainly due
to privatisation.

DfT could have instructed them to keep recruiting. Continuing recruitment
and training has happened across other franchise changes...

Did the franchisee have to tell the DfT about recruitment and training in a
timely fashion or indeed at all?

If so and for example "GTR didn't have enough" should have been obvious in
say February.

It really is worth reading the report I linked at the beginning of the
thread. For example, your question is answered:

Quote:

We have highlighted the issue of too few drivers before. This was most
notably a problem in July 2016 when Southern (part of the new GTR
franchise) were forced to introduced a revised timetable due to lack of
drivers. The primary cause of the issue was that DfT had not intervened to
stop GTR’s predecessors for the previous Thameslink franchise, First
Capital Connect, from cancelling their driving recruitment programme the
moment they knew they would not get the Thameslink franchise. Once they
took over, GTR found that that they were considerably short of the total
number of drivers they expected to have to cover the various different
train companies in their charge (Thameslink, Great Northern, Gatwick
Express and Southern).

It took a lot of hard work and a massive recruitment programme by GTR to
overcome this problem but now GTR insists that shortage of drivers as such
is not an issue and they are currently actually over establishment –
incidentally, Northern Rail say the same thing. Whether the establishment
level is the correct realistic number of drivers a franchise requires is
another matter – possibly not, in this case, as we shall see.

In message
-sept
ember.org, at 23:08:39 on Sat, 23 Jun 2018, Recliner
remarked:
Michael R N Dolbear wrote:

"Anna Noyd-Dryver" wrote in message news
. Certes wrote:

One thing I hadn't appreciated was how much of the plan depended on GBRf
drivers, because GTR didn't have enough.

The real mystery is why the government persists with rail privitisation
when
its just one disaster after another. You'd think eventually reality would
creep in to their collective conciousness but it would been not. I'm a
long
way from being a socialist but this is one of the areas privitisation
just
has not worked and it would be better run as a single not for profit
organisation.

If London Reconnections is to be believed, the former franchisee stopped
hiring drivers when they discovered that they would be recruiting and
training them for the benefit of a rival company. That's certainly due
to privatisation.

DfT could have instructed them to keep recruiting. Continuing recruitment
and training has happened across other franchise changes...

Did the franchisee have to tell the DfT about recruitment and training in a
timely fashion or indeed at all?

If so and for example "GTR didn't have enough" should have been obvious in
say February.

It really is worth reading the report I linked at the beginning of the
thread. For example, your question is answered:

Quote:

We have highlighted the issue of too few drivers before. This was most
notably a problem in July 2016 when Southern (part of the new GTR
franchise) were forced to introduced a revised timetable due to lack of
drivers. The primary cause of the issue was that DfT had not intervened to
stop GTR’s predecessors for the previous Thameslink franchise, First
Capital Connect, from cancelling their driving recruitment programme the
moment they knew they would not get the Thameslink franchise. Once they
took over, GTR found that that they were considerably short of the total
number of drivers they expected to have to cover the various different
train companies in their charge (Thameslink, Great Northern, Gatwick
Express and Southern).

It took a lot of hard work and a massive recruitment programme by GTR to
overcome this problem but now GTR insists that shortage of drivers as such
is not an issue and they are currently actually over establishment –

That covers recruitment; but not *training*, which is where GTR have so
massively failed.

incidentally, Northern Rail say the same thing. Whether the establishment
level is the correct realistic number of drivers a franchise requires is
another matter – possibly not, in this case, as we shall see.

--
Roland Perry

In article ,
Robin wrote:

Odd then that competition for operating rail services has been spreading
across the EU.

With the result that trains in all EU countries are now run by the
national railway companies of many EU countries (but not ours, because
we don't have one).

--
Jonathan Amery. There's an ocean of darkness and I drown in the night
##### Till I come through the darkness to the ocean of light.
#######__o You can lock me in prison but the light will be free,
#######'/ 'And I walk in the glory of the light', said he.

Jonathan Amery wrote:
In article ,
Robin wrote:

Odd then that competition for operating rail services has been spreading
across the EU.

With the result that trains in all EU countries are now run by the
national railway companies of many EU countries (but not ours, because
we don't have one).

You'll see National Express branded trains in Germany.