ASLEF accept (subject to members agreement) 5% Scotrail Pay Offer

[43066]

How am I supposed to know what is and isn't real in your world of railways? I'll stick to aviation from now on as I do know quite a bit about that - we used to have to 'negotiate' with ATC on most days...

In my (admittedly limited) experience it’s a lot easier negotiating with them than it is with railway signallers .

Perhaps you are right - indeed in times of easy money you are probably right.

However isn't there a wee bit of "let them eat cake" in that kind of thought?

The poor punters on low and medium earnings sitting in their crowded buses and 10 year old cars just have to watch the swish luxury trains whizzing by, champagne glasses a tinkling onboard, and lump it!

I don’t want to take the thread off topic but arguably that does reflect the way the railway is priced these days, yes. Certainly the long distance bit of it. Witness the thread currently running about Avanti West Coast being for wealthier people. The consensus seems to be that they feel they can fill the trains selling high priced tickets so have removed a lot of the discounting that took place previously.

(Again, I’m not commenting on whether I personally think that’s right or proper.)

 

[320320]

Aren’t ATC like signallers of the sky ? What negotiation can be made ? More direct routes ? Different cruising altitudes? Different approaches/runways ?

Aren’t those merely request ? And they say yes or no ? Bit like me asking to be put out on the fast line and getting told no you’re going as booked on the slow.

Is it ok if I dust the desk before I empty your bin?

can I wash the rest of the cups before I make your coffee?

can I come in early so that I can get away sharp to take a picture of a top and tailed spoiled wagon that’s derailed on a rarely used branch.

 

[wobman]

Scotrail Drivers get £80k Wow that's insane !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!




...looks up house prices in

Scotrail Drivers get £80k Wow that's insane !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!




...looks up house prices in Glasgow

I agree there will be drivers from other tocs moving to get that salary, as most tocs paying around £50k nowadays.

 

[380101]

But this will be true of any deal that is agreed, and indeed the overwhelming majority of the public will also find themselves in this position.

I would hope that the union is realistic enough to accept that a real terms pay rise isn't happening.


That's a misleading slant on things. Yes, the marginal tax rate at £50k is high, but to get to that point you will have earned £50k at much lower tax rates, indeed with £12.5k thereof totally untaxed, as of next month.

So whilst someone on £50k gets nowhere near twice the take home pay as they would on £25k, they will still be earning a very good income, putting them well within the top 10% of Scottish earners.

The higher tax threshold in Scotland is much lower than it is in England and Wales. You start paying 41% tax on earnings over £43,663 in Scotland so ScotRail drivers (and scottish based drivers of other TOCs/FOCs) pay alot more tax than their counterparts in England and Wales.

 

[Watershed]

The higher tax threshold in Scotland is much lower than it is in England and Wales. You start paying 41% tax on earnings over £43,663 in Scotland so ScotRail drivers (and scottish based drivers of other TOCs/FOCs) pay alot more tax than their counterparts in England and Wales.

Yes, but I'm unsure what you're getting at with this? Before you get to 41% there is a significant portion taxed at lower rates.

No matter the tax rate, train drivers are in the top 10% of earners and so @whoosh's suggestion that £50k is not a lot of money is patently untrue.

 

[Cowley]

Ok I’m not referring to the last few posts, but some of the previous ones have been getting somewhat personal…

Please be respectful towards each other because if not we’ll have to either delete posts or lock the thread.

It is possible to disagree constructively and without dollops of animosity and sarcasm!

Thanks everyone.

 

[43066]

No matter the tax rate, train drivers are in the top 10% of earners and so @whoosh's suggestion that £50k is not a lot of money is patently untrue.

To be fair Scotrail drivers are also about the worst paid train drivers in the whole of the U.K.

Circa. £50k isn’t anything like as much money as people on here seem to think - it’s a reasonable income but frankly nothing special for what’s entailed with the job.

 

[GB]

Is it ok if I dust the desk before I empty your bin?

can I wash the rest of the cups before I make your coffee?

can I come in early so that I can get away sharp to take a picture of a top and tailed spoiled wagon that’s derailed on a rarely used branch.

except perhaps that last one, how on earth are those examples of negotiating? Also, how does that apply to drivers and signallers??

 

[380101]

Yes, but I'm unsure what you're getting at with this? Before you get to 41% there is a significant portion taxed at lower rates.

No matter the tax rate, train drivers are in the top 10% of earners and so @whoosh's suggestion that £50k is not a lot of money is patently untrue.

Even so, a train driver in Scotland, and indeed anyone else earning over £43,663, still pays significantly more tax than their counterparts in England and Wales

Scottish Income Tax 2022/23

Taxable income	Band	Tax rate
Over £14,733 to £25,688	Scottish basic rate	20%
Over £25,689 to £43,662	Intermediate rate	21%
Over £43,663 to £150,000	Higher rate	41%
Above £150,000	Top rate	46

between £12,500 and £14,733 it's taxed at 19% as the personal allowance is still set by Westminster.

So, quite clearly we pay more tax and as such have less disposal income than is currently being made out by the press and others. All ASLEF are attempting to do is get their members a cost of living pay rise just like all the other trade unions should be doing.

 

[Bantamzen]

Drivers have little to nothing to do with passenger growth, no. That isn’t a part of the job of being a train driver, strangely enough. What’s “detached from reality” is suggesting otherwise, far less basing pay on it.

Actually you are on the front line of passenger growth. If drivers didn't take the due care and attention that they do, there would be many more incidents on the rails and nobody would go near trains. Just because you don't face the punters all the time, doesn't mean you are not part of a wider team. So any little bit more you can do to make the passenger experience that bit better is going to promote growth.

Talking of which...

Oh well we’ve been told upthread that “looking like we want to be there” makes all the difference. It’s difficult to take this thread seriously.

I work in IT, playing about with bits of computer code for my department. Yet my manager likes me to at least look like I'm interested and enthusiastic when in meetings or on kits with the teams we are working with. It builds confidence and trust, and it works. More or less everywhere else we are being asked to be more customer focused, so why not in the rail industry?

As for tax payers/fare payers well, yes, that’s how the railway has been funded for much of its existence. Since we’re on the subject, why on Earth should enthusiasts on all line rovers be subsidised by taxpayers and ordinary people going to work, going on holiday etc. (odd how that question never seems to get asked on here isn’t it)?

Just remember that the industry got an additional £16 billion during the pandemic to keep the TOCs going whilst us punters where told to stay away. Perhaps this is not the time to start sagging the punters or tax payers off?

(For the record I have never used any kind of rail rover)

The railway has wider economic benefits (if it didn’t it wouldn’t be subsidised). As such the exact demographic of people using it matters not. Once again it’s necessary to point out that the cost (at point of use) is the result of a value judgement and could be reduced if more subsidy was made available.

The railways do provide economic benefits to the country. But this doesn't mean the government won't push it in front of the bus. This is something I've been trying to get you to realise over various threads.

A lot on here seem obsessed with the level of subsidy, so perhaps fares should be increased by more than the rate of inflation for the next few years to reduce reliance upon it?

Frankly it will probably happen, until eventually rail becomes so expensive passenger numbers will fall off a cliff. Then what do you suppose will happen?

 

[Economist]

To be fair Scotrail drivers are also about the worst paid train drivers in the whole of the U.K.

Circa. £50k isn’t anything like as much money as people on here seem to think - it’s a reasonable income but frankly nothing special for what’s entailed with the job.

What a lot of people forget is that in other careers there's far more options to earn money through promotions/seniority pay, the line of promotion from the driving grade is very limited.

A Driver Instructor gets around 5% more salary than a regular Driver, there's typically one DI for every 10 Drivers.

A Driver Manager gets around 10% more salary than a regular Driver but cannot usually do Rest Day Working/Overtime, there's typically one DM for every 20-30 Drivers.

An Operations Manager's salary is, I believe, individually negotiated and there's usually one for every 100-200 Drivers, however Operations Managers often lose driving competence, so they can't necessarily revert to driving.

I enjoy the job, there's only one thing I'd remotely consider trading it in for voluntarily, however people have a habit of comparing it to other roles without factoring in the comparatively flat organisational hierarchy on the operational railway.

 

[O L Leigh]

These discussions get so divorced from reality than I genuinely wonder how people come up with some of the things they say.

Frankly it will probably happen, until eventually rail becomes so expensive passenger numbers will fall off a cliff. Then what do you suppose will happen?

This gives the lie to your whole argument. It won't matter if I and my colleagues are out there, immaculately turned-out and as keen as mustard. What drives passenger numbers is providing services that go where people want to go, at a time they want to travel and for a price they are prepared to pay.

Frankly the vast majority of rail users couldn't give a tinker's cuss about what the driver is like and how well (or otherwise) they discharge their duties. They never see us and are even less likely to interact with us. As far as they're concerned we simply don't exist and the train takes care of itself (and that genuinely is what a lot of rail users really do think).

To bring this back onto topic, the railway does need to address it's workforce's aspirations otherwise it will soon face a recruitment and retention problem. Having to replace drivers is an expensive and time-consuming old business and it probably does work out cheaper in the long run to retain as many of the fully-qualified drivers as you can, award them pay rises in line with inflation and allow them to work their rest days.

The problem is that the powers-that-be (and, by extension, a lot of the folk posting here) fail to understand that saving money today does not actually save money in the long run. Ultimately all that happens is that the costs of training are simply deferred until later, and so the can just gets kicked further and further down the road while operators struggle to cover jobs with the ultimate outcome that trains get cancelled and passengers get more and more miffed. I've already lost the vast majority of my diversionary routes because of this, so now if there is a collision at the airscrew/excrement interface my train and all my passengers will just have to sit and wait.

I appreciate that these pay rises look expensive, but then so does everything else I have to pay for. I'm a taxpayer too, so I understand that I am in part underwriting almost all of what the Government sees fit to spend it's money on. However, if we are to move away from that reliance then we have to start driving up usage, and that is going to require staff and Government working together. We already have a trained workforce who is ready and willing to work, and to be flexible too. But ultimately we are being stymied by the policies of the DfT and the impact that it has on TOC operations. All we need is for the DfT to start seeing the bigger picture and allowing us to work and the services, and therefore the passengers and revenue, will return.

So please don't try telling me that it's us drivers who are material to the recovery of the railway.

 

[Bantamzen]

These discussions get so divorced from reality than I genuinely wonder how people come up with some of the things they say.



This gives the lie to your whole argument. It won't matter if I and my colleagues are out there, immaculately turned-out and as keen as mustard. What drives passenger numbers is providing services that go where people want to go, at a time they want to travel and for a price they are prepared to pay.

Frankly the vast majority of rail users couldn't give a tinker's cuss about what the driver is like and how well (or otherwise) they discharge their duties. They never see us and are even less likely to interact with us. As far as they're concerned we simply don't exist and the train takes care of itself (and that genuinely is what a lot of rail users really do think).

To bring this back onto topic, the railway does need to address it's workforce's aspirations otherwise it will soon face a recruitment and retention problem. Having to replace drivers is an expensive and time-consuming old business and it probably does work out cheaper in the long run to retain as many of the fully-qualified drivers as you can, award them pay rises in line with inflation and allow them to work their rest days.

The problem is that the powers-that-be (and, by extension, a lot of the folk posting here) fail to understand that saving money today does not actually save money in the long run. Ultimately all that happens is that the costs of training are simply deferred until later, and so the can just gets kicked further and further down the road while operators struggle to cover jobs with the ultimate outcome that trains get cancelled and passengers get more and more miffed. I've already lost the vast majority of my diversionary routes because of this, so now if there is a collision at the airscrew/excrement interface my train and all my passengers will just have to sit and wait.

I appreciate that these pay rises look expensive, but then so does everything else I have to pay for. I'm a taxpayer too, so I understand that I am in part underwriting almost all of what the Government sees fit to spend it's money on. However, if we are to move away from that reliance then we have to start driving up usage, and that is going to require staff and Government working together. We already have a trained workforce who is ready and willing to work, and to be flexible too. But ultimately we are being stymied by the policies of the DfT and the impact that it has on TOC operations. All we need is for the DfT to start seeing the bigger picture and allowing us to work and the services, and therefore the passengers and revenue, will return.

So please don't try telling me that it's us drivers who are material to the recovery of the railway.

That is not what I said. You are part of a team, and it is up to all of your team to do all that they can to improve performance and offer the best possible experience. It is this that will pursade the 90% or so of the travelling public that rarely or never use the train, that it might be worth a punt sometime for at least some of them.

And just to make something clear, I am not anti-rail or anti-union, or even anti-driver. In most other circumstances I would support what the rail unions are trying to do. But right now, unions demanding what they are when so many people are being driven into the wall is unreasonable and unrealistic. And speaking honestly some of the views expressed on here would go down like a lead balloon with the travelling public.

 

[Falcon1200]

Staff shouldn't have to accept massive real terms pay cuts

Should non-railway staff, and pensioners, already having no choice but to accept massive real terms pay cuts due to below-inflation pay or pension rises, also have to pay higher rates of tax on top, in order to give a few select employees inflation-linked pay rises ? Because the money has to come from somewhere.

I very very rarely see them in any parts of England I go to and I haven’t spent a huge amount of time in Scotland, but when I did there were absolutely hundreds of electric car charging points everywhere, even in some extremely rural areas.

There are precisely two electric car charging points in my small town, at the local 'transport interchange' (actually a car park with a bus stop near the railway station). They have been broken for months on end.

 

[boabt]

To be fair Scotrail drivers are also about the worst paid train drivers in the whole of the U.K.

Circa. £50k isn’t anything like as much money as people on here seem to think - it’s a reasonable income but frankly nothing special for what’s entailed with the job.

Are they? Got any figures on that? Would be interesting to see.

£50k or whatever it is a train driver might make may well be perfectly commensurate to the job they do, but £50k also puts them in the top 10% of earners, so I think its fair to say is is exactly the money people think it is.

I think its also fair to say many train drivers (if not most) will have been making more than their basic salary, given the need for them to work overtime (which admittedly they may not want to do) and as evidenced by the chap further up the thread who was raking in closer to £80k.

Even so, a train driver in Scotland, and indeed anyone else earning over £43,663, still pays significantly more tax than their counterparts in England and Wales

Scottish Income Tax 2022/23

Taxable income	Band	Tax rate
Over £14,733 to £25,688	Scottish basic rate	20%
Over £25,689 to £43,662	Intermediate rate	21%
Over £43,663 to £150,000	Higher rate	41%
Above £150,000	Top rate	46

between £12,500 and £14,733 it's taxed at 19% as the personal allowance is still set by Westminster.

So, quite clearly we pay more tax and as such have less disposal income than is currently being made out by the press and others. All ASLEF are attempting to do is get their members a cost of living pay rise just like all the other trade unions should be doing.

Does a train driver living in Dundee have less disposable income than one living in Reading? I doubt it. Your mortgage for one is gonna a be a fairly different rate.

Nothing against ASLEF try to secure a pay increase given inflation, however, there also exists the reality that the Scottish Government really can't afford to go much higher - especially given other public service workers will be keenly looking on.

The block grant is going up by around 2% so the only place to bring in additional revenue is to increase income tax and that becomes a whole vicious circle don't it?

 

[O L Leigh]

That is not what I said. You are part of a team, and it is up to all of your team to do all that they can to improve performance and offer the best possible experience. It is this that will pursade the 90% or so of the travelling public that rarely or never use the train, that it might be worth a punt sometime for at least some of them.

Yes we are. But we’re not the part of the team that makes the decisions about how the service is provided.

As for your point about experience being a driver for take-up, I will make two observations.

Firstly, the prevalence of budget airlines should illustrate the extent to which people prefer to tolerate indifferent service provided that the price is right.

The second is that the measures that really drive passenger experience, such as service resilience, is not decided by the willingness of operational staff to be team players. These are largely decided by TOC management and the DfT, as the impact of failing to agree rest-day working demonstrates.

And just to make something clear, I am not anti-rail or anti-union, or even anti-driver. In most other circumstances I would support what the rail unions are trying to do. But right now, unions demanding what they are when so many people are being driven into the wall is unreasonable and unrealistic. And speaking honestly some of the views expressed on here would go down like a lead balloon with the travelling public.

I made no such allegation. I was trying to explain what is actually happening so that you can understand better where your original premise is flawed.

As for what the travelling public think, maybe you are projecting your views onto them because they make sense to you and you imagine that they would all agree. That’s natural. However, my experiences of dealing with the travelling public shows that they are rarely a homogenous whole and can not always be assumed to hold one single view, even in a majority.

 

[Siggy1980s]

Should non-railway staff, and pensioners, already having no choice but to accept massive real terms pay cuts due to below-inflation pay or pension rises, also have to pay higher rates of tax on top, in order to give a few select employees inflation-linked pay rises ? Because the money has to come from somewhere.

Get in touch with your trade union representative if you are unhappy with not getting a payrise.

None RMT members, to be brutally honest, are not the RMTs concern.

I pay the RMT to represent me, and my work interests. Not non-railway staff.

I fully support any employee of any industry campaigning for a better wage and T&Cs. Even if it does mean strikes.

 

[Ex-controller]

Drivers aren’t responsible for setting train fares nor writing the timetable, so they are not responsible for maximising revenue. The level of interaction between drivers and the travelling public is fairly minimal.

 

[Bantamzen]

Drivers aren’t responsible for setting train fares nor writing the timetable, so they are not responsible for maximising revenue. The level of interaction between drivers and the travelling public is fairly minimal.

I work in IT for the public sector and have zero contact with the public we work for. But what and how I do my job can, and does have an effect on the public.

 

[507020]

No. The signaller puts the train where they can when they can - the driver doesn't negotiate with the signaller!

Technically the signaller sometimes *can* put a train where it *shouldn’t* go e.g. a platform which is primarily used in the other direction or by different services. Perhaps negotiation is the wrong word but in these situations if the signaller prefers to wait for the booked platform to become available, it is entirely possible for the driver, with a forward view of the track ahead, to simply ask to be signaller to use an alternative platform sooner, to the benefit of passengers, which they may require specific confirmation that the train is going to vacate the platform quickly enough so as not to delay the following train in the other direction etc.

There are precisely two electric car charging points in my small town, at the local 'transport interchange' (actually a car park with a bus stop near the railway station). They have been broken for months on end.

There are precisely 0 electric car charging points in my town of ~100k people, which is the same amount as there have always been and there seem to be the same amount again in all the surrounding towns and villages as far as I’ve seen.

 

[mcmad]

There are precisely 0 electric car charging points in my town of ~100k people, which is the same amount as there have always been and there seem to be the same amount again in all the surrounding towns and villages as far as I’ve seen.

Assuming your location shown is correct then zapmap would appear to show several in Southport and the surrounding areas.

 

[wobman]

Technically the signaller sometimes *can* put a train where it *shouldn’t* go e.g. a platform which is primarily used in the other direction or by different services. Perhaps negotiation is the wrong word but in these situations if the signaller prefers to wait for the booked platform to become available, it is entirely possible for the driver, with a forward view of the track ahead, to simply ask to be signaller to use an alternative platform sooner, to the benefit of passengers, which they may require specific confirmation that the train is going to vacate the platform quickly enough so as not to delay the following train in the other direction etc.

There are precisely 0 electric car charging points in my town of ~100k people, which is the same amount as there have always been and there seem to be the same amount again in all the surrounding towns and villages as far as I’ve seen.

So now train drivers have to know incoming services at every station they visit and the booked platforms for them services plus any ongoing connections.

 

[Siggy1980s]

Technically the signaller sometimes *can* put a train where it *shouldn’t* go e.g. a platform which is primarily used in the other direction or by different services. Perhaps negotiation is the wrong word but in these situations if the signaller prefers to wait for the booked platform to become available, it is entirely possible for the driver, with a forward view of the track ahead, to simply ask to be signaller to use an alternative platform sooner, to the benefit of passengers, which they may require specific confirmation that the train is going to vacate the platform quickly enough so as not to delay the following train in the other direction etc.

Not again.... This really isn't how it works. Just because the driver may be able to see an empty platform does not mean it can be used.

The signaller works with the station staff, and if the signaller just moves a train from platform one, to platform five with no notice that quickly annoys the station staff, the announcer, all the passengers who suddenly have to get to the new platform, including children and sometimes disabled passengers.

If I do that, without getting the OK from the station supervisor, he will make my life hell with unit swaps for the rest of the day.

Drivers DO NOT ask for a different platform, they follow the signals. Doing as you suggest happens, would very often cause more delay, and affect other trains.

If a driver ever does tell me what platform to put him in, I shall direct them to the Network Rail job form for a Signaller. Not likely though, as in 20 years of signalling some of Britain's biggest stations, this has never happened. (tongue in cheek joke)

 

[The Planner]

Many tocs have created a huge amount of non jobs like this and it's a huge waste of money at a time we're the railways are needing efficiencies, train planners are a job that can be done by software is another that's just a glorified admin role.

If that is the case, why isn't it done now, by TOCs, NR and everyone else around the world.

 

[Buffer stop]

So Lynsay wouldn't recommend or reject 4.2%? He rejected the 2.2%!!

EC wouldn't put it to their members, how can Lynsay go back in and continue talks if he can't make a decision .

He doesn't look good in this now!

Weak link.

 

[wobman]

If that is the case, why isn't it done now, by TOCs, NR and everyone else around the world.

Too many people like the status quo of how things are done now, everyone is fine attacking traincrews T&Cs plus pay deals constantly but nobody looks at the non jobs in the industry.
I know resource staff on close to a train drivers wage, there's many jobs in the rail industry that earn more than a driver.

 

[Lemmy99uk]

I pay the RMT to represent me, and my work interests. Not non-railway staff.

The RMT represent plenty of non-railway staff. The clue is in the name.

 

[Siggy1980s]

The RMT represent plenty of non-railway staff. The clue is in the name.

Yes, and as a Railway Worker, I personally pay them to defend me, as a Railway Worker.

 

[507020]

Assuming your location shown is correct then zapmap would appear to show several in Southport and the surrounding areas.

Well if there are indeed electric car charging points here, why are they in such obscure locations that I’ve never seen them? Surely such pieces of infrastructure should be visible above all else (except perhaps charging time) to give confidence in electric cars. Also are the locations shown with a house icon actually chargers installed by individuals at private houses and not for public use?

Not again.... This really isn't how it works. Just because the driver may be able to see an empty platform does not mean it can be used.

The signaller works with the station staff, and if the signaller just moves a train from platform one, to platform five with no notice that quickly annoys the station staff, the announcer, all the passengers who suddenly have to get to the new platform, including children and sometimes disabled passengers.

If I do that, without getting the OK from the station supervisor, he will make my life hell with unit swaps for the rest of the day.

Drivers DO NOT ask for a different platform, they follow the signals. Doing as you suggest happens, would very often cause more delay, and affect other trains.

If a driver ever does tell me what platform to put him in, I shall direct them to the Network Rail job form for a Signaller. Not likely though, as in 20 years of signalling some of Britain's biggest stations, this has never happened. (tongue in cheek joke)

It’s never exactly going to be something that can be done routinely and I was suggesting more the use of an adjacent platform on the other side of an island or at a terminus where the alteration doesn’t require the use of a footbridge and I am aware of the difficulties which it would otherwise impose on disabled passengers, which are a very good reason to wait for the booked platform, but if the driver knows a reason why the booked platform will not be available any time soon e.g. due to a failed train or other incident and a reason why it would be pertinent to use another platform, which may be a very rare circumstance, the conversation with the signaller constitutes a negotiation.

The answer to any question very well may be no, but I would hope that neither of them would treat their colleague with contempt during such negotiations. It is of course not possible to follow the signals, other than to stop, when held at a red signal and I thought due process when a right side failure is encountered was to contact the signaller, whether for “negotiations” or not. It may be simply not possible to do anything other than wait in which case there would be no need for “negotiations” again in want of a better word. I’m not suggesting vast amounts of platform alterations would be a good idea by any means.

 

[Siggy1980s]

Well if there are indeed electric car charging points here, why are they in such obscure locations that I’ve never seen them? Surely such pieces of infrastructure should be visible above all else (except perhaps charging time) to give confidence in electric cars. Also are the locations shown with a house icon actually chargers installed by individuals at private houses and not for public use?

It’s never exactly going to be something that can be done routinely and I was suggesting more the use of an adjacent platform on the other side of an island or at a terminus where the alteration doesn’t require the use of a footbridge and I am aware of the difficulties which it would otherwise impose on disabled passengers, which are a very good reason to wait for the booked platform, but if the driver knows a reason why the booked platform will not be available any time soon e.g. due to a failed train or other incident and a reason why it would be pertinent to use another platform, which may be a very rare circumstance, the conversation with the signaller constitutes a negotiation.

The answer to any question very well may be no, but I would hope that neither of them would treat their colleague with contempt during such negotiations. It is of course not possible to follow the signals, other than to stop, when held at a red signal and I thought due process when a right side failure is encountered was to contact the signaller, whether for “negotiations” or not. It may be simply not possible to do anything other than wait in which case there would be no need for “negotiations” again in want of a better word. I’m not suggesting vast amounts of platform alterations would be a good idea by any means.

I give up. I can't be bothered. You've worn me down.

Turns out you were correct all along.
Enthusiast beats Career Signaller 1-0