Advice not to travel on day after strikes

[alastair]

SWR have just emailed me :


South Western Railway (SWR) is urging customers only to travel by rail if absolutely necessary on Saturday 1 and Sunday 2 October due to the planned RMT and TSSA industrial action.


The same message is being announced frequently at their stations today. This seems completely crazy when Sunday should be a near normal service with a late start, which to be fair they do go on to say (correctly):


Sunday 2 October
First services will start much later than usual and will be very busy – please avoid them if you can.


However, the main message is DO NOT TRAVEL ON SUNDAY. Why? If people heed this message trains will be running around half empty and SWR will lose millions in revenue, why would they do this?

 

[Kite159]

SWR will lose millions in revenue

SWR won't lose anything (they will get paid regardless if trains carry 10 or 100 passengers), the DfT will lose out on revenue if passengers decide to listen to the "don't travel on the Sunday" messages.

 

[30907]

SWR have just emailed me :


South Western Railway (SWR) is urging customers only to travel by rail if absolutely necessary on Saturday 1 and Sunday 2 October due to the planned RMT and TSSA industrial action.


The same message is being announced frequently at their stations today. This seems completely crazy when Sunday should be a near normal service with a late start, which to be fair they do go on to say (correctly):


Sunday 2 October
First services will start much later than usual and will be very busy – please avoid them if you can.


However, the main message is DO NOT TRAVEL ON SUNDAY. Why? If people heed this message trains will be running around half empty and SWR will lose millions in revenue, why would they do this?

Perhaps SWR are concerned about travel to/from the London Marathon, and a "do not travel" advice is the one that people will take notice of?

 

[Magdalen Road]

And yet the TOC refuse to pay out compensation for not travelling on the day after strike day. E.g. Great Northern run the first service 3 hours later than usual - useless for anyone commuting but reject delay repay claims.

 

[Kite159]

Perhaps SWR are concerned about travel to/from the London Marathon, and a "do not travel" advice is the one that people will take notice of?

It's the same messaging as previous "day after the strike", which for a Sunday is a near normal timetable with some of the early trains not running.

 

[Taunton]

I have been around for a while, and thus knew day-long strikes in past decades.

In these, although great disruption/nothing on strike day, it was all back to normal from the first service the following day. What has changed?

 

[Starmill]

And yet the TOC refuse to pay out compensation for not travelling on the day after strike day. E.g. Great Northern run the first service 3 hours later than usual - useless for anyone commuting but reject delay repay claims.

They're obliged to pay a refund for any day they advise not to travel though, regardless of why, which is better than Southern not giving advice not to travel and also not running the first four / five services of the day, then refusing to refund season ticket holders.

 

[theblackwatch]

The 'DO NOT TRAVEL' message being trotted out by TOCs on a more and more frequent basis is becoming rather tedious. Strikes, engineering work, bad weather, hot weather etc... it seems any excuse to do it. I'd be interested to know if there are any statistics which detail how often it is advised now compared to, say, 10 and 20 years ago.

 

[dk1]

I’m on strike & it annoys me too. No need for this constantly negative messages that as said will have little or no impact on the Sunday for the vast majority of passengers.

 

[Horizon22]

The 'DO NOT TRAVEL' message being trotted out by TOCs on a more and more frequent basis is becoming rather tedious. Strikes, engineering work, bad weather, hot weather etc... it seems any excuse to do it. I'd be interested to know if there are any statistics which detail how often it is advised now compared to, say, 10 and 20 years ago.

I can see no such thing - the only wording I can see on SWR is "Please only travel if absolutely necessary" This might be semantics, but I think it's slightly different.

 

[SteveyBee131]

I have been around for a while, and thus knew day-long strikes in past decades.

In these, although great disruption/nothing on strike day, it was all back to normal from the first service the following day. What has changed?

My memory is sketchy but were the previous ones midnight to midnight? Whereas, I think the current series have been from 07:00, which would then affect until then on the next day.

 

[dk1]

My memory is sketchy but were the previous ones midnight to midnight? Whereas, I think the current series have been from 07:00, which would then affect until then on the next day.

Sorry, my mistake. It was the midday-midday that was caped.

 

[Horizon22]

My memory is sketchy but were the previous ones midnight to midnight? Whereas, I think the current series have been from 07:00, which would then affect until then on the next day.

Indeed they have tended to be 0700-0700. Therefore signallers / drivers / controllers don't book on til 0700 usually the next day (night shift striking), not to mention having to get trains back to depot (so passenger services must finish even earlier) before 1900 the previous day with those contingency staff they have working 12 hours. This can have knock on impacts for the following day. It might be alright, it might not.

 

[ThameslinkUser]

This might be semantics, but I think it's slightly different.

It's only different in the sense they can argue that they have no obligation to pay compensation for such a message, unlike a 'Do Not Travel' message. In practice, however...

 

[trainophile]

Who determines what is “absolutely necessary”? Presumably things like getting to essential work or medical appointments as per during lockdowns, but what about weekend hotel breaks or theatre trips that are not refundable, or football matches that you have a season ticket for?

Really, who would even board a train these days just for the heck of it? Surely everyone’s reasons are essential to them.

 

[GordonT]

Who determines what is “absolutely necessary”? Presumably things like getting to essential work or medical appointments as per during lockdowns, but what about weekend hotel breaks or theatre trips that are not refundable, or football matches that you have a season ticket for?

Really, who would even board a train these days just for the heck of it? Surely everyone’s reasons are essential to them.

But it might not in every case be "absolutely necessary" for the rail mode to be utilised in order for the journey to be accomplished.

 

[Snow1964]

I do tend to agree the all day Sunday message is overkill, and should be altered to until Sunday lunchtime

Lunchtime is quite vague, doesn’t give a precise time which is consistent with the way service can build up.

There is no point in trying to scare off those on a weekend break Friday - Sunday evening that they won’t be able to get home and a full service magically resumes at 00:01 hours Monday morning, which current message implies

 

[philosopher]

Who determines what is “absolutely necessary”? Presumably things like getting to essential work or medical appointments as per during lockdowns, but what about weekend hotel breaks or theatre trips that are not refundable, or football matches that you have a season ticket for?

Really, who would even board a train these days just for the heck of it? Surely everyone’s reasons are essential to them.

The whole ‘only travel when absolutely necessary’ thing makes it sound like that leisure passengers are not welcome on the railways.

In my view the train companies should just warn that disruption is possible and just let passengers make up their own mind if the risk is worth taking.

 

[43066]

The whole ‘only travel when absolutely necessary’ thing makes it sound like that leisure passengers are not welcome on the railways.

When that message is being put out, they aren’t welcome.

In my view the train companies should just warn that disruption is possible and just let passengers make up their own mind if the risk is worth taking.

So long as this travel is then “at your own risk”, with no obligation on the railway to provide alternative transport or compensation when things go wrong, I would agree with you.

 

[Bald Rick]

I have been around for a while, and thus knew day-long strikes in past decades.

In these, although great disruption/nothing on strike day, it was all back to normal from the first service the following day. What has changed?

The timing of the strikes. In the past, a 24h strike on a given day meant just that - striking staff wouldn’t work from midnight to midnight.

Now, union members are instructed* not to start shifts between those times (Or, in the case of RMT staff in NR, from 0200-0159). This means night turn staff who are due to book on in the last hours of the strike do not turn up, and there are therefore no signal boxes open until around 0600 / 0700.

*I always have a wry smile at the principle of being instructed to do/not do something by a union directive. But that’s for another discussion.

 

[43066]

*I always have a wry smile at the principle of being instructed to do/not do something by a union directive. But that’s for another discussion.

Why? If you join a union surely it’s reasonable to expect to abide by what the membership has voted for?

What I find bizarre (and a sign of how stacked against the very existence of unions the law in this country is) is how union members are free to disobey said instructions and actively undermine their own union without then facing any sanctions…

 

[43096]

Why? If you join a union surely it’s reasonable to expect to abide by what the membership has voted for?

What I find bizarre (and a sign of how stacked against the very existence of unions the law in this country is) is how union members are free to disobey said instructions and actively undermine their own union without then facing any sanctions…

If I pay for something I expect the organisation to do what I want, not the other way round!

 

[Bald Rick]

Why? If you join a union surely it’s reasonable to expect to abide by what the membership has voted for?

What I find bizarre (and a sign of how stacked against the very existence of unions the law in this country is) is how union members are free to disobey said instructions and actively undermine their own union without then facing any sanctions…

a discussion for another thread, but at the workplace I take instructions from the people who pay me, not the people I pay.

 

[43066]

a discussion for another thread, but at the workplace I take instructions from the people who pay me, not the people I pay.

So you succumb to an entirely “master-servant” relationship with your employer. I’m sure the current government would approve, and indeed would like to implement more widely. Including for those with rather less bargaining power and autonomy in their job roles…

As you say, for another thread .

 

[exbrel]

i think the 60-70's when union barons thought they ruled the country, is the cause of the laws "stacked" against todays unions... and it looks today, as there is a resurgence of these thoughts.

 

[43066]

i think the 60-70's when union barons thought they ruled the country, is the cause of the laws "stacked" against todays unions... and it looks today, as there is a resurgence of these thoughts.

Ah yes. From memory you’re the retired train driver, on final salary pension, who in retirement regularly pops up on here to decry how he hates unions…

 

[Taunton]

What I find bizarre (and a sign of how stacked against the very existence of unions the law in this country is) is how union members are free to disobey said instructions and actively undermine their own union without then facing any sanctions…

This doesn't quite square with elsewhere. You vote for a politician, Labour, Conservative, or whatever, but that doesn't mean you have to agree with, or go blindly along with, every single thing that they propose. Currently our elected politicians, of all hues, are saying one "must walk/cycle instead of use the car". But I don't find the vast majority have taken a blind bit of notice.

Likewise religion. Many people adhere to one of a number of different religions, but in differing proportions. Just because the religion leader says one thing does not mean that everyone does it. Innumerable examples. But you don't get thrown out of your religion or church for it.

 

[Horizon22]

I do tend to agree the all day Sunday message is overkill, and should be altered to until Sunday lunchtime

Lunchtime is quite vague, doesn’t give a precise time which is consistent with the way service can build up.

There is no point in trying to scare off those on a weekend break Friday - Sunday evening that they won’t be able to get home and a full service magically resumes at 00:01 hours Monday morning, which current message implies

You could say “until approximately 12:00” in that case. I think it’s likely a normal service would be up and running by then. Either that or SWR know in advance they’ll be having issues with availability of crew on Sunday.

 

[43066]

This doesn't quite square with elsewhere. You vote for a politician, Labour, Conservative, or whatever, but that doesn't mean you have to agree with, or go blindly along with, every single thing that they propose.

Likewise religion. Many people adhere to one of a number of different religions, but in differing proportions. Just because the religion leader says one thing does not mean that everyone does it. Innumerable examples. But you don't get thrown out of your religion or church for it.

I’d argue it isn’t quite the same thing. Union membership isn’t an abstract philosophical or religious belief, or something you just tacitly “support”. As a union member you choose to enter into an agreement with the union, by which you pay subs in exchange for various benefits/supports the union provides. Part of that quid pro quo is an expectation that you won’t undermine it (and thereby your colleagues who are also members).

I don’t think it would be unreasonable for unions to have the ability to expel members who take the benefits of membership but actively undermine them for personal gain when it suits… I’d say the same about paid up members of any organisation actively going against said organisation’s objectives.

I’m conscious the mods won’t want this to go down the rabbit hole of yet another union debate so I’ll leave it there!

 

[O L Leigh]

I rather thought the idea union movement was that you are stronger together rather than it being about blind obedience. Unlike politics there is a much greater representation than at, say, Westminster.

But, like Westminster, it’s based around the democratic principle which means that just sometimes things get passed which you may not be popular on an individual level, but you have to accept that. In a similar manner, you cannot simply choose how much tax you pay based on what your favoured political party would have levied had they got into power.

Of course an individual can still act on their own conscience if they wish to, but it does go back to my starting point, which is that we are stronger when we act in unison. It cannot be hard to understand why there can be ill-feeling when all benefit when only some are prepared to make the sacrifice.