Transpennine woes and a moan...

[Watershed]

Under which headcodes do 802s find themselves there on a daily basis in the WTT?

On weekdays: 1M83, 1S56, 1M91, 1S88
On Saturdays: 1M81, 1S46, 1M89, 1S83

 

[Starmill]

It is worth noting that it is very unlikely that any rest day working agreement will be reached any time soon. The Secretary of State, Mark Harper, said this on 13 December in a statement to the House:

I have also given TransPennine Express and Northern the scope they need to put a meaningful and generous rest day working offer to ASLEF. However, giving operators a mandate is only the first step. ASLEF need to enter negotiations, and put any new deal to its members and, if accepted, do all it can to make that deal work. TransPennine has made a generous revised offer to ASLEF and it was almost immediately rejected without being put to members. It is up to the unions to decide if they want to improve services, for the good of passengers and the wider economy in the North.

https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2022-12-13/hcws442

 

[Watershed]

It is worth noting that it is very unlikely that any rest day working agreement will be reached any time soon. The Secretary of State, Mark Harper, said this on 13 December in a statement to the House:

https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2022-12-13/hcws442

Of course, the Minister's definition of "generous" might well differ from other people's definitions of the word...

 

[Starmill]

Of course, the Minister's definition of "generous" might well differ from other people's definitions of the word...

Oh yes, without doubt.

And then there's the question of why he thinks that the trade unions are responsible for improving services, apparently rather than himself. But there we are!

 

[Bantamzen]

Of course, the Minister's definition of "generous" might well differ from other people's definitions of the word...

It takes two to Tango, why haven't they put the offer to their members?

 

[EZJ]

Because their members have told ASLEF through various channels that the vast majority of drivers at TPE are not interested in RDW until the pay deal has been addressed.

 

[Clarence Yard]

Because the “offer” is so unappealing that the members would undoubtably reject it.

As a senior rail manager myself, I would be embarrassed to put such an offer forward to the staff or the unions. Despite the contractual requirements in an NRC or ERMA, I’m not sure I could do it.

Get the pay sorted and it will improve. If the productivity measures are required, you do them anyway but linking them to a low increase in pay is beyond stupid.

 

[Bald Rick]

Because their members have told ASLEF through various channels that the vast majority of drivers at TPE are not interested in RDW until the pay deal has been addressed.

That’s interesting, because the TPE drivers I know want to start RDW asap, as they have lost a Lot of money in the past year (over £30k in some cases).

I think the actual message (at least the one I’ve heard second hand) is that the reps have told the drivers that they don’t want to agree a rest day deal until the pay offer is sorted.

 

[Clarence Yard]

The TPE drivers concerned want their old RDW agreement back. That is unlikely to be offered, due to its (DfT) perceived “generosity”.

 

[EZJ]

I'm sorry but no driver has lost 30K (interesting you said the other day it was 25K) I've worked for TPE for a long time and out of the 500 plus drivers I can confidently tell you the vast majority will not consider RDW until the pay deal is sorted. Sorry but your "friend" is very much in the minority.

 

[Bald Rick]

I'm sorry but no driver has lost 30K (interesting you said the other day it was 25K) I've worked for TPE for a long time and out of the 500 plus drivers I can confidently tell you the vast majority will not consider RDW until the pay deal is sorted. Sorry but your "friend" is very much in the minority.

One of my friends has lost £25k (as I said previously), but he is (was) by no means a rest day chaser. Others will have lost more. Then there’s the pay lost through striking as well. He may be in the minority - of course I don’t know whether that is the case or not - but I’m only going by what I see and hear.

 

[jonnyfan]

Until a pay offer is agreed I can't see any unions agreeing to RDW.

 

[geoffk]

Are we ever going to get to the stage when RDW is not required to run the timetable (as opposed to training, sickness cover etc.)? Is this not a desirable objective? Of course it will mean employing more staff, meaning more members for the unions. I thought it was the TOCs and DfT that was holding that back because of the extra cost.

 

[Killingworth]

Until a pay offer is agreed I can't see any unions agreeing to RDW.

So far there has been no suggestion of a possible unilateral imposition of new terms of any sort, be it pay, RDW, overtime, hours or conditions.

In protracted disputes this is a tactic used by some employers. Employees suffering major losses of income from taking industrial action may see little chance of achieving their full aims and such tactics can work - either way!

Imposed too early it's likely to stiffen resolve of those taking action so not likely to be considered just yet. However, as each month goes by that resolve tends to weaken as finances get tighter and tighter......

With the railway heaven only knows how all the parties to the multiplicity of disputed matters can ever restore peace and stability. Prospects for reliable rail services any time soon aren't great.

 

[paul1609]

I make no comment on the current disputes, but surely it would be preferable if TPE and other TOCs planned slimmed-down timetables based on the premise of no rest day working or overtime required to run them. Trains could be lengthened where possible to minimise any reduction in capacity due to less frequent services. Rest day working and overtime should only be used temporarily if at all to cover unexpected gaps in the roster, e.g. due to excess levels of sickness. If the service continues to be unreliable with frequent unplanned cancellations, passengers (customers) will desert in droves and many will not return even if the service improves in the longer term.

I agree, In fact if the Dft are looking to save money why dont they implement an overtime ban throughout the rail industry and tell the operators to just operate what they can without.

 

[ComUtoR]

One of my friends has lost £25k (as I said previously), but he is (was) by no means a rest day chaser.

That's a rather big elephant in the room.
Why is concern about a Drivers loss of earnings, and RDW agreements, taking priority over addressing why these agreements are even required in the first place.

If the Gov and the TOCs were truly interested in away from Union stranglehold, antiquated working practices, etc. Then maybe,. just maybe, make recruitment part of any agreements and "performance improvements".

 

[Watershed]

It takes two to Tango, why haven't they put the offer to their members?

Well indeed. Such claims should always be treated with the appropriate level of suspicion!

 

[Starmill]

The TPE drivers concerned want their old RDW agreement back. That is unlikely to be offered, due to its (DfT) perceived “generosity”.

Maybe they ought not to have pulled out of the deal then?

I’m not sure I could do it.

Perhaps this is part of the issue. With the best will in the world, a management class which is accustomed to the old franchise regime is very different from the one that exists in most of the rest of the public sector. If employers cannot go into negotiations with a straight face about what is realistic, then I guess no agreement is likely because the union negotiators will see right through them.

I agree, In fact if the Dft are looking to save money why dont they implement an overtime ban throughout the rail industry and tell the operators to just operate what they can without.

We're fairly close to this at some operators already.

 

[Bantamzen]

Because the “offer” is so unappealing that the members would undoubtably reject it.

As a senior rail manager myself, I would be embarrassed to put such an offer forward to the staff or the unions. Despite the contractual requirements in an NRC or ERMA, I’m not sure I could do it.

Get the pay sorted and it will improve. If the productivity measures are required, you do them anyway but linking them to a low increase in pay is beyond stupid.

Isn't that more of reason to put it to the vote? If its so derisory then the members would be able to send a firm message back to the TOCs.

 

[Matt_pool]

A Nova 3 (class 68 and Mk 5's) on 1B85 made it from Cleethorpes to Liverpool yesterday, although the service started in Grimsby for passengers.

Give TPE a round of applause!

 

[matacaster]

I think you’ve missed the point there. Yes, having as many six car trains as possible is hugely preferable. The discussion is about what to do IF you have a six car train and not splitting it would lead to a cancellation.

I’ve already shown, with a real world example, how once a 6 car is split into two threes it can take some time before it’s possible to reform to a 6 car.

Hope that helps.


So in the example that I gave, you would have preferred to cancel either the 0854 Liverpool to Hull or the 0954 Liverpool to Hull? I’m not really clear as to what you are arguing for.

To be honest, I’m largely indifferent, I’m fortunate in that I can walk to work, I only use the train for leisure and long since gave up trusting the train for longer distance journeys.

The whole debate about splitting of Class 185s came about when a poster claimed that TPE should follow the example of Tyne and Wear Metro, whereby the Class 185s would be operated in semi-permanent pairs.

Are you really suggesting that’s a good idea in the current situation and when the Leeds-Huddersfield service currently uses platforms at Leeds and Huddersfield that, as I understand it, wouldn’t accommodate six cars?

Doesn't the Huddersfield to Leeds via Bradford service use platform 4, which I believe is able to take a 6-coach train? However, I think there is also a train which starts from platform 4 going west and 2 X 6-coach certainly wouldn't fit.
Can someone clarify my muddled thinking here please?

Err - sorry this has Been answered already.

 

[Starmill]

Doesn't the Huddersfield to Leeds via Bradford service use platform 4, which I believe is able to take a 6-coach train? However, I think there is also a train which starts from platform 4 going west and 2 X 6-coach certainly wouldn't fit.
Can someone clarify my muddled thinking here please?

Err - sorry this has Been answered already.

The service from Huddersfield to Bradford Interchange (it no longer goes to Leeds) usually does use platform 4 but can use 5 or 6.

I think that the original point being made however was that the Leeds - Huddersfield stopping service and Manchester Piccadilly - Huddersfield stopping service would end up over-length at all three of Manchester Piccadilly, Huddersfield and Leeds, causing platform difficulties that probably cannot be resolved. They could be linked together again as they were in 2019, which would cut out some of the problems but introduce others, and it would still leave the issues at Manchester Piccadilly and Leeds. Neither service is busy enough that three car 185s are a problem.

 

[Clarence Yard]

Isn't that more of reason to put it to the vote? If its so derisory then the members would be able to send a firm message back to the TOCs.

No, because it costs the Union money to do so and hacks off the members as well. They want their union reps to negotiate a deal that they can vote on. You don’t pay your union subs for the union to put any old rubbish to you.

 

[2L70]

A Nova 3 (class 68 and Mk 5's) on 1B85 made it from Cleethorpes to Liverpool yesterday, although the service started in Grimsby for passengers.

Give TPE a round of applause!

There was a platform available (3)
There was a Driver
There was a Guard
Why couldn’t it start from Cleethorpes?

 

[jayah]

Are we ever going to get to the stage when RDW is not required to run the timetable (as opposed to training, sickness cover etc.)?

No.

1. It would need a massive, unfunded increase in headcount to maintain even the post-COVID timetable using the 35hr contracted working week. Alternatively you can have massive and permanent reductions in services.
2. It takes far longer to train someone, than the notice period going the other way.
3. Stock or timetable change invokes hundreds if not thousands of hours of route / traction 'learning' that does not fit in the envelope. This is always going on somewhere.

It is worth noting that it is very unlikely that any rest day working agreement will be reached any time soon. The Secretary of State, Mark Harper, said this on 13 December in a statement to the House:

https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2022-12-13/hcws442

For the record, the old deal was 1.75 time, minimum 10hrs. Using the 35hr contract that is around half a week of extra pay, for each Rest Day worked. Based on their typical salary of £60.8k from Glassdoor, that would be around £580 per day.

Hansard

It also states TPE sought to extend that deal (which would suggest the same terms?), while ASLEF wanted new terms (doesn't explain what).

 

[Bald Rick]

Are we ever going to get to the stage when RDW is not required to run the timetable (as opposed to training, sickness cover etc.)? Is this not a desirable objective? Of course it will mean employing more staff, meaning more members for the unions. I thought it was the TOCs and DfT that was holding that back because of the extra cost.

I think it is more likely than not. Many operators are there already. DfT certainly seem to be happy with it as a principle.

 

[Mcrdvr]

No, because it costs the Union money to do so and hacks off the members as well. They want their union reps to negotiate a deal that they can vote on. You don’t pay your union subs for the union to put any old rubbish to you.

£47 per hour overtime rate isn't any old rubbish. If put to a referendum, imo , it would be an overwhelming yes.

 

[CAF397]

One of my friends has lost £25k (as I said previously), but he is (was) by no means a rest day chaser. Others will have lost more. Then there’s the pay lost through striking as well. He may be in the minority - of course I don’t know whether that is the case or not - but I’m only going by what I see and hear.

You can't 'lose' something that was never there.

Maybe the better term would be not had the opportunity to earn 25k. Rest Day Worked should never be relied upon. I'm sure there are more than a few who are mortgaged up/credited up more than they should be, who are now suffering 12 months on from the RDW ban.

 

[CE142]

You can't 'lose' something that was never there.

Maybe the better term would be not had the opportunity to earn 25k. Rest Day Worked should never be relied upon. I'm sure there are more than a few who are mortgaged up/credited up more than they should be, who are now suffering 12 months on from the RDW ban.

You should never rely on RDW, anyone that does is a fool! Yes the more money you have, you can afford to buy bigger and better things, but to rely on playing those things off with RDW then you are an idiot!

One of the first things I was told millions of years ago when I started, was, don't rely on RDW!

If as mentioned on here they've lost 25k on RDW then they must have been doing every minute of overtime they could, working 12 hours a day for 13 days, with only Sir Anthony Hidden stopping them working even more!
Live to work, don't work to live.

 

[Lewisham2221]

If as mentioned on here they've lost 25k on RDW then they must have been doing every minute of overtime they could, working 12 hours a day for 13 days, with only Sir Anthony Hidden stopping them working even more

Really? Maths isn't your strong point, is it? Why would somebody contracted to earn £50k+ pa for a 35 hour week need to work the same number of hours again, to earn only half the pay???

Given the figures quoted so far in this thread, you'd have to average little more than 1 RDW per week to get an extra £25k, and you wouldn't necessarily have to do a great deal of work on said rest day. Certainly not anywhere near requiring a 12 hour duty and only taking one day off per fortnight