RMT Extends Strike Action on Network Rail to Dec 24-27

[O L Leigh]

OTOH it is entirely possible on a slackly timed 2 car DMU on a branch line...

... but still more time-consuming than a guard doing it.

There are aspects of the task that a guard can do which mitigates the delay on the train. I know many of my colleagues will despatch from the local door by the wheelchair space and not stow the ramp until after despatch is complete. A driver does not have that option and must ensure that everything is done before being able to head back to the cab.

And there isn't adequate slack everywhere.

 

[infobleep]

In Network Rail, it is purely about changing the working arrangements for maintenance staff, and AIUI the dispute is now only about one part of that change. And that change is happening. And, incidentally, it simply brings maintenance staff onto the same arrangements as signallers.

The dispute is not about redundancies (indeed more than twice as many people have applied for redundancy than are needed).

neither is it about pensions (No changes proposed)

nor is it about pay, if you believe the reps. (and many comments on this thread).

When you explain this to people outside maintenance, they are quite clear that they don’t understand why the RMT is in dispute. Many in maintenance don’t either. However the union tells them to vote a certain way, so they do.

Perhaps it's time they understood the issues better.

Last year when I was asked whether to accept a pay offer in the public sector I abstained as whilst I felt a pay rise was deserved, I knew the public sector body I work for would struggle to afford it. It was a national pay bargaining talk.

However, once it was agreed to reject the offer, I then did vote for strike action as I felt I should stick by what others wanted.

As it was there was no strike action and the pay agreement was settled. The right course of action in my opinion.

So staff should have a free mind on these subjects.

 

[bramling]

It's higher than all the major European economies. The UK is the only G7 economy where GDP is shrinking. The whole thing is a complete disaster and Lynch and the rest of the Lexit mob need to take responsibility for getting into bed with the Hard Right and conning working class people into voting to make themselves poorer.

Surely the biggest problem with our economy is that it has been allowed to become way too focussed on services. With a lack of manufacturing base, we have over many years set ourselves up to be very much at the mercy of world events.

 

[CFRAIL]

OTOH it is entirely possible on a slackly timed 2 car DMU on a branch line...

Granted there are variations, but a one size fits all approach won't work.

Doesn't work like that in Melbourne - every train has a wheelchair space at both ends of the train, there are signs on the platform telling wheelchair passengers where to wait (always at the front) - it doesn't take any longer than wheelchair boarding in the UK does using the guard or platform staff.

That may be so, but we're a way off having suitable rolling stock in the UK

 

[LowLevel]

OTOH it is entirely possible on a slackly timed 2 car DMU on a branch line...

Just getting the ramp successfully out of the cupboard on a class 170 can be a several minute task in itself

I always find the irony of such statements being that with the exception of a genuine shuttle like Romford to Upminster the guard will provide the most value on such services.

On suburban trains the stops are such that they're usually demoted to a mobile train dispatcher, dealing with the odd emergency or incident (see Cross City, Birmingham, where the guards are effectively chained to a cab on a 6 car 323). I find this less of an issue on our Worksop services, as the stops are 3-5 minutes apart rather than 90 seconds and I can walk up and down a 170 operating the doors in each coach in turn all day long if I need to. I'll easily take 400 quid in revenue on a round trip, all whilst operating the doors in accordance with our rules. If they were much closer together I'd struggle.

On IC trains you tend to have a full train crew and station staffing.

On rural services you tend to find there are no staff anywhere but on board the train, so you pay for a driver and guard. They inevitably get involved in the full range of nonsense from chasing cows to chopping up trees to the odd fatality, on top of selling tickets, dealing with customers and reporting issues along the way. When something does go wrong, response times are usual crap - I have rarely waited less than an hour for external assistance when stranded, quite often much more than that. I once hit a tree 3 minutes travel time from a major NR maintenance depot and it took 90 minutes for anyone to make it to the train.

I have done the being on a full and standing train with a major problem thing plenty of times and it is very much made easier by there being two members of staff, preferably both knowing what they're doing.

 

[yorksrob]

I would hope rather than line closures we are talking about a temporary removal of passenger services but who knows anymore.

I still can't see how we are in this position. Even with 85% revenue it doesn't take us back to the 80s when we were closing lines. Appreciate costs are up.

And what's betting many of these cuts are in the north!

The Government using the crisis to get a bit of small state ideology past the gullible.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

It's aimed at Christmas engineering work as much as anything. Which has the potential to cause huge disruption to the supply chain.

The supply chain will be locked in by now and cancellation will incur huge penalty charges.

There's no way they are not going to do Victoria relock and Balham/Clapham Jc resignalling thats a huge amount of testing resources allocated so if that goes that has a cascade effect across multiple projects for years ahead. The smaller NR works delivery jobs may get chopped but are generally taking advantage of a big projects block so can more easily be recovered if necessary.

 

[gazzaa2]

The Government using the crisis to get a bit of small state ideology past the gullible.

At least we can afford MP and Lords expenses and 2nd homes.

 

[yorksrob]

Surely the biggest problem with our economy is that it has been allowed to become way too focussed on services. With a lack of manufacturing base, we have over many years set ourselves up to be very much at the mercy of world events.

We're too reliant on imports primarily. The large service sector is fine, however the country needs its own companies producing its own goods and reinvesting its own profits.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Successful for whom though?

Drivers at Southern were given a larger pay rise to compensation for taking full control of the twelve cars and non-BML routes. Former Conductors at Southern were given a payment and a larger rise for becoming OBSs.

There was no meaningful improvement in customer care. Costs rose because additional road-based staff were needed. Reliability may have been a very small benefit - in that trains may now run without OBSs onboard occasionally. But the dispute lasted for so long and caused so much disruption on non-strike days for nearly two years, this will have more than wiped out any gains. In exchange for a service which is more expensive to run and a huge hit to the reputation of the industry?

As a daily Southern/Thameslink user the service is infinitely more reliable than it was when we had guards. The OBS are variable as many just hide but there plenty then deliver customer service and ticket checking especially from Gatwick northbound. Hearing what the OBS's are paid am not sure how its saved anything mind you but the resource is lot more flexible so perhaps the savings come from reduced spare turns across depots.

 

[SussexSeagull]

I still haven't forgotten the claims made by the 2007-2010 government with kitkats, plastic bags, lightbulbs and duck houses.

Point of order. The MP who claimed the Duck House was Peter Viggers who was a Conservative and was never part of government.

 

[Bald Rick]

The Merseyrail proposals are very similar

Not really, guards / conductors will still be involved in closing the doors.

I then did vote for strike action as I felt I should stick by what others wanted.

This is the problem. Why would you vote for something You don’t want but you think others might?

So staff should have a free mind on these subjects.

indeed!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Not really, guards / conductors will still be involved in closing the doors.

They aren't. They simply tap a fob to indicate station duties complete, i.e. they've looked to see if there's a wheelchair user waiting to board (for example). It's a slightly better-designed version of Southern OBSs putting the key in to break the interlock while they check.

 

[Fred26]

In Network Rail, it is purely about changing the working arrangements for maintenance staff, and AIUI the dispute is now only about one part of that change. And that change is happening. And, incidentally, it simply brings maintenance staff onto the same arrangements as signallers.

The dispute is not about redundancies (indeed more than twice as many people have applied for redundancy than are needed).

neither is it about pensions (No changes proposed)

nor is it about pay, if you believe the reps. (and many comments on this thread).

When you explain this to people outside maintenance, they are quite clear that they don’t understand why the RMT is in dispute. Many in maintenance don’t either. However the union tells them to vote a certain way, so they do.

Okay, but that is Network Rail. I don't claim to understand how they work or why, I'm more interested in the TOC side.

Also, your last paragraph is an insult to RMT members. Staff don't just vote to strike willy-nilly and they don't do it just because they're told to. They vote to strike because they don't agree with the direction things are heading.
Not everyone has the same reason(s) either.

 

[HSTEd]

I think it would probably rapidly become cheaper just to stump up for the capital cost of level boarding whole lines than maintaining the second onboard member of train crew if their only purpose was to unstow and stow ramps.

Sure the capital cost of level boarding would be high, but the staffing cost of thousands of train crew, with full cover requirements, is enormous. And the latter cost will continue forever.

 

[Mat17]

OTOH it is entirely possible on a slackly timed 2 car DMU on a branch line...

A DOO class 150, that would be a sight to behold.

 

[yorksrob]

In Network Rail, it is purely about changing the working arrangements for maintenance staff, and AIUI the dispute is now only about one part of that change. And that change is happening. And, incidentally, it simply brings maintenance staff onto the same arrangements as signallers.

The dispute is not about redundancies (indeed more than twice as many people have applied for redundancy than are needed).

neither is it about pensions (No changes proposed)

nor is it about pay, if you believe the reps. (and many comments on this thread).

When you explain this to people outside maintenance, they are quite clear that they don’t understand why the RMT is in dispute. Many in maintenance don’t either. However the union tells them to vote a certain way, so they do.

Is there any more detail about this change to working practices - passengers could judge whether all the disruption is worthwhile for it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

A DOO class 150, that would be a sight to behold.

It's been the norm in Germany for years.

 

[O L Leigh]

I think it would probably rapidly become cheaper just to stump up for the capital cost of level boarding whole lines than maintaining the second onboard member of train crew if their only purpose was to unstow and stow ramps.

Is that their only purpose...?

A DOO class 150, that would be a sight to behold.

A lot of stock that may have never been used for DOO services are capable of being used in that capacity. That something like a Cl150 never has doesn't mean that it can't.

 

[Fred26]

Compulsory redundancy can happen in any organisation. Why are the railways any different ?

Because unions have spent decades negotiating and arguing for good terms and conditions. We shouldn't give that up just because other organisations have it worse.
Other organisations should be fighting to improve their own T&Cs.

 

[HSTEd]

Is that their only purpose...?

In the discussion in this thread, the time delays associated with assisting disabled people on and off the train have been mentioned as a reason for the retention of a second on board staff member.

The reality is, staff are far too expensive to use that as a justification, platform modifications at every platform the train called at would pay back very quickly indeed - especially if you just Harrington Hump many of them.

 

[O L Leigh]

In the discussion in this thread, the time delays associated with assisting disabled people on and off the train have been mentioned as a reason for the retention of a second on board staff member.

But that isn't all they do, as you are well aware. It's not even their primary purpose.

 

[Mag_seven]

Compulsory redundancy can happen in any organisation. Why are the railways any different ?

Because unions have spent decades negotiating and arguing for good terms and conditions. We shouldn't give that up just because other organisations have it worse.
Other organisations should be fighting to improve their own T&Cs.

There have been periods of compulsory redundancies in the railways over the years so its not all sweetness and light.

 

[Bletchleyite]

A lot of stock that may have never been used for DOO services are capable of being used in that capacity. That something like a Cl150 never has doesn't mean that it can't.

It's little more than a double Metrolink tram, which with the old units was just done with wing mirrors. 153s even more so. And a Pacer isn't much more than a bendybus.

There are other reasons not to do it, but it's nothing like the challenge of scanning 24 doors at once on a 12 car on a busy platform.

 

[12C]

A DOO class 150, that would be a sight to behold.

I wouldn’t have thought it would look much different to a DOO class 317/318/319, although admittedly they work on historic DOO arrangements.

 

[HSTEd]

But that isn't all they do, as you are well aware. It's not even their primary purpose.

In a train equipped for DOO, I struggle to see what other purposes they would have that would require a deployment of a staff member on every single train.

 

[O L Leigh]

In a train equipped for DOO, I struggle to see what other purposes they would have that would require a deployment of a staff member on every single train.

Customer service...? Revenue protection...?

 

[HSTEd]

Customer service...? Revenue protection...?

It is unlikely that optimal revenue protection deployments would require at least one staff member on every single train.
It is highly likely that the optimal strategy for deployment of revenue protection resources would be concentrated blocks on a fraction of the services - as is done on busses, trams etc.

As for customer service, I'm not sure what value it actually has.
I might be more savvy than many but I can't think of many customer service interactions I've had with guards any time recently, other than the ticket check (when it occurs).

EDIT:

1985 stations in England with Exit/Entry stats for 19-20 in the ORR stats, totalling ~2.77 billion entries and exists.
2.54 billion (95%) of those occur at 919 locations.
2.49 billion (90%) of those occur at about 660 locations.
Over half happen at 100 stations!

Forgive me if I am skeptical that scattering staff all over the place on trains is a sensible way to protect revenue.

 

[Philip]

Would a 2% rise for the TOCs, but with a no compulsory gurantee and no changes to the T&Cs for 4 years, likely be accepted at this stage?

 

[O L Leigh]

It is unlikely that optimal revenue protection deployments would require at least one staff member on every single train.
It is highly likely that the optimal strategy for deployment of revenue protection resources would be concentrated blocks on a fraction of the services - as is done on busses, trams etc.

As for customer service, I'm not sure what value it actually has.
I might be more savvy than many but I can't think of many customer service interactions I've had with guards any time recently, other than the ticket check (when it occurs).

Well, from what I've been reading, I recommend a trip on a GA regional service and see for yourself.

Whether you consider the case made to your satisfaction or not, you cannot completely remove the second person from the train without there being some negative consequences. Not everyone is as able or savvy as perhaps you are and seem to be more reliant on staff.

The relevance of all this to this thread is that there would be no savings by opting for DOO whilst retaining a second person onboard; indeed, it would be much more costly in the short to medium-term while you made the necessary changes to the rolling stock and infrastructure. This raises the question of whether or not you can really do without them, not only from a railway operational standpoint but also having regard to passenger service.