Temporary Timetable 13th Dec - 7th Jan

[Deepgreen]

Yes, cause for hope !

The Avanti strike was only a very small part of the overall situation, but let's hope it's a sign of progress more widely.

 

[Benjwri]

Of course there will be some loses but given its only a minority of the population that use the train anyhow there's plenty more people to seduce in future and given the scale of off peak travel that has occurred post covid despite all the nonsense pedalled about travelling on public transport i believe you will find it will be short lived.

However it’s all about trust. We are entering a post Covid time when the industry should be trying to get good press so people consider using it.
It may be easy to bring some business passengers back, since they don’t wed to trust the network, but after these strikes, where we’ve learnt plans can be shattered by strikes given at 14 days notice, I wouldn’t plan to use the railway if I needed to be somewhere for a certain day, say a holiday.

 

[Deepgreen]

Information from https://www.gwr.com/strike
extract: "Train services could also be disrupted from 18 December 2022 to 2 January 2023 as Network Rail may only be able to provide a reduced window of operation. This means a reduced timetable would be in operation, with train services not starting until 07:30 and all journeys being completed before 18:30"

I have just followed your link and there is no mention of any service window times there.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I am afraid so. Furthermore, if someone has bought a car just to evade the disruption, they are not going to waste money on train tickets one things get better unless they can sell that car. Once the car has reached the end of its life I fear the train service will have shrunk due to lack of demand so be no longer an option.

I remember the death throws throes of the coal mining industry. Is it really getting that bad again ?.

That's just not true. Most rail passengers own cars. Many even use them to drive to the station. It's not like buses where most passengers don't own cars.

 

[philosopher]

While a few people like yourselves who don't own a car may buy one, most people do own a car, so returning to the railway in better times isn't a big step.

I think if you do buy a car, once over the honeymoon period, you too won't be utterly obsessed with its use.

For me I really can’t stand driving, so it would take a lot for me to end up buying a car. I probably would not buy one unless 75%+ of the railway network was permanently shut down, which is almost certainly never going to happen.

So with these strikes I will just end up finding a way round them rather than switching to using car. I don’t think I would hire a car unless there was a journey I had to make on a particular day that was impacted by the strikes.

I suspect most of those who are driven (excuse the pun) to buy a car because of the railway’s recent woes were probably thinking of doing so before these issues.

 

[InkyScrolls]

Pedant time. This should be "pedant".

Granted!

 

[Peter Sarf]

That's just not true. Most rail passengers own cars. Many even use them to drive to the station. It's not like buses where most passengers don't own cars.

I agree but is it a significant enough number to effect the economics of a service - that is the risk. And your right to say bus users are more likely to not have a car than rail users.

 

[Parjon]

That's just not true. Most rail passengers own cars.

Source?

 

[Jonny]

Trying to bait the government into the fight many of the ministers want is not going to do the economy, government, unions, or railway any good at all. And losing out worst of all will be the ordinary people, who'll have to pick up the tab one way or another.

Two questions arise from an overtime ban and its effects, the answers would surface soon enough.

• Could many of the striking staff even afford to carry on the dispute at that rate?
• Would it be much easier to get a minimum service requirement law through Parliament if there is significant disruption?

The Unions need to be very careful on the first point because loss of overtime pay may be a hit on top of losing strike day pay, aided and abetted by inflation. On the second point, it could well bite them on the proverbial backside.

 

[bramling]

Two questions arise from an overtime ban and its effects, the answers would surface soon enough.

• Could many of the striking staff even afford to carry on the dispute at that rate?
• Would it be much easier to get a minimum service requirement law through Parliament if there is significant disruption?

The Unions need to be very careful on the first point because loss of overtime pay may be a hit on top of losing strike day pay, aided and abetted by inflation. On the second point, it could well bite them on the proverbial backside.

I don’t see how an overtime ban has much effect on what punitive measures the government may want to implement. If staff don’t want to do overtime then (other than in the very small number of instances where something is contractual) they don’t have to do it.

Not everyone works overtime in any case, there’s a subset of “I don’t do overtime” people, and a subset of “I don’t really do overtime, but if the depot is desperate then I don’t mind helping out once in a while” people.

 

[zwk500]

Two questions arise from an overtime ban and its effects, the answers would surface soon enough.

• Could many of the striking staff even afford to carry on the dispute at that rate?
• Would it be much easier to get a minimum service requirement law through Parliament if there is significant disruption?

The Unions need to be very careful on the first point because loss of overtime pay may be a hit on top of losing strike day pay, aided and abetted by inflation. On the second point, it could well bite them on the proverbial backside.

The second point is happening anyway, as long as the current government don't get forced into an early election. They've already said so. The first point is the key question.

 

[Deepgreen]

So, to come back to the question of the supposed temporary timetable/service window that was quoted up-thread. I have yet to see a blanket window of 0600-1800 or thereabouts quoted anywhere official, only talk of shortened service days on strike days and days following them.

 

[43066]

Not everyone works overtime in any case, there’s a subset of “I don’t do overtime” people, and a subset of “I don’t really do overtime, but if the depot is desperate then I don’t mind helping out once in a while” people.

Certainly also subsets of “I do lots of overtime”, and “I work every hour God sends”.

Some must be somewhat dependent on it, or at least very used to it, because they essentially almost double their basic salary, and have sustained this for years on end. They are a small minority, however (probably a handful of individuals in each depot in my experience). Of the drivers I know I’d be staggered if anyone would continue to work overtime in defiance of a rest day ban. If anything there has been a distinct attitude of “work it now while it’s there”.

 

[Goldfish62]

So, to come back to the question of the supposed temporary timetable/service window that was quoted up-thread. I have yet to see a blanket window of 0600-1800 or thereabouts quoted anywhere official, only talk of shortened service days on strike days and days following them.

Earlier in this thread it was mentioned that 5th December is apparently the deadline for acceptance of whatever is being put forward, so I assume all are holding back for that.

 

[DailyCommuter]

So, to come back to the question of the supposed temporary timetable/service window that was quoted up-thread. I have yet to see a blanket window of 0600-1800 or thereabouts quoted anywhere official, only talk of shortened service days on strike days and days following them.

The GWR website (https://www.gwr.com/strike) had the following earlier this afternoon, but it's been removed since:

"Train services could also be disrupted from 18 December 2022 to 2 January 2023 as Network Rail may only be able to provide a reduced window of operation. This means a reduced timetable would be in operation, with train services not starting until 07:30 and all journeys being completed before 18:30."

 

[Baxenden Bank]

The GWR website (https://www.gwr.com/strike) had the following earlier this afternoon, but it's been removed since:

"Train services could also be disrupted from 18 December 2022 to 2 January 2023 as Network Rail may only be able to provide a reduced window of operation. This means a reduced timetable would be in operation, with train services not starting until 07:30 and all journeys being completed before 18:30."

18 December to 2 January also being a rather shorter period than the 13th December - 7th January mentioned at #1.

 

[brick60000]

18 December to 2 January also being a rather shorter period than the 13th December - 7th January mentioned at #1.

Probably because 18th Dec-2nd Jan is the period of the OT ban, whereas the 13th-17th & 3rd-7th are affected by default by the strike action, I would imagine

 

[Ex-controller]

If the reports are correct, presumably yes, because all NR signallers will be involved. But I do find it hard to understand why an overtime ban would have such devastating consequences; Trains between 0600 and 1800 only for nearly four weeks, and some lines with no trains at all? Of course, overtime is necessary, for reasons both within and outwith the railway's control, but surely not to this extent? But if the reports are true, this is just another nail in the railway's coffin.

It could be argued that doing this provides some certainty, as it wil be far easier to roster based the amount of staff that will definitely be available. However that is likely a big stretch and if was anywhere close to being true would suggest that the railway was ridiculously over reliant on overtime. I think what’s more likely is that avoid uncertainty on when signal boxes or signalling centres may close, they’re consolidating on when/where they can absolutely guarantee the service to run, but are probably being very, very conservative by reducing the service to the hours mentioned.

There’s been times during these waves of strikes where I’ve suspected management at various companies, whether NR, ScotRail or elsewhere, have tended to have a scorched earth approach to the consequences here, and this proposal, if it is true (and it sounds more and more likely), just adds weight to that.

 

[Falcon1200]

However that is likely a big stretch and if was anywhere close to being true would suggest that the railway was ridiculously over reliant on overtime.

I agree, as earlier the railway has always needed overtime work to keep it going, but not to the extent leading to the drastic reductions being discussed here.

I think what’s more likely is that avoid uncertainty on when signal boxes or signalling centres may close, they’re consolidating on when/where they can absolutely guarantee the service to run, but are probably being very, very conservative by reducing the service to the hours mentioned.

The whole 0600-1800 thing seems very strange. No matter how short of staff NR are, Signallers have rosters which should not and cannot be changed at the drop of a hat, so there will surely be staff on duty throughout each 24 hours (except during the strike days of course), albeit not the full complement. Which does make things difficult if there are insufficient people to staff every panel or workstation, but I can't see Signalling Centres shutting down every night! Smaller boxes are a different matter, however, keeping the G&SW going for example could be interesting.

There’s been times during these waves of strikes where I’ve suspected management at various companies, whether NR, ScotRail or elsewhere, have tended to have a scorched earth approach to the consequences here, and this proposal, if it is true (and it sounds more and more likely), just adds weight to that.

That is a distinct, and worrying, possibility of course.

 

[station_road]

18 December to 2 January also being a rather shorter period than the 13th December - 7th January mentioned at #1.

That page on the GWR website also says

On strike days (13/14 and 16/17 December; 3/4 and 6/7 January), only an extremely reduced service will operate on a limited number of routes. Some parts of the GWR network will have no service at all.

 

[YorkshireBear]

How has it come to this. Laughable and pathetic. Typical of the UK today, nobody to take accountability of it just everyone arguing in the press.

 

[Dave91131]

Laughable and pathetic.

Perfect description of the UK's railway.

 

[Goldfish62]

There’s been times during these waves of strikes where I’ve suspected management at various companies, whether NR, ScotRail or elsewhere, have tended to have a scorched earth approach to the consequences here, and this proposal, if it is true (and it sounds more and more likely), just adds weight to that.

It might be pure wibble but my railway operational friends, who have themselves been taking strike action, think this sort of thing is a deliberate ploy by the companies and the DfT to make the disruption worse than it need be to try to get public sympathy to turn against the RMT.

 

[sammyg901]

Chiltern now have this on their site but very vague


"Between 13 December - 8 January services will be affected, including late start and early finish of services".

 

[The Planner]

Chiltern now have this on their site but very vague


"Between 13 December - 8 January services will be affected, including late start and early finish of services".

Don't expect anything north of Banbury is what I would suggest.

 

[Huntergreed]

Another concern this has (for me at least) is a huge increase in road traffic. I understand that in the south east congestion is often very severe, and I’m sure this will just worsen that significantly if it goes ahead. If I ever have to drive to Uni (which I often do as the train gets cancelled) then it often takes me an extra hour during morning rush hour, if all trains are severely reduced this could further worsen.

When exactly would this be advised to the public? They’re cutting it fine if they plan to introduce it in 10 days, for the sake of the public who need to know so they can plan their commute and Christmas travel plans.

 

[yorksrob]

The news media need to stop sitting on their hands and start warning the public

 

[sammyg901]

Don't expect anything north of Banbury is what I would suggest

Yes that is what I thought, the strike timetable throughout perhaps

 

[Peter Sarf]

It might be pure wibble but my railway operational friends, who have themselves been taking strike action, think this sort of thing is a deliberate ploy by the companies and the DfT to make the disruption worse than it need be to try to get public sympathy to turn against the RMT.

From talking to friends and relatives (you know - the outside world) I get the impression that the majority really don't care. None of those use trains and so will only view it as more road traffic vs less tax spent on trains if they even bother to think about it. To them the railways are irrelevant. In fact one said just get rid of the railways (they know I am pro rail). My view is this is bad for rail and whether Government or Unions get blamed is largely irrelevant as most people do not care.

 

[DDB]

It might be pure wibble but my railway operational friends, who have themselves been taking strike action, think this sort of thing is a deliberate ploy by the companies and the DfT to make the disruption worse than it need be to try to get public sympathy to turn against the RMT.

EMR sometimes cancel pre existing rail replacement buses on strike days for no apparent reason. I get that buses don't exist to replace trains that are missing due to strikes but these buses were already booked and staffed as they run everyday anyway yet are still cancelled.