• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Transpennine woes and a moan...

Status
Not open for further replies.

nedchester

Established Member
Joined
28 May 2008
Messages
2,093
What’s outrageous about it?
£500 for a couple of hours work? Really? Meanwhile outside of the railway bubble you’d be told to s** off for expecting that. There’s certainly a sense of entitlement amongst some rail staff. Time and a half yes but expecting 10 hours regardless of hours worked is outrageous.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Efini92

Established Member
Joined
14 Dec 2016
Messages
1,747
£500 for a couple of hours work? Really? Meanwhile outside of the railway bubble you’d be told to s** off for expecting that. There’s certainly a sense of entitlement amongst some rail staff. Time and a half yes but expecting 10 hours regardless of hours worked is outrageous.
But when you factor in the cost of cancelling the service, it’s by far the lesser of the two. Or it was before the emergency management contracts.
 

nedchester

Established Member
Joined
28 May 2008
Messages
2,093
But when you factor in the cost of cancelling the service, it’s by far the lesser of the two. Or it was before the emergency management contracts.
The agreement was pre-Covid and that expired Dec 21 I think?
 

Bertie the bus

Established Member
Joined
15 Aug 2014
Messages
2,791
But when you factor in the cost of cancelling the service, it’s by far the lesser of the two. Or it was before the emergency management contracts.
Ant that is the crux of the matter. Things have changed. Rail staff who think the good times will continue because they did in the past are kidding themselves. If drivers are waiting for an RDW offer to match the previous one they are going to be waiting a very long time.
 

Confused52

Member
Joined
5 Aug 2018
Messages
258
Ant that is the crux of the matter. Things have changed. Rail staff who think the good times will continue because they did in the past are kidding themselves. If drivers are waiting for an RDW offer to match the previous one they are going to be waiting a very long time.
Indeed that should be self evident given that ERMAs and NRCs are a transition to the proposed GBR Passenger Service Contracts where it is expected that the cost risk will fall on the managing operator and fare risk on the DfT such lucrative deals are surely unlikely ever to return.
 

DoubleO

Member
Joined
30 May 2018
Messages
199
But when you factor in the cost of cancelling the service, it’s by far the lesser of the two. Or it was before the emergency management contracts.
But where do you draw the line? If the service is going to cost thousands to cancel, should the driver be paid £1000? £2000? There comes a point where the amount of money on offer becomes unsustainable and can lead to additional problems that weren't forecast or intended. It was that logic that lead to the cap on bankers bonuses - it was felt that financiers were taking unnecessary risks in order to win huge bonuses.
 

Dieseldriver

Member
Joined
9 Apr 2012
Messages
974
I might be unpopular with other Drivers on here but here goes.
Working a rest day is additional to your normal salaried hours, if a Driver is unhappy with the financial incentives offered, they are perfectly entitled to not work those rest days and stick to their basic salary.
If the rest day rate offered is paid at normal flat rate and Drivers are still volunteering to work their rest days, they have decided that the rate on offer is satisfactory to them.
On the other hand, if the rest day rate offered is paid at normal flat rate but not enough Drivers are volunteering to work their rest days, surely that is a matter for the company to decide whether they should offer additional incentives to entice more Drivers to come in and cover jobs on their rest days?
 

RHolmes

Member
Joined
19 Jul 2019
Messages
566
Any rest day agreement (unless extremely lucrative) will not be agreed to until a serious pay offer is offered and agreed by the members.

RDW being pulled is the strongest string in the ASLEF bow at the moment, without having to take strike action to the levels of RMT
 

Efini92

Established Member
Joined
14 Dec 2016
Messages
1,747
But where do you draw the line? If the service is going to cost thousands to cancel, should the driver be paid £1000? £2000? There comes a point where the amount of money on offer becomes unsustainable and can lead to additional problems that weren't forecast or intended. It was that logic that lead to the cap on bankers bonuses - it was felt that financiers were taking unnecessary risks in order to win huge bonuses.
From a business sense whichever is cheapest. I’d rather pay a driver £500 instead of paying out £1000 or whatever is the fee for cancelling the train.
It was a massive shock when it was agreed, but desperate times called for desperate measures. It’s unlikely we’ll ever see anything that lucrative again.
Indeed that should be self evident given that ERMAs and NRCs are a transition to the proposed GBR Passenger Service Contracts where it is expected that the cost risk will fall on the managing operator and fare risk on the DfT such lucrative deals are surely unlikely ever to return.
The downside to those is there’s no penalty for cancelling trains, so you end up with mass cancellations.
 

Efini92

Established Member
Joined
14 Dec 2016
Messages
1,747
Any rest day agreement (unless extremely lucrative) will not be agreed to until a serious pay offer is offered and agreed by the members.

RDW being pulled is the strongest string in the ASLEF bow at the moment, without having to take strike action to the levels of RMT
It doesn’t have the same affect anymore. All that happens is they run reduced timetables.
 

nedchester

Established Member
Joined
28 May 2008
Messages
2,093
I might be unpopular with other Drivers on here but here goes.
Working a rest day is additional to your normal salaried hours, if a Driver is unhappy with the financial incentives offered, they are perfectly entitled to not work those rest days and stick to their basic salary.
If the rest day rate offered is paid at normal flat rate and Drivers are still volunteering to work their rest days, they have decided that the rate on offer is satisfactory to them.
On the other hand, if the rest day rate offered is paid at normal flat rate but not enough Drivers are volunteering to work their rest days, surely that is a matter for the company to decide whether they should offer additional incentives to entice more Drivers to come in and cover jobs on their rest days?
The solution to this is of course to employ enough drivers to reduce the need for RDW or at least the regular use of it.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,214
Any rest day agreement (unless extremely lucrative) will not be agreed to until a serious pay offer is offered and agreed by the members.

I know this is happening, but this seems to be “cutting your nose off to spite your face”

Or put another way “we’re really cross at not getting paid more money, so we’ll show them, by not earning extra money”

RDW being pulled is the strongest string in the ASLEF bow at the moment,

Not any more.


The solution to this is of course to employ enough drivers to reduce the need for RDW or at least the regular use of it.

To employ enough drivers not to need RDW for the service specified. There‘s two ways to do that, of course.
 

RHolmes

Member
Joined
19 Jul 2019
Messages
566
Preston drivers do sign 802’s they trained for around a year on them during the Covid pandemic
Indeed they do, but the post I was replying to was specifically about Manchester crew
 
Last edited:

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,214
TPE have had no Rest Day Working for the best part of a year. What effect has that had on the pay deal, or any other matters of dispute?
 

alistairlees

Established Member
Joined
29 Dec 2016
Messages
3,737
TPE today: the first train from Leeds to Manchester (Victoria) at 11.00 was a 3-car 185 from Hull (dep 10.00) to Liverpool Lime Street. The next alternative was 45 minutes later and quite a few later services were cancelled.

I caught this first service at Selby (dep 10.32) and it was already full and standing from there. From Leeds it was carrying at least double the number of passengers (compared to seats) and it was difficult to board. Boarding at Huddersfield and Stalybridge was clearly impossible for some people who were left behind and the loading must have been over 200%. Over three quarters of people got off at Manchester Victoria, where we had arrived 8 minutes late.

I then caught the 12.24 TPE service from Manchester Victoria to Liverpool LS (but only as far as Newton-le-Willows). Although this arrived in the platform at 12.09, it was left idling but locked and not opened for passenger use until about 12.20 - there were about 30 people waiting on the platform.

Finally caught a TfW service from Newton-le-Willows to Warrington Bank Quay. This was about a third full.

In general this journey would have been fine (if stilll crowded and with people standing from Huddersfield to Manchester) if the 10.32 Hull to Liverpool (the first train for 2.5 days) had been a six-car 185.

I expect about 200+ people are not going to try rail travel again anytime soon. And they are going to tell at least the same amount of people about how difficult / poor it all was.

Later trains from Leeds to Manchester really fared even worse though, at least in so far as cancellations went:

11.00 - ran (8 minutes late at Manchester V)
11.45 - ran (2 minutes late at Manchester V)
12.00 - ran (35 minutes late at Manchester V)
12.30- cancelled
12.45 - cancelled
13.30 - ran (expected 70 minutes late at Manchester V)
13.45 - ran (expected 60 minutes late at Manchester V)
13.59 - ran (only 17 minutes late at Manchester V!)

So a 90 minute gap roughly in departures from Leeds to Manchester.
 

SuperNova

Member
Joined
12 Dec 2019
Messages
959
Location
The North
TPE today: the first train from Leeds to Manchester (Victoria) at 11.00 was a 3-car 185 from Hull (dep 10.00) to Liverpool Lime Street. The next alternative was 45 minutes later and quite a few later services were cancelled.

I caught this first service at Selby (dep 10.32) and it was already full and standing from there. From Leeds it was carrying at least double the number of passengers (compared to seats) and it was difficult to board. Boarding at Huddersfield and Stalybridge was clearly impossible for some people who were left behind and the loading must have been over 200%. Over three quarters of people got off at Manchester Victoria, where we had arrived 8 minutes late.

I then caught the 12.24 TPE service from Manchester Victoria to Liverpool LS (but only as far as Newton-le-Willows). Although this arrived in the platform at 12.09, it was left idling but locked and not opened for passenger use until about 12.20 - there were about 30 people waiting on the platform.

Finally caught a TfW service from Newton-le-Willows to Warrington Bank Quay. This was about a third full.

In general this journey would have been fine (if stilll crowded and with people standing from Huddersfield to Manchester) if the 10.32 Hull to Liverpool (the first train for 2.5 days) had been a six-car 185.

I expect about 200+ people are not going to try rail travel again anytime soon. And they are going to tell at least the same amount of people about how difficult / poor it all was.

Later trains from Leeds to Manchester really fared even worse though, at least in so far as cancellations went:

11.00 - ran (8 minutes late at Manchester V)
11.45 - ran (2 minutes late at Manchester V)
12.00 - ran (35 minutes late at Manchester V)
12.30- cancelled
12.45 - cancelled
13.30 - ran (expected 70 minutes late at Manchester V)
13.45 - ran (expected 60 minutes late at Manchester V)
13.59 - ran (only 17 minutes late at Manchester V!)

So a 90 minute gap roughly in departures from Leeds to Manchester.
TPE don't have access to Leeman Road in York whilst the track upgrades are going on. Therefore are limited on what 185s were available from Ardwick and what was left overnight at Hull/Cleethorpes.
 

800001

Established Member
Joined
24 Oct 2015
Messages
3,577
TPE don't have access to Leeman Road in York whilst the track upgrades are going on. Therefore are limited on what 185s were available from Ardwick and what was left overnight at Hull/Cleethorpes.
Thought they have limited access from 29th?
 

VauxhallNova

Member
Joined
15 Jan 2021
Messages
186
Location
UK
TPE don't have access to Leeman Road in York whilst the track upgrades are going on. Therefore are limited on what 185s were available from Ardwick and what was left overnight at Hull/Cleethorpes.
That sounds like really good management; presumably by the DfT.
 

VauxhallNova

Member
Joined
15 Jan 2021
Messages
186
Location
UK
Presumably there was a compelling reason for not temporarily stabling at an alternative location which a layperson might perceive to be a less insane option?

Once all these issues to manage are out of the way, people will see just how good this management team are.
 

VauxhallNova

Member
Joined
15 Jan 2021
Messages
186
Location
UK
I'd probably suggest just cancelling a shedload of trains after running a 3 car first thing, then another 3 car, then some more cancellations.
 

alistairlees

Established Member
Joined
29 Dec 2016
Messages
3,737
TPE don't have access to Leeman Road in York whilst the track upgrades are going on. Therefore are limited on what 185s were available from Ardwick and what was left overnight at Hull/Cleethorpes.
A six-car set should have been left at Hull, then?

How do you propose infrastructure is ever maintained/renewed in the vicinity of depots?
No-one is suggesting that it shouldn't be maintained.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top