On weekdays: 1M83, 1S56, 1M91, 1S88Under which headcodes do 802s find themselves there on a daily basis in the WTT?
On Saturdays: 1M81, 1S46, 1M89, 1S83
On weekdays: 1M83, 1S56, 1M91, 1S88Under which headcodes do 802s find themselves there on a daily basis in the WTT?
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.
Of course, the Minister's definition of "generous" might well differ from other people's definitions of the word...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:
Oh yes, without doubt.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?Of course, the Minister's definition of "generous" might well differ from other people's definitions of the word...
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.
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.
Until a pay offer is agreed I can't see any unions agreeing to RDW.
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.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.
One of my friends has lost £25k (as I said previously), but he is (was) by no means a rest day chaser.
Well indeed. Such claims should always be treated with the appropriate level of suspicion!It takes two to Tango, why haven't they put the offer to their members?
Maybe they ought not to have pulled out of the deal then?The TPE drivers concerned want their old RDW agreement back. That is unlikely to be offered, due to its (DfT) perceived “generosity”.
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’m not sure I could do it.
We're fairly close to this at some operators already.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.
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.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.
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?
The service from Huddersfield to Bradford Interchange (it no longer goes to Leeds) usually does use platform 4 but can use 5 or 6.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.
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.
There was a platform available (3)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!
No.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.)?
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.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:
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.
£47 per hour overtime rate isn't any old rubbish. If put to a referendum, imo , it would be an overwhelming yes.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.
You can't 'lose' something that was never there.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 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!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.
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???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