What Railway Subject Have You Changed Your Mind About In 2020?

[Bald Rick]

Not true. You can do redundancy by performance. Possibly not by sickness (I'm not sure) but certainly you can do it by e.g. the number of formal disciplinaries or similar.

The only thing you have to ensure is that the criteria are objective and measurable so you can prove no bias.

Maybe so, but the long standing agreements between railway employers and unions (known as Promotion, Transfer, Redundancy and Resettlement, PTR&R, dating from 1961 IIRC) have redundancy on the basis of seniority in grade, and then on the next grade down. This is the default arrangements unless you can agree something different, of course.

I had a huge argument with the RMT about this years ago when a few dozen roles were disappearing. If you apply PTR&R rigidly, the people made redundant will be those who have joined most recently in the lower grades. (People without jobs in higher grades can drop a grade and effectively kick out another colleague). My proposal to the RMT was that a responsible employer (me) should talk to the employees first to find out what they wanted in the circumstances. It was my view that many of the more senior colleagues would want to take redundancy, whereas the more recent recruits (who were almost exclusively much younger) would want to stay to build their careers.

I’m sorry to say that the RMT refused at first, pushed by the full time reps, because ‘they wouldn’t be doing the right thing by their members by not applying the rules’. I said that the rules said we could agree different rules, and that was what I was asking them to do. Otherwise, we would be in the position where lots of bright young people with their careers in front of them would be shown the door, and lots of time served colleagues who wanted to leave would be made to stay. I suggested that the RMT go and speak to a few of those affected to get their views. Ie everyone would be unhappy. I may even have said “are you seriously suggesting that we do precisely the opposite of what most of our colleagues, and the people you represent want, to comply with an agreement that was drawn up over 50 years ago”

About 2 months later, and after much gnashing off teeth from the RMT, we agreed my proposal, and everyone got what they wanted.

 

[cuccir]

I thought Privatisation was A Bad Thing when it happened in the 1990s but have learned to accept that its not the "ownership" that matters, it's the funding, the guarantees - the Austerity years under David Cameron made it harder to believe in Nationalisation (since that'd mean the railway was at the mercy of the same cuts that other public services faced - at least privatisation meant that franchises guaranteed certain services for the medium term).

Very much in the same position. No longer bothered by technicalities of who owns it and more worried about if money is well spent, and whether profits are being extracted by people adding value or not.

 

[Jozhua]

HS2, I was tepidly for it before 2020, but now I'm very much pro-HS2. Understanding the massive positives it will have towards the existing network and how fantastic it will be to use the new network. Also understanding that HS2 will essentially replace the existing express services, not be marketed as a "premium" product and those paths will be used for local/regional trains. (At least I believe so.)

Electrification, it was obviously a good thing and a rolling programme was obviously ready, but actually realising it should be expanded to more than just the remaining mainlines, for some more rural/commuter routes too.

Metro systems for Manchester, Birmingham and Leeds!
There are smaller European cities with multiple metro lines, on top of tram systems. Cities like Manchester have a huge population and one that is growing particularly in areas like the city centre and central suburbs. Money isn't as much of an issue as we think in regards to it, as many other countries have spent significantly more on their transportation infrastructure. Trams are great, but they can only get us so far!

So basically, I've watched Gareth Dennis

 

[alxndr]

I've softened towards axle counters. Initially I was a big skeptic, but I can't deny that they do work well the vast majority of the time.

 

[theageofthetra]

Maybe so, but the long standing agreements between railway employers and unions (known as Promotion, Transfer, Redundancy and Resettlement, PTR&R, dating from 1961 IIRC) have redundancy on the basis of seniority in grade, and then on the next grade down. This is the default arrangements unless you can agree something different, of course.

I had a huge argument with the RMT about this years ago when a few dozen roles were disappearing. If you apply PTR&R rigidly, the people made redundant will be those who have joined most recently in the lower grades. (People without jobs in higher grades can drop a grade and effectively kick out another colleague). My proposal to the RMT was that a responsible employer (me) should talk to the employees first to find out what they wanted in the circumstances. It was my view that many of the more senior colleagues would want to take redundancy, whereas the more recent recruits (who were almost exclusively much younger) would want to stay to build their careers.

I’m sorry to say that the RMT refused at first, pushed by the full time reps, because ‘they wouldn’t be doing the right thing by their members by not applying the rules’. I said that the rules said we could agree different rules, and that was what I was asking them to do. Otherwise, we wouldn’t be in the position where lots of bright young people with their careers in front of them would be shown the door, and lots of time served colleagues who wanted to leave would be made to stay. I suggested that the RMT go and speak to a few of those affected to get their views. Ie everyone would be unhappy. I may even have said “are you seriously suggesting that we do precisely the opposite of what most of our colleagues, and the people you represent want, to comply with an agreement that was drawn up over 50 years ago”

About 2 months later, and after much gnashing off teeth from the RMT, we agreed my proposal, and everyone got what they wanted.

Very interesting, what a ridiculous situation.

 

[squizzler]

I am less sceptical about short bi-mode trains purchased in particular for GWR and ECML (not that I had the outright hostility to the concept that many on this forum had). I think passengers will have an increased preference for single seat journeys from point to point rather than changing from a mainline electric to shuttle trains to access the branches. It's more hygienic - there are fewer things to touch or people to pass if you eliminate changes. I also think this stock will suit future traffic patterns which in general are likely to be more distributed over the network than everything being anchored in London like previously.

 

[big_rig]

I think it’s interesting that views on bi-modes have softened, and would definitely put myself in the same camp now after having been very strongly against them previously.

I would say my view on Crossrail 2 being inevitable following the completion of Crossrail 1 has also certainly changed significantly!

 

[alangla]

Definitely softened my views on bi-modes though I do worry that they’ll be used as a means to avoid more electrification.
I’ve pivoted from the electrification and expansion plans in Scotland seeming largely sensible to verging on money wasting bonkers. I’m not convinced the Levenmouth branch is any way sensible, the talk of electrification from Alloa to Dunfermline is idiotic but no-one seems prepared to grasp the real nettles of the Forth bridge & the various single track bottlenecks around Glasgow. Money will probably evaporate over the next few years, so wasteful projects won’t help persuade government to spend more.

 

[oxfordray1]

Pacers. I used to think there were just a bit of a relic but basically fine. This was because even though I live in Greater Manchester, I only used pacers at weekends as I commuted by tram. I even used to view them as a nice curiosity. However travelling on a 195 on the Hope Valley Line has shown me how wrong I was. Now I realise by the end they were truly dreadful.

 

[Horizon22]

Very much believed we should be replacing older stock with new stock at a fairly fast rate. However, having seen how bad some unit introductions have gone and inevitable teething problems in some routes which have not actually bettered the experience better for passengers, I'm now much more wary of this and open to discussions on a refurb well done rather than a fleet replacement.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

I was (initially) very skeptical about obstacle detection at level crossings but not having heard about one catastrophic collision has convinced me that they are safe

I used to chuckle hearing about the requirement of track workers having to clean the LiDAR sensors with baby wipes (or whatever) and thinking that would never happen in a million years - but I understand few, if any of these were actually needed in the end?

 

[swt_passenger]

I was (initially) very skeptical about obstacle detection at level crossings but not having heard about one catastrophic collision has convinced me that they are safe

I used to chuckle hearing about the requirement of track workers having to clean the LiDAR sensors with baby wipes (or whatever) and thinking that would never happen in a million years - but I understand few, if any of these were actually needed in the end?

Weren’t the original sensors open to the elements, and road dirt, but subsequently redesigned so they’re shielded except while operating?

 

[43066]

Maybe so, but the long standing agreements between railway employers and unions (known as Promotion, Transfer, Redundancy and Resettlement, PTR&R, dating from 1961 IIRC) have redundancy on the basis of seniority in grade, and then on the next grade down. This is the default arrangements unless you can agree something different, of course.

I had a huge argument with the RMT about this years ago when a few dozen roles were disappearing. If you apply PTR&R rigidly, the people made redundant will be those who have joined most recently in the lower grades. (People without jobs in higher grades can drop a grade and effectively kick out another colleague). My proposal to the RMT was that a responsible employer (me) should talk to the employees first to find out what they wanted in the circumstances. It was my view that many of the more senior colleagues would want to take redundancy, whereas the more recent recruits (who were almost exclusively much younger) would want to stay to build their careers.

I’m sorry to say that the RMT refused at first, pushed by the full time reps, because ‘they wouldn’t be doing the right thing by their members by not applying the rules’. I said that the rules said we could agree different rules, and that was what I was asking them to do. Otherwise, we would be in the position where lots of bright young people with their careers in front of them would be shown the door, and lots of time served colleagues who wanted to leave would be made to stay. I suggested that the RMT go and speak to a few of those affected to get their views. Ie everyone would be unhappy. I may even have said “are you seriously suggesting that we do precisely the opposite of what most of our colleagues, and the people you represent want, to comply with an agreement that was drawn up over 50 years ago”

About 2 months later, and after much gnashing off teeth from the RMT, we agreed my proposal, and everyone got what they wanted.

I imagine that was quite a few years ago?

That sounds highly problematic these days as “last in first out”, on its own, is indirectly age discriminatory and would need to be objectively justified. Selection for redundancy is supposed to be done across objective factors such as performance, disciplinary records etc. Even sickness absence is a bit of a minefield if it pertains to absence due to conditions which are disabilities - although it would be difficult for anyone to argue they if they’d phoned in multiple times with “the flu” etc.

The difficulties of implementing LIFO were discussed extensively in relation to various airlines on PPRUNE, recently, with pilots and cabin having a similar “seniority“ structure to railstaff.

 

[DorkingMain]

This seems to be a very interesting thread. So what have I changed my mind on?

• I started reading this forum after stumbling across it when I was so p***ed off with my experience of engaging with some very unhelpful staff at Euston and when I eventually got to Manchester, there were multiple cancellations and then enduring a packed pacer train from P13. My impression of the rail industry was of a cumbersome, unwillinging, unbending, a poor attitude towards passengers, frontline staff that are simply not up for the job of engaging with the public and care very little. My attitude in 2020 has changed on that score. All of the above still applied to a section of the public facing industry, but at the same time there are scores of people who appear to be commercially dynamic and hold a positive attitude towards passengers. It’s a half-way change.

I think the problem is that everyone has a patience threshold. Some people (like myself) have an incredibly high patience threshold and it would take something spectacularly awful to grind it down. Others probably don't so much, not through any particular fault of theirs but just because after getting snapped at by 100s - 1000s of passengers a day you start to just give up.

Everyone's working with pressure they can't control, either from their management or external factors. That comes across as not caring but realistically it's just because you can't work at the limit constantly and not burn out. On a good day, the railway is the easiest place to work in the world. On a bad day, it feels like the worst.

 

[squizzler]

I am now strongly against any railway equipment produced in China being allowed onto the UK network: not signalling, not trains, nothing; not until such time as the current dictatorship there is overthrown.

 

[Robertj21a]

I am now strongly against any railway equipment produced in China being allowed onto the UK network: not signalling, not trains, nothing; not until such time as the current dictatorship there is overthrown.

?? - so never then ?

 

[squizzler]

No, I have nothing against the Chinese themselves, but CRRC should not be allowed to provide so much as a nut or bolt to Britain's network - let alone safety critical signalling or similar - till Xi Jinping's regime is overthrown. China has gone backwards since he came into power and we would be doing them a favour by supporting them in disposing him.

 

[Speed43125]

I suppose I would say I've come to terms a lot with the idea that tilt is pretty much a dead-end technology in the UK, and we're going to be be continuing only with legacy stock medium term (390s), and then move away.

No, I have nothing against the Chinese themselves, but CRRC should not be allowed to provide so much as a nut or bolt to Britain's network - let alone safety critical signalling or similar - till Xi Jinping's regime is overthrown. China has gone backwards since he came into power and we would be doing them a favour by supporting them in disposing him.

I would generaly agree, though that may be a more general sentiment, rather than directly railway related, at least personally.

 

[hexagon789]

I would say it was the year I completely altered my opinion/feelings on the system of railway privitisation in use in GB and also that I became less solid in my general support it privitisation over nationalisation as the model of operation/ownership of Britain's railways.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I think it’s interesting that views on bi-modes have softened, and would definitely put myself in the same camp now after having been very strongly against them previously.

I would say my view on Crossrail 2 being inevitable following the completion of Crossrail 1 has also certainly changed significantly!

I think much of the early aversion to bi-modes was borne out of a fear that they'd be used as an excuse to not invest in electrification. So far the lack of any functional bi-modes away from the IET and 755s has meant that hasn't transpired away from MML and areas of the GWML, but with a government that knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing it is still a concern.

 

[scosutsut]

Pre COVID I was utterly unshakable in my thinking that driving to the local park and ride and getting the train to work every day was my only real commute option.

Now I can see office working no more than once a week on average and the commute will be done on two wheels in fairer weather (having got fitter to make that possible) or on the local express bus service as end to end it only takes about 5 minutes longer which is nothing in terms of the financial saving.

 

[Rhydgaled]

"When the fact change, I change my mind. What do you do, Sir?"

(intended as a thread to be honest about the things you've revised your opinions of, rather than a thread to argue about things)

Covid seems to have entrenched a lot of people in the views they already had.

Have you changed your mind about things? Or are you confident that what you believed twenty years ago is still valid?

I'm very much in the 'entrenched views' camp although I wouldn't say COVID-19 has entrenched them; they were entrenched already and COVID-19 hasn't changed that. Even my ambivalence towards HS2 hasn't changed; I read that it is a net-emitter of greenhouse gases and I think that's awful and shouldn't be allowed. I look at the fact that phase 2 would provide new lines between Birmingham and Manchester/Leeds that would not be available for XC services from south of Birmingham to use HS2 north of Birmingham and I think that's madness. But then I think about the traffic on the motorway network and think we must try to shift that onto the railway, and I know the existing railway hasn't got the capacity for it. So we do need a new line, but is HS2 the right one?

I do have a new railway-related worry though. Before COVID-19 I was confident that the passenger-dominated railway was here to stay, now I'm not so sure. I may be wrong but thinking about it in my head 2m social distancing appears to make 10 seats unavailable for every two seats you can use (so roughly 16% of seats usable). I can't see that being financially sustainable, so we need the COVID risk to drop to the point that social distancing is no longer required. Also, I may be in the minority, but the discomfort of wearing face masks means I will not make a discressionary public transport journey again while they are mandatory. If I'm far from alone in that respect, the railway will not attract enough passengers back. Realisticly, that means we need a vacine; if COVID-19 proves to be like the common cold in being a moving feast that cannot be vaccinated against public transport is finished. I really hope that is not the case, but if it turns out to be so then I think the railway becomes a freight-only system and my only hope then would be that the railway can win huge amounts of freight traffic from the roads. Even then, I doubt the climate will survive long-distance passenger transport becoming 100% dependant on the car. This unlikely 'doomsday scenario' is perhaps why I have not changed many of my views; if we can beat the virus and remove social distancing and face masks nothing has changed in terms of the other major global crisis and the railway will still need to do what it has needed to do for years. If we can't beat the virus it's all over, so I haven't given that outcome much thought 'Until such time as the world ends we will act as thought it intends to spin on'.

As the original post says, "when the facts change, I change my mind". But there are no facts any more, only hypothesis and speculation.

Good point. I guess to a degree that's along the lines of what my second paragraph was trying to say. The facts haven't (yet) changed on a long-term basis, we can only speculate on whether or not the virus will be beaten.

I was an electrification zealot. Still am, long term - but as GRALISTAIR says above, I've become more open-minded to bi-modes.

Ultimately I'd prefer important routes to be electrified, but they at least offer a solution for lessening the 'under the wires' runs which are egregious in some cases. They may lessen the case for wires too, ironically - but we'll have to see.

Not in 2020, but I did soften my oposition to the GWR class 800 bi-modes slightly when, in hindsight, they saved a rather difficult suituation when the GWML electrification programme fell apart. Now that we have them though, I think the thing to do is to move 800/802/805/810 bi-modes around as part of a rolling electrification programme. You introduce them in the early stages of electrifying a route, to benefit from the first sections as soon as they are live, and then when the route is fully wired introduce EMUs (or electric locos with coaching stock) and move the bi-modes onto the next route. In the GWML case, we need wires to Oxford and Bristol before some of the 800s can move on (a few would stay for Swansea, Cheltenham and Cotswolds, alongside 802s on those routes plus to Devon and Cornwall). For LNER, ScotRail's target of wires to Aberdeen and Inverness should free up some (not all, due to unwired routes in England) of their bi-modes by 2035. Obviously this applies only to primary intercity routes; for secondary routes I think we need either to order a large batch of bi-modes (inspired by the class 442 and class 444) ASAP for delivery by 2025 which would be the last order for any new diesel-equipped trains or wait until the early 2030s and hope an electric+hydrogen bi-mode is feesible by then without filling half a coach for fuel cells / fuel tanks. Orders for new diesel-only trains should have already been banned.

 

[HowardGWR]

Pre COVID I was utterly unshakable in my thinking that driving to the local park and ride and getting the train to work every day was my only real commute option.

Now I can see office working no more than once a week on average and the commute will be done on two wheels in fairer weather (having got fitter to make that possible) or on the local express bus service as end to end it only takes about 5 minutes longer which is nothing in terms of the financial saving.

Very interesting post. May I ask if your park and ride has a cycle stand option, as that seems also to fit your aims? I'd love to know your geographical details but I realise that for privacy reasons, you may not wish to reveal much about them.

 

[reddragon]

Definitely softened my views on bi-modes though I do worry that they’ll be used as a means to avoid more electrification.
I’ve pivoted from the electrification and expansion plans in Scotland seeming largely sensible to verging on money wasting bonkers. I’m not convinced the Levenmouth branch is any way sensible, the talk of electrification from Alloa to Dunfermline is idiotic but no-one seems prepared to grasp the real nettles of the Forth bridge & the various single track bottlenecks around Glasgow. Money will probably evaporate over the next few years, so wasteful projects won’t help persuade government to spend more.

The bi-modes of today - 25 kv OH + diesel engine will simply become 25 kV OH + battery, so avoiding full electrification will be a good thing! The class 800 is designed to be converted.

I am now strongly against any railway equipment produced in China being allowed onto the UK network: not signalling, not trains, nothing; not until such time as the current dictatorship there is overthrown.

China today behave as the British did when we had an Empire and the USA behaved in the past (and Trump tries to today). We are not in any position to complain there!

We have exported most of our manufacturing to China so you can have cheap goods.

Don't blame China for our own actions!!

 

[HowardGWR]

I haven't changed my views about anything regarding rail in particular or public transport in general. Particularly the WFH situation has revealed some very strange attitudes to work. If working from home is desirable now, why was it not before? I cannot imagine anything than a return to at least 2=3 days per week 'at the office' after COVID 19 is over. Human beings have to mingle as a survival necessity. As a colony species they can't avoid it.

 

[PTR 444]

I'm very much in the 'entrenched views' camp although I wouldn't say COVID-19 has entrenched them; they were entrenched already and COVID-19 hasn't changed that. Even my ambivalence towards HS2 hasn't changed; I read that it is a net-emitter of greenhouse gases and I think that's awful and shouldn't be allowed. I look at the fact that phase 2 would provide new lines between Birmingham and Manchester/Leeds that would not be available for XC services from south of Birmingham to use HS2 north of Birmingham and I think that's madness. But then I think about the traffic on the motorway network and think we must try to shift that onto the railway, and I know the existing railway hasn't got the capacity for it. So we do need a new line, but is HS2 the right one?

I do have a new railway-related worry though. Before COVID-19 I was confident that the passenger-dominated railway was here to stay, now I'm not so sure. I may be wrong but thinking about it in my head 2m social distancing appears to make 10 seats unavailable for every two seats you can use (so roughly 16% of seats usable). I can't see that being financially sustainable, so we need the COVID risk to drop to the point that social distancing is no longer required. Also, I may be in the minority, but the discomfort of wearing face masks means I will not make a discressionary public transport journey again while they are mandatory. If I'm far from alone in that respect, the railway will not attract enough passengers back. Realisticly, that means we need a vacine; if COVID-19 proves to be like the common cold in being a moving feast that cannot be vaccinated against public transport is finished. I really hope that is not the case, but if it turns out to be so then I think the railway becomes a freight-only system and my only hope then would be that the railway can win huge amounts of freight traffic from the roads. Even then, I doubt the climate will survive long-distance passenger transport becoming 100% dependant on the car. This unlikely 'doomsday scenario' is perhaps why I have not changed many of my views; if we can beat the virus and remove social distancing and face masks nothing has changed in terms of the other major global crisis and the railway will still need to do what it has needed to do for years. If we can't beat the virus it's all over, so I haven't given that outcome much thought 'Until such time as the world ends we will act as thought it intends to spin on'.

We can’t just let public transport go to ruin.

Not everyone can drive, Not everyone wants to drive, Not everyone wants to sit in traffic, Not everyone wants to contribute to climate change.

The uproar from environmentalists over a mothballed passenger rail network would be immense. They will be crying over their defeat as they watch a jam packed parliament square fill up with distressed commuters, all trying to get to the same place at the same time.
Youth unemployment will also skyrocket with no passenger railway as they have fewer ways of getting around, and not everybody can and/or wants to drive.
A much better move would be to move the entire network to a Sunday timetable, with frequencies in many cases halved but most connections maintained.

WE NEED TO SAVE THE RAILWAYS NOW, and I’m happy to pay more tax for it.

 

[ainsworth74]

I imagine that was quite a few years ago?

That sounds highly problematic these days as “last in first out”, on its own, is indirectly age discriminatory and would need to be objectively justified. Selection for redundancy is supposed to be done across objective factors such as performance, disciplinary records etc. Even sickness absence is a bit of a minefield if it pertains to absence due to conditions which are disabilities - although it would be difficult for anyone to argue they if they’d phoned in multiple times with “the flu” etc.

Yes had a bit of a shiver down the spine at that! "Last in first out" redundancy can be very very iffy on discrimination grounds and can leave those implementing it open to challenges up the wazoo to the Employment Tribunal. A sensible employer would have moved to a points based system a long time ago and having been involved with redundancy twice and having once been made redundant points based systems were used in all cases! Indeed I can't recall ever coming across "last in first out" being used for redundancy when I did a bit of employment law work, I honestly thought it had been consigned to the scrap heap. Then again, this is the railway, of course they'd still be using a system devised in the 1960s for something like this when the rest of the world has moved on

 

[HarryL]

I would say my view on privatisation has softened, I was very much in favour of full nationalisation previously, but now I feel a mixed approach would be more appropriate in a number of ways. A concession system similar to London Overground makes sense to me, the government having control over the branding, infrastructure, timetables, fares and everything and the private company simply running the trains.

 

[Rhydgaled]

We can’t just let public transport go to ruin.

Not everyone can drive, Not everyone wants to drive, Not everyone wants to sit in traffic, Not everyone wants to contribute to climate change.

The uproar from environmentalists over a mothballed passenger rail network would be immense. They will be crying over their defeat as they watch a jam packed parliament square fill up with distressed commuters, all trying to get to the same place at the same time.
Youth unemployment will also skyrocket with no passenger railway as they have fewer ways of getting around, and not everybody can and/or wants to drive.

Is a train with only 16% of seats usable anywhere near being environmentally friendly? If that percentage is correct, I believe we're talking a limit of about 30 passengers per 3-car train. At best that's 30 cars off the road, compared to between 60 and 100 if the train was comfortably loaded. Buses would be reduced to a capacity of about 5 or 6 pepole. It might be more fuel-efficient to taxi those 5 or 6 pepole to their destination.

I agree that the ruin of public transport would almost certainly be the ruin of all; that's why I finished that section with that Nick Fury quote. I've choosen to assume that we will get an effective vaccine, because if we don't public transport cannot continue. That, in my view, would probably mean human civilisation cannot continue.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I agree that the ruin of public transport would almost certainly be the ruin of all; that's why I finished that section with that Nick Fury quote. I've choosen to assume that we will get an effective vaccine, because if we don't public transport cannot continue.

Can't it? Wouldn't we just rethink it, such as returning to e.g. compartments with external doors, booked one per household, say?