Train GraphicClick on the map to explore geographics
 
I need help
FAQ
Emergency
About .
Travel & transport from BBC stories as at 04:15 29 Mar 2024
- Bus plunges off South Africa bridge, killing 45
* Easter getaway begins with flood alerts in place
- Easter travel warning as millions set to hit roads
Read about the forum [here].
Register [here] - it's free.
What do I gain from registering? [here]
 02/06/24 - Summer Timetable starts
17/08/24 - Bus to Imber
27/09/25 - 200 years of passenger trains

On this day
29th Mar (1913)
Foundation of National Union or Railwaymen (*)

Train RunningCancelled
07:00 Bedwyn to Newbury
07:22 Newbury to Bedwyn
08:13 Newbury to Bedwyn
08:46 Bedwyn to Newbury
09:54 Bedwyn to Newbury
10:22 Newbury to Bedwyn
11:29 Newbury to Bedwyn
11:57 Bedwyn to Newbury
12:52 Bedwyn to Newbury
Short Run
04:54 Plymouth to London Paddington
05:12 Reading to Bedwyn
05:33 Plymouth to London Paddington
05:55 Plymouth to London Paddington
06:00 Bedwyn to London Paddington
06:37 Plymouth to London Paddington
07:03 London Paddington to Paignton
08:35 Plymouth to London Paddington
10:35 London Paddington to Exeter St Davids
Delayed
21:45 Penzance to London Paddington
23:45 London Paddington to Penzance
05:03 Penzance to London Paddington
06:05 Penzance to London Paddington
07:10 Penzance to London Paddington
08:03 London Paddington to Penzance
08:15 Penzance to London Paddington
09:04 London Paddington to Plymouth
09:37 London Paddington to Paignton
10:04 London Paddington to Penzance
11:03 London Paddington to Plymouth
PollsOpen and recent polls
Closed 2024-03-25 Easter Escape - to where?
Abbreviation pageAcronymns and abbreviations
Stn ComparatorStation Comparator
Rail newsNews Now - live rail news feed
Site Style 1 2 3 4
Next departures • Bristol Temple MeadsBath SpaChippenhamSwindonDidcot ParkwayReadingLondon PaddingtonMelksham
Exeter St DavidsTauntonWestburyTrowbridgeBristol ParkwayCardiff CentralOxfordCheltenham SpaBirmingham New Street
March 29, 2024, 04:34:51 *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Forgotten your username or password? - get a reminder
Most recently liked subjects
[98] West Wiltshire Bus Changes April 2024
[97] would you like your own LIVE train station departure board?
[86] Return of the BRUTE?
[74] Infrastructure problems in Thames Valley causing disruption el...
[53] If not HS2 to Manchester, how will traffic be carried?
[23] Reversing Beeching - bring heritage and freight lines into the...
 
News: A forum for passengers ... with input from rail professionals welcomed too
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Poll
Question: Who do you think is responsible for the current wave of disruption  (Voting closed: January 07, 2018, 09:03:31)
The Government - 17 (36.2%)
The Train Operating Companies - 9 (19.1%)
The Trades Unions - 21 (44.7%)
The Train Passengers - 0 (0%)
Other - 0 (0%)
Total Voters: 30

Pages: [1] 2
  Print  
Author Topic: TOCs, Unions, Passengers, Government  (Read 4347 times)
grahame
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 40690



View Profile WWW Email
« on: December 31, 2017, 08:50:46 »

From The BBC» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page)

Quote
The RMT (National Union of Rail, Maritime & Transport Workers) union is planning more strikes in January on South Western, Southern, Merseyrail, Greater Anglia and Arriva Rail North.

RMT general secretary Mick Cash said: "It's the continuing failure of the train companies and their political puppet masters in government to make any attempt whatsoever to resolve the range of separate disputes over rail safety that has led us to call this further action."

He added: "The responsibility for the disruption that will be caused lays fairly and squarely at their door."

Surely there should be a better way of constructing the staffing relationship between the various elements of the rail industry than a system which results in significant disruption to the "business" of carrying passengers around?

Who's the cause of the current wave of strikes and work-to-rules is a hotly disputed subject.  Indeed its so hot that I know of people "out there" who have views that they don't share in public for fear of damaging (for many years) the relationship they have with their colleagues.

I would be very interested to learn what our members (yes, a self-selected and unscientific sample) really think - who they hold responsible.  Thus this secret poll - please select up to two options.

Follow up posts are welcome, but will of course be public.  If you have a view that you would like to put (if perhaps you feel that there's responsibility with the ORR» (Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about) or Network Rail) but would like it to be anonymous, please send me a personal message and - for this topic only - I'm happy to post onwards without your name, subject to other usual forum posting protocols.
Logged

Coffee Shop Admin, Acting Chair of Melksham Rail User Group, Option 24/7 Melksham Rep
grahame
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 40690



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #1 on: January 02, 2018, 09:53:56 »

At the risk of stoking an intense discussion ... from my Facebook feed (world shared, so no privacy being breached):



Within the area in which I live and on most of the trains I travel on, there are two crew members - one driving the train who isn't at all visible to the passengers, and the other who's passenger facing most of the time during the journey, but breaks from attending to passengers to release and close the doors at each station along the way, and to assist the driver if there's an operational situation.

The customer facing role on anything but high frequency metro type journeys between gated stations is a key one.  It help re-assure passengers, it allows for questions to be answered and assistance given, and it helps ensure that everyone is able to buy the correct ticket, with explanations available of the hideously complex system if someone does not have the correct ticket, or has spent more than they need.  The routine breaking from this customer facing role to press door release buttons at specific points in the train breaks this ability to focus on looking after customers (and the revenue stream they generate); it does, though, make huge sense for that company representative to be able to break from immediate customer support into an operational support role in a "safety net" situation.

Looking at the headlines / suggestions implicit in the demonstration picture above, I find myself concerned as to the funding implications.  The 'profit' that TOCs (Train Operating Company) make on train operation is around 3% - that's actually less that the amount that fares have risen today - with a substantial part of their costs being in staffing.  If the staff can be tuned to help ensure that revenue is routinely collected while maintaining their safety net role, there seems to be merit in the change.  Alternatives of adding an extra person put up costs and the cry of "ooze gonna pay for it" will ring out (passenger through fares, or taxpayer, or a cut in train services?).   But then I'm looking locally and note that the picture is Carlisle.   Is there a suggestion that services in that part of the UK (United Kingdom) will in future run with just a single staff member (driver) rather than two staff members?
Logged

Coffee Shop Admin, Acting Chair of Melksham Rail User Group, Option 24/7 Melksham Rep
Bob_Blakey
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 783


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: January 02, 2018, 11:59:24 »

It seems to me - and I could be completely wrong - that the present government, largely in the form of Mr. Grayling and, presumably, a number of representatives from the DfT» (Department for Transport - about) and/or RDG(resolve) who happen to think he is right, are hellbent on removing the Guard (or a significant part of their existing role) from as many UK (United Kingdom) rail services as possible.
I can only assume this is because they believe such action will save money - surely only a complete lunatic would regard this as a safety improvement - but I think they are wholly wrong.
Perhaps I haven't been paying attention but I don't recall hearing or reading anything recently regarding the TOCs (Train Operating Company)' view on whether Guards should be retained as is, have their role modified (=downgraded) or be gotten rid of completely. If the Guard is such a drain on the TOC finances I am sure the franchisees would have had something to say about it.
The Trade Unions - and, lets be honest, we are talking almost exclusively about the RMT (National Union of Rail, Maritime & Transport Workers) - appear to delight in using the merest suggestion of a change to the Guard's role - amongst other things - as a pretext for 'industrial action'.
As a passenger I would encourage the rail industry to adopt the approach that I have encountered on numerous GWR (Great Western Railway) 'local' services in and around Exeter - that being a Guard on every train who, if the safety workload permits, will check & issue tickets as appropriate and on services that the TOC knows in advance are going to be (very) busy an additional member of staff so that the safety and revenue protection roles can be completely separated. Without having any evidence at all to back up such an assertion I believe that this approach must improve the overall financial performance (otherwise why bother).
     
Logged
Tim
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2738


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: January 02, 2018, 14:57:22 »

It seems to me - and I could be completely wrong - that the present government, largely in the form of Mr. Grayling and, presumably, a number of representatives from the DfT» (Department for Transport - about) and/or RDG(resolve) who happen to think he is right, are hellbent on removing the Guard (or a significant part of their existing role) from as many UK (United Kingdom) rail services as possible.
I can only assume this is because they believe such action will save money - surely only a complete lunatic would regard this as a safety improvement - but I think they are wholly wrong.
Perhaps I haven't been paying attention but I don't recall hearing or reading anything recently regarding the TOCs (Train Operating Company)' view on whether Guards should be retained as is, have their role modified (=downgraded) or be gotten rid of completely. If the Guard is such a drain on the TOC finances I am sure the franchisees would have had something to say about it.
The Trade Unions - and, lets be honest, we are talking almost exclusively about the RMT (National Union of Rail, Maritime & Transport Workers) - appear to delight in using the merest suggestion of a change to the Guard's role - amongst other things - as a pretext for 'industrial action'.
As a passenger I would encourage the rail industry to adopt the approach that I have encountered on numerous GWR (Great Western Railway) 'local' services in and around Exeter - that being a Guard on every train who, if the safety workload permits, will check & issue tickets as appropriate and on services that the TOC knows in advance are going to be (very) busy an additional member of staff so that the safety and revenue protection roles can be completely separated. Without having any evidence at all to back up such an assertion I believe that this approach must improve the overall financial performance (otherwise why bother).
     

+1. 

Getting rid of guards is about saving money.  Regardless of whether you think that they should be retained or not, it is rather revealing that the Government thinks that it is their job to drive forward this efficiency.  Surely the justification of the current private railway is that the private sector is free to find cost savings without the dead hand of government involvement.  The fact that the drive to "de-guard" trains comes from Government is an indirect admission from Government that the private sector cannot be trusted to find efficiency savings on the passenger railway.
Logged
ChrisB
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 12334


View Profile Email
« Reply #4 on: January 02, 2018, 16:13:43 »

Happy to go with Graham's position here - but that second person, although trained, doesn't need to open/close the doors necessarily if all infrastructure is in place for the driver to do so. In emergency, of course they drop the customer service role & help operationally. But the RMT (National Union of Rail, Maritime & Transport Workers) aren't happy with that. They want a Scotrail deal all round as a minimum

Which is, I think, the position of several TOCs (Train Operating Company).
Logged
Tim
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2738


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: January 02, 2018, 16:43:08 »

The 'profit' that TOCs (Train Operating Company) make on train operation is around 3%

I'd be happy with 6% profit if it was being used to attract private investment into the railway (thereby reliving the passenger and/or taxpayer of making that investment), but it is not.  The simplistic pie charts being bandied about today show that about 25% of fares is spent on investment ("upgrading the network"), so the farepayer is being expected to pay for future improvements to the network which would not be the case if the system was set up for the ToCs to actually invest their own money.  We should be arguing for a profit high enough to attract private money into the industry and then we could have a go at reducing the tax payer subsidy and/or 25% of our fares that are being spent not on providing our journeys, but those which might be made by the next generation.   
Logged
ChrisB
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 12334


View Profile Email
« Reply #6 on: January 02, 2018, 16:58:08 »

Thatr means even higher fares? Where else will they get an extra ongoing 3% profit?
Logged
Tim
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2738


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: January 02, 2018, 17:14:03 »

Thatr means even higher fares? Where else will they get an extra ongoing 3% profit?

No, If you made the ToCs responsible for paying for upgrading the network, they would need to go to the markets to attract private money to upgrade the network and they would only be successful in attracting that private money if profit was higher, but the 25% of the fare spent on upgrades could be cut.  You would also have private investors watching the spending (and more importantly the overspending) like hawks.

This is what happens in the water industry.  A new law meant that sewage needs to be treated and the Government realises building the treatment works would cost big money which it didn't have.  It therefore privatised the water industry and makes the water companies pay for the investments.  They get the money from the markets.  Your water bill includes a chunk of profit which goes to the investors to encourage them to stump up the private money.  You may think that this is a good or bad way of doing things but at the very least the profit of the water companies keeps the private investment flowing in precisely the way that the 3% on your rail fare doesn't
Logged
ChrisB
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 12334


View Profile Email
« Reply #8 on: January 02, 2018, 18:14:51 »

Can't disagree with any of that, but presumably in order for the TOCs (Train Operating Company) to grab this idea, premia to the Treasury would likely be a lot less offered than currently?
Logged
Tim
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2738


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: January 03, 2018, 10:31:38 »

Can't disagree with any of that, but presumably in order for the TOCs (Train Operating Company) to grab this idea, premia to the Treasury would likely be a lot less offered than currently?
You may be right, and government would of course still need to decide what is the correct split of costs between the fare payer and the taxpayer (in many circumstances of course this is the same person).  But the real prize is to drive down the costs of running, maintaining and upgrading the network. 

I am not generally a right-wing ideologue and generally favour a mixed economy.   I will however admit that there is one big thing that the private sector does very well and that is cost control (because it is their own money rather than someone else's which is being spent)  But on the railways we seem to have all the disadvantages of private sector involvement (short termism, lack of democratic accountability, commercial secrecy, and money being syphoned off as profit) without allowing the private sector to put up their own money with the advantages (less short-term call on the taxpayer and vigorous cost controls)that brings.

Compare two large infrastructure projects - gwml electrification (publically funded) and Heathrow third runway (privately funded), and the GWML (Great Western Main Line) project has managed to add £2billion plus to the costs whilst Heathrow has shaved almost £2billion off their costs. 
Logged
ChrisB
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 12334


View Profile Email
« Reply #10 on: January 03, 2018, 11:28:02 »

The ROSCOs» (Rolling Stock Owning Company - about) do, don't they?

But yes, all valid points. Getting all, including the 25% of those relating to staff, costs aligned with CPI would be a big start....
Logged
ellendune
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 4452


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: January 03, 2018, 12:11:31 »

Compare two large infrastructure projects - gwml electrification (publically funded) and Heathrow third runway (privately funded), and the GWML (Great Western Main Line) project has managed to add £2billion plus to the costs whilst Heathrow has shaved almost £2billion off their costs. 

There is an article in this weeks Rail Magazine on the proposed Kings Cross remodelling that sheds some light on these costs.  They put it down to slavish adherence to rules (e.g. electrification clearances). An example quoted is the 5 year old footbridge at Kings Cross which would according to the rules need to be replaced again for £10 million because of the clearances. However they did a risk assessment (details in article) which showed that it was not necessary in that location. 
Logged
dviner
Full Member
***
Posts: 82


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: January 03, 2018, 21:20:10 »


There is an article in this weeks Rail Magazine on the proposed Kings Cross remodelling that sheds some light on these costs.  They put it down to slavish adherence to rules (e.g. electrification clearances). An example quoted is the 5 year old footbridge at Kings Cross which would according to the rules need to be replaced again for £10 million because of the clearances. However they did a risk assessment (details in article) which showed that it was not necessary in that location. 

So, if rules are not to be adhered to, then what's the point of having them?


Logged
ChrisB
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 12334


View Profile Email
« Reply #13 on: January 03, 2018, 21:44:33 »

Oh, we all comment on ridiculous Health & Safety rules! Risk assessments are a good way ro work out whether they should apply in your particular project I feel
Logged
Tim
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2738


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: January 04, 2018, 17:07:47 »


So, if rules are not to be adhered to, then what's the point of having them?


Good question.  And there is a plenty of evidence from decades of subsequent use that the BR (British Rail(ways)) electrical clearance rules of the 1980s were perfectly safe and that the newer more stringent rules were a mistake. 
Logged
Do you have something you would like to add to this thread, or would you like to raise a new question at the Coffee Shop? Please [register] (it is free) if you have not done so before, or login (at the top of this page) if you already have an account - we would love to read what you have to say!

You can find out more about how this forum works [here] - that will link you to a copy of the forum agreement that you can read before you join, and tell you very much more about how we operate. We are an independent forum, provided and run by customers of Great Western Railway, for customers of Great Western Railway and we welcome railway professionals as members too, in either a personal or official capacity. Views expressed in posts are not necessarily the views of the operators of the forum.

As well as posting messages onto existing threads, and starting new subjects, members can communicate with each other through personal messages if they wish. And once members have made a certain number of posts, they will automatically be admitted to the "frequent posters club", where subjects not-for-public-domain are discussed; anything from the occasional rant to meetups we may be having ...

 
Pages: [1] 2
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.2 | SMF © 2006-2007, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
This forum is provided by customers of Great Western Railway (formerly First Great Western), and the views expressed are those of the individual posters concerned. Visit www.gwr.com for the official Great Western Railway website. Please contact the administrators of this site if you feel that the content provided by one of our posters contravenes our posting rules (email link to report). Forum hosted by Well House Consultants

Jump to top of pageJump to Forum Home Page