The Gibb report in Southern Rail. Is it fair?

[driver_m]

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/southern-rail-network-gibb-report

The Gibb report into the Southern issues has been published today. Supposedly held back for 6 months, it blames Union strike activity and staff not wanting to work every hour God sends. Now considering this is a report that clearly could be used by a Tory government to further it's agenda of preventing strike action with 'minimum service levels', why would it hold it back? Something doesn't seem right here? Is this the same report that was supposedly 'dynamite' about the Dft failings or not?

 

[Deepgreen]

I've only glanced through it so far, but that's not the impression I derived initially. There is much talk of the need for changed management regimes, improved staffing levels for dispatch, etc, and infrastructure improvements. However, it's possible I'll get to the blatant union/staff bashing in due course.

One tiny point I spotted was that Chris Gibb likens (in terms of risk to users) a gated foot crossing across the two track section of the BML to an uncontrolled pedestrian crossing on the M25, a comparison so ludicrous that I fear for the validity of the rest of the report!

Much reading to do before a valid judgement can be made, however.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Mr Gibb might want to acquaint himself with foot crossings across pseudo-motorway dual carriageways like the A41...they are "fun"!

 

[DarloRich]

Section 3.2.3 clearly blames union members for daring to strike & is disingenuous at best about the causes and effects that led to that strike. Nothing else should be expected. It is a government report and so must attack the evil unions.

 

[3141]

I've only glanced through it so far, but that's not the impression I derived initially. There is much talk of the need for changed management regimes, improved staffing levels for dispatch, etc, and infrastructure improvements.

That's my initial impression as well.

Unclear why it should have been delayed, which it evidently has been, as it includes a number of recommendations for things that should start in the first half of this year.

 

[DarloRich]

That's my initial impression as well.

Unclear why it should have been delayed, which it evidently has been, as it includes a number of recommendations for things that should start in the first half of this year.

some of those activities have already started - see overnight Brighton line closures

 

[northwichcat]

staff not wanting to work every hour God sends.

Whether that's true or not depends on contract terms. If some services can only be covered by crews volunteering to work overtime then it's a TOC fault, if the contract says any 8 hour period and the employees refuse to do the 3am start or the 1am finish then the employee can be blamed.

 

[driver_m]

Got a bee in his bonnet about large depots too, reading the report. The trouble for me is, is that I don't see him as truly independent. I just see my former boss, and not a very good one at that.

 

[DarloRich]

Got a bee in his bonnet about large depots too, reading the report. The trouble for me is, is that I don't see him as truly independent.

break up the large depots, water down the representation, force through changes with minimal consultation, reduce union influence and staff protection? surely not

 

[driver_m]

Whether that's true or not depends on contract terms. If some services can only be covered by crews volunteering to work overtime then it's a TOC fault, if the contract says any 8 hour period and the employees refuse to do the 3am start or the 1am finish then the employee can be blamed.

No they can't be blamed for refusing that necessarily.. If you have a rule in place that says you can only be moved 2 hours from your spare turn. Say 1600 for example and you're asked to come in at 2030 it's your right to say no.

 

[Tetchytyke]

£1500 a day he was paid to write that crap.

£1500. A day.

The mind boggles.

And he has the sheer brass neck to blame the unions for "undermining the system and the country that funds it". Really?

They should've just got Peter Wilkinson to write it and save the cash.

 

[DarloRich]

btw - i wonder what is in the redacted sections other than Mr Gibbs personal details

 

[JonathanP]

There's a bullet point summary here. I can't say if it's accurate since I haven't read the whole report, but it doesn't sound like "blame it all on the unions" whitewash.
(As someone who spent years living in London, commuting without any problem on a DOO Southern service, before moving to another country where DOO or otherwise operation seems to be mostly a non-issue, I have always been a bit confused about exactly what the reasons for the bitter dispute were)

He seems to have gone to considerable effort to argue for the electrification of the Uckfield diesel island - it will be interesting to see if anyone listens(I suspect not).

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

You obviously missed the GTR-bashing and the DfT-bashing.
He also recommends a drastic reduction in the 2018 Thameslink timetable to 12tph to achieve the desired resilience and get unreliable stock off the franchise.
He also thinks DfT went with the bid that required the least number of drivers, and is paying the penalty.
Not to mention recommending the transfer of East Croydon-Milton Keynes to London Overground, and electrifying to Uckfield to get rid of DMUs at Selhurst.
Chris Grayling's response barely answers any of this, no doubt too hard.
It also muses about the likely impact of franchise termination.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Not to mention recommending the transfer of East Croydon-Milton Keynes to London Overground

Would TfL want it? The Mayor wears the wrong colour rosette for DafT to give TfL more money (look at the Croxley Rail Link). I can't imagine TfL would want the responsibility without the cash. So I think we can file this under "non-starter".

As for electrification to Uckfield, likewise.

Interesting that his main points about reliability were simply to insert "fire breaks" into the timetable at lunchtime, and to cut the off-peak service from stations on the Lewes line (do they actually make much difference?). Hardly ground breaking: run fewer trains and stop them in fewer places, and you might be a bit more reliable.

As I said, £1500 a day for this?

 

[northwichcat]

No they can't be blamed for refusing that necessarily.. If you have a rule in place that says you can only be moved 2 hours from your spare turn. Say 1600 for example and you're asked to come in at 2030 it's your right to say no.

If the rule is included in the contract then it's a different scenario to the one I was describing.

 

[speedy_sticks]

You obviously missed the GTR-bashing and the DfT-bashing.
He also recommends a drastic reduction in the 2018 Thameslink timetable to 12tph to achieve the desired resilience and get unreliable stock off the franchise.
He also thinks DfT went with the bid that required the least number of drivers, and is paying the penalty.
Not to mention recommending the transfer of East Croydon-Milton Keynes to London Overground, and electrifying to Uckfield to get rid of DMUs at Selhurst.
Chris Grayling's response barely answers any of this, no doubt too hard.
It also muses about the likely impact of franchise termination.

It's a real shame that both Mr Gibbs cares so little for disabled people by wanting wise spread DOO.

 

[driver_m]

If the rule is included in the contract then it's a different scenario to the one I was describing.

Go on then, give me an example of where a driver can refuse a job when it fits in a roster. I can't just pick and choose when and where i don't want to work if I'm spare or on a standby job. Tempting and understandable as it maybe to say I'm not going to Wolves because I don't like the air of dereliction around the railway, if it fits the hours, then wolves it is.

 

[northwichcat]

Go on then, give me an example of where a driver can refuse a job when it fits in a roster. I can't just pick and choose when and where i don't want to work if I'm spare or on a standby job. Tempting and understandable as it maybe to say I'm not going to Wolves because I don't like the air of dereliction around the railway, if it fits the hours, then wolves it is.

Unless both a Southern employment contract and the Gibbs report are examined by someone unconnected with both Govia and the government it's impossible to assess whether Gibbs' claim that you referred to is fair or not. Consequently I was giving a very basic example and said if employees are acting within the terms of their contract it is unfair, if not then it's fair and you seem to want to argue with that conclusion for some reason. hock:

 

[daikilo]

I have read the report in full. I don't feel qualified to answer the thread headline of whether it is fair.

However, independent of what he identifies as "the single root cause" which I will describe as an "industrial relations breakdown", he identifies a lot of factors (and remedies) which really should never have been allowed to occur/be overlooked, and few if any are directly atributable to people. For me it raises the issues of how DfT establish franchise requirements and how bidders get the full picture of status and committed future changes when making their bid. The whole section on provision of/for train depots is enlightening.

My conclusion is that it is wide-ranging, and should, as a minimum, lead to a much better operation.

 

[embers25]

So the unions demand it be published and when it is it doesn't promote their entirely one-sided agenda and so of course all those bits must be wrong..sigh. From my reading all sides have areas to improve but quite rightly the blame is not solely placed on GTR or DfT, the unions and their members also bear responsibility for the situation. The clear conclusion is that all sides have to make compromises and that does include the unions. I realise that's not the conclusion unions were hoping for but it is the correct one.

 

[XDM]

This is splendid work from a man with a superb record in the industry. He worked his way up from clerk in BR days to top director. Everyone I know looks up to him, which is why he was chosen to look at the Southern problems. He has firmly nailed RMT's industrial action, official & unofficial as the main cause of the misery commuters have been subjected to.
The serious media have picked it up & laid the blame exactly where it should lie,rmt. Well done Mr Gibbs for a thoroughly objective & honest report.

 

[driver_m]

Unless both a Southern employment contract and the Gibbs report are examined by someone unconnected with both Govia and the government it's impossible to assess whether Gibbs' claim that you referred to is fair or not. Consequently I was giving a very basic example and said if employees are acting within the terms of their contract it is unfair, if not then it's fair and you seem to want to argue with that conclusion for some reason. hock:

Simple. That point you are making, legitimises the arguement that we do what we want. We don't. That is why I'm robustly defending our position. When blatant lies such as the 75k driver are currently in the media talking as if that is an immediate basic wage for a Southern driver, rather than a projected 2020 wage with regular o/t factored in, then genuine facts get lost in the mess.

The fact is that too many companies (not just Southern) have relied on o/t and goodwill from drivers over the years because it's cheaper than employing a full complement of drivers. This is the simple conclusion of what happens when the goodwill goes. There's no mention of that, yet Gibb can go to some random level crossing and say its like a pedestrian crossing in the m25. Micro management on one level, yet conveniently overlook other aspects that are well known in the industry.

There are some other points made which are fair enough. Getting rid of the diesel island, makes sense for commonality. Electrification, good call. Get rid of 442 units which will probably upset the spotters on here massively. Funny but fair.

However, look at it from a government point of view. You have a report which blames two of the last genuinely strong unions which you are hoping to legislate against, in order to make it impossible to strike effectively. This is pre-election time. If you are a Tory, you.get it out there in an election and get the message out the home counties voters that you will break the unions and get the trains running. Now why didn't they do that?? I smell a rat.

 

[DarloRich]

So the unions demand it be published and when it is it doesn't promote their entirely one-sided agenda and so of course all those bits must be wrong..sigh. From my reading all sides have areas to improve but quite rightly the blame is not solely placed on GTR or DfT, the unions and their members also bear responsibility for the situation. The clear conclusion is that all sides have to make compromises and that does include the unions. I realise that's not the conclusion unions were hoping for but it is the correct one.

all parties bear equal responsibility and all parties need to work together to fix things. The problem is positions are entrenched making compromise very difficult to achieve.

 

[Bromley boy]

Unless both a Southern employment contract and the Gibbs report are examined by someone unconnected with both Govia and the government it's impossible to assess whether Gibbs' claim that you referred to is fair or not. Consequently I was giving a very basic example and said if employees are acting within the terms of their contract it is unfair, if not then it's fair and you seem to want to argue with that conclusion for some reason. hock:

Rules such as not being moved more than two hours of spare are generally in terms and conditions agreed by the TOC and union. I'd have to check my employment contract to check (I don't work for Southern) but I'm 99% sure the contract will refer to said terms and conditions (as amended) thereby incorporating it into the contract.

In any event these rules are longstanding and well known by both drivers and the TOCs employing them*. If a TOC erodes morale to the point where drivers choose to withdraw their goodwill and not to be any more flexible than their contracts/T's and C's require them to be, they are well within their rights to do so. It's simply down to the TOC to employ sufficient drivers (at the right times and the right places) to meet their service obligations.

*with good reason given the extreme-shift based nature of the job, the requirements to be free of alcohol and well rested before commencing duty etc.

 

[455driver]

I have been moved more than the agreed amount on 2 occasions on the daily sheet (both were refused) and I have been asked to move loads of times (nearly always agreed), even the one when they asked me to move 9 hours was agreed.

when I am spare they can send me anywhere they like as long as it is within my hours and I sign the route and traction, no refusal option available.

The report reads to me that the answer was its the unions fault so write the report on that basis.

 

[jon0844]

btw - i wonder what is in the redacted sections other than Mr Gibbs personal details

There's a big box by the bit about the Class 700s and it can't all be about the seats and lack of tables.

Not to mention recommending the transfer of East Croydon-Milton Keynes to London Overground

And a mention of there being a chance in 2018 to get rid of the inner-surburban GN services to London Overground too.

Plus it's interesting to hear the idea about not having SN/GX/TL compete at all, and cutting back night services to Victoria (inc GatEx) and using TL with STP as the main hub.

PLUS the shocking suggestion of not charging a premium for GatEx so passengers at Gatwick can use the first train and free up congestion on the platforms, which in turn could save more money than the loss in revenue by reducing the need for some upgrade work.

More shelters on 12 car platforms to encourage people to spread out.

All pretty interesting and sensible stuff, if perhaps not going to happen.

The downside is that some off peak services may be cut back to give recovery time in the evening peak if things go tits up in the morning. Some people may not like that.

 

[Tetchytyke]

quite rightly the blame is not solely placed on GTR or DfT, the unions and their members also bear responsibility for the situation.

I don't think anybody disagrees with that. If industrial relations break down then both parties have some culpability.

My issue with the report is that it attacks the trade union's (alleged) intransigence without stopping to consider why the union have reached the position where they feel they have no choice but to dig their heels in.

There has been precious little blame attached to GTR and the DfT for pushing the trade unions into this position. There has been no analysis of where a reasonable compromise could lie. It's simply been "the unions went on strike, therefore it's their fault, they should just do as they're told". The gushing praise about DOO and the "efficiency" it brings proves just that. There has been no analysis of where this "efficiency" is found, and what it means for passengers and staff.

As I've argued repeatedly, DOO only saves you money if a) you have fewer staff, b) you pay them less money and c) you don't have them on every train. Therefore for DOO to make financial sense the intention has to be to have fewer staff on fewer trains. This report hasn't considered any implications of this on passengers, especially the most vulnerable users of the railway network.

Gibb's £1500 a day fee seems to have bought lots of pretty pie charts, but not much incisive analysis on how to fix the situation. Cutting off-peak services to Newhaven Harbour is nothing more than fiddling with deckchairs.

 

[Fincra5]

It's a real shame that both Mr Gibbs cares so little for disabled people by wanting wise spread DOO.

I was going to say...

The report is easy to bash the Unions as a cause. Yet not once does the report look into the disability issues where DOO has been rolled out. Where now a train can run with No person but the driver at all those unmanned stations.
It doesn't even look into the safety concerns regarding the "Non-Standardised" body mounted DOO CCTV on 377s and their poor quality.

 

[AlterEgo]

I was going to say...

The report is easy to bash the Unions as a cause. Yet not once does the report look into the disability issues where DOO has been rolled out. Where now a train can run with No person but the driver at all those unmanned stations.
It doesn't even look into the safety concerns regarding the "Non-Standardised" body mounted DOO CCTV on 377s and their poor quality.

Why would it?

It's a report examining why performance has been poor - see the terms of reference.

The report correctly points out that the main cause (but by no means the only cause) of this was the industrial action we've seen, which while Gibb explicitly says he does not support it, is characterised in the report as "supported through votes cast by many of the people; their members".

Gibb also says that "negotiations must be entered into" by the TOC. He does not state how to resolve that dispute, because it was not his remit to.

It's a real shame that both Mr Gibbs cares so little for disabled people by wanting wise spread DOO.

DOO and disability issues are not necessarily enemies - Gibb does not say what DOO should look like and wasn't charged with examining the impact DOO had on passengers requiring assistance.