• 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!

Rail Delivery Group submission to the Williams Review

Status
Not open for further replies.

CyrusWuff

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2013
Messages
3,944
Location
London
Not sure if this has been posted elsewhere. It's certainly not in the first page of threads in here, anyway.

The Rail Delivery Group has published its submission to the Williams Review, and it's a doozy!

The full submission can be found at https://www.bigplanbigchanges.co.uk/changingtrack, but here's their summary of the key ideas:
Rail Delivery Group said:
  1. Deliver easier fares for all: Update decades of regulation to enable a fares system which is much easier for passengers to use and better value for money, introducing pay as you go with a price cap across commuter markets, and reducing overcrowding on some of the busiest long-distance services while encouraging more people to use the network at different times of day. This fully reformed system would be backed up for the first time by an industry 'best fare guarantee'.
  2. Put a new independent organising body in charge of the whole industry: Form a new independent organising body which removes the politics from the running of the railway as far as possible and acts as the glue that binds it together, joining up decisions, making sure customer needs are prioritised and holding the industry to account with penalties where it falls short.
  3. Introduce responsive, customer-focussed 'public service contracts', replacing the current franchising system: Create a new system of contracts that would be more responsive to what our customers are asking for. Our new 'public service contracts' system would be made up of TfL-style single branded 'concessions' where usually an integrated transport body effectively runs the service, or new 'customer outcome-based' contracts, in place of today’s tightly specified inputs-based model, which better incentivise the private sector to innovate to improve, while only rewarding good performance.
  4. Give customers more choice of operators on some long-distance routes: For some long distance routes, having more rail companies competing for passengers means they could be offered a range of different services based on what they want. Whether it’s quicker more comfortable journeys or faster Wi-Fi, demand would shape the market; meaning rail companies would have to adapt to the needs of passengers if they want to keep their business.
  5. Make sure track and train are all working to the same customer-focussed goals: Introduce a single thread of consistent targets and incentives running through the whole industry, from CEOs to frontline teams and between the track and the train, so that all parts of the railway pull together – ending the blame game.
  6. Bring decisions about local services closer to home: Where appropriate, for example in larger city regions which serve commuter markets, customers would benefit from local transport bodies being given more power to design and specify local services, bringing decisions about the railway closer to the communities it serves.
  7. Enhance freight’s central role in delivering for Britain’s economy: We want to work with government to develop a clear national framework to put freight at the core of the government's business, environmental, and transport strategic policy making. It is important that freight obtains the access it needs to the whole rail network to keep supermarket shelves stacked, the lights on and the economy moving in a global marketplace.
  8. Invest in our people to deliver positive long term change for our customers: Develop a new approach to working with the unions, governments and the industry which provides our people with the skills, resources and rewards they need to deliver generational change in the railway.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

duncanp

Established Member
Joined
16 Aug 2012
Messages
4,856
I saw the guy from the Rail Delivery Group on BBC News this morning speaking from Birmingham New Street.

My first impression was that what he said was a load of vacuous wibble which sounded very good, but doesn't mean much until we have something more definite.

To take your first point

Update decades of regulation to enable a fares system which is much easier for passengers to use and better value for money, introducing pay as you go with a price cap across commuter markets, and reducing overcrowding on some of the busiest long-distance services while encouraging more people to use the network at different times of day. This fully reformed system would be backed up for the first time by an industry 'best fare guarantee'.

What does this actually mean in practice?

My recent post (https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...in-trains-plan-for-airline-style-fare.181623/) regarding Virgin trains wanting to ban standing, and plans for "..airline style fares..." has certainly provoked a lively debate, and it shows that there is no one universally accepted point of view.

Point no. 8

Develop a new approach to working with the unions, governments and the industry which provides our people with the skills, resources and rewards they need to deliver generational change in the railway.

sounds like it could be sent to Pseuds Corner in Private Eye, and I wonder what the RMT would have to say about "..Develop a new approach to working with the unions..."

 

Sleeperwaking

Member
Joined
20 Oct 2018
Messages
166
I saw the guy from the Rail Delivery Group on BBC News this morning speaking from Birmingham New Street.

My first impression was that what he said was a load of vacuous wibble which sounded very good, but doesn't mean much until we have something more definite.
The RDG full report can be downloaded here which goes into much more detail about each point. I haven't read it yet - just downloaded it myself - but page 22 onwards seems to be the bit you want.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,524
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
The big concern I have about devolution outside of the big cities (where the PTEs or whatever they're called now would probably manage things well enough) is that local authorities would just cut, cut and cut like they have for buses.

I also think on-rail competition is a fallacy and should be banned, not encouraged.
 

ejstubbs

Member
Joined
19 May 2016
Messages
200
Location
Scotland
What does "reducing overcrowding on some of the busiest long-distance services" have to do with delivering "easier fares for all"? I mean, both are laudable goals, but I don't see how one relates particularly much to the other.
 

Jorge Da Silva

Established Member
Joined
4 Apr 2018
Messages
2,591
Location
Cleethorpes, North East Lincolnshire
What does "reducing overcrowding on some of the busiest long-distance services" have to do with delivering "easier fares for all"? I mean, both are laudable goals, but I don't see how one relates particularly much to the other.

I think what they are trying to do is spread the demand out by making it cheaper to travel at times where it is not as busy and making fares more flexible.
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
67,429
Location
Yorkshire
What does "reducing overcrowding on some of the busiest long-distance services" have to do with delivering "easier fares for all"? I mean, both are laudable goals, but I don't see how one relates particularly much to the other.
I suspect the plan is to move away from the regulated Off Peak Returns, and instead require passengers to purchase train-specific fares, as these are considered "easier" than flexible fares.
 

Mag_seven

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
1 Sep 2014
Messages
9,993
Location
here to eternity
I saw the guy from the Rail Delivery Group on BBC News this morning speaking from Birmingham New Street.

My first impression was that what he said was a load of vacuous wibble which sounded very good, but doesn't mean much until we have something more definite.

There was also a lady from the opposing point of view who in my opinion hit the nail on the head when she said something along the lines of when people buy a ticket from A to B they want to join the first train from A to B not try and work out if its the correct operator or not.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,524
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
I think what they are trying to do is spread the demand out by making it cheaper to travel at times where it is not as busy and making fares more flexible.

"to increase the income by charging more at times passengers have to travel" is a more realistic way of putting it, given that this will at least in part have been fed by VT's absolutely disgraceful anti-passenger diatribe.
 

CeeJ

Member
Joined
25 Jun 2017
Messages
157
An interesting report from RDG - naturally positioned with operator’s interests at heart, but this is better than defending the status quo.

Only omission (aside from a couple of vague references) in terms of ticketing is the integration of smart ticketing and a definitive approach to reducing paper tickets.
 

Sleeperwaking

Member
Joined
20 Oct 2018
Messages
166
Having had time to read the fares part of the RDG report, it's still not incredibly clear what they're proposing. But one idea seems to be moving to a cross industry "Oyster" card style arrangement - instead of paying a fixed fee for a season ticket (price set assuming travel in peak times), a commuter could "pay-as-they-go" for the actual trains used during the week until they reach the price cap for travel on that route over that time period (similar to how Oyster system stops charging once you've reached the all-day travelcard price for travel in that zone). Commuters with flexible working hours might then opt to travel at off-peak times / work from home more often as it could actually save them some money. Annual season ticket holders could see a reduction in cost as the system would take into account days / weeks when they don't commute, like when they go on holiday.
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
67,429
Location
Yorkshire
Commuters with flexible working hours might then opt to travel at off-peak times / work from home more often as it could actually save them some money. Annual season ticket holders could see a reduction in cost as the system would take into account days / weeks when they don't commute, like when they go on holiday.
If the cost of Season tickets reduces for people who work fewer days, then it is pretty much guaranteed that the cost will increase for those who work 5 days a week and get an average amount of holiday, as any changes are going to be "revenue neutral"

At present an Annual Season gives you several free weeks compared to paying at the monthly rate. There is no prospect of people paying less, and no-one paying more, unless there is a change in Government policy.
 

WatcherZero

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2010
Messages
10,272
There was some data on season tickets and the railway planning assumption was something like people would make 280 return trips a year with an annual season ticket but the actual figure people were doing was around 240.

The RDG approach seems to be breaking down fares into small legs, it always costs X between point A & B no matter the company and there isn't an alternative route with a different price or the possibility that it would be cheaper with split ticketing, these prices would be set by a national regulator and essentially dictate what the Tocs are paying into network maintenance. But then rail companies could discount the standard price out of their own pocket, for instance one may offer an off peak deduction while another may offer a discount for operator specific tickets, essentially rather than competing on route choice they are competing on discounting, but the taxpayer/infrastructure provider isn't losing out because they are always paying the same for the network capacity and right to carry that passenger.
 
Last edited:

Sleeperwaking

Member
Joined
20 Oct 2018
Messages
166
There is no prospect of people paying less, and no-one paying more, unless there is a change in Government policy.
Well yes, that is stage one of their fare review plan (see below). Also, clearly, the purpose of this report is to suggest changes / improvements to the current system (from an RDG perspective), so I don't quite see the point in immediately writing off the proposals because they wouldn't work under the current system...

• Stage One: Industry and Government work together to reform the way that fares are worked out. This means replacing the outdated Ticketing and Settlement Agreement (TSA) with a new set of system regulations.
• Stage Two: With these new system regulations in place, commercial changes would then need to be agreed with operators, reflected in new pricing regulations written in to Government contracts.
 

thejuggler

Member
Joined
8 Jan 2016
Messages
1,186
The big concern I have about devolution outside of the big cities (where the PTEs or whatever they're called now would probably manage things well enough) is that local authorities would just cut, cut and cut like they have for buses..

I don't know where you live, but local authorities haven't run buses for decades in my area.

The bus companies decide where to run buses, the local authorities try to influence routes, but they don't have much say if a route isn't profitable or becomes so unreliable a timetable can't be fixed.
 

YorkshireBear

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2010
Messages
8,677
I don't know where you live, but local authorities haven't run buses for decades in my area.

The bus companies decide where to run buses, the local authorities try to influence routes, but they don't have much say if a route isn't profitable or becomes so unreliable a timetable can't be fixed.

Many places the bus routes are subsidised and so while the bus operators choose where they run, they now only run profitable routes with other routes abandoned due to a lack of PTE funding.
 

Randomer

Member
Joined
31 Jul 2017
Messages
314
I think people reading the submission need to remember that the RDG despite making several pro passenger soundbites in various interviews is at its heart a body ran for the interests of its members, the train operating companies.

Having only read the introduction to the report and the summary as posted above a cynic might think that the driver for fares reform and particularly season tickets is that the number of people using yearly seasons (which make up the biggest guaranteed income for most TOC) is going down. Likewise the number of businesses prepared to pay the full anytime rate for there staff to travel outside of London.

For some reason I chopped part of my post when copy pasted:

As a country decisions need to be made by political parties about how much tax they are prepared to use to subsidise rail travel and public transport in general in the interests of the economy, environment and country as a whole. Not just a dogma of "private run is best" or "bring back BR".

However, I would be greatly encouraged by point 2 i.e. removing DfT influence to a more hands off approach but this seems like a return to the Strategic Rail Authority and most posters will realise how long that lasted.
 

Jorge Da Silva

Established Member
Joined
4 Apr 2018
Messages
2,591
Location
Cleethorpes, North East Lincolnshire
Many places the bus routes are subsidised and so while the bus operators choose where they run, they now only run profitable routes with other routes abandoned due to a lack of PTE funding.

In my area Stagecoach decides where they run but with funding from the council and Department for Transport. Devolution though works on rail with TfL primarily because they are able to integrate it with other modes of transport and put it on the tube map. TfN could run Northern under the proposals and as it is represented by different people in the North it would work better than being controlled by Westminster. Which would you like Westminster or the people who represent those areas (e.g. Transport for London (for rail services in London), Transport for the West Midlands (for services in the West Midlands and Transport for the North (for services in the North)).
 

Class 170101

Established Member
Joined
1 Mar 2014
Messages
7,908
I also think on-rail competition is a fallacy and should be banned, not encouraged.

I disagree but I accept that on rail competiton should not be seen as the be all and end all.

Annual season ticket holders could see a reduction in cost as the system would take into account days / weeks when they don't commute, like when they go on holiday.

To be fair a season ticket does do this.
 

ABB125

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2016
Messages
3,746
Location
University of Birmingham
I see the RMT has issued its usual posotive response to this submission. Here are two articles from their website (the second is specifically about this topic). Can anyone spot a pattern?
RMT warns of total chaos as Virgin demands a rail franchise free for all

Rail union RMT today warned of total chaos on the railways as Virgin Trains called for a new era of wholesale deregulation that would effectively allow private operators to bid route by route, slot by slot for the most lucrative chunks of the network.Virgin have set out their proposals in their submission to the Government's Rail Review.

RMT warned that any such move would be a mirror of the Tory bus deregulation which saw companies queuing up on the streets to pick up passengers in dense areas of population at peak time while rural and lesser-used services were closed down wholesale.

RMT General Secretary Mick Cash said:

“What Virgin are proposing this morning is a de-regulated free for all where private train operators slug it out on the most lucrative routes on a slot by slot basis . It would lead to total chaos with passengers trapped in a transport nightmare of escalating fares where prices rise by the minute according to availability.

“Virgin are actually proposing a version of the current broken rail franchising model pumped up on steroids when what is really needed is an end to this nonsense and public ownership of our railways.”

RMT warns of total chaos as private operators demand a rail franchise free for all

Rail union RMT today warned of total chaos on the railways as it emerged that the private rail contractors club – the Rail Delivery Group - is calling for a new era of wholesale deregulation on the tracks that would effectively allow private operators to bid route by route, slot by slot for the most lucrative chunks of the network.

RMT warned that any such move would be a mirror of the Tory bus deregulation which saw companies queuing up on the streets to pick up passengers in dense areas of population at peak time while rural and lesser-used services were closed down wholesale.

The private operators are also demanding that there should be no political accountability to the taxpayer for their actions with a total break from Government control of the railways and it’s replacement with a new quango organisation stuffed full of bosses and with a licence to maximise profits.

The plan – called out by RMT as “rail privatisation on steroids” - forms the basis of the Rail Delivery Group’s submission to the Government Rail Review set up under the control of top city boy Keith Williams, the former Chief Executive of British Airways, who is expected to agree to the demands of big business under the direction of failing Tory transport secretary Chris Grayling.

RMT General Secretary Mick Cash said:

“What the private rail operators are proposing this morning is a de-regulated free for all where private train operators slug it out on the most lucrative routes on a slot by slot basis . It would lead to total chaos with passengers trapped in a transport nightmare of escalating fares where prices rise by the minute according to availability.

“They are also demanding a break from the last shreds of accountability to the taxpayer through the normal political machinery in a move that would give the racketeering train companies an absolute free run to milk the system and the passenger for every penny piece.

“The Rail Delivery Group are actually proposing a version of the broken rail franchising model pumped up on steroids when what is really needed is an end to this nonsense and public ownership of our railways.”

I've drafted another press release for them, to save them from having to do it:
RMT warns of total chaos as dinosaur union demands a rail renationalisation free-for-all competing with other public services for scarce taxpayer's money.
Rail Union RMT warned of total chaos on the rails as it emerged that the communist fan club - the RMT Union - is calling for a new era of wholesale micro-management of the tracks that would effectively allow other public services, such as the NHS, to bid for the money that would have gone to subsidise unsustainable routes, as they laugh all the way to the bank rather than offer a better service to the ripped-off taxpaying public.
RMT warned that any such move would mirror the Labour Party's similar renationalisation proposals for other services such as water, which would see lack of investment due to no incentive to offer better services as there would be no incentive to make money.
The plan - called out by RMT as "renationalisation on steroids" - forms the basis of the RMT's demands every time there is any piece of news whatsoever about the railways, a bit like a stuck record.
RMT General Luddite Mick Cask said:
"What RMT is proposing every hour of the day is a system where incompetent bureaucrats from London with no experience of railway operation micro-manage every tiny aspect of the railway. It would lead to total chaos with timetable failures and poor industrial relations with escalating rip-off fares as money begins to be siphoned off by other, more important government sectors.
"They are also demanding a break from the last shreds of accountability to common sense and logic that would give DafT an absolutely free run to milk the system and the passenger for every penny piece because everyone knows that once private-sector innovation is removed (and it is somewhat stifled already) and replaced by quangos in Whitehall the universe implodes and the Big Bang/the Creation (delete as per your personal beliefs) happens in reverse.

Sorry for slightly changing the topic, but i couldn't help myself. The important thing to bring away from this post is that, surprise surprise, the RMT has nothing but negativity to shout out about this story.
 

Randomer

Member
Joined
31 Jul 2017
Messages
314
So having read through the report some parts stand out to me as a little bit disingenuous:

Page 43 said:
Long-distance and leisure travellers could see demand spread more evenly across the day, potentially reducing overcrowding by up to a third on the busiest services. Updating regulations around peak and off-peak travel would mean ticket prices could be set more flexibly, spreading demand for a better customer experience

I believe that the power to even out the passenger loading already lies with the TOC concerned if they wished to. Virgin Trains in particular could easily balance passenger load with less onerous off peak ticket conditions in the evenings but chooses not to do so for revenue reasons. It is interesting to compare loadings on a Friday evening between VTWC and LNER whose off peak evening restrictions are shorter. Removing such restrictions only on Fridays could easily reduce the crush loading seen on the first off peak trains leaving Euston.

Page 45 said:
This could enable local pricing decisions to be applied, for example allowing low wage employees to be given cheaper travel, if the devolved authority decided to prioritise and fund such a policy

Surely the question here is what model allows the local authority (or passenger transport executive) to afford such a policy without further funding from central government. Effectively the poorest, most deprived areas which would benefit from such a policy are the ones also least likely to be able to afford it in the current funding system.

Does anyone else see a dichotomy between having a central controlling mind (effectively what is proposed on Page 48-49) and greater local devolution?

It works in some countries because they have a much greater separation of local and long distance services. Certainly the information about Sweden in Page 31 misses out that deregulation has brought about much decreased flexibility for long distance passengers (air line style fares as proposed by VTWC recently) and increased ticket prices compared to inflation on long distance services despite competition. I will endeavour to find an English language copy of the latest national passenger satisfaction survey but essentially the only area where passenger ratings are improving is the contracted local services as defined by the equivalent of the regional level PTE (which are admittedly privately operated under contract.)

Page 54 said:
We are advocating the creation of a new system of contracts that would be more responsive to what our customers are asking for. Our new ‘public service contracts’ system would be made up of TfL-style single branded ‘concessions’ where usually an integrated transport body effectively runs the service,

Personally I think that this could be the best future structure for the railways under private or public ownership. Indeed the system of the incumbent national operator and private companies bidding for concessions is widespread in countries which I have travelled in with good public transport provision (Netherlands, Switzerland and Sweden come to mind immediately.)

On point 4 the Amy case study in particular:
Page 63 said:
As with airlines, companies on intercity routes would fight for Amy’s business with offers, discounts and more options.
This only seems possible if the whole system of franchised long distance operators is swept away entirely but at what point does an operator become long distance. In terms of travel time for example Leeds to Bristol is a much longer journey than Leeds to London yet it is doubtful paths could be found to have meaningful competition for the route.

RDG must define what it means by intercity. Does it effectively mean WCML and ECML served stations? In which case what about passengers travelling shorter distances on services because a lack of paths means they are the only option on that route for commuting. Or for example does TPE and Scotrail (inter 7 cities) count in which case how does competition work here. TPE couldn't realistically be split into two operators both doing the same routes. Otherwise the idea of point 6, local control over transport becomes moot if the operator is considered to be an intercity one and thus operating on a much more commercial basis. Likewise in the case of thru services serving two local regions e.g. Manchester and West Yorkshire how are priorities set locally in both cases without adversely impacting the local decision making of the other body.

Page 80 said:
• Cultural change: supporting a structure that promotes everyone to act in the longterm interest of the customer.

Perhaps the biggest cultural change might be in training and encouraging staff to continue learning the rules and regulations around ticketing matters. Not allowing passenger through gate lines with valid tickets through not understanding how off peak tickets are valid; "this is a peak time service" or threatening prosecution of passengers with valid tickets (e.g. XC on a route with a more expensive ticket where the correct procedure would be to issue a zero fare excess.) Without this passenger experience will continue to be negatively effected when new ticketing rules and regulations are introduced with the same ineffective training system that some TOC seem to have in place now.
 

WatcherZero

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2010
Messages
10,272
I think people reading the submission need to remember that the RDG despite making several pro passenger soundbites in various interviews is at its heart a body ran for the interests of its members, the train operating companies.

Network Rail, HS2, Freight companies and public owned rail groups e.g. Transport for London and Transport for Wales are members too.

RMT are missing the point where the RDG aren't calling for deregulation but more regulation through the creation of a new independent regulator with more power over franchises than even the Dft has today as well as handing over control for service specification to more local authorities, closer to the actual passengers and outside the Whitehall bubble. The RDG are also even proposing giving staff and unions a role in writing the Tocs bids to operate services.

The huge fuss being made over more competition on West Coast in the media shows they didn't read it where it holds up the existing WCML as an example of the intercity competition it wants with West Midlands and Virgin competing to provide capacity on the same line, it also suggests an alternate model of the new national regulator selling capacity the way that Airports sell landing slots.
 
Last edited:

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,524
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Virgin Trains in particular could easily balance passenger load with less onerous off peak ticket conditions in the evenings but chooses not to do so for revenue reasons. It is interesting to compare loadings on a Friday evening between VTWC and LNER whose off peak evening restrictions are shorter. Removing such restrictions only on Fridays could easily reduce the crush loading seen on the first off peak trains leaving Euston.

You know they have done, right? (I believe it was a condition of the last Direct Award to do so, and the same has been applied, I think, on the East Coast).
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,817
Location
Yorks
Having had time to read the fares part of the RDG report, it's still not incredibly clear what they're proposing. But one idea seems to be moving to a cross industry "Oyster" card style arrangement - instead of paying a fixed fee for a season ticket (price set assuming travel in peak times), a commuter could "pay-as-they-go" for the actual trains used during the week until they reach the price cap for travel on that route over that time period (similar to how Oyster system stops charging once you've reached the all-day travelcard price for travel in that zone). Commuters with flexible working hours might then opt to travel at off-peak times / work from home more often as it could actually save them some money. Annual season ticket holders could see a reduction in cost as the system would take into account days / weeks when they don't commute, like when they go on holiday.

As long as the traditional season ticket doesn't dissappear.

I've experienced enough of the amazing dissappearing charge cap on Oyster to know that I don't trust pay-as-you-go arrangements in place of flat fare tickets.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,817
Location
Yorks
Network Rail, HS2, Freight companies and public owned rail groups e.g. Transport for London and Transport for Wales are members too.

RMT are missing the point where the RDG aren't calling for deregulation but more regulation through the creation of a new independent regulator with more power over franchises than even the Dft has today as well as handing over control for service specification to more local authorities, closer to the actual passengers and outside the Whitehall bubble. The RDG are also even proposing giving staff and unions a role in writing the Tocs bids to operate services.

The huge fuss being made over more competition on West Coast in the media shows they didn't read it where it holds up the existing WCML as an example of the intercity competition it wants with West Midlands and Virgin competing to provide capacity on the same line, it also suggests an alternate model of the new national regulator selling capacity the way that Airports sell landing slots.

Someone else overseeing franchising is all lovely, but it doesn't equate to an alternative system of regulating fares.
 

squizzler

Established Member
Joined
4 Jan 2017
Messages
1,903
Location
Jersey, Channel Islands
Maybe off topic, but I wish people who publish these long reports would make them available for download in epub format without all the pictures so people with e-readers (Kobo or similar) can process them quickly without having to read on a monitor.
 

bionic

Member
Joined
8 Nov 2013
Messages
883
I think people reading the submission need to remember that the RDG despite making several pro passenger soundbites in various interviews is at its heart a body ran for the interests of its members, the train operating companies.

Yes. All they want to do is keep a foothold in the railways in the face of pretty much everyone saying the current system is not fit for purpose. What they don't want is renationalisation, so this is them offering an "alternative" with their own interests (and profits) at heart.

The RDG represent TOCs so this of course is completely natural and expected from them.

Sorry for slightly changing the topic, but i couldn't help myself. The important thing to bring away from this post is that, surprise surprise, the RMT has nothing but negativity to shout out about this story.

Yes. The RMT represent the interests of railway workers, have a socialist constitution and have always been vociferous about public ownership and accountability in the running of the railways.

The response of the RMT is also completely natural and expected.

Whether Joe Bloggs chooses to side with either line or pick a stance somewhere between the two does not change the fact that both the musings of the RDG and the RMT are coming from the natural positions of those two organisations. I don't understand why anyone would be surprised or feel the need to get worked up by what either has said.
 

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
29,178
Location
Fenny Stratford
If the cost of Season tickets reduces for people who work fewer days, then it is pretty much guaranteed that the cost will increase for those who work 5 days a week and get an average amount of holiday, as any changes are going to be "revenue neutral"

At present an Annual Season gives you several free weeks compared to paying at the monthly rate. There is no prospect of people paying less, and no-one paying more, unless there is a change in Government policy.

I agree but go further - the whole fares "simplification" agenda is simply a way to ensure a reduction/removal of discounted fares.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top