Transpennine Industrial Relations

[skyhigh]

but TPE are still digging their heels in despite making so much money from the pandemic.

Please enlighten us, how much money has TPE made as a business due to covid?

TPE’s waste of space management team are refusing to give staff a higher pay for working Sunday/ working rest days

TPE management can't grant what they're not authorised to give... why does that make them a "waste of space"?

Posts like this really miss the point the dispute is essentially TOCs vs the Government, it is not train crew vs management...

 

[SuperNova]

From what I understand of it. TPE’s waste of space management team are refusing to give staff a higher pay for working Sunday/ working rest days meaning the union has imposed staff to do a work to rule including Sunday strike but TPE are still digging their heels in despite making so much money from the pandemic.

Extremely out of order. Welcome to the new world of DfT micro management. If they don't approve it - nothing happens.

 

[Fokx]

One of the reasons is that different roles are treated differently. Recently TPE told RMT that there was no option to increase the 15% that guards receive for overtime.

Two weeks later they offer an increase of 15% to ASLEF (who turned it down)…

 

[muz379]

Does anyone know why the relationship between unions and TOC is particularly difficult for TPE?

Recent periods have seen them again have the worst reliability statistics in the country.

I dont think TPE are on their own in having drivers and guards withdraw RDW . Could just be that they relied on RDW more than other operators ?

 

[Frankfurt]

Please enlighten us, how much money has TPE made as a business due to covid?

Huge profits hike at TransPennine Express revealed

The company's turnover also increased from £290.2m to £437.7m over the same period

www.google.co.uk

 

[Watershed]

Huge profits hike at TransPennine Express revealed

The company's turnover also increased from £290.2m to £437.7m over the same period

www.google.co.uk

Oh dear, not this old chestnut again.

If you read the accounts, you'll see that £60m of that "profit" was actually a release of previously accounted 'onerous contract provision', due to the franchise termination fee having been settled at a more favourable sum than was expected. This relates to what happened before Covid.

Once you take that out, the 'true' profit was £13m, which works out as around 4% of costs. A notable sum, but a lot less than the headline initially suggests.

 

[SuperNova]

Oh dear, not this old chestnut again.

If you read the accounts, you'll see that £60m of that "profit" was actually a release of previously accounted 'onerous contract provision', due to the franchise termination fee having been settled at a more favourable sum than was expected. This relates to what happened before Covid.

Once you take that out, the 'true' profit was £13m, which works out as around 4% of costs. A notable sum, but a lot less than the headline initially suggests.

It also fails to take into account that sum is primarily made up of Government subsidy to keep the railways running through the pandemic.

TPE made a significant loss in 19/20. The staff numbers were largely the same but the passenger numbers were around a sixth in 20/21. If anyone actually reads the article, it literally states the money to offset revenue loss comes from £325m in government subsidy.

That article is being used as a stick by people who should know better, but to those entrenched in a position with blinkers on it doesn't matter. With the NRC and government managing the railway - their demands won't be met.

 

[gimmea50anyday]

Will the trades union members involved in this dispute be losing financially whilst matters stay the same?

Not really as they are still receiving the basic pay. They are merely refusing to work any overtime which includes rest days, sundays and service disruption over the contractual +15 mins allowance.

Rest day work is virtually non-existent at the moment as there is significant slack in the rosters as TPE are running approximately 75-80% of the pre covid timetable. Sundays, although rostered, are not part of the working Week and therefore enforced overtime. Time +15% is still under £20 per hour and for a 5 hour shift once tax, NI, food, fuel costs are factored in, plus the loss of 8 hours of a day spent with family once commuting in and getting prepared for your shift is also taken in to account, the shift is worth less than £50 and for many including me not worth the loss of the day.

Oh dear, not this old chestnut again.
.

The thing you have to remember is the perception this puts out to the general public. What you say in your post makes sense to an economist, however on the face value alone this is what people see and perceive as a result Of newspaper and TV segments posting this. You have to admit to say theres no money in the pot for news stories like this to then break doesn’t look good for the company does it.

But then I should have paid more attention in school and I could have had a better job. So if I wasn't a train manager then someone has to be. so what level of standard does that person need to be if they also paid less attention at school than they should have?….

 

[SuperNova]

But then I should have paid more attention in school and I could have had a better job. So if I wasn't a train manager then someone has to be. so what level of standard does that person need to be if they also paid less attention at school than they should have?….

Let's not use the words of an incompetent NR comms manager to deflect from the fact that the news story quoted is shocking journalism, which lacks basic fact checks and is wrongly being used to stoke an argument. You don't have to be an economist to know that rail was propped up by government subsidy.

 

[muz379]

Let's not use the words of an incompetent NR comms manager to deflect from the fact that the news story quoted is shocking journalism, which lacks basic fact checks and is wrongly being used to stoke an argument. You don't have to be an economist to know that rail was propped up by government subsidy.

Let's not pretend that the clickbait journalism doesn't go both ways though . What of the stories about "union barons to shut down railway" etc etc .

The end of the day majority of the public don't scratch beneath the surface of these stories and take what is reported at some sort of face value .

 

[VauxhallNova]

I understand that DfT are the ones making the decisions about pay and overtime etc. But why are TPE in this position in the first place and why is it worse for them?

The current timetable, at least between Leeds and Manchester, is about 60% of what they were originally contracted to run.

 

[mike57]

This dispute has now been ongoing for a number of months, and from a passenger viewpoint its just another issue in the whole TPE saga, which seemed to have leapt from crisis to crisis over the last 4 years. I realise there are effectively 3 players in this dispute, TPE, Union and DfT, but a potential passenger trying to travel on days when the service is decimated doesn't care, he/she either doesn't travel, or has a throughrly unpleasent/inconvenient journey.

Looking at the big picture, the public want a 7 day a week railway, and with the increase in lesiure travel Sunday services become even more important. The country as whole is looking at rising inflation and economic problems caused by Covid and the war in Ukraine, these problems mean that goverment spending is going to be under scrutiny for some years.

TPE in common with a lot of TOCs receive a government subsidy, this subsidy comes from taxpayers, and given the fluid situation in politics at the moment, particularly in the north where traditional allegiances seem to have gone I could forsee a situation where the voters see rail subsidies as a waste of money because when they want to use the services that their tax is supporting they are not running.

This would leave the DfT, TPE and unions in a situation where they fighting over a 'corpse' with reduced funding.

I realise the Unions want the best deal for their members, the DfT want contain costs, and TPE want to maximise profits, but unless some realism creeps into all 3 sides they could end up in a very unpleasent place.

Trying to align terms and conditions which probably date back in part to the nationalisation of the railways in 1948 seems to me to be part of the problem. I think a GBR solution is going to be needed, and my solution would be to say "This is what we need to run a seven day railway" ensuring that incomes are protected, i.e. no one suffers a pay cut assuming they work to a similar pattern as previously, and there then has to be a degree of, 'this is fair, take it or leave it' Would the unions then continue to persue industrial action which would effectivley destroy their industry, I dont know, past history says possibly, but I also think public sympathy would be very limited in this situation. Equally TPE could hand the franchise back, and it becomes another OLR run TOC if they don't like the 'imposed' solution.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I understand that DfT are the ones making the decisions about pay and overtime etc.

Thanking you for making this clear to all contributors.

 

[irish_rail]

One of the reasons for increased cancellations on TPE has to be compounded by lack of route knowledge. If you are short of staff you would want to allocate what staff member you do have to say work a complete Liverpool to Newcastle and return service. Nice and productive and a train can run.

HOWEVER TPE tend to only allow staff the minimum route knowledge so a Liverpool to NCL train changes crew perhaps 3 times on route. If just one of those 3 members of crew is not present the entire thing falls apart.

As others have said this is a management issue and they need to be improving road knowledge for both drivers and guards, why for example do Liverpool staff only sign as far as Leeds? And why can they not even work to Preston? It just isn't very productive and when there are shortages it leads to cancellations

Another First franchise, GWR gets it right. At Plymouth for example crews sign more or less everything and everywhere. Having one driver and guard from Plymouth to London and back again is far better and far more resilient.

 

[43066]

I realise the Unions want the best deal for their members, the DfT want contain costs, and TPE want to maximise profits, but unless some realism creeps into all 3 sides they could end up in a very unpleasent place.

It’s funny how “realism” always seem to devolve to railway staff and unions being told:

'this is fair, take it or leave it'

How about the government make more money available if necessary? Railway subsidy is trifling compared to the amounts of government spending that have taken place over the last few years. Subsidy is also going to be rapidly reducing as passenger numbers (and revenues) rise.

Trying to align terms and conditions which probably date back in part to the nationalisation of the railways in 1948 seems to me to be part of the problem.

Specifically which Ts and Cs dating back to 1948 would those be? That sounds rather like a lazy stereotype.

my solution would be to say "This is what we need to run a seven day railway"

The railway already is a seven day operation, albeit with reduced services on Sunday. Increasing Sunday services to match weekdays will require more staff and will cost more. It’s therefore unlikely to be something the DfT really wants to do. This point has been made again and again.

 

[Some guy]

One of the reasons for increased cancellations on TPE has to be compounded by lack of route knowledge. If you are short of staff you would want to allocate what staff member you do have to say work a complete Liverpool to Newcastle and return service. Nice and productive and a train can run.

HOWEVER TPE tend to only allow staff the minimum route knowledge so a Liverpool to NCL train changes crew perhaps 3 times on route. If just one of those 3 members of crew is not present the entire thing falls apart.

As others have said this is a management issue and they need to be improving road knowledge for both drivers and guards, why for example do Liverpool staff only sign as far as Leeds? And why can they not even work to Preston? It just isn't very productive and when there are shortages it leads to cancellations

Another First franchise, GWR gets it right. At Plymouth for example crews sign more or less everything and everywhere. Having one driver and guard from Plymouth to London and back again is far better and far more resilient.

On the WCML Preston drivers and conductors sign the entire line. Glasgow sign all the way to preston from Glasgow and Edinburgh but they also do the east coast. It would be so much more useful if TPE opened an edinburgh depot to cover that line and Newcastle and Edinburgh just focus on the east coast

 

[irish_rail]

On the WCML Preston drivers and conductors sign the entire line. Glasgow sign all the way to preston from Glasgow and Edinburgh but they also do the east coast. It would be so much more useful if TPE opened an edinburgh depot to cover that line and Newcastle and Edinburgh just focus on the east coast

Yes some depots like say Preston they have got it right on . Most however , less so.

 

[RPI]

One of the reasons for increased cancellations on TPE has to be compounded by lack of route knowledge. If you are short of staff you would want to allocate what staff member you do have to say work a complete Liverpool to Newcastle and return service. Nice and productive and a train can run.

HOWEVER TPE tend to only allow staff the minimum route knowledge so a Liverpool to NCL train changes crew perhaps 3 times on route. If just one of those 3 members of crew is not present the entire thing falls apart.

As others have said this is a management issue and they need to be improving road knowledge for both drivers and guards, why for example do Liverpool staff only sign as far as Leeds? And why can they not even work to Preston? It just isn't very productive and when there are shortages it leads to cancellations

Another First franchise, GWR gets it right. At Plymouth for example crews sign more or less everything and everywhere. Having one driver and guard from Plymouth to London and back again is far better and far more resilient.

Whilst I broadly agree, it does baffle me that Plymouth drivers don't sign Taunton to Bristol (unless this has changed recently)

 

[gimmea50anyday]

One of the reasons for increased cancellations on TPE has to be compounded by lack of route knowledge. If you are short of staff you would want to allocate what staff member you do have to say work a complete Liverpool to Newcastle and return service. Nice and productive and a train can run

Again i have argued this with management, i recently lost everything west of Huddersfield along with all the diversions. Now my flexibility and the ability to kerp the job moving has been lost.
I asked why we have so many crew changes en route and the response i got was that it was cheaper. More work from less crews more efficiently.
The reality is its not what i see on the front line nor do the punters. The amount of dead heading or pass rides and short hop shuttling we have between Liverpool and Man Vicc, Leeds and York, and york up to newcastle is wasteful in resources. Partial ticket checks only are made because crews dont have time before they need to get off the train again so many dont bother as a result so passengers arent getting the service they deserve. Booked assists are being missed because crees dont know or forget to pass on because of the frequent crew changes.
Personally, the cost of everything is now so firmly fixed on, they see the value of nothing and the cost benefit has been lost. The service to the customer is suffering as a result. This eill never change as long as the pbsession with DfT box ticking remains in the industry.
This is why morale is non existent and the service is appauling

 

[VauxhallNova]

So the approach to traincrew management is at least part of the answer. Interesting.

 

[LowLevel]

So the approach to traincrew management is at least part of the answer. Interesting.

Apparently it was a brainwave of the last numpty MD to restrict route knowledge.

 

[gimmea50anyday]

The end of the day majority of the public don't scratch breath the surface of these stories and take what is reported at some sort of face value .

Nail hit squarely on the head there.....

 

[VauxhallNova]

I dont think TPE are on their own in having drivers and guards withdraw RDW . Could just be that they relied on RDW more than other operators ?

Seems that way. It certainly adds a different perspective on everything that happened pre-Covid.

 

[gimmea50anyday]

Apparently it was a brainwave of the last numpty MD to restrict route knowledge.

Apparently the planning director has been doing things this way for 30 years....

Its not just route knowledge, traction knowledge is limited to certain depots and links too leaving scenarios where trains are cancelled because spare drivers are available but dont sign the traction or conductrs at a different depot cant cross cover because they dont sign the route etc, plus the frequent nature of crew changes leaves multiple services at the mercy of one delay which quickly snowballs. It goes against Steve Lee championing conductor flexibility, and my earlier highlight of just how much of my route card i have lost thanks to not being given my requested reviews because management tell me my depot has no work over that route!

 

[VauxhallNova]

So TPE have been doing this for 30 years?

 

[gimmea50anyday]

No, this is fairly recently but more noticably so since 2018

 

[VauxhallNova]

Apparently the planning director has been doing things this way for 30 years....

Its not just route knowledge, traction knowledge is limited to certain depots and links too leaving scenarios where trains are cancelled because spare drivers are available but dont sign the traction or conductrs at a different depot cant cross cover because they dont sign the route etc, plus the frequent nature of crew changes leaves multiple services at the mercy of one delay which quickly snowballs. It goes against Steve Lee championing conductor flexibility, and my earlier highlight of just how much of my route card i have lost thanks to not being given my requested reviews because management tell me my depot has no work over that route!

Completely understand why that doesn't work. But why would you do it in the first place?

 

[mike57]

It’s funny how “realism” always seem to devolve to railway staff and unions being told:

Its not just staff/unions, TPE are trying maximise profit for their shareholders, but if they dont like the level of profit they can make then equally they can 'take it or leave it', and the level of subsidy needs to be sufficient to run a level of service that people will use, and the DfT micromanaging but then standing back when it all goes pear shaped is another problem which needs to be addressed.

I can just see the whole dispute reaching a level where the underlying 'business' is destroyed, and there is nothing left to fight over.

I think a well paid reasonably content workforce is the only way to run something like railways, where the level of knowledge and training required is significant. I am a big believer in the saying 'Pay peanuts, get monkeys',

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The railway already is a seven day operation, albeit with reduced services on Sunday. Increasing Sunday services to match weekdays will require more staff and will cost more. It’s therefore unlikely to be something the DfT really wants to do. This point has been made again and again.

If that is so, why do certain unions want to have nothing to do with Sunday as a working day?

 

[Some guy]

So the approach to traincrew management is at least part of the answer. Interesting.

That’s exactly why the management are also the problem. They make decisions for their staff and always come up with ideas which never work in the end