Well, if you later do find something, feel free to quote it!
As I indicated, it’s more what you
haven’t said (therefore a little difficult to quote!); you’ve been surprisingly uncritical of proposals which on any reading clearly amount to closure of ticket offices
+ destaffing.
I do not know the Government's intentions (nor do I trust them not to change their minds on a whim!) but
We all know the government’s intentions are entirely centred around reducing cost and maximising revenue, as we have seen in other areas, such as the proposed changes to fares which I note you’ve been very critical of, and have vociferously opposed - in stark contrast to your attitude on this thread.
Surely it’s therefore logical to assume they’re taking the same approach to this aspect? It would be a little odd if they weren’t(!) and indeed the proposals appear to bear that out, as others have indicated.
I've already said what I'd like to see happen upthread.
You’ve said:
I don't want to see job losses; on the contrary I'd like to see an increase in staffing, but in more visible/proactive roles. I've seen TOCS/networks both in this country and abroad that do this well, but other networks/TOCs that do a very bad job and here is an opportunity to change that.
So do you think these proposals reflect that wish?
In particular my TOC is quite significantly reducing station headcount by around a hundred, and taking the opportunity to deskill other on station roles, such as making platform staff non safety critical st some locations (likely with a view to further cuts in future). Make no mistake, this isn’t simply about “bringing staff out from behind glass”, it’s ultimately about reducing headcount, so is surely directly contradictory to your expressed desire to see an increase in staffing?!
The proposals also largely fob off the accessibility side of things, through increased reliance on booked assistance etc. which we all know doesn’t work much of the time on its current form. That’s likely to make the railway substantially worse for the % of people who require it.
Change needs to happen; the debate is about how, and what. Not if!
Where have I said anything that contradicts that? Virtually nobody has suggested they want things to carry on exactly as they are. Several have uncritically backed the proposals, though.
Sadly I get the impression many on here simply view these proposals as a victory against the RMT, and aren’t considering (or simply don’t care!) that the railway is likely to end up significantly less accessible for many.