• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both 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!

BR's Free Travel

Status
Not open for further replies.

Aictos

Established Member
Joined
28 Apr 2009
Messages
10,403
The Guardian article states that former BR staff are allowed 'up to 10 occasions of free travel a year.'

Wrong! I get 20.

Mind, as its the Guardian one must make allowances.

It also states that staff get 75% discount on LUL which isn't entirely correct, I cannot speak for safeguarded members but FCC is the only TOC which serves London which has a agreement with TfL for discounted fares within the London area to date.

I haven't heard of the other TOCs offering such travel benefits.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

caliwag

Member
Joined
29 Mar 2009
Messages
608
Location
York
I certainly would not trust any newspaper article with such figures...500.000 safeguarded + family members. Sensational stuff. Where could they possibly get such a figure? I think at privatisation the railways only employed 40,000 or so...and many left, jumped ship or didn't have the required years to qualify.

I also know, living in York, a number of ex railway and carriage works employees who never use their passes.

McNulty is really clutching at straws if this is the best he can do to save a few bob.
 

scotsman

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2010
Messages
3,252
It's a pathetic attempt to cut money - this week sees the Government deservedly protect the Armed Forces' rights in law, while they attempt to claw back money who served the country on the railways.

The parallels between the two being that both were poorly paid, with little perks to the job - passes being the main one for rail staff.

While railwaymen and women could leave at anytime and weren't deployed abroad -they did a tough job when more skill was required and the pay was lower.

In all honesty, if McNulty tried to remove staff travel for current TOC staff he might have got away with it - no doubt the high wages of some (and not the vast majority) of Drivers would be used to justify cutting it. It seems quite pathetic that some people who worked all their lives on the railway, never got anywhere near the level of pay that some staff currently enjoy are going to have their only perk taken from them - leaving them on the state and an ok BR pension. Their quality of life could be affected by the cost of having to pay for the trains they previously got for free.

[/rant]
 

Hydro

Established Member
Joined
5 Mar 2007
Messages
2,204
Thank God they're targetting former employees travel privileges. I'd hate for them to highlight the wasteful money drain that is rolling stock leasing, modern railway operations and TOC/Infrastructure interfaces. That could lead to some kind of reform, or something.
 

87015

Established Member
Joined
3 Mar 2006
Messages
4,987
Location
GEML/WCML/SR
It also states that staff get 75% discount on LUL which isn't entirely correct, I cannot speak for safeguarded members but FCC is the only TOC which serves London which has a agreement with TfL for discounted fares within the London area to date.

I haven't heard of the other TOCs offering such travel benefits.

It's entirely correct as it's talking about safeguarded staff. And LOROL get staff oysters aswell so you can chalk that claim off the 'I love first' list! ;)
 

Mr Spock

Member
Joined
14 Jan 2008
Messages
608
Presumably MP's will also have their free rail travel taken off of them and their second home allowances as well. After all no one has ever forced anybody to be an MP (in fact they are queuing up for the jobs) so why should they get these perks.

I would like to know how much this McNulty is being paid to produce this report, as far as I can see he is just another "privileged" person willing to kick others who are not as well off as him
 

scotsman

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2010
Messages
3,252
Presumably MP's will also have their free rail travel taken off of them and their second home allowances as well. After all no one has ever forced anybody to be an MP (in fact they are queuing up for the jobs) so why should they get these perks.

I would like to know how much this McNulty is being paid to produce this report, as far as I can see he is just another "privileged" person willing to kick others who are not as well off as him

MPs don't have free rail travel! They can claim expenses on Standard Class rail travel for journeys over 1 hour from London (I know, I was one of the people who attended the consultation meeting in Edinburgh on reforming MP's expenses) - also, the point of these allowances is to ensure that no-one is disadvantaged by becoming an MP. (ie. Those who are rich enough to have property in London keep more of their salary, the more 'humble' MPs have to buy their own - which, believe it or not, is cheaper than the other options)

The salary may be a lot, but when you're paying two mortgages and living in London for half the week it sure doesn't go as far!
 

ANorthernGuard

Established Member
Joined
8 Oct 2010
Messages
2,662
One of the few perks the older members of staff get and the blue ***** want to save a few pennies, all politicians are hypocrites they have no shame, ALL Railway staff should get free travel let alone less (My view only as I don't want to get into the old argument again)
 

Cherry_Picker

Established Member
Joined
18 Apr 2011
Messages
2,813
Location
Birmingham
How many guards bust railway staff travelling on their trains anyway?
When I was a guard I'd never be fussy about any railway staff on my train, regardless of whether they were safeguarded or not and regardless of whether they had filled a box in or not. I lost count of the number of times a man with boxes would ask to borrow a pen so he could fill a box in (which we all know is code for "you don't mind if I don't fill it in, do you?") and I'd just tell them not to worry.

I know there is that one guy at every depot who would penalty fare his granny if he had chance and there are always over zealous barrier staff, but in the grand scheme of things would this really change anything?
 

ANorthernGuard

Established Member
Joined
8 Oct 2010
Messages
2,662
How many guards bust railway staff travelling on their trains anyway?
When I was a guard I'd never be fussy about any railway staff on my train, regardless of whether they were safeguarded or not and regardless of whether they had filled a box in or not. I lost count of the number of times a man with boxes would ask to borrow a pen so he could fill a box in (which we all know is code for "you don't mind if I don't fill it in, do you?") and I'd just tell them not to worry.

I know there is that one guy at every depot who would penalty fare his granny if he had chance and there are always over zealous barrier staff, but in the grand scheme of things would this really change anything?

if your railway don't waste a box etc etc, but at least have the decency to ask, I have never charged railway (unless they actually ask me) and never will but at least ask..manners thats all
 

Mojo

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
7 Aug 2005
Messages
20,851
Location
0035
if your railway don't waste a box etc etc, but at least have the decency to ask, I have never charged railway (unless they actually ask me) and never will but at least ask..manners thats all
A former colleague of mine asked a guard if they could travel on his train, and he was apparently quite rude about saying no. The next week said guard was seen on his train, without having asked if they could get on... guess what happened next...
 

Captain Chaos

Member
Joined
31 Jan 2011
Messages
840
I cannot see that they would save much if anything by doing this anyway. I see maybe one or two retired staff with boxes a week at most. It's hardly anything when compared to actual numbers of paying passengers.

Perhaps the government should be more concerned with revenue that is actually lost on DOO lines. This would be a good start. My local line would be a good place to begin. The amount of fare evasion on the Reading-Bedwyn line particularly after about midday is shocking. This line has been like it for years and years and virtually nothing is done about it. The main reason people quote for not paying is because 'no-one ever checks tickets on here so why should I pay'? Attention should be paid to actual revenues lost as opposed to percieved revenues lost. Implying that everyone who has this facility actually uses it is probably nonsense. Do they even have accurate records of how many journeys each box user makes per year and also where these journeys are made from and to? I doubt it.

The notion that PRIV's are losing the railways money is also absurd. Take this as an example:

London - Manchester PRIV SOR: £69.75

London - Manchester SVR: £70.00

London - Manchester SVR (with Y-P/S-R etc.): £46.20

It is actually cheaper to use a railcard for this journey than a PRIV (and I understand that the railcard discounted ticket is also unrestricted on VT). However assuming that the PRIV user is travelling off-peak and wouldn't be entitled to any other railcard then the actual cost to the TOC in this case is an eye-watering £0.25!
 

Hydro

Established Member
Joined
5 Mar 2007
Messages
2,204
Is the railway actually losing any money? Is ATOC paying for these people's fares? Or is it a case of this is potential revenue missed?
 

Aictos

Established Member
Joined
28 Apr 2009
Messages
10,403
It's entirely correct as it's talking about safeguarded staff. And LOROL get staff oysters aswell so you can chalk that claim off the 'I love first' list! ;)

However LOROL isn't a TOC in the sense that FCC, SWT, SN, SE is, is it now as it's under the control of TfL and such has different conditions to fulfil unlike the others who are under the control of the DfT.

I'm sure LUL staff also get staff oysters as well which brings me back to my post stating that FCC are the only TOC serving London controlled by the DfT which offers this to employees.
 

BestWestern

Established Member
Joined
6 Feb 2011
Messages
6,736
Is the railway actually losing any money? Is ATOC paying for these people's fares? Or is it a case of this is potential revenue missed?

Spot on! This is another example of the twisted business concept of describing something which you never had in the first place as a 'cost'. It isn't a 'cost' unless, amazingly, it actually costs something! By this method of thinking, there is a much bigger 'cost' in the thousands of herberts who ride around daily without any payment ever being made. The desk-based idiots who come up with this cr*p, who are doubtless paid substantially more than your average railway worker, would do very well indeed to get well and truly lost, and maybe award themselves a 10% pay cut if they want to find worthwhile ways of saving money! Grrrr.... <(<D
 

Tom B

Established Member
Joined
27 Jul 2005
Messages
4,621
if your railway don't waste a box etc etc, but at least have the decency to ask, I have never charged railway (unless they actually ask me) and never will but at least ask..manners thats all

Although I agree entirely that rail staff should be entitled to free travel, do you let non-railway staff on without paying the fare, or are they evil fare-dodgers? It would seem very unfair to allow a member of staff to travel without a valid ticket/pass but charge non-staff.
 
Joined
12 May 2011
Messages
81
Location
Derbyshire
Its also completely untrue that Staff (or ex staff) get free travel. Those who have passes or boxes or priv cards do so because their employer (or former employer) PAY ATOC for the passes - which is why staff then pay tax as they are a "benefit in kind".

When I retired, my company paid several thousand pounds to ATOC to provide my benefits in retirement, and my tax bill was over £800 for the privilege. So - will I now get a refund if those facilities are removed?
 

Hydro

Established Member
Joined
5 Mar 2007
Messages
2,204
Its also completely untrue that Staff (or ex staff) get free travel. Those who have passes or boxes or priv cards do so because their employer (or former employer) PAY ATOC for the passes - which is why staff then pay tax as they are a "benefit in kind".



What a ridiculous situation. Why can't anything be actually "free" any more?
 

transportphoto

Established Member
Associate Staff
Jobs & Careers
Quizmaster
Joined
21 Jan 2010
Messages
5,208
A former colleague of mine asked a guard if they could travel on his train, and he was apparently quite rude about saying no. The next week said guard was seen on his train, without having asked if they could get on... guess what happened next...

Slightly off topic but can I ask... What is the official procedure in this case?
 

Surreytraveller

On Moderation
Joined
21 Oct 2009
Messages
2,810
Erm, when my mum worked in Tesco, I can't remember her getting a discount

I'm sure that she would have done.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
It's quite simple, Network Rail do not operate train services so can't offer free travel.

We're talking about safeguarded facilities: i.e. before the existance of Network Rail. When the railway was one big organisation.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
It also states that staff get 75% discount on LUL which isn't entirely correct, I cannot speak for safeguarded members but FCC is the only TOC which serves London which has a agreement with TfL for discounted fares within the London area to date.

I haven't heard of the other TOCs offering such travel benefits.

Safeguarded get 75% on LUL / DLR.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
However LOROL isn't a TOC in the sense that FCC, SWT, SN, SE is, is it now as it's under the control of TfL and such has different conditions to fulfil unlike the others who are under the control of the DfT.

I'm sure LUL staff also get staff oysters as well which brings me back to my post stating that FCC are the only TOC serving London controlled by the DfT which offers this to employees.

Of course LOROL is a TOC in the normal sense! It is just owned by a public body rather than a private one.

If you work for Go-Ahead you get a pass to use on other Go-Ahead companies, as you do with First etc - that is the same as an Oystercard for other TfL services...
 

Greenback

Emeritus Moderator
Joined
9 Aug 2009
Messages
15,268
Location
Llanelli
Some safeguarded staff will use all their boxes every year, others will use some of them now and again, some will not use any. It is a complete fallacy to think that these staff members and their dependents will pay for any travel they undertake at the moment, supposing that their facilities were taken away. Most of the travel will be optional, and people simply will not travel.
 

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
17,885
Location
Reston City Centre
Some safeguarded staff will use all their boxes every year, others will use some of them now and again, some will not use any. It is a complete fallacy to think that these staff members and their dependents will pay for any travel they undertake at the moment, supposing that their facilities were taken away. Most of the travel will be optional, and people simply will not travel.

I'd agree with you, but for the reason that Guards will "turn a blind eye", which is why I think this won't really save any money and is a headline-grabbing waste of time from the Government.

TBH, I'm surprised that this is the biggest waste of money they can find in the railways at the moment
 

4SRKT

Established Member
Joined
9 Jan 2009
Messages
4,409
It's quite simple, Network Rail do not operate train services so can't offer free travel. Most of the TOCs however do give free travel to staff on services operated by that TOC. If a company other than Tesco owned the store but Tesco operated it, you wouldn't expect discounts if you worked for the building owner.

What a load of unadulterated nonsense. And not for ther first time a very black and white approach ignoring the nuances of reality. I work for a parcel company that used to be owned by a mail order company, yet get discounted stuff from the catalogue. My employer doesn't sell clothes, yet *somehow* cheap clothes are a perk. New starters don't get this perk.

You might as well say that my father who worked in the Train Planning Department of the BRB shouldn't have had privs because he didn't operate train services. Or that people on the Western Region shouldn't have had privs on the Midland Region. When undertakings are forcibly made to change hands by the government, the T&Cs of the employees are protected by law. Thus the successor companies have to keep the privelege facilities. My father gets privs on Stena, at least the third incarnation of that organisation since Sealink was sold, and because he had more than 20 years service, keeps his all stations first class pass for ever. He travels al lot, but there are restrictions (and always were) to keep priv holders off busy trains or out of first class at busy times. He simply wouldn't travel as much if he didn't have privs.

I remember on the back of my priv card there was a list of endorsements showing the validity of a particular ticket. One of these was 'Valid for First Class privelege travel between former GWR stations only'. This was in the 1990s so it shows how long these things go on for.
 

moggie

Member
Joined
2 Jan 2010
Messages
426
Location
West Midlands
What amazes me in addition to the many valid observations already made is that the so called 'savings' (which as many have pointed out are only real savings if (ex)staff choose to actually use the train) is that the benefits being targeted by McNulty are in perpetual decline.

Safeguarded staff still in the industry may chose to change employer to one which may not offer travel facilities (FOC / Engineering / NR) and therefore lose their entitlement forever. Family members (children) lose their entitlement at 25 years of age or a when earning about £100 wage a week, whichever comes first. Retired staff often become infirm as they grow older and only the fittest can risk a nightmare journey on crowded trains so that naturally selects out those good folk. The rest of us may just chose to use the car like the majority of people in this country if staying away for any period.

Of course the this all ignores the legal status and moral position of these facilities since the concept of safeguarded staff was created by the Rail privatisation legislation and the funding of these by non-TOC employers. It cannot be ignored that travel facilities often formed part of the geberal wage negotions year on year even if change was only acheived occassionally.

Finally there is the negative cost to the treasury of all the Benefit in Kind tax take that would disappear overnight - not huge but quantifiable unlike the so called savings which can only be a wild estimate.

Tories - dont you just love them!
 

Greenback

Emeritus Moderator
Joined
9 Aug 2009
Messages
15,268
Location
Llanelli
I'd agree with you, but for the reason that Guards will "turn a blind eye", which is why I think this won't really save any money and is a headline-grabbing waste of time from the Government.

TBH, I'm surprised that this is the biggest waste of money they can find in the railways at the moment

It obviously isn't the biggest waste of money by far. The whole 'story' smacks of desperation really - the government and McNulty would be far better off lookign at the structure of the industry rather than tinkering with peripheral issues.

Of course, they don;t really want to look too closely at the structure, as this may lose them the support of some of the companies involved!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
What amazes me in addition to the many valid observations already made is that the so called 'savings' (which as many have pointed out are only real savings if (ex)staff choose to actually use the train) is that the benefits being targeted by McNulty are in perpetual decline.

Quite right, I'd overlooked that aspect!
 

CNX

Member
Joined
24 Feb 2011
Messages
101
I can't find any reference in the McNulty report regarding staff travel facilities, or to the 500,000 safeguarded former BR employees that the Guardian claims are entitled to them.

Although I haven't read every word, searches for keywords such as safeguarded, staff travel concessions etc show a nil return. There's only a short reference to pensions for that matter, even though the industy's pension fund has a substantial shortfall.
 
Last edited:

Lance

New Member
Joined
20 May 2011
Messages
1
Surely 'Safeguarded' means totally safe, I cannot see if challenged in a court of law how the government could legally win a case for withdrawing something set in stone.
It could also be a vote loser for the Tories, they wouldn't get mine for sure and probably thousands more staff, ex staff and their families.
 

CNX

Member
Joined
24 Feb 2011
Messages
101
Surely 'Safeguarded' means totally safe, I cannot see if challenged in a court of law how the government could legally win a case for withdrawing something set in stone.
It could also be a vote loser for the Tories, they wouldn't get mine for sure and probably thousands more staff, ex staff and their families.

Yes, it should normally be fair to assume that 'Safeguarded' means just that. These 'grandfathered' travel concessions are enshrined in a parlimentary bill that was part of the privatisation legislation. A law can be revoked, but it rarely happens.

Sir Roy probably considered the issue, but conluded that most beneficaries of these facilities retired or took voluntary severence from the industry long before pay was at todays levels in real terms. Also, the minimal benefit to the industry, as well as the outrage and anger that targeting these facilities would cause probably wasn't worth the hassle or possible legal implications.

As Moggie said, the number of Safeguarded travel facilities holders declines year by year anyway, but I still at a loss as to where the Guardian got the 500,000 figure from.
 

Uhtred

New Member
Joined
31 May 2011
Messages
1
I can't find any reference in the McNulty report regarding staff travel facilities, or to the 500,000 safeguarded former BR employees that the Guardian claims are entitled to them.

Although I haven't read every word, searches for keywords such as safeguarded, staff travel concessions etc show a nil return. There's only a short reference to pensions for that matter, even though the industy's pension fund has a substantial shortfall.

I too cannot find any reference to this matter in the Report or in the Ministers comments. Scaremongereing or a personal crusade by the hack! New employess since 1994 do not get this perk and the then existing staff rights protected by statute, 1993 Railways Act.

A therefore diminishing and also insignificant cost to the industry. reversal of the Act would be totally unjust and indefensible and a breach of Government promises to the then employess of BR - get real Guardian even the Tories are not that crass.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top