-
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!
Caledonian Sleeper discussion
- Thread starter LeylandLen
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
I don't believe that for a moment... Are you seriously suggesting staff are going to go without being paid for a couple of days because of a completely unrelated business?
I'm sure if there was any proof of this SERCO would be down at the court getting an interdict to stop what would be an illegal strike.
As I mentioned up-thread, I was told that they had put off strike action earlier in the year as management had promised that things would get better. It would seem that they haven't.
Philip Phlopp
Established Member
- Joined
- 31 May 2015
- Messages
- 3,004
The RMT and their members can strike over a wide range of things, it doesn't mean the RMT aren't leading their members on a merry little dance for other reasons. The strike is clearly designed to hit at Serco and not specifically to raise concerns about the maintenance of the rolling stock, although it will clearly do that as a side effect.
The stock hasn't suddenly become dangerous and dilapidated just because Serco took over, it was ready to fall in a heap when First ScotRail was running the franchise - yes, there were less trains cancelled but there were the same or maybe a few more problems with the stock itself - lights out, heating or cooling knackered, doors OOU etc.
If there are problems with the way Alstom is maintaining the stock, why aren't the RMT members at Alstom complaining or striking themselves, their colleagues maintaining the Class 175 fleet have been out on strike this month as a result of a pay dispute, so we know that the RMT shop stewards Alstom are prepared to take industrial action.
A pay dispute is slightly different from this situation. :roll:
The dispute is between CS and their staff, full stop.
Bringing in the Alstom staff to this is a red herring.
Philip Phlopp
Established Member
- Joined
- 31 May 2015
- Messages
- 3,004
I disagree, ignoring the Alstom staff only serves to avoid asking several inconvenient questions as to why the RMT hasn't raised issues with Alstom about why their members at Alstom are unable to maintain the rolling stock correctly, resulting in their members at Serco being asked to operate faulty or dangerous stock.
The Alstom staff are effectively being accused of not doing their jobs correctly - it's impossible for Serco to be turning out what the RMT claim to be faulty and dangerous rolling stock if Alstom and their staff are doing their jobs correctly, but there doesn't appear to be any suggestion that I've been able to find that has the RMT alleging Alstom are cutting corners or failing to give RMT members at Polmadie and Wembley the necessary tools, spares and time to correctly maintain the stock, or that RMT members are being asked to sign-off and allow off-depot stock which is sufficiently dangerous for their Serco members to take industrial action over.
It's entirely possible I've missed it all, I don't pay much attention to union matters, but I am very concerned that RMT members at Alstom aren't raising concerns about the stock if it's genuinely dangerous and shouldn't be operating on the network. I know I'm an old fuddy duddy, but I like unions when they're really hell bent on dealing with unsafe practices, and I hate unions when they get mixed up in political skulduggery.
Last edited:
I find this particular post deeply insulting and very condescending. I will not comment on this thread any longer because I am directly involved with the Caledonian Sleeper. What I will say though is your speculative, uninformed posting is very damaging towards the integrity of my colleagues who have had to deal with the range of problems that have been highlighted throughout this thread. I do not have to remind anyone who has followed this thread why CS staff have felt the need to bring in the ultimate decision on a health and safety matter. Let me get this clear, nobody relishes a strike on the railway, nobody. It is a LAST RESORT!
Can I also bring something else into the debate, this is not a particularly staff v management dispute. I genuinely believe speaking to my colleagues that management have been let down by their sub contractors but unfortunately, they ultimately carry the can for the recent problems. Let's just say some people are not getting the flak they should be.
I think you should think twice before posting your absolute tosh!
And this is where I disagree with you.
What Alstom staff work on the sleeper stock? Is it a dedicated team, or taken from the whole pool? Were they taken on specifically for the contract? Are they indeed RMT members?
We don't know. And as we don't know, and until such times we do, it remains irrelevant.
What do we know?
The Sleeper staff are in dispute with the company.
They were given promises which haven't happened, and have followed the legally approved process to carry out industrial action.
No mean feat in these days.
Good luck to them.
Philip Phlopp
Established Member
- Joined
- 31 May 2015
- Messages
- 3,004
I've been told there are RMT members working on the Sleeper stock - can't confirm that personally, but I've no reason to disbelieve those who told me.
That's why I'm really interested in why they're not taking some level of industrial action.
Confirming my point I made. Stop speculating it just makes you look a bit silly.
Philip Phlopp
Established Member
- Joined
- 31 May 2015
- Messages
- 3,004
What parts of my previous posts are uninformed speculation ?
The stock you guys at Inverness turned out went wrong at times - it happens - the OLE some of our guys designed or installed has gone wrong and left a trail of chaos in its wake for days, particularly on the ECML - it happens, we've probably both been screwed over by British Rail's efficiency (as in corner cutting) coming back to haunt us 20 years later.
It's the railway mate, things go wrong through no fault of our own, and certainly through no shortage of hard work, long hours and copious quantities of tea and biccies. No need to be getting upset just because I pointed out things didn't go to plan under ScotRail.
My concerns, as I've said a couple of times, is that this dispute is being used to score points against Serco and not just to sort out any issues which may exist or have arisen with the stock since Alstom took over the maintenance. If it's solely about the stock, that's fine, but to a lot of people, it looks like the RMT are playing games with Serco and staff are being taking for a little ride.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
As you're in a position to confirm then - RMT staff working on the sleeper stock, yes or no ? Might as well clear it up for me, at the very least, once and for all.
Last edited:
That's highly, highly disingenuous statement to make about the people who work the sleeper.
If you're going to make comments like that, as they say on Dragons Den, I'm out.
Agree, totally. I cannot see any point in keeping a one sided debate open. I will add though, any talk of this being in direct conflict with the up coming Western Isles ferry announcement is totally bonkers.
Indeed it did. I remember the Aberdeen seated portion having no heat on a freezing March night under First.
However, as fairly regular user of the sleeper (once a month on average) I've seen a significant increase in obvious problems since the franchise changed hands. And I definitely don't remember as many instances of short/wrong formed sets: for me it happened once in four or five years in First days compared to three times in eight months under the new franchise.
Scotrail84
Established Member
- Joined
- 5 Jul 2010
- Messages
- 2,366
The Aberdeen portion ran with only 2 berth coaches and a guards van 2 weeks ago. a 3 coach sleeper that is usually 6.
Class 170101
Established Member
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2014
- Messages
- 7,937
Does this suugest problems affecting the 390s (and maybe 319s / 350s) in this area too?
NamelessPoster
Member
Some people here seem to be mouthing off without knowing any facts.
Firstly, this strike IS NOT the RMT on a campaign against SERCO. The RMT only get involved once staff members air grievances against a company. It is SERCO employees who brought this action in the first place and are being supported by the RMT as they have looked at the complaints and deem them serious enough for industrial action and this has only came about because SERCO have not come up with a viable solution to the rolling stock problems.
This is not an issue with ALSTOM who now are responsible for maintenance. ALSTOM don't have issues with keeping stock rolling out as long as there are replacement stock waiting on tap. Generally, with daytime services replacement stock is ten-a-penny and so replacement coaches are brought in whilst the rolling stock needing repairs is taken out of action. The sleeper services rolling stock is rare (very rare in fact) so ALSTOM cannot just pull replacement stock and use that to form the sets. Therefore when stock is taken out of service the only solution is to have short formed trains.
As SERCO were responsible for hiring ALSTOM for the maintenance it is their fault for this situation as they hired a company whose practices are just not viable/compatible with the sleeper service. Another area SERCO are culpable are the diesel locos used. A few months ago they changed from GBRf stock to older diesel engines with lower top speeds. ASLEF (the train drivers union) vehemently warned SERCO not to take on the diesels they did but surprise surprise SERCO did not listen and moved over to older locos which very soon were breaking down as predicted and now they have reverted back to GBRf stock for the time being.
SERCO were unprepared for this franchise - so much so that days before the franchise started they were surprised to learn that the sleeper services left Euston with Highlander (Fort William/Aberdeen/Inverness) as one train and not (as they thought) three separate trains and likewise with the Lowlander (Edinburgh/Glasgow). They then had to hastily hurry around trying to secure transfer of shunting staff to carry out the tasks of splitting the trains in Edinburgh and Carstairs.
In short - what a shambles.
Firstly, this strike IS NOT the RMT on a campaign against SERCO. The RMT only get involved once staff members air grievances against a company. It is SERCO employees who brought this action in the first place and are being supported by the RMT as they have looked at the complaints and deem them serious enough for industrial action and this has only came about because SERCO have not come up with a viable solution to the rolling stock problems.
This is not an issue with ALSTOM who now are responsible for maintenance. ALSTOM don't have issues with keeping stock rolling out as long as there are replacement stock waiting on tap. Generally, with daytime services replacement stock is ten-a-penny and so replacement coaches are brought in whilst the rolling stock needing repairs is taken out of action. The sleeper services rolling stock is rare (very rare in fact) so ALSTOM cannot just pull replacement stock and use that to form the sets. Therefore when stock is taken out of service the only solution is to have short formed trains.
As SERCO were responsible for hiring ALSTOM for the maintenance it is their fault for this situation as they hired a company whose practices are just not viable/compatible with the sleeper service. Another area SERCO are culpable are the diesel locos used. A few months ago they changed from GBRf stock to older diesel engines with lower top speeds. ASLEF (the train drivers union) vehemently warned SERCO not to take on the diesels they did but surprise surprise SERCO did not listen and moved over to older locos which very soon were breaking down as predicted and now they have reverted back to GBRf stock for the time being.
SERCO were unprepared for this franchise - so much so that days before the franchise started they were surprised to learn that the sleeper services left Euston with Highlander (Fort William/Aberdeen/Inverness) as one train and not (as they thought) three separate trains and likewise with the Lowlander (Edinburgh/Glasgow). They then had to hastily hurry around trying to secure transfer of shunting staff to carry out the tasks of splitting the trains in Edinburgh and Carstairs.
In short - what a shambles.
captainbigun
Member
- Joined
- 3 May 2009
- Messages
- 977
Sorry, looks like you need to get your facts straight too.
67s are being used for the diesel portion exactly as they were when DB were operating the train. What are these slower diesels you talk of? I'm sorry but the info above is utter utter tripe.
I would also question the info on the shunters. Where has that gem come from?
What are you on about? I assume your referring to the pendos? Do you know what availability they have to work to? There's no spare sets sitting about.
If your going to start making statements then I'd suggest you get your facts straight.
Last edited:
Nope. Utterly wrong.
Serco are still hiring Class 67 locos from DBS. These are the same locos that have been used on the sleeper for about a decade.
They are planning to hire re-engineered Class 73 locos from GBRf. These are still being worked on. Initial tests have had problems, as is normal. They have though been used successfully on a couple of empty stock runs. At no-point have they been used on a service train.
Now, they do have a lower top speed. That's true. A Class 67 could theoretically do 125mph. None have been over 100 on any service anywhere. The 73/9s will be able to do 90mph. There's little track north of Edinburgh that has a 100mph limit. The Sleeper rarely runs above 80mph. So the top speed is a red herring.
It was reported on the forum shortly before the franchise handover. I can't remember what the source was though. Let's both have a search...
Edit: The source was scotraildriver who appears to have witnessed it first-hand.
My understanding is that there are a few (two?) units undergoing daytime maintenance at any given point, with the rest out in revenue service. So while there are no 'spare' units it is possible to swap maintenance schedules in a way that CS would struggle with.
Last edited:
NamelessPoster
Member
No it is not utter tripe.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/transport/train-driver-doubts-over-caledonian-sleeper-plans-1-3536204
The sleeper was hauled by Class 67 locos which had higher top speeds enabling it to recover lost time to a better degree and drivers warned of the failings of the Class 73 and 92 locos which SERCO switched to and very quickly there were incidents where two locos were actually pulling the set because one failed.
More evidence for you:-
http://www.westhighlandline.org.uk/index.php/news/74-class-73s-for-sleeper-train
Pendolinos are far far more prevailent rolling stock than sleeper rolling stock. Do your homework and you will find that out.
The problem is NOT with the rolling stock per se but the ability to keep the stock servicable once faults are found. The rolling stock is ancient BUT it is the same ancient stock First had to work with and no way were the sets so messed up, or short-formed or without buffet cars as they are now. So you look at it as the problem being keeping the stock in working order. ALSTOM are, unlike previous staff, working blindfolded as the stock has morphed so much whereas the staff that worked on the stock in local depots knew the sets inside out and how to get to the root of the problem be that in the Inverness or Polmadie depots in Scotland. That isn't there any longer because SERCO went to ALSTOM whose experience in sleeper stock repairs are just not on the same level. That puts the blame firmly at SERCO's door.
As for the shunter staff I suggest you dig around and find out when they were transferred over to SERCO and you will find how haphazard that was and is as I said that SERCO actually thought the Inverness/Fort William/Aberdeen were three separate trains leaving Euston and it was only weeks before they took over that they realized this was not the case. Boy they never did their homework.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/transport/train-driver-doubts-over-caledonian-sleeper-plans-1-3536204
The sleeper was hauled by Class 67 locos which had higher top speeds enabling it to recover lost time to a better degree and drivers warned of the failings of the Class 73 and 92 locos which SERCO switched to and very quickly there were incidents where two locos were actually pulling the set because one failed.
More evidence for you:-
http://www.westhighlandline.org.uk/index.php/news/74-class-73s-for-sleeper-train
Pendolinos are far far more prevailent rolling stock than sleeper rolling stock. Do your homework and you will find that out.
The problem is NOT with the rolling stock per se but the ability to keep the stock servicable once faults are found. The rolling stock is ancient BUT it is the same ancient stock First had to work with and no way were the sets so messed up, or short-formed or without buffet cars as they are now. So you look at it as the problem being keeping the stock in working order. ALSTOM are, unlike previous staff, working blindfolded as the stock has morphed so much whereas the staff that worked on the stock in local depots knew the sets inside out and how to get to the root of the problem be that in the Inverness or Polmadie depots in Scotland. That isn't there any longer because SERCO went to ALSTOM whose experience in sleeper stock repairs are just not on the same level. That puts the blame firmly at SERCO's door.
As for the shunter staff I suggest you dig around and find out when they were transferred over to SERCO and you will find how haphazard that was and is as I said that SERCO actually thought the Inverness/Fort William/Aberdeen were three separate trains leaving Euston and it was only weeks before they took over that they realized this was not the case. Boy they never did their homework.
Philip Phlopp
Established Member
- Joined
- 31 May 2015
- Messages
- 3,004
It can be observed on these units by looking at their TMS systems and downloading data, but as they have newer, more robust traction packages, typically using IGBT based systems rather than older and more fragile GTO packages, they can cope with more interference and more inconsistencies in their supply voltages.
captainbigun
Member
- Joined
- 3 May 2009
- Messages
- 977
It was 67 that failed that temporarily resulted in a pair being used. As I said UTTER tripe.
That Scotsman article doesn't mean anything. The 73s don't have a terrible history, far from it. And those rebuilt are actually doing very well. Did HST suddenly become awful because it was rebuilt? No. So it's just hearsay and waffle founded on very little.
Yes, there's 52 pendos, and all bar two are needed mon to fri, so your point is a stupid one at best.
Back to school for you, and then do the homework as well.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Indeed, and much smaller converters. Those in 92 are enormous.
That Scotsman article doesn't mean anything. The 73s don't have a terrible history, far from it. And those rebuilt are actually doing very well. Did HST suddenly become awful because it was rebuilt? No. So it's just hearsay and waffle founded on very little.
Yes, there's 52 pendos, and all bar two are needed mon to fri, so your point is a stupid one at best.
Back to school for you, and then do the homework as well.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Indeed, and much smaller converters. Those in 92 are enormous.
Last edited:
Eng274
Member
- Joined
- 19 Aug 2010
- Messages
- 796
Of all the depots that are involved in the servicing of the sleeper sets during the day under FSR stewardship, Wembley weren't the worst for getting repairs done. The leap between the odd repair and daytime service exam, to overall responsibility for maintenance, seems to have overwhelmed Alstom to the point that reliability is clearly suffering. I'm sure CS are now screwing the nut with Alstom to improve maintenance.
If moving the maintenance to Wembley had been properly planned and implemented, there is absolutely no reason for the standard of vehicle maintenance to drop. Given that the sets see their Home Depot every second day, as opposed to every eighth day at Inverness, there should be more scope and flexibility to keep on top of defects.
I wonder what the complement of spare parts is like at Wembley, maybe the supply chain is letting them down for critical and potentially obsolete parts?
If moving the maintenance to Wembley had been properly planned and implemented, there is absolutely no reason for the standard of vehicle maintenance to drop. Given that the sets see their Home Depot every second day, as opposed to every eighth day at Inverness, there should be more scope and flexibility to keep on top of defects.
I wonder what the complement of spare parts is like at Wembley, maybe the supply chain is letting them down for critical and potentially obsolete parts?
NamelessPoster
Member
You are missing the bigger issue though.
Pendelinos are animals that ALSTOM know like the back of their hands - the sleeper stock they don't. That is massively key here.
The sleeper stock has not changed over the years so it isn't the stock that is the problem here as FIRST coped far better with them than SERCO has. There has to be a reason for that and it is as I said - FIRST got the maintenance job done to a far greater degree of success because it had workers with years of experience working on the stock and that has been lost now. SERCO made a massive error in going with ALSTOM as their knowledge of the rolling stock is far more limited than those that worked on them under FIRST hence it takes them longer to spot the problem and rectify it and often the faults aren't being rectified in any case. SERCO run the franchise and choose their partners and if they err then the blame lies solely with them.
Pendelinos are animals that ALSTOM know like the back of their hands - the sleeper stock they don't. That is massively key here.
The sleeper stock has not changed over the years so it isn't the stock that is the problem here as FIRST coped far better with them than SERCO has. There has to be a reason for that and it is as I said - FIRST got the maintenance job done to a far greater degree of success because it had workers with years of experience working on the stock and that has been lost now. SERCO made a massive error in going with ALSTOM as their knowledge of the rolling stock is far more limited than those that worked on them under FIRST hence it takes them longer to spot the problem and rectify it and often the faults aren't being rectified in any case. SERCO run the franchise and choose their partners and if they err then the blame lies solely with them.
captainbigun
Member
- Joined
- 3 May 2009
- Messages
- 977
You can debate this as much you like, but Alstom are the maintainer and are here to stay.
There's new stock on order, and this really needed a big facility to maintain it. It's going to be more complex than Mk2/3. SERCO had to chose a maintainer for the long term. Did Scotrail even bid?
Both WB and PO maintained Mk2/3 for years, so there will be plenty of staff who still know them. These issues haven't just cropped up, yes responsibility lies with SERCO, and by all accounts they are doing something about it.
If the stock were genuinely dangerous I do not believe it would be allowed off depot.
There's new stock on order, and this really needed a big facility to maintain it. It's going to be more complex than Mk2/3. SERCO had to chose a maintainer for the long term. Did Scotrail even bid?
Both WB and PO maintained Mk2/3 for years, so there will be plenty of staff who still know them. These issues haven't just cropped up, yes responsibility lies with SERCO, and by all accounts they are doing something about it.
If the stock were genuinely dangerous I do not believe it would be allowed off depot.
NamelessPoster
Member
Sorry no. They aren't doing anything about it. The issues with the rolling stock has been rumbling on since September when discontent started and RMT got involved. Since then the situation has deteriorated as lounge cars have been taken out of service as well leaving passengers aeriated, hungry, thirsty and truly disenchanted with it all. And if you call trains running with intermittent faulty fire/smoke alarms as no real danger then you are wrong. These intermittent alarms get so bad the alarms have to be de-activated so I shudder to think what happens should a fire break out.
Philip Phlopp
Established Member
- Joined
- 31 May 2015
- Messages
- 3,004
Alstom have staff working for them who were involved in the design of some of the electrical and mechanical components used to build the Mark 3 vehicles.
Serco absolutely definitely knew about portion working for the Sleepers, it's in the ITT documentation (4.1.1.2). They also had information provided to them by Network Rail concerning the paths for the Sleeper, and they had information provided to them by Network Rail on various electrification works and how it would impact on diversions and engineering works during the life of the franchise.
None of that is evidence! They haven't been used yet! Those articles were written before any 73/9 had even been completed and the only part that says anything I didn't say is the man from ASLEF making idiot claims about the 73's service history.
The main problems that there have been with locos have been the Class 92s (GBRf) taking over from the Class 90s (previously hired from DBS). Class 92 are newer than Class 90 and much, much more powerful. Lower top speed, but still a top speed well above normal operating speed. They have however had issues with the power supply problems.
- Status