UK rail tsar says stop taking customers for granted (Williams Review)

Kingham West · 7 Feb 2019

Can , we get back to topic , the most important people are the customers, they and taxpayers, pay the wages etc .
I am about to get a voyager from Oxford yo York , as a customer , I don’t look forward to this , short , overcrowded , no Buffet.
Other passengers will be travelling for the first time , more typical on x country , will they come back .
Another example is the GWR, high back seats on the HST, removal of buffet on IET , hard seats .
The list goes on , It’s about time putting the customer last , stopped.
Rant over .

RailUK Forums

387star · 7 Feb 2019

Is this why DAFT have ended the northern strikes? Interesting symmetry fearful even!

DarloRich · 7 Feb 2019

Glenn1969 said:
But nationalisation isn't the answer just like it wasn't in the 70s/80s when there was zero investment in infrastructure. We are still suffering from that mistake. Nationalisation just means the railways competing with health, education, defence etc for finite pots of public money. I'm just not sure I know what the answer is

Where did I say natinalisation was the answer?

mallard said:
The rail industry already is driving passengers away. Last year saw the largest drop in passenger numbers in nearly 30 years, driven by a nearly 10% drop in season ticket sales. As a former season-ticket commuter myself, who was priced out of the railway and turned to road commuting in that period, it's hardly surprising. The cost of travelling by road has remained basically static (in real terms) for quite some time, while rail fares keep increasing at inflation-busting rates.

But that isnt, entirely, accurate is it? The way people work has changed over the last 5/6 years with much more flexibility in how, when and where people work. Commuter trains into London on a Friday are noticeably quieter than the rest of the week.

I also disagree that season ticket prices have risen in anything like the manner you ascribe. They go up every year by a relatively small % figure. That is all part of the governments plan to transfer more of the cost of providing the railway to the users of the railway. That is a political decision, not an industry one.

mallard said:
The railways need increased government funding and, as unpopular as it may be around here, rail staff need to accept that above-inflation pay rises should not be the norm. Staff pay takes a far greater share of the pie than TOC profits (several of our current TOCs aren't profitable, but their staff still get those inflation-busting pay rises year after year).

Nice little dig at railway staff. Lovely. Perhaps the issue here is closer to home. Perhaps there is jealously that you do not feel empowered to seek better terms and are unable to arrange the decent pay rise that some railway staff are able to do so. Good to see the Tory bait swallowed hook, line and sinker. Your statement her seems to be I have a crummy deal so all must have a crummy deal not I have a crummy deal so how can I make my deal better!

As I always say sack every guard and your ticket price will not fall at all.

It is also worth noting that many railway workers have not had anything like the pay rises you ascribe to all.

mallard said:
The increasingly desperate attempts by TOCs to extract every last penny of potential revenue, by fair means or foul, from every passenger is only going to make things worse in the long-term.

This seems to be bordering on conspiracy. Company seeks to maximise profit from customers. Shock horror.

Wombat · 7 Feb 2019

DarloRich said:
Nice little dig at railway staff. Lovely. Perhaps the issue here is closer to home. Perhaps there is jealously that you do not feel empowered to seek better terms and are unable to arrange the decent pay rise that some railway staff are able to do so. Good to see the Tory bait swallowed hook, line and sinker. Your statement her seems to be I have a crummy deal so all must have a crummy deal not I have a crummy deal so how can I make my deal better!

I'm a contractor and negotiate my fees directly, so I feel no jealousy - my income depends on my skill and negotiating ability, and the state of the market. I do think, though, that it's reasonable to question a contractual above-inflationary pay rise, if that's what actually exists(?). I certainly never encountered such a thing anywhere that I was permanently employed, and when passengers and taxpayers are funding these increases I don't think it's unreasonable to expect a justification. Perhaps a fairer approach would be a link to average wage growth after inflation is taken into account.

hooverboy · 7 Feb 2019

E50019 said:
nationalisation in todays railway - alliancing...

contractors and Network Rail 'working together' on certain projects or workbanks, all working in the same office...

has anyone ever given any thought to NR being so inefficient because they are starting/working on hundred of projects all at the same time instead of doing a dozen projects at a time well?

hooverboy · 7 Feb 2019

DarloRich said:
Where did I say natinalisation was the answer?

But that isnt, entirely, accurate is it? The way people work has changed over the last 5/6 years with much more flexibility in how, when and where people work. Commuter trains into London on a Friday are noticeably quieter than the rest of the week.

I also disagree that season ticket prices have risen in anything like the manner you ascribe. They go up every year by a relatively small % figure. That is all part of the governments plan to transfer more of the cost of providing the railway to the users of the railway. That is a political decision, not an industry one.

Nice little dig at railway staff. Lovely. Perhaps the issue here is closer to home. Perhaps there is jealously that you do not feel empowered to seek better terms and are unable to arrange the decent pay rise that some railway staff are able to do so. Good to see the Tory bait swallowed hook, line and sinker. Your statement her seems to be I have a crummy deal so all must have a crummy deal not I have a crummy deal so how can I make my deal better!

As I always say sack every guard and your ticket price will not fall at all.

It is also worth noting that many railway workers have not had anything like the pay rises you ascribe to all.

This seems to be bordering on conspiracy. Company seeks to maximise profit from customers. Shock horror.

performance related pay in some regard for meeting targets would provide adequate incentive methinks

hooverboy · 7 Feb 2019

WombatDeath said:
I'm a contractor and negotiate my fees directly, so I feel no jealousy - my income depends on my skill and negotiating ability, and the state of the market. I do think, though, that it's reasonable to question a contractual above-inflationary pay rise, if that's what actually exists(?). I certainly never encountered such a thing anywhere that I was permanently employed, and when passengers and taxpayers are funding these increases I don't think it's unreasonable to expect a justification. Perhaps a fairer approach would be a link to average wage growth after inflation is taken into account.

I'd agree that if market conditions are not conducive to above inflation rises then it should not be taken as a given.
If someone on the shopfloor has an idea/change in practice that can save costs to counteract the downturn in revenue they should be suitably rewarded.

Llanigraham · 7 Feb 2019

hooverboy said:
performance related pay in some regard for meeting targets would provide adequate incentive methinks

Could you explain how someone who is a signaller, in any sort of Box/Centre, can have pay linked to this sort of system?

yorksrob · 7 Feb 2019

DarloRich said:
This seems to be bordering on conspiracy. Company seeks to maximise profit from customers. Shock horror.

We know that companies like to impose stealth increases. Changing the T&C's of your ticket, your chocolate bar getting smaller etc. It's not a conspiracy theory if its true.

DarloRich · 7 Feb 2019

yorksrob said:
We know that companies like to impose stealth increases. Changing the T&C's of your ticket, your chocolate bar getting smaller etc. It's not a conspiracy theory if its true.

which "stealth" increases have we seen in relation to train fares?

DarloRich · 7 Feb 2019

WombatDeath said:
I'm a contractor and negotiate my fees directly, so I feel no jealousy - my income depends on my skill and negotiating ability, and the state of the market. I do think, though, that it's reasonable to question a contractual above-inflationary pay rise, if that's what actually exists(?). I certainly never encountered such a thing anywhere that I was permanently employed, and when passengers and taxpayers are funding these increases I don't think it's unreasonable to expect a justification. Perhaps a fairer approach would be a link to average wage growth after inflation is taken into account.

There is no contractual increase. There is a negotiated increase. In some areas that increase has been above inflation but in many areas it has not been. The problem is posters see one headline and seem unable to look beyond that.

hooverboy said:
has anyone ever given any thought to NR being so inefficient because they are starting/working on hundred of projects all at the same time instead of doing a dozen projects at a time well?

what on earth are you talking about?

hooverboy said:
performance related pay in some regard for meeting targets would provide adequate incentive methinks

I am sure you are aware that this already exists in many areas of the railway. I suspect what you are actually saying is no pay rise of any sort due to the nature of the targets not being achievable. I suspect this is because you are unable to secure good terms so feel all should suffer the same punishment.

in the interest of fairness please set out what you think some sensible performance measures would be. You will need to acknowledge the very varied number of jobs involved and the ability of those people to influence your measure. Simply saying train performance at a certain percentage wont work. How does someone involved in, say Finance or HR or Purchasing or communications, contribute to that directly?

yorksrob · 7 Feb 2019

DarloRich said:
which "stealth" increases have we seen in relation to train fares?

There have been various changes to peak time validity on some TPE services, mentioned on this forum, the introduction of evening peak fares to PTE services, various changes to route validity, all to the detriment of the passenger.

DarloRich · 7 Feb 2019

yorksrob said:
There have been various changes to peak time validity on some TPE services, mentioned on this forum, the introduction of evening peak fares to PTE services, various changes to route validity, all to the detriment of the passenger.

So not a "stealth" increase then? None of that seems unfair. These are all restrictions common in the south.

Shaw S Hunter · 7 Feb 2019

yorksrob said:
There have been various changes to peak time validity on some TPE services, mentioned on this forum, the introduction of evening peak fares to PTE services, various changes to route validity, all to the detriment of the passenger.

Changes made, strangely enough, by the PTEs themselves, organisations which are accountable to the electorate in as much as their local precepts are detailed with Council Tax bills. Quite transparent, certainly not stealth.

yorksrob · 7 Feb 2019

DarloRich said:
So not a "stealth" increase then? None of that seems unfair. These are all restrictions common in the south.

Yes stealth rises. They all tinker with conditions to increase the price without raising the headline fare. These might be fair were they not on top of annual headline fare increases, but they are.

DarloRich · 7 Feb 2019

yorksrob said:
Yes stealth rises. They all tinker with conditions to increase the price without raising the headline fare. These might be fair were they not on top of annual headline fare increases, but they are.

were they not published? They were mentioned here so they must have been! What tinkering has there been with the London off peak on my line?

yorksrob · 7 Feb 2019

Shaw S Hunter said:
Changes made, strangely enough, by the PTEs themselves, organisations which are accountable to the electorate in as much as their local precepts are detailed with Council Tax bills. Quite transparent, certainly not stealth.

PTE's who were told by central Government that they had to accept evening peak restrictions or higher car parking charges. The problem with local Government is that it isn't properly local if central Government holds the purse strings. This is blindingly obvious to anyone who has been following local government over the last ten years.

Glenn1969 · 7 Feb 2019

Think the PTEs had no say in the offpeak changes. They were ordered by the DfT as a way for Northern to raise more revenue so the subsidy could be lowered. Or so I heard on the grapevine anyway

yorksrob · 7 Feb 2019

DarloRich said:
were they not published? They were mentioned here so they must have been! What tinkering has there been with the London off peak on my line?

Semantics. They were imposed to avoid raising the headline fare as you know.

And the proprietors of 'your' line are renowned for tinkering with evening peak restrictions out of Euston.

HowardGWR · 7 Feb 2019

Kingham West said:
Can , we get back to topic , the most important people are the customers, they and taxpayers, pay the wages etc .
I am about to get a voyager from Oxford yo York , as a customer , I don’t look forward to this , short , overcrowded , no Buffet.
Other passengers will be travelling for the first time , more typical on x country , will they come back .
Another example is the GWR, high back seats on the HST, removal of buffet on IET , hard seats .
The list goes on , It’s about time putting the customer last , stopped.
Rant over .

Oh yes please! I'm just wondering what one might prefer, say we thought back to pre-war days. I think the service you describe would have run via the Great Central, with whom the GWR had good relations and that would have run into BR days, perhaps until Beeching. It would not have been frequent but would have been roomy, with compartments, so yes, high seat backs, but I suspect that was only to be preferred, with a good view out of the window. I think there would have been a buffet. It would have been slower perhaps but would not have had to go via Brum.

I just wonder what today's passenger from Oxford to York would have preferred. Would a customer-orientated service cram folk into these Voyagers?

DarloRich · 7 Feb 2019

yorksrob said:
Semantics. They were imposed to avoid raising the headline fare as you know.

It is important we know what these steal or hidden rises are. Can you show any?

yorksrob said:
And the proprietors of 'your' line are renowned for tinkering with evening peak restrictions out of Euston.

I know that if i want to travel in the peak I have to pay more. Why should someone in Leeds be different? Surely fairness is important. After all the trains in the northern areas need replacing. Perhaps more of the cost should be transferred to the customer.

DarloRich · 7 Feb 2019

Kingham West said:
Can , we get back to topic , the most important people are the customers, they and taxpayers, pay the wages etc .
I am about to get a voyager from Oxford yo York , as a customer , I don’t look forward to this , short , overcrowded , no Buffet.
Other passengers will be travelling for the first time , more typical on x country , will they come back .
Another example is the GWR, high back seats on the HST, removal of buffet on IET , hard seats .
The list goes on , It’s about time putting the customer last , stopped.
Rant over .

putting the customer last? By offering more seats on more trains more often?

setdown · 7 Feb 2019

In the past year, Virgin have removed/deleted some of the cheapest bands of advance tickets from the North West to the South West via London. This made my monthly-journey increase in price by 35%. Stealth increase or not, it's now cheaper to drive, so that's what I do. I did enjoy taking the train, but the increase made me feel taken for granted.

HowardGWR · 7 Feb 2019

DarloRich said:
putting the customer last? By offering more seats on more trains more often?

Mine crossed with yours. I do think that if the railways were really successful in being so attractive that they started to take nearly all long distance traffic from road and air, I suspect we would need a Voyager very five minutes along some of these routes, let alone every hour. In other words, I doubt if the capacity is there to serve the potential market. In these circumstances, it is tempting to imagine that some degree of rail travel suppression is in operation, even if totally unintentionally so.

yorksrob · 7 Feb 2019

DarloRich said:
I know that if i want to travel in the peak I have to pay more. Why should someone in Leeds be different? Surely fairness is important. After all the trains in the northern areas need replacing. Perhaps more of the cost should be transferred to the customer.

It's not the fact that the there is a peak train out of Euston, it's the fact that they keep moving the peak to collar more revenue.

yorksrob · 7 Feb 2019

DarloRich said:
It is important we know what these steal or hidden rises are. Can you show any?

Why are you asking me to repeat what I've already stated ?

DarloRich · 7 Feb 2019

HowardGWR said:
Mine crossed with yours. I do think that if the railways were really successful in being so attractive that they started to take nearly all long distance traffic from road and air, I suspect we would need a Voyager very five minutes along some of these routes, let alone every hour. In other words, I doubt if the capacity is there to serve the potential market. In these circumstances, it is tempting to imagine that some degree of rail travel suppression is in operation, even if totally unintentionally so.

I didn't suggest the situation is perfect. Far from it. But it is miles better, frequency wise, than in the past. That is a success but also one of the reasons things can go badly wrong very quickly.

underbank · 8 Feb 2019

DarloRich said:
Perhaps more of the cost should be transferred to the customer.

Which would mean even more people using the roads instead, fewer rail passengers, and ultimately fewer trains and railway workers. Yeah, great plan!

We already have lots of people who've given up on the railways in the North due to the crowded trains, ancient not-for-purpose rolling stock, strikes, May timetable chaos, and generally poor service overall. Prices should be coming down, not up, if people are to be attracted back to the railways.

LNW-GW Joint · 8 Feb 2019

Stealth increases were a BR idea (yield management), now much copied by "proper" operators like SNCF and DB.
Maybe people would prefer the easyJet model (no fixed fares, you pay whatever is asked for on the day you book, based on demand).

DarloRich · 8 Feb 2019

underbank said:
Which would mean even more people using the roads instead, fewer rail passengers, and ultimately fewer trains and railway workers. Yeah, great plan!

We already have lots of people who've given up on the railways in the North due to the crowded trains, ancient not-for-purpose rolling stock, strikes, May timetable chaos, and generally poor service overall. Prices should be coming down, not up, if people are to be attracted back to the railways.

You are suggesting the the UK taxpayer should pay more of the cost of services in the "North" than they do for services in the "East" "South" or "West" because the "North" is a special case and therefore requires supersoaraway fares. Your view seems to be that you should simply be gifted brand new rolling stock and new infrastructure that everyone else but you pays for. Yeah, great plan.

Which areas of the country will have to pay higher costs to give you cheap fares? What about other run down and poorly performing areas in Wales or Scotland or areas of deprivation in London? Do they get special fares to?

All I ask is realism. It is often lacking here.

UK rail tsar says stop taking customers for granted (Williams Review)

Member

RailUK Forums

On Moderation

Veteran Member

Member

On Moderation

On Moderation

On Moderation

On Moderation

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member