Any ideas what the Government is going to suggest?

[Nonsense]

Really? How have you come to this conclusion? What makes the Conductor more susceptible to injury as opposed to a passenger? We are all human beings after all and are all made from the same flesh and blood.

Are they not more likely to be on their feet (inspecting tickets etc) at point of impact, and therefore more prone to injury than a seated passenger?

 

[Captain Chaos]

Are they not more likely to be on their feet (inspecting tickets etc) at point of impact, and therefore more prone to injury than a seated passenger?

Yep. Possibly. About the same odds as being hit on the head by luggage from the luggage rack when sat down maybe? Who knows? Would rather not find out tbh. I prefer my trains not to crash into anything.

Seriously though, surely it is better to have someone on the train who know what they are doing when said incident occurs than to have no-one at all? Because let's face it, in all reality hardly anyone ever reads the safety notices and whenever you tell people to do something for safety reasons it oftens gets ignored (yes Gomshall crossing users I am looking at you).

 

[jon0844]

I read the safety notices, or at least look around and get a feel for my environment. If others don't, that's their look out I guess.

I wouldn't imagine a train ever having nobody at all on it, and if that was to happen then I'd perhaps reconsider whether I wanted to travel on it. I have that right, just as I've begun to make a stand against retailers and organisations I don't like for my own personal reasons (Ryanair, Tesco, Avis car rental etc).

 

[Wath Yard]

All in all it appears that those who use trains the most frequently and at the busiest times (a core demographic) are going to be utterly hammered. They are going to be paying through the nose for a much less personal service. Pay more, get less. That's what this basically is. It's just being dressed up as 'value for money' in the hope that people swallow it.

Really? You must commute on a very pleasant line then. When I commuted on the Kingston Loop line believe me it wasn't a personal service. Never saw a guard once, in several years, except in the back cab. Never had an on-train ticket inspection. No platform staff at my station.

 

[johnnychips]

I might be an old cynic, but why, when some people say 'redundancies are inevitable' is it always the frontline staff, those who can give a human face to the railways.

Instead, why not think about the massive profits of the TOCs and ROSCOs, the consultants, the admin working out who blames whom if a train is late, the IT boffs who charge a fortune and only get things half right. These are the areas in which savings could be made.

Railways should not be a business. They should be a service. They can ease congestion; they can bring about social mobility; people should enjoy using them.

Just to show I'm not totally negative, we can't bring back BR but steps towards more vertical integration do seem to be in the right direction.

Rant over.

 

[jon0844]

Has anyone stated it will be front line staff axed?

I can see staff redeployed elsewhere, and expect some office staff would actually like to be more involved. While some people like to keep their heads down, others will realise that being busy and active is far more fulfilling.

You could also make changes gradually and use voluntary redundancies before compulsory ones.

I'd fully support the unions in trying to protect staff - but there is a limit. What's more, when Bob Crow starts on his rants about safety, when all he wants is re-nationalisation, I do begin to switch off. Fair enough, he's looking out for his members but I think he needs to find a new way to argue as the railway is pretty safe and if things do go wrong, it may be down to something a union member does wrong!

 

[Wath Yard]

Has anyone stated it will be front line staff axed?

I can see staff redeployed elsewhere, and expect some office staff would actually like to be more involved. While some people like to keep their heads down, others will realise that being busy and active is far more fulfilling.

The point of the exercise is to reduce costs. Costs are not reduced by redeploying staff. It would be a pointless and futile exercise. Some staff wouldn't want to be redeployed, potentially causing industrial action, for no gain whatsoever.

 

[Holly]

Since the railways are being run as an enterprise rather than as a service then perhaps the most effective form of demand management would be to simply abolish season tickets?

At a stroke there would more income from ticket sales as people changed their ticket buying habits;
there would be less overcrowding on rush-hour commuter trains as people were priced out of being employees
and no fares would need revised upwards.

 

[WatcherZero]

Since the railways are being run as an enterprise rather than as a service then perhaps the most effective form of demand management would be to simply abolish season tickets?

At a stroke there would more income from ticket sales as people changed their ticket buying habits;
there would be less overcrowding on rush-hour commuter trains as people were priced out of being employees
and no fares would need revised upwards.

You dont think it costs more in front line staff, more lost to the banks in transaction fees, more in printing 100x more pieces of paper, to issue one ticket than several hundred transactions?

 

[johnnychips]

I think Holly was being ironic.

 

[Holly]

You don't think it costs more in front line staff, more lost to the banks in transaction fees, more in printing 100x more pieces of paper, to issue one ticket than several hundred transactions?

Certainly it costs more. But there is even more profit margin to be made in every one of those activities. The railway is an enterprise, not a service, after all.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The railway is an enterprise, not a service, after all.

This point that you make sees this forum split into two divergent viewpoints.

 

[dviner]

Indeed. TVM's have their place, I would use one if there was no booking office open and I wanted a straightforward ticket

I know it's probably been said and argued about over and over again - but shouldn't ALL tickets be straightforward?

 

[Greenback]

I know it's probably been said and argued about over and over again - but shouldn't ALL tickets be straightforward?

Yes, they should, of course! But the world we inhabit is far from ideal!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

This point that you make sees this forum split into two divergent viewpoints.

There have always been two extreme views on how to run the railway system. One is nationalsation, based on the belief that the system is a public service and should be provided by the state for the benefit of the country and its economy.

The opposing view is that the system should be entirely free from government control and interference, and allowed to run entirely on a commercial basis.

My own opinion is that if the second option was followed there would be very little railway left, and the country would be worse off for it. I also believe that what we have now is a strnage mixture of government control within a rather woolly pretence as privatisation. It is neithe rone thing nor another, and so the railway system suffers through the deficencies in structure cause dby the way that 'privatsiation' was initally delivered. It must also be said that the tinkering that has taken place since then has not helped.

I know that the government does not want to throw all the cards up in the air again, but unless they do they have little more than a structurally unsound house of cards. It is the way that the structure is organised, rather than the numbe rof ticket offices, which causes the costs to be so high.

 

[Flamingo]

The biggest slice of every £ that gets spent on the railway goes to Network Rail, which is never really commented on. What could be achieved by streamlining network rail, it's contracting procedure, and the ridiculous train leasing schemes? But that would be an impact on the banks (who are to a large extent owned by the government).

The other point to raise to everybody saying that trains could have passenger sensors, automatic this and that which would remove the need for a guard (and driver). Where is the money going to come from to completely re-equip the rail network with these schemes? In theory they are possible, in practice they won't happen. I still remember working 180's when every train you got on had a guy plugged in with a laptop on them fault-finding. Why do you think FGW got rid of them and went back to 35 year old HST's?

 

[Anon Mouse]

I know it's probably been said and argued about over and over again - but shouldn't ALL tickets be straightforward?

well really thats not going to happen when you have different TOC's wanting their own tickets so they gain 100% of the revenue rather than a basic all day, any train ticket in which they have to share the revenue with the other TOC's on that route. With private companies running the shop people say they want competition to bring the fare down. When a TOC brings out a operator specific ticket or a cheapo advance people complain about the tickets being too complicated (normally when they have not read the T&C's, listened to ticket office staff or the ticket and are being charged for new ticket).

I know it would never happen, but if we re-nationalised we could get rid of the ROSCO's, we would kick out the private companies that only care for their shareholders and not the pasenger, sorry customer. The tickets would become simpler and the public will have a service paid for by them and operated by them. Not subsidised by them to make more money for the fat cats.

 

[Masboroughlad]

I hope the next Government (ie hopefully not this pathetic shower again) might have the nouse and guts to do something more radical with the industry. Defragmentation would be good for starters.

I agree, nationalisation probably will never happen (unfortunately), but just have TOCs and infrastructure companies, or just TOCs even.

Said it before, but it is so costly because there are so many layers and facets, each with its own management and support team, each needing to make profit. It is almost certain to cost a lot more due to this. It is not rocket science its just that nobody in power dare say it in case they lose votes!!!

I just hope we don't get the same shambolic, expensive mess in the NHS next.....

 

[Greenback]

I hope the next Government (ie hopefully not this pathetic shower again) might have the nouse and guts to do something more radical with the industry. Defragmentation would be good for starters.

Agreed.

I agree, nationalisation probably will never happen (unfortunately), but just have TOCs and infrastructure companies, or just TOCs even.

In the absence of nationalisation, which I agree is out of the question at this time, streamlinging the industry would be a help.

Said it before, but it is so costly because there are so many layers and facets, each with its own management and support team, each needing to make profit. It is almost certain to cost a lot more due to this. It is not rocket science its just that nobody in power dare say it in case they lose votes!!!

It is ideologically difficult for the Conservative Party to say it as they are the party of private enterprise, rather than governemental control.

I just hope we don't get the same shambolic, expensive mess in the NHS next.....

Unfortunately, it is my belief that that is exactly what we will get!

 

[Wath Yard]

The biggest slice of every £ that gets spent on the railway goes to Network Rail, which is never really commented on. What could be achieved by streamlining network rail, it's contracting procedure, and the ridiculous train leasing schemes? But that would be an impact on the banks (who are to a large extent owned by the government).

Network Rail are being forced to cut costs. TOCs should also be forced to cut costs. Salaries account for £2 billion of the spend on the railways. Here are a few key figures from Northern's accounts (year 2010/2011)

Total expenditure - £534 million of which:

Staff costs - £180 million
Network Rail - £125 million
Train leases - £34 million

So the argument that all the money is spent by Network Rail or on train leasing is simply incorrect, so is the argument that staff costs are irrelevant compared to other costs and that these costs could and should not be reduced.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

....I know it would never happen, but if we re-nationalised we could get rid of the ROSCO's,...

"We" could get rid of ROSCOs over time imo, but we won't because no-one in power wants that.

 

[ANorthernGuard]

Network Rail are being forced to cut costs. TOCs should also be forced to cut costs. Salaries account for £2 billion of the spend on the railways. Here are a few key figures from Northern's accounts (year 2010/2011)

Total expenditure - £534 million of which:

Staff costs - £180 million
Network Rail - £125 million
Train leases - £34 million

So the argument that all the money is spent by Network Rail or on train leasing is simply incorrect, so is the argument that staff costs are irrelevant compared to other costs and that these costs could and should not be reduced.

and how much PROFIT??? somewhere in the region of £34 Million

 

[Bellwater]

so i'll see you in the dole queue in 20 years time, I bet your a bundle of laughs at your depot.
:roll::roll:

From Yorkshire's Favourite Depot?

 

[ANorthernGuard]

Really? You must commute on a very pleasant line then. When I commuted on the Kingston Loop line believe me it wasn't a personal service. Never saw a guard once, in several years, except in the back cab. Never had an on-train ticket inspection. No platform staff at my station.

Well you must have been the most unlucky Person going, I personally go out on almost every trip, make myself known, have a laugh and a joke with the passengers and make my day happier and hopefully the passengers, the only trains I don't go out on are either full and standing or when I feel unsafe, the majority of us are professionals and 7 years without seeing a guard (apart from the back cab)..yeah right
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

From Yorkshire's Favourite Depot?

aaaah...explains it lol

 

[175001]

Well you must have been the most unlucky Person going, I personally go out on almost every trip, make myself known, have a laugh and a joke with the passengers and make my day happier and hopefully the passengers, the only trains I don't go out on are either full and standing or when I feel unsafe, the majority of us are professionals and 7 years without seeing a guard (apart from the back cab)..yeah right

And on our trains, such as the 142/144/156/158's, we have nowhere to hide anyway, as whe have to come out to do doors....sadly

I enjoy the human interaction on my job as a Guard, and I make it a part of my day to go out and interact with them, and as I do permanent lates, the chances are they don't want to interact back with me

 

[ANorthernGuard]

And on our trains, such as the 142/144/156/158's, we have nowhere to hide anyway, as whe have to come out to do doors....sadly

I enjoy the human interaction on my job as a Guard, and I make it a part of my day to go out and interact with them, and as I do permanent lates, the chances are they don't want to interact back with me

Permanent Lates. (shudder!) 142's are fine until rush hour when they all Cram towards our cab door lol, at least with 156's the doors open inwards

 

[175001]

Permanent Lates. (shudder!) 142's are fine until rush hour when they all Cram towards our cab door lol, at least with 156's the doors open inwards

Its a lifestyle change that has improved my physical health thankfully.....maybe not my mental health tho

 

[Flamingo]

Network Rail are being forced to cut costs. TOCs should also be forced to cut costs. Salaries account for £2 billion of the spend on the railways. Here are a few key figures from Northern's accounts (year 2010/2011)

Total expenditure - £534 million of which:

Staff costs - £180 million
Network Rail - £125 million
Train leases - £34 million

So the argument that all the money is spent by Network Rail or on train leasing is simply incorrect, so is the argument that staff costs are irrelevant compared to other costs and that these costs could and should not be reduced.

The customer-facing side of the railway is people-intensive (kinda like the NHS). We could run the railways with just signallers and drivers. Everybody else is not required to make sure that a train gets from A to B.

Unfortunately, tickets would not get sold or bought, nothing would be cleaned, the railways would become a haven for all sorts of criminal behaviour, delays would go up as incidents at stations would increase, and all in all, in a few years the rail system would become unsustainable and unusable. That is not even taking safety into account.

But just think of all the savings that would be made on salaries.

Taking your figures, why is £34million being paid for train leasing? That is a much bigger saving than any savings that could be made on salaries, without any impact on front-line services at all.

 

[cogload]

Well, as ever when governments release white papers or command papers, any pretence of level headed thinking goes out of the window and in comes platform end frothing as the dreams take over reality.

There are some crackers - "pathetic government". In terms of the railways? Well, perhaps I have been around far too long but I cannot remember a single government in the last 40 years authorising some of the schemes which are now before us; electrification (tick), HS2 (tick), Crossrail (yep, continue), some more rolling stock (yep). Any government faced with a stonking deficit could have quietly pushed a lot of these enhancements into the long grass. But no. They have got on with it.

And before we get any "conservatives are swines" nonsense either, there was a Labour government for 13 years before this. Strangely they could have restructured the railway - they didn't; fully nationalised it after Railtrack (they didn't), removed the ROSCO's (they didn't); nay even produced a green paper, followed by a white paper and legislation forecasting a new brave world of track and train....they didn't.

So, let us move onto the next nonsense. Greedy TOC's. Ok - here is a starter question for 10 - how may Train Operators are currently making a margin of 5% and how many are actually making a profit? Any ideas - ok, none. So, here is a really simple question - how many train operators are currently on revenue support from Daft because they are suffering? Hmmm. Plentry - SWT being one, FGW being another...so yes such is the culture of greed that train operators are actually loosing money.

And now onto ROSCO's - ok - how many on here buy a new car and then pay cash upfront? Hmm - not many hands I see. So to draw a parallel out - successive governments have decided that in essence Hire purchase is the way forward. This goes for new schools, hospitals and trains. Possibly because, in their eyes the risk is transferred to the private sector - so in 10 years time it is decided that we don't like that train then we can bin it. Ok, so it doesn't actually work like that - but to the governments eyes the money is not committed up front. And besides the rolling stock was not actually gifted to the ROSCO's in the first place - strangely enough it was sold and the proceeds used to bribe the electorate, spend on trident or fill a pothole. And again, was there any attempt to take back the stock after 1997? Nope.

Has anybody actually read the command paper and McNulty's report to go with it; or have you all swallowed the bullexcrement pumped out from the likes of the RMT hook, line and sinker?

 

[Bellwater]

Did you expect anything less than 14 pages of Froth, Cogload?

 

[cogload]

I note that the report comes out against further expansion of Open Access Operators.

It can say that, but they can't stop it under EU law.