Caledonian Sleeper discussion

[PHILIPE]

Believed to be in connection with condition of stock, poorly maintained and allegedly unsafe according to RMT.

 

[NamelessPoster]

Very poor by the RMT in the run up to Christmas.

Can't see strike action as justified in these circumstances. Suspect this has much more to do with Calmac than the sleeper issues as such.

Sorry but no.

The Sleeper staff are not ones for striking for the sake of it. I do believe their last strike was over 20 years ago in the days of BR.

Issues are coaches with numerous faults - many having faulty fire alarms that need switching off meaning any fires in the coaches cannot be detected. Toilets not working, buffet cars taken out of service, no running hot water in berths and short formed trains.

Just take a look at Serco in other industries to see where the fault lies wherein they charge taxpayers for tagging prisoners that have either been released or died, handing back a NHS service midway through contract and fouling up the ferries.

Yes the rolling stock is old but it was only a few months older than the same stock used by First and it was never this bad under their management.

 

[sdrennan]

The rationale about the issues experienced by the staff may make this a cause worth striking over.
However you have to been smart and chosen dates which ensure they will get a longer time off for Christmas and have planned it so the staff will be at their home depot by planning this to be for 2 days.

Big issue is that the people who get hurt are those travelling home for Christmas.

 

[NamelessPoster]

The rationale about the issues experienced by the staff may make this a cause worth striking over.
However you have to been smart and chosen dates which ensure they will get a longer time off for Christmas and have planned it so the staff will be at their home depot by planning this to be for 2 days.

Big issue is that the people who get hurt are those travelling home for Christmas.

At the end of the day one strike at Xmas is a small price for passengers to pay if it shakes SERCO out of their malaise and sees them treat onboard safety with the importance it should have and eradicates trains doing 12 hour stints from London to Inverness and vice versa with no buffet cars etc etc.

 

[cjmillsnun]

The rationale about the issues experienced by the staff may make this a cause worth striking over.
However you have to been smart and chosen dates which ensure they will get a longer time off for Christmas and have planned it so the staff will be at their home depot by planning this to be for 2 days.

Big issue is that the people who get hurt are those travelling home for Christmas.

Oh come on. It's not a total strike, they'll still get home. No, the sleeper won't be running, but Virgin can get them to Scotland, and Scotrail the rest of the way.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

How much profit/loss is there with the sleeper train?

 

[marks87]

Oh come on. It's not a total strike, they'll still get home. No, the sleeper won't be running, but Virgin can get them to Scotland, and Scotrail the rest of the way.

For all but one of the sleeper destinations, Virgin (on either coast) can take them the whole way.

I think the Chieftan and Northern Lights serve the same stations as the equivalent sleeper portions, but could be wrong.

 

[Mag_seven]

Is Queen Nicola going to intervene?

 

[Carntyne]

She should be - to have Serco fix the faults on the fleet which the staff are concerned about.

 

[mark-h]

Given that Sturgeon and the SNP are against the UK government's plan to reduce the ability of trade unions to strike I doubt she will interfere (apart from to apply pressure to Serco).

 

[Hadders]

How much profit/loss is there with the sleeper train?

It makes a thumping loss and is heavily subsidised.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

It makes a thumping loss and is heavily subsidised.

If it's making that much of a loss, is it possible that serco could just hand the franchise back?

 

[DarloRich]

If it's making that much of a loss, is it possible that serco could just hand the franchise back?

of course - but the fact the sleeper is a loss making heavily subsided ( if fantastic!) way to travel between London and Scotland should come as a surprise to no one.

 

[Bletchleyite]

of course - but the fact the sleeper is a loss making heavily subsided ( if fantastic!) way to travel between London and Scotland should come as a surprise to no one.

I don't believe it makes Serco a loss - the subsidy would take them into profit.

 

[Dryce]

If it's making that much of a loss, is it possible that serco could just hand the franchise back?

There's a whacking great subsidy provided to the operator.

So as long as an operator like Serco gets their bid priced correctly and is able to operate the service as planned then they should make money - with the planned losses being covered by the taxpayer.

One of the reasons the RMT can kick off and organise industrial action for this sort of service is that the taxpayer is carrying so much of the risk. If the sleeper was left to struggle in the real world then we probably wouldn't be seeing the kind of industrial action just announced because the people involved would be more concerned about the near term commercial prospects of their employer and its impact on their jobs.

 

[Tim R-T-C]

Of course the stike may disrupt pax, but odds are the train may have not run, or failed anyway.

For once I support this strike - action is needed before this sleeper becomes a joke.

 

[Blindtraveler]

Id go as far as to say its already a joke but like others I support moves by the very loyal crew to stop it coming further so.

 

[Observer]

I doubt Serco has lost much doing this compared to GBRf on the other hand who have had to burn money hiring in from DBS and Freightliner because their intended locomotives aren't ready for service.

The 73/9s are going to be up and running in a matter of months, whether they are up to the job we will have to see, the 92s on the other hand if they continue to keep on having problems despite promised fixes then it'll get to the point where they'll have to just look at a order for new electric locos in time for the CAF stock arriving in 2018. I am aware there is a 92 being used on non-ECS moves now to replace the hired in DBS 90 so we'll see.

 

[captainbigun]

Many plots have been lost here.

A pile of defects have not just arrived in the last six months. There's a lot of short term and anti-Serco thinking going on here.

Performance figures suggest that things are going OK. I don't understand all this waffle about trains not getting to their destination. There have been issues, but not recently.

Equally unsure about this reference to 92s and promised fixes.

Ironic that those who need to fix this pile of alleged defects are also RMT!

 

[sprinterguy]

A pile of defects have not just arrived in the last six months.

Under First, however, faults were competently managed and attended to by a team that had many years of experience of working with these trains and familiarity with their foibles. Faults appear to have been allowed to accumulate since Serco took on the franchise, resulting in the situation we are in now where carriages are being cut out of formations or otherwise remaining in operation with faults apparent. The RMT wouldn't have balloted for strike action over these issues if there were no grounds for doing so.

Performance figures suggest that things are going OK. I don't understand all this waffle about trains not getting to their destination. There have been issues, but not recently.

That's because they have pulled the 92s off the service and gone back to using the old locos, which are known to work. No doubt at great additional cost to traction provider GBRf.

Equally unsure about this reference to 92s and promised fixes.

The 92s have proven unreliable on the sleepers due to complications with their electrical systems. Until these issues have been satisfactorily resolved they are unlikely to be allowed to get back to the regular business of hauling sleeper trains (I appreciate that one is seeing some use at the moment).

 

[NamelessPoster]

Step back here and look at the facts of the two parties involved:-

SERCO:- A company with a recent history of charging tax payers for paying for tagged prisoners (many of which had been released after doing their time or others had died), handing back an NHS contract mid-term and other misdemeanours.

SLEEPER STAFF:- These are the people who as employees know what the issues have been (long before the RMT got involved). They are not staff renowned for striking for the sake of it. Need proof? I think you will find the last time they resorted to strike action was around 20 years ago.

So lets not pretend that this is a strike taken lightly for no due cause. The safety of both passengers AND staff on train journeys should always take precedence well a train travelling without functioning fire and smoke alarms is not safe at all.

 

[najaB]

A pile of defects have not just arrived in the last six months. There's a lot of short term and anti-Serco thinking going on here.

I agree that the stock Serco are using is only a few months older than the stock First was using. However, I've travelled many times with both operators and I don't remember there being nearly as many instances of coaches being locked out of use, I don't recall First having to borrow coaches from other operators and I never once had a fire alarm fault under First but have had two under Serco. It's entirely possible that it's just been a co-incidence, but find it more likely that it's related to the changes to maintenance practices under the new operator.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

I doubt Serco has lost much doing this compared to GBRf on the other hand who have had to burn money hiring in from DBS and Freightliner because their intended locomotives aren't ready for service.

The 73/9s are going to be up and running in a matter of months, whether they are up to the job we will have to see, the 92s on the other hand if they continue to keep on having problems despite promised fixes then it'll get to the point where they'll have to just look at a order for new electric locos in time for the CAF stock arriving in 2018. I am aware there is a 92 being used on non-ECS moves now to replace the hired in DBS 90 so we'll see.

The Class 92 problem is a problem external to the locomotive. It needs a bit of time and money to be spent on finding out what the problem is in the Warrington area, and a fix to be developed. I can be fairly certain DRS Class 88 locomotives will have similar problems in the area, though whether it results in a full shutdown or just error messages, we will have to wait and see.

 

[captainbigun]

Under First, however, faults were competently managed and attended to by a team that had many years of experience of working with these trains and familiarity with their foibles. Faults appear to have been allowed to accumulate since Serco took on the franchise, resulting in the situation we are in now where carriages are being cut out of formations or otherwise remaining in operation with faults apparent. The RMT wouldn't have balloted for strike action over these issues if there were no grounds for doing so.

That's supposition unless you've got a list of the faults and the dates when they were raised.

That's because they have pulled the 92s off the service and gone back to using the old locos, which are known to work. No doubt at great additional cost to traction provider GBRf.

I'm well aware of the detail here.

The 92s have proven unreliable on the sleepers due to complications with their electrical systems. Until these issues have been satisfactorily resolved they are unlikely to be allowed to get back to the regular business of hauling sleeper trains (I appreciate that one is seeing some use at the moment).

See above....lots of people pointing at the locos without understanding the detail.

There's some pretty interesting reading on this over on wnxx. Particularly relating to the time of the strike and steps being taken in the background to resolve the issues.

 

[andrewkeith5]

SERCO:- A company with a recent history of charging tax payers for paying for tagged prisoners (many of which had been released after doing their time or others had died), handing back an NHS contract mid-term and other misdemeanours.

Yeah, don't bother letting all the other contracts which Serco deliver or delivered very successfully bother your little argument....including Northern rail and DLR.

You are forgetting that companies like Serco are much, much bigger than you think. Every company makes mistakes sometimes.

Presumably Bombardier should be banned from the industry because they failed spectacularly to deliver the SSR resignalling?

Most of the points RMT make are actually Alstoms responsibility - they are the ones who claim to be able to maintain the stock, remember.....

 

[NamelessPoster]

Yeah, don't bother letting all the other contracts which Serco deliver or delivered very successfully bother your little argument....including Northern rail and DLR.

You are forgetting that companies like Serco are much, much bigger than you think. Every company makes mistakes sometimes.

Presumably Bombardier should be banned from the industry because they failed spectacularly to deliver the SSR resignalling?

There are many TOC's out there that don't have as massive a blots on their copybook as SERCO. So lets not paint them as something they are not. First comes in for stick but if you were to ask staff on the sleeper now I'd say they'd take First back in a shot. It may mean:-

1. Trains running without faults to critical equipment.
2. Trains running with all coaches in working order for the vast majority of the time.
3. Trains on 12 hour journeys running all the time with buffet cars.
4. Staff not being asked if they are booking on for return trips five hours after booking off on an 18 and a half hour shift.
5. Staff not being told to get off at remote stations and pay for taxis from their own money to get to hotels.
6. Trains arriving at the departure stations in correct formation rather than a hotch potch set-up.

 

[Tim R-T-C]

Most of the points RMT make are actually Alstoms responsibility - they are the ones who claim to be able to maintain the stock, remember.....

True, but if Serco are hiring them then the responsibility comes down to Serco to see this and move onto a different contractor.

I know that long distance trains can have problems, but the frequency with which passengers on the CS were being forced onto overnight buses means I wouldn't think of booking on at the moment.

The staff are not striking for extra pay or wanting any change in "working conditions", they just want the trains to run and presumably not have to spend half their time explaining to passengers why they can't have any food, or their room or even transport on the train.

 

[Marklund]

Most of the points RMT make are actually Alstoms responsibility

Nope, Alstom don't have the sleeper contract, the responsibility lies with Serco.
It's up to Serco to take any failings with the maintenance with them - they could terminate the maintenance contract, if they were in breech of it's terms.

It also is to a degree Transport Scotland's for giving them the contract in the first place, and not ensuring that Serco are keeping their part by maintaining the fleet in a safe manner. They have the powers, I presume, to remove the franchise if they're not meeting it.

Funny how it's another privatised Transport Scotland contract that's gone wrong. Amey and the Bridge? That's two now.
I'd suggest that contract TS's management is somehow, defective.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Nope, Alstom don't have the sleeper contract, the responsibility lies with Serco.
It's up to Serco to take any failings with the maintenance with them - they could terminate the maintenance contract, if they were in breech of it's terms.

It also is to a degree Transport Scotland's for giving them the contract in the first place, and not ensuring that Serco are keeping their part by maintaining the fleet in a safe manner. They have the powers, I presume, to remove the franchise if they're not meeting it.

Funny how it's another privatised Transport Scotland contract that's gone wrong. Amey and the Bridge? That's two now.
I'd suggest that contract TS's management is somehow, defective.

Serco have been backed into a little corner by the RMT, but it's nothing to do with the Caledonian Sleeper and everything to do with the RMT's outlook regarding Serco, the Northlink Ferries and Caledonian MacBrayne contracts.

This action is being taken purely for political purposes relating to Serco, attempting to discredit them and ensure the Cal-Mac operation remains in the public sector.

Serco could, for example, remove the maintenance contract from Alstom, but that could well result in redundancies amongst RMT members employed by Alstom, and in turn, would almost certainly result in strike action against Alstom, designed to disrupt the Caledonian Sleeper operation and damage Serco further.

 

[Marklund]

Serco could, for example, remove the maintenance contract from Alstom, but that could well result in redundancies amongst RMT members employed by Alstom, and in turn, would almost certainly result in strike action against Alstom, designed to disrupt the Caledonian Sleeper operation and damage Serco further.

It might, it might not. Did they take on additional staff, or use existing resources?