Manchester-Oldham-Rochdale

Discussion in 'Fares Advice & Policy' started by Ted Relton, 25 Apr 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Ted Relton

    Ted Relton New Member

    Messages:
    1
    Joined:
    25 Apr 2015

    Manchester-Oldham-Rochdale was an active rail service, replaced by Manchester Metrolink. But the Greater Manchrster transport authority has not accepted that rail staff are entitled to free travel on this line under the EU Acquired Rights Directive 77/187, which is carried into GB law under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Revision, 2006. Has anybody or any authority such as a trade union in the Manchester area pursued this case, and if so, with ewhat result?
     
  2. Jonfun

    Jonfun Member

    Messages:
    949
    Joined:
    16 Mar 2007
    Location:
    North West
    Manchester to Bury was an active rail service. Manchester to Altrincham was an active rail service. I would assume, and I'll openly admit I'm not qualified to state fact, that given formal closure procedures were undertaken on each line then there is no undertaking to transfer.
     
  3. ANorthernGuard

    ANorthernGuard Established Member

    Messages:
    2,512
    Joined:
    8 Oct 2010
    we have an "unofficial" agreement between Northern/Metrolink staff that works pretty well
     
  4. greatkingrat

    greatkingrat Established Member

    Messages:
    1,843
    Joined:
    20 Jan 2011
    I don't see why TUPE regulations would be relevant to this, did any staff even transfer from Northern to Metrolink?
     
  5. Hadders

    Hadders Established Member

    Messages:
    3,758
    Joined:
    27 Apr 2011
    TUPE depends on exactly what's in the contract of employment. If it's a benefit that's not in the contract of employment then it can be withdrawn or amended at any time.

    For example where I work I get a staff discount and am entitled to participate in the annual incentive bonus scheme. neither are in my contract of employment and my employer could withdraw them if they saw fit.
     
  6. Par

    Par Member

    Messages:
    85
    Joined:
    26 Aug 2009
    As a regular passenger on this route, in both in the pre and post tram era, I have had to accept a number of changes, including (but not limited to):-

    * Loss of through ticketing onto NR services
    * Loss of ability to convey bicycles
    * Loss of toilet provision
    * Loss of the "Cheap Evening return" ticketing
    * Loss of Raicard discounts

    Is the OP suggesting that he is somehow a special case, and therefore arrangements should carry on exactly as before?
    --- old post above --- --- new post below ---
    I'm sorry, but an "unofficial" arrangement sounds incredibly like fare dodging to me, for which others who participate in this practice, are rightly castigated.
     
  7. TOCDriver

    TOCDriver Member

    Messages:
    609
    Joined:
    24 Jan 2013
    I have never had trouble with the Metrolink staff at Victoria when in Uniform, so how can it be fare dodging?
     
  8. Par

    Par Member

    Messages:
    85
    Joined:
    26 Aug 2009
    Well, are you legally and contractually entitled to travel on Metrolink services under the terms of your employment?

    If not, and assuming you haven't bought a ticket to travel, that's fare dodging in my book. The fact that there is "unofficial" arrangement between the two companies staff, where they turn a "blind eye", doesn't alter that fact for me.

    If it's in your contract, then fair enough.
     
  9. Starmill

    Starmill Established Member

    Messages:
    8,876
    Joined:
    18 May 2012
    Location:
    Manchester
    You've also had a significant public fare increase, loss of semi-fast services and slight journey time increase. Everyone has now lost the evening discount. Hard times indeed.

    That said you've got a significant increase in frequency and capacity if you want to go to Manchester City Centre - which admittedly most people do from that area. People who live near Freehold, South Chadderton and Monsall wouldn't have had access pre-conversion without long walks, Central Park to a much lesser extent. Integration with national rail services should never have been lost back in 1992 - the Altrincham line particularly should not have been allowed to be operated separately from the National Rail network. But the precedent was set, they got away without integrating and the model has been copied on the Oldham-Rochdale line. Welcome to Public Transport in the UK.
     
  10. Par

    Par Member

    Messages:
    85
    Joined:
    26 Aug 2009
    I'm by no means anti-tram, although the 3+ years it took for the conversion was a PITA.

    The tram has indeed brought increased frequency, a 364 day a year service, earlier trams and [significantly] later last journey possibilities on Friday and Saturday evenings.

    No, the point of my original post, was that things move on, and we can't always expect things to remain the same, and we all have accept change in some form or another.
    --- old post above --- --- new post below ---
    Just for the avoidance of doubt before I seek clarification from both Metrolink and Northern about the "arrangement" that ANorthernGuard refers to, and that TOCDriver appears to confirm is in place, can one of those two, or other employees of either company confirm that their contractual arrangements do indeed allow for reciprocal free travel on each others services?

    I suspect that such an arrangement must be in place or otherwise it would be extremely unwise to come on a public forum boasting about such a set up predicated on the fact that Northern staff (in BR days) could travel free from lets say Manchester Victoria to Whitefield 23 years ago when it was a heavy rail service, and that it is still OK to do so now.

    I am happy to be (and hope to be) proved wrong that my concerns are ill founded.
    --- old post above --- --- new post below ---
    No one from Northern or Metrolink going to comment further on this "unofficial" agreement then?

    In which case I'll press on and seek clarification from the two companies involved.
     
    Last edited: 26 Apr 2015
  11. Rail Ranger

    Rail Ranger Member

    Messages:
    185
    Joined:
    20 Feb 2014
    TfGM got round providing a replacement bus service for the Oldham Loop while it was being converted to Metrolink by claiming that the line had closed. But surely both the Bury and Altrincham lines had "closed" but a replacement bus service was provided in both cases during the conversion work. One slight correction to Par's list: you still have through ticketing to rail stations within the TfGM area (although the wording on the station posters could be better. It talks of "tickets for rail stations" when it should say "tickets for journeys from this Metrolink station to these rail stations" or something similar).
     
  12. Deerfold

    Deerfold Established Member

    Messages:
    9,034
    Joined:
    26 Nov 2009
    Location:
    Yorkshire
    Weren't there temporary increases of frequency to various buses along the route?
     
  13. Rail Ranger

    Rail Ranger Member

    Messages:
    185
    Joined:
    20 Feb 2014
    Deerfold,

    Yes there were some bus service frequency enhancements and a few peak hour only additional buses (operated by clapped out First Manchester buses) during the conversion of the Oldham Loop but it was not a dedicated replacement bus service just calling at or near stations which is what was provided during the conversion of the Bury and Altrincham lines.
     
  14. Par

    Par Member

    Messages:
    85
    Joined:
    26 Aug 2009
    I'm talking now about services from Shaw, (which had the highest passenger numbers on the line), there were four additional peak hour buses in the morning and evening, Monday - Friday only.

    Also, for a short time "Bluebird" operated two additional services per hour (taking the total to 6bph), this lasted for maybe a year out of the 3+ years the conversion took; otherwise it was the same provision (4bph operated by First) on the Shaw to Manchester route that had existed prior to the rail closure, which, as Rail Ranger states, didn't serve the intermediate stations.

    All in all, it was pretty poor effort.
     
    Last edited: 27 Apr 2015
  15. Jonfun

    Jonfun Member

    Messages:
    949
    Joined:
    16 Mar 2007
    Location:
    North West
    Generally speaking post-privatisation travel perks (ie between TOCs, TOCNE priv and free travel within groups etc) are non contractual. BR travel perks remain for those staff with safeguarded entitlements.

    I'm confused as to why you need to know details of Northern's travel agreements though?
     
  16. Par

    Par Member

    Messages:
    85
    Joined:
    26 Aug 2009
    I was referring specifically to what appears to be an unofficial arrangement allowing Northern rail employees to travel free of charge on Metrolink services (that were formerly heavy rail services) and whether this is a contractual entitlement or not?

    If not, then in my book, Northern staff doing so are fare dodging (or fare evading if you don't like that term) when travelling on Metrolink services without a paid for ticket.

    Like I said before, I'm sure this is all above board but I am seeking clarification from both Northern and Metrolink just for the avoidance of all doubt.
     
  17. First class

    First class Established Member

    Messages:
    2,733
    Joined:
    9 Aug 2008
    Clearly NOTHING at all to do with you.

    I would imagine that the TOC and Metrolink will simply reply that it is a private employment matter that does not concern the public and no further information will be provided.

    Reciprocal travel arrangements, even unofficial ones are common across the transport industry. Airlines, bus companies, rail companies, trams - it's a perk of the job.
     
  18. Par

    Par Member

    Messages:
    85
    Joined:
    26 Aug 2009
    When public (ie tax payers) money is involved, sorry but it clearly is something to do with me.

    Anyway, we'll see what response is forthcoming.
     
  19. Deerfold

    Deerfold Established Member

    Messages:
    9,034
    Joined:
    26 Nov 2009
    Location:
    Yorkshire
    If I were a member of staff using it I'd want to know if it was official as presumably all it would take is for an RPI to decide I was fare dodging and I could be up before the court.

    As someone who works for a transport company there may be knock on effects on their employment (I know where I am misuse of staff travel facilities is seen as misconduct and thus potentially subject to dismissal).

    Added a missing bracket.
     
    Last edited: 28 Apr 2015
  20. adrock1976

    adrock1976 Established Member

    Messages:
    1,531
    Joined:
    10 Dec 2013
    Location:
    Glasgow
    I think you would be far better off concentrating on the likes of Boots, Amazon, Google, Vodafone, etc who intentionally use various creative accounting methods to avoid paying tax in the UK. Also, combined with non-dom political party donors e.g. Lord Ashcroft, etc.

    Another example where you could channel your frustration is towards the likes of Argos, Poundland, B&M, where the permanent members of staff no longer get offered overtime as those positions are being used by the discredited Workfare scheme. Plus, those organisations receive taxpayers money for each person that is took on, with placements lasting 4 weeks, with no chance of any paid employment on a proper permanent contract forthcoming.

    In peace

    Adam
     
  21. ralphchadkirk

    ralphchadkirk Established Member

    Messages:
    5,758
    Joined:
    20 Oct 2008
    Location:
    Hatfield or Surrey
    You sound like a toddler: "if I can't have it nobody can!".

    I presume that if you were ever offered a free drink at a well-known food outlet you'd insist on paying anyway?

    Or if you were pulled over for speeding and about to be let off with a warning you'd insist on being reported for prosecution?
     
  22. Bletchleyite

    Bletchleyite Veteran Member

    Messages:
    20,838
    Joined:
    20 Oct 2014
    Location:
    Up and down the south WCML (mostly)
    As people are probably expecting me to say (and there are certain other posters who also may be in support) that should be universal and include buses - i.e. be a true joint tariff, German-style. If that was achieved, the loss of national ticketing might not be so great.
     
  23. Rail Ranger

    Rail Ranger Member

    Messages:
    185
    Joined:
    20 Feb 2014
    Hopefully matters will improve once the buses are back under public control in Greater Manchester (scheduled for 2017). TfGM already controls the fares on Metrolink.
     
  24. Deerfold

    Deerfold Established Member

    Messages:
    9,034
    Joined:
    26 Nov 2009
    Location:
    Yorkshire
    Hmm, not cheap are they?
     
  25. Rail Ranger

    Rail Ranger Member

    Messages:
    185
    Joined:
    20 Feb 2014
    Unlike local rail services, Metrolink receives no public subsidy (apart from reimbursement for concessionary travel and payment of track access charges to Network Rail for Deansgate Junction to Altrincham). This is to do with how Metrolink was set up in the first place under John Major's Government. The then Goverrnment insisted that Metrolink be run without subsidy and that is how it still operates.
     
  26. Deerfold

    Deerfold Established Member

    Messages:
    9,034
    Joined:
    26 Nov 2009
    Location:
    Yorkshire
    I thought we were comparing with local bus services.

    Is there going to be some additional subisdy for buses after TfGM takes over or just a redistribution of what there is now?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page