Merriman at Transport Committee 18/1

[43066]

Of course problem with politicians and Dft now they are in the the thick of it is they will pick up on the outliers and assume thats the norm across the industry.

My impression is that the politicians wanting to play trains have a poor understanding of how the industry works, and of course are more interested in their short term political futures than actually improving the railway.

This is why i will repeat verbatim that scrapping the franchises without a fall back plan is what will plague the industry and I reckon Harper will shift the dial on this .

In terms of switching back to something approaching the existing franchise model, at least temporarily? I hope so - the current situation is a complete mess, and it’s clear that the GBR project is stalled and heavily delayed, if not dead, so the question is what happens in the interim. Even today Merriman appeared to distance himself from the project by stating “much can be achieved without legislation” (or similar). It’ll be interesting to see what is said in February.

Yes some may have made a pretty penny but lets be honest drivers wouldn't have achieved the salaries now commanded if it had been left as BR. TOCs had an incentive to find a balance between income generation and running costs and that meant working with the staff and their representatives. Some of the smarter ones worked through deals on Sundays and largely without disputes for example.

Yep I’d agree with all of that. And of course drivers are more productive (and held to far higher professional standards) than they were under BR as a result.

In short: engagement with the stakeholders, negotiation not being centralised but performed locally by those who understand the industry and are abreast of the relevant local issues. That’s what we need to get back to.

 

[ComUtoR]

In short: engagement with the stakeholders, negotiation not being centralised but performed locally by those who understand the industry and are abreast of the relevant local issues. That’s what we need to get back to.

ASLEF already work to a 'framework' style of national principles. Local negotiation towards those goals never seems to happen because there is such disparity across the country.

I don't think the principle of working to a national standard is wrong per sea, just that the content of the agreement laid down and how they are trying to achieve it is wrong.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

My impression is that the politicians wanting to play trains have a poor understanding of how the industry works, and of course are more interested in their short term political futures than actually improving the railway.



In terms of switching back to something approaching the existing franchise model, at least temporarily? I hope so - the current situation is a complete mess, and it’s clear that the GBR project is stalled and heavily delayed, if not dead, so the question is what happens in the interim. Even today Merriman appeared to distance himself from the project by stating “much can be achieved without legislation” (or similar). It’ll be interesting to see what is said in February.



Yep I’d agree with all of that. And of course drivers are more productive (and held to far higher professional standards) than they were under BR as a result.

In short: engagement with the stakeholders, negotiation not being centralised but performed locally by those who understand the industry and are abreast of the relevant local issues. That’s what we need to get back to.

Certainly sounds to me that Williams-Shapps will be buried on 7th Feb and i very much doubt whatever Harper comes up with he will be as a vein to put his name on the front of some glossy document.

 

[Jammy Dodger]

Certainly sounds to me that Williams-Shapps will be buried on 7th Feb and i very much doubt whatever Harper comes up with he will be as a vein to put his name on the front of some glossy document.

What's happening on 07/02?

 

[matacaster]

What scale of cuts to services would result in the current number of drivers being able to cover all remaining services?

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

What's happening on 07/02?

Its the annual Bradshaw lecture (guess related to Bradshaws guide from 19th C) delivered at Civil Engineers i believe. Anyhow Merriman announced that Harper would be making a key address at this lecture in respect of next steps for industry reform and what happens with GBR.

 

[43066]

What scale of cuts to services would result in the current number of drivers being able to cover all remaining services?

It will vary by location. But where I am drivers are still needed to do overtime on the days of RMT strikes, when the service frequency is roughly halved, and only operates between (approx) 0730 and 1800. So that gives you an idea of how much the industry relies on overtime!

 

[ComUtoR]

What scale of cuts to services would result in the current number of drivers being able to cover all remaining services?

At my TOC we are currently over establishment.

As always, it's more complicated than services level Vs establishment. Passenger numbers are still down so you could cut services based on passenger capacity.

We are still running obscene numbers of rest day working.

 

[Master29]

Was Transport Select Committee chair for several years as well as being a member of the committee for considerably longer. A pretty good advocate for rail although as others observe he is poacher turned gamekeeper here but on this outing I felt he was closer to his past than previous. He has a clear command of his brief, yes some of it is naive, but he is a better ally to the industry than we've seen in a Rail Minister for sometime. Once the disputes are resolved there will be other fights but better to have someone who can see what benefits the industry can bring than the likes of failing Grayling or name changing Shapps.

But we keep hearing this sort of spin "He knows his stuff". Has a great grasp of the railways" etc. Nothing personal to you in any way but I don't buy into any of this stuff anymore. Just management and meetings spiel.

 

[Bald Rick]

So this suggests the new rosters had completely different rest day patterns? No wonder they weren’t agreed!

In Avanti’s case yes, albeit the changes were agreed at all the other depots…

 

[Jammy Dodger]

Its the annual Bradshaw lecture (guess related to Bradshaws guide from 19th C) delivered at Civil Engineers i believe. Anyhow Merriman announced that Harper would be making a key address at this lecture in respect of next steps for industry reform and what happens with GBR.

Ah, OK, a big thing then!

 

[Horizon22]

So this suggests the new rosters had completely different rest day patterns? No wonder they weren’t agreed!

“You know that weekend break you had booked up based on your existing rest day pattern? Well, now you’re going to be working on those days and if you don’t like it, tough!”. Isn’t going to be popular!

Any roster change has quirks like this where things don’t quite align as you transition. Been through a few myself; the transition week is always a bit weird and shifting A/L to days you are now working and vice versa can be tricky but it all settles down in time.

But that (generally) tends to be outweighed by the overall roster improvements.

 

[irish_rail]

I say again which is why management should be able to set rosters (within agreed rules) without them being subjected to local agreement. Ive known drivers who spent several days a week checking the roster and deciding whether to agree to it or not.

Trouble is those who draw up the rosters and work diagrams invariably have never driven a train in their life. Therefore it might all look fine on paper, a be legal, but the minute an actual driver looks at said diagram its completely unacceptable in terms of fatigue, etc. Also quite often completely unpractical, and it takes actual drivers to point this out. If management where given free range I confidently predict the service would fall apart rather quickly as management don't tend to allow for any kind of disruption in diagram planning (ie absolute bare minimum breaks and turn around times etc). Its vital that the union are allowed to cast an eye over links etc , for everyone's benefit, not just drivers but the travelling public too.

 

[Napier]

I think that will be Huw Merriman, Rail Minister.
And until a few weeks ago, Chair of the Transport Select Committee he was being interviewed by today.
So it was a case of poacher turned gamekeeper today (or possibly the other way round!).

This man Huw Merriman has more faces than a 10 Bob bit.

As do the maority of MP's.

I legitimately wouldn't be surprised if DfT/Govt. actually does this, given the last 5 (if not 13) years!

Merge and sell make some money just in time to be elected out.

 

[dk1]

Trouble is those who draw up the rosters and work diagrams invariably have never driven a train in their life. Therefore it might all look fine on paper, a be legal, but the minute an actual driver looks at said diagram its completely unacceptable in terms of fatigue, etc. Also quite often completely unpractical, and it takes actual drivers to point this out. If management where given free range I confidently predict the service would fall apart rather quickly as management don't tend to allow for any kind of disruption in diagram planning (ie absolute bare minimum breaks and turn around times etc). Its vital that the union are allowed to cast an eye over links etc , for everyone's benefit, not just drivers but the travelling public too.

Exactly that and why the local driver reps have to be released to go through new diagrams & rosrers with a fine toothed comb. Often coming up with overall improvements that do not cost more but offer a better work life balance.

 

[Confused52]

Exactly that and why the local driver reps have to be released to go through new diagrams & rosrers with a fine toothed comb. Often coming up with overall improvements that do not cost more but offer a better work life balance.

Outside the nastiness of a dispute that seems fine to me. However if the power to disagree is abused and the roster simply rejected the resulting performance from the mismatch can be catastrophic for passengers. In those circumstances, the TOC is responsible for the actions of those union reps which are beyond its control. There has to be compromise or the power has to be taken away because the purpose of public money supporting the railway is to serve passengers.

 

[Starmill]

Labour are no different, of course.
They have a record of appointing the most useless Transport Ministers over the years - typically lawyers with no interest or experience in transport.

The important difference is that a Labour minister would be less unpopular both personally and policy-wise than the current government.

Whatever credit Merriman is due for his work, and I don't disagree that there is some, he still endorses wider government policy, and supports it at the Parliamentary vote. This shames him, given the scale of the damage he and his party have caused to the country in the past few years, and he knows that. A Labour Minister could potentially hold their head high.

 

[43066]

Outside the nastiness of a dispute that seems fine to me. However if the power to disagree is abused and the roster simply rejected the resulting performance from the mismatch can be catastrophic for passengers. In those circumstances, the TOC is responsible for the actions of those union reps which are beyond its control. There has to be compromise or the power has to be taken away because the purpose of public money supporting the railway is to serve passengers.

In normal circumstances these things are agreed with no issues whatsoever and it’s by no means clear rosters have been “simply rejected”, there is clearly more to it.

It’s illuminating that you automatically view the dispute as the union’s fault and your default response is that the union should be made less influential, rather than considering whether the employer might be the ones abusing their position and showing disdain for passengers.

Anyone who really cares about passengers should want these disputes to be resolved amicably as quickly as possible - and should be annoyed that the government has blocked negotiations for many months and lied about it.

It does seem that things are moving in the right direction - but too little too late given the enormous costs to both the railway’s reputation and the wider economy.

 

[Starmill]

I get the sense Merriman wants this sorted because I imagine he's just as frustrated by the Treasury as everyone else is.

I do think the cost to the economy shows how important the railways are to the economy.

The Treasury as it stands today is a product of his own political campaigning in his constituency though, and his own Parliamentary votes. If he's unhappy with that he could always have tried standing for a better party?

 

[Confused52]

It’s illuminating that you automatically view the dispute as the union’s fault and your default response is that the union should be made less influential, rather than considering whether the employer might be the ones abusing their position and showing disdain for passengers.

Anyone who really cares about passengers should want these disputes to be resolved amicably as quickly as possible - and should be annoyed that the government has blocked negotiations for many months and lied about it.

In the end you make my point. Refusing to compromise and run the intended service is what I object to. I would object just as strongly if it were the TOC doing that and call for the TOC to be removed. I cannot call for the union to be removed so the situation is not symmetrical. The evidence I have seen from the Northern West dispute over the May 22 timetable is that there was no compromise and the TOC tried to soldier on but the service was shredded. I cannot know what really happened but I suspect that if there was an indefensible attack on the rights of workers we would have heard it shouted from the roof tops. So on the evidence available it does not seem likely that the TOC were deliberately causing the dispute.

I have waited a considerable time to decide which side is likely at fault, I do not have a default response, I prefer to deal with facts but they are often in short supply.

 

[physics34]

Very interesting watch again today. Huw does come across better than most rail ministers I’ve known in the past. Main points now appearing on BBC News.

He does. He actually commutes in from sussex most days and had a lot of experience of the Southern disputes of 2016.

Problem with ASLEF is they cant really stand in the way of DOO working which is a big sticking point here, especially as they have cleared 12-car DOO down here in the south. Its more about maintaining a safety trained 2nd person on the train... something i believe is essential.

 

[43066]

In the end you make my point. Refusing to compromise and run the intended service is what I object to.

This again selectively ignores the fact the refusal to compromise (or even enter into talk) has come from the side of the employers. The unions have being trying to negotiate for months and have been completely stonewalled. No offer, no negotiation just silence.

I suspect that if there was an indefensible attack on the rights of workers we would have heard it shouted from the roof tops.

You’ve missed the huge disquiet about the mooted anti strike legislation, and the recent comments from the UN, then?

So on the evidence available it does not seem likely that the TOC were deliberately causing the dispute.

The government has forced the TOCs into the dispute, and prevented compromise being reached, via the national rail contracts. That is the simple fact of the matter. Mark Harper has recently admitted that *he* has given the RDG a new mandate to reach agreement, yet the government for months have told the public this dispute was nothing to do with them. Unfortunately this dishonesty is now all too obvious.

I’ll leave it here as there’s little mileage in rehashing the wider dispute.

Problem with ASLEF is they cant really stand in the way of DOO working which is a big sticking point here, especially as they have cleared 12-car DOO down here in the south. Its more about maintaining a safety trained 2nd person on the train... something i believe is essential.

I agree it’s difficult where already agreed. That is not the case everywhere, however. It also seems that a wider expansion of DOO has not been proposed to ASLEF as part of the latest “offer” which is interesting. That’s likely because the government realise it’s many years away from being implementable without major investment (which they’re unwilling to fund).

 

[12LDA28C]

Management setting rosters within agreed rules is essentially what happens now. The union has some flexibility to vary things eg changing the number of night turns (all within agreed limits) so long as the work the company needs covering can be covered. That certainly does not mean rostering can’t be “efficient”.

What appears to be being suggested (detail is unclear) is that rosters can simply be imposed, which will absolutely destroy what little work life balance is available to many traincrew. Frankly that’s about as likely to be accepted by ASLEF as DOO is by the RMT.

That's not what happens at every TOC. Union reps build rosters at some TOCs and are released from driving duties specifically to carry out this task. They do this so that they can ensure that Ts & Cs are adhered to such as maximum driving hours are not exceeded, drivers get sufficient breaks and so on. I can imagine what would happen if these duties were given to management who have no experience in this area, illegal diagrams produced which would not be accepted by the reps and all sorts.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The important difference is that a Labour minister would be less unpopular both personally and policy-wise than the current government.

The last time there was a vote, the present lot came in more popular, which is why they are there...
Labour governments can (have to be) tough at times too.

 

[dk1]

Outside the nastiness of a dispute that seems fine to me. However if the power to disagree is abused and the roster simply rejected the resulting performance from the mismatch can be catastrophic for passengers. In those circumstances, the TOC is responsible for the actions of those union reps which are beyond its control. There has to be compromise or the power has to be taken away because the purpose of public money supporting the railway is to serve passengers.

Not seen any of that on my patch thankfully. Everything very business as usual & fair on that front.

He does. He actually commutes in from sussex most days and had a lot of experience of the Southern disputes of 2016.

Problem with ASLEF is they cant really stand in the way of DOO working which is a big sticking point here, especially as they have cleared 12-car DOO down here in the south. Its more about maintaining a safety trained 2nd person on the train... something i believe is essential.

I’ve been in ASLEF for 25 years now & it’s always been the policy of no more routes to be cleared for DOO over & above what we had in 1998. DCO however has been introduced very successfully indeed.

 

[Starmill]

The last time there was a vote, the present lot came in more popular, which is why they are there...
Labour governments can (have to be) tough at times too.

They weren't more popular though, because the election isn't based on winning outright majorities of votes. Thus most governments are unpopular, including Labour ones, but it's foolish not to consider the evidence which puts this one as much more unpopular than other modern governments. It is not a case of getting elected and then everything stays the same - Merriman knows in his own head, that people can't stand the government he's representing, and that he personally is at risk of being voted out as a result of that. And he knows we know.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Exactly that and why the local driver reps have to be released to go through new diagrams & rosrers with a fine toothed comb. Often coming up with overall improvements that do not cost more but offer a better work life balance.

For sure a workforce management partnership is definitely the way forward and that requires give and take on both sides and Merriman actually made some veiled criticism at teh way some operators have been managing their staff.

The boldest step now would be for DfT to make a good offer and for unions to agree that there has to be efficiencies and they are part of that solution, not all of it, so the industry can get back to doing what it does transporting passengers and freight as that is what brings in the money. Given RMT are still talking then omens look better so lets see.

 

[Bantamzen]

My impression is that the politicians wanting to play trains have a poor understanding of how the industry works, and of course are more interested in their short term political futures than actually improving the railway.

I don't want to cover too much old ground, but sadly this is a reality of any kind of public funding. The moment the Treasury gets involved. They set the budgets for each sector, often with caveats as to how budgets can be used, then politicians follow because ultimately they set the agendas that the Treasury follow. As we've discussed before the only way to wriggle free is to either convince politicians to not micro-manage, or to return to something along the lines of the private sector franchise model. The former is frankly unlikely, and the latter is going to be difficult until a) the disputes are resolved & b) the industry starts to gather back revenue and shows potential for investors.

 

[Thirteen]

I don't want to cover too much old ground, but sadly this is a reality of any kind of public funding. The moment the Treasury gets involved. They set the budgets for each sector, often with caveats as to how budgets can be used, then politicians follow because ultimately they set the agendas that the Treasury follow. As we've discussed before the only way to wriggle free is to either convince politicians to not micro-manage, or to return to something along the lines of the private sector franchise model. The former is frankly unlikely, and the latter is going to be difficult until a) the disputes are resolved & b) the industry starts to gather back revenue and shows potential for investors.

I do think while some industries need to be arms length, you can't be totally free of political interference. Even the likes of TfL and Scotrail which aren't DfT controlled aren't immune to wanting reform and the inevitable disputes.

 

[dk1]

I see the proposal for DOO has been dropped now.