Merriman at Transport Committee 18/1

[yorksrob]

This is classic of this government trying to look at the short-term cost versus a long-term benefit.

By the same token, the rest of the public sector has kicked off anyway, so might as well settle the rail disputes at their less than inflation demands and make the example that Government will settle at a reasonable rate.

It is refreshing to have some clarity of thought from a transport/rail minister, something not seen since Patrick McGloughlin.

 

[InkyScrolls]

Interesting to see the suggestion of a Northern/TPE merger; it would certainly simplify and hopefully improve circumstances for passengers.

 

[dk1]

Interesting to see the suggestion of a Northern/TPE merger; it would certainly simplify and hopefully improve circumstances for passengers.

Call it Northern Spirit.

 

[Facing Back]

Call it Northern Spirit.

Call it Northern Powerhouse Rail - then the government call trumpet that a commitment has been met.

 

[43066]

Well when the rosters aren't matched with the timetable because one of the unions will not accept them there is a distinct reduction in revenue which does make them inefficient. The loss of revenue is now noticed by the treasury.

I’m not sure I’ve ever been aware of “rosters not being matched to the timetable”. Base rosters are based on the timetable and the work that needs to be covered. Not having enough crew to cover them, not having overtime agreements in place etc. are rather different things.

The need for reviewing rostering agreements were on the table in the Rail Industry Recovery Group Framework Enabling Framework Agreement - which Mick Whelan said ASLEF recognised last week in the Select Committee at the same time as saying he didn't recognise the role of the RDG. That means the unions, all of them, knew about the need for reform of rostering all the way back in Jun 2021.

“Reviewing rostering agreements” already regularly happens as part and parcel of negotiations; the same negotiations that have not been allowed to take place. Insisting on this one very specific “one size fits all” change across the board (which largely isn’t even wanted by the industry), with no regard to the various different local agreements, again just smacks of government medalling.

Why do you say they weren't proposed months ago?

Because no actual proposals have been put to the unions until very recently, whereas the dispute started early to mid last year.

 

[Jammy Dodger]

Call it Northern Powerhouse Rail - then the government call trumpet that a commitment has been met.

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

 

[Facing Back]

Well when the rosters aren't matched with the timetable because one of the unions will not accept them there is a distinct reduction in revenue which does make them inefficient. The loss of revenue is now noticed by the treasury. There has been noticeable silence on this issue which has plagued Northern during the last timetable period, at least it has rarely been admitted on this forum or in public. The need for reviewing rostering agreements were on the table in the Rail Industry Recovery Group Framework Enabling Framework Agreement - which Mick Whelan said ASLEF recognised last week in the Select Committee at the same time as saying he didn't recognise the role of the RDG. That means the unions, all of them, knew about the need for reform of rostering all the way back in Jun 2021. Why do you say they weren't proposed months ago?

I had assumed that the point of moving rostering to the TOCs was so that the unions had no say in it - their views on acceptance or rejection would be moot and that would be enshrined in the agreement.

I don't know much about the impact of this issue so if anyone could elaborate on the impact on traincrew and the TOC's I would be grateful. I can see that having to agree rosters with 4 unions would not be a streamlined process.

It only seems to have been recently introduced in the ASLEF “offer”. Another negotiating ploy that may well be rolled back on, one suspects.

The question still remains: if these are the changes the government/DfT want, why weren’t they proposed months ago so the negotiation could take place then?

I'm curious about it being seemingly added in late in the day. There are other reasons why this might be the case other than "so it can be negotiated out in exchange for something else" such as "we are so close to a deal then this one tiny thing we now need can't possibly spoil it can it....?".

If I had confidence in the professionalism and skill of the government negotiating team then I would assume something like this as a matter of course. Other options would include "making it up as we go along" of course.

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

I was joking when I said it but having thought about it it don't think it is likely but I'm not betting my mortgage against it.

 

[baza585]

Who is Merriman? Another chancer on the parliamentary roundabout I suppose. Like looking at the UK singles chart for weekly changes. A country run by headless chickens.

He was chair of the Transport Select Committee prior to his appointment as Rail Minister. He has a much better grasp of the issues than many of the posters on this board, and indeed virtually every other MP.

A very clever appointment by Sunak (who I am no fan of). Time will tell how good he is at extracting money from the Treasury, but a good performance on debut on the other side of the fence at the Select Committee

 

[175001]

Interesting to see the suggestion of a Northern/TPE merger; it would certainly simplify and hopefully improve circumstances for passengers.

Good luck trying to harmonise all that!!!

 

[Jammy Dodger]

He was chair of the Transport Select Committee prior to his appointment as Rail Minister. He has a much better grasp of the issues than many of the posters on this board, and indeed virtually every other MP.

A very clever appointment by Sunak (who I am no fan of). Time will tell how good he is at extracting money from the Treasury, but a good performance on debut on the other side of the fence at the Select Committee

Based on what he has been saying so far since his appointment (and to a slight degree Mark Harper as well), it's a welcome change compared to the draconical Grant Shapps, who seemed to be pretty much against transport despite being the minister for it!

Still to early to tell if this Merriman will bring about real change and improvement...

 

[ScottGallagher]

About 3/4 in watching this , Huw is very good to be fair however he seems to be setting the tone for an Avanti extension in April at the very least. Little appetite for change.

 

[bramling]

I’m not sure I’ve ever been aware of “rosters not being matched to the timetable”. Base rosters are based on the timetable and the work that needs to be covered. Not having enough crew to cover them, not having overtime agreements in place etc. are rather different things.



“Reviewing rostering agreements” already regularly happens as part and parcel of negotiations; the same negotiations that have not been allowed to take place. Insisting on this one very specific “one size fits all” change across the board (which largely isn’t even wanted by the industry), with no regard to the various different local agreements, again just smacks of government medalling.



Because no actual proposals have been put to the unions until very recently, whereas the dispute started early to mid last year.

It's abundantly clear based on Sunak's PMQs performance today that blaming the unions seems to be the central strategy for avoiding taking any responsibility for the way *every* UK institution is currently dysfunctional. I find this unacceptable coming for a government which has been in power for over 12 years, and clearly the entire rail dispute needs to be considered in this context.

 

[Bald Rick]

I’m not sure I’ve ever been aware of “rosters not being matched to the timetable”.
Base rosters are based on the timetable and the work that needs to be covered.

Northern ran almost the whole of the May 22 timetable with rosters from December 21. They didn’t match.

Similarly, as Avanti’s drivers at Euston* haven’t agreed rosters for the new December 22 timetable (although all other Avanti drivers and Senior Conductor depots all have), they are running on the rosters for the old timetable, which, again, doesn’t match with the timetable in place.

* it’s coincidence that the president of ASLEF is an Avanti driver at Euston

 

[Peregrine 4903]

Northern ran almost the whole of the May 22 timetable with rosters from December 21. They didn’t match.

Similarly, as Avanti’s drivers at Euston* haven’t agreed rosters for the new December 22 timetable (although all other Avanti drivers and Senior Conductor depots all have), they are running on the rosters for the old timetable, which, again, doesn’t match with the timetable in place.

* it’s coincidence that the president of ASLEF is an Avanti driver at Euston

Dec is so different from May its a miracle the timetable is working full stop.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Northern ran almost the whole of the May 22 timetable with rosters from December 21. They didn’t match.

Similarly, as Avanti’s drivers at Euston* haven’t agreed rosters for the new December 22 timetable (although all other Avanti drivers and Senior Conductor depots all have), they are running on the rosters for the old timetable, which, again, doesn’t match with the timetable in place.

* it’s coincidence that the president of ASLEF is an Avanti driver at Euston

Hence Merriman saying management need to be able to manage which sounds like it could realise much more benefits quickly than talk of DOO ever will

 

[baza585]

Northern ran almost the whole of the May 22 timetable with rosters from December 21. They didn’t match.

Similarly, as Avanti’s drivers at Euston* haven’t agreed rosters for the new December 22 timetable (although all other Avanti drivers and Senior Conductor depots all have), they are running on the rosters for the old timetable, which, again, doesn’t match with the timetable in place.

* it’s coincidence that the president of ASLEF is an Avanti driver at Euston

Which is no doubt a major factor in the level of cancellations (whole or part).

Railway industry shoots itself in foot yet again. I despair.....

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Which is no doubt a major factor in the level of cancellations (whole or part).

Railway industry shoots itself in foot yet again. I despair.....

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.

 

[Bald Rick]

Which is no doubt a major factor in the level of cancellations (whole or part).

Yes, albeit Avanti’s cancellations for traincrew are significantly reduced compared to before Christmas. And they are running 40% more services on weekdays.

 

[dk1]

Good luck trying to harmonise all that!!!

Tried to harmonise for 19 years at my TOC. Yet still there’s more chance of that happening between the Conservatives, Labour & The Greens haha.

 

[Grumpy Git]

How can you improve 'customer facing' roles by closing ticket offices? It's about as 'customer facing' as you can get! Words fail me.

 

[InkyScrolls]

Northern ran almost the whole of the May 22 timetable with rosters from December 21. They didn’t match.

Not sure what you mean by that, unless it's an East/West difference? On the East we've had different rosters and diagrams at each change.

 

[Bald Rick]

Not sure what you mean by that, unless it's an East/West difference? On the East we've had different rosters and diagrams at each change.

Must be a west thing. ASLEF only agreed the rosters after a trip to see m’learned friends; they were then agreed the next day and evidently nobody seemed to mind…

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Yes, albeit Avanti’s cancellations for traincrew are significantly reduced compared to before Christmas. And they are running 40% more services on weekdays.

Only six cancelled out of Euston so far today looking at RTT albeit overall PPM is 2nd worst of national operators today so am guessing been a few term short amongst all departures but significantly improved and despite Euston drivers being "awkward" hardly a complete disaster and Merriman is being reasonable saying AWC need a longer period of time to prove themselves (or not). Id say TPE are the ones that need to watch their backs listening to him earlier.

 

[Bald Rick]

Only six cancelled out of Euston so far today looking at RTT albeit overall PPM is 2nd worst of national operators today so am guessing been a few term short amongst all departures but significantly improved and despite Euston drivers being "awkward" hardly a complete disaster and Merriman is being reasonable saying AWC need a longer period of time to prove themselves (or not). Id say TPE are the ones that need to watch their backs listening to him earlier.

There’s a nasty speed on the old line (Hilmorton I think) which is costing 3-4 mins a train. Causing a few to lose path, especially into Manchester. And of course when you have a guaranteed 4 minute delay any other incident will put you over PPM.

 

[43066]

Northern ran almost the whole of the May 22 timetable with rosters from December 21. They didn’t match.

Similarly, as Avanti’s drivers at Euston* haven’t agreed rosters for the new December 22 timetable (although all other Avanti drivers and Senior Conductor depots all have), they are running on the rosters for the old timetable, which, again, doesn’t match with the timetable in place.

I’m not privy to exactly what has happened at either but that suggests that new rosters have been imposed/existing agreements have been ripped up with no negotiation (no doubt because of the present government interference). The existing long established system generally works fine and is acceptable to both TOCs and unions.

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.

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.

 

[Bald Rick]

I’m not privy to exactly what has happened at either but that suggests that new rosters have been imposed/existing agreements have been ripped up with no negotiation (no doubt because of the present government interference). The existing long established system generally works fine and is acceptable to both TOCs and unions.

No, what happened in both cases was that new rosters were prepared, consulted with ASLEF, and even though some changes were made ASLEF did not agree them. In neither case were new rosters imposed, so the old rosters are used to run the new timetable. Obviously there is some leeway within the roster for extending turns and limited changes to booking on/off times, and use of spare etc. But it does mean much day to day hassle / management by the resource teams and DMs, and a much higher risk of cancellations, especially where rest days don’t line up etc.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

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.

yes to be fair when i had staff (not footplate) as long as the work got covered i kept my nose out (well to be truthful i tried once as young engineer and the old supervisor gave me the facts of life and he put me right about leaving it to him and the men) difference was they were low paid in those days and it was far more economic to have them on side than worry about cost. Drivers, rightly so, are now remunerated at a level appropriate for the responsibilities they carry but many of the old practices are still in place for the era i described above ie when their pay was lower, although i suspect it depends on where you are based. In my local depot top link would never work the branches only did main line work maybe thats been dealt with but been numerous comments across this forum of these historical agreements getting in the way of efficient use of resources. So is this why the clarion call for management to be allowed to manage.

 

[hick]

Current agreements at least at some TOCs allow a set of legal diagrams to be created, but if the reps decide they want less work content than the proposed diagrams, they can fail to agree new rosters until such point as the number of diagrams are increased to make the work content easier.

Effectively allows a veto on diagram content despite the content having been subject to pay deals, etc over the years.

 

[43066]

No, what happened in both cases was that new rosters were prepared, consulted with ASLEF, and even though some changes were made ASLEF did not agree them. In neither case were new rosters imposed, so the old rosters are used to run the new timetable. Obviously there is some leeway within the roster for extending turns and limited changes to booking on/off times, and use of spare etc. But it does mean much day to day hassle / management by the resource teams and DMs, and a much higher risk of cancellations, especially where rest days don’t line up etc.

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!

In my local depot top link would never work the branches only did main line work maybe thats been dealt with but been numerous comments across this forum of these historical agreements getting in the way of efficient use of resources. So is this why the clarion call for management to be allowed to manage.

Yes as with everything else it very much depends on where you are. Hence why “one size fits all” doesn’t really work. Link structures still exist but aren’t really there to benefit drivers moreso the company. They’re more a way of separating out work at large depots where it would be unfeasible for everyone to do everything. Many depots (mine included) effectively have a single link.

Current agreements at least at some TOCs allow a set of legal diagrams to be created, but if the reps decide they want less work content than the proposed diagrams, they can fail to agree new rosters until such point as the number of diagrams are increased to make the work content easier.

Effectively allows a veto on diagram content despite the content having been subject to pay deals, etc over the years.

And to be fair that does sound excessive. Where I am the diagrams are scrutinised and basically have to be agreed if they’re legal. There is some scope to move work around, but not if it increases resourcing requirements.

Again - this kind of thing can be negotiated locally but removing any ability for the union to be part of the process as opposed to being “consulted” (and ignored) is going to be rejected. I’d also suggest the savings aren’t going to be that great based on how efficient driver utilisation is at many depots. Let’s face it years of pay deals haven’t all come in exchange for nothing - much has already been sold eg 12 hour movements off spare at the best paying TOCs (this means you might be spare at 0900 and find out two days before that you’re actually going in at 2100 for a night shift).

I suspect this particular suggestion around rostering will be watered down in order to thrash out a deal. Personally as a driver I think I’d rather accept DOO than this!

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

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!



Yes as with everything else it very much depends on where you are. Hence why “one size fits all” doesn’t really work. Link structures still exist but aren’t really there to benefit drivers moreso the company. They’re more a way of separating out work at large depots where it would be unfeasible for everyone to do everything. Many depots (mine included) effectively have a single link.



And to be fair that does sound excessive. Where I am the diagrams are scrutinised and basically have to be agreed if they’re legal. There is some scope to move work around, but not if it increases resourcing requirements.

Again - this kind of thing can be negotiated locally but taking any ability for the union to be part of the process as opposed to being “consulted” (and ignored) is going to be rejected. I’d also suggest the savings aren’t going to be that great based on how efficient utilisation is at many depots.

I suspect this will be watered down in order to thrash out a deal. Personally as a driver I think I’d rather accept DOO than this!

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. 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 . 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.