Minimum Service Levels Bill receives Royal Assent

[dk1]

I will have done 39 years in the pension scheme next March so not sure if I can be bothered to work much longer. I know it would never happen but I’d be happy to stay to just work Sundays Trouble is at my large depot we never really have any problem with cover on this day often having both ‘next to call’ and ‘volunteers’ waiting to mop up any available work.

 

[Krokodil]

Rather than making staff potentially work six days in a week, surely train operating company employees should have the same arrangements as staff where the normal working week is any day of the week. In other words, if your company wants an employee to work a turn on a Sunday, it’s counted as part of your normal contracted hours. And hence you only work a maximum of five days in a week.

Something similar to the following, which was lifted from an existing Network Rail document:

Bringing Sundays inside the contracted working week requires the employment of extra staff - an increase of around 16% to cover for the staff who now have alternative days off.

Bringing Sunday's into the working week necessitates a roster overhaul at anywhere that doesn't have it anyway; of course this also needs more employees something the DfT almost certainly knows but has their head in the sand about.

They know full well that bringing Sundays into the rostered week is more expensive. That's why they are pushing for compulsory overtime.

So I'm not really sure why anyone in the rail industry finds OOH working so controversial

No one is complaining about working Sundays. What Irish Mail and others are saying is that those Sundays should form part of the contracted week, instead of having some fudge where they are compulsory overtime.

don't the unions check rostas anyway so there would still be protection against something that extreme.

They do now, but one of the items on the RDG (government mouthpiece) list of demands was that reps should no longer have any involvement in compiling the links.

If it isn’t accurately specified against, then it’ll almost certainly happen at some point. That’s my experience.

For info, the TfW deal with ASLEF which is bringing Sundays inside the working week specifies a cap of one Sunday worked in three.

 

[Sonik]

I certainly agree that the infrastructure side has seen things develop in a different way. Completely agree about it changing as a result of privatisation in different ways to how TOCs have. However there’s possibly a key difference in that infrastructure was always 24/7, there hasn’t been such a need for more Sunday working as it was always, to a greater or lesser extent, there.

Fully agree. The problem is that demand patterns for services have undergone a very fundamental shift, especially in the last 3-4 years.

So without significant changes there will be difficulties in maintaining financial sustainability, and again this is something workers in many sectors face at various times.

Not saying that anyone is being unreasonable, it's more a question of making the right case in terms of public perceptions. There's plenty on this thread that isn't widely known outside the industry

No one is complaining about working Sundays. What Irish Mail and others are saying is that those Sundays should form part of the contracted week, instead of having some fudge where they are compulsory overtime.

I can't disagree with that. Roster stability and adequate headcount seem to be the key, and it's obvious why some TOCs are fighting it because it will cost them.

It really shouldn't be that difficult to work out either because shift requirements to meet timetable are mostly predictable (as compared to e.g. contracting or maintenance where workloads can be very sporadic)

 

[Krokodil]

I can't disagree with that. Roster stability and adequate headcount seem to be the key, and it's obvious why some TOCs are fighting that because it will cost them.

The TOCs are merely government puppets these days. The government's list of demands include that fixed/rolling rest day patterns be abolished. In other words, I currently have Monday/Tuesday off one week, Wednesday/Thursday off the next, and Friday/Saturday off on the last. Plus Sundays. So I can plan my life well in advance, in the knowledge that I have every third Wednesday off etc., and that my rest days will come in pairs (single ones aren't very restful). That would go.

The government also want full weeks of spares, where you could be moved onto any possible shifts at short notice. You can't organise a family life around that.

 

[dk1]

The TOCs are merely government puppets these days. The government's list of demands include that fixed/rolling rest day patterns be abolished. In other words, I currently have Monday/Tuesday off one week, Wednesday/Thursday off the next, and Friday/Saturday off on the last. Plus Sundays. So I can plan my life well in advance, in the knowledge that I have every third Wednesday off etc., and that my rest days will come in pairs (single ones aren't very restful). That would go.

The government also want full weeks of spares, where you could be moved onto any possible shifts at short notice. You can't organise a family life around that.

What they want and what they get are two very different things. My free days are exactly the same as yours meaning I get a long weekend every three weeks. I’m not going to give that up let alone agree to roaming spare turns that can move me more than 4 hours for a weeks work or 3 hours on a daily basis.

 

[RailWonderer]

I will have done 39 years in the pension scheme next March so not sure if I can be bothered to work much longer. I know it would never happen but I’d be happy to stay to just work Sundays Trouble is at my large depot we never really have any problem with cover on this day often having both ‘next to call’ and ‘volunteers’ waiting to mop up any available work.

There aren't trains on GA most Sundays unless you're ok with driving a bus

 

[dk1]

There aren't trains on GA most Sundays unless you're ok with driving a bus

It sometimes takes more drivers as we are spending soul destroying hours in taxis & buses on the A140.

Just looked and for some reason we are not running additional services on the Norwich-Cambridge route this weekend to relieve the overcrowding. Not sure why not.

 

[12LDA28C]

Rather than making staff potentially work six days in a week, surely train operating company employees should have the same arrangements as staff where the normal working week is any day of the week. In other words, if your company wants an employee to work a turn on a Sunday, it’s counted as part of your normal contracted hours. And hence you only work a maximum of five days in a week.

You're aware of course that in that situation, an Operator would have to employ many more staff to cover the same amount of work that it does currently? That's why the TOCs don't want Sundays as part of the working week. It would cost them a fortune.

 

[ComUtoR]

My TOC has Sunday in the working week.

However, we still have a plethora of rostering issues. I get the impression that the Sunday things is a bit of a political football more than anything else. It's cheap point scoring for the Government because it makes headlines.

Staff are entrenched because of the changes it will cause (yes, including loss of earnings) but work/life balance does get severely impacted.

As already stated TOCs just don't want it. Not just the cost but the loss of flexibility too.

Sundays in the week doesn't stop the issue of overtime and certainly won't make the railways cheaper.

 

[irish_rail]

I just wish the Gov were more open about the reasons why Sundays are hard to cover. Because they won't pay for enough staff to put them in the working week. Instead they try to blame lazy drivers for not wanting to work. I'm so sick of all this propaganda and the feeling that the government of this country, supposedly here to support me as a citizen, but that its against me and happy to vilify me. And yet I pay my taxes like everyone else.

 

[Class 170101]

I thought most drivers work a 4 day week so working Sunday just brings it back to 5 ?

Correct it would bring it upto 5 days but a working week is based on hours not days. A 35hr week divided by four days (worked Monday to Saturday) is 8hrs 45 minutes average turn length, whether its committed Sundays (as per @dk1) or voluntary sunday working like West Midlands Railway Sunday is not included in the working week and is paid additionally.

It sometimes takes more drivers as we are spending soul destroying hours in taxis & buses on the A140.

Just looked and for some reason we are not running additional services on the Norwich-Cambridge route this weekend to relieve the overcrowding. Not sure why not.

Cambridge Station is partially closed (Platforms 1 to 4) southwards towerds Royston and Audley End. So will be a bus journey for part of the journey between Norfolk and London today whether via Diss or Cambridge. The only route feasibly open by train is Norwich to Peterborough and thence to Kings Cross but I'm not sure thats a valid route so no point in running the extra trains never mind potentially any space for them at Cambridge.

 

[dk1]

Cambridge Station is partially closed (Platforms 1 to 4) southwards towerds Royston and Audley End. So will be a bus journey for part of the journey between Norfolk and London today whether via Diss or Cambridge. The only route feasibly open by train is Norwich to Peterborough and thence to Kings Cross but I'm not sure thats a valid route so no point in running the extra trains never mind potentially any space for them at Cambridge.

Cheers that would be the reason. Relief services appear to be running next weekend. Don’t envy the guards working that route today.

No, Peterborough is not a valid route. I use it occasionally if no option is available via Cambridge & have even caught Hull Trains Kings Cross-Grantham for EMR to Norwich.

 

[muz379]

And about as likely to result in dismissal as 'pulling a sickie' is on any other day, which is zero. If you think managers have time to go round investigating every individual instance of sickness, even if they wanted to, you're very much mistaken.

I as I am sure many others would be incredibly stressed at being put in such a situation .

I find this very surprising, does your TOC not run trains at weekends?

The are are loads of people who do shift work (e.g. Nurses, Distribution, Utilities, IT) who are expected to do a working week within a 24/7 framework, sometimes swapping between days/nights/weekends each week

So I'm not really sure why anyone in the rail industry finds OOH working so controversial, (while acknowledging that total hours worked and a stable roster are clearly important issues)

Guards at my TOC have completely voluntary sundays . And tbh it works better some weeks than others .

Before Covid there never really used to be an issue attracting people to work sundays , the sundays have an enhanced rate of pay and in my experience the work is easier (double sets everywhere/different service patterns) . Since covid there seems to be a noticeable decline in the numbers of volunteers .

Now the RDG's preferred solution is to make those sundays "compulsory" whilst still outside the working week , but tbh unless you do something to also encourage more volunteers like increase the premium I do not think that will completely resolve things . Because people on sick , annual leave , off trains for medical or safety reasons won't be picking up their sundays . Youll still need volunteers , unless you build spare capacity in which will also come at a cost .

Bringing Sundays inside the contracted working week requires the employment of extra staff - an increase of around 16% to cover for the staff who now have alternative days off.

That is if we bring them inside the working week at the current levels of work . I suspect part of the plan is to shift services to meet the changing demand . So run less trains M-F and run more at the weekend where a lot of the demand for leisure travel now is . That is also in my view why rostering principles are addressed in quite a bit of detail in the offer from the RDG . Because the industry is trying to protect itself against future shift in demand . Which I totally understand , but flexibility costs money .

Either way I think its perfectly reasonable that staff would ask for suitable renumeration for any changes to their terms and conditions going forward . Or decide that some changes are too far regardless of the money

Where I am we are seeing staff turnover at an alarming rate . Used to be the case that guards would generally either leave the business or move onto another role within their first 3/4 years or stay for decades .Generally you would see about a dozen guards leaving a year . Now we are seeing an alarming number of guards (more than a dozen had left this year by July ) with between 5-15 years service leaving for other jobs , some of them outside the transport industry, also seeing more than the average amount of drivers leaving for freight . Heck even guards managers are moving on which was never really a thing . Pay stagnation is having an impact when everyone else outside the industry is having a pay rise . Some of this will no doubt be in relation to the threat of drastic changes to terms and conditions , and the spectre of minimum service levels .

 

[Class 170101]

Cheers that would be the reason. Relief services appear to be running next weekend. Don’t envy the guards working that route today.

No, Peterborough is not a valid route. I use it occasionally if no option is available via Cambridge & have even caught Hull Trains Kings Cross-Grantham for EMR to Norwich.

Our friends are busy at Cambridge South again @mr_moo and here

Cambridge South new station construction progress.

I‘m confused now. o_O I thought you’d said the black waterproof coating was on the inside, so isn’t that right hand wall the back face of P4? Sorry, I'm a twit. I meant rear face. I wrote front face. Oops. :) You're absolutely right - that's the front face wall of P3 plus the rear of P4...

www.railforums.co.uk

March 2025 actually!
And yes. Whilst, like all projects I would assume, we have our issues, surprises, changes, and queries about designs etc, so far at least we're on schedule.
We have two major stages for track layout changes, namely both Christmases, which we absolutely need to achieve, but we're fine for at present, and the station building itself hasn't really started much so who knows what fun problems await us there....

All in all though, yep, good so far.

I guess Norwich to Ipswich via Lowestoft might be acceptable if you want to avoid the bus

 

[dk1]

I guess Norwich to Ipswich via Lowestoft might be acceptable if you want to avoid the bus

Absolutely and several crews have chosen that over the bus. I live in Brundall so when heading to Devon a few weeks ago I went via Lowestoft. That particular East Suffolk service was full & standing from Halesworth as Ipswich were playing at home. I'd forgotten to check

 

[Annetts key]

You're aware of course that in that situation, an Operator would have to employ many more staff to cover the same amount of work that it does currently? That's why the TOCs don't want Sundays as part of the working week. It would cost them a fortune.

Yep, well aware. Also aware that the extra cost is why they don’t want to do it. Basically, just like across most parts of the industry controlled by government, they want changes at no cost, or a reduction in costs. And no, they don’t care about the employees.

Correct it would bring it upto 5 days but a working week is based on hours not days. A 35hr week divided by four days (worked Monday to Saturday) is 8hrs 45 minutes average turn length, whether its committed Sundays (as per @dk1) or voluntary sunday working like West Midlands Railway Sunday is not included in the working week and is paid additionally.

On Network Rail infrastructure/maintenance, those on 35 hours (average) per week, when on a week of days, these are considered to be seven hour turns. However, when working shifts, the length of a turn of duty can be between six and twelve hours.

 

[Facing Back]

On Network Rail infrastructure/maintenance, those on 35 hours (average) per week, when on a week of days, these are considered to be seven hour turns. However, when working shifts, the length of a turn of duty can be between six and twelve hours.

Does that mean that the average working week exceeds 35 hours over a period of time, or is there a mechanism where a period of longer shifts (I presume to get a job finished in a certain window?) leads to reduced work time in the future? Or overtime payments?

 

[Class 170101]

On Network Rail infrastructure/maintenance, those on 35 hours (average) per week, when on a week of days, these are considered to be seven hour turns. However, when working shifts, the length of a turn of duty can be between six and twelve hours.

Some TOCs work a four day week though which brings the 7hr average for five days upto 8hrs 45mins for those four days.

 

[Annetts key]

Does that mean that the average working week exceeds 35 hours over a period of time, or is there a mechanism where a period of longer shifts (I presume to get a job finished in a certain window?) leads to reduced work time in the future? Or overtime payments?

The exact wording from the official document is:

Variable hours may be rostered in the cycle ranging from a total week free from duty to a maximum in any week of 48 hours, excluding voluntary overtime.

Hence an individual can be rostered between zero and 48 hours per week, as long as the average (over the length of the roster) is no more than your contracted hours (per week). As an example, if the roster was 13 weeks (which is typical for many Network Rail maintenance employees), on a 35 hour contract, the total rostered hours would be 455. Although, I’ve yet to see a roster with a week of zero rostered hours.

Overtime (either a longer shift or RDW) may be available. But that depends on various factors.

 

[Facing Back]

The exact wording from the official document is:

Hence an individual can be rostered between zero and 48 hours per week, as long as the average (over the length of the roster) is no more than your contracted hours (per week). As an example, if the roster was 13 weeks (which is typical for many Network Rail maintenance employees), on a 35 hour contract, the total rostered hours would be 455. Although, I’ve yet to see a roster with a week of zero rostered hours.

Overtime (either a longer shift or RDW) may be available. But that depends on various factors.

ok thats clear thanks

 

[Christmas]

I'm concerned about safety critical staff, particularly drivers, being forced to work and their minds not being 100% on their job because they instinctively do not want to be there on that day.

Having to walk past a picket line that they should be on may put drivers in an impossible position and this will play on their minds, increasing their risk of having an incident.

Of course the architects of this policy don't care a jot about staff, their safety, morale or their records.

 

[PM77]

The exact wording from the official document is:

Hence an individual can be rostered between zero and 48 hours per week, as long as the average (over the length of the roster) is no more than your contracted hours (per week). As an example, if the roster was 13 weeks (which is typical for many Network Rail maintenance employees), on a 35 hour contract, the total rostered hours would be 455. Although, I’ve yet to see a roster with a week of zero rostered hours.

Overtime (either a longer shift or RDW) may be available. But that depends on various factors.

I've not seen a rostered week done but I have seen 7 continuous days rostered free from duty. It spans over 2 weeks of the roster as the rosters run from Fri-Thu, but is a week off.

 

[riceuten]

Ultimately, if it is skilled workers that are not easy to replace that are taking industrial action, the law becomes almost irrelevant. If the company dismisses employees, they will be short staffed and will further anger those that remain. Thus there is likely to be more industrial action. And it will be increasingly difficult for the company to run a normal service on non-strike days, let alone run any kind of sensible service on strike days.

Further, if the staff levels fall, then unofficial action could be taken. No law can protect against a sudden unofficial walkout.

This, in spades. I hear endless justifications for CEOs to have obscene wage levels "as this is the going rate for the job", but apparently, when the "going rate for the job" involves lower end staff, this is "blackmail"

Remember, in our past, taking any industrial action was illegal.

And there are plenty around who would like this to become the case now. Usually the same people who say "You should be glad you have a job".

 

[muz379]

I

I'm concerned about safety critical staff, particularly drivers, being forced to work and their minds not being 100% on their job because they instinctively do not want to be there on that day.

Having to walk past a picket line that they should be on may put drivers in an impossible position and this will play on their minds, increasing their risk of having an incident.

These points were made or accepted by the managers of the toc's that gave evidence to the transport select committee on minimum service levels .

Clearly a case of the tail wagging the dog with the industry not being sure on how they'll actually make use of these measures .

 

[Pinza-C55]

We won't see this in effect until later this year or early 2024. I assume if Labour gets into power then they'll scrap it.

Yeah like they scrapped Thatchers anti Union legislation or anything else she did. Dream on.

 

[irish_rail]

Yeah like they scrapped Thatchers anti Union legislation or anything else she did. Dream on.

You simply can not compare the 1990s Labour government to the current Labour Party . 1997 is ancient history. Its a completely unfair comparison. If Labour get a chance in power judge them by that rather than a government from 25 years ago!

 

[mpthomson]

Royal Engineers have a 507 Specialists Team Royal Engineers(Railways) not large but can keep things going if neccessary with other sections of the Engineers pitching in, they've had experience working with Network Rail.

It's a small Army Reserve unit (40-50) made up almost entirely of railway infra employees, so they'd either already likely be working or on strike, and therefore not legally able to carry out a Reserve role, on those days.

You simply can not compare the 1990s Labour government to the current Labour Party . 1997 is ancient history. Its a completely unfair comparison. If Labour get a chance in power judge them by that rather than a government from 25 years ago!

As it happens the current Labour party is starting to resemble the Blair party pre election more and more. Whether that's good thing or not isn't for me to say but it's continuing to move more to the centre. Many political commentators have remarked on it looking more Blairite as time goes on.

 

[irish_rail]

As it happens the current Labour party is starting to resemble the Blair party pre election more and more. Whether that's good thing or not isn't for me to say but it's continuing to move more to the centre. Many political commentators have remarked on it looking more Blairite as time goes on.

Perhaps, but we need to see what they actually do, should they get power. Its very unfair to write them off without letting them have a chance to govern first don't you think?

 

[Facing Back]

Perhaps, but we need to see what they actually do, should they get power. Its very unfair to write them off without letting them have a chance to govern first don't you think?

I agree that it is unfair to write them off before giving them a chance to govern - however each of our definitions of "writing them off" will differ. I disagree in that I think that there are certainly parallels with 1997. Tony Blair moved to party to the centre and won 3 general elections. Starmer is doing much the same.

The Guardian had a quote a while back "Both understand that the key to success is not expecting the electorate to come closer to you. It’s getting the party closer to the electorate. Even if a few principles get trashed along the way".

Whether you are happy with that or agree with it is your choice but if you are hoping for a left-wing utopia under Labour, I suspect that you will be disappointed. Saying that, I recall somewhere along the way Labour saying that they will repeal the Minimum Service Level law - although I can't find the source at the moment.

My long-shot guess will be that they will roll that into the negotiation with the various unions and agree to repeal it once a long term settlement that is satisfactory to both parties is in place and working - but that it won't be a priority for the government as they have a multitude of bigger fish to fry.

 

[irish_rail]

I agree that it is unfair to write them off before giving them a chance to govern - however each of our definitions of "writing them off" will differ. I disagree in that I think that there are certainly parallels with 1997. Tony Blair moved to party to the centre and won 3 general elections. Starmer is doing much the same.

The Guardian had a quote a while back "Both understand that the key to success is not expecting the electorate to come closer to you. It’s getting the party closer to the electorate. Even if a few principles get trashed along the way".

Whether you are happy with that or agree with it is your choice but if you are hoping for a left-wing utopia under Labour, I suspect that you will be disappointed. Saying that, I recall somewhere along the way Labour saying that they will repeal the Minimum Service Level law - although I can't find the source at the moment.

My long-shot guess will be that they will roll that into the negotiation with the various unions and agree to repeal it once a long term settlement that is satisfactory to both parties is in place and working - but that it won't be a priority for the government as they have a multitude of bigger fish to fry.

I am very much not hoping for a left wing utopian government. Corbyn proved that was not what the electorate at large want. A centre left government will be a big improvement on the current far right Tory lot