'National Dispute' at Network Rail regarding maintenance

[Starmill]

This was posted earlier today by the RMT Union's Press Office:

RMT set for nationwide rail dispute in response to threat of thousands of rail worker redundancies by September and a fifty per cent cut in rail safety maintenance work.

RMT today declared it was moving to a “national dispute” footing with Network Rail after it revealed the Government controlled company is planning for thousands of job losses by this September and a wholescale dilution of safety standards, including a halving the frequency of safety critical maintenance work.

www.rmt.org.uk/news/rmt-set-for-nationwide-rail-dispute

 

[pdeaves]

Oh, I thought the unions in general and the RMT in particular wanted national ownership because that was the right way to do things... I must be mistaken.

 

[JN114]

While I sympathise to an extent; this is exactly what the RMT have been calling for for years.

 

[LAX54]

Do we really want a cut in Pway / S&T staff, and reduce the amount of patrolling and maintainance work ? I thought lessons had been learned, but now maybe forgotten with new Managers etc

 

[JN114]

Do we really want a cut in Pway / S&T staff, and reduce the amount of patrolling and maintainance work ? I thought lessons had been learned, but now maybe forgotten with new Managers etc

Government says there isn’t the money, NR must reduce its costs. The investment budget has already been stripped to the bone and beyond. NR still can’t balance the books and are still told that they have to; where else do the savings come from?

 

[Watershed]

Government says there isn’t the money, NR must reduce its costs. The investment budget has already been stripped to the bone and beyond. NR still can’t balance the books and are still told that they have to; where else do the savings come from?

These savings will presumably mean an increase in the number of TSRs. So, basically, rail passengers will pay for this by way of increased journey times and disruption.

 

[TheEdge]

Government says there isn’t the money, NR must reduce its costs. The investment budget has already been stripped to the bone and beyond. NR still can’t balance the books and are still told that they have to; where else do the savings come from?

By not combining teams so they are One Size Fits All. From someone within NR as they understand it all ground staff will be expected to do everything. A brilliant example of jack of all trades, master of none. Or by not reducing maintenance work, because that's never ended badly before...

I'd wager there's a good amount of flab in management that could be tightened up...

 

[43096]

I'd wager there's a good amount of flab in management that could be tightened up...

I'd wager that the staff on the ground always think that and that they don't really have a clue as to what management actually do.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Government says there isn’t the money, NR must reduce its costs. The investment budget has already been stripped to the bone and beyond. NR still can’t balance the books and are still told that they have to; where else do the savings come from?

Investment budget has only been cut by 1B so its a deep surface scratch not cut to the bone. Much of that saving is because schemes aren't sufficiently developed to spend the cash anyway. Quite frankly NR has been the poster child of projects costing far too much for too many years so they ought to challenge themselves to reduce CAPEX costs anyhow.

On the maintenance staffing levels that is far more concerning and im surprised there is any scope to make any further serious inroads on resource levels and that has been done on many occasions ever under NR's leadership. P.Way is substantially led by the on track measuring systems already but these systems still throw up numerous defects that need addressing by manpower if you are to avoid TSRs or manage deterioration. The easy option is to lower track category but if there doing that because of current reduced service levels that could build up issues going forward. S&T resources generally also provide fault response so it would be daft to cut into that as response times are already hindered by staff getting to incident site by vehicles and then the time overhead of gaining access to the infrastructure.

The low hanging fruit is NR management which has been top heavy in well paid individuals, not just the CEO and associated directors, with 425 employees have a base salary over 100k and thats before performance related pay. Another 861 have a salary between 80-100k.

All from NR staff salary breakdown 2020/21

The elephant in the room though is the railway pension scheme which requires NR to increase its employer contribution from 8.88 to 10.86% from 1st April so thats a big bill on salary costs so no wonder they want to impose a pay freeze.

 

[the sniper]

I'd wager that the staff on the ground always think that and that they don't really have a clue as to what management actually do.

I'd wager that there are levels of management that don't really have a clue as to what some other levels of management actually do...

 

[High Dyke]

A few years ago maintenance teams went through a re-org. A number of management proposals were not accepted by the trade unions. Some centred around rostering staff, with a lot more emphasis on night shifts; equally the cross-working proposals meant different disciplines working on the same team, but also there was to be a reduction to teams of two staff. This already happens, but that's down to insufficient staffing levels.

Network Rail are trying to introduce the same proposals, but in piecemeal format; essentially trying to get these plans in through the back door.

Fair enough funding is low, and Network Rail confirm the government are tightening the purse strings. However, we've seen this before under Railtrack; and we all know how that ended. Cuts in maintenance led to fatal accidents. Despite the sabre-rattling by the RMT, the concerns for the future safety of the travelling public needs to be understood.

 

[Iskra]

Do we really want a cut in Pway / S&T staff, and reduce the amount of patrolling and maintainance work ? I thought lessons had been learned, but now maybe forgotten with new Managers etc

If there’s less trains running, surely the need for maintenance is reduced?

 

[43096]

I'd wager that there are levels of management that don't really have a clue as to what some other levels of management actually do...

Ha! And not necessarily the levels you'd expect, either.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

If there’s less trains running, surely the need for maintenance is reduced?

Yes but this is potentially only a short term saving especially if traffic returns. In reality it largely P.Way mtce that can be flexed as thats driven by tonnage but unless you can drop a track category you won't save anything. Another option is to lower permanent speeds but that would need Network Change so unlikely. The majority of assets though are driven by time intervals and many of those have been considerably stretched out from previous policy to lower mtce costs.

 

[Iskra]

Yes but this is potentially only a short term saving especially if traffic returns. In reality it largely P.Way mtce that can be flexed as thats driven by tonnage but unless you can drop a track category you won't save anything. Another option is to lower permanent speeds but that would need Network Change so unlikely. The majority of assets though are driven by time intervals and many of those have been considerably stretched out from previous policy to lower mtce costs.

I agree, the time for action would have been 12 months ago.

 

[Romsey]

For some time I worked in access planning producing the engineering works plan and later for Infrastructure Projects.
A few observations
1) If money is short, such as the end of a control period, it's track renewals that get cut unless there is a pressing safety reason. Worn out track can be fettled and made to last a few more years.
2) Maintenance doesn't normally involve contractors apart from operators of specialist equipment like RRV's or tampers. Track renewals were normally undertaken by contractors and they wanted their 10%.
3) Cutting time interval maintenance eventually costs more. Just an example - If point noses wear too far they need to be replaced, they can't be welded back to a reasonable profile. So the choice is a couple of nights overnight possession every few months with welders and grinders or a couple of months of a TSR and consequential delays plus the unplanned cost of a new or refurbished point nose. The point nose will eventually need replacement but judicious welded repairs will keep it in use for some years.
4) Certain preventative maintenance must be done at a specific time interval. Another example - automatic half barriers need an annual exam and maintenance. I'm not certain what the rules were if they didn't have have an annual exam, possibly degraded working and trains cautioned with all the associated delays. To ensure they don't go over the 52 week limit, at least one area signal manager programmed the annual exams on a 48 week cycle to give a degree of resilience if the exam was missed due to emergency repair works elsewhere.
5) Pensions are the elephant in the room. Unfortunately NR has fiddled and faffed around with the conditions so there area number of schemes which all costs more in administration and have not created the savings they want. Whatever, the RPS is still better than most external pensions.

Track renewals have been revised twice since I took the money and departed in 2017. I suspect maintenance is similar.

For those outside Network Rail there is a never ending merry go round of reorganisations. I think I went through 9 in 18 years and left before the 10th one was introduced! (The department of the TOC I resigned from had one reorganisation in that time.)

 

[Islineclear3_1]

How much of NR's work is contracted out?

 

[Class 170101]

Do we really want a cut in Pway / S&T staff, and reduce the amount of patrolling and maintainance work ? I thought lessons had been learned, but now maybe forgotten with new Managers etc

Should patrolling on foot be the way we 'maintain' the railway in the 21st Century? Surely a train is the way to be doing this now?

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

For some time I worked in access planning producing the engineering works plan and later for Infrastructure Projects.
A few observations
1) If money is short, such as the end of a control period, it's track renewals that get cut unless there is a pressing safety reason. Worn out track can be fettled and made to last a few more years.
2) Maintenance doesn't normally involve contractors apart from operators of specialist equipment like RRV's or tampers. Track renewals were normally undertaken by contractors and they wanted their 10%.
3) Cutting time interval maintenance eventually costs more. Just an example - If point noses wear too far they need to be replaced, they can't be welded back to a reasonable profile. So the choice is a couple of nights overnight possession every few months with welders and grinders or a couple of months of a TSR and consequential delays plus the unplanned cost of a new or refurbished point nose. The point nose will eventually need replacement but judicious welded repairs will keep it in use for some years.
4) Certain preventative maintenance must be done at a specific time interval. Another example - automatic half barriers need an annual exam and maintenance. I'm not certain what the rules were if they didn't have have an annual exam, possibly degraded working and trains cautioned with all the associated delays. To ensure they don't go over the 52 week limit, at least one area signal manager programmed the annual exams on a 48 week cycle to give a degree of resilience if the exam was missed due to emergency repair works elsewhere.
5) Pensions are the elephant in the room. Unfortunately NR has fiddled and faffed around with the conditions so there area number of schemes which all costs more in administration and have not created the savings they want. Whatever, the RPS is still better than most external pensions.

Track renewals have been revised twice since I took the money and departed in 2017. I suspect maintenance is similar.

For those outside Network Rail there is a never ending merry go round of reorganisations. I think I went through 9 in 18 years and left before the 10th one was introduced! (The department of the TOC I resigned from had one reorganisation in that time.)

Track renewals are funded from CAPEX and govt have previously affirmed that the renewals budget hasn't been cut its the enhancement budget. Mind you maybe all bets are off now or they've worked out that TOCs are going to need far more support than they've budgeted for and NR has been called upon to close the gap. Although your other points are well observed although I would say that it is because the RPS is so good that is why its now a moneypit.

How much of NR's work is contracted out?

Almost all investment schemes are outsourced but maintenance is largely in house with contractors providing top up resources and plant.

 

[Amlag]

How much of NR's work is contracted out?

A large amount.
Don't be fooled into thinking that the 'Orange Army' are all directly employed by Network Rail even though they may be wearing orange HV kit branded Network Rail.

Many former in house (BR, RT & NR) rail staff now work for agencies etc eg as Consultants and Infrastructure Engineers eg for such firms as US owned Aecom.

There are several firms supplying labourers for NR, often carting them long distances eg from S. Wales Valleys to and from NR work sites; they are not paid for the journey time.

 

[Carlisle]

I agree, the time for action would have been 12 months ago.

12 months ago, Boris predicted we’d be over the worst of the pandemic in 12 weeks

 

[Dr Hoo]

I'm confused by the premise of this thread.

The ORR Periodic Review Settlement for Control Period 6 (2019-24) (CP6) appeared to set a significant increase in funding for Operations, Maintenance, Renewals and Support. [Enhancements to be handled outside the Periodic Review process.]

I've just checked the documentation (for England & Wales) on the ORR website.

This result was in line with Chris Grayling's 'record high' Statement of Funds Available (SOFA) for CP6.

Have I missed some announcement that this settlement has now effectively gone in the bin?

 

[Annetts key]

See also this topic

Oh, I thought the unions in general and the RMT in particular wanted national ownership because that was the right way to do things... I must be mistaken.

Yes, the unions want the railways to be properly renationalised. But what we have at the moment is a big mess, with the TOCs receiving government funds to operate a service plus extra money so that they can make a profit. Do you think they would still be there if they were not making any money? They would have “handed back the keys” otherwise.

The open access operators and the FOCs are, I believe not receiving government money.

Government says there isn’t the money, NR must reduce its costs. The investment budget has already been stripped to the bone and beyond. NR still can’t balance the books and are still told that they have to; where else do the savings come from?

That’s not actually how government finance works. But that’s another topic.

If there’s less trains running, surely the need for maintenance is reduced?

Some maintenance is done on service level or depending on condition. But anything safety related where checks or tests have to be done, is done at prescribed time intervals. Like a MOT test on a car, bus, etc.
For example, facing point locks have to be tested at regular intervals. Otherwise the points have to be taken out of use, or clipped and scotched in one position.

How much of NR's work is contracted out?

On the maintenance side, not very much. Mainly specialists and some top-up labour only contractors, often hired on a week by week basis.

Should patrolling on foot be the way we 'maintain' the railway in the 21st Century? Surely a train is the way to be doing this now?

Most main lines are now patrolled a whole lot less, as the Network Rail banana inspection trains now run regularly. You know when one has done it’s run, the P.Way end up with a shed load of defect reports.

 

[HSTEd]

The ORR Periodic Review Settlement for Control Period 6 (2019-24) (CP6) appeared to set a significant increase in funding for Operations, Maintenance, Renewals and Support. [Enhancements to be handled outside the Periodic Review process.]

My understanding is DfT/Network Rail has been hiding renewals in the enhancement budget for years, with the effect of making the railway's operational deficit look smaller than it is.
Lots of enhancements only get funded because the thing they are "enhancing" would need to be replaced anyway.

So a tiny increase in capability is used to write the entire cost off as an enhancement.
With the enhancement budget gutted, necessary renewals go up because renewals by enhancement don't happen.

 

[Annetts key]

That gets to the question of when is “improvement work” and “investing in the railway” actually work to enhance the capability, or just renewal work?

If you renew the tyre on your car, does your car go any faster than when it last had a new tyre?

Likewise, if you renew a rail, does the train go any faster than before the TSR was imposed?

And some of the recent investment/improvement work is replacing equipment less than ten years old. I’ve seen one new asset that only managed about six months service before being ripped out. All because big schemes were behind schedule. Or where there were two different big schemes that overlapped, but because the first one was late, a temporary intermediate arrangement had to be provided. And then due to a lack of proper communication and understanding between different parts of the company/contractors, some new equipment was provided, brought into use, and then had to be replaced later because it was either in the wrong place, or did not have the required clearances for the new OHL...

 

[Taunton]

My understanding is DfT/Network Rail has been hiding renewals in the enhancement budget for years, with the effect of making the railway's operational deficit look smaller than it is.
Lots of enhancements only get funded because the thing they are "enhancing" would need to be replaced anyway.

Anything like this would be picked up by the National Audit Office in their annual accounting audit.

 

[HSTEd]

Anything like this would be picked up by the National Audit Office in their annual accounting audit.

The split between the two is not really easy to determine though.

How does one account for a resignalling scheme that provides somewhat enhanced capability, but was predominantly funded because the old system was falling apart?

 

[Taunton]

The split between the two is not really easy to determine though.

How does one account for a resignalling scheme that provides somewhat enhanced capability, but was predominantly funded because the old system was falling apart?

There is a standard accounting calculation for this. It's very common. In the commercial world (just like for the railways pre-1948) it impacts on tax paid.

 

[Ianno87]

The split between the two is not really easy to determine though.

How does one account for a resignalling scheme that provides somewhat enhanced capability, but was predominantly funded because the old system was falling apart?

You'd determine what the cost of a "like for like" renewal would be, with the element attributable to the enhancement the delta between that and the full scheme cost.

Real world is, however, much less clean cut than that as you say.

 

[Annetts key]

The maintenance part of Network Rail stopped doing even minor renewals many, many years ago.

So for example for the S&T, what used to be minor signalling equipment renewals or replacements done by the maintenance organisation, like replacing signalling relays at the end of their ten or 25 year life, replacing signal heads, replacing point machines or replacing line side multi-core signalling cables, all this work is now either done by Works Delivery (CAPEX) or we assist by doing the work, but get paid by Works Delivery.