Rail strikes discussion

[the sniper]

I suppose a lot of this is pointed at me. I'll go if the mods want me to, there doesn't appear to be a way to delete my account though.

A mod will let you know if they want to put you off posting. Presumably you aren't considered too argumentative / unconstructive, if you haven't heard anything...

 

[Bletchleyite]

I was once given a different type of coach to drive. I was given a 10 minute walk around and good to go.

While there are minor quirks, road vehicles tend to be very consistent in their "user interface" so a quick spin round the block is usually enough to get a hang of a different one of the same sort of size as you normally drive.

 

[bramling]

In my view, Sundays SHOULD be touched. As someone who works in the industry and has to deal with the fallout of crew when an unpopular Sunday to work comes around, it's dire for the passengers. Of course it's not the fault of train crew (if they don't want to work. they don't have to as per their contracts) but in a a transport sector, it's mad that the option is still even viable.

My own view is that, where possible, Sunday issues should be tackled by going for maximum train lengths and a reduced frequency compared to weekdays. I don’t think it’s unreasonable for passengers to expect some level of reduced service on a Sunday. Naturally I realise this isn’t always going to be viable.

 

[Horizon22]

My own view is that, where possible, Sunday issues should be tackled by going for maximum train lengths and a reduced frequency compared to weekdays. I don’t think it’s unreasonable for passengers to expect some level of reduced service on a Sunday. Naturally I realise this isn’t always going to be viable.

I have no major issues with a reduced Sunday service - something that is already in place. It's cancellations on top of the already reduced service due to a lack of Sunday volunteers that is problematic. Most Sundays are fine but in my view "most" is not good enough - it needs to be every Sunday because it is should be considered a normal part of the working week and leisure travel has rebounded the best post-Covid.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

Also at the end of the day the average pensioner is likely living in an asset which is worth 10 times or more what they paid for it. If things get really tough they can sell it and downsize or rent. The current "generation rent" won't have this option.

Not their fault if their assets have increased in value... You sound like a very bitter person

 

[bramling]

I have no issue with a reduced Sunday service - something thaty is already in place. It's cancellations on top of the already reduced service due to a lack of Sunday volunteers that is problematic.

Agreed. There does seem to have been a push, in places, for operators to attempt to offer Sunday services they don’t have the resources to provide. No point offering a sexy half-hourly service of 4-car trains which can’t be robustly delivered, when an hourly 8-car service would do just as well. In that sense the drivers have a valid point that Sunday services have tended to increase since the 90s, and it’s fair to say that represents a change. (And from a passenger point of view personally I object to paying more to subsidise Sunday services which personally I never use).

Not their fault if their assets have increased in value... You sound like a very bitter person

I can sympathise with the current situation with property values. Fact is that a generation ago one could pick up a house in my road for £100k, now the same property will be over £1m. That’s grossly disproportionate to how the real value of a pound has changed in that time, and also grossly disproportionate to wage inflation. And one can’t escape the fact that such property inflation is at least partly attributable to population increase during that time, which we’re often told is necessary to boost the size of the working population in order to pay for … pensioners.

No government in my lifetime has ever done anything other than ignore this and place it firmly in the “too difficult” box.

 

[TPO]

Rubbish. First strike for Network Rail operational staff ever. Last on strike under RailTrack in 1994.

Not quite. The Signallers in South Wales went out on strike about 10 years ago, related to proposed changes in shift patterns (12s to 8s) when Newport Panel closed and moved to what was then the South Wales Control Centre.

TPO

 

[exbrel]

ar10642
i'm sorry for my posts, your comments about pensioners hit a raw nerve...

 

[michael74]

Working age people already are doing that on top of a NI hike to pay for your social care

Tell that to my Dad who paid his tax and NI all life, had a tiny civil service pension so still had to work into his 70s and then had to sell all his hard earned assets (his flat and nearly all his savings) to pay for his social care and then ultimately his nursing care. You clearly have no real concept of how the health and social care system of this country really works, so I suggest you stick a lid on it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Tell that to my Dad who paid his tax and NI all life, had a tiny civil service pension so still had to work into his 70s and then had to sell all his hard earned assets (his flat and nearly all his savings) to pay for his social care and then ultimately his nursing care. You clearly have no real concept of how the health and social care system of their country really works, so I suggest you stick a lid on it.

I don't see any issue with a home being sold to pay for e.g. care home fees. Inheritance is not and should not be an entitlement. It is nice to have it, but with longer lifespans these days it is very often not needed at all by the time you actually get it and just gets spent on holidays, nice cars and the likes.

The difficult one is paying care fees while living at home, but a charge on the value of the home is a possibility.

The other option is mandatory social care insurance. With the population ageing, "today's workers pay for today's care" is not far off a Ponzi scheme and cannot go on.

 

[ar10642]

Tell that to my Dad who paid his tax and NI all life, had a tiny civil service pension so still had to work into his 70s and then had to sell all his hard earned assets (his flat and nearly all his savings) to pay for his social care and then ultimately his nursing care. You clearly have no real concept of how the health and social care system of their country really works, so I suggest you stick a lid on it.

I'm talking about groups of the population in general. Obviously there will be exceptions.

 

[Bald Rick]

I’m not sure that there’s many TOC’s that have recouping costs in their contracts. I think most of the FOC’s have shifted to that model though.


The problem with shifting to the airline model is it will stop all the people who can’t afford the training costs applying for jobs.

anyone can afford it - take a student loan, and repeat through the salary.

 

[ar10642]

ar10642
i'm sorry for my posts, your comments about pensioners hit a raw nerve...

Ok, fair enough and I was being too aggressive as well.

 

[eldomtom2]

The other option is mandatory social care insurance. With the population ageing, "today's workers pay for today's care" is not far off a Ponzi scheme and cannot go on.

That is a much bigger problem, but no Western government is making a serious attempt to make birth rates rise.

 

[Wolfie]

I don't see any issue with a home being sold to pay for e.g. care home fees. Inheritance is not and should not be an entitlement. It is nice to have it, but with longer lifespans these days it is very often not needed at all by the time you actually get it and just gets spent on holidays, nice cars and the likes.

The difficult one is paying care fees while living at home, but a charge on the value of the home is a possibility.

The other option is mandatory social care insurance. With the population ageing, "today's workers pay for today's care" is not far off a Ponzi scheme and cannot go on.

In one way l agree. I do though have an issue with folk who spend every penny on having a good time now being state funded in such circumstances whereas someone more frugal and responsible gets clobbered. Where is the incentive to be responsible in that?

 

[michael74]

I don't see any issue with a home being sold to pay for e.g. care home fees. Inheritance is not and should not be an entitlement. It is nice to have it, but with longer lifespans these days it is very often not needed at all by the time you actually get it.

The difficult one is paying care fees while living at home, but a charge on the value of the home is a possibility.

The other option is mandatory social care insurance. With the population ageing, "today's workers pay for today's care" is not far off a Ponzi scheme and cannot go on.

I am not talking about inheritance, I am talking about a system that says one health condition gets all fees paid for and another does not or your postcode can have an impact on what help you do or do not get, its not a level nor a fair playing field. Mandatory social care insurance... well we wouldn't need that if successive Govts got a grip of the health and social care system years ago.

 

[Horizon22]

That is a much bigger problem, but no Western government is making a serious attempt to make birth rates rise.

Overpopulation is already a problem in may ways though too. A lack of working age population has traditionally been dealt with immigration. The demographics will equalise, but we're a few decades away from that as the generation increasingly requiring social and hospital care is the "baby boomers" which, as implied by the name, was a significant birth rate increase.

 

[ar10642]

I am not talking about inheritance, I am talking about a system that says one health condition gets all fees paid for and another does not or your postcode can have an impact on what help you do or do not get, its not a level nor a fair playing field. Mandatory social care insurance... well we wouldn't need that if successive Govts got a grip of the health and social care system years ago.

We could call such a system "National Insurance" maybe. Oh wait, we have that already.

 

[gazzaa2]

Unfortunately, apart from Mick Lynch showing them up for what they are I think they'll be quite satisfied. The strikes haven't ground the country to a halt and people appear to have largely adjusted. Even the concurrent tube strike on Tuesday didn't bring London to a halt. After the first couple of days the strikes have barely features in news headlines.

Perhaps but the Tories (under pressure from commercial landlord donors and newspapers) have been screaming for months to get people back to the office. Particularly people commuting into London. The longer these strikes last the more people will just work from home if they can. It's ok for one week.

Also June in term time is relatively quiet. July/August you've got women's Euros/commonwealth games/new football season/school summer holidays etc. Rail shutdown will be a lot more felt.

 

[TPO]

No, actually you have yet again. Let me explain how this works. The maintenance can't get on the track to do their job - jobs that cannot be replaced by tech - due to the safety requirements which are now so onerous they now take an age for the signaller and the techs to agree.

For example, let's say the techs wanted to get on the track to do some maintenance on the AWS. It might only be a 30 minute job. Maybe I have gaps of 10 minutes between trains and previously 3X10minute gaps means that the total job will take one hour to complete.

If it now takes an extra 5 minutes to grant and give up the line block because of the placement of TCODs (now being introduced). The same maintenance job now takes 2 hours with 6x10 minute gaps between trains. The maintenance team is now 50% less productive than it was before the new safety policy brought in by NR senior management.

Do you now understand?
NR is making the signaller do more work and the maintenance spend more time doing nothing and waiting to get on track. The lack of productivity of maintenance is nothing to do with maintenance.

Spot on.

NR are having to because the ORR told them to.

No, the ORR told them it was not OK to use work methods which risk lives of staff.

If some well paid senior people in NR had been thinking ahead 10 to 15 years ago, modern signal controlled warning systems plus safe cess paths could, should have been specified into all signalling upgrades. The kit is available and used in Europe, but no, NR decided to wait until they could come up with some national system which never happened as signalling is not renewed all in one go (ie kicked into the long grass). Massive lost opportunity, as it would have made it safe to work with trains running for much work, leaving fewer blocks required eg to fix a failure so less Signaller workload. Would also have made it much easier to get to failed assets.

Why should the maintenance and ops staff have to suffer because the highly paid projects and senior management people cruised along and didn't put in place the infrastructure for efficient maintenance?

This is why the 'modernisation' is massively counterproductive. What you are suggesting has huge consequences for signaller workload, as I've said before to you, and none of that is positive. Leaving the signaller to deal with issues until the last train is a recipe for disaster. 12 hours degraded working. If the signaller doesn't stop the job - things will start going wrong very quickly.

This is why this dispute is so critical and why we must stay the course and win. It affects everyone. If the signaller has a huge workload, the trains will be buggered. So much for helping passengers and the bottom line...

Indeed.

I look forward to Tim Shovellor being on the concourse at Euston on a Friday evening in the run up to Christmas when the WCML has fallen over and there is chaos due to lack of staff available ti fix the faults whilst the TOCs and FOCs count up the delay minutes owed.......

TPO

 

[jon0844]

If nobody cares about trains or tubes (the Government saying the strikes were no big deal and didn't really inconvenience anyone), why did the Government deem it important to keep public transport running throughout Covid?

It's about as believable as the Tories losing the by-elections because Tories simply forgot to go out and vote.

 

[matacaster]

I would agree with you that extending life is but an arbitary figure if it is not a good quality of life. Health & Safety has saved countless lives, so that and "separate areas for men and women" are slightly weird angles for you to take - sounds like you have a specific agenda.

Young people overall are increasingly going to university but you've in fact actually pointed out yet another generational divide between this one and the previous one - previously it was all paid for, now its tens of thousands of pounds of student loan which - whilst not debt in the true form - is continually paid far into people's 30s and is again money that could be spent on buying a house / saving for a deposit.

Also, I think you are referring to someone else with regards to "upskilling" and "self-pity" (I'm quite happy in my professional railway role thanks); I simply suggested that you maybe taking a slightly blinkered view with regards to the average state of affairs of the average young person in this country compared to their parents or grandparents generation.

Apologies, I was referring to posts by ar10642.

Agreed. There does seem to have been a push, in places, for operators to attempt to offer Sunday services they don’t have the resources to provide. No point offering a sexy half-hourly service of 4-car trains which can’t be robustly delivered, when an hourly 8-car service would do just as well. In that sense the drivers have a valid point that Sunday services have tended to increase since the 90s, and it’s fair to say that represents a change. (And from a passenger point of view personally I object to paying more to subsidise Sunday services which personally I never use).



I can sympathise with the current situation with property values. Fact is that a generation ago one could pick up a house in my road for £100k, now the same property will be over £1m. That’s grossly disproportionate to how the real value of a pound has changed in that time, and also grossly disproportionate to wage inflation. And one can’t escape the fact that such property inflation is at least partly attributable to population increase during that time, which we’re often told is necessary to boost the size of the working population in order to pay for … pensioners.

No government in my lifetime has ever done anything other than ignore this and place it firmly in the “too difficult” box.

Yes, getting in more cheap labour from abroad to pay for today's pensioners tends to forget that they will in turn become tomorrow's pensioners. Its how a ponzi scheme works.

 

[Bletchleyite]

We could call such a system "National Insurance" maybe. Oh wait, we have that already.

NI is a misnamed tax, but we could indeed roll it into tax and create something that actually was insurance.

 

[Bertie the bus]

If nobody cares about trains or tubes (the Government saying the strikes were no big deal and didn't really inconvenience anyone), why did the Government deem it important to keep public transport running throughout Covid?

It's about as believable as the Tories losing the by-elections because Tories simply forgot to go out and vote.

Because nobody could predict in early 2020 that working from home would explode in the way it did?

It isn't just the government that has said that. There have been statistics from various authorities - Merseytravel and TfGM to name two - and data from various sources showing that traffic and usage of other modes of transport barely increased on strike days. In fact one piece of data I saw suggested traffic in Liverpool actually decreased slightly on Thursday. The strikes had little effect.

 

[matacaster]

That is a much bigger problem, but no Western government is making a serious attempt to make birth rates rise.

Bearing in mind that we are told we are around half a million homes short now, plus our population is rising significantly without any increase in birthrate (Hong Kong, Ukraine, asylum seekers, economic migrants) its fairly easy to see that lack of suitable housing is a huge issue. Many people refuse to consider living anywhere else but London, which is the least likely place where you could realistically build affordable housing (or indeed much housing at all). Too many people want to live in London and then cry foul when they find property and cost of living is too expensive. Some of the reasons for people wanting to live in London are public transport, events, nightlife, airports to anywhere in the world. Fewer attractions up north, poor public transport, lower wages, lower temperature BUT much more affordable housing and lower cost of a pint!

I genuinely do not understand where people expect additional house to be built anywhere near London. Perhaps someone can explain why moving somewhere more affordable is ruled out by many?

 

[SynthD]

Doesn’t that just mean people switched from train-to-office to WFH rather than drive-to-office? I like that effect, it turns back the tide on that attempt to end WFH.

 

[jon0844]

Because nobody could predict in early 2020 that working from home would explode in the way it did?

It isn't just the government that has said that. There have been statistics from various authorities - Merseytravel and TfGM to name two - and data from various sources showing that traffic and usage of other modes of transport barely increased on strike days. The strikes had little effect.

A lot of companies were working towards hybrid working a long time before Covid, but lockdown certainly helped it become a thing that many people now enjoy and want to continue. Sadly, the Government soon realised that too many people working from home was potentially going to see offices ending up empty - and quickly ordered everyone back to work.

Not everyone took notice of Boris ordering people back, but a good number have - hence passenger numbers increasing all the time.

Nevertheless the strikes (especially the first one with the combined tube strike) weren't so effective because a lot of people went to work every day the week before so they could work from home, others merely said they'd work from home if they're lucky to have the choice (as against a set roster, every other day etc) and of course some took annual leave. In previous actions in London, people start taking leave where they can - but can't do so for every single time.

If strikes persist, it will have more of an impact. The Government will know this of course, but have to continue to convince everyone that it's no big deal. They don't like the fact that people are supporting the strike, and seeing it as a test of what they might be able to achieve too. If this fails, everyone fails.

 

[matacaster]

NI is a misnamed tax, but we could indeed roll it into tax and create something that actually was insurance.

That is a most sensible idea. It would simplify the tax system no end, very easy to implement and the NI component of the combined tax would effectively then be paid at all levels of income rather than be capped which appears rather unfair.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Because nobody could predict in early 2020 that working from home would explode in the way it did?

The warning signs were there already in 2019 with some of the franchises on the edge like SWR who were reporting season ticket down on what they expected due to changes in working practices. Covid just accelerated the trend but in some respects there is an upside to this as high peak was resource intensive and high risk for reliability so in the long flattening the sombrero ought to be a good thing in the long run.

 

[ar10642]

Bearing in mind that we are told we are around half a million homes short now, plus our population is rising significantly without any increase in birthrate (Hong Kong, Ukraine, asylum seekers, economic migrants) its fairly easy to see that lack of suitable housing is a huge issue. Many people refuse to consider living anywhere else but London, which is the least likely place where you could realistically build affordable housing (or indeed much housing at all). Too many people want to live in London and then cry foul when they find property and cost of living is too expensive. Some of the reasons for people wanting to live in London are public transport, events, nightlife, airports to anywhere in the world. Fewer attractions up north, poor public transport, lower wages, lower temperature BUT much more affordable housing and lower cost of a pint!

I genuinely do not understand where people expect additional house to be built anywhere near London. Perhaps someone can explain why moving somewhere more affordable is ruled out by many?

It's not really just London anymore, it's the entire South East and significant chunks of the East of England. There is plenty of land that could be built on in these areas. We need whole new towns really.

And we don't want to leave because it's our home and where our friends and family are. I have no connection to the north at all, it might as well be France.