RMT dispute on Merseyrail

[jayah]

Getting back to the question I actually asked, what are your views on unprofitable Southeastern getting new trains ?

Rather off topic, but my view would be that if all the other similar franchises can manage without operator subsidy they should do the same.

A TOC getting 65% turnover through subsidy should be using second hand trains as an alternative to new. Buying new trains and getting rid of Guards to try and balance the books isn't the way to go.

 

[Confused52]

Rather off topic, but my view would be that if all the other similar franchises can manage without operator subsidy they should do the same.

A TOC getting 65% turnover through subsidy should be using second hand trains as an alternative to new. Buying new trains and getting rid of Guards to try and balance the books isn't the way to go.

So how do you assume leasing companies vary rental with age and what do you think would be the reaction of the public to discovering that the rental was being paid on fully depreciated stock? Your position is ideological rather than practical since you are advocating running with old stock without limit even though there will eventually be none left!

 

[pemma]

Rather off topic, but my view would be that if all the other similar franchises can manage without operator subsidy they should do the same.

A TOC getting 65% turnover through subsidy should be using second hand trains as an alternative to new. Buying new trains and getting rid of Guards to try and balance the books isn't the way to go.

Why not just redraw all the franchise maps and then we wouldn't have this problem except in Wales and Scotland.

Incidentally TPE is a subsided franchise but if First's plan works it'll become a premium paying franchise but without new high quality trains, frequency enhancements and more seats that wouldn't be possible.

 

[furnessvale]

So how do you assume leasing companies vary rental with age and what do you think would be the reaction of the public to discovering that the rental was being paid on fully depreciated stock? Your position is ideological rather than practical since you are advocating running with old stock without limit even though there will eventually be none left!

Not that I am supporting Jayah, but there will ALWAYS be old stock as new stock is bought for other services.

BR used to cascade stock, something we seem now to be incapable of doing as every new build has unique characteristics of gauging, signalling standards etc.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

BR used to cascade stock, something we seem now to be incapable of doing as every new build has unique characteristics of gauging, signalling standards etc

- As a layperson, my understanding is that this is particularly relevant to Merseyrail. I can't give chapter and verse, but I understand the tunnel heights and the curvature on the Wirral loop to be so restrictive as to put most standard stock out of the picture. When the short length of platforms and desire for a uniform fleet are added (neither of which are insoluble but are limitations) the case for new, specialist stock becomes almost unanswerable. And the experience of the last two generations of stock (EDIT: probably all three generations of stock: the 1904 L&Y stock seems to have worked until life-expired in the 1940s)is that it will be well-used, and kept going until it's (once again) the oldest fleet in use on Britain's railways.

Of course, much of my argument falls down if the size and length of carriages isn't as restricted as I think. Can anyone clarify?

 

[jayah]

Not that I am supporting Jayah, but there will ALWAYS be old stock as new stock is bought for other services.

BR used to cascade stock, something we seem now to be incapable of doing as every new build has unique characteristics of gauging, signalling standards etc.

I am not advocating recycling pacers and in the case of TPE 125mph stock will be a big improvement for journey times. But the idea of reusing perfectly reusable stock in good condition is very much out of fashion and it is a very expensive policy.

 

[B&I]

Rather off topic, but my view would be that if all the other similar franchises can manage without operator subsidy they should do the same.

A TOC getting 65% turnover through subsidy should be using second hand trains as an alternative to new. Buying new trains and getting rid of Guards to try and balance the books isn't the way to go.

So, for the third time of asking, do you agree that, as Southeastern is not profitable, it should not receive any new trains ?

 

[jayah]

So, for the third time of asking, do you agree that, as Southeastern is not profitable, it should not receive any new trains ?

I have already answered this question and it is not really relevant either.

 

[Clip]

I am not advocating recycling pacers and in the case of TPE 125mph stock will be a big improvement for journey times. But the idea of reusing perfectly reusable stock in good condition is very much out of fashion and it is a very expensive policy.

But its a policy that has many many benfits that come with it not least of all that they will have step free access thanks to the design of them and if they went with your 30 odd year old trains then all platforms would have to be raised to accomodate that and then how much longer would you run those trains before you had to bite the bullet and procure something else?

I believe in cascading of trains - it does work but with something like merseyrail there is no reason not to have new trains and thats what the people who run Liverpool have decided on and thats what they are having so all your points about using the 455s is moot and you really need to move on with it.

 

[jamesst]

I think a lot of people are getting ahead of themselves on here to be honest. The fact it's an agreement only 'in principle' suggests to me there's a long way to go yet. Could it be a ploy purely to get the area through the giants visit to Liverpool next month...

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think a lot of people are getting ahead of themselves on here to be honest. The fact it's an agreement only 'in principle' suggests to me there's a long way to go yet. Could it be a ploy purely to get the area through the giants visit to Liverpool next month...

Or simply because there has been no ballot on it yet, and the Union members could still reject it?

 

[73001]

- As a layperson, my understanding is that this is particularly relevant to Merseyrail. I can't give chapter and verse, but I understand the tunnel heights and the curvature on the Wirral loop to be so restrictive as to put most standard stock out of the picture. When the short length of platforms and desire for a uniform fleet are added (neither of which are insoluble but are limitations) the case for new, specialist stock becomes almost unanswerable. And the experience of the last two generations of stock (EDIT: probably all three generations of stock: the 1904 L&Y stock seems to have worked until life-expired in the 1940s)is that it will be well-used, and kept going until it's (once again) the oldest fleet in use on Britain's railways.

Of course, much of my argument falls down if the size and length of carriages isn't as restricted as I think. Can anyone clarify?

Based on this, and I don't know the answer, has most of the Merseyrail network only had 3 different types of trains since new (or electrified anyway)? Original ones until the 40s, 502/3 until the late 70s and the 507/8s until now. That must be some sort of achievement and certainly shows that they've had their monies worth out of each investment.

 

[Ianigsy]

Based on this, and I don't know the answer, has most of the Merseyrail network only had 3 different types of trains since new (or electrified anyway)? Original ones until the 40s, 502/3 until the late 70s and the 507/8s until now. That must be some sort of achievement and certainly shows that they've had their monies worth out of each investment.

There's a little bit more to it than that. The original Mersey Railway sets ran into the 1950s and were replaced by a second 1956- built batch of Class 503s.

There was also a 1927 built class of units built by the LMS (the Lindberghs) which ran into the 1960s for the Aintree and Ormskirk routes and a baggage car transferred from the Tyneside network.

 

[B&I]

I have already answered this question and it is not really relevant either.

Point me to where you answered it. And explain why, when you have hijacked this thread to argue that certain franchises should not receive new trains, it is not relevant to ask you whether you think certain other franchises should receive new trains.

 

[Gareth]

Coz scousers, obviously.

 

[Class83]

So there seem to be a few issues combining here.

1: A provisional deal has been done; though it may be DCO with a guaranteed OBS on every service rather than Guards closing doors. This will cost more than the planned DOO, with OBS on selected services. Therefore Merseyrail need to find more money.

2: Ways of saving or raising money; Closing or reducing hours at ticket offices (possibly redeploying staff as OBSs), ticket machines that accept cards, e-ticketing, fare rises, pay freezes, reducing fare evasion. These are either things which should be done already or potentially controversial.

3: The level of subsidy on Merseyrail; It's likely quite high, but the problem with raising fares is that driving, cycling, bus are all valid alternatives for commuters who actually pay for peak returns/season tickets and not the cheap off-peak tickets. Therefore, if prices go up too much the number of passengers is likely to go down. This is probably made worse by the fact that pensioner's travelcards are valid on Merseyrail, therefore 'fare revenue' may involve an amount from the councils.

4: New v Refurbished stock; Merseyrail have used the 507/8s for 40 years, provided the new trains are designed and used for a similar length of time I'm not entirely convinced refurbishing trains from elsewhere would be much cheaper over the full period. Also, it would be difficult to get the level platform access in anything but custom builds.

 

[Skie]

Of course, much of my argument falls down if the size and length of carriages isn't as restricted as I think. Can anyone clarify?

You are correct. Length wise the network is constrained by the underground stations, which were all designed around a 6 car service. Extending those platforms would be expensive.
The tunnels are narrow, but not so narrow that an MPV can't trundle around, so they aren't really gauge restricted. The main issue there is the tightness of the curves in the underground loop, which have in the past caused excessive wheel wear and don't make for a particularly great ride.
The single bore tunnels also mean trains must have end doors for emergency evacuation.

The Stadler units have been designed around all of these constraints, with the 8 car formation using a clever passenger door arrangement to make them work whilst overall being longer (an individual carriage is slightly shorter than the existing ones, but overall they are still longer trains).

 

[InOban]

I think some posters, and the unions, need to re-read the provisional agreement (#1825). It is clear that the OBS must be self-financing. After all any increase in subsidy could only come at the expense of other public services. The public want OBS to provide security and confidence to their journey; the only benefit to the farebox would be more frequent journeys. The employer can use them to ensure that all passengers have a valid ticket. However they can only perform these tasks if they are not being regularly interrupted by the need to operate the doors. Conveniently, while the train is in a station, the driver is available to do this.

The role of ASLEF is to ensure that their members are properly trained to carry out this task, as they will be held liable, possibly in court, if there is any incident.

The role of the RMT is also to ensure that their members are fully trained to carry out the wide range of tasks they will be expecting to perform, and in particular when, if dealing with awkward customers, they should summon help. It may well be that many of the existing guards will be temperamentally unsuited to the new role.

 

[mmh]

- As a layperson, my understanding is that this is particularly relevant to Merseyrail. I can't give chapter and verse, but I understand the tunnel heights and the curvature on the Wirral loop to be so restrictive as to put most standard stock out of the picture. When the short length of platforms and desire for a uniform fleet are added (neither of which are insoluble but are limitations) the case for new, specialist stock becomes almost unanswerable. And the experience of the last two generations of stock (EDIT: probably all three generations of stock: the 1904 L&Y stock seems to have worked until life-expired in the 1940s)is that it will be well-used, and kept going until it's (once again) the oldest fleet in use on Britain's railways.

Of course, much of my argument falls down if the size and length of carriages isn't as restricted as I think. Can anyone clarify?

Unfortunately I don't think it's the case. The new trains being built are "full height" (actually marginally taller than a mk3 coach or mk3 derived unit like the 455). There might be a limit on coach length, but the current 507/508 stock is roughly 20m per coach, the same as 455/456 etc. I'd guess the only reason Merseyrail has smaller profile stock is it just happened to be the (PEP derived?) "standard" size BR were making at the time. (That would be interesting to find out about - was it a "go anywhere" size? Did anywhere need the lower height?)

Any ideas of recycling trains from anywhere else for Merseyrail is complete nonsense though all the same. The only place you can recycle from is the south east, and all of the even vaguely suitable trains are knackered, only a handful of years newer and would make the service worse, not better.

Apart from being nonsensical practically, nobody would dare suggest it politically.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The only trains that *might* have been suitable from the SE are the Desiro Citys from SWR once replaced (indeed, if Siemens bid, I bet they bid pretty much that train). But most likely another home for those will be found in the SE somewhere.

Really, being blunt, all the 1980s Mk3 derived EMUs need to go to the scrapper. There are enough newer EMUs about not to need them once the next few new orders are all delivered (e.g. the south WCML additional units could be 365s, Northern could have some too), and they are old-fashioned, slow to accelerate and rotting away.

 

[Carlisle]

So, for the third time of asking, do you agree that, as Southeastern is not profitable, it should not receive any new trains ?

I think you’ll find Southeastern received new trains from 1999 onwards,whereas Merseyral didn’t, all it’s stock dates from the 1970s

 

[B&I]

I think you’ll find Southeastern received new trains from 1999 onwards,whereas Merseyral didn’t, all it’s stock dates from the 1970s

Kinda the point I was making

 

[driver_m]

The only trains that *might* have been suitable from the SE are the Desiro Citys from SWR once replaced (indeed, if Siemens bid, I bet they bid pretty much that train). But most likely another home for those will be found in the SE somewhere.

Really, being blunt, all the 1980s Mk3 derived EMUs need to go to the scrapper. There are enough newer EMUs about not to need them once the next few new orders are all delivered (e.g. the south WCML additional units could be 365s, Northern could have some too), and they are old-fashioned, slow to accelerate and rotting away.

Only 37 of them available. So you'd still need a fleet of something else. So that defeats the object of trying to save money. Agree they're an excellent unit though, hopefully Northern end up taking them and get rid of the godawful 319s.

 

[driver_m]

Story has just appeared in the Liverpool Echo saying that retaining guards will cost as much as £7 million a year.

Sorry but I'm calling that BS. Appreciate that there is far more than just paying a wage and whatever training costs needed. But that is pure propaganda to alienate the Merseyside Public. A simple delay requiring observation of the wheels turning due to dragging brakes costs tens of thousands under current delays. Which a lack of a guard will make worse. And that's just one regular example.

 

[74A]

Story has just appeared in the Liverpool Echo saying that retaining guards will cost as much as £7 million a year.

Sorry but I'm calling that BS. Appreciate that there is far more than just paying a wage and whatever training costs needed. But that is pure propaganda to alienate the Merseyside Public. A simple delay requiring observation of the wheels turning due to dragging brakes costs tens of thousands under current delays. Which a lack of a guard will make worse. And that's just one regular example.

Why is that BS. There are 200 guards on Merseyrail. At 7 million that is about 35000 per year. With salary, pensions contributions and employers NI that seems about right.

And observing wheels turning after dragging brakes. Not necessary. Brakes only drag on turning wheels. Doing a rotational test after dragging brakes is pointless. Anyway the new trains will have sensor to automatically detect and dragging brakes.

 

[OxtedSignaller]

Either way the saving of not having Guards would not be 7 million no way. After all every existing Guard at the start of dispute was guranteed their job and salary. Perhaps it's more expensive for these staff to remain as a Guard due to having one diagrammed to every service and training costs as two examples but that means the saving by axing their current position and redeploying them in a different would not be 7 million pounds going by the logic above using their salary, NI etc etc as these costs would still exist.

 

[mmh]

Story has just appeared in the Liverpool Echo saying that retaining guards will cost as much as £7 million a year.

Sorry but I'm calling that BS. Appreciate that there is far more than just paying a wage and whatever training costs needed. But that is pure propaganda to alienate the Merseyside Public. A simple delay requiring observation of the wheels turning due to dragging brakes costs tens of thousands under current delays. Which a lack of a guard will make worse. And that's just one regular example.

As ever it depends what take they want to sell.

7 million sounds exaggerated, I don't know how much having them saves for train faults etc, but that makes sense. As a passenger they definitely do make savings in reduced vandalism, allowing fares to be had from passengers who wouldn't travel by train if they weren't there, and less use of the police.

But as it all comes down to figures, here's two that Merseytravel use as boasts.

34 million passenger journeys a year. So that 7 million quid, ignoring the savings above, is 20p a journey on average. Sounds like a bargain to me.

Liverpool Central won some nonsense award after refurbishment that cost 20 million. 20 million and people still think it's an unpleasant dump.

 

[driver_m]

Why is that BS. There are 200 guards on Merseyrail. At 7 million that is about 35000 per year. With salary, pensions contributions and employers NI that seems about right.

And observing wheels turning after dragging brakes. Not necessary. Brakes only drag on turning wheels. Doing a rotational test after dragging brakes is pointless. Anyway the new trains will have sensor to automatically detect and dragging brakes.

If my employer says we have to do a rotational test after encountering dragging brakes, then that's what I will do, what I am paid to do. Not argue over its merits or otherwise.

Let's pick some more holes in your counter argument while we're at it. The 'onboard staff' that Merseyrail so called wanted to deploy. They were never going to be volunteers from the Women's Institute or similar. They were going to want paying. Minimum wage at 8 quid at that point. Do the sums. As others have pointed out. The people refusing to use an unstaffed network for safety reasons, the damage done by ASB from people emboldened by the fact no staff will challenge them. The undoubted increase in fare dodging and the staff then needed to occasionally counter that.

 

[Carlisle]

As others have pointed out. The people refusing to use an unstaffed network for safety reasons, .

You’ll probably find there’s virtually zero evidence of that actually happening on any of the routes that have converted to DOO (with various new staffing models ) over the last 35 years, mainly RMT propaganda.
Of course there were genuine public safety concerns about rail usage for a while after the likes of Ladbroke Grove, Southall, Ufton Nervet, Hatfield Grayrigg etc.

 

[pemma]

34 million passenger journeys a year. So that 7 million quid, ignoring the savings above, is 20p a journey on average. Sounds like a bargain to me.

Liverpool Central won some nonsense award after refurbishment that cost 20 million. 20 million and people still think it's an unpleasant dump.

The cost of Central refurbishment will partly be recouped from retail outlets in the station. The cost of guards will increase every year.

Central refurbishment included making the station more accessible. The new trains have been made accessible to not require guards to assist loading passengers on and off trains, so passengers will be paying twice for accessibility if the guards remain and they are made to pay for them.

they definitely do make savings in reduced vandalism, allowing fares to be had from passengers who wouldn't travel by train if they weren't there, and less use of the police.

Revenue protection doesn't have to done on trains.

What evidence is there that DOO puts off passengers?

Guards often call BTP if they don't want to deal with an incident themselves. The approach of multiple security staff on services where there's a high risk of anti-social behaviour is probably more effective than guards.