"Too many railway workers are paid to do nothing"

[Flamingo]

All rings true to me . . . . and more. (though it wasn't just the railways that, er, "enjoyed" such a lax, hazardous, poorly paid and inefficient culture in the post war decades).

But they were the good old days, where everybody knew their place and the working class tugged their forlock to their betters, and your friendly local bobby would give the local tearaway a clip around the ear, as he dragged him screaming to the gallows...

 

[HH]

That is still an eye watering sum of money, and still demonstrates all that is wrong with the 'money no object' attitude which adds so much to the costs of our railway. The same mentality is also responsible for TOCs who receive the dreaded 'revenue support' top-ups intentionally collecting as little farebox revenue as possible to avoid returning any cash. Who cares, the taxpayer ultimately props it all up :roll:

Amazing. Your in-depth knowledge comes from where? No TOC intentionally collects as little farebox revenue as possible; that would just be stupid. Yes, in revenue support they haven't always spent money to generate extra revenue, but that's not true in every case. FCC have put in several new gatelines despite being in revenue support.

This, to quote yourself, is also "complete bollox". Of course there is duplication between companies, as most of those companies have a need for the same roles to carry out the same functions within their respective organisations. Five or six people doing the job 'joined together' means one team, with one manager, working for one company in one building. Two teams of three for two different firms means duplication of everything save for those staff themselves. This starts at the bottom of each TOC and goes right through to the top. How many TOCs now serve the former Network Southeast area for example? Southeastern, Southern, SWT, FCC, bits of FGW, etc etc... How much do each of these firms' Managing Directors take home each year? How many head offices do they lease and fill with staff at massive expense? How can this be better than one unified southern region, operated to modern business efficiency methods? Things are improving with fewer franchises covering larger areas, but there continues to be far too much waste. Yes BR was inefficient, but if the powers that be had concentrated on slimming down the fat within that operation, rather then hacking it to pieces and flogging it all to the highest bidder, we'd be in a better position. Privatisation, at least to the current design, doesn't work. Most agree.

On the one hand you admit that BR was inefficient (privatisation has rid itself of swathes of back-office staff); on the other you claim going back there would save heads. You clearly don't understand how large organisations work. NR is still one organisation. Would you claim that was more efficient than the TOCs, even added together? TOC MDs do not earn huge salaries - one NR Director would pay for 5 TOC ones.

 

[Toots]

I have to say,I heard the same thing mooted about the subsidised TOC's being reluctant to collect fares, many times as well.The reasoning was this,a TOC gets X amount of subsidy,if it employs more people to aggressively collect fares,then this will not only offset the extra revenue gained,but crucially the government would say 'you are making money so you we are removing the subsidy,you will have to manage your own wage costs',ergo why would a TOC make a big effort to take money that it is already obtaining with little or no trouble,indeed I had a conversation with a manager only yesterday who said it was staff costs that were taking up 90% of his budget and the only way to collect the optimum amount of fare box revenue. In most cases it is either more staff or a massive investment in gate line technology.

 

[HH]

I have to say,I heard the same thing mooted about the subsidised TOC's being reluctant to collect fares, many times as well.The reasoning was this,a TOC gets X amount of subsidy,if it employs more people to aggressively collect fares,then this will not only offset the extra revenue gained,but crucially the government would say 'you are making money so you we are removing the subsidy,you will have to manage your own wage costs',ergo why would a TOC make a big effort to take money that it is already obtaining with little or no trouble,indeed I had a conversation with a manager only yesterday who said it was staff costs that were taking up 90% of his budget and the only way to collect the optimum amount of fare box revenue. In most cases it is either more staff or a massive investment in gate line technology.

It's true that the old Franchise Agreement did not reward TOCs in full revenue support for collecting additional revenue unless the return was 5:1 or better, due to the fact that 80p in every £1 collected would go back to the government. That's why the new franchises have changed.

We are not talking huge sums here though. This is marginal revenue and there are costs involved. Name me how many automatic ticket gates were installed pre-privatisation. Does anyone level a criticism at BR that they didn't collect all the revenue that they should have?

 

[Flamingo]

A more interesting question than how much revenue is getting away is how much trouble do those without tickets cause? I'm not saying everybody without a ticket (valid or otherwise) engages in antisocial behaviour, but most who engage in antisocial behaviour, especially coming off unbarriered stations, don't have tickets.

 

[jon0844]

One reason FCC was keen on gatelines straight from the start in 2006 after taking over from Wagn. Elaine Holt appeared to think exactly the same as you.

 

[Flamingo]

Well, face it, having to pay for the journey does discourage a certain element from making said journey. If the journey is going to cost the same as a four-pack of Special Brew, the four-pack will be purchased in lieu of the journey, or a cheaper journey will be made.

 

[D841 Roebuck]

Several years ago, I caught a Sunday afternoon train from Crewe to Shrewsbury. There was a drunk on board, who was ticketless and most smug that he would get home free, as the first booked stop was Shrewsbury, where he lived.

My pleasure at scooping in the Oxley Chord was enhanced by the memory of his face when a pathing stop on the diverted service resulted in his being handed over to the BTP at Stafford...

 

[Flamingo]

I've heard a story about a late train, and on being asked for a ticket, one male said "I don't do tickets, I'm going to Thatcham, it's the next stop, there is F*** all you can do about it".

To which the TM replied "Very good sir, this is the Cardiff train, the next stop is Chippenham" and walked off laughing!

(It was a Saturday night in November - and cold!)

 

[jon0844]

If the journey is going to cost the same as a four-pack of Special Brew, the four-pack will be purchased in lieu of the journey, or a cheaper journey will be made.

I'm in Sweden at the moment and saw a local drunk boozing on Rekorderlig cider. Not sure what flavour but it seemed like he had some class!

 

[HH]

One reason FCC was keen on gatelines straight from the start in 2006 after taking over from Wagn. Elaine Holt appeared to think exactly the same as you.

FisrtGroup have always been very keen on gating, as can be seen from their proposals for the West Coast.

 

[RPI]

I've heard a story about a late train, and on being asked for a ticket, one male said "I don't do tickets, I'm going to Thatcham, it's the next stop, there is F*** all you can do about it".

To which the TM replied "Very good sir, this is the Cardiff train, the next stop is Chippenham" and walked off laughing!

(It was a Saturday night in November - and cold!)

Lol, Thatcham, says it all!

 

[Flamingo]

FisrtGroup have always been very keen on gating, as can be seen from their proposals for the West Coast.

I wish!

 

[Toots]

It's true that the old Franchise Agreement did not reward TOCs in full revenue support for collecting additional revenue unless the return was 5:1 or better, due to the fact that 80p in every £1 collected would go back to the government. That's why the new franchises have changed.

We are not talking huge sums here though. This is marginal revenue and there are costs involved. Name me how many automatic ticket gates were installed pre-privatisation. Does anyone level a criticism at BR that they didn't collect all the revenue that they should have?

I think thereis a fundamental difference between TOC's which receive a subsidy and those which pay a premium.It makes sense for the latter to invest in revenue protection because that is where it's main source of income arrives from,whereas the former isn't as motivated simply because it will receive it's subsidy anyway.Northern appear to have reached a compromise by employing outside companies to do gateline duties,thus avoiding huge installation costs of automated barriers or costs associated with having to employ it's own extra people for this task.
Incidentally when the first automated barriers were installed in London,the industry was that astonished how much extra income it achieved,that what should have been a good news story was played down because of the worry it would flag up how much ticketless travel there actually was....

 

[HH]

I wish!

Gates at Liverpool St (First Great Eastern) were one of the first, if not the first, at a main London Terminus. FGE also installed Gates at Ilford, Romford, Shenfield, Chelmsford, Colchester & Southend IIRC. Outside Connex I don't recall anyone else installing ATGs back then.

First have installed gates on FGW, FCC and FSR too. Who has done more?

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I think there is a fundamental difference between TOCs which receive a subsidy and those which pay a premium. It makes sense for the latter to invest in revenue protection because that is where it's main source of income arrives from,whereas the former isn't as motivated simply because it will receive it's subsidy anyway. Northern appear to have reached a compromise by employing outside companies to do gateline duties, thus avoiding huge installation costs of automated barriers or costs associated with having to employ it's own extra people for this task.

No, there is no fundamental difference. Whichever TOC there is a simple equation of whether the additional income at a station is sufficient to justify the costs. And the main cost is not that of the gates, but of the staff to man those gates, so I doubt whether the Northern solution is best.

Incidentally when the first automated barriers were installed in London,the industry was that astonished how much extra income it achieved,that what should have been a good news story was played down because of the worry it would flag up how much ticketless travel there actually was....

I recall Bob Breakwell being a doubter of the levels of TT. It took quite a lot to persuade him of how much they might bring in. Then they outperformed by around 60% what was projected. It's difficult to argue with hard cash.

 

[Toots]

Ahhh,but I'm sure that you accept that automated ticket gates and the outlay for such gates is not feasible for the vast majority of stations,especially when that outlay and an additional profit has to be garnered during a limited franchise period.My point about the different TOC's is simple,if a subsidised TOC is receiving monies in the form of subsidy why would it invest a a large amount in installing that equipment, when a substantial incease in revenue could conceivably result in the lowering of that subsidy and negate any gain that company was already making?.

 

[HH]

1. Ahhh,but I'm sure that you accept that automated ticket gates and the outlay for such gates is not feasible for the vast majority of stations,especially when that outlay and an additional profit has to be garnered during a limited franchise period.

2. My point about the different TOC's is simple,if a subsidised TOC is receiving monies in the form of subsidy why would it invest a a large amount in installing that equipment, when a substantial incease in revenue could conceivably result in the lowering of that subsidy and negate any gain that company was already making?.

1. It doesn't work like that. Most gates are leased - the lease novates to the next Franchise. DfT has to agree, but why wouldn't it, providing the lease is fair?

2. It uses the change mechanism. It would have to get DfT to approve, but this is possible (and how FCC managed to get gates in while being in revenue support).

 

[Starmill]

Ticketless travel is a massive problem! In Greater Manchester, I only know of one station with gates - Manchester Oxford Road (please, correct me if there are any more). A couple of Sundays ago, I made a return journey from Mauldeth Road to East Didsbury, two stops. The ticket office was closed at Mauldeth Road, so I got on without one - guard didn't come round so got off at East Didsbury - still no ticket because their ticket office was closed too. Exactly the same situation on my return. I don't know about East Didsbury, but the ticket office at Mauldeth Road (just a single, invaluable, helpful ticket clerk) is NEVER open in the afternoon, so If I'm going southbound, its practically a free journey every time. Ticket machines have, I think, now been installed at both stations - but they are those awful ones Northern have clearly done on the cheap, and they only accept cards, so I can't use them! They also don't seem to sell a full range of tickets (Railcards? Cheap Evening Returns? Metrolink tickets?) and they seem to charge more for those they do... Is there another thread about them?

 

[camperdown9]

Hi

I suspect that the rail industry is like any other in that there are people who work very hard, people who work very hard at not working and everything in between.

My local station doesn't have any sort of ticket machine, we have Dave. Dave is the sole member of staff at the ticket office, which opens mon-fri mornings. Dave always wants to say hello, always wants to chat, loves trains and even more loves searching for the best available fare. Put it this way last week I had to go to Ashford twice once on Monday and once on Wednesday. On Wednesday when I went to buy the ticket, he remembered that I had done the same journey on monday. He then asked how often I would be traveling the route and tried to work out if it was better for me to buy a weekly pass.

Its a small station and I guess the same people get the same trains to London every weekday. When the schedule changed Dave personally went and made sure that regular passengers were given a copy of the new timetable and told that the train they normally get would be cancelled.

Sad thing is that when Dave retires I suspect that he won't be replaced. We might get a ticket machine, or we might just have to make do with buying a ticket on the train or getting off at the next station to buy a ticket.

I think automated ticket machines, booking online etc are great, but maybe they shouldn't totally replace people!

Just my view

Alex

 

[Big Jim]

I've had a few people say to me that prior to privatisation, BR employees did nothing, and the new wave of post privatistaion staff were somehow much more efficient and the best kind of staff. Just made me giggle really. A load of tosh.

 

[michael769]

First have installed gates on FGW, FCC and FSR too. Who has done more?

I cannot speak for the other franchises but the gating in Scotland has been done at Transport Scotland's behest.

 

[A-driver]

One problem with rail staff to an outsider is that the railway works to a timetable so there will always be periods for frontline staff with nothing to do. If a gated station sees a train at xx03, another at xx06 and a third at xx10 and then nothing until xx33 etc then they will need enough gate staff to deal with the rush of people around that time. If there was just 1 then there would be complaints as he tries to deal with a ticketless passenger and the gates go un manned and ques form etc.

Therefore the period with no trains the staff will seem to be doing nothing but as they are very productive and rushed about at other times it evens itself out.

 

[HH]

I cannot speak for the other franchises but the gating in Scotland has been done at Transport Scotland's behest.

No. The original gates, done at the end of NX's reign, were done at TS's behest (NX didn't want to do them), but the ones put in by First were largely part of their bid. And IIRC the main reason that they won the franchise.

 

[michael769]

No. The original gates, done at the end of NX's reign, were done at TS's behest (NX didn't want to do them), but the ones put in by First were largely part of their bid. And IIRC the main reason that they won the franchise.

We can split hairs, but it was very clear that TS wanted better revenue protection on the current franchise and saw gating as a key aspect of that. I would argue that First's poposals were driven by that.

Clearly First could have tried a different proposal ( though I am not clear what that would be? ), and so it is fair to say that at the very least they are not resistant to the idea of barriers.

Personally with the government being so keen on reducing subsidy and increasing ticket revenue, revenue protection is going to become a major part of all franchises in the future - and barriers at major stations (and perhaps some smaller stations where a particular problem with fare dodging are identified) will be an integral part of that.

 

[HH]

We can split hairs, but it was very clear that TS wanted better revenue protection on the current franchise and saw gating as a key aspect of that. I would argue that First's poposals were driven by that.

Clearly First could have tried a different proposal ( though I am not clear what that would be? ), and so it is fair to say that at the very least they are not resistant to the idea of barriers.

It's not hair splitting. First already had a record of installing ATGs before they won ScotRail. I KNOW what the ITT said, and that did not include ATGs. First went beyond what was specified.

So we have on the one hand, me, who knows in detail what was specified and what was bid by First, and on the other hand, you, who has exactly what knowledge?

 

[ralphchadkirk]

So we have on the one hand, me, who knows in detail what was specified and what was bid by First, and on the other hand, you, who has exactly what knowledge?

Perhaps, if you are to make such claims, then you could provide us with some credentials to prove that you are an expert on these matters?

 

[HH]

Perhaps, if you are to make such claims, then you could provide us with some credentials to prove that you are an expert on these matters?

Perhaps I'd rather not.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Perhaps I'd rather not.

And you still expect us to believe that you are an expert then?

 

[Simon11]

Why are you all behaving like this? I can fully understand why he would not like to reveal what role he does along with what firm he works for. If he was making it up, it wouldnt take long for people to catch him out.

I'm in a similar position with some threads where it relates to my role at my toc however I don't mention for whom I work for and make hints as to the answer.

Its mostly just to protect ourselves in case we slip a piece of information that is sensitive for our company.

 

[KA4C]

And you still expect us to believe that you are an expert then?

Is is a matter for you, you can take his post at face value or not, but it would be very unwise for a serving railwayman to identify themselves on here, for all manner of reasons