Given up with Southern Rail.

[Stedman]

V8 Fettler said:

If Southern Rail management have made the decision to introduce DOO then it needs to happen quickly, hence strong management.

Most rail users would prioritise reliability and punctuality over goodwill.

Good luck getting the last train to XYZ covered without goodwill.

Ironically my goodwill would have helped a great deal with the reliability and punctuality you crave.

[legzr1]

V8 Fettler said:

Is it the 1970s again?

I see your attitude towards unions and harping on about Thatcher. That, together with your interest in 'certain' cars, leads me to conclude that one of us does think it's 1979.

Clue: It's not me.

V8 Fettler said:

Let me know if you need any assistance in understanding the data described by the graph.

Thanks for the offer.

However, I normally seek help (when needed) from those who actually know what they're talking about.
That's why I dismiss your efforts on this thread but I'm interested in reading the opinions of others.

[RemyMartin]

V8 Fettler said:

Industrial relations? Is it the 1970s again? Where's Maggie when she's needed?

From the customer's viewpoint, the passenger rail network should be managed as a performance contract. How the contractor manages the workforce should be of no concern to the customer, hence lock the contractor's management team and the "workers' representatives" into a room until it's resolved.

Let me know if you need any assistance in understanding the data described by the graph.

Thank fk you have nothing to do with thr railways. Railway priority is run with a safety first attitude, quite frankly punctuality is second fiddle.

Quite frankly I like many drivers on DOO railways don't care over a few minutes late so long as im going home without someone's life changing injury or death on my conscious.

There simply is not room on our railways to operate every service in the track circuit blocks without a delay. Cant wait for cross rail to come in and it to get worse.

Ps with your last sentence you can fk off with the patronising bullst. Tbh it's fair to say you come across like a massive in this thread so I won't lose any sleep over your attitude

[valiant]

V8, have a read of this article.

It will give a good over view of the clusterfk that is Southern at the moment.

http://www.londonreconnections.com/2016/railway-ro...

The seeds of this dispute and all the resulting problems were sown many years ago.

[Ian Geary]

V8 Fettler said:

I want expenditure on roads to equal the tax-take from road users, that's not happened for several decades



http://www.roadusers.org.uk/chapters/infrastructur...

Whilst not being relevant to the thread, I don't support road tax-take being matched by roads expenditure.

The reason to me is fairly straight forward: there are some things the government can charge for easily (e.g. car tax), and some things it can't charge for very well at all (e.g. benefits to individuals for having an effective public health and sanitation strategy).

So, in order to operate the things that can't be charged for, the governemnt by necessity need to charge more where it is possible to charge.

On the same principle, would you agree that taxation raised from smokers should only be spent on treating the medical condition of smokers?

It would be nonsensical in my view, as would ring fencing road tax. The roads are OK - not perfect - but are doing the job.

Unlike Southern trains.



Ian

[Chrisgr31]

legzr1 said:

Excellent post.

Agreed and as a Southern passenger it said a number of things I have been saying. Its not the door closing that is the real issue, its the safety of the train leaving the platform (although on many types of trains the guard can see the outside of the train as it departs), and in the event of an incident on route.

Mind you I do think that on many occasions guards could make more effort to check tickets. On my regular commute I know there are some guards that will check tickets on every train, there are others who never do. If some can do it they all ought to be able to do so (accepting in times of disruption etc there may be other priorities).

[rs1952]

Greshamst said:

I'm just posting here to bh and moan about Thameslink.

Last 3 trains I've got in the morning have been shortformed from 8 to 4 coaches. Today the obviously annoyed driver announced 'Sorry for the shortforming of this train, I don't know why it is'.

Seems like the excuse used the most is due to broken down trains. In the meantime I'm still paying over £3k to a company that don't seem able to keep the trains that they use in working order. You'd think a high priority of a train company would be to you know, have trains that worked.

OK I'll take up this one seeing that nobody else has

What do you read into the "information" given to you:

Greshamst said:

Seems like the excuse used the most is due to broken down trains. In the meantime I'm still paying over £3k to a company that don't seem able to keep the trains that they use in working order. You'd think a high priority of a train company would be to you know, have trains that worked.

Trains, unlike road vehicles, run on rails. Trains cannot leap frog over each other. You can quite easily have a "broken down train" with another half a dozen stacked up behind. The announcement that you will hear is that your delay is due to a broken down train, but it might not actually be yours that has broken down.

Seemingly quite minor failures can cause a train to be red carded; whilst, for example, you might be quite happy to take your car out if the central locking has stopped working, a train won't be going anywhere until such a fault is fixed.

Moving "broken down trains" can also cause a problem, especially if, for example, the fault is one that has automatically applied the brakes. I experienced one such failure a couple of years ago after going to Bristol for a drink with some retired railway colleagues, intending to catch the last but one train home. The departure board ominously only said "delayed" rather than giving an expected time of arrival - this is railway (and airline BTW) code "we don't know when it will arrive either..." Luckily I knew who to ask at Temple Meads to find out exactly WTF was going on, to be told " a fitter is on his way to Flax Bourton." That told me all I needed to know - the train wasn't going anywhere in the immediate future. The other punters were told no more than "broken down train" but they wouldn't have been particularly better informed if they were told - the bloody train had still broken down. And of course, everything else coming up from Taunton and Weston Super Mare that night was stuck behind it as well. Of course, if the media had picked up on it they would have found some punter to complain that "nobody gave us any information,"

In my day on the railways things were arguably less safe but easier to deal with. There would usually be a spare engine and crew not far away to drag the breakdown out of the way. Those days have gone. There used to crossovers where trains could be diverted to the adjacent line to get past the breakdown - many of those have gone as well. Even longer ago in the late 90s I was trying to get home from Bristol to be told that there was a broken rail at Keynsham (that's K-E-Y-N-S-H-A-M for our older brethren...). The line between Bath and Bristol was being run as a single line because there are no crossovers left over that 11 mile stretch of railway, a situation that caused absolute chaos when things go wrong. This, however, was thought to be a "good thing" by those who were ripping out "superfluous" bits of railway infrastructure from the 1960s onwards. Such is progress...

Short-forming - Thameslink will probably be damned if they do and damned if they don't. Which would you rather they did, run a four coach train rather than eight, or simply cancel the bloody thing altogether?

[V8 Fettler]

Ian Geary said:

Whilst not being relevant to the thread, I don't support road tax-take being matched by roads expenditure.

The reason to me is fairly straight forward: there are some things the government can charge for easily (e.g. car tax), and some things it can't charge for very well at all (e.g. benefits to individuals for having an effective public health and sanitation strategy).

So, in order to operate the things that can't be charged for, the governemnt by necessity need to charge more where it is possible to charge.

On the same principle, would you agree that taxation raised from smokers should only be spent on treating the medical condition of smokers?

It would be nonsensical in my view, as would ring fencing road tax. The roads are OK - not perfect - but are doing the job.

Unlike Southern trains.



Ian

Where do you get the idea that UK roads are OK? Leaving aside the £billions required to repair potholes, a view is that road congestion could cost the UK economy £20billion a year over the next 16 years.

http://highwaysmagazine.co.uk/traffic-congestion-c...

Several other fascinating articles regarding UK road congestion on the same website.

[V8 Fettler]

SWTH said:

Having seen your attempts to prove your opinion to be correct despite experts thoroughly debunking your statements in other threads (the QE/carrier thread for example), I doubt anything that those of us employed in the rail industry say here will be taken on board or listened to.

Anyway, DOO. Safe, is it?

Hayes & Harlington RAIB report

You're confusing "safe" with "reasonably safe". Two key factors identified within the Hayes & Harlington report:
Failure to train staff adequately
Failure to install "sensitive door edge technology"
Stupidity of passenger also played a part, but good design should allow for the stupidity of people.

[V8 Fettler]

Stedman said:

V8 Fettler said:

If Southern Rail management have made the decision to introduce DOO then it needs to happen quickly, hence strong management.

Most rail users would prioritise reliability and punctuality over goodwill.

Good luck getting the last train to XYZ covered without goodwill.

Ironically my goodwill would have helped a great deal with the reliability and punctuality you crave.

Why should goodwill play a crucial part in the running of a railway network? It certainly shouldn't form the basis of a contractual relationship.

[V8 Fettler]

legzr1 said:

V8 Fettler said:

Is it the 1970s again?

I see your attitude towards unions and harping on about Thatcher. That, together with your interest in 'certain' cars, leads me to conclude that one of us does think it's 1979.

Clue: It's not me.

V8 Fettler said:

Let me know if you need any assistance in understanding the data described by the graph.

Thanks for the offer.

However, I normally seek help (when needed) from those who actually know what they're talking about.
That's why I dismiss your efforts on this thread but I'm interested in reading the opinions of others.

£30billion tax-take from road users each year, expenditure on roads: less than £10billion per annum. The £20billion per annum differential fixes most of our road transport issues.

What's the current level of taxpayer's subsidy to the railways? Around £4 billion?

"Certain" cars?!

[V8 Fettler]

RemyMartin said:

V8 Fettler said:

Industrial relations? Is it the 1970s again? Where's Maggie when she's needed?

From the customer's viewpoint, the passenger rail network should be managed as a performance contract. How the contractor manages the workforce should be of no concern to the customer, hence lock the contractor's management team and the "workers' representatives" into a room until it's resolved.

Let me know if you need any assistance in understanding the data described by the graph.

Thank fk you have nothing to do with thr railways. Railway priority is run with a safety first attitude, quite frankly punctuality is second fiddle.

Quite frankly I like many drivers on DOO railways don't care over a few minutes late so long as im going home without someone's life changing injury or death on my conscious.

There simply is not room on our railways to operate every service in the track circuit blocks without a delay. Cant wait for cross rail to come in and it to get worse.

Ps with your last sentence you can fk off with the patronising bullst. Tbh it's fair to say you come across like a massive in this thread so I won't lose any sleep over your attitude

Unfortunately, my tax money subsidises the railways, I also occasionally use the railways, it's usually a dismal and expensive experience with frequent delays and cancellations.

Is it not possible to operate a punctual, reliable, efficient railway service that is reasonably safe?

[V8 Fettler]

valiant said:

V8, have a read of this article.

It will give a good over view of the clusterfk that is Southern at the moment.

http://www.londonreconnections.com/2016/railway-ro...

The seeds of this dispute and all the resulting problems were sown many years ago.

The biggest issue with UK railways is the failure of strategic management over the long term. Or - more precisely - the complete lack of any meaningfully competent management over the long term.

[legzr1]

V8 Fettler said:

£30billion tax-take from road users each year, expenditure on roads: less than £10billion per annum. The £20billion per annum differential fixes most of our road transport issues.

You forgot around £20M for rooms to lock disagreeing sides into.

Perhaps a graph could help you...


Or you could go find a thread discussing VED.

[Countdown]

V8 Fettler said:

The biggest issue with UK railways is the failure of strategic management over the long term. Or - more precisely - the complete lack of any meaningfully competent management over the long term.

That seems to describe the current situation with Southern Rail perfectly. Do you agree that management should be held responsible for the current situation?

[Nik da Greek]

I do like some of the erratic conclusions being drawn in this thread. Especially the idea that rail unions are some kind of intransigent dinosaurs locked into a "Wrong biscuits on tea break!? EVeryone out the door, lads!" Carry on at Your COnvenience 70s mindset. In fact, the absolute opposite is true. Rail unions are in a cosy relationship with management where they get as many days "off the track" at endless meetings talking about vital stuff like how many minutes it takes to walk from a certain messroom to the platforms. The last thing they want is tedious old industrial action interrupting their lazy tummy-tickling lapdog existence. Unfortunately for the RMT in the Southern dispute, their membership voted overwhelmingly for strike action (something like 86% of the electorate, in fact... the sort of majority that makes Dave's union-strangling turnout rules look pretty silly). So the RMT had no choice but to act on their memebership's wishes and break up the long lunch they were on to organise strike days.

Southern, specifically Charles Horton... one of the last great anti-humanists in the Victorian workhouse owner mould... declared war on those taking industrial action. Travel allowances were stripped from the guards, even their carpark passes. They were docked two days pay for every day they striked. Struck? Stroked? Ooooer... They were banned from working overtime to prevent them from being able to get back the money they'd been docked through rest day working. They were not allowed to go sick, even for one day, unless supported by a doctors' fitnote. Many other punitive measures were instituted.

So the Company line about sickness is something of an exagerration... ok, a lie then. Why go sick for one day knowing the company won't pay you? Try this; go into your docotor's and say "I'm repsonsible for thousands of lives daily in and extremely dnagerous environment and my company is hounding me over everything I do. I can't sleep, I'm so stressed out" and I guarantee you'll be signed off as long as you like with happy pills to keep you company because no doctor wants to be at the inquest where they askk "Why did you certify this man fit for work when he was asleep at the time of the accident, too stresed and paralysed with indecision to act and so failed to protect his train and thus it was hit by the Express?"

... and if you're thinking the safety thing is all blown out of all proportion - after all, their automatic doors aren't they? The driver's got monitors hasn't he? The platform bloke has a little paddle to wave? - imagine if the railway was invented now. Imagine the H&S meeting at a government approval committee where you try to sell them on the idea of a 400-tonne 90mph projectile hurtling through a platform holding a thousand living souls inches away from the edge. Wow, you're gonna need a better pitch than that, dude.

Interestingly, the new role envisaged for guards will preclude them from selling tickets. They will be expected to sell either a full-price maximum fare ticket for the appropriate journey or a penalty fare if it's deemed the passenger's reason for being on a train isn't sufficiently ingenius. So that's an end to being able to jump on a train and buy a cheap rate ticket or use your Student/OAP/whatever railcard for a discount. But of course, it's got nothing to do with making money for the company. No, wait, it's got everything to do with saving money. The company don't give a fk about safety; they'll do the absolute minimum they can get away with and justify afterwards at an enquiry.


So much more to say, but this post has probably gone on long eno[/]

[Countdown]

NdG - I have no dog in this particular fight. However one thing I don't understand about this particular dispute...

The RMT are suggesting that the dispute is about safety, and in particular, passenger safety. But if there IS an accident it will be the Directors who are liable, not the employees. So why are RMT members bothering to dispute?

Like the Underground it seems to me that it's more about protecting the jobs of RMT members than anything else but I'm happy to be corrected.

[Nik da Greek]

Countdown said:

NdG - I have no dog in this particular fight. However one thing I don't understand about this particular dispute...

The RMT are suggesting that the dispute is about safety, and in particular, passenger safety. But if there IS an accident it will be the Directors who are liable, not the employees. So why are RMT members bothering to dispute?

Like the Underground it seems to me that it's more about protecting the jobs of RMT members than anything else but I'm happy to be corrected.

Do you not think that protecting the jobs of their memebership is a fundamental part of the process of Union then?

The Underground is a bit of an oddity in the world of rail, but despite the fact it has a much more closed and manageable environment in which to operate it still kills more people every year than any other TOC. Safety on the railway in general is something that ticks along at a reasonable percentage most of the time. When something goes wrong, it tends to go catastrophically wrong and its then that the actions of staff are the only mitigating factor.

There was a case recently when a train smashed someone on the line. The driver basically shut down in shock. If there hadn#t been a guard on that train the passengers would have been completely on their own. Even then the guard had to restrain people from forcing doors open and walking off down the track; with the attendant danger of juice rails, trains still potentially in movement on the line etc etc. Just turning off the power doesn't necessarily even stop trains and you really don't want a 1,500-tonne freight interfacing suddenly with your face. I was on a train recently where woman had a seizure and it was so ram-packed it took about ten mintues to get through five coaches to reach her. If there's on;y a driver on the train, she gets to lie there and twitch while he parks the train up, goes back to find out why the emergency button was pressed, establishes the cause, goes back to the cab, gets permission from the signaller to move (by now he's lost his pathway and has to follow other trains) and try to get somewhere that an ambulance can RV with the train. She's been dead for twenty minutes by now. There's a massive amount to saftey on rail that isn't solely restricted to making sure fools don't trap themselves in the doors.

[SWTH]

V8 Fettler said:

You're confusing "safe" with "reasonably safe".

As a railwayman I am acutely aware of safety. From my very first day this phrase was drummed into me:

If it's not safe, don't do it.

There is no such thing as "reasonably safe" - either it's safe or it isn't. If you cannot (or, as I suspect will not) grasp that most basic railway operating principle, then further debate with you is pointless.

[Countdown]

Nik da Greek said:

Do you not think that protecting the jobs of their memebership is a fundamental part of the process of Union then?

Yes, but that's not what RMT are saying. They're saying the dispute is about safety. Which suggests that they are being economical with the truth

Nik da Greek said:

The Underground is a bit of an oddity in the world of rail, but despite the fact it has a much more closed and manageable environment in which to operate it still kills more people every year than any other TOC. Safety on the railway in general is something that ticks along at a reasonable percentage most of the time. When something goes wrong, it tends to go catastrophically wrong and its then that the actions of staff are the only mitigating factor.

There was a case recently when a train smashed someone on the line. The driver basically shut down in shock. If there hadn#t been a guard on that train the passengers would have been completely on their own. Even then the guard had to restrain people from forcing doors open and walking off down the track; with the attendant danger of juice rails, trains still potentially in movement on the line etc etc. Just turning off the power doesn't necessarily even stop trains and you really don't want a 1,500-tonne freight interfacing suddenly with your face. I was on a train recently where woman had a seizure and it was so ram-packed it took about ten mintues to get through five coaches to reach her. If there's on;y a driver on the train, she gets to lie there and twitch while he parks the train up, goes back to find out why the emergency button was pressed, establishes the cause, goes back to the cab, gets permission from the signaller to move (by now he's lost his pathway and has to follow other trains) and try to get somewhere that an ambulance can RV with the train. She's been dead for twenty minutes by now. There's a massive amount to saftey on rail that isn't solely restricted to making sure fools don't trap themselves in the doors.

Thanks for that, it's interesting. I suppose the thing is (how often does it happen? If you wanted to take an extreme position you could argue that each train should have a team of A&E staff onboard just in case there's an accident. There's a point where management judgement needs to be applied in relation to what is needed and what can be afforded. As I've mentioned above I don't think RMT are bothered about the safety impact, they're bothered about Guards' jobs (which they're entitled to do, but they shouldn't be doing so under false pretences.

If there IS an accident as a result of staffing reductions then it will be management that will be held liable for the casualties, not RMT or any of its' members.