Given up with Southern Rail.
Discussion
V8 Fettler said:
legzr1 said:
V8 Fettler said:
Those staff that are fed up with dealing with customers shouldn't be dealing with customers, if that means then there's no suitable position for those staff then so be it.
Whatever the railway is about, it shouldn't involve my tax money.
Again, how can expecting good customer service and good value for the taxpayer be regarded as "trolling"?
Get the V8 fettled, just drive and do us all a favour.Whatever the railway is about, it shouldn't involve my tax money.
Again, how can expecting good customer service and good value for the taxpayer be regarded as "trolling"?
Why shouldn't it involve your tax money?
Is your money special and only you can dictate where it's spent?
There should be no entitlement to taxpayer's money for any business operating in a vaguely competitive environment, it reduces the element of competition.
Much of this needs to be seen in context.
Under an EU Directive we were required, as were other EU countries, to introduce Open Access arrangements for the railway infrastructure. To over-simplify, this meant little more than allowing anyone who was qualified to operate a train service to do so, by cobbling together some rolling stock and paying Railtrack (latterly Network Rail) track access charges. As part of this process, the operating and infrastructure arms of the railway were supposed to be separated - presumably it was thought that if train operators were involved with infrastructure they could put spanners in the works of open access.
We have seen such sweet naivety many times emanate from the UK government; it coming from the EU was just a different place for the naivety to originate.
Many other countries simply made this a paper exercise, setting up different companies (state owned or otherwise - in truth that's a bit of a red herring) to operate the trains and maintain the tracks/ signallng etc. Instead of doing that the UK embarked on a totally unnecessary multi-billion £ privatisation exercise. Furthermore, simply separating trains and track operators did not automatically immediately allow open access - for example, try asking anybody who has tried to set up alternative services on the West Coast Main line in the UK, or anybody in France who's company did not have "SNCF" in their name...
Whitehall, in its infinite wisdom, thought that a privatised UK railway network would fall flat on its arse within a few years, but they did appreciate that a collapsed railway network would hurt some parts of the UK more than others, especially in London and the South East where there simply isn't enough road space to accommodate the commuters. The franchises were therefore set up in such a way as to make sure that if the whole thing went tits up. the railways would still run, or at least still run until somebody got out there with some road-building equipment.
Whitehall's confidently expected railway collapse didn't happen, of course, but the way that some franchises are set up (with effectively all the fare income going to the DfT and the companies getting a fee for running the trains) meant that there is precious little incentive for anybody to improve levels of service.
There is of course an incentive within the corridors of the DfT to reduce operating costa and therefore the fees that the companies get paid for operating the services. The silent hands of the DfT are behind this dispute but they are the only ones not getting any blame. A stroke of genius on their part, methinks.
It doesn't take much lateral thought to place the cause of the current shambles on the DfT both now, for being silently behind the goings on, and also in the past for setting up the franhises in the way they did in the first place.
It is a rather curious state of affairs that the railway gets more subsidy from the taxpayer now than it ever did under a nationalised BR, and most of the additional costs are the armies of lawyers and accountants who ended up being employed to keep the unsustainable shambles going in the fist place.
But never mind about all that - its all the belligerent train crews faults for refusing to work their rest days
Here is some background information which goes some way to explain why this issue has arisen and will probably spread DOO working across the country in the future. NR has spent the last few years rolling out a new digital radio network(GSMR), one of the benefits is the ability to call individual trains. The system is also linked to the drivers deadmans(DSD), if the DSD is activated or an emergency brake applicatiokn made then this flags up on the signalbox master GSMR phone, the signaller then contacts the driver, if there is no response the call can be broadcast over the train PA for any staff to contact the signaller. I've first hand experience and will say it's one of the few things NR has done which works as it should. Emergency call put out by another driver is broadcast to all trains within a certain area, they must STOP, in my case probably saved an injured persons life. DOO will spread we can(as employees) see it coming, personally I would rather see my union putting safe gaurds for it's proper working, but I'm not a guard.
Edited by W124Bob on Friday 8th July 22:13
legzr1 said:
V8 Fettler said:
The entitlement culture continues.
There should be no entitlement to taxpayer's money for any business operating in a vaguely competitive environment, it reduces the element of competition.
Fortunately that's not your call is it?There should be no entitlement to taxpayer's money for any business operating in a vaguely competitive environment, it reduces the element of competition.
Suck it up buttercup
rs1952 said:
This thread is beginning to take on the appearance of a Brexit or UKIP thread in NP&E
Much of this needs to be seen in context.
Under an EU Directive we were required, as were other EU countries, to introduce Open Access arrangements for the railway infrastructure. To over-simplify, this meant little more than allowing anyone who was qualified to operate a train service to do so, by cobbling together some rolling stock and paying Railtrack (latterly Network Rail) track access charges. As part of this process, the operating and infrastructure arms of the railway were supposed to be separated - presumably it was thought that if train operators were involved with infrastructure they could put spanners in the works of open access.
We have seen such sweet naivety many times emanate from the UK government; it coming from the EU was just a different place for the naivety to originate.
Many other countries simply made this a paper exercise, setting up different companies (state owned or otherwise - in truth that's a bit of a red herring) to operate the trains and maintain the tracks/ signallng etc. Instead of doing that the UK embarked on a totally unnecessary multi-billion £ privatisation exercise. Furthermore, simply separating trains and track operators did not automatically immediately allow open access - for example, try asking anybody who has tried to set up alternative services on the West Coast Main line in the UK, or anybody in France who's company did not have "SNCF" in their name...
Whitehall, in its infinite wisdom, thought that a privatised UK railway network would fall flat on its arse within a few years, but they did appreciate that a collapsed railway network would hurt some parts of the UK more than others, especially in London and the South East where there simply isn't enough road space to accommodate the commuters. The franchises were therefore set up in such a way as to make sure that if the whole thing went tits up. the railways would still run, or at least still run until somebody got out there with some road-building equipment.
Whitehall's confidently expected railway collapse didn't happen, of course, but the way that some franchises are set up (with effectively all the fare income going to the DfT and the companies getting a fee for running the trains) meant that there is precious little incentive for anybody to improve levels of service.
There is of course an incentive within the corridors of the DfT to reduce operating costa and therefore the fees that the companies get paid for operating the services. The silent hands of the DfT are behind this dispute but they are the only ones not getting any blame. A stroke of genius on their part, methinks.
It doesn't take much lateral thought to place the cause of the current shambles on the DfT both now, for being silently behind the goings on, and also in the past for setting up the franhises in the way they did in the first place.
It is a rather curious state of affairs that the railway gets more subsidy from the taxpayer now than it ever did under a nationalised BR, and most of the additional costs are the armies of lawyers and accountants who ended up being employed to keep the unsustainable shambles going in the fist place.
But never mind about all that - its all the belligerent train crews faults for refusing to work their rest days
The reality is that the Tories had lost their way by the early 1990s, hence the botched privatisation of the railways.Much of this needs to be seen in context.
Under an EU Directive we were required, as were other EU countries, to introduce Open Access arrangements for the railway infrastructure. To over-simplify, this meant little more than allowing anyone who was qualified to operate a train service to do so, by cobbling together some rolling stock and paying Railtrack (latterly Network Rail) track access charges. As part of this process, the operating and infrastructure arms of the railway were supposed to be separated - presumably it was thought that if train operators were involved with infrastructure they could put spanners in the works of open access.
We have seen such sweet naivety many times emanate from the UK government; it coming from the EU was just a different place for the naivety to originate.
Many other countries simply made this a paper exercise, setting up different companies (state owned or otherwise - in truth that's a bit of a red herring) to operate the trains and maintain the tracks/ signallng etc. Instead of doing that the UK embarked on a totally unnecessary multi-billion £ privatisation exercise. Furthermore, simply separating trains and track operators did not automatically immediately allow open access - for example, try asking anybody who has tried to set up alternative services on the West Coast Main line in the UK, or anybody in France who's company did not have "SNCF" in their name...
Whitehall, in its infinite wisdom, thought that a privatised UK railway network would fall flat on its arse within a few years, but they did appreciate that a collapsed railway network would hurt some parts of the UK more than others, especially in London and the South East where there simply isn't enough road space to accommodate the commuters. The franchises were therefore set up in such a way as to make sure that if the whole thing went tits up. the railways would still run, or at least still run until somebody got out there with some road-building equipment.
Whitehall's confidently expected railway collapse didn't happen, of course, but the way that some franchises are set up (with effectively all the fare income going to the DfT and the companies getting a fee for running the trains) meant that there is precious little incentive for anybody to improve levels of service.
There is of course an incentive within the corridors of the DfT to reduce operating costa and therefore the fees that the companies get paid for operating the services. The silent hands of the DfT are behind this dispute but they are the only ones not getting any blame. A stroke of genius on their part, methinks.
It doesn't take much lateral thought to place the cause of the current shambles on the DfT both now, for being silently behind the goings on, and also in the past for setting up the franhises in the way they did in the first place.
It is a rather curious state of affairs that the railway gets more subsidy from the taxpayer now than it ever did under a nationalised BR, and most of the additional costs are the armies of lawyers and accountants who ended up being employed to keep the unsustainable shambles going in the fist place.
But never mind about all that - its all the belligerent train crews faults for refusing to work their rest days
V8 Fettler said:
Most of the state-funded dinosaurs were dismantled courtesy of the Sainted Margaret, here's hoping that Teresa will make her mark in a similar style.
I called Troll but I think Stedman has a better handle on you.You've received some informative posts above - why not stop wasting everyone's time and read them?
V8 Fettler said:
The reality is that the Tories had lost their way by the early 1990s, hence the botched privatisation of the railways.
Not quiteThe tories expected to lose the election in 1992. The fact that they didn't meant that railway privatisation was cocked up through lack of time to think things through after they unexpectedly won it.
Curiously, we are in much the same position today. The tories did not expect to win the 2015 election outright, so they thought they would be prevented from having their EU referendum by their coalition partners.
Just but two examples of how political gambling and predictions can go very wrong with monumental consequences and opportunities for national f
k ups...legzr1 said:
V8 Fettler said:
Most of the state-funded dinosaurs were dismantled courtesy of the Sainted Margaret, here's hoping that Teresa will make her mark in a similar style.
I called Troll but I think Stedman has a better handle on you.You've received some informative posts above - why not stop wasting everyone's time and read them?
rs1952 said:
V8 Fettler said:
The reality is that the Tories had lost their way by the early 1990s, hence the botched privatisation of the railways.
Not quiteThe tories expected to lose the election in 1992. The fact that they didn't meant that railway privatisation was cocked up through lack of time to think things through after they unexpectedly won it.
Curiously, we are in much the same position today. The tories did not expect to win the 2015 election outright, so they thought they would be prevented from having their EU referendum by their coalition partners.
Just but two examples of how political gambling and predictions can go very wrong with monumental consequences and opportunities for national f
k ups...Strong management? You need competent management -from top to the very bottom- who know what they're doing that know how to engage with passengers and staff alike!
As a newbie to the industry I have been astounded to see my goodwill thrown back in my face time and time again.
As a newbie to the industry I have been astounded to see my goodwill thrown back in my face time and time again.
Edited by Stedman on Saturday 9th July 12:24
anonymous said:
[redacted]
GSM-R is a standalone system of communication which works all over the network independent of block working so will work alongside areas using ERTMS (an in-cab signalling system linked to regional ROCs) as well as anywhere else.There are issues in certain areas with black spots but NR are (unusually!) quick to sort this (in most cases...).
It works really well and is a godsend for some of us old enough to remember having to take an analogue hand sent to plug into a phone line several miles from an incident.
Stedman said:
Strong management? You need competent management -from top to the very bottom- who know what they're doing that know how to engage with passengers and staff alike!
As a newbie to the industry I have been astounded to see my goodwill thrown back in my face time and time again.
I have a feeling you're wasting your time.As a newbie to the industry I have been astounded to see my goodwill thrown back in my face time and time again.
Edited by Stedman on Saturday 9th July 12:24
Some can't accept the fact that, just maybe, running an essential transport system might be about more than just squeezing every penny out for shareholders.
Just a guess here but do you think this is the beginning of the 'lets hammer the unions' speech made by some junior non-entity transport minister last year?
They were quick to backtrack without denying the plan.
legzr1 said:
I have a feeling you're wasting your time.
Some can't accept the fact that, just maybe, running an essential transport system might be about more than just squeezing every penny out for shareholders.
Just a guess here but do you think this is the beginning of the 'lets hammer the unions' speech made by some junior non-entity transport minister last year?
They were quick to backtrack without denying the plan.
Are drivers are seeing this already. Didn't GTR say at the MP Select Committee that driver's don't have to work Saturday's OR Sunday's? That's a bit worse than just poor info...but maybe I should keep my mouth shut. These things are being noted. It's a shame the public gobble it up time and time again. Some can't accept the fact that, just maybe, running an essential transport system might be about more than just squeezing every penny out for shareholders.
Just a guess here but do you think this is the beginning of the 'lets hammer the unions' speech made by some junior non-entity transport minister last year?
They were quick to backtrack without denying the plan.
In summary, it's the tip of the iceburg
Edited by Stedman on Saturday 9th July 14:51
No doubt the company you work for has a social media clause so best stick to vague references for obvious reasons.
The public at large don't really care who's doing who's bidding - getting a seat on a service running to schedule trumps front line staff trying to explain why they're prepared to stand for what they think is right.
It's always been this way and will remain that way. Right up to the point that underhand political interference starts to put their job at risk.
Then they'll talk. Then they'll want to listen. Then they'll be surprised when no one gives a st.
And they'll still be asking the same person the same question quietly ignoring the answer, the announcements and the 30Ft neon departure board.
Drivers, guards and on train staff including station staff have my sincere pity - God knows how you deal with it day in, day out.
The public at large don't really care who's doing who's bidding - getting a seat on a service running to schedule trumps front line staff trying to explain why they're prepared to stand for what they think is right.
It's always been this way and will remain that way. Right up to the point that underhand political interference starts to put their job at risk.
Then they'll talk. Then they'll want to listen. Then they'll be surprised when no one gives a s
t.And they'll still be asking the same person the same question quietly ignoring the answer, the announcements and the 30Ft neon departure board.
Drivers, guards and on train staff including station staff have my sincere pity - God knows how you deal with it day in, day out.
tight5 said:
I got the last train from Darlington to Newcastle last night, the amount of verbal abuse the guard (conductor ?) got was appalling. I'm so pleased I don't have self loading cargo !
Don't worry, give it a few years and they'll be no guards to assault, just a load of G4S goons whose only priority will be to penalty fare everyone in sight whilst simultaneously turning a blind eye to any sort of antisocial behaviour happening right beside them.It's alright though, because once the guards, ticket office and station staff are all gone they'll lower the fares.
V8 Fettler said:
I can see nothing in the so-called informative posts that I have "received" that propose a solution to the current problems on Southern Rail. Lock both sides into a room and don't let them out until it's resolved. Alternatively, if DOO can be demonstrated as reasonably safe then sack the guards make the guards redundant. The latter option needs a strong management team, which is sadly lacking.
So presumably you also want the road network privatised and us to pay a charge for every mile we drive?Stedman said:
Strong management? You need competent management -from top to the very bottom- who know what they're doing that know how to engage with passengers and staff alike!
As a newbie to the industry I have been astounded to see my goodwill thrown back in my face time and time again.
If Southern Rail management have made the decision to introduce DOO then it needs to happen quickly, hence strong management. As a newbie to the industry I have been astounded to see my goodwill thrown back in my face time and time again.
Edited by Stedman on Saturday 9th July 12:24
Most rail users would prioritise reliability and punctuality over goodwill.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff