RMT union vote for a national rail strike

[monkfish1]

legzr1 said:

monkfish1 said:

No. The union(s) have ZERO responsibility for safety. None. At all.

It lies with company in question and its employees.

Outside of pay negotiations, the union spends most of its time defending indefensible acts by its members.

Careful use of the wording there.
Well done.

Still, I’m sure you’re away of the significant input from Unions when discussing safety issues aren’t you?
Well, when they’re not ‘defending indefensible acts’ and other anecdotal nonsense.

Careful, maybe. But true nonetheless.

They do indeed have some "input". My statement was they have no responsibility. Which is correct.

We both know they defend the indefensible. Ive seen it often enough.

[monkfish1]

Vasco said:

legzr1 said:

It’s predominantly the heavy freight trains that cause the wear and damage (alongside outside environmental factors).
So far at least, none of the FOCs have experienced industrial action.
Those heavy trains keep on running.


As has been repeated many times in this thread, relax maintenance regimes at ‘your’ peril.

Not really convinced that the senior managers in NR would suggest cutbacks if they weren't safe.

In repeating the same old safety arguments on here ad infinitum it still appears that you and RMT are professing to be more concerned about 'safety' than the people employed by NR to hold that responsibility.

Is that the case?

I think its useful to recognise that NR have a woeful record with regard to how they manage and maintain their infrstructure. And they really need to sort it out. (have a read of the RAIB report on the stonehaven crash. Reads much like many other reports with regard to Network Rail)

However paying people more money or guranteeing no redundacies isnt going to fix that problem, contrary to claims being made.

But who does detail or facts these days?

[Leicester Loyal]

monkfish1 said:

Are you saying you are being rostered MORE than the maximum permitted? If so, you bear some responsibility for that, and should be taking measures to raise that.

No, I am talking about fatigue, stress etc. During a pattern of shifts. What you’ve just said proves my point that it’s just as much my responsibility as the powers above me.

monkfish1 said:

But he forgot to mention the bit that there is other time off instead.

The railway needs staff 7 days a week. If weekends are impoortant to you, and they were to me, change your job. I moved off the tools into the office, almost entirely for that reason.

And if I am forced to do 39 weekends a year, that is exactly what I will try to do. But we aren’t there yet, thankfully.

[Vasco]

Cobnapint said:

monkfish1 said:

No. The union(s) have ZERO responsibility for safety. None. At all.

It lies with company in question and its employees.

Outside of pay negotiations, the union spends most of its time defending indefensible acts by its members.

Lol. If only you knew.

You're probably very right, there seems to be a surprising amount of information gradually coming out.
- we have upsets and tantrums over the employer retaining the right to compulsory redundancy (as they should do), because NR seem to have been 'persuaded' to drop it for the past TWELVE years
- we have a union who originally thought they could demand a pay increase of about 11%
- we have boring repetitive statements that major accidents will happen if staff numbers are reduced
- we have staff with decades of rail experience but, seemingly, little understanding of what/how other jobs are handled in 'the real world'
- we have a Trade Union that is something from the Scargill era
- etc etc

[rjfp1962]

These strikes just keep on coming.......... Must be the oncoming holiday season... kids off..!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62173334

[Welshbeef]

rjfp1962 said:

These strikes just keep on coming.......... Must be the oncoming holiday season... kids off..!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62173334

So 3 days so far then 2 end of July and 2 in August.

7 days loss of pay.

Assuming 226 working days a year 7/226=3%. So these strikers come Sept will have LOST 3% of their salary - what uplift were they seeking originally?

[Leicester Loyal]

Once again, it’s about far more than a payrise. T&Cs, shifts, pensions, job losses.

NR aren’t striking on 30th July btw, we’re 27th.

[Welshbeef]

Leicester Loyal said:

Once again, it’s about far more than a payrise. T&Cs, shifts, pensions, job losses.

NR aren’t striking on 30th July btw, we’re 27th.

Maybe but 3% lost and counting.


LL have you seen any scabs yet or is it still holding together?

[Gareth1974]

Welshbeef said:

rjfp1962 said:

These strikes just keep on coming.......... Must be the oncoming holiday season... kids off..!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62173334

So 3 days so far then 2 end of July and 2 in August.

7 days loss of pay.

Assuming 226 working days a year 7/226=3%. So these strikers come Sept will have LOST 3% of their salary - what uplift were they seeking originally?

You get the benefit of the pay rise for every year you work after it, and it helps your pension too. The money lost on strike days affects that year only.

[legzr1]

monkfish1 said:

Thats just a blanket statement.

The reality is, you tailor maintenance to maintain the assest in an appropiate condition for its use. It goes without saying, that track (and we are not talking just track of course) will wear more quickly with regular freight than it will with a 153 scuttling over it 3 times a day.

As i already said, traffic is down, therefore its logical that the maintenance will be less. Not necessarily proportianlly or indeed at all in some cases.

Having spent way to many years doing exactly this on rail vehicles, one frequently ran into the phropets of doom that you could possibly do "less" maintenance or it would all go wrong.

Of course it was mostly nonsense. There was much scope to change the maintenance to suit the use. In some cases that was less maintenance. Sometimes it was more. Their is certainly no "peril" involved in matching maintenance performed to the requirements.

It just suits now to "pay" the safety card to achieve the end objectives. Im sure if all the demands were met, then all this talk of safety would, magically stop.

As an aside, sadly, the concept of maintenance seems to be lost on most these days. That includes NR.

Well, yeah, I accept most of that but my point remains - most maintenance and repairs are required because of the wear and damage caused by the heavy freight. Passenger numbers may be somewhat reduced compared to the peak some years ago but freight has not been affected anywhere near as much.

PPM and VIBT (as you’re probably aware) cannot be slackened on a (for e.g) BDA steel carrier just because 20% of passengers have chosen to avoid rail travel.
That would make no sense.
Similar to NRs demand for a huge cut in maintenance staff because there are less passenger trains.

In your terms, how would you ‘tailor maintenance’ of the rail and infrastructure ‘asset’ having the same useage but with 50% of the staff?



“ I’m sure if all the demands were met, then all this talk of safety would, magically stop”

Considering one of the demands is to stop the cull of maintenance staff, then, errr…. of course it would stop.

Edited by legzr1 on Friday 15th July 01:06

[legzr1]

monkfish1 said:

I think its useful to recognise that NR have a woeful record with regard to how they manage and maintain their infrstructure. And they really need to sort it out. (have a read of the RAIB report on the stonehaven crash. Reads much like many other reports with regard to Network Rail)

However paying people more money or guranteeing no redundacies isnt going to fix that problem, contrary to claims being made.

But who does detail or facts these days?

Good post

I would add that it’s important to distinguish between voluntary and compulsory redundancies.
(I realise that could provoke a mini-rant from Vasco so advance apologies….)

And your last question - the body you’ve already mentioned - RAIB !

[legzr1]

Welshbeef said:

Maybe but 3% lost and counting.

There is no ‘maybe’.

It is as LL describes.

[Vasco]

legzr1 said:

monkfish1 said:

I think its useful to recognise that NR have a woeful record with regard to how they manage and maintain their infrstructure. And they really need to sort it out. (have a read of the RAIB report on the stonehaven crash. Reads much like many other reports with regard to Network Rail)

However paying people more money or guranteeing no redundacies isnt going to fix that problem, contrary to claims being made.

But who does detail or facts these days?

Good post

I would add that it’s important to distinguish between voluntary and compulsory redundancies.
(I realise that could provoke a mini-rant from Vasco so advance apologies….)

And your last question - the body you’ve already mentioned - RAIB !

You should be delighted today at the thought of RMT now also being on strike on the 18th and 20th August.
Well done all of you, that should help the confidence in railways.....

[Welshbeef]

Gareth1974 said:

Welshbeef said:

rjfp1962 said:

These strikes just keep on coming.......... Must be the oncoming holiday season... kids off..!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62173334

So 3 days so far then 2 end of July and 2 in August.

7 days loss of pay.

Assuming 226 working days a year 7/226=3%. So these strikers come Sept will have LOST 3% of their salary - what uplift were they seeking originally?

You get the benefit of the pay rise for every year you work after it, and it helps your pension too. The money lost on strike days affects that year only.

Thanks for that rolleyes

[monkfish1]

legzr1 said:

In your terms, how would you ‘tailor maintenance’ of the rail and infrastructure ‘asset’ having the same useage but with 50% of the staff?

Edited by legzr1 on Friday 15th July 01:06

AS im sure you will appreciate thats not going to get answered in a forum post as its a whole subject all on its own

Suffice to say, there are lots of ways to do it by replacing people with equipment. Thats a never ending process as the technology becomes available. And has been going on since railways were invented.

Additionally there will be efficiencies to be had by changing working practices and processes. Though NR in particular dont help themselves on that front.

There WILL be areas where more maintenance than is actually necessary is done. Needs identifying and changing. The railway is littered with stuff being done, because thats what we have always done. Again, the current NR structure makes that less likely to be succesful.

But, if the decisions have to be made to go beyond what can be achieved by those means, due to budgetry contraints leading to less staff available, there comes a point where reducing the standard of maintenance becomes necessary. By that, if we take track for example, means reduction in speed. No doubt if it comes to that there will be wails of protest from operators, but as they are all under government control, they will have to suck it up.

There no law that says any specific piece of railway must be maintained for 125mph running for example. If the government of the day dont want to pay for that, so be it. Cut back accordingly. Thats for NR to manage.

If there is a reduced budget, then cut your cloth to suit. Thats real life. The railway doesnt exist in isolation, and is ultimately largely funded by the tax payer. The whole situation is not helped by the fact that everything on the railway now costs so much compared when, for example, it was BR. But then wages were very low then too.

[irc]

legzr1 said:

Well, yeah, I accept most of that but my point remains - most maintenance and repairs are required because of the wear and damage caused by the heavy freight.

I hadn't thought of that. Is it similar to roads where damage is vastly increased as axle load goes up. A 40 ton truck does 2500 times the damage a car does?

How heavy are freights compared to passenger trains?

[Vasco]

monkfish1 said:

legzr1 said:

In your terms, how would you ‘tailor maintenance’ of the rail and infrastructure ‘asset’ having the same useage but with 50% of the staff?

Edited by legzr1 on Friday 15th July 01:06

AS im sure you will appreciate thats not going to get answered in a forum post as its a whole subject all on its own

Suffice to say, there are lots of ways to do it by replacing people with equipment. Thats a never ending process as the technology becomes available. And has been going on since railways were invented.

Additionally there will be efficiencies to be had by changing working practices and processes. Though NR in particular dont help themselves on that front.

There WILL be areas where more maintenance than is actually necessary is done. Needs identifying and changing. The railway is littered with stuff being done, because thats what we have always done. Again, the current NR structure makes that less likely to be succesful.

But, if the decisions have to be made to go beyond what can be achieved by those means, due to budgetry contraints leading to less staff available, there comes a point where reducing the standard of maintenance becomes necessary. By that, if we take track for example, means reduction in speed. No doubt if it comes to that there will be wails of protest from operators, but as they are all under government control, they will have to suck it up.

There no law that says any specific piece of railway must be maintained for 125mph running for example. If the government of the day dont want to pay for that, so be it. Cut back accordingly. Thats for NR to manage.

If there is a reduced budget, then cut your cloth to suit. Thats real life. The railway doesnt exist in isolation, and is ultimately largely funded by the tax payer. The whole situation is not helped by the fact that everything on the railway now costs so much compared when, for example, it was BR. But then wages were very low then too.

Excellent, a pragmatic post from someone who actually knows.

Thank you.

[legzr1]

monkfish1 said:

AS im sure you will appreciate thats not going to get answered in a forum post as its a whole subject all on its own

Suffice to say, there are lots of ways to do it by replacing people with equipment. Thats a never ending process as the technology becomes available. And has been going on since railways were invented.

Additionally there will be efficiencies to be had by changing working practices and processes. Though NR in particular dont help themselves on that front.

There WILL be areas where more maintenance than is actually necessary is done. Needs identifying and changing. The railway is littered with stuff being done, because thats what we have always done. Again, the current NR structure makes that less likely to be succesful.

But, if the decisions have to be made to go beyond what can be achieved by those means, due to budgetry contraints leading to less staff available, there comes a point where reducing the standard of maintenance becomes necessary. By that, if we take track for example, means reduction in speed. No doubt if it comes to that there will be wails of protest from operators, but as they are all under government control, they will have to suck it up.

There no law that says any specific piece of railway must be maintained for 125mph running for example. If the government of the day dont want to pay for that, so be it. Cut back accordingly. Thats for NR to manage.

If there is a reduced budget, then cut your cloth to suit. Thats real life. The railway doesnt exist in isolation, and is ultimately largely funded by the tax payer. The whole situation is not helped by the fact that everything on the railway now costs so much compared when, for example, it was BR. But then wages were very low then too.

If you’re prepared to post a topic on it I’m prepared to participate.
Genuinely, I’m always interested in the views of others in the industry at the ‘sharp end’. Over the years, I’ve picked up lots of info from gangs on T111s, Picops sat on locos and the poor buggers hoisting 30T wagons up to replace a wheel set. I’ve been educated, on occasion even humbled - in return they get a quick rundown of the difference between perceived ‘you only pull levers’ to actual facts.

Rose-tinted times …. as simple boys with less than a week on the railway we were taken around depots, stations, signal boxes etc and given the opportunity to see how it works. In return, we’d have the occasional signaller or ES turn up for a quick ride out on a local freight service.
It worked well, each having their eyes opened.

That hasn’t happened for decades. The benefits cannot be costed. And, even if they were, who would pay? It’s a real shame. Anyway….

I remember only too well the great gauge corner cracking debacle. Ultimately, that’s where your overall idea would lead us all - a network littered with 20mph ESRs, journey lengths increased five fold, five sets of train crew required where two used to cover the journey and serious and permanent damage to freight customers (some of who never returned to rail).

Vast swathes of the infrastructure are approaching saturation point. No new paths to be had. Reducing maintenance leading to reduced speeds cannot and will not help.

There is a balance to be had.

Passenger rail has skewed too far towards ‘for profit’ for private entities and away from an essential social service, paid for by tax payers for the benefit of tax payers. Again, probably a subject for a different topic.

B.R. - if only the cash spent on half-arsed privatisation was thrown at BR in the latter days rather than the planned and systematic starvation of funds I’d guess we’d all be in a better place.

Who knows? Perhaps even equal to Spain who have announced free travel for most local and provincial services. A tax-payer funded passenger system for the benefit of all.

[legzr1]

irc said:

I hadn't thought of that. Is it similar to roads where damage is vastly increased as axle load goes up. A 40 ton truck does 2500 times the damage a car does?

How heavy are freights compared to passenger trains?

If you stood near the rail (safely of course ) at a level crossing for example you can hear and feel the impact of a 3000 tonne train travelling at 60mph. A typical passenger train travelling at twice the speed but weighing 90% less creates nowhere near the amount of stress.

That’s a simplistic view. Axle loadings (in particular),differential speed limits and rail curvature all play a part too. Lots of the heaviest UK freight are 100T gross wagons spread over 4 axles giving a limit of 25T axle loading. These flag up ‘exceptional loads’ and speed restrictions are required. Overall, far far greater loadings than your average DMU or EMU passenger stock.

[monkfish1]

legzr1 said:

I remember only too well the great gauge corner cracking debacle. Ultimately, that’s where your overall idea would lead us all - a network littered with 20mph ESRs, journey lengths increased five fold, five sets of train crew required where two used to cover the journey and serious and permanent damage to freight customers (some of who never returned to rail).

Vast swathes of the infrastructure are approaching saturation point. No new paths to be had. Reducing maintenance leading to reduced speeds cannot and will not help.

There is a balance to be had.

Passenger rail has skewed too far towards ‘for profit’ for private entities and away from an essential social service, paid for by tax payers for the benefit of tax payers. Again, probably a subject for a different topic.

B.R. - if only the cash spent on half-arsed privatisation was thrown at BR in the latter days rather than the planned and systematic starvation of funds I’d guess we’d all be in a better place.

Who knows? Perhaps even equal to Spain who have announced free travel for most local and provincial services. A tax-payer funded passenger system for the benefit of all.

My "idea" wont necessarily, nor should, lead to a similar fiasco. TSRs or ESR's are because maintenance HASNT been done at the required time. Reduction of maintenance in line with a lower targeted standard is something different. The gauge corner craking situation occured precisely because maintenance wasnt done that should have been done.. Im not proposing to abandon maintenance, but to do the right maintenance based on use AND budgetry limitations. With respect, you need to seperate the 2 issues. Your conflating of 2 seperate issues is everything thats wrong with the debate.

Journey time increasing five fold is just exageration, and based on your theroy of speed restrictions, which as per above doesnt apply. Does the GWML need to be 125mph? If it was 100 or even 80mph, what would happen? A few minutes extra on journey times. Dont be sensationalist. Doesnt help.

Again "vast swathes" of the network are not at saturation point. Even less post covid. There are "some" parts at saturation. Again, less sensationalisim would be good.

And again, you seem to be out of date on passenger rail. All under DFT control on cost + contracts. Any extra profit goes straight back to the DFT. Time to stop peddeling the "fat cats taking all the profits" line. Its over. Its now to all intents under state control. EXACTLY what the unions have been pushing for all along.

The "balance" as you call it is for the government to decide. They have decided to spend less on rail. That means less money. Combined with less income, inevitably means less "railway". I say again, do you really think its resonable for the public to continue to fund the railway "as was" even when there isnt the demand that there was?

Privatisation was done. We cant change the past, much as we might like to. However, the starved of funds, again, is a nonsense. Subsidy, even pre-covid is running at something like 5 times the level it was under BR.

I think you spend too much time listening to uninformed mess room claptrap, rather than understanding the bigger and true picture. And would do well to understand how one decides what maintenance to do to an assest, whatever it might be, railway related or otherwise.

I dont want to see a railway in decline, but times change. Covid saw government (rightly or wrongly) put pressure on people to stop travelling. So they did. They made alternative arrangements. Many realised the modern railway is often unreliable and their new found alternative actually better. They wont come back. Add in WFH and you have the conditions that lead to where we are now. Passenger numbers stuck at anything from 60-80% of pre covid.

Going on strike makes it more unreliable. No long term good will come of it.