RMT union vote for a national rail strike

[Cobnapint]

Ouroboros said:

So far this year rail passenger usage is down nearly 40% on 2019 figures, what is the government supposed to do? Pay people to stand around?

You think that just because passenger numbers are down the track, signalling, bridges, OHL equipment, rolling stock, motive power, tunnels, IT equipment, control centres, signal boxes and all the rest of it can be just left to rot?
The weekly number of passengers using the trains doesn't in anyway equate to the number of people standing around.

This is one of the contentious points of the strikes, NR want to cut back the maintenance schedules for much of the kit the trains actually run on.

[FiF]

JagLover said:

ChocolateFrog said:

Have we had this.

BBC News - Thousands of PwC staff to get 9% pay rise to offset cost of living
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-61941595

It's ok for well paid white collar workers, just not us unionised folk.

So a profitable private sector organisation can increase salaries at between 7%-9% while likely also raising their fees by at least 5%. Unless they are asking the government to fund this pay rise then it is hard to see the relevance here.

The railways lose money and the only way to fund large pay rises is to reform how it works or increase the public subsidy.

There is no comparison. If the private sector organisation operating in a competitive market raises it's costs and prices in order to remain profitable then the market will rule and they will have to change.

In terms of railways, it seems that some think there is no real competition. Well there is. Whilst I don't care for Grant Shapps I do agree with his point thus "After two dark years, which left passenger numbers down by a fifth, this should be the railways’ comeback moment. It’s the first normal summer since 2019. The country is out of lockdown, longing to go and have fun again, and people are driving less as the cost of fuel rises.

Instead, last week rail workers told those would-be customers – the people who pay their wages and rescued their industry – to push off. And so they did."

And many will continue to push off. Many instances over the years where organisations have indicated their customers are not that important to them, and the response is that works both ways.

Frankly I'd already told the railways to push off, no more rail commuting into Worcester and Birmingham. Drive every time. As for longer journeys? I'm reminded of a visit to Edinburgh Festival by train. Return journey if we'd walked to the hotel car park and set off driving home at the same time we entered Edinburgh Waverley Station, by car we'd have been home and settled plus had a decent lunch stop at Tebay services by the time we were still in New Street waiting for the connection to Worcester and of course cheaper. Not going to include the other issues of the service level.

[Ouroboros]

Cobnapint said:

This is one of the contentious points of the strikes, NR want to cut back the maintenance schedules for much of the kit the trains actually run on.

citation for this.

you really can't be that pigheaded to see the cost of the rail is directly related to how many people actually use it. If those numbers decline then obviously you need less people, and i would say there are people that work in stations etc not needed.
Can they be retrained to work on the rails, probably now, so what to do huh?

it is funny really as this strike will further push people to not use the rail.

the problem the union has it has backed into a corner, you have workers have station staff, cleaners that will be head counted against the actual number of passengers. So the union has blanket protected all staff, when to anyone outside this industry can see less passenger numbers, means less staff.

Edited by Ouroboros on Monday 27th June 09:37

[dcb]

Cobnapint said:

This is one of the contentious points of the strikes, NR want to cut back the maintenance schedules for much of the kit the trains actually run on.

I'd be happy with that. What price safety ? There is a point where
the railways are "safe enough" and more safety effort isn't very beneficial.

There were AFAIK 2 passenger fatalities on National Rail in 2021.

https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/statistics/health-an...

Numbers could be ten times as many, and it wouldn't make much difference to anything
in a nation of 60 million folks.

For reference, IIRC about 1,700 die on UK roads every year and no one fusses enough
to avoid driving. It's a reasonable risk.

RMT need to stop trying to achieve perfection at any tax payer funded price and realise
their members live in the real world of reasonable risk.

[Cobnapint]

It would have been the railways comeback moment had the government not chosen to use the pandemic as a reason to attack pay, conditions, and coming up in 2024, the pension.
The government are behaving as if all railway workers should be on their knees, clasping their hands together in gratefulness that Westminster threw £16bn at the railway during Covid.
This is a complete twisting of the facts. The money was to replace the money lost in fare revenue.
The staff worked through it, many catching Covid in the process, to keep much needed freight on the move and the skeleton passenger service.
Each member of staff received a glowing thank you from the top man. Everybody knew what was coming next.

[irc]

Cobnapint said:

You think that just because passenger numbers are down the track, signalling, bridges, OHL equipment, rolling stock, motive power, tunnels, IT equipment, control centres, signal boxes and all the rest of it can be just left to rot?
The weekly number of passengers using the trains doesn't in anyway equate to the number of people standing around.

This is one of the contentious points of the strikes, NR want to cut back the maintenance schedules for much of the kit the trains actually run on.

It is a fair point. Some costs are fixed. Unless of course you close little used lines.

Times change.

[Darth Paul]

I’ll add my six pence as a potential rail user. My office has now been moved from 7 miles away to 31 miles away. The old offices only public transport option was taking two buses and doubling the journey time so the car was the only real option.
The new place has a train station right outside, and I can take a short ebike ride to my local train station for a direct run, so the train should be a viable option.
When it comes to cost, even my car which I just about eek out mid to high 30’s mpg, the train is only marginally cheaper on a single ticket journey and probably adds another 15 mins to the commute. Reliability, even before the strikes, it was extremely hit and miss, with daily cancellations and delays the norm. If I was in the office 5 days a week, then it would be a no brainer of getting a monthly pass and sucking it up. But with the expected trips in at twice a month at the most, I might as well not bother and just drive. If it was decently cheaper than the car and reliable I’d happily take the train, but currently, why would I bother?

[egomeister]

dcb said:

Cobnapint said:

This is one of the contentious points of the strikes, NR want to cut back the maintenance schedules for much of the kit the trains actually run on.

I'd be happy with that. What price safety ? There is a point where
the railways are "safe enough" and more safety effort isn't very beneficial.

There were AFAIK 2 passenger fatalities on National Rail in 2021.

https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/statistics/health-an...

Numbers could be ten times as many, and it wouldn't make much difference to anything
in a nation of 60 million folks.

For reference, IIRC about 1,700 die on UK roads every year and no one fusses enough
to avoid driving. It's a reasonable risk.

RMT need to stop trying to achieve perfection at any tax payer funded price and realise
their members live in the real world of reasonable risk.

Changes to maintenance schedules don't necessarily have to be at the cost of safety.

I can't speak for the proposed changes in this case, but if you take the example of something like a bearing you can see how this might work (and in fact improve safety and reliability). Conventionally a bearing might be serviced or replaced on a miles or hours basis, but with modern tech it's performance can now be monitored live allowing you to carry out maintenance based on condition rather than time as an approximation for condition.

[Cobnapint]

Ouroboros said:

citation for this.

you really can't be that pigheaded to see the cost of the rail is directly related to how many people actually use it. If those numbers decline then obviously you need less people, and i would say there are people that work in stations etc not needed.
Can they be retrained to work on the rails, probably now, so what to do huh?

it is funny really as this strike will further push people to not use the rail.

the problem the union has it has backed into a corner, you have workers have station staff, cleaners that will be head counted against the actual number of passengers. So the union has blanket protected all staff, when to anyone outside this industry can see less passenger numbers, means less staff.

Station staff? They're a drop in a very big ocean in the big scheme of things. But still, it doesn't matter if you have 100 trains stop at your station or 60, you still need dispatchers there to do the job. And cleaners.
Same goes for signallers, track and signalling maintenance staff. The kit needs maintaining to NR and DfT standards, the signalbox or control centre still needs manning.

[JagLover]

egomeister said:

Changes to maintenance schedules don't necessarily have to be at the cost of safety.

I can't speak for the proposed changes in this case, but if you take the example of something like a bearing you can see how this might work (and in fact improve safety and reliability). Conventionally a bearing might be serviced or replaced on a miles or hours basis, but with modern tech it's performance can now be monitored live allowing you to carry out maintenance based on condition rather than time as an approximation for condition.

The politicians may be lying of course but they are saying that under the current rules you have to send a team out to fix a problem that could be fixed by one person.

The real world example given was if you needed three people to come and fit a new washing machine, each to perform a different role.

That very much sounds like extra costs caused by union demarcation rules rather than proposals to save money by skimping on essential maintenance.

[Cobnapint]

dcb said:

I'd be happy with that. What price safety ? There is a point where
the railways are "safe enough" and more safety effort isn't very beneficial.

There were AFAIK 2 passenger fatalities on National Rail in 2021.

https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/statistics/health-an...

Numbers could be ten times as many, and it wouldn't make much difference to anything
in a nation of 60 million folks.

For reference, IIRC about 1,700 die on UK roads every year and no one fusses enough
to avoid driving. It's a reasonable risk.

RMT need to stop trying to achieve perfection at any tax payer funded price and realise
their members live in the real world of reasonable risk.

So if a member of your close family were killed or significantly injured in a train crash and the inquiry reported that there were deficiencies in the maintenance regime carried out on the set of points or level crossing responsible, you'd sit back and take one for the team would you...?

Thought not.

[bad company]

Someone sent me this. Fair enough imo.

[Ouroboros]

heres a good statistic

https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/media/2024/station-u...

''There were just five stations in Great Britain with more than 10 million entries and exits in
2020-21 compared with 43 stations in 2019-20. ''

drill down on those stations, if that isn't a sign of the times what is?

Will be interesting to see number 2021-2022, and doesnt really stand up to argument that 16 billion went on lost tickets numbers only.

[Cobnapint]

JagLover said:

The politicians may be lying of course but they are saying that under the current rules you have to send a team out to fix a problem that could be fixed by one person.

The real world example given was if you needed three people to come and fit a new washing machine, each to perform a different role.

That very much sounds like extra costs caused by union demarcation rules rather than proposals to save money by skimping on essential maintenance.

The 3 people in separate vans line is probably a legacy story from the height of the Covid period when yes, for safety reasons (and all agreed by NR with the Unions I hasten to add), staff travelled to site in separate vehicles.
'A problem on the track' could mean anything from a dead body, a vehicle, a track safety issue or a signalling equipment failure. Whatever it was, it was still dealt with and dealt with in the safe manner agreed to by NR.

[egomeister]

JagLover said:

The politicians may be lying of course but they are saying that under the current rules you have to send a team out to fix a problem that could be fixed by one person.

The real world example given was if you needed three people to come and fit a new washing machine, each to perform a different role.

That very much sounds like extra costs caused by union demarcation rules rather than proposals to save money by skimping on essential maintenance.

That doesn't sound good.

It reminds me of something my boss at an old job told me. He had taken some stuff we'd developed to be rig tested at a big US car maker. He got stuck in getting everything built up mechanically with the techs and then went to start connecting up the couple of bits of associated wiring only to be told in no uncertain terms that he couldn't do that because the electrical guys were covered by a different union to the mechanical guys and it would all kick off if they touched the wiring. Half a day later the electrical guy turned up and did his 5 min of work and they could continue begin the testing...

[FiF]

JagLover said:

egomeister said:

Changes to maintenance schedules don't necessarily have to be at the cost of safety.

I can't speak for the proposed changes in this case, but if you take the example of something like a bearing you can see how this might work (and in fact improve safety and reliability). Conventionally a bearing might be serviced or replaced on a miles or hours basis, but with modern tech it's performance can now be monitored live allowing you to carry out maintenance based on condition rather than time as an approximation for condition.

The politicians may be lying of course but they are saying that under the current rules you have to send a team out to fix a problem that could be fixed by one person.

The real world example given was if you needed three people to come and fit a new washing machine, each to perform a different role.

That very much sounds like extra costs caused by union demarcation rules rather than proposals to save money by skimping on essential maintenance.

Not to mention maintenance staff at Kings Cross can't work on an issue at Euston, 5 minutes walk away, because it's in a different region, a different 1920's region.

If these allegations aren't true then a rebuttal is presumably forthcoming.

In previous working positions many of us have been sent to work in different cities, regions, even countries. If you didn't want to do it and prepared to work under the terms offered the location of the exit door was very evident.

[stitched]

legzr1 said:

stitched said:

It will not however be that bumpy.
We have, through necessity, learned to live without the 'service' you provide at an extortionate cost.
This action, taking place at a moment in time where almost all commuters employers have systems in place for them working from home, is ludicrous.
The only people you are inconveniencing at the minute are your bread and butter day trippers, and guess what?
They don't need you and will do without you.
I know my multinational business, which transports milk all over the country, would rather pay the extra for road haulage than rely on a petulant, unreliable service.
When the hols are over and you get the extortionate demands met what are the plans if there aren't any customers?

I’m sure the railway will miss you and your rather petulant little rants.

Your company or the company you work for?
Is milk transport actually a thing by rail?
Will you be dismissing the BA dispute because milk doesn’t go by air?

For the record, I don’t provide any service to you.
So even I won’t be missing you too much.

Is that you done now or do you have another half-arsed rant?


ETA:

Not that this is a popularity contest in the way Government seem to introduce legislation but:

Edited by legzr1 on Sunday 26th June 19:20

I do not think you get me exactly, I'm sure the rail industry will not miss me or my 'petulant little rants, however I and most would not miss the rail industry, You have become, through your own actions, an expensive, underperfoming, luxury which we do not need.
Close it down for me

[legzr1]

bad company said:

Someone sent me this. Fair enough imo.

Someone posted this. I know Kevin is not on strike. I thought someone doesn’t know what they’re talking about. Fair enough imo.

[legzr1]

Cobnapint said:

It would have been the railways comeback moment had the government not chosen to use the pandemic as a reason to attack pay, conditions, and coming up in 2024, the pension.
The government are behaving as if all railway workers should be on their knees, clasping their hands together in gratefulness that Westminster threw £16bn at the railway during Covid.
This is a complete twisting of the facts. The money was to replace the money lost in fare revenue.
The staff worked through it, many catching Covid in the process, to keep much needed freight on the move and the skeleton passenger service.
Each member of staff received a glowing thank you from the top man. Everybody knew what was coming next.

You do realise that factual responses to dumb posts only results in further dumb posts don’t you?

[Ouroboros]

Reminds me of the virgin train drivers who when they retire got 100% pensions.

"But what about my overtime payments".

Basically moaning that because it didn't include overtime payments only salary. Used to make me laugh how good they had it, whilst millions in the real world struggle with real problems.