RMT union vote for a national rail strike

[legzr1]

Vasco said:

legzr1 said:

Vasco said:

Any organisation dealing with staff where T+Cs need updating are perfectly capable of using a sliding scale of rewards - i.e ....3% for accepting A+B, 5% for A+B+C or 7% for A+B+C+D. It's really not difficult.


.

But you said:

Vasco said:

In future, I'm assuming that there won't be any pay offer at all if T+C changes aren't first agreed and accepted

.

So which is it?

1.“Here’s the changes demanded. Agree then we’ll talk £££” or
2. “Here’s the changes demanded along with what we’ll pay for each change”.

You suggested the first to which I replied only a fool would accept.
Apparently it’s really not difficult…


Rather moot anyway considering the U-turn and end of industrial action.

Oh dear, you really need to think this through better, I thought we were making some progress.

1 = if Union says it won't accept any changes to T+Cs. No further increases are paid.

2= an example of how % increases could be applied.

Not sure why you think it's a moot point already. No T+Cs have yet been achieved.

As is the norm when you’re involved in this thread, we seem to be going around in circles.

T&C changes will not and never will be accepted and a deal agreed until the discussion involves £££.
They cannot be separated. Unless you’re a fool.

Please tell me you understand this.

It’s moot because RMT have called a halt to industrial action.

[legzr1]

survivalist said:

It makes sense to keep certain stations staffed, but it makes zero sense to have staff dedicated to ticket sales given how many are purchased at machines, online or monthly / annually.

Given the attitude of our government and the rail industry I recon people will be travelling in self driving cars long before we modernise the rail network.

Sadly I think rail travel is close to a tipping point in the UK. Unless attitudes change then the next couple of debates will see a decrease in investment, with the focus on keeping commuting routes open and profitable and the slow death of everything else.

Despite the green / sustainable agenda, no one wants to invest in long term projects - it’s all cost with the benefits decades away - see HS2.

Can’t see what will halt the decline.

Fair points.

I wish I had the all the answers but after the last decade or so (including a pandemic) I’m looking at getting out of the industry.

Your comment about self-driving cars and modernisation of the railway has been covered in depth in this thread. It suggests you think the railway will never ‘modernise’ even though some of us have gone to great lengths to explain that the railway is in a constant state of modernisation.
Please just accept that fact as I really can’t be bothered to explain it all again.

HS2 - Arrggg. There’s a whole thread about it. Personally, I think it is a lost opportunity- a project of that size and cost really should have had some talented PR companies at the start to dumb down and/or explain the real benefits.

Your third paragraph seems to be forecasting a Beetching V2. God help us…

[legzr1]

alangla said:

In terms of how you decentralise, as I understand it, basically consolidating to something about the scale of a traditional BR power box or two, rather than more mega ROCs like York etc!

Sorry, missed this earlier.

Ok, It sounds like the idea is to halt the expansion of more ROCs (and obvious closure of IECC and smaller boxes) rather than a full return to the way it was before ROCs were built.

That could work.

[Vasco]

legzr1 said:

Vasco said:

legzr1 said:

Vasco said:

Any organisation dealing with staff where T+Cs need updating are perfectly capable of using a sliding scale of rewards - i.e ....3% for accepting A+B, 5% for A+B+C or 7% for A+B+C+D. It's really not difficult.


.

But you said:

Vasco said:

In future, I'm assuming that there won't be any pay offer at all if T+C changes aren't first agreed and accepted

.

So which is it?

1.“Here’s the changes demanded. Agree then we’ll talk £££” or
2. “Here’s the changes demanded along with what we’ll pay for each change”.

You suggested the first to which I replied only a fool would accept.
Apparently it’s really not difficult…


Rather moot anyway considering the U-turn and end of industrial action.

Oh dear, you really need to think this through better, I thought we were making some progress.

1 = if Union says it won't accept any changes to T+Cs. No further increases are paid.

2= an example of how % increases could be applied.

Not sure why you think it's a moot point already. No T+Cs have yet been achieved.

As is the norm when you’re involved in this thread, we seem to be going around in circles.

T&C changes will not and never will be accepted and a deal agreed until the discussion involves £££.
They cannot be separated. Unless you’re a fool.

Please tell me you understand this.

It’s moot because RMT have called a halt to industrial action.

You really are heavy going when you clearly don't understand that there is more than just your own preferred way forward.

By all means come back if you can understand that others may have alternative views.

[legzr1]

Vasco said:

You really are heavy going when you clearly don't understand that there is more than just your own preferred way forward.

By all means come back if you can understand that others may have alternative views.

On the contrary, I’m fully aware of negotiation tactics and how any talks work.

Never have I seen any Union agree to a package including significant changes to T&Cs, compulsory redundancies and re-deployment without first hearing what the other side of the deal is.
That’s based on 35 years in the industry with various operations.

Your assumption is based on what?
Wishful thinking? Foolishness perhaps?

I’ll repeat the phrase you posted that makes no sense:

“ In future, I'm assuming that there won't be any pay offer at all if T+C changes aren't first agreed and accepted”

If you’re going to repeat the same nonsense and go around in circles yet again then save your time.
If you happen on a moment of clarity or even an example of where any industry has accepted wholesale changes and then decided to talk cash then please describe it.

I won’t hold my breath.

[Vasco]

legzr1 said:

Vasco said:

You really are heavy going when you clearly don't understand that there is more than just your own preferred way forward.

By all means come back if you can understand that others may have alternative views.

On the contrary, I’m fully aware of negotiation tactics and how any talks work.

Never have I seen any Union agree to a package including significant changes to T&Cs, compulsory redundancies and re-deployment without first hearing what the other side of the deal is.
That’s based on 35 years in the industry with various operations.

Your assumption is based on what?
Wishful thinking? Foolishness perhaps?

I’ll repeat the phrase you posted that makes no sense:

“ In future, I'm assuming that there won't be any pay offer at all if T+C changes aren't first agreed and accepted”

If you’re going to repeat the same nonsense and go around in circles yet again then save your time.
If you happen on a moment of clarity or even an example of where any industry has accepted wholesale changes and then decided to talk cash then please describe it.

I won’t hold my breath.

Please don't hold your breath, you're clearly never going to understand.

I am sure that we both have better things to do.

Let me know if you have any fresh thinking.

[legzr1]

As I thought, as is the norm.

[loafer123]

Vasco said:

legzr1 said:

Vasco said:

You really are heavy going when you clearly don't understand that there is more than just your own preferred way forward.

By all means come back if you can understand that others may have alternative views.

On the contrary, I’m fully aware of negotiation tactics and how any talks work.

Never have I seen any Union agree to a package including significant changes to T&Cs, compulsory redundancies and re-deployment without first hearing what the other side of the deal is.
That’s based on 35 years in the industry with various operations.

Your assumption is based on what?
Wishful thinking? Foolishness perhaps?

I’ll repeat the phrase you posted that makes no sense:

“ In future, I'm assuming that there won't be any pay offer at all if T+C changes aren't first agreed and accepted”

If you’re going to repeat the same nonsense and go around in circles yet again then save your time.
If you happen on a moment of clarity or even an example of where any industry has accepted wholesale changes and then decided to talk cash then please describe it.

I won’t hold my breath.

Please don't hold your breath, you're clearly never going to understand.

I am sure that we both have better things to do.

Let me know if you have any fresh thinking.

Perhaps I can translate.

The rail unions are open to negotiating changes to terms and conditions as long as they involve no loss of jobs, higher salaries and no material changes in terms and conditions.

Anyone who doesn’t think they are being flexible is clearly delusional.

[Chrisgr31]

JagLover said:

Graveworm said:

Chrisgr31 said:

If the rail companies were allowed to negotiate they woudnt need luck! The strikes have been caused by the government not allowing the rail companies to negotiate.

Keeping saying something doesn't make it so. If you assert something up to you to prove it. If you mean that rail companies funding comes from the government and they have to negotiate within their means then that's not the same as unable to negotiate.

Indeed

To repeat what some seem to be ignoring. We have a nationalised rail industry in all but name now. The ticket revenue goes to the government. The train operating companies are paid most of their costs plus a management charge.

If costs go up then the government pays so how exactly they can be excluded from the negotiation process isn't clear.

This explains the structure
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/dft-pay...

There is talk of modifying this to increase commercial freedom in future.

The Government has a choice, they give the rail companies the ability to negotiate a deal or the government negotiate the deal themselves.

At the moment the government are trying to say the negotiations are the responsibility of the rail companies when they clearly aren't.

I have complained about the lack of compensation for season ticket holders when advice not to travel is given. I have a response from Southern clearly saying its DfT decision. I have a response from Huw Merriman which blames the rail company!

Its cost the conservatives my membership and vote. In fact I will actively campaign against them as they cant be straight with the public.

[survivalist]

legzr1 said:

survivalist said:

It makes sense to keep certain stations staffed, but it makes zero sense to have staff dedicated to ticket sales given how many are purchased at machines, online or monthly / annually.

Given the attitude of our government and the rail industry I recon people will be travelling in self driving cars long before we modernise the rail network.

Sadly I think rail travel is close to a tipping point in the UK. Unless attitudes change then the next couple of debates will see a decrease in investment, with the focus on keeping commuting routes open and profitable and the slow death of everything else.

Despite the green / sustainable agenda, no one wants to invest in long term projects - it’s all cost with the benefits decades away - see HS2.

Can’t see what will halt the decline.

Fair points.

I wish I had the all the answers but after the last decade or so (including a pandemic) I’m looking at getting out of the industry.

Your comment about self-driving cars and modernisation of the railway has been covered in depth in this thread. It suggests you think the railway will never ‘modernise’ even though some of us have gone to great lengths to explain that the railway is in a constant state of modernisation.
Please just accept that fact as I really can’t be bothered to explain it all again.

HS2 - Arrggg. There’s a whole thread about it. Personally, I think it is a lost opportunity- a project of that size and cost really should have had some talented PR companies at the start to dumb down and/or explain the real benefits.

Your third paragraph seems to be forecasting a Beetching V2. God help us…

I’m not saying that rail isn’t modernising, I’m saying that the pace at which it is happening is significantly slower than the pace of automation in the car industry. Once cars can do it, coaches will be next and that’s a real challenge to the infrastructure cost of laying and maintaining railway tracks.

Agree on HS2, there are tons of benefits but it’s a great example of how this country seems adverse to long term investment.

As for the Beetching V2 comment, it actually makes perfect sense, although I suspect I will be a lack of long term investment, rather than a plan that delivers the end result.

Assuming we can deliver automated transport for a low (upfront) cost, then it makes sense to use rail for routes that can benefit from journeys that have very high density (typically commuter routes) but replace low density routes with road transport - as the laying and maintenance of railway track (and all of the infrastructure costs associated with it) will never be cost effective.

Train travel in 2023 only really makes sense for journeys where:

The journey time is significantly shorter on public transport

The cost of travel / parking is significantly cheaper on public transport

Those scenarios are decreasing rather than increasing.

[legzr1]

loafer123 said:

Perhaps I can translate.

The rail unions are open to negotiating changes to terms and conditions as long as they involve no loss of jobs, higher salaries and no material changes in terms and conditions.

Anyone who doesn’t think they are being flexible is clearly delusional.

Ignorant nonsense.

As you well know.

[legzr1]

survivalist said:

I’m not saying that rail isn’t modernising, I’m saying that the pace at which it is happening is significantly slower than the pace of automation in the car industry. Once cars can do it, coaches will be next and that’s a real challenge to the infrastructure cost of laying and maintaining railway tracks.

Agree on HS2, there are tons of benefits but it’s a great example of how this country seems adverse to long term investment.

As for the Beetching V2 comment, it actually makes perfect sense, although I suspect I will be a lack of long term investment, rather than a plan that delivers the end result.

Assuming we can deliver automated transport for a low (upfront) cost, then it makes sense to use rail for routes that can benefit from journeys that have very high density (typically commuter routes) but replace low density routes with road transport - as the laying and maintenance of railway track (and all of the infrastructure costs associated with it) will never be cost effective.

Train travel in 2023 only really makes sense for journeys where:

The journey time is significantly shorter on public transport

The cost of travel / parking is significantly cheaper on public transport

Those scenarios are decreasing rather than increasing.

It’s a bit late to be getting into it but I note a lack of any mention of railfreight in your post.
I’m not sure how that would be implemented in the plan.

Automation - as far as I can tell there are no legal ways for automated cars on U.K. roads.
There are fully autonomous rail systems however alongside remotely controlled locomotives that have been in use for over a decade in U.K. shunting yards.

I’m not sure where rail trails road in your scenario.

[Vasco]

We have many busy rail routes in the UK. They perform a useful role for many passengers.

In many ways it's a shame that we can't have the quality and reliability of some of the foreign train operators.

We in the UK also enjoy a massive road network, often heavily loaded and creaking at the seams in some places.

To many people, the use of the road network gives them enormous flexibility of timings and routes. Importantly, it gives them independence of operation.

In recent times, the passenger rail network has struggled with a number of issues, not all of their own making (Covid, poor government policies etc).

When you look at the number of people using the various forms of transport it's incredible that such a high % use personal transport (car, bike, walk etc) and many of those using public transport are using the buses and coaches. The passenger trains are, nowadays, extremely busy at the weekends but less so Mon-Fri. The income shortfall is significant.

Unfortunately, rail services are unreliable nowadays, possibly more than they have been for generations [when were they any worse?] - seemingly partly caused by government policies and partly by industrial action by RMT or ASLEF.

At some point, the UK has to decide what it wants from its rail system:-

How much funding should it receive if fares don't cover costs ?

Are there rail lines that should be abandoned ?

Is the fragmented ownership of UK rail operations better than a return to 'British Rail' ?

There seem to be so many issues surrounding our train network these days that people will, increasingly, be concerned at what will happen over the next, say, 20 years.

[alangla]

I think that’s going a bit far. The rail network today is far better than what existed in the 1990s, for example. Most areas, other than Northern, the diesel bits of GWR and ScotRail, primarily operate trains that are under 25 years old and there’s far, far more electrification than before (one area where Labour were hopeless). It does seem like it’s back to BR era managed decline rather than the growth and optimism of the late 2000s and into the 2010s though.

[Southerner]

I certainly think there is a future, if not already missed, opportunity to downgrade some railway routes to bus link systems instead. The mainlines need to stay heavy rail, where large trains can move vast quantities of people far better than any other means, but at the other end of the scale there a branchlines - rural and urban - where it would be entirely feasible to tarmac the route and run a high frequency bendybus with a dedicated rail interchange at an appropriate location on the mainline. There has for generations been a rather odd attitude in the UK that anything that doesn’t have rails must be somehow an inferior solution. We saw a number of false dawns in the 2000s when every provincial town in the land decided it needed a tram system, with some spectacular failings alongside the successes. That same attitude prevents the obvious solution of replacing hugely expensive but marginal rail routes with something so obviously much more efficient; in the current climate perhaps it’s long overdue a serious challenging.

[loafer123]

legzr1 said:

loafer123 said:

Perhaps I can translate.

The rail unions are open to negotiating changes to terms and conditions as long as they involve no loss of jobs, higher salaries and no material changes in terms and conditions.

Anyone who doesn’t think they are being flexible is clearly delusional.

Ignorant nonsense.

As you well know.

Actual events, for example the RMT dispute and outcome, confirm the accuracy of my slightly sarcastic comment.

[Jinx]

Southerner said:

I certainly think there is a future, if not already missed, opportunity to downgrade some railway routes to bus link systems instead. The mainlines need to stay heavy rail, where large trains can move vast quantities of people far better than any other means, but at the other end of the scale there a branchlines - rural and urban - where it would be entirely feasible to tarmac the route and run a high frequency bendybus with a dedicated rail interchange at an appropriate location on the mainline. There has for generations been a rather odd attitude in the UK that anything that doesn’t have rails must be somehow an inferior solution. We saw a number of false dawns in the 2000s when every provincial town in the land decided it needed a tram system, with some spectacular failings alongside the successes. That same attitude prevents the obvious solution of replacing hugely expensive but marginal rail routes with something so obviously much more efficient; in the current climate perhaps it’s long overdue a serious challenging.

You are Richard Beeching and I claim my £5

[alangla]

Jinx said:

You are Richard Beeching and I claim my £5

There are some complete basket case routes out there with no obvious future that just blunder on because there’s no political will to close them. Classic example is the Ayr to Stranraer route. This has been cut off from the network since a fire in the derelict station hotel at Ayr a couple of months ago. The trains stranded down there were kept running on the southern bit but now both have broken down and been parked in Girvan with the whole route operated by coaches. The previous main reason for the line was to serve the Stena terminal at Stranraer harbour, but this closed in 2011 with a coach now running from Ayr to the new terminal on Loch Ryan. That’s left miles and miles of single track, several mechanical signalboxes from the 19th century and a long, slow journey (via Kilmarnock for extra slowness) to a station that’s inconvenient for Stranraer town. Other than serving Barrhill, it would be much better having coaches on the A77. If there was the political will, the line could be electrified and resignalled as far as Girvan with a new Parkway station on the Ayr bypass and fast electric trains to Glasgow, but no-one will grasp the nettle and actually close the line.

[survivalist]

legzr1 said:

survivalist said:

I’m not saying that rail isn’t modernising, I’m saying that the pace at which it is happening is significantly slower than the pace of automation in the car industry. Once cars can do it, coaches will be next and that’s a real challenge to the infrastructure cost of laying and maintaining railway tracks.

Agree on HS2, there are tons of benefits but it’s a great example of how this country seems adverse to long term investment.

As for the Beetching V2 comment, it actually makes perfect sense, although I suspect I will be a lack of long term investment, rather than a plan that delivers the end result.

Assuming we can deliver automated transport for a low (upfront) cost, then it makes sense to use rail for routes that can benefit from journeys that have very high density (typically commuter routes) but replace low density routes with road transport - as the laying and maintenance of railway track (and all of the infrastructure costs associated with it) will never be cost effective.

Train travel in 2023 only really makes sense for journeys where:

The journey time is significantly shorter on public transport

The cost of travel / parking is significantly cheaper on public transport

Those scenarios are decreasing rather than increasing.

It’s a bit late to be getting into it but I note a lack of any mention of railfreight in your post.
I’m not sure how that would be implemented in the plan.

Automation - as far as I can tell there are no legal ways for automated cars on U.K. roads.
There are fully autonomous rail systems however alongside remotely controlled locomotives that have been in use for over a decade in U.K. shunting yards.

I’m not sure where rail trails road in your scenario.

Rail freight makes sense for covering long distances with large amount of product (from a port to the central parts of the country), but irrelevant for short / local services. Assuming it’s reliable and not subject to disruption.

I’m also not saying that rail transport isn’t a good idea in theory, just that it only makes sense when is either cheaper or better than alternative means of transport.

The general public rarely (if ever) take long term factors into account, which is why passenger rail travel continues to be relevant mainly to commuters.

The current stance of the government, TOC and rail unions suggest to me that things will only get worse, as no one has a long term view. When this is the case the investable outcome is one of decline.

[Chrisgr31]

If this government wasnt so fixated with destroying the unions, and indeed their own electoral hopes, rail would stand a chance of recovery.

The dispute has cost the government billions and of course dissuaded commuters from returning. Not only that but the changes the government have made to compensation for season tickets holders has annoyed them to. For example tomorrow the first train I can get to London gets me in to work at 10am. somewhat later than my usual 8.30. Do I get any compensation on my season ticket? No as the trains are running. I would have saved money over the last year by not having a season ticket due to the disruption caused by industrial disputes.

There is an increasing demand by employers (other than local government) to have their employers in the office more. Once they want employers in the office 3 days a week season tickets become cheap especially for peak hour travel.

In the latest train usage statistics it is interesting that the main commuter train companies are beginning to see the greatest increase in travel. This is only going to increase. The numbers standing on my commuter train are increasing. Quite what happens if they fully recover I have no idea as the government have removed some of our rolling stock and sent it to the East Midlands so they cant just lengthen trains.

Once the drivers dispute is settled then I expect train travel to start increasing significantly that in turn will reduce the subsidy etc. At the moment it appears the government wants a high subsidy so they are deliberately taking actions to ensure the subsidy need is maximised.

As regards coaches replacing trains there are relatively few areas that will work and of course there is a huge shortage of coach drivers at the moment, which is why so frequently there is no bus replacement service. A coach does not have the capacity of a train and queues of coaches on the roads are hardly likely t be popular with motorists.