Had the DFT not chosen to implement the crude cost cutting measures of the McNulty report there would have been no fight. Or are employees not supposed to stand up for themselves any more?
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Southern DOO: ASLEF members vote 79.1% for revised deal
- Thread starter hornbyfan99
- Start date
- Status
Had the DFT not chosen to implement the crude cost cutting measures of the McNulty report there would have been no fight. Or are employees not supposed to stand up for themselves any more?
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
I suppose that largely depends on whether the company your employed by is highly profitable or requires considerable state subsidy
Perhaps you'd like to tell me which rail companies don't need subsidy? If they don't receive it directly they receive it via the publicly owned and funded infrastructure. It's been accepted in most of the world that you can't make money out of railways, we are persisting with the idea here because it satisfies a certain right wing political dogma. And it's part of the public infrastructure. Like the roads, street lamps, refuse collection, education, social services and the NHS. Its purpose is to provide public transport for the nation, not to make money. If we are reducing the level of service even further for the passenger and losing jobs just to make sure there's more chance of a profit being made from a public service, we've reached a very sad day indeed.
GTR is a management contract so profit / subsidy not really relevant. However, like most areas these days, it is (or should be) revenue positive.
What is strange is that often the same people who wish to see a nationalised railway also wish to deny the state the right to make the same sort of spending decisions that government makes all sorts of areas.
Fincra5
Established Member
- Joined
- 6 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 2,636
Apart from the fact that the role will be "reviewed" in 12months time (from the start date) ... so it seems.
Doesn't bode well. I remember the days of Train Hosts on GatEx, they weren't around for too long!
Those inconvenienced by the strikes aren't drivers. Those paying thousands for season tickets aren't drivers.
The whole purpose of this thread is allow people who don't wish to listen to DOO discussion to ignore it and enjoy other threads.
Hmmm you know that DOO stands for Driver only operated? So the people most affected are drivers. Yet the one group of people who are completely ignored on here are..... drivers! This isn't a discussion anymore. This is a thread for people who believe they know better than those who actually do the job day in day out. If you aren't interested in listening to those who do the job day in day out the discussion it dead. Hope you are happy having a "discussion" with your fellow pro DOO peeps, because it seems you lot are the only ones really posting on this thread now.
Last edited:
Who are the "pro DOO brigade"? I've yet to identify that many posters who actually want it, except a couple of obvious troll accounts.
What is ridiculous is the continuous wheeling out of "pro DOO brigade", etc, which stifles the discussion.
It's been going round in circles for weeks and weeks now and I'm at the point where I'm happy to sit by with a packet of popcorn while people continue to miss the point.
I'm not "pro-DOO". I don't particularly want to see guards disappear. Not sure many do. I do want to see Southern reliability drastically improved. I do get intensely frustrated with the RMT taking action against the public but being so atrocious at communicating with them.
Goldfish62
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 14 Feb 2010
- Messages
- 13,228
The mandatory physical checks were abolished on SWT a couple of years ago, leaving the responsibility to the guard. It has mostly resulted in door releases no slower than that with DOO.
I still marvel at the absurdity of the guard having to do the full check when a two car Pacer arrives at a terminating platform at Manchester Piccadilly.
As far as I am aware Southern has required no state subsidy and covers its track costs as well.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...t_data/file/559655/rail-subsidy-indicator.xls
Last edited:
Surreytraveller
On Moderation
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 3,905
They have been sacked. Their contracts (apart from those kept on for the 171s and 313s) expire on 31st December. They have been given the opportunity to sign new contracts starting on the 1st January.
No it's not.
On practical terms it is in all but name
No, it's very similar to a TfL Concession, but that's still some way short of being a management contract - they are still responsible and on risk for a lot of things.
Every decent management contract will pass certain liabilities to the manager in exchange for a fee. Otherwise there is no point in paying the profit margin.
I never use the word 'concession' in a railway sense as TfL's use of the word is completely backwards. In procurement law a 'concession' is a contract in which all or almost all of the risks pass to the concessionaire and it earns its revenue from third parties: the exact opposite of the TfL model. Happily the use of 'management contract' appears to be increasing in its place.
The point is that it is not a franchise.
There are quite a few who are anti DOO and are not drivers, myself included.
Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk
I don't think it was ever implied that there weren't.
I wasn't but I made the point all the same as it highlights that those not in favour of DOO and are not drivers, also have opinions that are expressed on here.
Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk
Fincra5
Established Member
- Joined
- 6 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 2,636
Changing/ Removing guards from the services will not improve the service. The staffing is short (as ever). If the staffing was at a decent level the issues would be far less.. same goes if diagrams weren't so bad... 4 min turn arounds/ to change trains. It's bound to go wrong.
Deepgreen
Established Member
I had a spectacularly diligent guard on my train this morning, the 0853 Redhill to Victoria, which I had to await after the 0840 departure was allowed to depart exactly as our late-running GWR train arrived and opened its doors - again!! This guard made his way through the crowded, but not packed, train to check tickets, doing the front first class (where I was) at Battersea Park! Unfortunately, some chancers had alighted at Clapham Junction and he missed them, but he did get one somewhat indignant oaf who apparently thought it was unfair to have been caught!
Last edited:
Removing the compulsory nature of the guard will reduce the power of the RMT to disrupt services and it will roughly halve the chance of a train being cancelled due to a sickness absence.
But I agree, the best solution would have been to ensure that there are enough members of staff to prevent these issues arising. Commuters are now so exhausted, though, that they want whichever solution is the quickest and most permanent.
Deepgreen
Established Member
It's important to remember that Southern has a long history of poor staffing planning, with problems long pre-dating this dispute (yes, there was such a time!). They have repeatedly experienced staff shortages and fall back on the excuse of the time it takes to train drivers, etc. They appear to believe that this explains away the poor planning that allowed the staff shortages in the first place. I expect many passengers now don't realise/care that these problems are of Southern's own making and are nothing to do with the industrial action, allowing Southern to get away with lumping all the staff problems into the dispute.
Hate to disappoint them then, but problems aren't going away because of no guards. There are still big driver shortages (not caused by sickness) often on impossible schedules that inevitably lead to disruption and cancellations.
Except that the DfT say it is and there is a Franchise Agreement. Indeed the only difference to a normal franchise is that DfT bear most of the revenue risk. Still GTR still have a bunch of pretty big risks, certainly more than you would expect in a "Management Contract" (and definitely more than Tfl 'Concessions').
Fincra5
Established Member
- Joined
- 6 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 2,636
Sickness levels have been apparently no worse during the dispute than 2015 (before it all kicked off) but its easy to blame short staffing levels on sickness.
Infact they admitted staff aren't working their "normal rest days". Says it all.
At the end of the day its money saving in the long run. Nothing more.
Ive read quite a few posts in the past from drivers on this forum that seem reasonably ok with DOO although probably not on this particular thread
Last edited:
Class377/5
Established Member
- Joined
- 19 Jun 2010
- Messages
- 5,594
DfT bear all the revenue risk. GTR gets a set fee for running the network which was based on cost plus nothing. Currently Govia are pumping more money in that they are getting paid (latest set of figures given a few weeks ago on a different thread show that).
Are non drivers not entitled to an opinion then?
- Status