New South Western franchise: Awarded to First/MTR

[BestWestern]

Only the RMT are showing signs they haven’t learned anything from that experience.

Really? So the DfT got their way then? Or is it in fact the case that the staff remain employed, on the same money but for far less work, and are now protected indefinitely by an agreement that the DfT and the company had to cave in and sign because the industrial action was far more effective, longlasting and better supported than they thought it would be?! They lost, despite the increasingly unpleasant tactics they employed to attempt to bludgeon their staff, which at times were almost comically desperate. Cost savings, nil. Reduction in payroll, nil. Damage to hapless government and bullying GTR management, substantial. Yes, the RMT fluffed things time and again, but the DfT were a long way from victory too.

 

[infobleep]

SWR and NR answer to passenger watchdog over poor performance
http://www.railtechnologymagazine.c...r-to-passenger-watchdog-over-poor-performance
- 2018-01-10

This event was supposedly open to the public, but Transport Focus did not announce the meeting until the day it was due to take place:
https://www.transportfocus.org.uk/n...estern-railway-network-rail-poor-performance/

This details the priorities for improvement set-out by Transport Focus:
https://www.transportfocus.org.uk/r...s/rail-passengers-priorities-for-improvement/

Did anyone attend this meting, or have details of responses from Network rail and SWR?

I didn't attend or know about it but how do you know that Transport Focus only announced it on the day?

 

[TEW]

They certainly haven't publicised the 15min DR well. Am I right thinking Season Ticket holders no longer get money back for void days and you claim DR instead? Certainly I got no deductions when I renewed for the cr@p service since First took over.

Void days and renewal discounts applied until the end of the Waterloo Blockade in August. Your first renewal after that date would have included them. Any delays after the end of the Waterloo Blockade come under Delay Repay. None of this was well publicised and it has annoyed a lot of season ticket holders who have likely missed out on compensation they were due. Some kind of automatic system is due to be implemented around this time next year.

 

[infobleep]

Really? So the DfT got their way then? Or is it in fact the case that the staff remain employed, on the same money but for far less work, and are now protected indefinitely by an agreement that the DfT and the company had to cave in and sign because the industrial action was far more effective, longlasting and better supported than they thought it would be?! They lost, despite the increasingly unpleasant tactics they employed to attempt to bludgeon their staff, which at times were almost comically desperate. Cost savings, nil. Reduction in payroll, nil. Damage to hapless government and bullying GTR management, substantial. Yes, the RMT fluffed things time and again, but the DfT were a long way from victory too.

I sometimes get the impression that no one won.

 

[infobleep]

Void days and renewal discounts applied until the end of the Waterloo Blockade in August. Your first renewal after that date would have included them. Any delays after the end of the Waterloo Blockade come under Delay Repay. None of this was well publicised and it has annoyed a lot of season ticket holders who have likely missed out on compensation they were due. Some kind of automatic system is due to be implemented around this time next year.

It is mentioned on Journey Check but you need to know about that.

 

[BestWestern]

I sometimes get the impression that no one won.

Indeed. But arguably the DfT achieved less than the unions. Their ultimate goal wasn't reached, and cannot be reached in view of what they subsequently agreed to.

 

[43096]

Void days and renewal discounts applied until the end of the Waterloo Blockade in August. Your first renewal after that date would have included them. Any delays after the end of the Waterloo Blockade come under Delay Repay. None of this was well publicised and it has annoyed a lot of season ticket holders who have likely missed out on compensation they were due. Some kind of automatic system is due to be implemented around this time next year.

Thanks - that is what I thought.

They seem to be taking the attitude of annoying their regular customers (season ticket holders) with both this (not telling them things had changed) and removing the nice 6 free weekend tickets we used to get from Stagecoach. Funny way of treating those who pay you most.

I suspect that claims from season ticket holders will be lower because no-one has been told so there is a financial benefit to the change. In the light of that, I believe the lack of information has been a deliberate policy on the part of SWR. To be blunt I would expect nothing else of the duplicitous bus bandits at FirstGroup. I would urge anyone delayed by 15mins or more to claim, and screw them for as much as possible.

 

[Bald Rick]

Indeed. But arguably the DfT achieved less than the unions. Their ultimate goal wasn't reached, and cannot be reached in view of what they subsequently agreed to.

The goal, as clearly stated in the ITT for the TSGN franchise, was to get DOO on services then operated by Southern that would in future be run by Thameslink. That has been achieved (and more). Despite popular opinion, there was not an 'ultimate' goal to reduce staffing numbers. Indeed quite the opposite.

 

[BestWestern]

The goal, as clearly stated in the ITT for the TSGN franchise, was to get DOO on services then operated by Southern that would in future be run by Thameslink. That has been achieved (and more). Despite popular opinion, there was not an 'ultimate' goal to reduce staffing numbers. Indeed quite the opposite.

There is an ultimate goal to reduce staffing numbers across the entire system. It was written in black and white for all to see, until somebody decided it didn't paint the government in a very good light and removed the relevent webpage.

 

[Bald Rick]

There is an ultimate goal to reduce staffing numbers across the entire system. It was written in black and white for all to see, until somebody decided it didn't paint the government in a very good light and removed the relevent webpage.

The key word there is 'was'. I reiterate - there is not an ultimate goal to reduce staffing numbers across the entire system. There is an ultimate goal to make the entire network more efficient, more effective, and more passenger focused. Happy to be corrected with hard evidence.

 

[BestWestern]

The key word there is 'was'. I reiterate - there is not an ultimate goal to reduce staffing numbers across the entire system. There is an ultimate goal to make the entire network more efficient, more effective, and more passenger focused. Happy to be corrected with hard evidence.

'Was'? Are you suggesting that the government has abandoned it's desires to establish DOO as a national standard? They've formally announced this, have they? You're aware of the document I referenced above, I presume?

 

[Starmill]

The key word there is 'was'. I reiterate - there is not an ultimate goal to reduce staffing numbers across the entire system. There is an ultimate goal to make the entire network more efficient, more effective, and more passenger focused. Happy to be corrected with hard evidence.

I agree with this - but there is really not any evidence that the routes in question offer any passenger benefits. Previously there was someone who they could ask for help on the train. Now there is... someone they can ask for help on the train. They are no more visible, and no more able to offer assistance or information.

Anecdotally there is evidence that staff are much less motivated now than they were before the dispute. There is also anecdotal evidence that a shortage of platform staff and defective equipment such as cameras are now far more likely to cause service disruption than in the past.

And GTR performance remains below targets. In addition, consider the cost to the taxpayer of the industrial dispute, the ongoing costs on strike days, the economic opportunity cost from the poor service over a period of several years, the reputational cost to the railway (all of it, rather than just GTR) in the region, (dare I mention it) the cost to Govia's profits (they still pay corporation tax...), and the human cost of those who have lost jobs or had their lives severely impacted by the dispute. And the dispute is not even resolved.

The criteria have been met. But are there any passenger benefits? Are there any efficiency savings? Is the network "more effective" as a result? Not that I can see.

 

[Starmill]

I suspect that claims from season ticket holders will be lower because no-one has been told so there is a financial benefit to the change. In the light of that, I believe the lack of information has been a deliberate policy on the part of SWR. To be blunt I would expect nothing else of the duplicitous bus bandits at FirstGroup.

People are not informed directly that delay repay is available really anywhere in the industry. Northern and Virgin Trains automatically pay compensation but only to people who use their own website to book their own Advance tickets.

Some companies use posters to make it clear that Delay Repay is available, for example West Midlands Trains and Southeastern are good at this. Some also try to ensure announcements are made on delayed trains, such as Virgin Trains or Virgin Trains East Coast. Others, such as Northern, make no effort whatsoever that I have seen to inform people that they operate a Delay Repay scheme.

Anyone who read the new Passenger Charter will have realised that there is a new, potentially more generous offer of compensation available. Certainly for non-season tickets the offer is far better than what there was previously. It's a little buried and you might think that this isn't a document many people are likely to read, but all the same the offer is there. It is the same offer (from the point of view of the need to fill in the form for each delay) that nearly everyone else gets. Very few operators are still using an old Charter compensation scheme.

 

[Bald Rick]

'Was'? Are you suggesting that the government has abandoned it's desires to establish DOO as a national standard? They've formally announced this, have they? You're aware of the document I referenced above, I presume?

Yes, aware of the documents. For clarity, DOO does not mean staffing reductions.

I may stand corrected, but I'm reasonably sure that the number of frontline staff employed by GTR (on a like for like basis) is now higher than it was pre DOO. And again, AIUI SWR have stated clearly they will employ more staff.

 

[43096]

People are not informed directly that delay repay is available really anywhere in the industry. Northern and Virgin Trains automatically pay compensation but only to people who use their own website to book their own Advance tickets.

Some companies use posters to make it clear that Delay Repay is available, for example West Midlands Trains and Southeastern are good at this. Some also try to ensure announcements are made on delayed trains, such as Virgin Trains or Virgin Trains East Coast. Others, such as Northern, make no effort whatsoever that I have seen to inform people that they operate a Delay Repay scheme.

Anyone who read the new Passenger Charter will have realised that there is a new, potentially more generous offer of compensation available. Certainly for non-season tickets the offer is far better than what there was previously. It's a little buried and you might think that this isn't a document many people are likely to read, but all the same the offer is there. It is the same offer (from the point of view of the need to fill in the form for each delay) that nearly everyone else gets. Very few operators are still using an old Charter compensation scheme.

I get that for those buying tickets on the day it is an improvement. It is possibly also the case for season ticket holders as long as they claim. SWR have not directly told season ticket holders of the change - it’s hidden on the website, hidden on journey check via an indirect link, wasn’t publicised at stations and they haven’t written to season ticket holders (for annual tickets at least they have addresses). That is, in my view, a deliberate policy of little/no information, done to limit the financial impact to SWR.

 

[TEW]

And again, AIUI SWR have stated clearly they will employ more staff.

Yes, but this is not in any way connected to the method of operation of the new fleet of suburban trains, the subject of the current dispute.. Simply they are running more trains in the December 2018 timetable, initially using the existing train fleet, so this naturally requires more staff.

 

[Starmill]

That is, in my view, a deliberate policy of little/no information, done to limit the financial impact to SWR.

You are entitled to your view but it seems to me that they have done more than Northern (and offer more generous compensation than Northern) who also went through the same change in procedure recently.

 

[43096]

You are entitled to your view but it seems to me that they have done more than Northern (and offer more generous compensation than Northern) who also went through the same change in procedure recently.

So Arriva are just as bad (or worse?!) than First, then. Just because someone is worse than SWR doesn’t make it right. I for one feel I have been denied compensation I should have had - in other words ripped off by an organisation who clearly don’t care about their customers.

 

[BestWestern]

Yes, aware of the documents. For clarity, DOO does not mean staffing reductions.

I may stand corrected, but I'm reasonably sure that the number of frontline staff employed by GTR (on a like for like basis) is now higher than it was pre DOO. And again, AIUI SWR have stated clearly they will employ more staff.

Well, I see little value in the usual DOO rehash, but the purpose of the exercise was very much to reduce staff numbers and thus costs. There really isn't any other worthwhile reason for doing it. That document listed in considerable detail the various routes available to achieving those reductions, including savings and timescales.

 

[Starmill]

Well, I see little value in the usual DOO rehash, but the purpose of the exercise was very much to reduce staff numbers and thus costs. There really isn't any other worthwhile reason for doing it.

There could be, but if there is, nobody has told us - and I don't think we have seen it. We have seen endless cost and zero benefit.

 

[BestWestern]

There could be, but if there is, nobody has told us - and I don't think we have seen it. We have seen endless cost and zero benefit.

Indeed. What we have seen is every feeble, nonsense excuse under the sun to try and avoid admitting that actually, yes, what they want to do is put thousands of people out of work.

 

[coppercapped]

Yes, aware of the documents. For clarity, DOO does not mean staffing reductions.

I may stand corrected, but I'm reasonably sure that the number of frontline staff employed by GTR (on a like for like basis) is now higher than it was pre DOO. And again, AIUI SWR have stated clearly they will employ more staff.

Not only GTR...

I know that many here will decry statistics produced by the Rail Delivery Group, but in December 2017 it published a document Partnership railway’s transformation in numbers: Dataset on rail industry finances, performance and investment since 1997-98. Page 21 of this document compares the growth in staff employed by the TOCs to growth in the number of workers' employed in the general economy.

Employment in the TOCs has grown by 47% and in the economy as a whole by 20%. It quotes its sources as the ORR's data portal and the Office of National Statistics. Taken as a whole the railway industry and its supply chain employ some 240,000 people.

 

[BestWestern]

Not only GTR...

I know that many here will decry statistics produced by the Rail Delivery Group, but in December 2017 it published a document Partnership railway’s transformation in numbers: Dataset on rail industry finances, performance and investment since 1997-98. Page 21 of this document compares the growth in staff employed by the TOCs to growth in the number of workers' employed in the general economy.

Employment in the TOCs has grown by 47% and in the economy as a whole by 20%. It quotes its sources as the ORR's data portal and the Office of National Statistics. Taken as a whole the railway industry and its supply chain employ some 240,000 people.

Does that include all those disposable agency staff that TOCs have replaced proper employees with on gatelines and in various other functions, I wonder? GTR have even spread that particular disease to dispatch staff, haven't they? And then of course there's Northern, who are now using them as some sort of guerrilla RPI force. Who needs job security and a living wage when you could have a worthless agency contract, poor pay and conditions and virtually zero value as an employee, heh? Hardly goes hand-in-hand with the positive spin, does it?

 

[coppercapped]

Does that include all those disposable agency staff that TOCs have replaced proper employees with on gatelines and in various other functions, I wonder? GTR have even spread that particular disease to dispatch staff, haven't they? And then of course there's Northern, who are now using them as some sort of guerrilla RPI force. Who needs job security and a living wage when you could have a worthless agency contract, poor pay and conditions and virtually zero value as an employee, heh? Hardly goes hand-in-hand with the positive spin, does it?

The actual quote is

The number of people employed by train companies has increased by 47% since 1997/98

My emphasis.

 

[BestWestern]

The actual quote is


My emphasis.

I'd ask the same question again. We're talking government spin here. It wouldn't be earth shattering to learn that agency-supplied staff had been 'swept up' in those figures. After all, they're filling TOC roles.

 

[infobleep]

The goal, as clearly stated in the ITT for the TSGN franchise, was to get DOO on services then operated by Southern that would in future be run by Thameslink. That has been achieved (and more). Despite popular opinion, there was not an 'ultimate' goal to reduce staffing numbers. Indeed quite the opposite.

If that was not the case I can see why people might think it was.

Gatwick Express and London Oveground both had staff taken away in the past. So staff probably thought they will do it again. I know it's not the same company but it's the same sector in terms of job. People will be suspicious when something else comes along because of past experiencesvor just knowledge of what happened else where.

 

[infobleep]

Yes, aware of the documents. For clarity, DOO does not mean staffing reductions.

I may stand corrected, but I'm reasonably sure that the number of frontline staff employed by GTR (on a like for like basis) is now higher than it was pre DOO. And again, AIUI SWR have stated clearly they will employ more staff.

They have also stated the roles of the guard will not change on certain rolling stock types.

Why not just say all rolling stock types. Why limit it to just a few?

 

[Carlisle]

They have also stated the roles of the guard will not change on certain rolling stock types.

Why not just say all rolling stock types. Why limit it to just a few?

The new stock will have body side cameras,whereas the older stock can’t be retrofitted without considerable expenditure

 

[HH]

They have also stated the roles of the guard will not change on certain rolling stock types.

Why not just say all rolling stock types. Why limit it to just a few?

Erm, because they want to change on it the rest?

 

[The Ham]

I'd ask the same question again. We're talking government spin here. It wouldn't be earth shattering to learn that agency-supplied staff had been 'swept up' in those figures. After all, they're filling TOC roles.

The quote is from the Rail Delivery Group document references that they used data from the ORR, the latest few years of which can be seen here:

https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/displayreport/html/html/8c9834a7-7aab-4c1e-b224-de11b22c7846

Which shows that, for instance, that the "number of employees" for Northern have gone up by just under 1,000 between 2010/11 and 2016/17 (or by about 18.7%).

As the ORR data (which the RDG reference) clearly states the number of employees, even though it is a ORR (read government) document, they would be stretching the term employee way beyond anyone elses definition if they are including agency workers in those numbers.