Long term social distancing: Impact on public life & public transport?

[yorksrob]

Perhaps you might elaborate a little more on what your sources have told you?

Realistically it may well now be very difficult to reduce the 2 metres, assuming science advises it, as everywhere has now been set up on that basis, and it’s now starting to get ingrained in people’s minds - which of course includes the unions! Perhaps it might be possible to do it subject to wearing masks.

Even the WHO doesn't endorse the 2m rule. If science does relax it, how is it going to prevent the railway setting up on that basis, given that it hasn't set itself up yet on a 2m rule basis ?

Obstacles for obstacles sake.

 

[HH]

I'm sure the 2m amount was a political decision; after all, if 1m is good then 2m must be better, right?

 

[bramling]

Even the WHO doesn't endorse the 2m rule. If science does relax it, how is it going to prevent the railway setting up on that basis, given that it hasn't set itself up yet on a 2m rule basis ?

Obstacles for obstacles sake.

The railway has, behind the scenes, done a lot of work reconfiguring workplaces and staff areas in order to allow 2 metre distancing, off the back of government guidance - the same guidance which has seen places like supermarkets, banks, workplaces and everything else laid out in that way.

If this counts as an obstacle then you need to take this up with the government, not the unions. As things stand at this moment t he unions are simply attempting to uphold the guidance emanating from elsewhere. Unless you know any different from your sources, in which case please tell us!

 

[yorksrob]

The railway has, behind the scenes, done a lot of work reconfiguring workplaces and staff areas in order to allow 2 metre distancing, off the back of government guidance - the same guidance which has seen places like supermarkets, banks, workplaces and everything else laid out in that way.

If this counts as an obstacle then you need to take this up with the government, not the unions. As things stand at this moment t he unions are simply attempting to uphold the guidance emanating from elsewhere. Unless you know any different from your sources, in which case please tell us!

What exactly has that got to do with how many passengers there are on the train ? The trains aren't set up on a 2m social distacing basis. They're set up on a carting around fresh air basis.

 

[bramling]

What exactly has that got to do with how many passengers there are on the train ? The trains aren't set up on a 2m social distacing basis. They're set up on a carting around fresh air basis.

Er, apart from the fact there’s signs up everywhere and announcements playing telling people to remain 2 metres from anyone else, at stations and on board the train. Or that staff have been given the same advice which means adaptations are required when for example going back to investigate a train defect.

I think it will be very difficult to pull back that guidance now, as people have got so used to it. Ultimately I think there will be more unrest from passengers than the unions.

 

[yorksrob]

Er, apart from the fact there’s signs up everywhere and announcements playing telling people to remain 2 metres from anyone else, at stations and on board the train. Or that staff have been given the same advice which means adaptations are required when for example going back to investigate a train defect.

I think it will be very difficult to pull back that guidance now, as people have got so used to it. Ultimately I think there will be more unrest from passengers than the unions.

And how long will it take to change the 2m signs to 1m signs for example ? Or to issue a memo with new advice to staff ?

Passengers who are that concerned about the advice changing will surely just continue not to catch the train.

 

[bramling]

And how long will it take to change the 2m signs to 1m signs for example ? Or to issue a memo with new advice to staff ?

Passengers who are that concerned about the advice changing will surely just continue not to catch the train.

Not difficult at all, but there would need to be some science behind it. Compulsory masks *might* fit that bill, if someone can demonstrate that they provide sufficient mitigation.

Any decision will be a political one, as it already is. The unions have as much right as anyone else to question the science behind it, without being a “dark force”, assuming that they are one of these mysterious things as no one seems to have clarified what was meant by the term.

 

[nedchester]

Perhaps you might elaborate a little more on what your sources have told you?

Realistically it may well now be very difficult to reduce the 2 metres, assuming science advises it, as everywhere has now been set up on that basis, and it’s now starting to get ingrained in people’s minds - which of course includes the unions! Perhaps it might be possible to do it subject to wearing masks.

Dear Colleague

ROSTERS AND DIAGRAMS – SUMMER 2020 TIMETABLE

I write with regards to the above matter and to inform you that I have received a letter from the Rail Industry Coronavirus Forum setting out the process for the 2020 summer timetable. The matter has been considered by the union’s National Executive Committee who notes that there is no intention to impose the May 2020 summer timetable on the 17th May.
Therefore, I have been instructed to inform our Representatives to continue to negotiate the revised rosters/diagrams with the aforementioned proviso that there will be no resumption (or agreement) to full service in relation to the negotiations.

The Executive Committee takes this opportunity to remind all employers/employees that our over riding priority is to ensure the wellbeing and health and safety of all our members during this critical time. The RMT will not agree to any resumption of a full service until we are happy that all the associated risks are remedied to our satisfaction.

The Executive Committee also note that a separate discussion is taking place within the RICF forum and I have been instructed to place all relevant correspondence in front of the National Executive Committee.

In accordance with the above, I would be most grateful if you could bring the content of this circular to the attention of all your members and I will, of course, keep you fully advised on any further developments.

Best wishes.

Mick Cash

 

[bramling]

Dear Colleague

ROSTERS AND DIAGRAMS – SUMMER 2020 TIMETABLE

I write with regards to the above matter and to inform you that I have received a letter from the Rail Industry Coronavirus Forum setting out the process for the 2020 summer timetable. The matter has been considered by the union’s National Executive Committee who notes that there is no intention to impose the May 2020 summer timetable on the 17th May.
Therefore, I have been instructed to inform our Representatives to continue to negotiate the revised rosters/diagrams with the aforementioned proviso that there will be no resumption (or agreement) to full service in relation to the negotiations.

The Executive Committee takes this opportunity to remind all employers/employees that our over riding priority is to ensure the wellbeing and health and safety of all our members during this critical time. The RMT will not agree to any resumption of a full service until we are happy that all the associated risks are remedied to our satisfaction.

The Executive Committee also note that a separate discussion is taking place within the RICF forum and I have been instructed to place all relevant correspondence in front of the National Executive Committee.

In accordance with the above, I would be most grateful if you could bring the content of this circular to the attention of all your members and I will, of course, keep you fully advised on any further developments.

Best wishes.

Mick Cash

Is there anything manifestly unreasonable in there?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Is there anything manifestly unreasonable in there?

I can't quite see what COVID19 risks would be associated to what timetable is operated? Surely it's more about who's using the trains?

 

[nedchester]

I'm sure the 2m amount was a political decision; after all, if 1m is good then 2m must be better, right?

Exactly. The UK is obsessed with the 2m whereas WHO talks about 1 m and even then the chance of infection is 1m for a period of time (not passing in the street for example). However, I do realise issues if the person sneezes or coughs.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Exactly. The UK is obsessed with the 2m whereas WHO talks about 1 m and even then the chance of infection is 1m for a period of time (not passing in the street for example). However, I do realise issues if the person sneezes or coughs.

1m is much more practical, as if you're sitting opposite someone at a reasonably sized restaurant table you're not going to be far off that.

 

[nedchester]

Is there anything manifestly unreasonable in there?

There is the usual unhelpful pseudo aggressive RMT tone.

As I say a Tory Government with an 80+ majority plus a country desperate to get to work and not willing to crowd into the few trains currently running could force some emergency legislation. I suspect the RMT are looking for 100% safety which everyone knows is impossible. The RMT are potentially walking into a trap......

 

[bramling]

I can't quite see what COVID19 risks would be associated to what timetable is operated? Surely it's more about who's using the trains?

There would, however, be issues associated with duty schedules, for example if there’s significant amounts of “on the cushions” mileage. GTR is notorious in this respect, for example. There’s also issues like having too many staff booking on at the same moment, sharing a messroom together, etc.

None of these issues are insurmountable, and I don’t think any union is suggesting otherwise.

Likewise no one has addressed the biggest problem which is how one runs a timetable that requires, say, 100 drivers to operate it, when perhaps 25 are absent due to shielding. Again it isn’t RMT who shielded them.

 

[Huntergreed]

I imagine the initial thought process was to better be safe and go for 2m which is completely risk free than just say 1m and then risk people not bothering as much as visually there’s quite a difference. The initial trying to fear everyone into trying to socially distance has perhaps worked a little too well and it could be tough for the Government to explain to people that 1m is just as effective without people being afraid of essentially the “go outside and die and risk your families lives unless you avoid everyone else and leave 2m” message that has been more or less used thus far.

 

[bramling]

I imagine the initial thought process was to better be safe and go for 2m which is completely risk free than just say 1m and then risk people not bothering as much as visually there’s quite a difference. The initial trying to fear everyone into trying to socially distance has perhaps worked a little too well and it could be tough for the Government to explain to people that 1m is just as effective without people being afraid of essentially the “go outside and die and risk your families lives unless you avoid everyone else and leave 2m” message that has been more or less used thus far.

Exactly. It’s going to prove difficult for the government to pull back when many people are questioning the validity of past decisions like Cheltenham.

 

[yorksrob]

Not difficult at all, but there would need to be some science behind it. Compulsory masks *might* fit that bill, if someone can demonstrate that they provide sufficient mitigation.

Any decision will be a political one, as it already is. The unions have as much right as anyone else to question the science behind it, without being a “dark force”, assuming that they are one of these mysterious things as no one seems to have clarified what was meant by the term.

We are out on a limb with the 2m rule already, hence why other countries don't have it.

As I said in an earlier post, any decision on the future usage of public transport must be subject to public scrutiny. Rail users needs need to be considered, as well as the unions and management.

 

[yorksrob]

Exactly. It’s going to prove difficult for the government to pull back when many people are questioning the validity of past decisions like Cheltenham.

This is true. However, they could point to the fact that many countries which have been more successful at controlling the virus, have a 1m rule.

 

[Huntergreed]

This is true. However, they could point to the fact that many countries which have been more successful at controlling the virus, have a 1m rule.

But how will they explain away why they have insisted on 2m to the point where anyone seen not following the rules on TV gets publicly shamed through thousands of complaints? It’s going to be tough to try to change the national mindset

 

[Bletchleyite]

I reckon we might (in publicity terms) get away with "you can reduce it to 1m if you're wearing a mask".

 

[LowLevel]

There is the usual unhelpful pseudo aggressive RMT tone.

As I say a Tory Government with an 80+ majority plus a country desperate to get to work and not willing to crowd into the few trains currently running could force some emergency legislation. I suspect the RMT are looking for 100% safety which everyone knows is impossible. The RMT are potentially walking into a trap......

It's not very clear but what they want is a national standard agreed at the RICF and provisions put in place to provide for it, rather than piecemeal negotiations with each train operating company, thus TOC reps have been advised to agree nothing in relation to ramping up the service until a national operating standard is agreed, committed to on all sides and communicated.

I don't think that is particularly unreasonable (a national standard could vary between service types for example) following the mess that occurred with different companies behaving in a variety of ways, some being well behind others, in imposing the lockdown.

I personally have made it clear to our reps that I don't expect the trade unions to be attempting to hold the country to absolute safety which is all but impossible when I still have to set foot in a supermarket.

 

[yorkie]

I personally have made it clear to our reps that I don't expect the trade unions to be attempting to hold the country to absolute safety which is all but impossible when I still have to set foot in a supermarket.

Thank you

 

[yorksrob]

But how will they explain away why they have insisted on 2m to the point where anyone seen not following the rules on TV gets publicly shamed through thousands of complaints? It’s going to be tough to try to change the national mindset

I reckon we might (in publicity terms) get away with "you can reduce it to 1m if you're wearing a mask".

That could be a route to progress.

 

[111-111-1]

Which is what we want to do, effectively. Most truly essential journeys are peak-time.

Absolute claptrap!

The majority of work journeys are but a significant number of journeys for the likes of hospital appointments etc. will be at other times.

 

[Luke McDonnell]

As I have mentioned on another thread I have explained that some people are unable to drive for medical reasons/disability and once the lockdown restrictions are eased it would be very unfair if there were denied the ability to travel to do things like see friends/relatives or visit places for exercise etc. If they were prevented from travelling by train or bus once most other things are allowed I could even see it as being open to legal challenge under the Equality Act - especially if car travel is permitted for non essential reasons?

I also want to ask if anyone knows what the rules are currently on travelling on public transport in Sweden which has had very light touch restrictions - in Sweden the cafes/bars are still open, visits to friends and relatives in another household have never been restricted - is their rail service still running at a normal timetable and is leisure travel permitted? Also anyone know about Denmark (DSB) are they permitting leisure travel/normal timetable?

A personal interest with me is that I have a friend that I travel to see by train on a regular basis (Liverpool SP-Chester) until restrictions came into force I really enjoy travelling my train to see him and I do want to see him again once the lockdown (including the restriction on seeing friends/family) and I would be very annoyed if when the lockdown is eased you can see friends/family but cannot travel by train to see them. I don't drive myself and nor does my friend. My friends Mum drives but she is over 70 so is shielding indoors. My Dad drives but he has also been given a shielding letter so should not be going out too often and I do not want him driving me all the way to Chester including paying the Runcorn Bridge toll. How do I see my friend in this scenario - because we both have autism/Aspergers which makes it difficult for us and not being able to meet up for longer than necessary causes anxiety and is detrimental to our mental health if this becomes protracted. Maybe taxis should be subsidised/free for us if non essential train travel was considered so ridiculously high risk for a long time LOL - for those with disabled travel passes but that would cost the local authorities and the Treasury a lot of money so personally I hope that I will be able to see my closest friend again as soon as the lockdown ends but me (and my friend) being on the autistic spectrum makes these restrictions more difficult to cope with. When I travel by train to see my friend it is always of a weekend, and most of the time I sit away from others anyway as the trains a rarely that busy.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

Can't remember the thread now but I think people with autism/Aspergers are excused from the current "normal" of restricted travel. Do you/your friend carry a card with you?

 

[Killingworth]

I'm sure the 2m amount was a political decision; after all, if 1m is good then 2m must be better, right?

The speed limit on motorways is 70. We all have accurate speedometers. Without average speed cameras or constant surveillance the effective speed limit is about 80, and quite a few do a lot more than that - and mostly get away with it.

2 metres, 6 feet, 1 metre, 3 feet it makes little difference. For starters it would need a bleeper to accurately monitor distances and sound a warning because most can't estimate distances sufficiently accurately. When it gets really busy it won't be obeyed, because it can't be. It's an inevitable fact of life.

A small number moving in the same direction at the same speed, no problem, until encountering others going the opposite way, but let's sidestep them. I want to go faster than you so an overtaking move is necessary. Wide pavement out of doors, still no problem, or shouldn't be. Restricted area in a supermarket, that ditherer in front, the temptation to push past 2 feet away is strong. Arrest that man?

Rushing to catch the train and the barrier or narrow entrance to the platform restricts the flow. You stand back, but others shuffle forward, 6 feet, 5 feet, 4 feet, 3 feet, who cares I just want to catch this train, 1 foot, we touch!!!! Arrest that man - and all the others?

Phew, got onto the platform without getting too close. Wasn't arrested. Others file on behind. Platform fills. 6 foot separation beomes 4, but that's about OK? Train arrives, some want to get off. Does everyone stand back? Do they ever, but maybe old habits will have changed!? We step onto the train and quickly (but some are not quick) decide whether it's better left or right, and others push behind. It's 30 minutes or an hour until the next train. Separation? It will evaporate. The train rapidly fills and all sit and stand close together. The train moves off, we're all trapped, no escape. Anyone who wants to get off again to avoid the scrum will make it worse - and create immediate danger of crushing. Arrest the whole trainload? How? Bar them from the train? Where do they go?

Either we stay locked down for possibly a year or more, or risk assessments are made so we know that travelling on public transport is riskier than by other means and plan accordingly.

My personal risk assessment for my local route today is that even as one in the higher risk categories I'd be safe to travel - because hardly anyone else is, 3 to a 2 car train. However, if normal peak hour loads returned I'd avoid them - like the plague they might carry! At least 95% of my rail journeys are non essential so the situation is academic and I'm not travelling.

The coronvirus hottest spots coincide with the densest populations. Like it or not a degree of herd immunity will be building up in those areas before vaccines and more effective treatments arrive. However the quicker identification of cases, better isolation when diagnosed, and better understanding of how best to treat sufferers should lessen the effects over time.

How to legislate both for the foolhardy risk takers and allow for those who are most risk averse is a massive challenge, especially when there are so many conflicting levels of vulnerabilty, many not obvious to any but the individual.

Have I the answer? The nation has to progressively take a few more risks and feel its way one step at a time. Personally, my immediate answer is to avoid public transport for several more months and take extra care. By September I hope to feel safe enough to be out and about a lot more. In the meantime I'm having to get used to Zoom meetings.

We have to get more people back to work as soon as it's reasonably safe to do so. The airlines (and probably cruise companies) are closing massive parts of their operations. If railways weren't as near to renationalisation as they seem to be they'd be going the same way.

 

[northernchris]

I reckon we might (in publicity terms) get away with "you can reduce it to 1m if you're wearing a mask".

The BBC were reporting earlier in the week that the Government realise keeping 2m apart isn't always possible or practical, and exemptions could be permitted if other measures were taken, so that does seem likely. At the start of the pandemic the guidance was you had to be less than 2m apart for longer than 15 minutes in order to catch the virus, which if still believed to be true would also give some leeway on short journeys if there is an infected passenger onboard

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don't think that is particularly unreasonable (a national standard could vary between service types for example) following the mess that occurred with different companies behaving in a variety of ways, some being well behind others, in imposing the lockdown.

Yeah - for example the rather silly situation of some TOCs saying "ticket checks are dangerous, stay in the back cab" and others saying "you must check tickets".

I personally have made it clear to our reps that I don't expect the trade unions to be attempting to hold the country to absolute safety which is all but impossible when I still have to set foot in a supermarket.

Agreed. Fundamentally near enough everyone will need to accept a bit more personal risk for the country to reopen. I think this is difficult for many in the 21st century, specifically on the railway which has a "risk to zero as far as we can" type policy.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The BBC were reporting earlier in the week that the Government realise keeping 2m apart isn't always possible or practical, and exemptions could be permitted if other measures were taken, so that does seem likely. At the start of the pandemic the guidance was you had to be less than 2m apart for longer than 15 minutes in order to catch the virus, which if still believed to be true would also give some leeway on short journeys if there is an infected passenger onboard

This might for example at least allow one person per double seat/bay of seats rather than missing rows out, which, commuter times aside, starts to make the railway look a little more feasible to open up more widely, perhaps as I said with compulsory reservations.