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!
Because it costs less to provide the staff for the service and they are able to do so consistently and reliably every single day, for 363 days per year. Isn't it obvious?
That makes sense. Except how are they achieving that? In the context of this thread for example, are they sundays in or out of the working week, or are they a sunday committed operation. I have read the whole thread and other than people saying LUMO does *something* right, noone says what they're doing right.
The main difference is that premium rate hours aren't required to cover all of the work week-round, and that there's room for growth of the business long term, and for front line staff to be promoted or retire / leave the industry. Other differences include a contribution-based company pension and combined roles - the train manager and customer hosts have been combined into a single role. But to go any further down this specific point I think would require a new dedicated thread really.
What does that mean? The fact that you don't like Lumo does not mean that it's model is unsuitable for scaling up. There's no evidence that Lumo have compromised on safety or customer service. Apart from scale, their operation is really not very different to that of long-distance work at other operators.
I think we are getting a little ahead of ourselves here with Lumo . Theyve only been operating since late october last year . Hardly enough time to representatively sample their safety of the line statistics targets for which and initiateives for which are set year on year .
Sure some of their operational ideas could be scales up , others wont work 5 units running two return trips a day is of course extremely small fry its not even a sizeable fraction of one depots work at any other long distance operator .
The other thing of course as well is that if you can build up your operations from the ground up with no union recognititon that is one thing but all existing tocs are bound by agreements to consult & negotiate different thigns .
I think we are getting a little ahead of ourselves here with Lumo . Theyve only been operating since late october last year . Hardly enough time to representatively sample their safety of the line statistics targets for which and initiateives for which are set year on year .
Sure some of their operational ideas could be scales up , others wont work 5 units running two return trips a day is of course extremely small fry its not even a sizeable fraction of one depots work at any other long distance operator .
The other thing of course as well is that if you can build up your operations from the ground up with no union recognititon that is one thing but all existing tocs are bound by agreements to consult & negotiate different thigns .
It's perfectly fine for you to criticise Lumo but I really don't see how moving staff onto terms similar to theirs is a scale issue. It's just that you don't like them.
The problem is that people keep on thumping the drum and telling us that we have to change. Well, OK. But please do enlighten us as to how, because just repeating the line doesn't really move things very far forward.
We do things the same way for the last couple of decades because, by and large, it works. It's not perfect nor even particularly consistent but, all other things being equal, trains run and the timetable is kept. Could we be more efficient? Perhaps. Do we need a "root and branch" reappraisal of our working practices to achieve this? Probably not.
The issue is that the folk holding the purse-strings do not really understand what we do and why we do it. What we need are proper, deliverable solutions that actually deliver improvements rather than "pie in the sky" ideas that only make good headlines.
One way of changing would, of course, be to pare back Sunday services altogether on some routes. In the grand scheme of things Sunday services are not that lucrative relative to the bother of providing them.
From a purely selfish point of view, as a taxpayer and farepayer who rarely if ever uses rail services on a Sunday, I’d be quite content to see a skeleton service.
One way of changing would, of course, be to pare back Sunday services altogether on some routes. In the grand scheme of things Sunday services are not that lucrative relative to the bother of providing them.
From a purely selfish point of view, as a taxpayer and farepayer who rarely if ever uses rail services on a Sunday, I’d be quite content to see a skeleton service.
The risk of that is that when you push people away from the railway for some of their journeys, that they then use that alternative for other journeys as well, costing the railways money overall
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
The main difference is that premium rate hours aren't required to cover all of the work week-round, and that there's room for growth of the business long term, and for front line staff to be promoted or retire / leave the industry. Other differences include a contribution-based company pension and combined roles - the train manager and customer hosts have been combined into a single role. But to go any further down this specific point I think would require a new dedicated thread really.
So basically limiting the reliance on overtime / sundays in the working week. That seems fairly sensible (and very inline with what other people in this thread wanted
One way of changing would, of course, be to pare back Sunday services altogether on some routes. In the grand scheme of things Sunday services are not that lucrative relative to the bother of providing them.
From a purely selfish point of view, as a taxpayer and farepayer who rarely if ever uses rail services on a Sunday, I’d be quite content to see a skeleton service.
Sunday is a normal day other than for office workers. Thus, either the railway should operate on Sundays, or it is not fit for purpose and should be closed.
Sunday is a normal day other than for office workers. Thus, either the railway should operate on Sundays, or it is not fit for purpose and should be closed.
A combination of moving Sunday inside achieved through both more staff, staff working a longer week, and the savings realised from combining roles and moving to a contribution-based pension scheme should all be easily achievable without cutting services, compromising safety, or cutting corners on customer service. The fact that Lumo exists, and critically does not pay poor salaries to onboard staff, is proof of that rather. Sadly it seems likely that industrial action would be triggered at every single DfT operator by such proposals, so they just do nothing and permit the problem to get worse.
For urban services the picture is quite different because it really needs you to choose whether you want to staff stations or trains, as both is generally not affordable.
Sunday is a normal day other than for office workers. Thus, either the railway should operate on Sundays, or it is not fit for purpose and should be closed.
That’s a matter of opinion, though. There is no entrenched right for any of us to enjoy Sunday rail services. If we want them, there’s a case to say those directly benefitting should pay a premium to support the costs incurred.
Sunday rail travel *is* still a relatively niche activity amongst the population as a whole.
It's perfectly fine for you to criticise Lumo but I really don't see how moving staff onto terms similar to theirs is a scale issue. It's just that you don't like them.
I haven't levelled any criticism at them , merely questioned if its fair to say that they have not compromised on safety or customer service after less than 6 months of serivce .Those things generally take longer to ascertain in the indsutry .
Moving staff onto those terms is not a scale issue no , its an industrial relations issue because collective bargaining agreements exist elsewhere .
Although linking arrangements at bigger operators generally tend to be more complicated to cover the range of work
That’s a matter of opinion, though. There is no entrenched right for any of us to enjoy Sunday rail services. If we want them, there’s a case to say those directly benefitting should pay a premium to support the costs incurred.
Sunday rail travel *is* still a relatively niche activity amongst the population as a whole.
No, there's not such a case. People are still travelling on Sundays, they're just driving. For instance, "no Sunday service" makes a weekend away by train impossible.
Public transport must operate an effective daily service. It is important it does this so as to reduce car journeys.
Exactly like @Bletchleyite says, if you don't offer Sunday travel you lose those passengers at other times as well, losing the railway money overall.
In addition, sunday service does not have to be such a premium product, because it never requires more trains (as less are needed than during a weekday), so really the only extra costs of providing it are the operating costs (staff, energy, maintenance) and not capital (buying rolling stock / building track). But sunday (and saturday) services do contribut to paying for those capital expenses
No, there's not such a case. People are still travelling on Sundays, they're just driving. For instance, "no Sunday service" makes a weekend away by train impossible.
Public transport must operate an effective daily service. It is important it does this so as to reduce car journeys.
Again, that’s a matter of opinion. As you say, most people choose to drive, and would likely continue to do so no matter how good any rail service was.
It’s like the whole Boxing Day discussion, which boils down to “*I* refuse to work Boxing Day, but I expect everything to be available”. It’s all very well saying railway staff are paid high salaries, which they are, but the industry is already running into recruitment issues. TFL is already well into issues with both recruitment and retention. If there’s no money for further pay, then conditions will need to be made more attractive, more weekend working is not conducive to that. If you don’t attract people then you still won’t get your full Sunday service.
There is no easy solution, as what has changed is the significant increased demand for Sunday services over time. It used to be the case that a reduced service of longer trains catered for demand.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Exactly like @Bletchleyite says, if you don't offer Sunday travel you lose those passengers at other times as well, losing the railway money overall.
In addition, sunday service does not have to be such a premium product, because it never requires more trains (as less are needed than during a weekday), so really the only extra costs of providing it are the operating costs (staff, energy, maintenance) and not capital (buying rolling stock / building track). But sunday (and saturday) services do contribut to paying for those capital expenses
I’m not convinced that upsetting weekend passengers affects weekday demand. Certainly my local rail service, which I’d view as a fairly typical cross-section, has a completely different demographic at weekends compared to in the week. In reality weekend rail travel is already something of a distress purchase due to engineering works.
Also factor in that many weekend journeys will be on cheaper tickets.
I know this will not be universally popular, but one way to fund weekend services would be to charge premium fares. Full peak rates, given that we're at a point where there seems no need for the industry to fill empty weekend seats on many routes.
Sunday is a normal day other than for office workers. Thus, either the railway should operate on Sundays, or it is not fit for purpose and should be closed.
Sunday isn't a 'normal' day though, aside from it being a religious day of celebration it is still considered a 'day of rest' for a large amount of the UK population and for businesses - hence many of them still being closed on Sundays and more so than on Saturdays. A lot of people in this country reserve Sunday as the day for social gatherings with family and friends, including railway staff - and despite an increasing secular UK there are still many people who go to worship on Sundays.
I think the railway timetable reasonably well reflects the current travel pattern for Sundays - quiet early in the morning but then getting busy from about 8-9am and the service provision is reasonably good on a lot of routes from mid-morning, aside from the problems caused by industrial action and perhaps a need to strengthen more existing services.
Sunday isn't a 'normal' day though, aside from it being a religious day of celebration it is still considered a 'day of rest' for a large amount of the UK population and for businesses - hence many of them still being closed on Sundays and more so than on Saturdays. A lot of people in this country reserve Sunday as the day for social gatherings with family and friends, including railway staff - and despite an increasing secular UK there are still many people who go to worship on Sundays.
I think the railway timetable reasonably well reflects the current travel pattern for Sundays - quiet early in the morning but then getting busy from about 8-9am and the service provision is reasonably good on a lot of routes from mid-morning, aside from the problems caused by industrial action and perhaps a need to strengthen more existing services.
Yes, and it isn't just "office workers" who don't work Sundays. Try using a bank on a Saturday, or even more so a Sunday. No chance. There's also still plenty of businesses who work a 5-day week and who will be closed on Sundays plus one weekday in lieu of Saturday.
Employment tribunal decisions can only be appealed if it is alleged the decision involved an error in law. They cannot be appealed on matters of fact or simply because the appellant did not like the outcome. This Practice direction explains:
2 Basis of Appeal
2.1 Since the ETA 1996 provides that appeal lies only on a “question of law”, the
parties must expect any decision of fact made by an Employment Tribunal,
Certification Officer or Central Arbitration Committee to be decisive.
2.2 It is not an error of law for a Tribunal, judge, CO or CAC to reach a decision
which one party to the case thinks should have been differently made. The
appeal is not a rehearing of the case. The Employment Tribunal must be
shown to have made an error of law.
2.3 If a party is in any doubt about whether a point is one of law or not, legal
advice should be sought where it is at all possible to do so. The EAT cannot
and does not give legal advice to any party.
Appeals against an Employment Tribunal decisions go before an Employment Tribunal Appeal (ETA). At that hearing, far from insisting on a higher burden of proof, the issue of that burden is not relevant. The ETA judge will simply rule on whether or not an error in law was made by the lower tribunal.
Sunday is a normal day other than for office workers. Thus, either the railway should operate on Sundays, or it is not fit for purpose and should be closed.
Sunday services are getting busier as the years go on I can assure you, the general public want an increased Sunday service. Its how this is achieved is the dilemma
It's all a lovely idea but the reality coming out of negotiations at the moment is that rest day working agreements without any premium rates of pay in general won't be acceptable.
The facts must be established in the lower court. As with any case if one party fails to get some of the basic facts established in evidence then they're likely to lose the case. That's just the way it is. Why is this an issue, though? Is there some evidence of widespread miscarriages of justice at the Tribunal?
Sunday services are getting busier as the years go on I can assure you, the general public want an increased Sunday service. Its how this is achieved is the dilemma
A combination of moving Sunday inside achieved through both more staff, staff working a longer week, and the savings realised from combining roles and moving to a contribution-based pension scheme should all be easily achievable without cutting services, compromising safety, or cutting corners on customer service. The fact that Lumo exists, and critically does not pay poor salaries to onboard staff, is proof of that rather. Sadly it seems likely that industrial action would be triggered at every single DfT operator by such proposals, so they just do nothing and permit the problem to get worse.
For urban services the picture is quite different because it really needs you to choose whether you want to staff stations or trains, as both is generally not affordable.
It's hard to argue with you that the fact that Lumo exists means people are happy to work for them. I guess it will remain to be seen whether they experience retention issues but until that point yes, on the surface it seems obvious to try and emulate that elsewhere. For me, longer hours and a worse pension would come close to tipping the balance on whether I want to remain in the industry. At my depot at least, the hours (as in start and finish times) are very extreme and the longer I do it the harder it is to ignore the impact on health. I genuinely don't think some of our turns could be made any longer without bringing in an impact on safety and I also wonder at what point an employer's duty of care kicks in on a longer term level when considering the proven health impact of anti social hours working. Combined with a worsening of the pension situation I think I would think long and hard about whether it would be better to jump while I had the option rather than be pushed into leaving via incidents or health. Now, I'm just one person, but I don't consider it unlikely that some others would come to the same conclusion, either immediately or over time.
Back more towards the topic, I signed up to work weekends, including some Sundays. If people want to suggest I need to work more weekends (and Christmas) then you have to expect that I'm not going to be wild about it, and I'm not going to want to do it without negotiation. I know a number of posters have said similar or acknowledged this, I'm just adding my voice to the chorus.
Not specifically no. But there is a lot of 'talk' that on what the DfT will and won't do but if nobody is prepared to quote any specific response from the DfT or provide any evidence.
My TOC is currently negotiating so I would be very concerned if those talks are being leaked to 3rd parties, especially as the DfT are currently not directly involved in said talks.
Unless someone here works for the DfT or is directly involved with the negotiations then it's just hearsay.
Sunday is a normal day other than for office workers. Thus, either the railway should operate on Sundays, or it is not fit for purpose and should be closed.
When did you last see a GP on a Sunday? Or get a plumber for anything other than an (expensive) emergency, or get your boiler serviced, or get your house painted, or your car repaired? Any number of trades don’t work on Sundays, other than for a premium.
In any case, aren’t you presenting a false binary? Most of the railway operates a perfectly decent service on a Sunday and nobody (other than you) is suggesting closing it down.
A combination of moving Sunday inside achieved through both more staff, staff working a longer week, and the savings realised from combining roles and moving to a contribution-based pension scheme should all be easily achievable without cutting services, compromising safety, or cutting corners on customer service. The fact that Lumo exists, and critically does not pay poor salaries to onboard staff, is proof of that rather. Sadly it seems likely that industrial action would be triggered at every single DfT operator by such proposals, so they just do nothing and permit the problem to get worse.
Ah yes, worsening Ts and Cs, destroying pensions, racing to the bottom will solve the “problem” of workers earning decent pay and benefits for the work they do.
The cost cutting argument is nonsense, of course; the last two years have shown the money is there if the government wishes to spend it. The railway unions (quite reasonably) will want to secure decent recompense for their members, particularly where hard fought for Ts and Cs are being compromised.
Good to hear "just for new starters" is a thing somewhere. Like many suggestions I make here it was comprehensively rubbished and now it's happened (my best one so far was e-tickets, which are now ubiquitous)
I actually think this is a pretty sensible suggestion and it works well at my TOC. Is does mean effectively a pay rise for those who choose to bring their Sundays inside, with all new joiners starting on that salary with their Sundays opted in (but of course they know that when they apply). We have two links with identical work, the Sundays outside link gradually reducing in size as people retire or leave.
I suspect the issue is that something is being demanded for nothing, which will clearly by unacceptable to the unions.
Not specifically no. But there is a lot of 'talk' that on what the DfT will and won't do but if nobody is prepared to quote any specific response from the DfT or provide any evidence.
My TOC is currently negotiating so I would be very concerned if those talks are being leaked to 3rd parties, especially as the DfT are currently not directly involved in said talks.
Unless someone here works for the DfT or is directly involved with the negotiations then it's just hearsay.
With almost everything that is currently underway, the DfT's client manager will need to sign off on for TOC management to put into writing. They may not literally be in the room but they're definitely directly involved if it's one of the 14. Even things that have nothing to do with the negotiating team, say the operator wants to run an additional couple of additional Saturday services for a major event on their patch and isn't able to resource them from the usual Saturday crew, they'll have to get approval for the spend before they can go with a request for one day only special turns. Might be different for the likes of Merseyrail etc.
When did you last see a GP on a Sunday? Or get a plumber for anything other than an (expensive) emergency, or get your boiler serviced, or get your house painted, or your car repaired? Any number of trades don’t work on Sundays, other than for a premium.
How often do you use a train in doing any of those things?
Sunday is busier for leisure travel, now the mainstay of the railway, than Wednesday afternoons. Far busier. Sunday afternoon is the second busiest time on the InterCity railway, Friday evening being the busiest. Any line with no Sunday service throws away this substantial weekend-tripper traffic, as if you are getting in the car to a distant railhead why not drive all the way?
The point is many people expect a premium for working on a Sunday. The unions are in favour of Sundays being inside (because it means more staff), but will also expect something in return for Ts and Cs being changed, to protect those staff who signed up for jobs knowing they’d always have Sundays outside.
From your posts above I think you accept this, to be fair.
Sunday is busier for leisure travel, now the mainstay of the railway, than Wednesday afternoons. Far busier. Sunday afternoon is the second busiest time on the InterCity railway, Friday evening being the busiest. Any line with no Sunday service throws away this substantial weekend-tripper traffic, as if you are getting in the car to a distant railhead why not drive all the way?
How often do you use a train in doing any of those things?
Sunday is busier for leisure travel, now the mainstay of the railway, than Wednesday afternoons. Far busier. Sunday afternoon is the second busiest time on the InterCity railway, Friday evening being the busiest. Any line with no Sunday service throws away this substantial weekend-tripper traffic, as if you are getting in the car to a distant railhead why not drive all the way?
There are routes where the service is more intense on Sunday afternoons than weekday afternoons. It's not done for a laugh, it's done to serve a demand.
The fact that you don't like Lumo does not mean that it's model is unsuitable for scaling up. Apart from scale, their operation is really not very different to that of long-distance work at other operators.
There is quite a bit of difference. At present they are a small operator with a single route and traction and not that many services. I would anticipate that the majority of their traincrew came across with existing competencies so could be slotted straight into the roles.
Why are the railways so special? In any other industry, which has to stand on its own feet in the marketplace, it is accepted that 24/7 working is required. Time for the government to say that those who insist on fouling the nest can go off the payroll. I've had it up to here with the RMT, who seem to have little regard for the customer.
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
