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!
It's not, and no need for the cynicism re. the meaning of my post. I have genuinely read many posts which suggest over time, one union has become more co-operative than another, and I remember a couple of members stating it used to be the other way round. I seem to remember it currently being that the RMT are less willing to negotiate than ASLEF, and that it used to be the other way round a couple of decades before hand.
Some have a couple of pages back, confirmed by another user above who said "My mate who works in the NHS has had the easiest couple of years of his career and is still getting a payrise. Why shouldn’t I given that I haven’t had one for three years."
Both are about the same in terms of reasonableness. The RMT love their rhetoric but they're actually pretty reasonable negotiators.
As in any negotiation the union high-ball and the employer low-ball. What's different this time is the government seem pretty determined to stick to their low-ball.
FWIW I think this lot are delivering a pub covers band version of Thatcherism, and see "sticking it to the union" as an intrinsic part of that.
Passenger numbers are in the 80s%, and certainly not over 90% compared to Pre covid. The service level meanwhile is over 90% on weekdays (and going up by a couple of % in 3 weeks), whilst at weekends the service level is as near as makes no difference at Pre covid levels. the % of capacity is higher than this, as we run, on average, longer trains now than Pre Covid.
These are national figures; there are some ups and downs locally.
But demand is now skewed towards weekends, so the service is not matching demand there at all. And that’s before we start talking about the cancellations in the North. It’s alright timetabling 90% of pre-covid services, but if they get cancelled the night before, it’s a bit of a hollow and irrelevant claim.
Can you be more specific about which area of the country you are running longer trains in, because I’m not seeing that in Sheffield and actually due to cancellations the number of carriages per hour is often well down between some key destinations.
Both are about the same in terms of reasonableness. The RMT love their rhetoric but they're actually pretty reasonable negotiators.
As in any negotiation the union high-ball and the employer low-ball. What's different this time is the government seem pretty determined to stick to their low-ball.
We've just accepted 6% in the civil service here, and an offer in that ballpark would show a genuine intent to negotiate.
FWIW I think this lot are delivering a pub covers band version of Thatcherism, and see "sticking it to the union" as an intrinsic part of that.
The RMT has got better with the messaging under Mick Lynch IMO although I think perhaps they could be a bit more apologetic when announcing strikes like ASLEF do.
Sorry I find it hard to believe that nationally we are running over 90% of services. Given that a number of operators are running vastly reduced services, Avanti, Northern, TPE, WMR, Chiltern, XC have routes barely over 50% of pre-Covid levels. This would seem to imply some operators are running almost 100%
Or are the figures massively skewed by some TfL routes - in particular that new one?
No idea where you get ‘barely over 50%’ from, unless you mean individual lines of route.
Avanti are by far the worst at 63% of Pre Covid (but up to c85% in three weeks). Northern at 80% (going up to over 90%), TPE 74%, WMR 94%, Chiltern 82%, Cross Country 91%.
worth pointing out that Pre Covid, Avanti, Chiltern, Cross Country and TPE combined ran approx 6% of the services on the network.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Can you be more specific about which area of the country you are running longer trains in, because I’m not seeing that in Sheffield and actually due to cancellations the number of carriages per hour is often well down between some key destinations.
The ECML, the GWML, the MML, almost all of Anglia, some of the northern network (evidently not Sheffield), much of the Cross Country network (offsetting lower frequency), amongst others.
No idea where you get ‘barely over 50%’ from, unless you mean individual lines of route.
Avanti are by far the worst at 63% of Pre Covid (but up to c85% in three weeks). Northern at 80% (going up to over 90%), TPE 74%, WMR 94%, Chiltern 82%, Cross Country 91%.
worth pointing out that Pre Covid, Avanti, Chiltern, Cross Country and TPE combined ran approx 6% of the services on the network.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
it isn’t though. The average weekday is 2.5 to 3 times busier than the average Sunday, and 50% busier than the average Saturday.
The ECML, the GWML, the MML, almost all of Anglia, some of the northern network (evidently not Sheffield), much of the Cross Country network (offsetting lower frequency), amongst others.
Can you please explain how Cross Country are running 91% of services when:-
There are hardly any trains from Newcastle via Doncaster (Sheffield to Birmingham cut by almost 50%, only a handful from Manchester to Bristol (Manchester to Birmingham cut by c50%,), services operating north of Newcastle and south of Reading and Bristol heavily reduced.?
I don't understand what you are asking; why would a rail employee deem other industries more worthy than their own? But why even ask that question? It's not a matter of one industry being more worthy than another!
Because he appears to be having ‘a go’ at the railway only by saying if you want a pay rise then quit.
Does the OP think the same for other industries ie if you want a raise, forget and quit?
Not hard really!
It is pretty much half service with a couple of oh-so-generous extras (Newcastle Banbury and Manchester Bristol) thrown in. A large number of XC services on the Plymouth route terminate short at Bristol, and at Newcastle instead of Edinburgh, or Edinburgh instead of Aberdeen or Glasgow. Bournemouth gets 1tp2h instead of 1tph now. Manchester Bristol and Newcastle Southampton are distant memories. You could get 3tp2h from Southampton to the Midlands pre-COVID, and now 2.5 years on from the breakout of the pandemic, only one remains in the permanent timetable.
And the difference between now and seven/eight months ago, which makes it all the worse, is that the almost guaranteed double sets has now almost halved. The extra capacity almost made the mass cuts worth it, but now that the doubles are vanishing quickly too, it's completely out of order. Reading Basingstoke is an example of a commuter route that was full and standing in peaks even with three 4/5-221s per two hours and two 3-165s per hour - GWR seem to be dropping to two carriages more and more often on that route so you've gone down to one 4/5-221 per two hours and often two 2-165s per hour, and people are getting left behind at Basingstoke in the morning.
I've edited my post you quoted to clarify some uncertainty. It may well be that by some definition 91% is accurate, but I don't know how it's calculated. As far as I am aware we are on 80%.
It's more than half as the 170 services are (almost, but not quite) back to normal. Plus a handful of Reading/Newcastles (although some of these terminate short at Banbury) and Bristol/Readings.
But we all know the government could solve the dispute immediately by allowing the TOCs to negotiate. So why do you see this as a problem caused by strikes, rather than by government intransigence?
If the DfT gives them no extra funds they have nothing to negotiate surely other than finding ways to make it self funding but as we know that becomes a T&Cs/staff numbers issue that just incenses the unions further.
The frustrating thing here is they could have settled this at the start of the year for 5% but now i see this is going to be grind the staff down until they throw in the towel. I was hoping Merriman could have brokered a deal for more cash in exchange for getting unions to agree to accept principles for making changes to reduce overall operating costs.
The government .... has now apparently even found money to give scroungers on benefits a payrise, yet apparently tells us with a straight face there’s no money for railway staff?
You say that, but approx. £300/month is a lot harder to live on than approx. £2000/month, and therefore I'd potentially see benefit rises as a higher priority.
They should try it. End the employment contracts of all strikers and offer to rehire them on substantially worse terms (but still generous, vs other public sector jobs), which would go some way to reducing the bloated costs of England's rail industry (next stops: procurement and rolling stock).
A minority wouldn't accept the new terms; fair enough, good luck to them. In normal times suddenly losing 10%-20% of your workforce would be noticeable, but not when many TOCs can hardly run a skeleton service as it is.
The majority would accept, on discovering that (i) particularly outside of London, there are no other glamourously paid jobs available to workers with vocational qualifications, and (ii) being unemployed in the middle of a recession with rampant inflation isn't attractive to someone previously earning £40k+.
Most jobs on the railways are paid well below £40k p.a so if these people are fired , they may easily get a job somewhere else for this same money making railways impossible to run.
Most jobs on the railways are paid well below £40k p.a so if these people are fired , they may easily get a job somewhere else for this same money making railways impossible to run.
Coming back to the original point, this would just enable the Government to push for a legally-enforcible minimum 40% service. It would be much easier to get through given spoiled holiday seasons.
All the talk about pay feels a bit redundant as all the talk I hear in the mess room is about working practices. I can’t speak for everyone, but the vast majority of people feel that the sticking point for NR is working practices and jobs, not pay.
If there were no strings attached I think people would have accepted the 4+4%, but it’s the strings that are the issue.
All the talk about pay feels a bit redundant as all the talk I hear in the mess room is about working practices. I can’t speak for everyone, but the vast majority of people feel that the sticking point for NR is working practices and jobs, not pay.
If there were no strings attached I think people would have accepted the 4+4%, but it’s the strings that are the issue.
I think it was abundantly clear from the Chancellor's Autumn statement that the government are expecting serious cuts and / or savings across the board. And so where there are any prospects of a pay rise there will be strings. Plus with it's leadership settled, the moneymen and bean counters more at ease, this government isn't as unstable as it was a few weeks ago. So they can, and probably will hold for some time on all fronts, even if industrial action spreads throughout the public sector. Its for this reason why as a public sector worker I won't be taking industrial action, I don't see it ending well at the moment. Maybe in 12 months once the general election starts to loom large, maybe...
I think the problem that the rail industry has is that it is now seen as an optional extra by large parts of the population. I do still use it for leisure travel but living in a rural area I still need to drive to the station so if its not running I will just drive to the destination. Down here in the south east the large empty station car parks suggest that commuting to a London Office every day has effectively finished.
If the government has spare cash Id much rather it was spent on the nhs, education or defence. Even as a rail enthusiast rail is a nice to have rather than an essential now.
If youan employee wants to earn more money, moving to a better paid job is generally the way to go (I could earn more money if I quit some of the jobs I do).
I think the problem that the rail industry has is that it is now seen as an optional extra by large parts of the population. I do still use it for leisure travel but living in a rural area I still need to drive to the station so if its not running I will just drive to the destination. Down here in the south east the large empty station car parks suggest that commuting to a London Office every day has effectively finished.
If the government has spare cash Id much rather it was spent on the nhs, education or defence. Even as a rail enthusiast rail is a nice to have rather than an essential now.
Isn't this a key issue that has been forgotten ?
I think it used to be only 10% of the population used trains regularly - 18% used them occasionally (actual figures probably now slightly different). Freight is often overlooked.
The fact is that over 80% of the population use cars/buses/bikes and they have little interest in anything rail staff do. Any number of strikes are only ever going to affect about 18% - and most of those can, nowadays, find ways around any problems.
It's more than half as the 170 services are (almost, but not quite) back to normal. Plus a handful of Reading/Newcastles (although some of these terminate short at Banbury) and Bristol/Readings.
There aren't any Reading - Newcastle as far as I'm aware? Reading now gets 50% of the service level from the North as compared to pre-Covid and as mentioned earlier not all trains are double units on this very busy corridor.
There aren't any Reading - Newcastle as far as I'm aware? Reading now gets 50% of the service level from the North as compared to pre-Covid and as mentioned earlier not all trains are double units on this very busy corridor.
I wasn't quite sure what happens south of New St, but there are a few services which go via Doncaster (the old Reading service) but I think they terminate at Banbury instead of going through to Reading. They are well used north of New St despite being sporadic.
Well the “there’s no more money” argument, and the size of the opex budgets are value judgements. There’s apparently money to give people on benefits a pay rise….
Lovely. Well, since you want that for me as a “striker”, I sincerely wish the same on you…
There’s your bias against railway staff coming out again...
My mate who works in the NHS has had the easiest couple of years of his career and is still getting a payrise. Why shouldn’t I given that I haven’t had one for three years.
The government paid millions of people to sit on their backsides for months and has now apparently even found money to give scroungers on benefits a payrise, yet apparently tells us with a straight face there’s no money for railway staff?
I wasn't quite sure what happens south of New St, but there are a few services which go via Doncaster (the old Reading service) but I think they terminate at Banbury instead of going through to Reading. They are well used north of New St despite being sporadic.
There are two services a day MF which terminate/start at Banbury on the NE corridor, and nothing at weekends. Even these are useless for heading southwards towards Reading as there's no onward connection.
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.
Someone is telling porkies......
