Railways lurching out of control?

[Deepgreen]

This is a horrible thing to say, however one way for the industry to be snapped out of this is for a major disaster to happen. With skimping going on across the board, this may well - sadly - be the end result.

I actually don't think safety is being compromised in all this decline - but quality of service, attractriveness of use and all the other things that should entice passengers onto this potentially environmentally-helpful form of transport are falling rapidly and a spiral of decline of use and quality is inevitably the result.

 

[43066]

I actually don't think safety is being compromised in all this decline - but quality of service, attractriveness of use and all the other things that should entice passengers onto this potentially environmentally-helpful form of transport are falling rapidly and a spiral of decline of use and quality is inevitably the result.

I wish I shared your confidence, when we read that routine maintenance is already being scaled back.

 

[Iskra]

Of course you do. God forbid railway staff get a payrise, ever. Nice to know you actively want myself and my colleagues to be poorer during a cost of living crisis

I find it extraordinary (but sadly not remotely surprising) that railway staff are clearly seen as less deserving of a rise than benefits claimants on this forum. If you think I’m “lashing out” at other sections of society that is nothing compared to the hearing staff get on here, to the point where I know several who simply no longer contribute.

Ironically this is often by people who will likely either be in receipt of state handouts themselves or the beneficiaries of significant furlough payments.

You are totally misrepresenting my point of view. I am not against railway payrises. If revenue/ridership/profit were up 20% and everything was rosey I'd be quite happy for a 20% payrise (assuming headcount remained flat). But, the railway isn't performing (or if it is, the results aren't coming in to support that) and therefore it must cut its cloth accordingly in my view. If I did a sub-optimal job and sales declined at my work, I would not expect a tax-payer funded payrise. And that's before we start thinking about elements happy for self-destruction due to being pre-occupied with trying to take on a Tory Government that it perceives as weak!

Just FYI, my company (not the taxpayer) paid my furlough pay at 100% of my salary, and I still returned to work voluntarily at the earliest available opportunity, when I could have sat on my sofa for another two months and had the same income. I expected that this would affect future payrises, so therefore reduced my expectations accordingly. The last figures I saw, my business had a 126% recovery rate. No sour grapes here, just someone who lives in economic reality.

 

[O L Leigh]

A few people in the thread have mentioned 'managed decline' - personally I think that is rather optimistic. It feels like unmanaged, or chaotic, decline to me. And it seems that no-one has a plan to reverse it or even make it more orderly - maybe it isn't possible, but no-one seems to be even trying. There is a massive vacuum in politics.

I’d have to agree with this. It almost feels as though the government is single-mindedly pursuing one policy irrespective of the effect it will actually have on the economic and political health of the nation.

The only thing that will change this is, in this correspondent’s humble opinion, another re-cast of the relationship between the DfT and the franchised TOCs. Put the financial risk/reward back onto the TOCs and incentivise them to drive up revenue, resolve industrial relations issues and generally get on with the business of running the railway. This situation can’t be especially attractive to private enterprise who might otherwise be considering dabbling in UK rail either.

 

[ar10642]

We all know there are a proportion of people on benefits simply because they can’t be bothered to work. I can’t see how anyone can make a case to say that cohort deserves 10.1%. Those who physically cannot work is another matter entirely.

Is that really true anymore? Being on benefits is a hard, miserable life, it's barely enough money to buy the absolute basics.

 

[43066]

If I did a sub-optimal job and sales declined at my work, I would not expect a tax-payer funded payrise. And that's before we start thinking about elements happy for self-destruction due to being pre-occupied with trying to take on a Tory Government that it perceives as weak!

But front line staff, by and large, aren’t doing a “sub optimal job”, and it isn’t their fault the government chose to mishandle Covid in the way that it did.

As I have repeatedly pointed out the NHS is doing a sub optimal job according to basically all measures, but nobody seems to begrudge doctors and nurses getting a taxpayer funded pay rise.

I can absolutely assure you the majority of railway union members are also not pre occupied with taking on the government, they’re just trying to make ends meet.

Just FYI, my company (not the taxpayer) paid my furlough pay at 100% of my salary, and I still returned to work voluntarily at the earliest available opportunity, when I could have sat on my sofa for another two months and had the same income. I expected that this would affect future payrises, so therefore reduced my expectations accordingly. The last figures I saw, my business had a 126% recovery rate. No sour grapes here, just someone who lives in economic reality.

So there we have it. It turns out you were paid to do nothing for a period of time, and now begrudge those who have worked throughout a pay rise because of “economic reality”. Don’t you think that’s a little rich!?

I think you’ll also find your company would have received payments towards furlough from the government and chose to top salaries up. Don’t get me wrong, I think furlough was the only thing that could be done in the circumstances, but it clearly went on far too long and has cost truly eye watering amounts. I am absolutely up for taking action to defend my own interests when the same governing party who made those decisions now says there’s “nothing left for you”, alternating with “there is money for a pay rise but only for changing conditions”.

Is that really true anymore? Being on benefits is a hard, miserable life, it's barely enough money to buy the absolute basics.

Including for the people on £50k claiming child benefit? What about multimillionaire pensioners receiving winter fuel allowance?

 

[nedchester]

Benefits are paid at, or usually below, subsistence levels.

Outright fraud in the benefit system is about 2%.

I used to manage a debt and benefits advice team. A tiny proportion of people were "too lazy" to work, and even these people had issues.

More commonly they were either completely lacking in the skills required to work- good luck getting work if you can't read and write- or the benefit system meant that they wouldn't get to keep any of the extra money made through work. It was depressing how often a benefit calculation would show someone to be £15/week better off working, but it would cost them £20 to get to work on the bus.

Divide and conquer is a brilliant tactic. "There's no money for wage rises due to benefits claimants/asylum seekers", said by a man worth £750m and whose wife dodges tax in the UK. And said by a government who found £200m to give to Michelle Mone.

Exactly. Some folks will believe the 'Daily Mail' rhetoric......

There's much more fraud at the top both as a proportion and in pure monetary terms.

But rail workers rightly don't like comparisons with other groups as it is "not a race to the bottom"......

 

[43066]

But rail workers rightly don't like comparisons with other groups as it is "not a race to the bottom"......

As has been pointed out, it isn’t a comparison, so much as an observation that “there’s no money” is demonstrably nonsense when there clearly is money for these other groups…

 

[Iskra]

But front line staff, by and large, aren’t doing a “sub optimal job”, and it isn’t their fault the government chose to mishandle Covid in the way that it did.

As I have repeatedly pointed out the NHS is doing a sub optimal job according to basically all measures, but nobody seems to begrudge doctors and nurses getting a taxpayer funded pay rise.

I can absolutely assure you the majority of railway union members are also not pre occupied with taking on the government, they’re just trying to make ends meet.




So there we have it. It turns out you were paid to do nothing for a period of time, and now begrudge those who have worked throughout a pay rise because of “economic reality”. Don’t you think that’s a little rich!?

I think you’ll also find your company would have received payments towards furlough from the government and chose to top salaries up. Don’t get me wrong, I think furlough was the only thing that could be done in the circumstances, but it clearly went on far too long and has cost truly eye watering amounts. I am absolutely up for taking action to defend my own interests when the same governing party who made those decisions now says there’s “nothing left for you”, alternating with “there is money for a pay rise but only for changing conditions”.



Including for the people on £50k claiming child benefit? What about multimillionaire pensioners receiving winter fuel allowance?

No, but they weren't exactly working at full capacity during that period either (and some were even 'getting paid to do nothing' ), while the farebox was relatively empty. You have to take the rough with the smooth. I would also add that rail managers and TOC's handled the pandemic and re-opening period extremely poorly.

I think we both agree that Covid was poorly managed (easy to say with hindsight though) and I did not agree with mandatory lockdowns and closing most businesses down (I could understand not doing large events though) and I even saw furlough as creating a dangerous level of entitlement that some people still haven't recovered from. I and my business had no choice but to follow the law however. No, my salary was funded entirely by my company and I returned to work voluntarily at the first available opportunity, as I have a work ethic and understand it is in my interest for the business to be successful. I also considered myself extremely fortunate to even have a job, as going in to the pandemic, I could easily have been asked to make my entire team redundant and probably put through redundancy myself, which was a sobering position to be in.

 

[Runningaround]

Of course but even where the service is sub optimal there are plenty of examples of ridership outstripping demand so in short term fares should be increased so to get the industry back on an even keel and then build out from there.

How do you think passengers will feel when the service is getting worse and are then being asked to pay even more? Demand seems to be there, but is it? Or do we have the same demand but with fewer trains running they are being rammed into what is?
Passengers would be happier if they had a service that offered value, perhaps fares should be based on service offered rather than be charged more as it gets worse.

 

[ar10642]

Including for the people on £50k claiming child benefit? What about multimillionaire pensioners receiving winter fuel allowance?

That is not the sort of benefit I'm talking about and besides that 50K threshold has not moved since 2013 which is a real terms reduction, in fact I think it now kicks in before the 40% tax rate does. I do have issues with the "triple-lock" automatically happening whilst public sector workers have to fight for pay rises, yes. There should be a decent increase for all.

But I do object to the assertion that living on Universal Credit is some sort of easy life. I've never done it but I know people who have and it is by no means easy at all. A 10% increase is probably necessary just so these people can actually put food on the table. The housing element of it also only does not cover the market rent on basically anything in this area, for a family of 4 the upper limit is something like £825 a month in my area, the market rent for a 2 bed flat is something around £1,200 so good luck making that work.

 

[al78]

BBC report related to the poor reliability of the railway:

Train cancellations: 'Travelling to work can cost me more than I earn'​

Train cancellations: 'Travelling to work can cost me more than I earn'

One in every 26 trains has been cancelled this year, which on top of strikes are adding to passengers' woes.

www.bbc.co.uk

"Vet Jenna Blackburn's usual commute is Chester to Manchester, changing at Warrington, often on Northern.
But she regularly gets stuck in Warrington when trains are delayed or cancelled and has to get a taxi home.
She doesn't drive and on strike days there were no trains running. She said she took taxis to and from work which cost her more than £160.
She is one of many facing disruption, with train cancellations at the highest level since records began in 2015.
Newly released data from the Office of Road and Rail shows 3.8% of trains in Great Britain have been cancelled in the year up to 12 November - or one in every 26.
"At least four times this year I've spent more on getting here and back than I have actually earnt that day," Ms Blackburn said.
"On a semi-regular basis I'm getting home at nine o'clock at night," she added. "Delay repay is about £6. It'll pay a quarter of your train ticket so it doesn't cover anything."
Ms Blackburn said a taxi home from Warrington to Chester usually costs between £30 and £40, depending on the time. But on strike days taxi prices are higher.
"Strikes are a nightmare because Chester station essentially just shuts down. This year I've had to spend £160 one day just to get here because it was a busy day for taxis so it was £160 here and back."
She added: "Over this year I've had to have hotels because I've not been able to get home on the last train because it's been cancelled and lots of taxis."
"Financially it's a lot," she said. "You're coming to work to make money and you can spend more than your day's wage to get home."
"Emotionally it's exhausting, to constantly have to look at the train times every single day. And hope I'm not going to be stranded," she said."

 

[nedchester]

As has been pointed out, it isn’t a comparison, so much as an observation that “there’s no money” is demonstrably nonsense when there clearly is money for these other groups…

The Government's argument will be that some groups are more in need than others.

Just because there is money for group A doesn't mean there's money for group B.

 

[Bantamzen]

Including for the people on £50k claiming child benefit? What about multimillionaire pensioners receiving winter fuel allowance?

Just briefly as this is really off topic, but I work directly with this sort of data and these kind of cases are very much the outliers, not the norm. The real picture is very, very different, and that's really all I can say I'm afraid.

 

[The Ham]

BBC report related to the poor reliability of the railway:

Train cancellations: 'Travelling to work can cost me more than I earn'​

Train cancellations: 'Travelling to work can cost me more than I earn'

One in every 26 trains has been cancelled this year, which on top of strikes are adding to passengers' woes.

www.bbc.co.uk

"Vet Jenna Blackburn's usual commute is Chester to Manchester, changing at Warrington, often on Northern.
But she regularly gets stuck in Warrington when trains are delayed or cancelled and has to get a taxi home.
She doesn't drive and on strike days there were no trains running. She said she took taxis to and from work which cost her more than £160.
She is one of many facing disruption, with train cancellations at the highest level since records began in 2015.
Newly released data from the Office of Road and Rail shows 3.8% of trains in Great Britain have been cancelled in the year up to 12 November - or one in every 26.
"At least four times this year I've spent more on getting here and back than I have actually earnt that day," Ms Blackburn said.
"On a semi-regular basis I'm getting home at nine o'clock at night," she added. "Delay repay is about £6. It'll pay a quarter of your train ticket so it doesn't cover anything."
Ms Blackburn said a taxi home from Warrington to Chester usually costs between £30 and £40, depending on the time. But on strike days taxi prices are higher.
"Strikes are a nightmare because Chester station essentially just shuts down. This year I've had to spend £160 one day just to get here because it was a busy day for taxis so it was £160 here and back."
She added: "Over this year I've had to have hotels because I've not been able to get home on the last train because it's been cancelled and lots of taxis."
"Financially it's a lot," she said. "You're coming to work to make money and you can spend more than your day's wage to get home."
"Emotionally it's exhausting, to constantly have to look at the train times every single day. And hope I'm not going to be stranded," she said."

There's an interesting table in that news story which shows the cancellations by TOC, Avanti had cancelled the highest percentage of services.

What makes that more staggering is that it doesn't count reductions from the normal timetables to any emergency timetable, rather only "on the day" cancellations.

 

[Peter Sarf]

It’s pretty clear that unreliability is going to put passengers off using it more than the odd day of strike action. As for the “demanded pay increases”, we know what has been settled for by the same unions in wales and Scotland which is not at all unreasonable compared to what is being offered elsewhere… It’s also joke when the same government has found the money to give pensioners and benefits claimants a fat rise.

As for railway finances, the railway always requires subsidy so it seems a little more than a little irrational to peg what is deemed acceptable to an arbitrary pre Covid level.

It’s clear what the government needs to do. Unless you’re saying you’d rather just see the current mess continue…

I only got this far through the thread so someone may have already replied but.

My bold.

Pensioners and the unemployed earn a lot less than rail staff. Nurses do not earn much either. They all have nothing they can cut back on. So I really do not see the joke. Granted we need to ensure the country stays productive. But what do Pensioners or the unemployed have to do - they cannot strike so perhaps they should riot - that would be no joke ?.

 

[Goldfish62]

So what do Pensioners or the unemployed have to do - they cannot strike so perhaps they should riot - that would be no joke ?.

Well indeed.

Take my mum. Pension £15k pa (state plus widow). She's in a care home, a run of the mill no frills one. Her weekly fee has just gone up by £120. She now pays £960 per week (and believe me that's quite cheap). I had to sell the family home a couple of years ago to pay her care fees. Personally I'm very glad she's getting a 10% increase in he state pension - it will at least offset that £120 pw fee increase to a certain extent.

This, my friends, is the lot of many pensioners.

 

[Iskra]

The Government's argument will be that some groups are more in need than others.

Just because there is money for group A doesn't mean there's money for group B.

I think the governments argument is that there can be a pay rise but it needs to be self-funded with no extra government support, which seems reasonable with revenue well down. However, some people seem to want to have their cake and eat it...

 

[The Ham]

Just briefly as this is really off topic, but I work directly with this sort of data and these kind of cases are very much the outliers, not the norm. The real picture is very, very different, and that's really all I can say I'm afraid.

Also, it's not uncommon for there to be significant amounts of tax being paid and therefore the actual cost is fairly small overall. However, if you were to means test it you'd probably find that it would cost the government more than it saved.

This is why some suggest that there should be a universal income and only have a tax free allowance on that value as it may not actually cost the government as much as the current system.

For instance keeping track of which of the parents of the circa 20 million children are due payments, due to end payments, etc. all takes time and therefore costs money. Likewise the 12.5 million claiming state pension, with some getting top ups and others not, all costs money. Likewise if someone on Universal Credit earns a bit more this month that's got to be tracked, and so costs money.

I know if someone on UC who says that their earnings are a little higher than they actually are, so that they can do a few hours of overtime without worrying about what that's going to do to their payments.

However the paperwork which is filled out is very long, with many factors appearing to be repeated. This is often in paper form, so then (presumably) needs to be entered into the systems.

With a universal income none of that would happen, they'd be taxed on their income, there would probably still be hosting benefits but that's still a huge drop in work for the government.

Someone earning (say) £20,000 might see their income jump, but then so would their tax bill, leaving (potentially) them better off but maybe only by part of the universal income below. However those just below the current higher rate threshold may find that they are marginally worse off (as they would move into the 40% tax rate).

Anyone over the 40% or 45% tax threshold would find themselves worse off from the extra taxes.

It would also remove the rules saying that you start to loose benefits of you work more than 16 hours (that reduction is at a higher percentage than those paying 40% tax). As such encouraging those in that situation to work more and therefore pay more tax.

Of course that's not going to happen, as too many have ingrained thoughts about "others" benefiting more than they do, and therefore continuing the mindset of "them" and "us" between groups which often have more in common than those in power for whom such a narrative is beneficial (be that divide being between train drivers, immigrants, the EU, those on benefits, etc.).

Especially when such infighting distracts from the fact the country is being badly run by the party in power (and probably has been for the last 16 years).

 

[DC1989]

The issue with pensioners is the broadbrush approach. I don't think many would object to pensioners in poverty getting an increase in their benefit in line with inflation. There's a graph now that says 1 in 4 pensioners are millionaires. So that's about 3 million pensioners with this increase in benefits that cost 3billion quid that do not need it.

If you add the £600 every pensioner is getting then thats another 2 billion

5 billion given to millionaires !! 3 billion of that every single year

 

[The Ham]

I think the governments argument is that there can be a pay rise but it needs to be self-funded with no extra government support, which seems reasonable with revenue well down. However, some people seem to want to have their cake and eat it...

Train drivers are often said to have a £60,000 pay packet, as such any increase would result in 40% of that going to the government through increased taxes.

The problem we have is that the government don't appear to be able to organise they way out of wet paper bag, and so rather than trying to deal with ticket sales reform, looking at how to generate extra income, etc. the view is we need to make cuts. Even though those cuts would likely shrink the economy and reduce the tax revenues by more than they could be of things were well run (even allowing for paying higher wages).

 

[exbrel]

As I have repeatedly pointed out the NHS is doing a sub optimal job according to basically all measures, but nobody seems to begrudge doctors and nurses getting a taxpayer funded pay rise.

the doctors and nurses at point of contact are great, no doubt about it, but the billions that are thrown at the NHS, are just swallowed up by bureaucracy, drug companies, "and every day running costs". Roughly, after all stoppages, Newly Registered Nurses get between £1,650 - £1,850 per month, which is not a bad starter wage.

I can absolutely assure you the majority of railway union members are also not pre occupied with taking on the government, they’re just trying to make ends meet.

as we all are, but its the starting point that makes the difference, so for example a porter or cleaners wage is vastly different to a signaller or driver, although the latter needs more experience , so they are all trying to make ends meet, but the latter 2 are in a far better position to start with... and the shops used, and the goods bought are the same for all.

 

[JonathanH]

There's a graph now that says 1 in 4 pensioners are millionaires. So that's about 3 million pensioners with this increase in benefits that cost 3billion quid that do not need it.

If that is the case, a large part of the increase will be being paid back via the tax system.

 

[Llanigraham]

I'm a retired railway worker approaching 70. I get my state pension, my 10 years railway pension and 10 years Civil Service pension. My wife just gets her state pension. We own our semi - rural home and 1 car.
Due to increasing power costs we now have our heating on for an hour in the morning, and a couple of hours before we go to bed. Our last power bill showed we were just over £100 in credit following the last 2 government grants of £66. Next month I suspect we will just break even, after that I'm not sure what we do.
Do I begrudge railway staff wanting more? No I don't but then I also don't begrudge NHS staff either. What I do begrudge is some of the nasty and unfounded comments on here about pensioners and there needs. Just remember that you will be one in the future.

 

[TUC]

Benefits are paid at, or usually below, subsistence levels.

Outright fraud in the benefit system is about 2%.

I used to manage a debt and benefits advice team. A tiny proportion of people were "too lazy" to work, and even these people had issues.

More commonly they were either completely lacking in the skills required to work- good luck getting work if you can't read and write- or the benefit system meant that they wouldn't get to keep any of the extra money made through work. It was depressing how often a benefit calculation would show someone to be £15/week better off working, but it would cost them £20 to get to work on the bus.

Divide and conquer is a brilliant tactic. "There's no money for wage rises due to benefits claimants/asylum seekers", said by a man worth £750m and whose wife dodges tax in the UK. And said by a government who found £200m to give to Michelle Mone.

I used to be a welfare rights officer in an advice centre. It was my first job, and I caught two buses to get to work in a different town, travelling for over an hour each way. There were indeed people who were unfairly falling foul of specific conditions around benefits and who needed expert advice. However, what really annoyed me were those who said it was unfair that their benefit had been suspended because they had refused a job in the next town on the ground that it was too far away. I sat there thinking 'what do you think I have to do each day?'

 

[Tetchytyke]

I think the governments argument is that there can be a pay rise but it needs to be self-funded with no extra government support, which seems reasonable with revenue well down.

Yet most train drivers pay tax at the higher rate so, with employee NICs on top, a good 50% of any increase will go straight back to the government in tax anyway.

 

[bramling]

Is that really true anymore? Being on benefits is a hard, miserable life, it's barely enough money to buy the absolute basics.

There’s plenty of ways people can supplement that should they desire. It’s absolutely not difficult, for example, to take out credit cards with no intention of paying the money back, to simply go round borrowing money off different people and not paying it back, perhaps a bit of shoplifting thrown in.

Lest I be accused of being nasty, this is a real example of someone I know who lives in exactly this way - not a good lifestyle by any means, but enough to be able to have things like a massive flat-screen TV, Apple Watch, Sky etc.

 

[ar10642]

There’s plenty of ways people can supplement that should they desire. It’s absolutely not difficult, for example, to take out credit cards with no intention of paying the money back, to simply go round borrowing money off different people and not paying it back, perhaps a bit of shoplifting thrown in.

Lest I be accused of being nasty, this is a real example of someone I know who lives in exactly this way - not a good lifestyle by any means, but enough to be able to have things like a massive flat-screen TV, Apple Watch, Sky etc.

The credit card stuff is something you won't be able to for long as you'll get defaults and/or CCJs and you won't be able to take out anymore. You'd also have to lie about your income/expenditure which is fraudulent. As for shoplifting you'd hope at some point a criminal conviction would come along.

I'd suggest this sort of behaviour is an edge case, essentially this is a criminal and I hope we're not implying a majority benefit claimants are criminals. I've read that a majority of benefit claimants are now in work.

 

[The Ham]

The issue with pensioners is the broadbrush approach. I don't think many would object to pensioners in poverty getting an increase in their benefit in line with inflation. There's a graph now that says 1 in 4 pensioners are millionaires. So that's about 3 million pensioners with this increase in benefits that cost 3billion quid that do not need it.

If you add the £600 every pensioner is getting then thats another 2 billion

5 billion given to millionaires !! 3 billion of that every single year

How are they defining a millionaire?

Presumably in assets, as such a £500,000 gets you halfway there, likewise a private pension pot is likely to be counted, which could get you quite a bit of the way there as well.

Between my parents, with their house and the share of my grandparent's house they inherited (and counting nothing else) they probably make it to that status (as a couple, so only half way there in if you split the assets between them they're only about £500,000).

However they certainly don't have the sort of lifestyle that you would attribute to millionaires as it's bricks and mortar value, so potentially hard to access all of it.

They are fortunate in that they could downside to access some of that money, however for many (especially in London) they may have a very high house value but a fairly modest sized dwelling, therefore without moving to a cheaper area (which means moving away from their support network) there may not be much choice to access their assets.

 

[nlogax]

massive flat-screen TV

As an aside and trying not to be snarky, the example of 'massive flat screen TVs' as an indicator of relative comfort is overstated. They're dirt cheap these days!