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!
Mod Note: Posts #1 - #13 originally in this thread.
It would appear that Northern have also admitted defeat on the conductor restructuring this week as well. Though there doesn't seem to be any link, so it's likely just a coincidence.
If I were travelling, I would be expecting quite a limited service on both operators on these days.
It would appear that Northern have also admitted defeat on the conductor restructuring this week as well. Though there doesn't seem to be any link, so it's likely just a coincidence.
If I were travelling, I would be expecting quite a limited service on both operators on these days.
Apologies - what I meant was accepted that the process to bring Sunday working in has been exhausted i.e. the restructuring plan voted upon earlier this year has been abandoned.
Apologies - what I meant was accepted that the process to bring Sunday working in has been exhausted i.e. the restructuring plan voted upon earlier this year has been abandoned.
Apologies - what I meant was accepted that the process to bring Sunday working in has been exhausted i.e. the restructuring plan voted upon earlier this year has been abandoned.
The ballot on the new deal wasn't accepted, but, as it had been split into a two-part question, and one of the two was accepted, there was an unknown over whether there could be a revised deal, yes. However there is no revised deal.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
The current Sunday schedules are likely to continue for the foreseeable, if this is what you mean, yes. If you mean will the ability to resource the reduced schedules, yes this is likely to decrease on TPE strike days and Christmas shopping weekends, as they're even more unattractive to work than a normal one. There's a possibility of improved reliability (against the reduced service) in January.
Apologies - what I meant was accepted that the process to bring Sunday working in has been exhausted i.e. the restructuring plan voted upon earlier this year has been abandoned.
The ballot on the new deal wasn't accepted, but, as it had been split into a two-part question, and one of the two was accepted, there was an unknown over whether there could be a revised deal, yes. However there is no revised deal.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
The current Sunday schedules are likely to continue for the foreseeable, if this is what you mean, yes. If you mean will the ability to resource the reduced schedules, yes this is likely to decrease on TPE strike days and Christmas shopping weekends, as they're even more unattractive to work than a normal one. There's a possibility of improved reliability (against the reduced service) in January.
Without wishing to veer of topic, my understanding of the Northern Sunday working / Productivity is that it has NOT been abandoned.
Northern says it made it abundantly clear that the whole package was one offer, including the "who opens the doors" question. The RMT insisted on balloting it as two questions, making people believe that you could have one without the other, which was allegedly never the case.
Members voted to accept Sundays inside, the extra pay, extra rest days and one off lump sum payment, but voted against Driver Open Conductor Close door operation.
The letter Northern has written says, quite correctly, that the "Role of the Guard" dispute was seeking to get a guarantee that there would always be a Guard on the train. Northern says they have guaranteed this and quoted the relevant clause in the offer / revised conditions. Therefore they have given the Union what they want. It seems the RMT has moved the goalposts saying they also want to insist the Guard opens doors, and not the driver. This is despite the RMT saying in letters that "DOCC" is an approved and accepted method of operation.
What Northern is now saying is that they have given the RMT what they originally wanted to settle the dispute, that Northern never offered the two things as separate deals and hence having two ballots was pointless, that there will be no further negotiations on the matter and they await the RMT acceptance of the offer.
They say that if they do not hear from the RMT then they will infer that the process is exhausted. If that is the case then they can look, one way or the other, to impose it as the process is exhausted. It doesn't mean they have abondoned the idea, just looking at other ways of implementing it!
At some point an adult has to enter the room and resolve this across the whole industry. The economic and productivity damage this causes to the wider economy cannot go on. Regardless of view or political persuasion, it needs a strong and firm response and some grown up chats on both sides or our grandkids will be sitting here having the same inane discussions between toothless TOCs, crippingly indecisive DfT and overly powerful unions
They say that if they do not hear from the RMT then they will infer that the process is exhausted. If that is the case then they can look, one way or the other, to impose it as the process is exhausted. It doesn't mean they have abondoned the idea, just looking at other ways of implementing it!
I think stating that the process has been exhausted is quite definitive, personally. Where's the suggestion from that they might impose the changes? Is there anything to suggest that in any of the union or other communications? Are you sure that's not just a hint of paranoid mess room gossip? Either way it won't be during the upcoming timetable period so I'd still say the service will remain as is for the foreseeable future.
At some point an adult has to enter the room and resolve this across the whole industry. The economic and productivity damage this causes to the wider economy cannot go on. Regardless of view or political persuasion, it needs a strong and firm response and some grown up chats on both sides or our grandkids will be sitting here having the same inane discussions between toothless TOCs, crippingly indecisive DfT and overly powerful unions
Exactly, this stupidity has to end. Staff should sign a new contract with Sunday included or walk way. I'm fed up of this now. 1tp2h to Buxton on a Sunday is not acceptable. Everybody joining the railways KNOW there are trains on a Sunday then they pretend otherwise when suits. Pathetic. Union representatives supporting the ongoing stupidness should be named and shamed in public. This will be unpopular but at this point I DON'T CARE!
Funnily enough the unions support bringing Sundays inside and most staff are happy for Sundays to be brought in, they just want to be fairly compensated for it…
Exactly, this stupidity has to end. Staff should sign a new contract with Sunday included or walk way. I'm fed up of this now. 1tp2h to Buxton on a Sunday is not acceptable. Everybody joining the railways KNOW there are trains on a Sunday then they pretend otherwise when suits. Pathetic.
Actually you're misinformed. At Northern who you're referring to, everyone joining the business on the west side knows it ISN'T part of the working week.
Because quite simply it isn't.
However, The unions and staff want Sunday as part of the working week at Transpennine Express.
It's currently compulsory overtime that isn't pensionable, is additional hours on top of the working week hours, and there is no guarantee that you can book a Sunday off for any plans/events you may have.
It's currently compulsory overtime that isn't pensionable, is additional hours on top of the working week hours, and there is no guarantee that you can book a Sunday off for any plans/events you may have.
No problem with the principle that Sundays should be part of one's core contract and be pensionable, but as for there being no guarantee one can book a specific Sunday off, isn't that the case for just about everyone for whom Sunday working is part of their job? A reasonable employer will do their best to accommodate such requests, but there's no inherent guarantee that any particular day can be booked as leave
No problem with the principle that Sundays should be part of one's core contract and be pensionable, but as for there being no guarantee one can book a specific Sunday off, isn't that the case for just about everyone for whom Sunday working is part of their job? A reasonable employer will do their best to accommodate such requests, but there's no inherent guarantee that any particular day can be booked as leave
At the moment it’s nearly impossible to get a booked Sunday off at TPE due to the way the rostering process works.
You can only get it off if there are enough volunteers to cover every open turn. Which doesn’t sound too bad, except before using volunteers to give someone a requested day off, rosters will use volunteers as cross-cover for other depots’ work.
And they only roster Sundays the Wednesday before, and it often lasts until the Friday or Saturday for them to cover every Sunday before they even attempt to cover those for people who request them off. So at best you get told the day before that your request for a Sunday off has been granted
And they only roster Sundays the Wednesday before, and it often lasts until the Friday or Saturday for them to cover every Sunday before they even attempt to cover those for people who request them off. So at best you get told the day before that your request for a Sunday off has been granted
I may be wrong, but I thought that only rostering Sundays on the Wednesday before was because of an agreement with the unions? I agree that it is in the interests of staff and passengers for it to be clear much earlier.
Funnily enough the unions support bringing Sundays inside and most staff are happy for Sundays to be brought in, they just want to be fairly compensated for it…
And not have a core responsibility (opening doors) taken away from them.
The DOCC has been added in adhoc and on the sly, with no information on how they want to implement it, on the basis that drivers opening doors will improve reliability on services.
Management have been asked on several occasions what their plan is for implementing DOCC, and also on how they believe DOCC will improve punctuality, to which they have not given a clear answer. They want the idea of DOCC signed for for future implementation, but why on earth would Guards accept a change in method of work that devalues their responsibility, let alone one which cannot clearly be explained or reinforced with any concrete data?
I have seen the correspondence that Northern issue regarding this topic and it is incredibly hostile. It would not surprise me in the slightest if they blame the shortfalls of the timetable and service upon the Guards solely at this point, even though a vote has clearly shown that the majority are in favour of bringing Sundays inside.
It’s an incredibly poor situation and what little morale there was is practically non-existent now.
And not have a core responsibility (opening doors) taken away from them.
The DOCC has been added in adhoc and on the sly, with no information on how they want to implement it, on the basis that drivers opening doors will improve reliability on services.
Management have been asked on several occasions what their plan is for implementing DOCC, and also on how they believe DOCC will improve punctuality, to which they have not given a clear answer. They want the idea of DOCC signed for for future implementation, but why on earth would Guards accept a change in method of work that devalues their responsibility, let alone one which cannot clearly be explained or reinforced with any concrete data?
I have seen the correspondence that Northern issue regarding this topic and it is incredibly hostile. It would not surprise me in the slightest if they blame the shortfalls of the timetable and service upon the Guards solely at this point, even though a vote has clearly shown that the majority are in favour of bringing Sundays inside.
It’s an incredibly poor situation and what little morale there was is practically non-existent now.
Because it is the right thing to do. A driver is best placed to ascertain if the train has stopped in the correct place and open the doors. This archaic insistence on adhering to outdated processes and bending the knee to every union demand no matter how trivial or stupid has to stop. This is not just a Northern disease ; it is across the industry, Throw in amateur bean counters in the DfT and disinterested ToC management in the throes of being nationalised and it is easy to see how this dispute and many others are prolonged unnecessarily.
Because it is the right thing to do. A driver is best placed to ascertain if the train has stopped in the correct place and open the doors. This archaic insistence on adhering to outdated processes and bending the knee to every union demand no matter how trivial or stupid has to stop. This is not just a Northern disease ; it is across the industry, Throw in amateur bean counters in the DfT and disinterested ToC management in the throes of being nationalised and it is easy to see how this dispute and many others are prolonged unnecessarily.
It is hardly a demand of the union if they wish to keep their memberships best interests in mind.
TOC management and the DFT are being demanding here, trying to force in a change of method of work with no clear indication of how to implement it, and putting it alongside a change to Guards conditions and the service. At this point the Guards are basically stuffed either way now because they’ll keep going to work with an increasingly upset and irate public using a poor service and won’t reap any benefits to a change in conditions because they don’t want to accept a method of work that will be the thin end of the wedge towards removing them from services.
Anecdotally, I can think of a great number of times a driver hasn’t stopped in the right position, but I don’t want to get into that discussion. They’re as fallible as myself.
Because it is the right thing to do. A driver is best placed to ascertain if the train has stopped in the correct place and open the doors. This archaic insistence on adhering to outdated processes and bending the knee to every union demand no matter how trivial or stupid has to stop. This is not just a Northern disease ; it is across the industry, Throw in amateur bean counters in the DfT and disinterested ToC management in the throes of being nationalised and it is easy to see how this dispute and many others are prolonged unnecessarily.
I can think of plenty of occasions where a driver has stopped in what they thought was the correct position but the rear of the train was off the platform.
Funnily enough the unions support bringing Sundays inside and most staff are happy for Sundays to be brought in, they just want to be fairly compensated for it…
Indeed so. Of course the increase in base salary plus non-consolidated £2k payment likely were considered fair pay for new working hours, as a small majority indicated an acceptance of it. The negotiation wasn't originally about Sundays though so those other issues probably affected the outcome more.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I can think of plenty of occasions where a driver has stopped in what they thought was the correct position but the rear of the train was off the platform.
That rather sounds like it suggests a driver not properly in control of a train, or a lapse of driving attention (e.g. forgetting what format of train is being driven) to me. At some operators those would be reportable as safety incidents and could see the driver being relieved of duty.
No problem with the principle that Sundays should be part of one's core contract and be pensionable, but as for there being no guarantee one can book a specific Sunday off, isn't that the case for just about everyone for whom Sunday working is part of their job? A reasonable employer will do their best to accommodate such requests, but there's no inherent guarantee that any particular day can be booked as leave
The difference is there is no Quota for leave with a committed Sunday (because people can't take leave for them ) which you have with any other day of the week.
So say a conductor knows in 12 months time they need any other day off they can put a leave request in, and assuming they are within the quota for their depot they can have that approved so they are guaranteed that they will have that day off.
Statistics on internally posted documents at my TOC (which I cannot post for obvious reasons) show more wrong side and off platform door releases are given by drivers than guards.
A reasonable employer will do their best to accommodate such requests, but there's no inherent guarantee that any particular day can be booked as leave
No, unfortunately I think you've misunderstood. Staff on a 7 / 363 (or 7 / 364 may exist even - I don't know) contract work to a base roster which offers a minimum quota of particular patterns of consecutive days off per year (or half). For example it may be one weekend in four with two consecutive days off, or one weekend in either with three consecutive days off, or some variation of these ideas.
Former First North Western drivers have committed Sundays but can take one per half as unavailable with no penalty, leaving a gap on the roster. At present FNW conductors can take every Sunday as unavailable. Quite a lot do precisely that. In this format, leave is never permitted on Sundays.
If you didn't structure the links in that way you'd end up with people working bizarre patterns. Also this format means sick is usually not paid on a Sunday.
Exactly, this stupidity has to end. Staff should sign a new contract with Sunday included or walk way. I'm fed up of this now. 1tp2h to Buxton on a Sunday is not acceptable. Everybody joining the railways KNOW there are trains on a Sunday then they pretend otherwise when suits. Pathetic. Union representatives supporting the ongoing stupidness should be named and shamed in public. This will be unpopular but at this point I DON'T CARE!
As far as I'm aware, Northern guards actually voted to accept bringing Sundays into the working week. The issue is that the company wouldn't accept only part of the deal being accepted. They have the mandate to do it.
As far as I'm aware, Northern guards actually voted to accept bringing Sundays into the working week. The issue is that the company wouldn't accept only part of the deal being accepted. They have the mandate to do it.
Personally I'm quite surprised that the response hasn't been a work to rule with nobody working Sundays, especially on the days TPE conductors are taking strike action. If that happened there would be no trains at all to Buxton...
I guess that's no different to Congleton, Westhoughton or Ashton-under-Lyne though.
No, unfortunately I think you've misunderstood. Staff on a 7 / 363 (or 7 / 364 may exist even - I don't know) contract work to a base roster which offers a minimum quota of particular patterns of consecutive days off per year (or half). For example it may be one weekend in four with two consecutive days off, or one weekend in either with three consecutive days off, or some variation of these ideas.
Former First North Western drivers have committed Sundays but can take one per half as unavailable with no penalty, leaving a gap on the roster. At present FNW conductors can take every Sunday as unavailable. Quite a lot do precisely that. In this format, leave is never permitted on Sundays.
If you didn't structure the links in that way you'd end up with people working bizarre patterns. Also this format means sick is usually not paid on a Sunday.
Given the number of other industries with seven day working, but less complex arrangements and with the ability for staff to book leave on Sundays in the same way as for any other day, it's hard to see why it wouldn't mutually be more beneficial to move towards those kind of approaches?
That rather sounds like it suggests a driver not properly in control of a train, or a lapse of driving attention (e.g. forgetting what format of train is being driven) to me. At some operators those would be reportable as safety incidents and could see the driver being relieved of duty.
Yes, drivers are human. Stop-shorts happen - often by forgetting the length of the train. If the driver then releases the doors it suddenly changes from a minor mistake to an injured passenger. If the guard is operating the doors then they are much more likely to spot that part of the train is off of the platform and can give six on the buzzer to move the train forward. Two layers of Swiss cheese.
The alternatives are either to provide balises at every platform (expensive) or what was done at Burnham (Bucks) and move all of the car stop marks to the end of the platform.
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.
