That's your call, NG. Just make sure you don't kill the golden goose when you do! A reduced and cash-starved railway is something I'm sure no-one on here, railway employee or not, would wish to see. But there are a lot of petrolheads out there who never use a train and resent their taxes going on rail who would love that!
-
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!
Aslef threaten Scotrail strike over Driver sickie!
- Thread starter HawkeyeTheNoo
- Start date
- Status
That's your call, NG. Just make sure you don't kill the golden goose when you do! A reduced and cash-starved railway is something I'm sure no-one on here, railway employee or not, would wish to see. But there are a lot of petrolheads out there who never use a train and resent their taxes going on rail who would love that!
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Not that old chestnut.
Mutant Lemming
Established Member
Do the taxes that car drivers pay actually cover all the costs involved with the infrastructure involved in order to allow them to travel round at will though ?
I have recently ceased commuting by train and now use my car (mainly because of the time I save) and most of my rail travel is now recreational but I often wonder about the roads, street lighting, flyovers, bridges, viaducts that are there just as a matter of cause for the road network.
One wonders how much it would really cost to drive if the road network was fully privatised. Now that would REALLY help cut taxes. (might also force me back on to the rails to commute to work)
90019
Established Member
I looked into this a few years back (either 07-08 or 08-09 figures, I think) - I can't remember the exact figures, but the amount of money invested in the road network compared to the amount of tax paid by drivers was something like 17% (if it was even that high).
So yes, easily.
Cliveblackpool
Member
Only a small part of vehicle Tax goes on the roads. And this only covers motorways, and trunk roads. All other roads, lighting etc comes from the Rates/ Council Tax.
The driver made a poor decision. A better informed person would have realized taking the day off anyway/ sick would have been like a red rag to the management, who would have investigated it. Often there is someone who tells maybe even inadvertently lets the cat out of the bag. Keeping going to an important football match quiet?
Mutant Lemming
Established Member
..... so you reckon that a privatised road network could actually save us money ?
'Captain Speaking'...
you and many others like you seem to miss the point of any type of automation. A while ago I saw a comment on the BBC site that stated driverless trains would be strikerless trains. This is absolute rubbish as proved by the DLR. They may go down the automation route but you will still always have someone on the train, especially one submerged deep underground like the tube, incase of emergancy. If these members of staff go on strike, like the DLR guards, the service will stop. Automation will not prevent striking as you will still need staff onboard, always.
As for automation on the mainline, it will start creeping in but no technology is full proof enough to completely rid the driver. There is already part automation in some ways. Speed set is a form of automation...the train holds speed using the dynamic brakes. It's certainly not difficult to link that speed set to the signal box to control the distance and this will happen very soon. ATO will work in the Thameslink core and high speed lines in Europe and HS1 and infact the GN and TL routes in the next decade all use a system where a computer calculates the distance between your train and the one infront and tells the driver the max speed permitted ahead. If the driver dosnt kill off the speed in time then the computer takes over.
However this is only part of driving a train. Who will stop the train in an emergancy, who can deal best with adhesion issues (as soon as I spot light rain I can test the brakes and alter braking accordingly. A computer system that could do this would be incredibly expensive). If a yob throws a brick/bike/shopping trolly infront of the train the driver will see this and instantly stop the train. If someone jumps onto the tracks at a station the driver sees them and stops. If I observes a line side fire, buckled track, large animal/car/obstruction on an adjacent line I can instantly contact the signaller and ensure traffic is brought to a halt.
Plus we have the amount of times a train is wrong routed-very, very common. The driver spots this, with a fully driverless service what would stop the late running Aberdeen being wrong routed to Cambridge and the cambridge heading up to Aberdeen, first stop York, because they overtook one another earlier on. Not a safety issue but a huge performance problem! This shows it is a human spotting a computers mistake.
Then we have disruption. The DLR is very simple and is easy to recover from but how many times has the Thameslink core gone down so far this year for example? Signal failures like that are relatively easy to recover from at the moment as the driver simply gets authorisation to start passing signals at danger in various forms and trains move. Your theory that a train simply comes to a halt if things go wrong is entirely true but safety is only part of the railway. If that driverless train comes to a halt in the middle of nowhere due to a mass computer Failiure, or cable thefts, and it is looking like repair won't be possible for many hours then what? No driver to manually take the train on, no staff to lead an evacuation, stuck on a viaduct, in a tunnel, tens of miles from the nearest station/road etc.
Plus, even with what you probably believe to be the extortionate wage we charge for doing our jobs, the cost of addressing all these issues and more across the entire country would far, far outweigh the cost of keeping driver and not replacing them but aiding them with technology.
Technology is making its way into the driving cab but will always need to be used with the driver, not instead of. And even if it does take over it won't prevent strikes. So many people think that they know what our job involves and there is a lot more to it and there seems. As I say, the GN and TL routes are to become more automated in the very near future but it will ultimately still be the well trained driver pulling the levers just as it is on all similarly technologically advanced high speed routes in euroupe.
I politely suggest you concentrate on whatever it is that you do yourself and refrain from interfering in how we do our jobs.
As for this case and other similar ones I think it's a case of management hate staff and staff hate management. It's always been this way and as neither side will back off it will always be. It's basic politics. Staff want to be paid more to work less and management want them to work more and be paid less. Both sides negotiate and if you read a left wing paper then it is a case of evil management starving the poor workers of money and if you read the right wing papers then it is a case of the greedy workers holding management to ransom.
you and many others like you seem to miss the point of any type of automation. A while ago I saw a comment on the BBC site that stated driverless trains would be strikerless trains. This is absolute rubbish as proved by the DLR. They may go down the automation route but you will still always have someone on the train, especially one submerged deep underground like the tube, incase of emergancy. If these members of staff go on strike, like the DLR guards, the service will stop. Automation will not prevent striking as you will still need staff onboard, always.
As for automation on the mainline, it will start creeping in but no technology is full proof enough to completely rid the driver. There is already part automation in some ways. Speed set is a form of automation...the train holds speed using the dynamic brakes. It's certainly not difficult to link that speed set to the signal box to control the distance and this will happen very soon. ATO will work in the Thameslink core and high speed lines in Europe and HS1 and infact the GN and TL routes in the next decade all use a system where a computer calculates the distance between your train and the one infront and tells the driver the max speed permitted ahead. If the driver dosnt kill off the speed in time then the computer takes over.
However this is only part of driving a train. Who will stop the train in an emergancy, who can deal best with adhesion issues (as soon as I spot light rain I can test the brakes and alter braking accordingly. A computer system that could do this would be incredibly expensive). If a yob throws a brick/bike/shopping trolly infront of the train the driver will see this and instantly stop the train. If someone jumps onto the tracks at a station the driver sees them and stops. If I observes a line side fire, buckled track, large animal/car/obstruction on an adjacent line I can instantly contact the signaller and ensure traffic is brought to a halt.
Plus we have the amount of times a train is wrong routed-very, very common. The driver spots this, with a fully driverless service what would stop the late running Aberdeen being wrong routed to Cambridge and the cambridge heading up to Aberdeen, first stop York, because they overtook one another earlier on. Not a safety issue but a huge performance problem! This shows it is a human spotting a computers mistake.
Then we have disruption. The DLR is very simple and is easy to recover from but how many times has the Thameslink core gone down so far this year for example? Signal failures like that are relatively easy to recover from at the moment as the driver simply gets authorisation to start passing signals at danger in various forms and trains move. Your theory that a train simply comes to a halt if things go wrong is entirely true but safety is only part of the railway. If that driverless train comes to a halt in the middle of nowhere due to a mass computer Failiure, or cable thefts, and it is looking like repair won't be possible for many hours then what? No driver to manually take the train on, no staff to lead an evacuation, stuck on a viaduct, in a tunnel, tens of miles from the nearest station/road etc.
Plus, even with what you probably believe to be the extortionate wage we charge for doing our jobs, the cost of addressing all these issues and more across the entire country would far, far outweigh the cost of keeping driver and not replacing them but aiding them with technology.
Technology is making its way into the driving cab but will always need to be used with the driver, not instead of. And even if it does take over it won't prevent strikes. So many people think that they know what our job involves and there is a lot more to it and there seems. As I say, the GN and TL routes are to become more automated in the very near future but it will ultimately still be the well trained driver pulling the levers just as it is on all similarly technologically advanced high speed routes in euroupe.
I politely suggest you concentrate on whatever it is that you do yourself and refrain from interfering in how we do our jobs.
As for this case and other similar ones I think it's a case of management hate staff and staff hate management. It's always been this way and as neither side will back off it will always be. It's basic politics. Staff want to be paid more to work less and management want them to work more and be paid less. Both sides negotiate and if you read a left wing paper then it is a case of evil management starving the poor workers of money and if you read the right wing papers then it is a case of the greedy workers holding management to ransom.
90019
Established Member
I don't know, but it wouldn't surprise me.
The figures of income from tax on motorists didn't just include VED, but also things like fuel duty and VAT on fuel amongst others.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
Butts
Veteran Member
I bet the driver wishes he had left his mobile phone at home if it is true that the ringing tone "let the cat out of the bag"
Modern technology has resulted in the poor chap being "tumbled"
Modern technology has resulted in the poor chap being "tumbled"
Would you care to make your point? Merely gainsaying what I posted carries no weight at all.
michael769
Established Member
- Joined
- 9 Oct 2005
- Messages
- 2,008
Fuel and Road tax combined raised £31.5bn in 2010-11 (and that does not include the VAT charged on fuel, vehicle and repair costs nor the IPT on motor insurance). Then there are local authority parking fees, bridge tolls and in London the Congestion charge to add on too.
Total roads expenditure was only £13.8bn.
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/...orced-pay-300-year-taxes-NOT-spent-roads.html
What about emergency services provision? General Policing? Healthcare following accidents? All missing from the TaxPayer's Alliance skewed 'data'.:roll:
Let me stop you right there. Who are these 'many others like me'? I've never met anyone like me!
Some good points there A-Driver. But I wasn't expecting automation to eliminate strikes, just reduce costs and (dare I say it) the human error that leads to wrong-routing and some of the stuff you mention.
I do know what I'm talking about and beleive me none of the things you seem to think technology can't deal with are as difficult to do as, say, the automatics developed by Airbus over the last few decades and now operating in the A380. I spent the first 20 years of my working life in a branch of IT that specialised in automation and control systems, so I do know what is possible - it's far more capable than you give it credit for.
Don't forget it's not just the train that is automated, so is the entire system from the very track itself, the structures, the trackside environment, and of course the overall control systems that bring it all together. And although I said that in the event of catastrophic failure a train CAN just be stopped, in practice this is highly unlikely - control systems degrade if failures occur but they don't just stop and such a train would be safely positioned to its next stop or one closer if that's not possible. Things might slow down until the fault is fixed, but with enough redundancy built in that should be rare.
Please don't equate railway signalling failures you see daily with what might happen in a properly engineered fully integrated automatic railway. Nailing a new signalling system onto an old infrastructure probably at minimum cost is not the same thing at all.
This would of course be expensive, but only in the short term. The ongoing cost reduction and increased operational efficiency will pay back the initial investment many times over. It's happened and is happening in other industries and it will on the railway. As I said, it already has (I witnessed a fast urban partly underground but largely surface railway which was entirely automated in Toulouse; that has obviously overcome the things you mention that you say only an on-board driver can deal with).
Your last point about 'workers and management' always being sworn enemies is like a statement from the dark ages. It is in the mutual interest of both to run the business efficiently and successfully, so why wouldn't they? This doesn't mean it's all lovey and friendly, but it does mean an element of mutual respect and a common aim to serve the customer - just like I saw in my industry (professional IT and business consultancy). Now that might reduce strikes!
Last edited by a moderator:
michael769
Established Member
- Joined
- 9 Oct 2005
- Messages
- 2,008
All paid for from the motorist's income tax, VAT etc,etc. The expenditure also includes cycle and pedestrian provision.
Why do you think the government only plays lip service to encouraging motorists out of their cars onto public transport?
It was once said in one of the highways engineering magazines that if we got just 6 months worth of the income taken from VED and fuel duty, we could probably clear the nearly 40 year backlog of maintenance on most major and minor roads. With another 6 months worth, we could clear ALL the maintenance backlog.
The problem is, that there is too much focus on capital expenditure in highways and not nearly enough on maintenance. All these new-fangled cycleway schemes, bus lanes and all that - all comes from the Capital budget. Road maintenance, unless it comes out of the LTP, is all revenue. And where have the cuts hit? Revenue.
For instance, I have infrastructure that should have been replaced 30 years ago. Hell, I have rusty signal poles dating from 1953 and cables from 1976, which are so brittle that if they are moved the cores break and the signals go out.
So yes, it would be nice if highways got half the level of investment that the railways get, when you compare route miles. If we closed all the roads to vehicular traffic if/when WE went on strike, I am sure the rail unions would have a lot to say if traincrew had to walk to work.
The problem is, that there is too much focus on capital expenditure in highways and not nearly enough on maintenance. All these new-fangled cycleway schemes, bus lanes and all that - all comes from the Capital budget. Road maintenance, unless it comes out of the LTP, is all revenue. And where have the cuts hit? Revenue.
For instance, I have infrastructure that should have been replaced 30 years ago. Hell, I have rusty signal poles dating from 1953 and cables from 1976, which are so brittle that if they are moved the cores break and the signals go out.
So yes, it would be nice if highways got half the level of investment that the railways get, when you compare route miles. If we closed all the roads to vehicular traffic if/when WE went on strike, I am sure the rail unions would have a lot to say if traincrew had to walk to work.
So where DOES the extra revenue identified by the, hardly neutral, TaxPayer's Alliance go? Treasury sure as heck ain't just sitting on it. There's no policy as far as I'm aware that says VED, Fuel Tax, VAT on Fuel Tax, IPT etc MUST be spent on roads infrastructure.
Last edited:
michael769
Established Member
- Joined
- 9 Oct 2005
- Messages
- 2,008
Nobody said it should. The figures are simply to debunk the suggestion upthread that privatising the road network would reduce tax rates. In reality taxes would have to increase considerably to cover a significant hole in the countries finances if it lost the extra income from direct motoring taxes.
I completely agree that mutual respect would eliminate things like this but I can't see that happening. Neither side will easily give in, of course I am bias towards the workers but I would guess you are bias towards management. I see that we both have our valid points but none of the issues are easily solved.
As for the rest of the automation points I agree that systems can solve all my issues but not on a railway as old as the UKs. At least not in any way that would start to reduce costs. HS2 will most probably address many of those issues but it is easy and relatively cheap to do on a new build line. To roll the same thing out across the entire country would pretty much mean ripping up the entire infrastructure and starting again. Automating signalling is one thing but as I said before it is not viable to update the rest of the infrastructure.
As for human error, humans are not perfect and the is human error but equally there is equipment Failiure. There have been incidents in both rail and aviation caused by humans and also by computers. Computers can only do what they are programmed to do and if something which has not been considered and programmed in happens then the computer can not respond as well as a human.
Both Alstohm and Siemens have Made huge advances in automated technologies but also stated that they are only designed to aid human drivers, not replace them.
I can see where you come from in saying it would reduce costs but the initial development and installation costs would be huge on our existing network, having a human at the front is still the cheapest option by a long way.
myboysam
Member
Why has this thread decended into posts about automation and costs???? Please let's keep to the crux of the matter.
Minilad
Established Member
Because people have agendas and axes to grind
Descended? Opened out, perhaps, without in any way inhibiting discussuion of the original event that started the topic. A forum is like a pub converstaion - threads develop into areas associated with the original point and after a while some posts can move away from the start subject, but that doesn't stop anyone continuing on the main theme.
There's a side converstaion on roads above as well!
XC - some may have 'agendas and axes to grind'. As a retired IT consultant who's only connection with the railway is it's my favoured form of travel I have neither (I am disinterested but far from uninterested). But I do have opinions. As does everyone.
Minilad
Established Member
myboysam
Member
The difference with a pub conversation is that pretty much all parties involved are drinking hence the reason for the conversation to become diluted or opened out. The fact of the matter remains; a driver did something and the company wish to take action upon that act. It has nothing to do with the fact an aeroplane can't operate without a pilot or how much it cost for the upkeep of Jnc 24 of the M1 in 2009 etc.
I have to vote on this matter in the very near future and so far there are very few posts in this thread which are helping me to decide on that vote.
I am new to the railway industry ( 6 months still under driver training) but I for one cannot afford to strike over this matter. I may be lucky as I am non productive and may not have to take action as my union may direct but nontheless I have a view.
So please, for all of those that may have agenda's and sub views on matters, I urge you to keep to the matter of thread.
For the guys South of the border who arent directly involved and thinking who the hell is this only just in the door, I'd like you to know, yes I am new but I have to vote but I want a balanced view before I do.
I don't understand why you think folk posting on automation or the roads in any way prevent folk posting on a shafted driver bunking off?
XC - Quite right! I must be getting sensitive in my old age!
newbie babs
Member
I don't work in the rail industry or have any family work in the industry anymore.
It’s hard to find where the truth lies, I don't believe everything written in newspapers is true, but as the person in question can't write on the forum about what happened, all we have is hear say.
There are two questions I have
If your contract and mine does have it written in it when on sick, managers may ring you to check on your wellbeing, you decide to throw a sick day then you are doing so whilst well aware of what might happen.
The young man who was a juror did the same to go to the theatre with his mum and was jailed.
Ringing in sick and then being found to be well and doing something else does carry disciplinary action with it.
So if this is what happened then the person took the risk, no matter what else was going on at work to cause his action…. An action always causes a reaction and he must have known to get caught may carry a disciplinary and ultimately his job.
The other question I have is
Did the person not have travel insurance that would cover him being called back into work and having his leave rescinded.
I used to have to take out insurance in case my ex was sent on exercise without notice and we had booked and paid for a holiday or flights home.
The contract and staff handbook may give more clues to what the say about sick leave, especially if they pay from the first day you are ill.
It’s hard to find where the truth lies, I don't believe everything written in newspapers is true, but as the person in question can't write on the forum about what happened, all we have is hear say.
There are two questions I have
If your contract and mine does have it written in it when on sick, managers may ring you to check on your wellbeing, you decide to throw a sick day then you are doing so whilst well aware of what might happen.
The young man who was a juror did the same to go to the theatre with his mum and was jailed.
Ringing in sick and then being found to be well and doing something else does carry disciplinary action with it.
So if this is what happened then the person took the risk, no matter what else was going on at work to cause his action…. An action always causes a reaction and he must have known to get caught may carry a disciplinary and ultimately his job.
The other question I have is
Did the person not have travel insurance that would cover him being called back into work and having his leave rescinded.
I used to have to take out insurance in case my ex was sent on exercise without notice and we had booked and paid for a holiday or flights home.
The contract and staff handbook may give more clues to what the say about sick leave, especially if they pay from the first day you are ill.
OK, Let's all try and be a bit considerate of each other.
On a separate note referring to the following:
To clarify, I work in Human Resources (until the end of today!) I have dealt with several cases of alleged gross misconduct during my career. I am comfortable when I do take the decision to dismiss, because the investigations will have been thorough. If there are any points for clarification, I will discuss these during the hearing. If further investigation is required, I will suspend proceedings to do so before reconvening the hearing. I'll then reflect on all of the evidence available and any mitigating circumstances before making a decision. I'm always very mindful that the decision I make may have a massive impact on the individual, their family and future. However, I am very comfortable dismissing where someone has committed Gross Misconduct.
Agreed. None of us knows the full facts. I don't see any reason why a manager can't ring an employee to check on their progress whilst ill - certainly on the railways I would imagine it helps them to plan for the next shift if the Driver is likely to remain off ill.
Also a good point raised by newbie babs about travel insurance, which hadn't crossed my mind.
The contract or staff handbook may also give examples of gross misconduct which, in my experience, often include lying / deception / failure to follow reasonable management instructions (but may be worded differently).
Many of those in the "sack em" brigade have given a variety of answers as to the reasonable actions they would have taken in the circumstances. If the company still insisted then it is up to the individual to make their mind up but they should be prepared for potential consequences.
Hope this helps a little. I recommend you consider both sides of the argument but don't let yourself be press ganged either way.
On a separate note referring to the following:
To clarify, I work in Human Resources (until the end of today!) I have dealt with several cases of alleged gross misconduct during my career. I am comfortable when I do take the decision to dismiss, because the investigations will have been thorough. If there are any points for clarification, I will discuss these during the hearing. If further investigation is required, I will suspend proceedings to do so before reconvening the hearing. I'll then reflect on all of the evidence available and any mitigating circumstances before making a decision. I'm always very mindful that the decision I make may have a massive impact on the individual, their family and future. However, I am very comfortable dismissing where someone has committed Gross Misconduct.
Agreed. None of us knows the full facts. I don't see any reason why a manager can't ring an employee to check on their progress whilst ill - certainly on the railways I would imagine it helps them to plan for the next shift if the Driver is likely to remain off ill.
Also a good point raised by newbie babs about travel insurance, which hadn't crossed my mind.
The contract or staff handbook may also give examples of gross misconduct which, in my experience, often include lying / deception / failure to follow reasonable management instructions (but may be worded differently).
Many of those in the "sack em" brigade have given a variety of answers as to the reasonable actions they would have taken in the circumstances. If the company still insisted then it is up to the individual to make their mind up but they should be prepared for potential consequences.
Hope this helps a little. I recommend you consider both sides of the argument but don't let yourself be press ganged either way.
Rhondda Rudie
Member
From my understanding ASLEF have a no rest day working policy but will sanction temporary periods of rest day working during driver shortages in order to keep services running as long as TOCs are making every effort to train new drivers.
I stand ready to be corrected on this but I suspect the original dispute centred on the filling of existing vacancies rather than creating new driver posts.
Boing uk points out that the law states only that the employer and employee must sort out how leave is allocated.I would submit that the driver in question applied for his leave and had it granted under such an arrangement.Even if the company is within its rights to cut back on leave granted surely that should only apply to applications made on or after the date on which the change was made.
Scotrail will no doubt claim the change was made in order to ensure the level of service,thus surely justifying ASLEF's original gripe.
I stand ready to be corrected on this but I suspect the original dispute centred on the filling of existing vacancies rather than creating new driver posts.
Boing uk points out that the law states only that the employer and employee must sort out how leave is allocated.I would submit that the driver in question applied for his leave and had it granted under such an arrangement.Even if the company is within its rights to cut back on leave granted surely that should only apply to applications made on or after the date on which the change was made.
Scotrail will no doubt claim the change was made in order to ensure the level of service,thus surely justifying ASLEF's original gripe.
- Status