Labour's Plan for Rail

[Kite159]

Any promises/plans/pledges (whatever they want to call it) made pre election are not worth the paper they are written on.

Same for most political parties, as soon as they gain power some of those pledges get dropped or watered down.

 

[Peter Sarf]

I think a simple problem is that perhaps just maybe the railways are - not important.

I mean from the point of view of the majority of people in the UK - not us lot. Even if railway issues could affect people do they know that ?. If I bring railways up with most people around me they simply don't care and don't have to care. The most obvious thing most people see with the railways is money spent on the railways. The electorate largely have no idea of the economic benefits the railways bring and they might instead see the railways as a burden.

I sometimes wonder if it is the Tories that have a better idea of the purpose of the railways. Labour might only see the railways as a chunk of union membership. I really do wonder.

 

[12LDA28C]

I sometimes wonder if it is the Tories that have a better idea of the purpose of the railways. Labour might only see the railways as a chunk of union membership. I really do wonder.

I don't think the Tories have the faintest idea of the purpose of the railways or any understanding of how the industry works.

 

[Peter Sarf]

I don't think the Tories have the faintest idea of the purpose of the railways or any understanding of how the industry works.

I am sure none of them know how the railways work really. Is Labour less interested then the Tories ?.

I suppose if the railways had not been nationalised would there have been more and more cuts ?. Somehow the railways must have been seen as important then. Wonder about now though.

 

[JonathanH]

I'm afraid this statement demonstrates a lack of understanding of a driver's job. Working suburban and commuter trains where you might be making 100+ station stops per day and running on restrictive signals much of the time can be much more mentally taxing than driving a few high-speed long distance services on mainly clear signals with very few stops.

I didn't imply which one is more taxing, just that they are different jobs, something you acknowledge. They clearly come with different risks and challenges to the person involved, and may justify different levels of pay and terms and conditions.

 

[12LDA28C]

I didn't imply which one is more taxing, just that they are different jobs, something you acknowledge. They clearly come with different risks and challenges to the person involved, and may justify different levels of pay and terms and conditions.

Indeed although your implication seemed to be that IC services would automatically command a higher salary than local stopping or commuter work, maybe due to being perceived as more 'prestige' or somehow bearing more responsibility which is not necessarily the case, due to the reasons I described.

 

[Carlisle]

I don't think the Tories have the faintest idea of the purpose of the railways or any understanding of how the industry works.

Ask yourself how much electrification Maggie Thatcher’s government authorised v Tony Blair’s ?

 

[12LDA28C]

Ask yourself how much electrification Maggie Thatcher’s government authorised v Tony Blair’s ?

I was referring to the current incumbents.

 

[The Ham]

I think a simple problem is that perhaps just maybe the railways are - not important.

I mean from the point of view of the majority of people in the UK - not us lot. Even if railway issues could affect people do they know that ?. If I bring railways up with most people around me they simply don't care and don't have to care. The most obvious thing most people see with the railways is money spent on the railways. The electorate largely have no idea of the economic benefits the railways bring and they might instead see the railways as a burden.

I sometimes wonder if it is the Tories that have a better idea of the purpose of the railways. Labour might only see the railways as a chunk of union membership. I really do wonder.

Unfortunately there's a lot of people who think "I don't use the railways (university, schools, doctors) very much if at all so why should I care about them" the problem being is that they benefit from them.

For example if I go somewhere by train then there's a good chance that's one fewer car on the roads. Which reduces congestion for those who do still drive.

Although probably the biggest impact it's when it comes to parking of cars, if I go by train it's more likely there'll be a space for someone to park in.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Unfortunately there's a lot of people who think "I don't use the railways (university, schools, doctors) very much if at all so why should I care about them" the problem being is that they benefit from them.

For example if I go somewhere by train then there's a good chance that's one fewer car on the roads. Which reduces congestion for those who do still drive.

Although probably the biggest impact it's when it comes to parking of cars, if I go by train it's more likely there'll be a space for someone to park in.

That is something that will not cross the mind of many people who care naught for good environmental practice.

 

[Carlisle]

That is something that will not cross the mind of many people who care naught for good environmental practice.

Absolutely, especially during a cost of living crisis.

 

[Gaelan]

Unfortunately there's a lot of people who think "I don't use the railways (university, schools, doctors) very much if at all so why should I care about them" the problem being is that they benefit from them.

And, of course, they might use the railways more if they received enough investment to be worth using*.

*This is of course a personal judgement - personally I'll stretch the definition of "practical" quite far if it means I can take transit rather than drive, but of course the vast majority of people aren't like that. But clearly, the better (and cheaper, etc) the railways are, the more people will use them.

 

[Meerkat]

That's working out just great isn't it. Yes, I live in GWR land. And hey, instead of servicing it's own debt borrowed at rates only governments get, we get to service someone else's debt taken at commercial rates! but who cares, it's just tax money.

The rate is irrelevant if the Treasury won’t borrow that money, however amazing the business case.
Or they say you don’t need all that nice stuff for passengers, costs more than we want to borrow…we will lend you enough for some plastic seats.

 

[Bevan Price]

The first priority for a new Labour government will be NHS. Railways will have a much lower priority when it comes to making funds available. So whilst attitudes towards railways should improve, do not expect any massive new improvement schemes.

 

[Thirteen]

The first priority for a new Labour government will be NHS. Railways will have a much lower priority when it comes to making funds available. So whilst attitudes towards railways should improve, do not expect any massive new improvement schemes.

I think ending the disputes would be something Labour could do as well as perhaps commit to long term funding for TfL with whoever ends up as Mayor of London.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I think ending the disputes would be something Labour could do as well as perhaps commit to long term funding for TfL with whoever ends up as Mayor of London.

After the length of time the current strikes have been carrying on for, I get the feeling that the RMT in particular will demand in full all that they have stated they want, respective of which political party forms the next government.

 

[The Ham]

After the length of time the current strikes have been carrying on for, I get the feeling that the RMT in particular will demand in full all that they have stated they want, respective of which political party forms the next government.

However, that could still be fairly favourable towards the government. In that agreeing a rate of increase back dated to the start of the strikes could be not that much if there's been no additional value requested for the additional time (for example 6% pay rise back dated to May 2022, but no requirements for any increase for 2023 our the first part of 2024).

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

However, that could still be fairly favourable towards the government. In that agreeing a rate of increase back dated to the start of the strikes could be not that much if there's been no additional value requested for the additional time (for example 6% pay rise back dated to May 2022, but no requirements for any increase for 2023 our the first part of 2024).

Whilst I fully accept what you say about pay increase, the RMT have been stressing the word "conditions", so do you think that element will be also agreed to in full when Labour come to power?

 

[WAB]

If Labour are serious about bringing it all under one banner, then there are many cost savings to be had. Economies of merging train crew , plus not needing every individual TOC needing its own HR, PR, management, directors etc etc will all produce savings. In fact (and Aslef won't like this) but I can forsee fewer train drivers being employed and needed by allowing (say) a GWR Plymouth driver to be able to take a XC voyager from Plymouth Station to Laira depot, or further afield. Take out the ideology of "competition is the be all and end all" and suddenly money can be saved. Provided fares are regulated properly without competing franchises. It will certainly be interesting to hear more.....
Ps, anyone that mentions 1997, its ancient history and not worthy of comparison in 2023.

Yes, plenty of depots which could be more efficient if we stopped worrying about which company runs which train. Same with back office stuff, where reams of people seem to exist solely to talk to those with different-coloured ties.

 

[Meerkat]

I think ending the disputes would be something Labour could do as well as perhaps commit to long term funding for TfL with whoever ends up as Mayor of London.

I doubt London will be a priority.

 

[Thirteen]

However, that could still be fairly favourable towards the government. In that agreeing a rate of increase back dated to the start of the strikes could be not that much if there's been no additional value requested for the additional time (for example 6% pay rise back dated to May 2022, but no requirements for any increase for 2023 our the first part of 2024).

The RMT aren't going to get everything they ask for, that's simply not realistic, I think a deal for ASLEF could be done though if they offer a deal with no or minimal strings.

 

[The Ham]

I doubt London will be a priority.

Assuming that is not, that doesn't mean that funding for London couldn't be sorted.

However, the better outcome would be to have a deal which gives the mayors (London and the other city/regional ones) funding for public transport (maybe including some infrastructure). Where they money comes from is up for debate - for instance could a percentage of VED be portioned off for such a purpose.

The marketing of our would need to be key, something along the lines of funding to reduce congestion within our cities, so those who need to drive can do so more easily.

 

[Thirteen]

Assuming that is not, that doesn't mean that funding for London couldn't be sorted.

However, the better outcome would be to have a deal which gives the mayors (London and the other city/regional ones) funding for public transport (maybe including some infrastructure). Where they money comes from is up for debate - for instance could a percentage of VED be portioned off for such a purpose.

The marketing of our would need to be key, something along the lines of funding to reduce congestion within our cities, so those who need to drive can do so more easily.

I assume such a deal needs to be suitable for each city, London needs more expenditure for renewing life expired assets for example

 

[JonathanH]

I assume such a deal needs to be suitable for each city, London needs more expenditure for renewing life expired assets for example

With scarce funds is it better to spend them on new investments where they have never existed or renewing existing ones?

 

[Thirteen]

With scarce funds is it better to spend them on new investments where they have never existed or renewing existing ones?

In the case of the Deep Level Tube, the Bakerloo stock needs to be replaced you can't keep something that's already a decade past its life cycle running for another decade.

 

[Merle Haggard]

In the case of the Deep Level Tube, the Bakerloo stock needs to be replaced you can't keep something that's already a decade past its life cycle running for another decade.

The 1938 Bakerloo stock (and some 1933 stock) lasted rather well.

 

[Bald Rick]

The 1938 Bakerloo stock (and some 1933 stock) lasted rather well.

Indeed. almost all the 1938 stock was withdrawn after 50 years’ service.

The Bakerloo line stock ranges between 49-51 years in frint line service, with no sign of replacement.


(yes, i know a handful of 1938 sets had a long working retirement on the IoW, but it was hardly stressful for them)

 

[Merle Haggard]

Indeed. almost all the 1938 stock was withdrawn after 50 years’ service.

The Bakerloo line stock ranges between 49-51 years in frint line service, with no sign of replacement.


(yes, i know a handful of 1938 sets had a long working retirement on the IoW, but it was hardly stressful for them)

I commuted by Bakerloo line to Paddington RHQ (from Baker St, to avoid the dreaded Circle/Hammersmith) in the '70s. The 1933 and some 1938 stock was replaced by new stock, but, soon after, when part of it became the Jubilee line, all the new stock went there and the Bakerloo was left with the remaining 1938 stock. I remember being quite hurt - it was a case of 'look what you could have won!' when, some time before the line split, new maps started to appear inside - Jubilee in the new stock, truncated Bakerloo in the old.
But (apart from the vertical and across the ceiling splits in the middle of cars that ripped paper adverts in half and which no-one seemed concerned about) they seemed very reliable. Someone pointed out that (I think only the 1933 stock) blanked-off buttons to open the doors. What an old-fashioned idea, you pushed a button if you wanted the doors to open. Plus de change etc

 

[Mikey C]

Indeed. almost all the 1938 stock was withdrawn after 50 years’ service.

The Bakerloo line stock ranges between 49-51 years in frint line service, with no sign of replacement.


(yes, i know a handful of 1938 sets had a long working retirement on the IoW, but it was hardly stressful for them)

And the final use of the 1938 stock in the late 80s was as additional trains brought out of retirement to boost capacity on the Northern Line, rather than entirely operating the line!

 

[Highview]

The key document will be the Labour Party manifesto - until we see that everything is speculation. Once a new government takes office the manifesto is one of the few weapons that Ministers have to instruct the senior civil servants who can make things happen or not.
At the beginning the senior civil servants (who are the true opposition to any government) will be the exact same ones who worked for the previous government. The UK rail minister is usually a Minister of State - important but not that important in the usual scheme of things in Whitehall.