Network Rail Signallers: Strike Action

[thegrich37423]

Coucher hasn't got a clue because he's inherited a privatised railway with a chronic safety problem, but I do agree with your post in principle. Actons speak louder than words.
A lot of my points have been undermined by my point that road safety is superior to that of the railway. More investment has gone into the state of our motorways, A roads and B roads through the actions of the road lobby and other associated government departments. The recent pot-hole problem due to the bad weather we had in January was immediately rectified by local councils and the speediness of the repair job was laudable. That is the sort of stuff that gives me re-assurance. The railways have not had a similar level of investment. Why do the railways feel the need to close down every Sunday? Why are the roads open 24/7/365? Why do the railways find this impossible to do? If maintenance is such that the railways are somehow better than the roads, why can't they run a 7-day timetable?
It's not hard to figure out which mode of transport has the top priority in this country. In some way, it makes me sad.

 

[The Planner]

You are trolling, nothing more, nothing less. How is road safety superior to that of the railway ?? lets have some figures and data to back this up.

Id also question the fact that more investment has gone into the road system, how much of the tax collected from the road user goes back into the system ?? how many major pieces of new motorway have opened in the last 10-15 years ?? how many schemes have been shelved in that time ?? Capacity increase on motorways are hidden behind ATM schemes and online widening, nothing new. If you call repairing pot holes with a bucket full of bitumen and stone a long term fix then you are deluded, the next cold snap will soon have that crumbling.

 

[the sniper]

he recent pot-hole problem due to the bad weather we had in January was immediately rectified by local councils and the speediness of the repair job was laudable. That is the sort of stuff that gives me re-assurance.

Lucky you don't live here in the Midlands, there's no immediate fix here, it'll supposedly take 9 years to fix them all: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/8586534.stm

I didn't know the rest of the country was being treated so much better then here, maybe the new class 172's are our recompense?

Why do the railways feel the need to close down every Sunday?

They don't.

Why are the roads open 24/7/365?

You've never heard of a road being closed for road works, seriously?

 

[90019]

The recent pot-hole problem due to the bad weather we had in January was immediately rectified by local councils and the speediness of the repair job was laudable.

That's the first post in a while that's made me properly laugh out loud
Seriously, you must be having a laugh. Either that or you're living in a dream world.

Why are the roads open 24/7/365?

Simple; They're not.


I'm fairly pro-road, but if you honestly think that, I'll be blunt about it; you're either seriously naïve or a moron. Sorry, but it's true.

 

[jon0844]

Bloody hell... the potholes around here have most certainly not been fixed. Some have been filled in, but by the council's own admission that's a temporary repair. A proper cut out of the problem area, with new foundations and surfacing put on, is the only way to fix things properly.

Believe me, that isn't happening around here. There are too many holes around, and some haven't even been given a temporary fix because they're still appearing.

The cold weather was devastating for the roads and it was obvious that it was going to cost more than normal, just like the need for more grit.

 

[CosherB]

What was so great about the nationalised railway? I can see that it might have been a cosier and easier place to work, but railways exist to run trains, not to provide nice employment opportunities.

As a regular Manchester - London passsenger (up to twice a week) in the last years of BR and the first years of privatisation, I noticed a marked improvement. Initially, it was in the attitude of 1st class on-board staff. the BR ones were offhand, couldn't care less, and often surly. The post-privatisation Virgin 1st staff had obviously been trained in customer service, and were much more in line with what passengers could experience on the competing BA air services between Mancheter and Heathrow. The above is a generalisation of course, but overall it was very noticable.

Then the old trains were retired and replaced by Pendelinos. I loved the comfort of a 1st class Mk3, but have to admit the Pendos were faster and far more reliable.

Then the WCML got upgraded, and many annoying delay-causing infrastructure issues were fixed.

Oh, and it's got safer, too, after an initial rash of post-privatisation accidents.

So what's not to like about the privatised railway compared to BR? New trains everywhere, track widening, bright newly refurbed stations like Manchester Piccadilly, and about 3 times as many passengers carried than in BR days (which brings the problems of success - overcrowding and lack of capacity). None of that would have happened under BR. In fact, BR was into closing down large parts of the railway - closing lines, trying to close the Settle & Carlisle (now a very useful and busy main line), and single-tracking many routes, many of which have been doubled again under privatisation. BR's economies didn't value safety, either. Junctions were often remodelled to make them simpler and cheaper to maintain, but at the same time removing flank protection (Colwich comes to mind....). With only one passenger fatality in the last 5 years despite carrying far more traffic than in BR days, it's the safest it's ever been, too.

The natural state of the railway is privatised - that's how they always were until nationalisation. They have simply reverted to their natural state.

So, all round vast improvements for the nation's railways since privatisation. I agree it was not done well, and much money was wasted. But the end result is a far, far better railway than we'd have if BR were still in charge.

 

[90019]

Bloody hell... the potholes around here have most certainly not been fixed. Some have been filled in, but by the council's own admission that's a temporary repair. A proper cut out of the problem area, with new foundations and surfacing put on, is the only way to fix things properly.

We have ones which have been around for years that have been pretty much ignored. Some that have appeared more recently have been repaired on the cheap many times. There's one bit of road about a mile from me, which has a load on it, and every few months they fill them in, but do it on the cheap (Somewhat unsurprisingly, what with it being Edinburgh council), and so within a few weeks, they reappear.
They don't seem to grasp that if you do a proper job once, you won't have to keep coming back and doing it every few months.

 

[Metroland]

Nothing is great about nationalised railways. Some of them are well run, such as in Switzerland and to an extent Germany, others are not. Some private railways, such as those in Japan and the US are extremely well run.

It's all about management, and on passenger railways how much you are willing to pay for investment, bearing in mind off peak and rural services ain't ever going to make money and never did but these things should be funded as part of the public good.

An accusation was made against Railtrack about 'profit before safety'. And here we have a NR in dispute with the unions over safety over cost cutting - with a 'not for profit company' guaranteed by government,

Which all goes to prove the whole debate is a load of pap, a whole load of idealogical rambling we're so used to from politicians.

BTW, I read today this dispute will cost the economy £600 million per day - So I suspect we'll have £2.4 billion worth of disruption all to save a few million. I also suspect my railway sat-nav idea will cost nothing approaching that either.

 

[thegrich37423]

If you consider my opinions 'trolling', I can only apologise.

Cost cutting is a smokescreen IMO. Network Rail have inherited a badly underfunded railway as a result of chronic lack of investment since the privatisation of the railways. If you have a chronic lack of investment to begin with, why do you need to cut costs? Coucher, just like Gerald Corbett, is sitting on a gold mine at the expense of the workforce which have to suffer through threats of redundancy. This is unacceptable and shows just how much that the railways in this country have descended from a superb public service to a way of making money by whatever means are necessary.
As I stated earlier, the government needs to sort out its priorities and this is not helped by the imminent threat of public service cuts. Obviously they feel that the needs of the road are greater than the needs of the rail.
It makes me sad that the country which gave the world the railway has turned its own national system into a farce. I cannot wait for the day that someone ousts the people in NR and starts thinking about running proper services, invests in proper safety standards, proper trains and gives the paying public the service it deserves.
This sadly will not happen in my lifetime...

 

[CarterUSM]

Metroland, are you saying nobody has thought of using sat nav in this way? Perhaps you should have kept it to yourself lest anybody pass it off as their own idea. Those figures quoted seem quite depressing. Freedom isn't free.

 

[GB]

thegrich37423, I like many others are still waiting for substantiation of why the road system is "far superior" than the railways.

 

[Metroland]

There won't be one, like many that pitch up hoping to debate of subjects they have at best a flimsy knowledge of, he hasn't done any research. It all comes from down the pub and in the Daily Mail comments pages. But you knew that

BTW, I hope they do nick the sat nav idea.

 

[CosherB]

Cost cutting is a smokescreen IMO. Network Rail have inherited a badly underfunded railway as a result of chronic lack of investment since the privatisation of the railways.

I think that is way wide of the mark. The nationalised railway was woefully underfunded, depending on government for money - and it was always behind roads in the queue. heck, the Departmet of Transport even had a motorway as their logo!

Governments of both colours starved rail of investment while pumping money into roads. The system never recovered from rundown in WW1, then was hit even more badly in WW2, and got into such a run-down state that compensating the railway companies was not affordable in post-war Britain. So they nationalised it instead as a cheap way out.

Decades of further negelect, interspersed with some investment (electrification of WCML and ECML, for instance) followed, but by the 1990s the railways again were knackered, needing new trains and ugraded infrastructure simply because they had never been a government priority.

So they were returned to privatisation. Outside money flooded in to provide new trains and updated infrastructure, and so did a lot of government (taxpayer's) money. Some of that was wasted because the method of privatisation was not well done, and there was a strong 'political' points-scoring excercise going on. Nonetheless, it worked. Rail got the investment it needed, and we now have a far, far better railway than we had back then.

The future will be interesting, but one thing is certain - re-nationalisation, a return to government funding of rail, would be a massive backwards step. Back to underfunding and short-sighted infrastructure run-downs, and no investment in long term projects (longer than a 5 year government term).

 

[yorksrob]

But the end result is a far, far better railway than we'd have if BR were still in charge.

I'm sure some of us will remain to be convinced of that

 

[CosherB]

I'm sure some of us will remain to be convinced of that

I'll agree some rail workers will. As a fare-paying customer and tax payer, I know which I prefer!

 

[CarterUSM]

I agree with you there captain regarding what you prefer and you are absolutely correct with regards to privatisation. What I will say though, is nobody knows what would have happened had BR stayed around, it's all pretty much conjecture. Not sure about being a customer either, I really wish that was the case but i've always thought customers had a choice, a lot of railway passengers do not seem to have that luxury unfortunately.

 

[jon0844]

It's like we'll never know what would have happened if BT remained state controlled. It's a fair guess that we'd have got a national phone network with tone dialling, a mobile phone network, and more recently broadband - but would we be paying the same for making calls or accessing the Internet?

And would as many people have had coverage for mobile and broadband?

 

[moggie]

Captain - has it occurred to you that it was the staff from many disciplines who made the privatised railway system in this country work - the very ones in many cases that you are so quick to slag off in you constant witterings?

And maybe you could take time to consider that the people most affected by the NR proposals are not only passengers but those people out on the track carrying out vital engineering work who rely on the protection of a safe sytem of working. To anybody who has any understanding of the issues affecting setting up and management of posessions (which are there to not just to carry out the work but to ensure those doing the work can do so in a safe envirnoment and without impact -no pun intended - to train movements outside of the worksite). Dumping more of this responsibility on the signallers as a cost saving measure must clearly demonstrate that the proposals are as safe if not safer than the current system. It is clear to me that this position has not yet been reached from the signallers perspective. As one who relies on this protection from time to time I want to be damn sure that those tasked with providing the protection (whatever role they carry out) are content they are able to do so without fear of workload issues. Until I read a number of viewpoints from signalers suppporting any changes I remain unconvinced by NR management speak.

You observe that no passengers have lost their lives in recent years - unfortunately the same cannot be said for trackworkers despite the contant tinkering with track safety procedures.

Does this put it in some context that you can understand? Probably not!:roll:

 

[Nick W]

I will join everyone in saying that loss of life is a bad thing, however the fact is that we already place a value on loss of life, as demonstrated by decisions made by the NHS in choosing particular courses of treatments, and the costing of road safety improvements. It is likely that, following the recession and need to cut back on Government spending, that we're going to have to remove some red tape which will invariably put into place practices which lead to a greater risk of loss of life. Alternatively the workers can accept a greater loss of salary, which I doubt will be unpopular.

I do agree that the cuts should be felt by all staff in Network Rail, however it is imperative to pay market rate for those at the top at Network Rail in order to preserve the quality of management, and likewise for any proffessional staff.

With regards to the success of privatising the railways, it is hard to really see the benefits. Let's look at some of the improvements to the railway over the past two decades.

• More passenger usage - we've seen a general increase in travelling across all modes of transport, and with increasing congestion we'd expect rail's modal share to increase, so I don't see how this can be attributed to the privatised railway
• Investment - excluding Chiltern Railways, which as far as I can see is only a privatisation success story, the investment has been paid for by the Government (WCML upgrade) or by Network Rail, a QUANGO acting on behalf of the Government as an autonomous but otherwise nationalised (Government underwritten and funded) structure. There is little evidence that there would have been less investment had the railways not been privatised
• New rolling stock - BR invested in new rolling stock and cascaded stock to other lines, which is precisely what happens under privatisation. Similarly TFL are investing in new underground stock.
• Greater safety - this can easily be attributed to strong rolling stock which started under BR and the installation of TPWS, paid for by the UK Government

As far as I can see, privatisation has many advantages if it results in many firms which can survive independently, and the industry has few externatities. Here competition ensures that resources are maximised and inefficiencies and beurocracy is minimalised. There are no extra costs caused by privatisation in this case because the firms have no need to communicate with each other.

With the railway it has created a technical monopoly in which lack of competition has mean that the railways act no more efficiency than BR, in fact evidence suggests they have acted much less efficiency, particular has they have been required to pay more legal costs and employ more staff. At best, profit has been siphoned off to the shareholders that could otherwise be invested, and so has just costed the nation more. At worse, the industry has taken the profit maximising route that neglects externalities (social and economic benefit), and therefore the railway has provided less public benefit.

 

[royaloak]

. In some way, it makes me sad.

I would agree that you are sad!

 

[Metroland]

It is likely that, following the recession and need to cut back on Government spending, that we're going to have to remove some red tape which will invariably put into place practices which lead to a greater risk of loss of life. Alternatively the workers can accept a greater loss of salary, which I doubt will be unpopular.

I do agree that the cuts should be felt by all staff in Network Rail, however it is imperative to pay market rate for those at the top at Network Rail in order to preserve the quality of management, and likewise for any proffessional staff.

So keep paying the top management a huge pay rate and bonus, for a less safe railway, and let the 'workers' (as you put it) take the flak for a any accidents that might occur - because they effectively will? You are also not especially interested in the people that turn out day and night, who really drive the safety and performance stats at the front end and rewarding them?

I'm not entirely sure where to start, I'm really hoping that isn't the sort of thinking that goes on in the institution you are currently at, because no wonder we're in trouble.

Personally I would cut the red tape and cost, and keep safety high and reward everyone for their hard work. Most of the reason people go on strike is because

1) They feel undervalued or not listened to

2) Poor communication between different departments

The above are most definitely a problem in the railway industry.

To an extent most of us (including me) are thrashing around in the dark on this issue, because I have yet to see in black and white the new proposals (despite requests), and I'm probably one of a handful of people on this forum that can make a real value judgement on the issue.

Of course Network Rail are too busy issuing press statements saying 'Don't worry, there is no problem', and putting very provocative statements out, and the other side are doing entirely the opposite.

Now to cut the crap, I tried to do some more research on this issue, and while I haven't yet seen the proposals in complete form, I did get a jist of them. And you know what, it puts an entirely different spin on the whole issue for me.

Personally I'd sack the lot of the 'well paid' NR people at the top, who we need to keep paying the salaries of, just on the communication issue and creating a atmosphere of divisiveness.

 

[CosherB]

Captain - has it occurred to you that it was the staff from many disciplines who made the privatised railway system in this country work - the very ones in many cases that you are so quick to slag off in you constant witterings?

And maybe you could take time to consider that the people most affected by the NR proposals are not only passengers but those people out on the track carrying out vital engineering work who rely on the protection of a safe sytem of working. To anybody who has any understanding of the issues affecting setting up and management of posessions (which are there to not just to carry out the work but to ensure those doing the work can do so in a safe envirnoment and without impact -no pun intended - to train movements outside of the worksite). Dumping more of this responsibility on the signallers as a cost saving measure must clearly demonstrate that the proposals are as safe if not safer than the current system. It is clear to me that this position has not yet been reached from the signallers perspective. As one who relies on this protection from time to time I want to be damn sure that those tasked with providing the protection (whatever role they carry out) are content they are able to do so without fear of workload issues. Until I read a number of viewpoints from signalers suppporting any changes I remain unconvinced by NR management speak.

You observe that no passengers have lost their lives in recent years - unfortunately the same cannot be said for trackworkers despite the contant tinkering with track safety procedures.

Does this put it in some context that you can understand? Probably not!:roll:

That's a very inward-looking post, moggie, and not untypical of some others on here who seem only to view the railway as a work place, not a national service for others to use, which is what it is actually in place and funded for. May I suggest you stand back and take a wider view.

When I was working, our customers judged our services on their quaulity and their price, not on whether I enjoyed my working conditions or not. And our customers continuing to buy from us rather from our competition is what kept us in a job!

You need to put yourself in the customer's shoes.

 

[Metroland]

I guess that is the problem with some of the union communications I read. All the talk about taking on management, never a mention of the customer. The same can run the other way when people start talking about 'workers', which equally gets my back up.

Can people just not accept they are all together in an organisation, producing goods and services people might want to buy or use? And everyone needs to get stuck in? There is no division, just the final result with different parts to play.

The railway needs to cure this 'them and us', needs to be more customer focussed and to value its staff and regard each one as a professional in their field.

I can accept there *might* be a problem here with a number of issues and it is a grey issue how it is dealt with, but it strikes me the root of the problem is poor management, poor communication, lack of customer focus for all staff. I think this is why the smaller companies like Grand Central and Wrexham and Shropshire do better, everyone feels closer to the coal face and it concentrates their minds. The worse case is the monolithic Network Rail - British Rail had the same problem.

Perhaps its a problem with the education system, people should be running a mock business for a year at school, understand the value of the customer, and be taught just because you are a 'manager', your job is to motivate and communicate with your staff to get the job done, not dictate to them and place provocative ads in newspapers.

NR management get some of the best pay in any sector, many railway staff are in jobs paying £30-50k per year, the sort of money you can recruit graduates for. So it proves its nothing to do with market rates for employees, because at those rates you should be able to pick the best of the best, and clearly that isn't the case here.

 

[thegrich37423]

It is precisely because of too much red tape in the railway industry, NickW, which is why the safety of the entire railway infrastructure is questionable at best. Also, the workers are having to face threats greater than a 'loss in salary', that of redundancy. At least with the road system, the government has its eye on the ball and delivers investment and with it better safety practices. This is because there is much less red tape involved. Why can't it do the same with the railways?
The answer is simple. There are too many 'fat cats' running the railways, private investors et al too interested in making a quick buck than ensuring we have a railway fit for the 21st century. Metroland admits it himself, NR management get some of the best pay in the sector but its at the greater expense of the workforce and ultimately the safety and reliability of our railways. I agree with you also Metroland that its clearly not the case that they are recruiting the right people. The people who run the railways haven't got a clue.
I don't need to substantiate why I feel the roads are far superior to the railways, its obvious! They are top priority for the government, much less red tape, and they are constantly spending on improving our existing roads to make them integrated forms of transport.
The railways are meant to be both a workplace and a public service but its the management's sole responsibility to ensure this, not me! At the moment, they are content to see it as a workplace and a money spinner than running an effective public service. Only change can happen from the top down, not the other way up!

 

[Metroland]

Some good points but mostly completely false.

 

[EMT Commuter]

The people who run the railways haven't got a clue.
I don't need to substantiate why I feel the roads are far superior to the railways, its obvious!

Derr! I thought this arguement was about safety?

Thousands loose their lives every year on the roads, whilst on the the railway in 2008 there were 5 passenger and 3 workforce fatalities.

 

[royaloak]

I was going to reply to all the errors in the craptains and grichs posts but I just cant be bothered.

Oh and Metroland how is it that NR NOT complying with AGREEMENTS might be a problem, surely if one side is ignoring these AGREEMENTS then that is a problem and they do it time and time again what would you do?
Which is the crux of this dispute you 3, but hey dont bother doing any research or let the truth get in the way of a good rant will you!

 

[ralphchadkirk]

When I was working, our customers judged our services on their quaulity and their price, not on whether I enjoyed my working conditions or not. And our customers continuing to buy from us rather from our competition is what kept us in a job!

Do you not think those things are linked?
Good working conditions, better pay = happier staff and therefore a better service.

I'm in support of the strike.

 

[Metroland]

I was going to reply to all the errors in the craptains and grichs posts but I just cant be bothered.

Oh and Metroland how is it that NR NOT complying with AGREEMENTS might be a problem, surely if one side is ignoring these AGREEMENTS then that is a problem and they do it time and time again what would you do?
Which is the crux of this dispute you 3, but hey dont bother doing any research or let the truth get in the way of a good rant will you!

Agreements are re-negotiated all the time, or at least they are in modern business. Nobody can run a business today using practices from 100 years ago. I support Network Rail on that because the railway is not a bubble.

But if you change agreements and working practices you have to take employees along with you, hopefully by rewarding them for greater productivity and paying them fairly with good terms and conditions, while maintaining the core aspects of your business: In this case safety and punctuality.

Easier said than done I know, but flexibility is required from all sides and a deep appreciation of everyone's concerns. That's a two way process.

 

[thegrich37423]

On the contrary, if the management of NR had any clue in the first place about how to run a national railway, then they would have a much better clue on what they were agreeing on, hence why they find it difficult to comply with any agreement in the first place, choosing instead to ignore any. As a result, the members of the RMT are unhappy that NR are ignoring these agreements, changing work practices at a whim, and compromising the safety of the railways when their safety was compromised in the first place. It's hard to have an appreciation of NR when nothing is being done or being listened to. They have failed to adequately bring up the safety of the railways to an acceptable level due to the concerns of the unions being ignored and nothing being agreed on.