Railway grades in danger?

[yorkie]

Once again, far too many commentators assume that all railway employees earn a driver's wage...

Who has said that?

If you disagree with a post, which you are welcome to do, please quote it in your response.

 

[Goldfish62]

I tend to think the opposite. A lot of people have bought into fear mongering.

The government has squandered so many billions over the past few years, the railway is (or should be) the least of its worries - as we know revenues are now back to circa. 80%.

But of course no one should think that 80% is good. In pure financial terms it's disastrous. A 20% reduction (one fifth) in revenue as compared to three years, when due to rising costs over time revenue needs to be over 100% of what it was three years ago.

20% is a huge gap, enough to finish off many commercial companies.

As has been mentioned many times the scope for cost cutting on the railways is severely restricted due to the very high fixed costs. 20% service cuts or staff cost cuts does not give you anywhere near a 20% overall saving in railway costs. I would hope by now that Whitehall understands this. If not, then there is no hope.

The only way out that I can see, apart from some modest cuts is to grow revenue.

 

[bramling]

Fairly obviously a railway’s costs aren’t going to vary up and down by precisely the number of passengers. It also seems most irrational to object to a given level of subsidy - with the pandemic still in the recent past - when there’s scope for that to change in the future. Certainly if things are allowed to remain as bad as they have been at TPE and Northern etc. in the name of “cost saving” there’s every chance that recovery in revenues will continue to be held back.

Anyway none of that is an argument against industrial action. If cuts are inevitable anyway, as we also keep being told on here, the unions meekly rolling over won’t change that. So they might as well dig in and fight as hard as they can.



It’s not remotely poignant - it’s a matter of opinion I’ve seen repeated many times on here, but which isn’t underpinned by evidence that I’ve ever seen. Had the railway been shut down it would then have been almost impossible to restart. I think many on here *wish* the railway had been closed down and the staff furloughed (not necessarily @Watershed).

I do object to this attitude of “we kept the railway running therefore you should be grateful” because it wasn’t in any way shape or form done to benefit the staff. Many of whom, especially of the lower paid workers for whom it didn’t represent a significant pay cut, would probably much rather have been furloughed.

Very much agree with the point that had the railway been closed down for a significant period (except perhaps for a couple of weeks at the very height of March 2020), there would still have been maintenance costs, which if not incurred would probably have ended up costing more in the longer term.

I visited a railway preservation site last week, and even on something very small they are still counting the costs left from having been closed down. Several blocked drains which caused significant water damage in places, unchecked vandalism, weeds growing in places which damaged structures and assets, staff “out of licence”, etc.

 

[Horizon22]

I suppose I was making a general point that cuts in staffing should be aimed first at "backroom pen-pushers" rather than front-line staff on tracks, trains and stations. How many are employed on "delay attribution" for example?

Ah delay atttirbution again. Whilst there may be slightly fewer people employed because there might be less back and forth and disputes within GBR, they play an important role within performance management by identifying root cause and areas for improvement which can be very important to identify patterns. Nor are they big teams and are somewhat middling earners.

 

[Javelin_55]

Yes of course. But it's clear that cuts will be falling somewhere.

The back room pen pushers in delay attribution are directly responsible for saving eye-watering amounts of money in fines by challenging delay minutes that are not their organisation's responsibility. Not a smart role to cut back on if you're coming at this from a long term cost-saving angle. It's also worth mentioning that the team I work in is already understaffed.

 

[ungreat]

Who has said that?

If you disagree with a post, which you are welcome to do, please quote it in your response.

I think he/she means its been mentioned elsewhere on the forum and not necessarily this thread?

 

[SynthD]

Is there an organisational chart with department head counts? I see we are naming the two departments we know of.

 

[Meole]

Network Rail has increased by 6,000 employees in the last 5 years.

 

[skyhigh]

The back room pen pushers in delay attribution are directly responsible for saving eye-watering amounts of money in fines by challenging delay minutes that are not their organisation's responsibility. Not a smart role to cut back on if you're coming at this from a long term cost-saving angle. It's also worth mentioning that the team I work in is already understaffed.

Though I suppose the counter argument to that is if the railway is 'one big family' under GBR moving money about for delay fines is a pointless exercise

(please note - my opinion is that delay attribution is important for performance improvements and I'm not suggesting cutting numbers is a good idea).

 

[TPO]

And yet services run by government owned TOCs are starting to be cut. As I have said countless times, the government are looking for savings, and they are looking for them in publicly financed areas. So if the rail use is at 80% of it's pre-pandemic levels, someone, somewhere in Whitehall is seeing that as a potential 20% cut in operating costs, and I'm sure you know what that will mean. And if the senior civil servants are looking for a career boosting move, that 20% could be quickly increased.

I've included the quote above yours as it is very poignant. With that hindsight, a lot of rail workers would have found themselves furloughed, with no guarantee of a return. It isn't fearing mongering, it is a reality of the public service. Publicly financed services are almost always the first places to find the axe swinging at them when governments need to claw back money.

Indeed, especially your second point. As I have said on another thread, I saw this in Local Government for years- when all services are competing for a limited pot of cash, the Statutory Duties and the election-winning things (social care, schools) are front of the queue and transport of various types tends to be at the back along with things like public toilets. That transport (and public toilets) enables the most disadvantaged in society to access jobs and services is not an effective argument compared to the emotive ones like increasing a class size or merging two schools into one and closing the other- even where justified due to roll numbers, the unnecessary school places will be funded at the expense of removing subsidy from a bus which is a lifeline for folks without cars.

I really wish we could get out of the pattern of thinking that transport needs to be profitable (whether trains or buses or roads). It's transport (plus things like electricity and water infrastructure) which glue the rest of the economy together. It was Thatcher that started that rot, and Blair who embedded it with the "Compulsory Competitive Tendering" (Thatcher) and "Best Value" (Blair) regimes, and in thinking that PPI and selling off the infrastructure was a good idea.

What we should be looking at is "what sort or railway and bus and tram network do we need to ensure we prosper in the next 20 - 30 years when fossil fuel availability will be under pressure and when we have a very IT-driven economy so more on-line shopping and WFH but also more trips out and more home delivery."

Then we recognise that an economy with higher wages for everyone is a benefit, why should the taxpayer subsidize corporations through tax credits for example?.

If a job is with doing, it's worth a fair wage (which should be one that a person can afford to live a reasonable life on), and the majority of railway jobs pay FAR less than top-rate Drivers (or some Signallers) get. The work is also often physically and mentally demanding, and shift-working knocks hell out of your health over the long term. (And yes, essential workers such as police, fire service and medics come into this category too, and their salaries- and pensions- ought to reflect that as in any physical job, once you hit 50 or so it's very difficult to keep up). Wonder how many critical commentators would last a night shift on a Network Rail maintenance track gang, or even on an S&T faulting team where you might have to get to a fault on a minimum of line blockage time, carrying all your kit. Or a MOM, picking the bits up (literally) after a one-under.

Public services are NOT businesses. There's ways of assessing performance and value other than profit and it's about time this happened.

Nor is there a shortage of money really. It's just in the wrong place, propping up the government cronies and companies who "specialise" in delivering public services.

TPO

 

[Javelin_55]

Though I suppose the counter argument to that is if the railway is 'one big family' under GBR moving money about for delay fines is a pointless exercise

(please note - my opinion is that delay attribution is important for performance improvements and I'm not suggesting cutting numbers is a good idea).

An excellent point. The fines are only there as an incentive to carry out the performance improvements after all.

I suppose what I was getting at is those roles which scrutinise performance do earn their keep on the railway, and it's a shame that this one in particular has a reputation for just being about bean counting and petty arguments.

 

[Falcon1200]

Though I suppose the counter argument to that is if the railway is 'one big family' under GBR moving money about for delay fines is a pointless exercise

That tends to be the work of the Performance Sections rather than the Delay Attribution staff whose role is, as mentioned, to investigate and record delays; Something I was doing, under a different title, in 1985 !

it's a shame that this one in particular has a reputation for just being about bean counting and petty arguments.

Indeed, and the likes of Alan Williams moaning in Modern Railways about hordes of unnecessary Delay Attribution staff does not help.

 

[43066]

As has been mentioned many times the scope for cost cutting on the railways is severely restricted due to the very high fixed costs. 20% service cuts or staff cost cuts does not give you anywhere near a 20% overall saving in railway costs. I would hope by now that Whitehall understands this. If not, then there is no hope.

The only way out that I can see, apart from some modest cuts is to grow revenue.

Yes - 100% this!

Indeed, especially your second point. As I have said on another thread, I saw this in Local Government for years- when all services are competing for a limited pot of cash, the Statutory Duties and the election-winning things (social care, schools) are front of the queue and transport of various types tends to be at the back along with things like public toilets. That transport (and public toilets) enables the most disadvantaged in society to access jobs and services is not an effective argument compared to the emotive ones like increasing a class size or merging two schools into one and closing the other- even where justified due to roll numbers, the unnecessary school places will be funded at the expense of removing subsidy from a bus which is a lifeline for folks without cars.

I really wish we could get out of the pattern of thinking that transport needs to be profitable (whether trains or buses or roads). It's transport (plus things like electricity and water infrastructure) which glue the rest of the economy together. It was Thatcher that started that rot, and Blair who embedded it with the "Compulsory Competitive Tendering" (Thatcher) and "Best Value" (Blair) regimes, and in thinking that PPI and selling off the infrastructure was a good idea.

What we should be looking at is "what sort or railway and bus and tram network do we need to ensure we prosper in the next 20 - 30 years when fossil fuel availability will be under pressure and when we have a very IT-driven economy so more on-line shopping and WFH but also more trips out and more home delivery."

Then we recognise that an economy with higher wages for everyone is a benefit, why should the taxpayer subsidize corporations through tax credits for example?.

If a job is with doing, it's worth a fair wage (which should be one that a person can afford to live a reasonable life on), and the majority of railway jobs pay FAR less than top-rate Drivers (or some Signallers) get. The work is also often physically and mentally demanding, and shift-working knocks hell out of your health over the long term. (And yes, essential workers such as police, fire service and medics come into this category too, and their salaries- and pensions- ought to reflect that as in any physical job, once you hit 50 or so it's very difficult to keep up). Wonder how many critical commentators would last a night shift on a Network Rail maintenance track gang, or even on an S&T faulting team where you might have to get to a fault on a minimum of line blockage time, carrying all your kit. Or a MOM, picking the bits up (literally) after a one-under.

Public services are NOT businesses. There's ways of assessing performance and value other than profit and it's about time this happened.

Nor is there a shortage of money really. It's just in the wrong place, propping up the government cronies and companies who "specialise" in delivering public services.

TPO

Another excellent post.

 

[Romsey]

Though I suppose the counter argument to that is if the railway is 'one big family' under GBR moving money about for delay fines is a pointless exercise

(please note - my opinion is that delay attribution is important for performance improvements and I'm not suggesting cutting numbers is a good idea).

Maybe this is an idea for a different thread, but delay attribution does show up trends, particularly when TOC's or FOC's notice a pattern of delays.
Then the question to train planning / signallers/ control, do we sort the regular 5 minute delay to train 6Y00 which happens SX week after week or the 200+minutes once per blue moon?
The 200+ minute can normally be traced to a one off event, but the 5 minutes every day can take a lot of research, but has a long term permanent benefit.

Logic says that DA should evaporate in a cloud of fairy dust when GBR take over, but won't the train operators still be separate concessions? Apart from staff costs, Delay Attribution is one of the few costs they will have any control /profit incentive remaining.

 

[The Planner]

Maybe this is an idea for a different thread, but delay attribution does show up trends, particularly when TOC's or FOC's notice a pattern of delays.
Then the question to train planning / signallers/ control, do we sort the regular 5 minute delay to train 6Y00 which happens SX week after week or the 200+minutes once per blue moon?
The 200+ minute can normally be traced to a one off event, but the 5 minutes every day can take a lot of research, but has a long term permanent benefit.

Logic says that DA should evaporate in a cloud of fairy dust when GBR take over, but won't the train operators still be separate concessions? Apart from staff costs, Delay Attribution is one of the few costs they will have any control /profit incentive remaining.

Very good point, but getting people to think past that headline 200 minutes has been an issue for more years than I can remember.

 

[ungreat]

I was going to post something relevant to union issues but having looked at the replies to posts..what's the point.
Regards to all.

 

[Bald Rick]

as we know revenues are now back to circa. 80%.

75%, and that’s not allowing for the fare increases over the past two years.

To be fair, I don't think many people do. There's certainly cause for concern but for many it is hard to realise what that may be.

Yes; sorry I have been especially stroppy the last couple of weeks, partly because I’m speaking to so many people who don’t seem to realise the threat to the industry.

As has been mentioned many times the scope for cost cutting on the railways is severely restricted due to the very high fixed costs. 20% service cuts or staff cost cuts does not give you anywhere near a 20% overall saving in railway costs. I would hope by now that Whitehall understands this. If not, then there is no hope.

it’s taken repeated efforts, but I believe they do get it now. Unfortunately, that means that Whitehall (ie the Treasury) may now realise ways to save the fixed costs.

Network Rail has increased by 6,000 employees in the last 5 years.

and reduced by 2000 in the last 6 months.

 

[startingaparty]

I think we can safely say ticket office staff are one grade of railway staff in danger if Boris Johnson's speech today in Blackpool is anything to go by:

Johnson said there are too many manned ticket offices in rail stations and some need to close. He said:

It is time for us all to grasp the nettle of reform, and move – sensibly and responsibly – to the end of some outdated working practices.
There are fully manned ticket offices in this country that barely sell a ticket a week.
Ten years ago, as chairman of Transport for London, I moved to take advantage of new technology by closing those ticket offices on the underground.
It was initially painful and the union chiefs predicted catastrophe, but we successfully made the argument that staff were better and more productively deployed on the platforms, interacting with the public.
The time has come to do the same thing across the transport network.
The union barons will once again protest.
But the winners will be railway staff – whose industry will be placed on a much sounder long-term footing – and the fare-paying travelling public.

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/politic...ech-labour-criticise-plans-uk-politics-latest

 

[Watershed]

I think we can safely say ticket office staff are one grade of railway staff in danger if Boris Johnson's speech today in Blackpool is anything to go by:



Source: https://www.theguardian.com/politic...ech-labour-criticise-plans-uk-politics-latest

Is it a coincidence that he said this in Blackpool?

 

[SynthD]

1. Have his changes to LU stations worked? For LU needs it seems ok, but he doesn’t even claim it’s successful in action.

2. Like with the ongoing changes under consideration, could this be more accurately considered as using natural wastage to reduce staff count, rather than firing people?

 

[Bald Rick]

I wish this forum would allow apple emojis. The facepalm one would be useful here.

 

[Goldfish62]

I think we can safely say ticket office staff are one grade of railway staff in danger if Boris Johnson's speech today in Blackpool is anything to go by:



Source: https://www.theguardian.com/politic...ech-labour-criticise-plans-uk-politics-latest

Ah yes, the ticket offices that he said he would retain if he was elected mayor. The Liar strikes again.

 

[ANorthernGuard]

One thing no one has really mentioned though is there only certain areas that could run without certain members of staff. Most lines especially in the North will probably never be Driver Only for the simple fact is we just do not have the infrastructure, Even the new units acquired by Northern are nowhere near capable of Driver only (just ask the drivers who actually drive them). Regarding my role I can see the Conductor Team Manager Role being reduced significantly as presently we have 1 CTM for about 30 Guards BUT we also have Conductor Standard Coaches that can do Rules etc. While the Instructor Grade can also do onboard assessments etc. (cannot do the Summary Assessment Day though) There in reality is no need for the amount of managers so I can see that changing. The only real change for the Guards role and has already happened is a big swing towards Customer Service. The people I most fear for are Booking Office Staff and Dispatch Roles as well.

 

[Andrew1395]

given the demographics of Drivers in general, I think it’s fair to say they have the least to worry about. Unless you work in a FOC, some of whom have a real threat of losing substantial traffic, and potentially going out of business, in the event of a serious strike.

Signallers similarly. Not coincidentally it is these two ‘grades’ that hold the power of industrial action.

the rest of us of us are much more at risk. Please do think about what striking might do to the job security of the 90%+ of those in the industry who are not drivers or signallers.

Excellent points. Of course the media quoting mean annual salary of £40K + would have a very different number to bandy about if they did a calculation without including drivers and signallers. Often important jobs dealing with technology and support are on comparatively low wages.

i can a future where there are lots of staff reductions. Out sourcing and off shoring. This will impact not only those individual employees at the brunt of change, but also both passenger and freight customers.

 

[Grumpy Git]

Judging by the state of the line side vegetation there’s no one employed to manage this now.

Maybe drivers have unwittingly taken on this role?

 

[baz962]

Judging by the state of the line side vegetation there’s no one employed to manage this now.

Maybe drivers have unwittingly taken on this role?

Stick a hedge trimmer on the side of my train ... Sorted

 

[theageofthetra]

Judging by the state of the line side vegetation there’s no one employed to manage this now.

Maybe drivers have unwittingly taken on this role?

It's reached a stage now where when I return from my next set of rest days I'm going to report every signal that's obscured even partially.

 

[Grumpy Git]

I travelled on the CLC route last week. Between Hunts Cross and Trafford Park the vegetation can be heard hitting the carriage.

 

[Signal_Box]

It's reached a stage now where when I return from my next set of rest days I'm going to report every signal that's obscured even partially.

All you do is then pile additional work on the controlling signaller, we have to stop and caution every train after until Off Track (who are also critically undermanned) attend to cut the veg back, once that’s done we then need S&T to carry out a signal sighting assessment, again you guessed it their critically short staffed as well.

Your not sticking it to management, your screwing your fellow shop floor colleagues.

 

[Tomnick]

N

All you do is then pile additional work on the controlling signaller, we have to stop and caution every train after until Off Track (who are also critically undermanned) attend to cut the veg back, once that’s done we then need S&T to carry out a signal sighting assessment, again you guessed it their critically short staffed as well.

Your not sticking it to management, your screwing your fellow shop floor colleagues.

We should be encouraging drivers to report foliage that's starting to creep out in front of signals - "becoming obscured".

Once it's actually obscured, even partially, then it's even more important that it's reported promptly? I appreciate the extra workload at your end (been there...), but better that than having to deal with a SPAD or worse.