RMT dispute on Merseyrail

[driver_m]

I rejected Camden's view because people don't vote to pay more. I get the point but Morrisons way of getting people to pay extra for farmers was not a resounding success by charging 2 prices for the same thing.

Rules state I have to show respect on here. I haven't got anything respectful to say to you, so I'll say nothing. Ok?

 

[northwichcat]

I rejected Camden's view because people don't vote to pay more. I get the point but Morrisons way of getting people to pay extra for farmers was not a resounding success by charging 2 prices for the same thing.

The contents of a carton marked 'fair milk' aren't any different to the contents of a carton marked 'milk.' It's just a PR stunt in response to negative media about supermarkets getting milk off farmers on the cheap.

The RMT have been telling us of all the benefits guards bring for passengers for the past couple of years, surely if those benefits are genuine at least some passengers will be happy to pay more to keep them if there's no option to retain them without increasing fares. Or has the RMT campaign just been a huge PR stunt as well?

 

[DarloRich]

The RMT have been telling us of all the benefits guards bring for passengers for the past couple of years, surely if those benefits are genuine at least some passengers will be happy to pay more to keep them if there's no option to retain them without increasing fares. Or has the RMT campaign just been a huge PR stunt as well?

it must be a sad day for you - Union not beaten and jobs protected.

 

[robertclark125]

The travelling public it seems, judging by what some folk have said on here, want lower fares, and a second member of staff on the train. The public need to realise, they can't have it both ways.

I mentioned earlier about what ASLEF puts to its members. The only potential spanner in the works I can see in this deal with the RMT, is if ASLEF puts to their members, and IF they agree to it, that single units, i.e. 4 cars, can run in service without a second member of staff on board, but two units working in service together, i.e. 8 cars, MUST have a second person on board.

People will say, what difference does it make? Well, back in 1972 ASLEF went into dispute with BR over the prototype HST, demanding a second seat in the cab for a second person, and a later agreement which meant two people in the cab for running over 110MPH, but one person in the cab for running under 110MPH. No reason was explained for the difference.

All I'm saying is, it's good there seems to be an agreement between the RMT, Merseytravel and Merseyrail. ASLEF could yet spoil the party.

 

[hwl]

Appologies if this has been answered before. But I cannot understand why they need more money to keep the guard. They currently have guards that they pay for. All it will mean by keeping them is that they won't be able to make savings that's all. Or have I got this wrong.

It was partially by me at the top of the page you post was on...

The repayments and maintenance costs on the new rolling stock will be circa £10m p.a. higher than currently. Hence Merseytravel need to find an extra £10m p.a.
The removal of guard role and replacement with security staff in the evenings was meant to provide a saving of £3-4m.
Passenger growth was meant to provide an extra £5+m revenue after 10 years.
This meant the budget was meant to just about balance after 10 years.

This still left a huge hole Merseytravel had to find to cover over many years till then but not having the £3-4m p.a. guard saving will increase the size of the hole that has to be filled.

The lower quantity of new rolling stock ordered (52 vs 59 units) was reliant on much reduced journey times reducing the quantity of stock needed and hence the cost. There are 2 main drivers for journey time reduction:
1. Improved acceleration and braking
2. Reduced dwell times (Combination of wider vestibules & doors AND Driver door operation to reduce time stationary). A few seconds at every station along the route adds up significantly all day long.

 

[hwl]

That is a very good point . Surely the increased ridership if pushed could also pay for it too, should make the extensions a no brainer too. You extend from all the current t artificial boundaries with battery ops. You could recoup money many times over from the likes of Wigan, Preston, Warrington, Helsby etc.

But they were already relying on increased ridership! For additional growth above base case, the battery stock options aren't cost free either so while ridership and revenue might increase so do costs.

 

[OxtedSignaller]

You all seem to forget that ASLEF are not a particularly militant union, they aren't the RMT they do not have to be their drivers are in a secure position and they are more interested in maximising terms and conditions. Understandably they are sympathetic to the sister union and want their colleagues to retain their role and livelihoods. But I think you'll all be pretty disappointed when ASLEF come up with a good agreement for their drivers on the back of we hope a successful negotiation with the RMT. It's not the unions job or responsibility to risk assess every scenario and worry about the health and safety aspects of operational changes that is the employer and TOCs job.

 

[yorksrob]

The travelling public it seems, judging by what some folk have said on here, want lower fares, and a second member of staff on the train. The public need to realise, they can't have it both ways.

I mentioned earlier about what ASLEF puts to its members. The only potential spanner in the works I can see in this deal with the RMT, is if ASLEF puts to their members, and IF they agree to it, that single units, i.e. 4 cars, can run in service without a second member of staff on board, but two units working in service together, i.e. 8 cars, MUST have a second person on board.

People will say, what difference does it make? Well, back in 1972 ASLEF went into dispute with BR over the prototype HST, demanding a second seat in the cab for a second person, and a later agreement which meant two people in the cab for running over 110MPH, but one person in the cab for running under 110MPH. No reason was explained for the difference.

All I'm saying is, it's good there seems to be an agreement between the RMT, Merseytravel and Merseyrail. ASLEF could yet spoil the party.

I'm not sure the first premise of your post is entirely true. Yes, the public do want a second member of staff on board, and yes, they want lower (or at the very least, non-inflationary) fares. But that second member of staff could be protecting and collecting revenue.

It could work the other away as well though. With a long protracted dispute, passengers who are inclined to support a second member of staff, could decide that a train without one is better than no train at all.

 

[WatcherZero]

People will say, what difference does it make? Well, back in 1972 ASLEF went into dispute with BR over the prototype HST, demanding a second seat in the cab for a second person, and a later agreement which meant two people in the cab for running over 110MPH, but one person in the cab for running under 110MPH. No reason was explained for the difference.

ASLEF argued that over that speed there was a greater risk of heart attack/medical emergency or injury from something hitting the windscreen so a 2nd man was needed incase the driver was incapacitated to stop the train. (like the motorists of yore who thought going over 30mph was dangerous to the body)

 

[northwichcat]

it must be a sad day for you - Union not beaten and jobs protected.

Jobs have been guaranteed for both Northern and Merseyrail guards since day 1. If they genuinely risked being thrown out of the industry with limited options for retraining like the coalminers were I would have been on the union's side

 

[DarloRich]

Jobs have been guaranteed for both Northern and Merseyrail guards since day 1. If they genuinely risked being thrown out of the industry with limited options for retraining like the coalminers were I would have been on the union's side

of course.

PS - Try and lighten up.

 

[Skie]

DOO might be the only option available on these trains anyway, with the 4+4 car configuration due to overhang the rear of many platforms. Could dispatch from the middle cabs I guess.

 

[Bletchleyite]

DOO might be the only option available on these trains anyway, with the 4+4 car configuration due to overhang the rear of many platforms. Could dispatch from the middle cabs I guess.

Or even better (as it keeps the guard visible and accessible to passengers) from a door in the saloon.

 

[hwl]

Or even better (as it keeps the guard visible and accessible to passengers) from a door in the saloon.

Assuming non driver door closing capability is built in... but it probably hasn't been to keep costs down so including it now would lead to very expensive change of design costs.

 

[jayah]

The travelling public it seems, judging by what some folk have said on here, want lower fares, and a second member of staff on the train. The public need to realise, they can't have it both ways.

I mentioned earlier about what ASLEF puts to its members. The only potential spanner in the works I can see in this deal with the RMT, is if ASLEF puts to their members, and IF they agree to it, that single units, i.e. 4 cars, can run in service without a second member of staff on board, but two units working in service together, i.e. 8 cars, MUST have a second person on board.

People will say, what difference does it make? Well, back in 1972 ASLEF went into dispute with BR over the prototype HST, demanding a second seat in the cab for a second person, and a later agreement which meant two people in the cab for running over 110MPH, but one person in the cab for running under 110MPH. No reason was explained for the difference.

All I'm saying is, it's good there seems to be an agreement between the RMT, Merseytravel and Merseyrail. ASLEF could yet spoil the party.

There is an air of unreality about all this.

What the public ought to be asked is if they want higher fares to pay for new trains. £10m p.a must be a fair chunk of their annual fare box. It is around £7 per year for every man woman and child in the whole of Merseyside.
The £5m revenue benefit in addition to the DOO savings also sounds rather contrived to me.

They could have waited for some 455s or Networker units to come loose from the scrum, but everyone wants new and shiny stuff, now, without actually paying for it.

 

[B&I]

There is an air of unreality about all this.

What the public ought to be asked is if they want higher fares to pay for new trains. £10m p.a must be a fair chunk of their annual fare box. It is around £7 per year for every man woman and child in the whole of Merseyside.
The £5m revenue benefit in addition to the DOO savings also sounds rather contrived to me.

They could have waited for some 455s or Networker units to come loose from the scrum, but everyone wants new and shiny stuff, now, without actually paying for it.

People wanting to replace the oldest fleet on the network before it stops working completely. How terrible of them

 

[jayah]

People wanting to replace the oldest fleet on the network before it stops working completely. How terrible of them

They didn't need to replace with new stock, there was / is plenty of second hand coming onto the market. I very much doubt their fare revenue base or council tax supports £10m for new and shiny.

 

[driver_m]

They didn't need to replace with new stock, there was / is plenty of second hand coming onto the market. I very much doubt their fare revenue base or council tax supports £10m for new and shiny.

We're not privy to the details of the deal though are we? Everyone else is replacing PEP stock with new and shiny, why is Merseyrail any different just because Merseytravel are paying for it rather than a Leasing company? Also how can it be good economic sense to add units only 10-15 years newer? When they'd probably need refurbs, gauging issues, uncertainty with being able to fit battery or AC modes or even diesel like the GA units? That's a false economy. If anything, the lack of leasing costs mean they shouldnt be getting stung for excessive charges. The only issue with that argument being that Merseytravel have had some shocking cost controls in the past such as the HQ, the tram failure and big spends on daft bus stop schemes that are now obsolete.

 

[Agent_Squash]

They didn't need to replace with new stock, there was / is plenty of second hand coming onto the market. I very much doubt their fare revenue base or council tax supports £10m for new and shiny.

And was that stock on the market when the units were ordered?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Assuming non driver door closing capability is built in... but it probably hasn't been to keep costs down so including it now would lead to very expensive change of design costs.

I doubt it would be that expensive, intermediate panels have been retrofitted on all sorts of stock (including the 507s and 508s) at various points in its life. Even cheaper if you just take the Voyager line and fit a door key switch and signal buzzer only, and use the 10-bell method.

 

[Bletchleyite]

And was that stock on the market when the units were ordered?

And what second hand stock is being talked about anyway? What would be the point in replacing ally-bodied PEP units with, say, Class 455s? They are probably in worse condition anyway, and that assumes they even fit the tunnels.

 

[Elecman]

Merseytravel could always sell the units to a leasing company on a sale and leaseback deal thus saving the initial purchase cost

 

[Confused52]

Merseytravel could always sell the units to a leasing company on a sale and leaseback deal thus saving the initial purchase cost

How would that help? The debt for rolling stock is held by the Liverpool City Region and I assume it is Public Works Loans Board debt. As that is funded by government issued gilts it is as cheap a finance deal as you could get so what you propose would increase the repayments. That was the point of publicly owning them!

 

[hwl]

How would that help? The debt for rolling stock is held by the Liverpool City Region and I assume it is Public Works Loans Board debt. As that is funded by government issued gilts it is as cheap a finance deal as you could get so what you propose would increase the repayments. That was the point of publicly owning them!

50% of the debt is with the European Investment Bank, the rest with the PWLB.

 

[jayah]

And what second hand stock is being talked about anyway? What would be the point in replacing ally-bodied PEP units with, say, Class 455s? They are probably in worse condition anyway, and that assumes they even fit the tunnels.

Firstly given that the MTIN for these trains is around 11,000 - talk of them falling to bits is somewhat exaggerated. The Valleys electrification was originally justified on a business case that proposed recycling Class 315 units for many years to save on the cost of acquiring new diesels.

It has been clear for some time that there would be a lot of EMU stock coming off lease. What was actually off lease at the time the order was placed isn't relevant. The 455s have also had serious money spent on their traction equipment very recently so I would question the notion they are in worse shape.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It has been clear for some time that there would be a lot of EMU stock coming off lease. What was actually off lease at the time the order was placed isn't relevant. The 455s have also had serious money spent on their traction equipment very recently so I would question the notion they are in worse shape.

I didn't say they were falling to bits, but their steel bodies are, in common with most of the standard BR Mk3 suburban bodied EMUs, in a worse condition than the PEPs due to being, er, made of steel. There would be little point replacing PEPs with them as the PEPs aren't that knackered either.

OTOH, if you want Merseyrail to look like a proper European S-Bahn, to improve service speeds through improved acceleration, to add capacity without extending platforms (which would be impossibly costly in the underground stations)...they made absolutely the right choice.

 

[northwichcat]

There is an air of unreality about all this.

What the public ought to be asked is if they want higher fares to pay for new trains. £10m p.a must be a fair chunk of their annual fare box. It is around £7 per year for every man woman and child in the whole of Merseyside.
The £5m revenue benefit in addition to the DOO savings also sounds rather contrived to me.

They could have waited for some 455s or Networker units to come loose from the scrum, but everyone wants new and shiny stuff, now, without actually paying for it.

Why? Merseyrail is very similar to the District Line on London Underground and like with new trains on the District Line the books could be made to balance if there wasn't a mandatory requirement for a second member of staff on board. The RMT have effectively created a North/South divide by demanding the North gets something the South doesn't get and the Northerners pay for it as well.

Don't forget that ROSCOs own both the 455s or Networkers, if an operator needs them the price will go through the roof (as demonstrated with the old Tube trains on the Island Line), if no operator has a specific need for them and the ROSCOs have to try and sell them to operators, the operators will be in a position to negotiate a good price.

 

[northwichcat]

It has been clear for some time that there would be a lot of EMU stock coming off lease. What was actually off lease at the time the order was placed isn't relevant. The 455s have also had serious money spent on their traction equipment very recently so I would question the notion they are in worse shape.

Merseytravel have been looking at options for a few years. It should be remembered it's only very recently that a surplus of EMUs has emerged and that's mainly AC stock due to electrification schemes being delayed or scaled back and ROSCOs anticipating more electrification announcements were imminent. Are SWR even planning to release 455s? If not Merseyrail couldn't have had them anyway. Also don't forget they are the wrong size for the Merseyrail network - 4 car FLIRTs will only work because they have short carriages, 4 x 20m carriages won't work doubled up so they'd have be reformed and rewired and then there would be carriages going to waste. You seem to be suggesting square pegs for round holes because the square pegs are cheaper in the short term than new round pegs.

 

[theironroad]

Maybe Tesco loyalty club customers should have a vote on whether a tin of baked beans should go up in price to allow another member of staff to be hired on the checkout. I've never heard so much pish.

 

[theironroad]

Why? Merseyrail is very similar to the District Line on London Underground and like with new trains on the District Line the books could be made to balance if there wasn't a mandatory requirement for a second member of staff on board. The RMT have effectively created a North/South divide by demanding the North gets something the South doesn't get and the Northerners pay for it as well.

Don't forget that ROSCOs own both the 455s or Networkers, if an operator needs them the price will go through the roof (as demonstrated with the old Tube trains on the Island Line), if no operator has a specific need for them and the ROSCOs have to try and sell them to operators, the operators will be in a position to negotiate a good price.

I'm confused. Are you saying that all district line underground trains in London have a second member of staff on board?