That makes more sense I suppose, must stop listening to local Radio!
Britain's Disgusting Railways
- Thread starter wholbr
- Start date
That makes more sense I suppose, must stop listening to local Radio!
Hi everybody.
There is a large adjacent car park at Perivale underground station from which we could “tube it” directly to stations between Holborn and Bank where we normally have to go via the Central line. The foregoing looks somewhat complicated (which it is or was) but it was a great cost effective means of commuting up to London.
Leaving approximately at 6:00 am from North Somerset anyone could reliably be in Central London by 9:00 to 9:30 am for the cost of half a tank of fuel for the round trip and a couple of quid on the underground. I and others still used the the railways even in that era as the traveling time could be used to read documents traveling up or typing up reports etc on the return journey saving much time in the office. However, road travel was a good cost efective option if anyone did not have too much paperwork to carry out.
However, in the last twelve years or so as far out as Reading traffic congestion on the M4 into London starts to build from around 7:00 am making it stop/go all the way to the M4-M25 interchange. The M25 has turned into the country's largest car park and the M40-A40 from Northolt down towards the perivale can take an hour to travel at peak times for just that section of the journey. Therefore in recent times there is no real other option but to use the railway.
As stated I am not sure regarding the above, but that was how I perceived it when they were reporting the matter on Sky News yesterday morning. Although they were unclear among themselves just what the 5% would be applied to.
Bill
Hi BLACKWATCH, about fifteen years back we always did exactly what you describe above. For Central London from North Somerset we could always drive up M4, then onto the M25 at the Heathrow interchange. From there round to join the M40 Eastbound, then onto the A40 into Perivale.
There is a large adjacent car park at Perivale underground station from which we could “tube it” directly to stations between Holborn and Bank where we normally have to go via the Central line. The foregoing looks somewhat complicated (which it is or was) but it was a great cost effective means of commuting up to London.
Leaving approximately at 6:00 am from North Somerset anyone could reliably be in Central London by 9:00 to 9:30 am for the cost of half a tank of fuel for the round trip and a couple of quid on the underground. I and others still used the the railways even in that era as the traveling time could be used to read documents traveling up or typing up reports etc on the return journey saving much time in the office. However, road travel was a good cost efective option if anyone did not have too much paperwork to carry out.
However, in the last twelve years or so as far out as Reading traffic congestion on the M4 into London starts to build from around 7:00 am making it stop/go all the way to the M4-M25 interchange. The M25 has turned into the country's largest car park and the M40-A40 from Northolt down towards the perivale can take an hour to travel at peak times for just that section of the journey. Therefore in recent times there is no real other option but to use the railway.
Hi Malc (clam1953) I am not sure, but I believe that fare rises above 2.3% are to be allowed on unregulated routes and at certain times on regulated fare routes. Therefore the 5% increase may well be not an exaggeration. Those increases may apply to off peak concessionary travel with the train operating companies applying the extra increase for the benefit of their own coffers.
As stated I am not sure regarding the above, but that was how I perceived it when they were reporting the matter on Sky News yesterday morning. Although they were unclear among themselves just what the 5% would be applied to.
Bill
Last edited:
Here is a passing reference to one railway that should be noted, namely NIRailways.....
https://www.translink.co.uk/corporate/About-Us/Publications/Monitoring-Results/NIR/
I have been over there numerous times since a wee boy with my family as well in adult times myself and taking boys camps there. It was the by far worst of the home nations to have railway losses and a terrible situation at that.
https://www.translink.co.uk/corporate/About-Us/Publications/Monitoring-Results/NIR/
I have been over there numerous times since a wee boy with my family as well in adult times myself and taking boys camps there. It was the by far worst of the home nations to have railway losses and a terrible situation at that.
Dean_Forest
Member
Now I have a bit more time, let me go into detail with a couple of examples of meddling.
1. Voyagers. They have many things wrong with them from the cramped interior to the smell of effluence. The one main complaint people have though is that they are too short. Replacing an hourly 7/8 coach LHCS or HST with a half-hourly 4/5 coach Voyager might seem OK but when you take into account the extra passengers attracted by the improved frequency as well as the national growth in rail travel, they are woefully lacking in capacity. Chris Green (the best Chairman BR never had, who took over Virgin Trains just after the order was placed) realised this and wanted to order more coaches. The SRA (the quango that held the powers at the time) said no. Likewise the request to retain some HSTs for extra capacity was rejected.
2. HST replacement. Realising that their respective HST fleets would need replacement, FGW and GNER got together with Siemens to produce a design for HST2. This design would follow the existing successful model of having a power car at each end, capable of 140mph on two engines or 125mph on one. As electrification progressed, they would have first one, and then the other power unit replaced with a pantograph/transformer. They were ready to start constructing a prototype whilst the fleet would've been in squadron service seven years ago. Then stepped in the DfT who decided that such decisions were too important for the private sector, and instead came up with the IET. It has not yet entered service (leaving the HSTs to slog on in the meantime) and will only be able to do 140mph when on electric power. Its top speed on diesel is mooted to be a mere 115mph. It is also far more expensive. The DfT have micromanaged everything down to the seats which, judging by reports from industry insiders (and my own visual observations of 800002's interior) will set new depths in terms of comfort with bolt-upright seats and thin cushions.
3. Southern. A report was written by Sir Roy McNulty for the DfT a few years ago. This report said that to reduce costs, the grade of Guard should be abolished. This is despite the disproportionately high number of "trap and drag" incidents involving DOO trains and the various valuable aspects of a Guard's role that can't be quantified on a spreadsheet (things like stopping passengers disembarking en-masse when a train breaks down, enabling disabled people to access trains, protecting vulnerable people from the dangerous thugs who exist in our world, arranging for an ambulance to meet the train when someone has a heart attack). The DfT are using the Southern management contract as a test exercise to push this through. How is a driver looking at two iPad-sized screens covering twelve coaches supposed to have a better view of the doors than a guard standing on the platform using his Mk1 portable eyeballs? Especially when there's rain/condensation on/in the lenses (which themselves are directly mounted on the bodyside and therefore have a very limited field of view). Bear in mind that if the driver makes a mistake and someone gets injured or killed, it's them who will be in the dock; not the beancounter who only looks at cost, not value.
1. Voyagers. They have many things wrong with them from the cramped interior to the smell of effluence. The one main complaint people have though is that they are too short. Replacing an hourly 7/8 coach LHCS or HST with a half-hourly 4/5 coach Voyager might seem OK but when you take into account the extra passengers attracted by the improved frequency as well as the national growth in rail travel, they are woefully lacking in capacity. Chris Green (the best Chairman BR never had, who took over Virgin Trains just after the order was placed) realised this and wanted to order more coaches. The SRA (the quango that held the powers at the time) said no. Likewise the request to retain some HSTs for extra capacity was rejected.
2. HST replacement. Realising that their respective HST fleets would need replacement, FGW and GNER got together with Siemens to produce a design for HST2. This design would follow the existing successful model of having a power car at each end, capable of 140mph on two engines or 125mph on one. As electrification progressed, they would have first one, and then the other power unit replaced with a pantograph/transformer. They were ready to start constructing a prototype whilst the fleet would've been in squadron service seven years ago. Then stepped in the DfT who decided that such decisions were too important for the private sector, and instead came up with the IET. It has not yet entered service (leaving the HSTs to slog on in the meantime) and will only be able to do 140mph when on electric power. Its top speed on diesel is mooted to be a mere 115mph. It is also far more expensive. The DfT have micromanaged everything down to the seats which, judging by reports from industry insiders (and my own visual observations of 800002's interior) will set new depths in terms of comfort with bolt-upright seats and thin cushions.
3. Southern. A report was written by Sir Roy McNulty for the DfT a few years ago. This report said that to reduce costs, the grade of Guard should be abolished. This is despite the disproportionately high number of "trap and drag" incidents involving DOO trains and the various valuable aspects of a Guard's role that can't be quantified on a spreadsheet (things like stopping passengers disembarking en-masse when a train breaks down, enabling disabled people to access trains, protecting vulnerable people from the dangerous thugs who exist in our world, arranging for an ambulance to meet the train when someone has a heart attack). The DfT are using the Southern management contract as a test exercise to push this through. How is a driver looking at two iPad-sized screens covering twelve coaches supposed to have a better view of the doors than a guard standing on the platform using his Mk1 portable eyeballs? Especially when there's rain/condensation on/in the lenses (which themselves are directly mounted on the bodyside and therefore have a very limited field of view). Bear in mind that if the driver makes a mistake and someone gets injured or killed, it's them who will be in the dock; not the beancounter who only looks at cost, not value.
i everybody.
Dean Forest, with the greatest of respect in regard to your posting at #84 of this thread, can I just comment on your statement regarding “medaling” within the rail industry. In your posting at #53 of this thread you advised that:-
Anyone can argue that incorrect equipment over any number of years has been procured for use on the UK's railways. However, that equipment purchase has been sanctioned by elected governments of all colours since the original railway nationalization in 1948. Civil Servants in whatever department have handled those procurements throughout those years are there to assist in arranging the purchases.
The above assistance is provided prior to and after the decision on what is to be procured has been decided on by a minister, government or parliament as the case may be, and in that carrying out their duty as public servants we as an electorate put them their to do. The directors and senior management of the train operating companies may feel that they have the knowledge and experience to procure alternative and better equipment which may or may not be the case.
However, the terms under which those directors and managers tendered for the train operating franchise's were perfectly clear. In that it was stated that the government of the day would procure the rail equipment and then lease that equipment to the train operating companies. Therefore, there has been “no meddling” by anyone least of all the Civil Servants attached to the Ministries and departments involved.
Dean Forest again with every respect can I address the third section of your posting at #84’ of this thread. Sir Roy McNulty or anyone else at the Department of Transport can voice opinion in regard to drivers operating doors or the need for conductors on trains. However, The Health & Safety At Work Act (HSWA) which has been in existence since 1974 makes it unquestionably clear that the sole responsibility for the safety of Southern employees and the passengers that travel on their rail services is the sole responsibility of the owners and management of Southern Rail.
The foregoing is encompassed under the employer's duty of care section of the HSWA. The act also emphasises the the role of risk assessment in regard to employers ascertaining the level of any hazards employees and others who may be affected by their operations may encounter
Therefore without doubt risk assessments have been carried out in regard to drivers operating the doors on trains which must have ascertained a satisfactory low level of risk in regard to the above operation to Southern management. However, also under HSWA legislation those risk assessments must be circulated to employees whose work duty safety would be adjudged in those risk assessments and by others who feel they may be affected or covered by the assessments .
Undoubtedly the drivers, guards, conductors or their representative union(s) have had sight of the risk assessments compiled in regard to the door operation. The foregoing begs the question why the representative unions or even individual employees have not challenged those assessments through the courts if they feel that the assessments are incorrect in the low level of risk that they ascertained for the operation.
In the above, the unions or individual employees would under the employee's responsibilities section of the HSWA have duty to carry out a challenge to the assessments if it is felt that any operation an employee is instructed to carry out endangers themselves or others in the vicinity of that operation. In the case of the door operation those affected would be persons boarding or alighting from any train.
In my humble opinion Southern Rail have handled the ongoing industrial dispute in regard to DOO badly in their presentation of matter to the general public and their own employees. However I believe that the unions representing the employees affected by the dispute have been nothing short of negligent in their handling of the matter. As stated, the union(s) have the option of pursuing their case through the courts, placing the matter in the hands of the Arbitration and Conciliation Service ACAS) or requesting such a body as The Institute Of Occupational Safety and Health (IOSH) become involved for independent judgment. At present the attitude of the union(s) would seem be to sit back, do nothing and let the dispute drag on.
However if reports widely circulating over the last few days in the press and other media are correct, this week will see an announcement by government that will bring about changes in Britain's rail industry on a scale not seen since the days of Dr Beeching
Bill
Dean Forest, with the greatest of respect in regard to your posting at #84 of this thread, can I just comment on your statement regarding “medaling” within the rail industry. In your posting at #53 of this thread you advised that:-
In the posting at #84 you lay out the procurement that has been carried out by the Department of Transport. In the foregoing it would have been elected ministers within that department who would have authorized that procurement and not any member of the civil service attached to that department as you state .
Anyone can argue that incorrect equipment over any number of years has been procured for use on the UK's railways. However, that equipment purchase has been sanctioned by elected governments of all colours since the original railway nationalization in 1948. Civil Servants in whatever department have handled those procurements throughout those years are there to assist in arranging the purchases.
The above assistance is provided prior to and after the decision on what is to be procured has been decided on by a minister, government or parliament as the case may be, and in that carrying out their duty as public servants we as an electorate put them their to do. The directors and senior management of the train operating companies may feel that they have the knowledge and experience to procure alternative and better equipment which may or may not be the case.
However, the terms under which those directors and managers tendered for the train operating franchise's were perfectly clear. In that it was stated that the government of the day would procure the rail equipment and then lease that equipment to the train operating companies. Therefore, there has been “no meddling” by anyone least of all the Civil Servants attached to the Ministries and departments involved.
Dean Forest again with every respect can I address the third section of your posting at #84’ of this thread. Sir Roy McNulty or anyone else at the Department of Transport can voice opinion in regard to drivers operating doors or the need for conductors on trains. However, The Health & Safety At Work Act (HSWA) which has been in existence since 1974 makes it unquestionably clear that the sole responsibility for the safety of Southern employees and the passengers that travel on their rail services is the sole responsibility of the owners and management of Southern Rail.
The foregoing is encompassed under the employer's duty of care section of the HSWA. The act also emphasises the the role of risk assessment in regard to employers ascertaining the level of any hazards employees and others who may be affected by their operations may encounter
Therefore without doubt risk assessments have been carried out in regard to drivers operating the doors on trains which must have ascertained a satisfactory low level of risk in regard to the above operation to Southern management. However, also under HSWA legislation those risk assessments must be circulated to employees whose work duty safety would be adjudged in those risk assessments and by others who feel they may be affected or covered by the assessments .
Undoubtedly the drivers, guards, conductors or their representative union(s) have had sight of the risk assessments compiled in regard to the door operation. The foregoing begs the question why the representative unions or even individual employees have not challenged those assessments through the courts if they feel that the assessments are incorrect in the low level of risk that they ascertained for the operation.
In the above, the unions or individual employees would under the employee's responsibilities section of the HSWA have duty to carry out a challenge to the assessments if it is felt that any operation an employee is instructed to carry out endangers themselves or others in the vicinity of that operation. In the case of the door operation those affected would be persons boarding or alighting from any train.
In my humble opinion Southern Rail have handled the ongoing industrial dispute in regard to DOO badly in their presentation of matter to the general public and their own employees. However I believe that the unions representing the employees affected by the dispute have been nothing short of negligent in their handling of the matter. As stated, the union(s) have the option of pursuing their case through the courts, placing the matter in the hands of the Arbitration and Conciliation Service ACAS) or requesting such a body as The Institute Of Occupational Safety and Health (IOSH) become involved for independent judgment. At present the attitude of the union(s) would seem be to sit back, do nothing and let the dispute drag on.
However if reports widely circulating over the last few days in the press and other media are correct, this week will see an announcement by government that will bring about changes in Britain's rail industry on a scale not seen since the days of Dr Beeching
Bill
Last edited:
I think this thread has turned into:
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=p...KEwjT6eD12tvQAhVoAcAKHfEaBV0Q_AUIBigB#imgrc=_
!
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=p...KEwjT6eD12tvQAhVoAcAKHfEaBV0Q_AUIBigB#imgrc=_
!
What you are all seeing in the UK is not uncommon elsewhere due to transit and road works services being ripe for corruption in general. Unlike the health services, or department of education, or some other top-level organization in government, road works and transit/transportation have many, many parties involved at different levels. With these being a public entities on top of this, these organizations then appear to be a cash cow from which the parties involved can get a piece of the action and rake in their own profits.
When contracts are posted, it becomes a who knows who and who can grab the contract rather than the one with the best lowest bid. In some cases the lowest bids are used to grab the contract, but then there are the usual cost overruns to grab as much cash that can be had at the taxpayers expense.
The other problem too is that privatization has proven to be no more than a lucrative cash grab by a very few. What happens here is a few people in the know get to bid and run the services. The organizational status is changed so that the cash-removing entities get the favored private status while the overseers remain public, which of course is populated with friends of the former. This then makes for easy transfer of funds to the private sector and into the hands of those who bid the contracts.
The above mentioned idiot moves by management to bring in the overpriced, overcrowded Pendolinos is a classic example, as well as the other management decisions in favor of the lesser-quality trains, and not unlike what happened over here with the Hyundai Rotems, which we now have in our service, or the Breda-MBTA contract. The Breda trams, for example, had problems right off the bat with derailments in the tunnels. The "T" as we call the MBTA requires special bogies on the trams in order to negotiate the tight curves in the tunnels. The contract went through, as they out-bid Alstom Bombardier for the trams. After the contract was won by Breda, problems started with faulty components, constant replacement parts, derailments due to faulty or wrong bogies, and then lawsuits to fix it, which of course were settled out of court meaning everyone went to dinner on the taxpayers and the fines paid were pocket change as usual.
Road works are not much different. There are contracts which go out to maintenance companies annually. The interstate here, partially paid for by the US government, is in constant state of repair. The repairs start in the spring, just in time for the tourists, then continue right until winter. The problem is this is never a new area being repaired. For some reason they are always repaving, fixing, and upgrading the same few miles on this 100 mile stretch of road. The Mass Pike too has been ripe for ripping off as well. This portion of I-90 was a cushy job if anyone wanted it. Even today, this toll road with its tollbooths being removed in place of transponders, has had its issues while this process is taking place. Recently an official was caught taking bribes by one of the contractors for the job.
And finally the commuter rail, which is similar to your regional rail systems. Today we have Keolis running the system, They supposedly outbid the existing company running the system, but that bidding process was riddled with issues. The then existing company was being told its services are no longer needed and will have to rebid on the job. They had been very outspoken about people at the top doing things and this put them on the wrong side, as this appears. When Keolis was brought in as the only other party to bid against, the existing company lost as the bid was decided privately.
Our current governor too is trying his hand at putting his own cronies in the MBTA. It started with a snowstorm which shut the system down. He used that as an excuse to cut the management and replace them with his friends. In the meant time he cut the staff doing to work, which has now caused other issues such as dirty busses, subways, and trams, as well as late services due to breakdowns and even some minor derailments. He then used this too as an excuse to replace more people with his friends, and is now talking about privatizing the operation!
Yes! This has been his goal all along and used various excuses to grab what he could from the state-paid for, out of our taxpayer money, transit organization and give it to his buddies. He just did that with the cashbox handling. Supposedly there were funds missing so he had to give this to a contractor to do the job.
John
When contracts are posted, it becomes a who knows who and who can grab the contract rather than the one with the best lowest bid. In some cases the lowest bids are used to grab the contract, but then there are the usual cost overruns to grab as much cash that can be had at the taxpayers expense.
The other problem too is that privatization has proven to be no more than a lucrative cash grab by a very few. What happens here is a few people in the know get to bid and run the services. The organizational status is changed so that the cash-removing entities get the favored private status while the overseers remain public, which of course is populated with friends of the former. This then makes for easy transfer of funds to the private sector and into the hands of those who bid the contracts.
The above mentioned idiot moves by management to bring in the overpriced, overcrowded Pendolinos is a classic example, as well as the other management decisions in favor of the lesser-quality trains, and not unlike what happened over here with the Hyundai Rotems, which we now have in our service, or the Breda-MBTA contract. The Breda trams, for example, had problems right off the bat with derailments in the tunnels. The "T" as we call the MBTA requires special bogies on the trams in order to negotiate the tight curves in the tunnels. The contract went through, as they out-bid Alstom Bombardier for the trams. After the contract was won by Breda, problems started with faulty components, constant replacement parts, derailments due to faulty or wrong bogies, and then lawsuits to fix it, which of course were settled out of court meaning everyone went to dinner on the taxpayers and the fines paid were pocket change as usual.
Road works are not much different. There are contracts which go out to maintenance companies annually. The interstate here, partially paid for by the US government, is in constant state of repair. The repairs start in the spring, just in time for the tourists, then continue right until winter. The problem is this is never a new area being repaired. For some reason they are always repaving, fixing, and upgrading the same few miles on this 100 mile stretch of road. The Mass Pike too has been ripe for ripping off as well. This portion of I-90 was a cushy job if anyone wanted it. Even today, this toll road with its tollbooths being removed in place of transponders, has had its issues while this process is taking place. Recently an official was caught taking bribes by one of the contractors for the job.
And finally the commuter rail, which is similar to your regional rail systems. Today we have Keolis running the system, They supposedly outbid the existing company running the system, but that bidding process was riddled with issues. The then existing company was being told its services are no longer needed and will have to rebid on the job. They had been very outspoken about people at the top doing things and this put them on the wrong side, as this appears. When Keolis was brought in as the only other party to bid against, the existing company lost as the bid was decided privately.
Our current governor too is trying his hand at putting his own cronies in the MBTA. It started with a snowstorm which shut the system down. He used that as an excuse to cut the management and replace them with his friends. In the meant time he cut the staff doing to work, which has now caused other issues such as dirty busses, subways, and trams, as well as late services due to breakdowns and even some minor derailments. He then used this too as an excuse to replace more people with his friends, and is now talking about privatizing the operation!
Yes! This has been his goal all along and used various excuses to grab what he could from the state-paid for, out of our taxpayer money, transit organization and give it to his buddies. He just did that with the cashbox handling. Supposedly there were funds missing so he had to give this to a contractor to do the job.
John
Definitely waffle:
http://forums.auran.com/trainz/show...n-s-Disgusting-Railways&p=1560431#post1560431
TTFN Rob.
http://forums.auran.com/trainz/show...n-s-Disgusting-Railways&p=1560431#post1560431
TTFN Rob.
Last edited:
Bill, you're missing the point. No civil servant in Whitehall should be involved in procurement decisions, or any other operational matters, on Britain's railways. That should be a matter for railwaymen, properly trained and with a background, knowledge and sympathy of the industry. That is the system we had, very successfully, for 170 years to 1996, under both private and public ownership. Since 1996 we have had a bizarre hybrid system that is neither 'public' - in that there is no accountability - nor 'private' in that the companies are all dependent on taxpayer subsidies in order to exist. But worst of all is the loss of operational independence and autonomy in a system deliberately 'dis-integrated' by political choice (in order to make it more difficult to renationalise) with no real leadership and endless interference in operational matters by civil servants, most of whom have absolutely no knowledge or background in railways whatsoever.
In additional to the, excellent, examples offered by Dean_Forest, above, about where this interference leads, I would offer the case of the decision making around the West Coast Mainline upgrade in the late 1990s. In this case, government advisors, most of whom had no background in railways, decided that new signalling systems would permit 150mph running in order to make their sums add up. The fact that the technology did not exist or had not been implemented, did not deter them! Suffice to say the upgrade came in massively over budget and time and with an increase in line speeds of only 15mph! Compare and contrast with British Rail who managed to electrify both the West and East Coast mainlines (the latter on a very tight budget demanded by the Thatcher government).
Is it too much to ask for an industry that is able to conduct its own affairs, make its own key decisions, particularly around operations, with a leadership that both understands and cares about the industry rather than career civil servants simply looking forward to their next posting as they move from section to section in the Department of Transport?
Paul
In additional to the, excellent, examples offered by Dean_Forest, above, about where this interference leads, I would offer the case of the decision making around the West Coast Mainline upgrade in the late 1990s. In this case, government advisors, most of whom had no background in railways, decided that new signalling systems would permit 150mph running in order to make their sums add up. The fact that the technology did not exist or had not been implemented, did not deter them! Suffice to say the upgrade came in massively over budget and time and with an increase in line speeds of only 15mph! Compare and contrast with British Rail who managed to electrify both the West and East Coast mainlines (the latter on a very tight budget demanded by the Thatcher government).
Is it too much to ask for an industry that is able to conduct its own affairs, make its own key decisions, particularly around operations, with a leadership that both understands and cares about the industry rather than career civil servants simply looking forward to their next posting as they move from section to section in the Department of Transport?
Paul
amigacooke
Well-known member
If public money is involved, yes, it probably is too much to ask. In the end the 'government' gets the blame for pretty much anything that goes wrong. In that prevailing climate, is it any great surprise that there has been increasing government 'meddling' in all walks of life?
Hi everybody.
As was widely forecast in the press and media over the last few days, Network Rail are to have their position as a nationalized monopoly maintaining Britain's rail infrastructure removed. The plans announced by government favour the train operating companies jointly managing track maintenance and operation in coordination with very much reduced Network rail authority.
The government also announced that a new line is to be constructed between Oxford and Cambridge in which a private company will carry out the planning, building maintaining and running of trains on the line. The foregoing I feel very much gives insight to probable government thinking on the operation of all lines into the future.
In my humble opinion, it is distinctly possible that within ten to fifteen years Network Rail will not exist in any form with a reduced number of train operating companies maintaining and running the entire network. Perhaps we may see at some point no more than four companies running the entire operation in similar structure to that which existed before the 1948 nationalization.
Bill
As was widely forecast in the press and media over the last few days, Network Rail are to have their position as a nationalized monopoly maintaining Britain's rail infrastructure removed. The plans announced by government favour the train operating companies jointly managing track maintenance and operation in coordination with very much reduced Network rail authority.
The government also announced that a new line is to be constructed between Oxford and Cambridge in which a private company will carry out the planning, building maintaining and running of trains on the line. The foregoing I feel very much gives insight to probable government thinking on the operation of all lines into the future.
In my humble opinion, it is distinctly possible that within ten to fifteen years Network Rail will not exist in any form with a reduced number of train operating companies maintaining and running the entire network. Perhaps we may see at some point no more than four companies running the entire operation in similar structure to that which existed before the 1948 nationalization.
Bill
PendennisCastle
Steam Fan
If we put the companies aside, we have made some very beautiful railway lines around Britain.
Devon is one good example as well as plenty of preserved railways and Scotland.
Devon is one good example as well as plenty of preserved railways and Scotland.
BLACKWATCH
Mechanical Engineer
Hatfield has soon been forgotten, there is always a greater chance of disaster when you put H&S in the same box as Profit. 
Dean_Forest
Member
With respect Bill, might I suggest that that is a naive way to look at the way that management works these days? Directors and senior management will be well aware that should anything go wrong, they could find themselves in the dock. Therefore (as past experience has shown) they will have written operating procedures that will prevent anything going wrong but in practice are impossible to follow to the letter given the pressure on staff regarding punctuality. An example is the recently leaked "Special Notice" suggests that in the event of a camera failure, the driver should walk up the train (having first contacted fleet and secured the cab) and close the doors locally. Given that the allotted time at a station is 1 minute and that the next train will need to have arrived four minutes later at a busy station, it is obviously an unworkable system in practice. Therefore it is inevitable that staff (under pressure from management because of the poor punctuality) will start taking shortcuts merely to stop the service from falling to pieces. When something does go wrong, directors can simply point their fingers at the procedures not being followed to the letter and avoid prosecution.
You are also wrong in suggesting that the union has been unwilling to compromise. They have offered the same deal that was agreed with Scotrail but this was blocked by Peter Wilkinson. The new OBS role has already led to a poorer service for passengers, with wheelchair users being over-carried due to there being insufficient staff.
Whilst I consider the RMT to be useless militants on the whole, I feel they are on the right side of this debate.
Hi everybody.
All employees covered by any risk assessment under Health & Safety at Work legislation have to be trained out in those safe working practices. In the course of that training any written operating procedure that cannot be carried out in a time frame given will be exposed. In the foregoing, should an employer insist that the practice is still included in the overall safety regime then the workforce need only follow those SWPs to the letter to bring about a loss of productivity which then inevitably brings a further review and workable change.
By example to the above, in a recent well publicised theme park accident involving serious injury to persons on a roller coaster, the investigation team found that the safe working practices posted to the employees could not in any way be carried out inline with the productivity demands required of staff operating the ride. Therefore the staff ignored the SSPs which many of them had not been trained out in at the commencement of their employment as legislation demands, which in the end proved to be the cause of the incident
In the above the theme park owners inmeaditly following the incident at first claimed that a full safety regime was in place (which was not the case) and that the staff were at fault for not following the set operational procedures laid down by the company. However, the investigation team quickly proved that the SWPs could not be encompassed against the productivity demands made on staff and therefore the owners of the theme park where found to 100% responsible for the accident.
In the above it was the management of the theme park that were naive in believing that as most of the young employees where seasonal workers they would not be covered by the fairness at work act and therefore could be dismissed at any time with those staff having no redress (not the case when safety issues are involved). The company have been fined by the courts five million pounds plus costs and ongoing compensation payments have to be made to the victims of the incident which will considerably increase those millions into the future.
In the foregoing it can easily be seen how the how the unions representing the southern rail employees could proceed in the door operating dispute. That could ether be by way of the court's, presenting their case and argument to an arbitration panel or simply instructing their members to carry out any SWPs they feel are impractical in terms of productivity demands and timekeeping to the letter. The above would firmly and publicly put the ball back in southern rail management's court.
I do very much agree with you on one point you make in your above posting Dean Forest, and that would be your sentiment that the RMT leadership are a useless bunch of militants who are letting down the membership badly in regard to their negligence in the door operating dispute and other matters.
Bill
Dean Forest, many thanks for your above reply to my posting at #85 of this thread. However, as someone who has worked in industrial safety for the last thirty years I do not believe I am speaking naively in any part of that posting. I believe when you post on directors and senior managers writing operating procedures which are impossible to follow, you are referring to the third section of any numeric risk assessment that being the safe working practices (SWPs ).
All employees covered by any risk assessment under Health & Safety at Work legislation have to be trained out in those safe working practices. In the course of that training any written operating procedure that cannot be carried out in a time frame given will be exposed. In the foregoing, should an employer insist that the practice is still included in the overall safety regime then the workforce need only follow those SWPs to the letter to bring about a loss of productivity which then inevitably brings a further review and workable change.
By example to the above, in a recent well publicised theme park accident involving serious injury to persons on a roller coaster, the investigation team found that the safe working practices posted to the employees could not in any way be carried out inline with the productivity demands required of staff operating the ride. Therefore the staff ignored the SSPs which many of them had not been trained out in at the commencement of their employment as legislation demands, which in the end proved to be the cause of the incident
In the above the theme park owners inmeaditly following the incident at first claimed that a full safety regime was in place (which was not the case) and that the staff were at fault for not following the set operational procedures laid down by the company. However, the investigation team quickly proved that the SWPs could not be encompassed against the productivity demands made on staff and therefore the owners of the theme park where found to 100% responsible for the accident.
In the above it was the management of the theme park that were naive in believing that as most of the young employees where seasonal workers they would not be covered by the fairness at work act and therefore could be dismissed at any time with those staff having no redress (not the case when safety issues are involved). The company have been fined by the courts five million pounds plus costs and ongoing compensation payments have to be made to the victims of the incident which will considerably increase those millions into the future.
In the foregoing it can easily be seen how the how the unions representing the southern rail employees could proceed in the door operating dispute. That could ether be by way of the court's, presenting their case and argument to an arbitration panel or simply instructing their members to carry out any SWPs they feel are impractical in terms of productivity demands and timekeeping to the letter. The above would firmly and publicly put the ball back in southern rail management's court.
I do very much agree with you on one point you make in your above posting Dean Forest, and that would be your sentiment that the RMT leadership are a useless bunch of militants who are letting down the membership badly in regard to their negligence in the door operating dispute and other matters.
Bill
Last edited:
Dean_Forest
Member
I wouldn't put it past Southern's management to try to bully staff into taking trains forward with defective equipment. It has happened before where control tried to insist that a driver did something questionable (they backed down very quickly when the driver asked for the name of the manager authorising it). Unfortunately a practice of bullying has set into Southern Rail and it has completely demoralised the staff. Note that there is regular service chaos even on non-strike days (in fact, Southern has been running a really poor service for two years, far longer than this dispute has been going on).
Dean_Forest
Member
Incidentally, I'm quite familiar with the limitations of seasonal staff. Earlier this year, I shadowed the maintenance team at a different attraction owned by the same company on their morning and evening inspections. Came across a few things, some of which were safety-related, others just caused damage to equipment.
cyberdongreen
AKA: cyberdonblue
Bullying by privatised rail companies goes on all the time. As an ex-train driver (Engineer) I can tell you that these private companies are very good at dodging their responsiblities - legal or otherwise. Every company covers their own arse by holding monthly "Safety Briefings." Sounds great doesn't it? Actually, an instructor waffles on about something for about 15 to 30 minutes (depending on how much he loves the sound of his own voice) on some meaningless triviality that nobody really cares about and then often shows a Railtrack video or the like on some other subject or other. Nobody wants to be there but, as it's these companies "Get of out jail Free Card" you have to be there for at least 4 hours (most of which is a tea break.)
At the end of the whole farce, everybody is handed a piece of paper on which is written a statement basically saying that you've been given a "Safety Briefing" on such and such a subject matter and that you are now fully conversant with the matter and take full responsiblity for all your own actions in the event of a mishap and the company won't be to blame whatsoever (worded somewhat differently in legal spiel of course.) In other words, the company are holding a document ready to produce in a court of law, should the proverbial hit the fan, that says, "It wasn't me!" and the drivers have signed it to absolve the company of all blame and shoulder the responsibility themselves. If you refused to sign it you would be disciplined or labelled as "not fit for driving duties" and confined to the shed until they could find an excuse to get rid of you. Either way, your carreer would have been up against an immovable object.
Most people recruited to the railway operating grades these days are ex-military or ex-policemen - because they're used to doing as they're told without question. However, they haven't yet realised that the people who USED to give them orders were a darn sight more honest than the crooks they work for now. When one of them ends up in prison for manslaughter or such then they might "wake up and smell the coffee" as our American cousins put it.
Dave
At the end of the whole farce, everybody is handed a piece of paper on which is written a statement basically saying that you've been given a "Safety Briefing" on such and such a subject matter and that you are now fully conversant with the matter and take full responsiblity for all your own actions in the event of a mishap and the company won't be to blame whatsoever (worded somewhat differently in legal spiel of course.) In other words, the company are holding a document ready to produce in a court of law, should the proverbial hit the fan, that says, "It wasn't me!" and the drivers have signed it to absolve the company of all blame and shoulder the responsibility themselves. If you refused to sign it you would be disciplined or labelled as "not fit for driving duties" and confined to the shed until they could find an excuse to get rid of you. Either way, your carreer would have been up against an immovable object.
Most people recruited to the railway operating grades these days are ex-military or ex-policemen - because they're used to doing as they're told without question. However, they haven't yet realised that the people who USED to give them orders were a darn sight more honest than the crooks they work for now. When one of them ends up in prison for manslaughter or such then they might "wake up and smell the coffee" as our American cousins put it.
Dave
Hi everybody.
In the above, you describe those same drivers attending safety briefings with an attitude of “nobody wanting to be there” (your above exact words not mine). Cybordongreen, you also describe how the company allow up to four hours for such briefings with video demonstration of matters being briefed out on provided, which can be interpreted as the company very much carrying out their commitment to rail safety.
Cybordongreen, you then describe the considerable remaining time of the four hours set out for the briefing as a “tea break time” which undoubtedly comes about as like yourself “no one wanted to be there”, and therefore no questions are asked of the safety rep giving the briefing.
In the above, train drivers have the lives of many hundreds of people in their hands throughout any working shift, therefore safety should always be constantly utmost in those drivers minds. Therefore raising any concerns they have in regard to train safety should be taken at such opportunities as safety briefings.
You then go on to state that drivers and others attending briefings being asked to sign documents in regard to what they have been briefed and instructed in as a “company get out”. However, from what you describe cybordongeen many give signature to those documents without any consideration of what they are signing into. However as is so often the case from my own experience employees are very often “Balled out” by a superviser or manager for not complying with procedures that they have been briefed out in and signed up to, then go on to complain that they are being “bullied”.
In the foregoing should anyone attending any company safety briefing feel that the subject matter is irrelevant to their everyday working experience, then under legislation those attending such briefings can raise a grievance on the matter with the management. The foregoing would be what any “safety minded” rail driver would be well aware of and prepared to put into effect at any safety briefing weakness those persons perceived.
Bill
Cybordongreen with every respect to your above posting, but I am sure every responsible person who reads the above will be appalled at what you state. Train drivers (engineers) have always demanded public respect on the grounds that that they are highly skilled persons interested only in the safety of the lives of passengers traveling on the trains they drive as (as in the current door operating dispute).
In the above, you describe those same drivers attending safety briefings with an attitude of “nobody wanting to be there” (your above exact words not mine). Cybordongreen, you also describe how the company allow up to four hours for such briefings with video demonstration of matters being briefed out on provided, which can be interpreted as the company very much carrying out their commitment to rail safety.
Cybordongreen, you then describe the considerable remaining time of the four hours set out for the briefing as a “tea break time” which undoubtedly comes about as like yourself “no one wanted to be there”, and therefore no questions are asked of the safety rep giving the briefing.
In the above, train drivers have the lives of many hundreds of people in their hands throughout any working shift, therefore safety should always be constantly utmost in those drivers minds. Therefore raising any concerns they have in regard to train safety should be taken at such opportunities as safety briefings.
You then go on to state that drivers and others attending briefings being asked to sign documents in regard to what they have been briefed and instructed in as a “company get out”. However, from what you describe cybordongeen many give signature to those documents without any consideration of what they are signing into. However as is so often the case from my own experience employees are very often “Balled out” by a superviser or manager for not complying with procedures that they have been briefed out in and signed up to, then go on to complain that they are being “bullied”.
In the foregoing should anyone attending any company safety briefing feel that the subject matter is irrelevant to their everyday working experience, then under legislation those attending such briefings can raise a grievance on the matter with the management. The foregoing would be what any “safety minded” rail driver would be well aware of and prepared to put into effect at any safety briefing weakness those persons perceived.
Bill
Last edited:
cyberdongreen
AKA: cyberdonblue
With all due respect to you, Bill, and your Health & Safety background, my career as a train driver (engineer) spanned the better part of 35 years (February 1978 to August 2011 to be precise.) I can assure you that that which I describe above is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. These so-called "Safety Briefings" were (and from what I hear from ex-colleagues, still are) patronising in the extreme - hence the disinterest - and they're often delivered by some newly appointed (or unpopular) company messenger boy who has only been on the job 5 minutes. It is blatant corporate self-protection, believe me.
You cannot buy your way into an industry, trample all over 150 years of Trade Union agreements (most of them safety related) and say "There's a new way of doing things now, boys." It doesn't wash with the men who've learnt the job from the ground floor up - the hard way. The privatised TOC's have tried everything in their power to remove ex-BR staff at every opportunity (legally but often very harshly for lesser misdemeanours) and all bar a very few of my ex-colleagues are merely seeing out their time waiting for retirement to come arround. And I include more than a few people who have taken on management grades in that statement. The loss of enthusiasm for the job amongst the experienced railwaymen is 100% - irrepairable (and I don't include a single new starter since privatisation in the description "railwayman" because they are a different breed who do not understand what they have inherited.)
Health and Safety is a brilliant idea but it has been corrupted and distorted in so many ways to serve the dishonest. Yes, these TOCs are delivering what is required of them in law by holding "Safety Briefings" but they are about as informative to an experienced train driver (engineer) as an hour in a chinese laundry.
Dave
You cannot buy your way into an industry, trample all over 150 years of Trade Union agreements (most of them safety related) and say "There's a new way of doing things now, boys." It doesn't wash with the men who've learnt the job from the ground floor up - the hard way. The privatised TOC's have tried everything in their power to remove ex-BR staff at every opportunity (legally but often very harshly for lesser misdemeanours) and all bar a very few of my ex-colleagues are merely seeing out their time waiting for retirement to come arround. And I include more than a few people who have taken on management grades in that statement. The loss of enthusiasm for the job amongst the experienced railwaymen is 100% - irrepairable (and I don't include a single new starter since privatisation in the description "railwayman" because they are a different breed who do not understand what they have inherited.)
Health and Safety is a brilliant idea but it has been corrupted and distorted in so many ways to serve the dishonest. Yes, these TOCs are delivering what is required of them in law by holding "Safety Briefings" but they are about as informative to an experienced train driver (engineer) as an hour in a chinese laundry.
Dave