These rail strikes then…

Well thank goodness we’ve had a decade of wage stagnation accompanied by productivity increases, that’ll keep inflation at bay.

What productivity increase? UK PLC is in a productivity slump and has been for some time.

I can't believe that people still use trains, except like, Harry Potter enthusiasts. I saw on the news that it costs over £5k to travel between London and Brighton, and that if your train is late or cancelled you have to pay extra.

Sick and tired of the same old union bashing shite, if you’re happy with crap conditions then batter on but quit trying to pull everyone else down with you.

Are we allowed to question this one particular union action though? Just asking.

I'm far from anti-union, but this seems the worst possible time to expect a bumper pay rise when the the service you run is burning through cash at an almighty rate and a headcount reduction is the sensible strategy.

There’s your mistake. It’s not an industry it’s a public service and profit should be nowhere in the financial planning. Without this service traffic and city centres would be inn an even worse condition than currently.

Given train usage is at an all time low and we've just spent two years learning that we don't all need to commute everyday for the world to keep turning, it might be a good time to ask whether pouring billions into the rail system is the best use of tax payers money - esp if not many people seem interested in using it. We're basically subsidising the top 5% of earners so they can commute into the city at below real cost. You could spend the billions on housing the homeless for example.

Well, compare the UK to Germany. They spend much much more ($billions per year) on their network. They have driver-less trains. They also have conductor-less trains and double-decker trains.
We can't have double-decker trains without demolishing hundreds of victorian railway bridges.
We have basically 1 high speed line in the UK, compared to loads in France, Spain and Germany.
We still have manual signalling!
We have a fare system which requires a Phd to understand.
The money has to come from somewhere if we want good rail services eg less road spending or more taxation.
It's a miracle anybody gets anywhere, frankly.

What we need is more capacity, but that needs major investment all round. We are trying, with HS2, but look at the resistance that’s faced. We need a completely new backbone as well as loads of new regional routes, and HS2 is part of that. But can we really trust a UK government to deliver that in a competent manner?

The entire rail industry at all levels has faced massive cost-cutting, privitisation and splitting into different bodies controlling different aspects.

Similar to the NHS, it's kind of like a very dilapidated house. It just needs constant work on it to stop it falling down, you're forever plugging leaks here and cracks there but you're doing this while people are still living in the house and there's no money to do the job properly anyway. So i'ts constantly on a make-do-and-mend basis with a different builder in charge of each of the walls.

What really needs to be done is to build an entirely new house (HS2 / NPR) that can take at least some of the people out of the leaky house and then concentrate on rebuilding that properly. But it's going to require decades of very high funding to compensate for the decades of very low funding it's had so far. And no Government cares enough to do that.

footflaps
Full Member

What productivity increase? UK PLC is in a productivity slump and has been for some time.

Not the case- other than dring covid of course.

(usual disclaimers apply about how difficult it is to actually meaningfully measure productivity, meaning that we've instead gone for a measurement system that's easier to execute and use, but which doesn't actually really measure productivity. A useful enough metric, except when people confuse it with actual real world productivity)

Sick and tired of the same old union bashing shite, if you’re happy with crap conditions then batter on but quit trying to pull everyone else down with you.

I can’t believe that people still use trains, except like, Harry Potter enthusiasts. I saw on the news that it costs over £5k to travel between London and Brighton, and that if your train is late or cancelled you have to pay extra.

You would hope that one of the long term consequences of the pandemic is the belief that everyone must be in the office 9-5 seven days a week is killed off for good.

You would hope that one of the long term consequences of the pandemic is the belief that everyone must be in the office 9-5 seven days a week is killed off for good.

The leisure market has recovered far more than the commuter market (although that is still pretty strong, there's some regional variations in how quickly that has rebounded). Weekend usage is at least as high as pre-Covid, if not higher.

I don't blame them for striking really.. It's inconvenient for me as I rely on public transport.. I don't want the expenses of running a car and I can always get a taxi or hire a car or van if I need to.

The cost of living and brexit shit is gonna really hit the fan soon and I don't blame the workers for trying to do something about it.

Railways are a long game.
You have to build the track - more costly and slower than building a road.
You need operating companies and rolling stock - much harder to setup than just letting individuals loose with cars on a road.
You have to price it accordingly and try to predict demand - almost impossible and easier to just tax private fuel usage.

More public investment? In Scotland fares only cover a third of the cost of running the railway. Perhaps time for Beeching 2.

https://www.transport.gov.scot/public-transport/rail/investing-in-scotlands-railway/scotlands-railway-delivering-value-for-money/

That's British government in a nutshell isn't it?

Loads of Europe has good rail transport links, because they planned and executed the long game properly for the benefit of the country. We ripped everything up for a quick few quid and some dodgy back handers; then sold it off, buggered it up and under-funded it into the ground in the name of "private enterprise". And everything ends up shit.

Disrupting commuters is one thing but disrupting kids who have worked hard for their exams and are dependent on trains to get to school and sit those exams, especially after all the disruption from the pandemic, is beyond belief.

The problem with striking is that, like international trade sanctions, it doesn't necessarily affect the people you want it to affect.

But then, the problem with not striking is what else can you do?

Its always a good plan to "think of the children".
Unfortunately by definition strikes are an inconvenience. Perhaps the government should have tried something other than their normal tactic of causing division?

That’s British government in a nutshell isn’t it?

Loads of Europe has good rail transport links, because they planned and executed the long game properly for the benefit of the country. We ripped everything up for a quick few quid and some dodgy back handers; then sold it off, buggered it up and under-funded it into the ground in the name of “private enterprise”. And everything ends up shit.

Came here to say this - 100% agree.

Public transport in Australia is cheap, clean, fast and convenient. The costs of journeys in central Sydney including bus, tram, train and ferries would blow your minds..... a 3 hr train ride from central Sydney to Newcastle? 3.50 gbp. The public transport system here is state owned and run - makes a difference that operating costs are not being squeezed for the purposes of making a profit.

Disrupting commuters is one thing but disrupting kids who have worked hard for their exams and are dependent on trains to get to school and sit those exams, especially after all the disruption from the pandemic, is beyond belief.

I think it goes further than this. One of the defences of striking on public transport is to say it's all right for everyone else in their entitled mega pay jobs with the option to change employers for better money. The term "commuter" has the connotation of / is often used like the only type of commuter is a stockbroker sitting in first class in stripey shirts and braces who can just hop in their Audi Q7 and cause congestion chaos on their way into the square mile (sorry for stereotype!).

The reality is rail commuters are also healthcare workers, minimum wage retail and call centre workers and cleaners, site workers, emergency services staff, and all sorts of others. Those are the commuters who will really feel the pain and who we as a society or they as individuals cannot afford to be unable to get to work.

Striking on the railways is not a way of achieving a positive outcome while only mildly inconveniencing the rich. Not everyone has the choice to join a union and find a better employer or to take the car for a day through circumstances or personal choice.

Not everyone has the choice to join a union

Er, I'll just stop you there. Everyone has that choice, it's enshrined in law.

They can also pester their MP/MSP/MWP to try to get the striking matter resolved before it adversely impacts them. That costs nothing and is exactly the pressure the government needs to do it's bit.

People aren't powerless, just apothetic.

In the last 24 hours Royal Mail have attempted to bypass the CWU stalled negotiations regarding a "no strings" pay rise deal from April, by executive action they plan to force a 2% pay increase from next month. Let's just say it has not gone down well after a massive increase in online shopping since the pandemic started, how Covid safety was dealt with so poorly and then the CEO moans about sickness, how share dividends have been paid etc.

Balloting for industrial action is incoming very soon, as it was before yesterday's announcement.

Disrupting commuters is one thing but disrupting kids who have worked hard for their exams and are dependent on trains to get to school and sit those exams, especially after all the disruption from the pandemic, is beyond belief.

Whilst pupils undoubtedly take all forums of transport to attend school including trains, especially those attending fee paying schools, I would be interested in knowing just how many actually rely on trains, and how many of those are completely unable to make alternative arrangements.

Also irrespective of the planned industrial action how many pupils would miss their exams if there was overrun engineering works or any other incident which might close the line, as regularly happens.

Relying on one sole method of attending a place of education has its obvious limitations, especially in the case of trains, and for that obvious reason it should be carefully assessed before decisions are made.

I wouldn't deny the possibility that the planned industrial action might affect a few individuals, but I can't see it as a general across the board problem for large numbers of school pupils, which appears to be the suggestion.

I suspect that the primary reason for throwing that suggestion into the argument is whip up a "won't someone think of the children" emotive response.

I heard on the radio this morning that the Japanese have done rail strikes but differently - they carried on working, but let all the passengers travel for free. Doesn't inconvenience the public, but costs the companies and got their attention pretty quickly! Food for thought for the unions here...

Striking on the railways is not a way of achieving a positive outcome while only mildly inconveniencing the rich.

Well having just the option of industrial action is certainly a very effective way of achieving positive results.

I believe that the planned strike will be the first national rail strike this century. The reason rail workers are not among the lowest paid workers is precisely because taking industrial action remains an option - even if they do not take it.

Interesting graphic thanks @Northwind

Food for thought for the unions here…

I think the trade unions would be taken to court very quickly if they tried that in the UK.

I work in public transport and I do my upmost to make sure people get to their destinations daily, people travel for a variety of reasons that are intrinsic to their lives, so to disrupt that is not something I would take pleasure in nor would many of the people I work with, it’s the last thing we want to do.

However it is the only thing you can do when you aren’t valued and have your own life infringed on, because without the people who work in public transport there would be no service at all. The impact of the disruption needs to levelled at the companies and the government for treating their workforce with such contempt that they are left with no choice but to stop work.

Edit: There is this view that private companies always have people’s best interests at heart. They do not, I speak from experience that priority is money, if putting peoples health and well being at risk will save them money they will, it is often the power of law and threat of litigation that ensures that is the not case; if that wasn’t true then we wouldn’t need the DVSA and MoTs for commercial vehicles as an example.

TBF the whole "strike but don't inconvenience anyone" is just a different riff on the "protest but don't do it where we can see you", it's a cunning bit of political operations that diminishes the effectiveness of striking. Strikes have to be inconvenient or they don't work.

The idea that it's to inconvenience only the rich or the government is nonsense too. That doesn't work, just isn't practical.

molgrips
Full Member

That’s British government in a nutshell isn’t it?

Loads of Europe has good rail transport links, because they planned and executed the long game properly for the benefit of the country. We ripped everything up for a quick few quid and some dodgy back handers; then sold it off, buggered it up and under-funded it into the ground in the name of “private enterprise”. And everything ends up shit.

And the incredible irony that so much of our "private" railways are actually run by other countries' nationalised railways, and that the profits they take here help fund the services there. We're told over and over that the private sector is more efficient, better, more pure but they're also effectively saying "you can't trust the UK government to run trains, we're terrible, but you can totally trust the Italian government, they're much better than us"

Food for thought for the unions here…

I have seen that one before (thought it was US though) but from what I recall it could allow the staff to be summarily dismissed and the union possibly sued into oblivion if they were on record supporting it.

I get why they are striking, cost of living etc. it might get them a better deal short term but won't help anyone else. The unions are acting in their members interests which is what they are supposed to do.

We've got much bigger issues though and increasing pay across the board isn't the answer. We need the government to reduce the cost of living fundamentally, it's possible e.g. control credit much more tightly for mortgages, actually build more houses, sort out corporate tax issues, do their jobs and manage the private companies they've subbed everything out to effectively. Won't happen though and especially not with this government.

I'm employed in the rail industry.

I never take the train!

Strikes have to be inconvenient or they don’t work.

No, they have to hurt the people who the strikers need to take action.

This government simply won't give a shit.

I heard on the radio this morning that the Japanese have done rail strikes but differently – they carried on working, but let all the passengers travel for free. Doesn’t inconvenience the public, but costs the companies and got their attention pretty quickly! Food for thought for the unions here…

I believe that the franchises now get paid by the DfT to provide the service, the fares go back into the DfT pot, so basically it would be the government who would lose out, as the franchises get paid for that service, no matter how much it makes.

It's going to be a hard strike this one, always remember how the press and government broke the firefighters strike years ago, they sold themselves to the likes of Murdoch to get public opinion against the union and firefighters, i doubt this one will be any better, i honestly believe that the right wingers in government are happy for this, and will manipulate it for all its worth.

I can’t believe that people still use trains, except like, Harry Potter enthusiasts. I saw on the news that it costs over £5k to travel between London and Brighton, and that if your train is late or cancelled you have to pay extra.

I know it amazes me how cheap it is and makes me wonder why the rest of the country has to pay for the subsidy.

According to Google its 53 miles from Brighton to London so 103miles, call it 100 for easy maths.

5 days a week 500 miles

45 weeks a year 22,500 miles per year.

According to the government it costs about 40p/mile total cost so that’s £9,000 before you’ve paid any congestion charges, or parked the thing.

Even if ignore everything but the fuel that’s still 18p/mile for a diesel so £4,000

I know it amazes me how cheap it is

Hmmm.

My season ticket would now cost £5,800 for a roundtrip of less than 70 miles into London and back.

So <16,000 miles per year works out at 37ppm.

And for that I didn't often get to sit down (there or back). Trains were late or cancelled and there was regular engineering disruption.

Taking the car was way more pleasurable as you get space to yourself, it takes you to where you want to go without having to change or wait, and if it's late (traffic congestion) at least you're sitting down. And all for marginally more than the train.

It's no real wonder passenger numbers are down.

molgrips
Full Member
No, they have to hurt the people who the strikers need to take action.

Yes, but of course that doesn't have to be direct. And in the case of public sector workers it's generally impossible for it to be direct.

I know it amazes me how cheap it is and makes me wonder why...

Because you are only considering the rail part of a wider journey. If you get in the car and drive 10 miles to the station and then a bus/cab/tube at the other end, you might as well stay comfy in your motor and do the whole thing

I know it amazes me how cheap it is and makes me wonder why…

Because you are only considering the rail part of a wider journey. If you get in the car and drive 10 miles to the station and then a bus/cab/tube at the other end, you might as well stay comfy in your motor and do the whole thing

So why do so many still commute by train if they think their season ticket is so expensive? It’s a genuine question, It’s not like they are forced to use the train. If the train is that bad and expensive compared to the alternatives then why dont people take those alternatives?

My season ticket would now cost £5,800 for a roundtrip of less than 70 miles into London and back.

Wait, so you chaps are saying that it actually does in fact cost £5k?! My post was a joke and I made that figure up!

My. God.

And for that I didn’t often get to sit down

I wouldn't want to sit down after taking that much of a pounding.

So why do so many still commute by train if they think their season ticket is so expensive?

Drink driving being frowned upon. That's the only benefit I can think of.

So why do so many still commute by train if they think their season ticket is so expensive?

Because for most people, there is no other realistic choice.
Take the journey above, commuting from Brighton into London (and actually a former boss of mine did that daily).

People live outside London because at the rich end of the scale, it's simply better to be somewhere nice with open spaces and at the poor end of the scale, you might actually be able to afford a place to rent.

Getting into town by train is relatively stress free, you can work / sleep etc on the train, do business, read the paper... It might not be the most comfortable journey ever and there'll be times (which I know from my own train commuting) where getting a seat just isn't possible but it's just over an hour, no real problems.

Driving into central London will cost you parking fees, congestion charge, possibly ULEZ plus the wear and tear / depreciation / fuel on the car doing 120 miles a day and it's wasted time, you can't sleep, read the paper or use the laptop and it could take anything from 1 - 3 hrs depending on traffic. Even if the costs are more or less the same, it's still better on the train for those times where you're out late, had a drink or whatever.

Yes, it's a chunk of money, but assuming you have to live in Brighton (or at least it's not easy to move, maybe cos of your partner's work or your children's schools) and have to work in London, it's going to cost £5000 / year anyway so why add to the stress by driving?

If the train is that bad and expensive compared to the alternatives then why dont people take those alternatives?

Because the alternatives are also expensive. Going into central London by car would be horrendously expensive in terms of parking.

You also seem to have factored this as every motorist being a single occupant. I'd like to think some people remember car sharing.

Best thing you could do for a poor area is connect it to a good railway network.

No, they have to hurt the people who the strikers need to take action.

This government simply won’t give a shit.

I bit like the planned motorway blockades protesting about fuel prices.
They won't give a shit, not one bit.
Its no good blocking the refineries or the petrol stations either. All it will do is cause people to rush out and buy fuel "just in case" and end up lining the fuel companies pockets.
The only way they are going to listen would be for everyone to not buy fuel , then the oil companies will put pressure on the government to sort something out. But that wont happen, because we will all be too busy being pissed off that we can't get about normally.

I heard on the radio this morning that the Japanese have done rail strikes but differently – they carried on working, but let all the passengers travel for free. Doesn’t inconvenience the public, but costs the companies and got their attention pretty quickly! Food for thought for the unions here…

That sounds like the way to do it !!

I heard on the radio this morning that the Japanese have done rail strikes but differently – they carried on working, but let all the passengers travel for free. Doesn’t inconvenience the public, but costs the companies and got their attention pretty quickly! Food for thought for the unions here…

It's what the bus drivers do in Sydney too - they switch off the oyster card reader things and just let everyone travel for free

Im all onboard with a free travel strike, that sounds like a far better way of leveraging the employer, and gets the customer on side.

But, is there a chance that our employment laws would prevent that somehow?

Former rail commuter here, even with the busy trains (Edinburgh in my case) using the car would have been awful in comparison. I also believe the ratio of those who drive to those take the train is heavily influenced by proximity to a train station. Nobody where i live is much more than a 10 minute walk at this end, its only the drive everywhere you can(or have to) crowd that did that here.

I dont think i even factored cost into it, the sheer unpleasantness of driving and trying to park was enough by itself.

But, is there a chance that our employment laws would prevent that somehow?

Yes, quite definitely as it would be a breach of employment contract: you would still be working but have decided to not do part of your job which also tends to constitute a disciplinary offence in most workplaces. Might be wrong here but it opens up the individuals involved (not the union) to legal action as well and means that the employer can potentially terminate employment. IIRC industrial action in the UK can involve a work to rule (following work contracts to the letter so removing all flexibility/not doing overtime etc, or by staff involved refusing to do any work. These actions need to be agreed and clearly stated to the employer.

Anyway, looking forward to avoiding my London commute on Tuesday and Thursday next week. For all of the obvious reasons there is no way on earth I would ever try commuting from the south coast to Battersea by car, its too far to cycle (well, technically its not, but the 130-ish mile round trip is not my idea of a commute, more an all-day epic with "fun" rush hour take-your-life-in-your-hands cycling through south London for good measure) so its a happy couple of days of remote working and saving the train fare while idly watching the government and rail unions play a blame game.

On the face of it, this free travel on strike days sounds like a better solution for the company, because the usual users of the service still get from A to B and are less likely to consider alternatives.

Should never have been privatised in the first place, government still pours money in while share holders get dividends and other country governments make profits running UK train services to effectively subsidise their own. 😆

Should never have been privatised in the first place, government still pours money in while share holders get dividends and other country governments make profits running UK train services to effectively subsidise their own. 

A good example of where ideology is the decider and not what is right.

You also seem to have factored this as every motorist being a single occupant. I’d like to think some people remember car sharing.

Most don't though.

Yes, quite definitely as it would be a breach of employment contract

If they do it as balloted industrial action then they're withdrawing their labour from a specific task. I don't see how it's any different legally to an all out strike.

Mick Lynch was very good on Newsnight this evening.