Railway franchises in the coming year

[phil-b259]

25 minutes ago, APOLLO said:

Ahh Millwall V Wigan Athletic - A game to avoid !!!!!

 

Yes, Drivers needed will take time to train so no quick solutions there. But what about short trains as mentioned in the Guardian article ? Are the Pacers being removed too quickly ?  Correct length trains (as diagrammed) it seems would help solve a lot of Northern's current problems. What's the script regarding this ?

 

Brit15

 

I genuinely don't know. I can think of several possibilities - and although in theory they might be 'easy' in a laymans terms to sort out the one thing you learn pretty quickly in this industry is that stuff is rarely as simple as it looks from the outside, particularly with all the extra 'interfaces' that privitsation has bought. Yes its most likely that a number of screw ups have occurred - but by the same token there are bond to be 'damned if you do, dammed if you don't' decisions or well meant decisions that haven't gone as expected.

 

Its important to remember that if you are already the public whipping boy, every little thing you do is used against you - even if it was made with the best of intentions.

 

So as to the possibilities...

 

We know that travellers and politicians in the North have been VERY vocal about getting rid of the Pacers and so its quite possible Northern is being rushed into pulling them from service earlier than is sensible in a gesture to try and  satisfy that demand.

 

Then what about the Pacers themselves are the leases expiring and Northern (or the DfT) want to try and keep the number of leases / units retained as low as possible.

 

What about spares / or depot space - or indeed whether units are becoming due for serious work. That might impinge on when Pacers are being pulled from service.

 

How is the driver training and new train commissioning going - delays here (even just because of say too many train crew falling ill) may leave a train shortfall.

 

 

Edited January 3, 2020 by phil-b259

[APOLLO]

Seems we need someone (an experienced railway manager preferably) to be parachuted in with the remit and authority to sort Northern Rail out as best he / she can with the resources available, also given the ability to over ride bureaucracy  etc. Needs to be a "people person" also.

 

Any suggestions ?

 

Brit15

[phil-b259]

56 minutes ago, APOLLO said:

Seems we need someone (an experienced railway manager preferably) to be parachuted in with the remit and authority to sort Northern Rail out as best he / she can with the resources available, also given the ability to over ride bureaucracy  etc. Needs to be a "people person" also.

 

Any suggestions ?

 

Brit15

 

Not for the first time, the thought strikes me that if only we could get The Stationmaster of this Parish to come out of retirement.

 

(Although I only know him through RMweb his posts on the forum over the years do suggest he has all the skills you mention).

 

But on a more serious note I fear that even the best manager will be hamstrung by 'the system' as it were. Changes to said 'system' will take time, however fundamentally the immediate problems at Northern are actually fairly short term - once all the drivers have been trained up, etc then that will cease to be an issue. Likewise in 6 months time you would imagine that all the new stock will be in service.

 

I grant that my fears might be misplaced - but the way things have gone over the past few years as regards Government meddling  (or inaction) doesn't inspire confidence. I'm afraid all this sudden focus on Northern by the SoS has more to do with trying to distract the public from the annual fares hike (which IS down to the Government)

 

Of course its always possible that there is talent within Northern yet to be discovered - I understand that BR in its time had a number of successes with talented folk being swiftly moved up the ranks.

 

What we will probably get though is a bunch of private consultants in from the Governments outsourcing specialists who won't do any better than the current management but will allow politicians to claim they have 'taken radical action'

Edited January 4, 2020 by phil-b259

[Adamski94]

 

29 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

What we will probably get though is a bunch of private consultants in from the Governments outsourcing specialists who won't do any better than the current management but will allow politicians to claim they have 'taken radical action'

I hope you are wrong. The last thing the railway needs is 'experts' with no rail experience to tell it how it should be run. 

[phil-b259]

14 minutes ago, Adamski94 said:

 

I hope you are wrong. The last thing the railway needs is 'experts' with no rail experience to tell it how it should be run. 

 

I think those of us at the sharp end (and those who manage us) recognise that this tends to be the norm these days sadly...

[Adamski94]

Unfortunately too true. There are too many 'experts' interfering. It seems that if you do the job day in day out you know nothing but if you are a 'consultant' or 'advisor' then you know best. Even within the railway it seems, in my experience, that a person who has never been to a certain station or depot can tell you the best way to run that station or depot. Funnily enough their great plans seldom work.

[96701]

I remember during the process of the railway being privatised that it ran despite the will of the management.

[mdvle]

11 hours ago, APOLLO said:

So what do YOU suggest mvdle ?

 

So phil-b259 has seemingly covered it quite well, but for the record.

 

The first thing is to acknowledge that a bunch of it (late rolling stock, problems with reliability on the new rolling stock, and late running infrastructure upgrades) are all beyond Northern management whether it is the existing management or newly parachuted in management.

 

Also, as noted by this article, Arriva isn't the problem - they do after all also run some of the best trains services in the UK - https://www.citymetric.com/transport/source-northern-rail-s-problems-isn-t-franchise-holder-it-s-government-4884

 

The recently announced delay to killing off old non-compliant rolling stock, with delays of 5 to 12 months (so far) for Northern, are an indication that the rolling stock problems will regrettably be continuing for a while yet (and to be clear, other franchises are having similar issues and the resulting delays to the cascading of units is causing troubles across the UK).

 

As for what possibly could be done, and what I would do if in charge, start with some house cleaning at DfT.  As nice as it may be to dream about a wholesale replacement, for now just get rid of those who are out to kill unions.  The changes necessary not just to benefit Northern but the entire UK rail sector will need the cooperation and buy-in from railway staff and that means trust, which can't happen as long as those people remain in the mix.  NOTE - I am not saying giving in to the unions, but rather acknowledging it isn't a "one size fits all".  Some/most of the unions can be worked with, and thus leaving with only have to deal with some of the workforce/unions as a can't be avoided issue.

 

The easiest solution, that likely offers the biggest "bang for the investment", is to finally solve the Sunday working issue by forcing it to be part of the schedule.  The drivers union is in favour, and really the only party who would oppose it would be the treasury who would need to accept the costs (either in increased subsidies to money losing franchises like Northern, or lower premiums for money making franchises).  Yes, it won't produce instant results, but starting about a year from now it will (perhaps longer for franchises that need to be modified, likely when turned over) and it offers the ability to have the issue settled and hopefully a better running rail sector by the next election.

 

Communicate these things to the public, and be honest with them - make it clear there are no quick fixes but that in 12 months most of the problems should finally be out of the way and if necessary a re-evaluation will occur then.

 

The other big issue appears to be NR, or more precisely the delivery of some of its projects.  Doesn't seem to get covered on here much outside of a small number of projects, but bringing in some outside help/consultants to evaluate the causes can likely help - though I am guessing a large part is likely DfT being unrealistic about the ability to provide stuff in the franchise bidding processes.

 

I also think there is too much emphasis for NR on the investment periods, and the "big bang" projects often chosen in them.  Either additional funding, or a redirection of some funding, to more ongoing stuff would likely help - things like now that NR has electrification experience committing £X per year to a simply program of building as much electrification as it gets in a year rather than these sudden "lets do it all in 3 months" (yes, an exaggeration) that NR currently gets instructed to do.  Similarly, perhaps on ongoing budget for some smaller projects that could provide improvements to reliability, but currently get overlooked in the big project mindset that appears to govern things from an outside point of view (yes, its possible NR is already doing this).

 

 

 

[rockershovel]

It all comes back to the same thing - that without consistent, overall strategic direction, over sufficiently long periods of time and in the pursuit of consistent goals, none of the other things produce results. 

[The Stationmaster]

19 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Not for the first time, the thought strikes me that if only we could get The Stationmaster of this Parish to come out of retirement.

 

(Although I only know him through RMweb his posts on the forum over the years do suggest he has all the skills you mention).

 

But on a more serious note I fear that even the best manager will be hamstrung by 'the system' as it were. Changes to said 'system' will take time, however fundamentally the immediate problems at Northern are actually fairly short term - once all the drivers have been trained up, etc then that will cease to be an issue. Likewise in 6 months time you would imagine that all the new stock will be in service.

 

I grant that my fears might be misplaced - but the way things have gone over the past few years as regards Government meddling  (or inaction) doesn't inspire confidence. I'm afraid all this sudden focus on Northern by the SoS has more to do with trying to distract the public from the annual fares hike (which IS down to the Government)

 

Of course its always possible that there is talent within Northern yet to be discovered - I understand that BR in its time had a number of successes with talented folk being swiftly moved up the ranks.

 

What we will probably get though is a bunch of private consultants in from the Governments outsourcing specialists who won't do any better than the current management but will allow politicians to claim they have 'taken radical action'

There are still a number of folk with the right experience to 'sort things out' and some of them are present in fairly high level jobs within existing franchises etc.  But it  doesn't matter how good you are if you are hamstrung by things beyond your control.  For example me, and no doubt more than few other experienced senior operating managers particularly those of us with operations planning experience could readily 'sort out' the problems in various TOCs' areas.  But would we be allowed to immediately put the brakes on what amounts to a national rolling stock cascade programme which was set by some people with very starry ideas of the rate at which new trains could be tested, commissioned and introduced into traffic with the necessary crews fully trained to work them while there were enough other folk around to crew the existing service without any cancellations?

 

The simple answer I suspect would be no different from what has actually happened - other operators will stand on their dignity and demand the cascade programme carries on as they expected it to.  The only way of stopping that would be at a far higher level (which probably won't want to lose face if their programme is shown to be impracticable)

 

Equally I don't doubt - given the necessary finance - that I (and quite a few others) could solve Northern's cancellations arising from shortage of traincrew.  BUT, as you've already said, I won't do it in a month and it could take as long as a year, or more, and that assumes any new stock is available for training when I want it and it works exactly as it should - all the time.  I might be able to alleviate some cancellations by hiring in traction and stock but it would still need trained crews and even if they could be hired in they might still need training and trains might (would probably) need to retimed which means a partial timetable recast. Equally I could fairly quickly solve some of those cancellations by taking trains out of the timetable until training and changeover is complete - which would obviously thoroughly upset 'somebody' at DfT, let alone the passengers, but it is the quickest fix of all (although not always a good fix) 

 

Equally I could solve the Sunday cancellations situation - I can immediately think of several possible ways of doing it.  But any of them would require me to sit down with staff reps and negotiate what might well be considerable changes to their conditions of employment and which they might wish to refer to, or seek assistance from their TU HQ.  So it would take time, and of course while staff reps are looking at my proposals and considering their reaction or putting together counter proposals or assembling their own ideas, let alone talking it through with the people they represent, they cannot be doing their normal job of working trains or being trained on new trains - so there might well be further cancellations.   And all of that is outwith me, or whoever, going back to DfT to get agreement to altered financial arrangements for the franchise - which might well (would probably) cost money. 

 

But of course there is one thing I'm forgetting - according to 'The Daily Mail' and 'The Guardian' plus teh media between those two extremes and the politicos (of all shades) it can really all be sorted by a few stokes of the pen and you don't need any experienced people to do it for you (although a consultant or ten might be a good idea).

[rockershovel]

It’s not so much “operators standing on their dignity”, more a case of the lack of common goals and division of responsibility, inherent in any system of this sort. The operators are NOT responsible to the electorate, nor do they need to seek periodic re-election. They ARE responsible to their shareholders and under certain circumstances, have the option to wash their hands of the whole business. 

 

[62613]

I suspect they might, but do the various TOCs do operational analysis? If certain trains are consistently late, for instance, what is causing it? If there is a consistent reason more than others, could action be taken to eliinate the problem. i suspect that most of the solutions would come back to Rockershovel's strategic oversight.

 

However, a couple of examples; when taking the train into Manchester, I use the Glossop line, more or less a self-contained system that uses any of platforms 1-3 at Piccadilly. Almost invariably, the train is held outside the station for an outgoing service to clear. In 2006, I had a short contract at Simon-Carves in Cheadle Hulme; the most convenient way to get there was by train. Again, almost invariably, the morning train (to Crewe) was held outside Cheadle Hulme to allow a Virgin service from Euston via Stoke to cross in front of us. It's eliminating these sorts of thing that I'm on about.

 

[mikejames]

I think Mike /the station master might be a bit optimistic about the various 'problems he would have to solve if given the task of 'sorting out' northern.

I feel the main issue is DOO and if I were a union rep then I would be 'very unwilling' to negociate on say 'sunday working' without some clear

evidence that DOO was to be sorted.

Its always 'the package' that is accepted.

(think Brexit!?)

 

mike james

[Talltim]

On 03/01/2020 at 18:13, phil-b259 said:

 

They are already planning to do so - Boris is planning to make strike action on the railways illegal unless the Union ensures enough members turn up to work so the TOC can run a minimum service.

 

Nobody is sure what the thresholds etc will be yet but hypothetically the RMT could be told that only 40% of the workforce can be on strike at any time.

 

Naturally the RMT are planning to resist this 'outrage' - though short of taking illegal action and bankrupting themselves out of existence by being sued for damages as a result its a bit hard to see what 'resistance' can be mounted. https://www.rmt.org.uk/news/rmt-pledges-to-fight-tory-plan-to-ban171219/

Work to rule would do it quite well at the moment. 

[APOLLO]

3 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

There are still a number of folk with the right experience to 'sort things out' and some of them are present in fairly high level jobs within existing franchises etc.  But it  doesn't matter how good you are if you are hamstrung by things beyond your control.  For example me, and no doubt more than few other experienced senior operating managers particularly those of us with operations planning experience could readily 'sort out' the problems in various TOCs' areas.  But would we be allowed to immediately put the brakes on what amounts to a national rolling stock cascade programme which was set by some people with very starry ideas of the rate at which new trains could be tested, commissioned and introduced into traffic with the necessary crews fully trained to work them while there were enough other folk around to crew the existing service without any cancellations?

 

The simple answer I suspect would be no different from what has actually happened - other operators will stand on their dignity and demand the cascade programme carries on as they expected it to.  The only way of stopping that would be at a far higher level (which probably won't want to lose face if their programme is shown to be impracticable)

 

Equally I don't doubt - given the necessary finance - that I (and quite a few others) could solve Northern's cancellations arising from shortage of traincrew.  BUT, as you've already said, I won't do it in a month and it could take as long as a year, or more, and that assumes any new stock is available for training when I want it and it works exactly as it should - all the time.  I might be able to alleviate some cancellations by hiring in traction and stock but it would still need trained crews and even if they could be hired in they might still need training and trains might (would probably) need to retimed which means a partial timetable recast. Equally I could fairly quickly solve some of those cancellations by taking trains out of the timetable until training and changeover is complete - which would obviously thoroughly upset 'somebody' at DfT, let alone the passengers, but it is the quickest fix of all (although not always a good fix) 

 

Equally I could solve the Sunday cancellations situation - I can immediately think of several possible ways of doing it.  But any of them would require me to sit down with staff reps and negotiate what might well be considerable changes to their conditions of employment and which they might wish to refer to, or seek assistance from their TU HQ.  So it would take time, and of course while staff reps are looking at my proposals and considering their reaction or putting together counter proposals or assembling their own ideas, let alone talking it through with the people they represent, they cannot be doing their normal job of working trains or being trained on new trains - so there might well be further cancellations.   And all of that is outwith me, or whoever, going back to DfT to get agreement to altered financial arrangements for the franchise - which might well (would probably) cost money. 

 

But of course there is one thing I'm forgetting - according to 'The Daily Mail' and 'The Guardian' plus teh media between those two extremes and the politicos (of all shades) it can really all be sorted by a few stokes of the pen and you don't need any experienced people to do it for you (although a consultant or ten might be a good idea).

 

 

Brit15

[Gwiwer]

A change at the top for South Western Railway.  Pitched as a reshuffle I make no comment in the light of recent industrial action and other rumblings (with or without foundation) regarding the future of this particular franchise.  It has, however precipitated change at the top for GWR who Head Honcho moves - in theory if not actuality - from Paddington to Waterloo at least pro tem.  

 

Interesting times may lie ahead for users of both.

[rockershovel]

I rather think that what will happen to railway franchises, will parallel what is happening over Brexit.

 

Brexit brought Parliament to a state of paralysis for several years, in large part because it was presented as a binary choice in which BOTH possible solutions contained serious weaknesses and deficiencies; the question was simply not capable of being answered, in that form. Nor could either side be persuaded to make sufficient change. Now one side has been pushed aside, while the other proceeds towards a solution containing elements of both alternatives, under the leadership of a man originally rejected by all sides. 

 

Railway franchises will unravel in the same fashion. The system clearly doesn’t work, can’t be made to work, and will progressively morph into some sort of hybrid solution. Along the way, most of the remaining authors of the original system will be forced out, whether they want to go or not. 

 

 

[royaloak]

23 hours ago, mdvle said:

The easiest solution, that likely offers the biggest "bang for the investment", is to finally solve the Sunday working issue by forcing it to be part of the schedule. 

 

There we go again, forcing things through, what happened to negotiation?

 

I can opt out of all my Sundays but worked 37 last year but I still dont want them as pat of the working week regardless of ASLEFs charter.

Edited January 5, 2020 by royaloak

[royaloak]

5 hours ago, Talltim said:

Work to rule would do it quite well at the moment. 

I think work to rules are the best way of taking action, the staff dont lose out, it will be different trains affected each day (and with the current ideas of crew changes halfway along the route it can cause real problems), most trains will still run.

 

Of course Winker Wilkinson wont allow any meaningful negotiations to take place so we end up with strikes were nobody wins.

[caradoc]

13 hours ago, 62613 said:

I suspect they might, but do the various TOCs do operational analysis? If certain trains are consistently late, for instance, what is causing it? If there is a consistent reason more than others, could action be taken to eliinate the problem. i suspect that most of the solutions would come back to Rockershovel's strategic oversight.

 

However, a couple of examples; when taking the train into Manchester, I use the Glossop line, more or less a self-contained system that uses any of platforms 1-3 at Piccadilly. Almost invariably, the train is held outside the station for an outgoing service to clear. In 2006, I had a short contract at Simon-Carves in Cheadle Hulme; the most convenient way to get there was by train. Again, almost invariably, the morning train (to Crewe) was held outside Cheadle Hulme to allow a Virgin service from Euston via Stoke to cross in front of us. It's eliminating these sorts of thing that I'm on about.

 

 

Operational analysis was certainly carried out during my time on the railway (until August 2016), with joint meetings between Network Rail and Scotrail to try and eliminate persistent late running. Sometimes the outcomes were bizarre; For example, at one meeting about poor performance of East Kilbride to Glasgow Central morning peak services, on-train staff reported that station overtime was caused during wet weather because rather than spread out along the platforms, passengers huddled under whatever shelter was available ! The problem also not being helped by the lack of doors on the Class 156 sets used. Neither cause can easily be sorted.

 

My trains into Glasgow Central are often stopped on approach, but still arrive on time; The station is just so busy that getting a clear run into a platform is hard to achieve.

 

6 hours ago, royaloak said:

There we go again, forcing things through, what happened to negotiation?

 

I can opt out of all my Sundays but worked 37 last year but I still dont want them as pat of the working week regardless of ASLEFs charter.

 

It is great that you are prepared to work so many Sundays royaloak, and I was the same when at work; Apart from the financial motive I believed then, and still do now, that having taken a job involving serving the public seven days a week it was my responsibility, and indeed duty, to work all the shifts required. However, if Sundays are voluntary, how can any TOC ever guarantee being able to run their full Sunday service ? BTW I do not believe that anyone should be forced to work Sundays, or indeed any other unsocial shifts or hours, but in that case don't take a job that requires such work !

 

Apart from the already-discussed issue of extra cost to management/TOC/Government/Taxpayer/Passenger of employing additional staff to make Sunday part of the working week, would the staff and Unions accept the reduction in take-home pay resulting from the loss of rostered overtime shifts ? Unless pay rates were increased to compensate, which of course would increase even more the cost of running the railway.

 

[rockershovel]

Having spent most of my working life in an environment in which Sunday is a working day, I’d say that it is entirely a matter of compensation and regularity. There is undoubtedly a strong disinclination amongst the British workforce to work Sundays for no extra pay, and there is a strong predisposition amongst certain unions to make it a sticking-point. 

 

 

 

 

 

[The Stationmaster]

17 hours ago, rockershovel said:

It’s not so much “operators standing on their dignity”, more a case of the lack of common goals and division of responsibility, inherent in any system of this sort. The operators are NOT responsible to the electorate, nor do they need to seek periodic re-election. They ARE responsible to their shareholders and under certain circumstances, have the option to wash their hands of the whole business. 

 

But the cascade programme is absolutely a 'common goal' because it affects numerous operators as well as lease companies, manufacturers, test and commissioning organisations and so on.  

 

And the franchised operators are of course bound by a contract to the DfT - which is theoretically (very theoretically nowadays) a contract with the taxpayer and rail travellers.    Their 'responsibility' to their shareholders is one thing and they are not bound by contract to pay dividends although their prospectus obviously said they would - but it is not a contract and the shareholders have their own way of expressing dissatisfaction (which only includes legal redress if a law has allegedly been broken.  In sharp contrast to that there is a contractual, and therefore legal, responsibility to the state and the people Parliament represents.

 

15 hours ago, Gwiwer said:

A change at the top for South Western Railway.  Pitched as a reshuffle I make no comment in the light of recent industrial action and other rumblings (with or without foundation) regarding the future of this particular franchise.  It has, however precipitated change at the top for GWR who Head Honcho moves - in theory if not actuality - from Paddington to Waterloo at least pro tem.  

 

Interesting times may lie ahead for users of both.

The truth, according to my informant, is as ever, rather different from public perception or what people want to perceive it to mean but it would not be in the interests of anybody to explain why Mark Hopwood has been moved across to SWR - from Swindon.  (The WR and its privatised successors have not been based at or anywhere Paddington for the better part of 35 years - our move to Swindon being completed in the first half of 1985.). Various commuter groups are, so I am told, already seeking meetings with Mark's successor in respect of policy.decisions.

15 hours ago, rockershovel said:

I rather think that what will happen to railway franchises, will parallel what is happening over Brexit.

 

Brexit brought Parliament to a state of paralysis for several years, in large part because it was presented as a binary choice in which BOTH possible solutions contained serious weaknesses and deficiencies; the question was simply not capable of being answered, in that form. Nor could either side be persuaded to make sufficient change. Now one side has been pushed aside, while the other proceeds towards a solution containing elements of both alternatives, under the leadership of a man originally rejected by all sides. 

 

Railway franchises will unravel in the same fashion. The system clearly doesn’t work, can’t be made to work, and will progressively morph into some sort of hybrid solution. Along the way, most of the remaining authors of the original system will be forced out, whether they want to go or not. 

 

 

I think you will find that all the original authors of the detail of privatisation scheme have long lost the railway industry (they being the people who put together methods of making the political proposal actually work),  All the politicians involved are also long gone as are the few Civil Servants who were involved and the  various consultants went back to their day jobs more than 20 years ago.  Most of the architects of the present arrangements, particularly the letting of franchises (introduced by a Labour Govt) have also left the political scene and probably the same can be said for the Civil Servants involved at that time.

 

I will make it very clear that I was dead set against privatisation but it brought advantages, particularly contractual agreements instead of hoping for the best result from a meeting or friendly chat, a proper and long wanted within the industry, means of very clearly and separately identifying infrastructure costs, and - as it turned - what was generally a fairly successful system of franchising passenger services until it was well and truly messed up by poor control and what comes over as rank stupidity within the Civil Service which has brought a bunch of amateurs to the task.  A more valid question would be to ask that while contracting and franchising has worked in other countries why has it run into some problems in a number of franchises (but not all) on the British network?  Ask one question - how many of the present franchises don't work and why don't they work?  I doubt you'll find that they 'don't work' because they are franchises per se but that they haven't delivered various things for a number of other - far more complex and wide ranging - reasons although I suspect there might be a common thread which centres around the initials DfT.

[corneliuslundie]

In fact things do not always go well in other countries. There was a real mess in part of Germany (?) recently when a franchise holder went bust. I can't now remember the details but I think there were simply no trains for a couple of weeks after their owner took them back.

Jonathan

[mdvle]

12 hours ago, royaloak said:

There we go again, forcing things through, what happened to negotiation?

 

I can opt out of all my Sundays but worked 37 last year but I still dont want them as pat of the working week regardless of ASLEFs charter.

 

Perhaps a bit of poor wording, and a bit of not wanting to make it a really long post.

 

I said forcing Sundays more in the line of forcing the treasury to pay for it (through the extra staffing required), and to a lesser extent this is where we are going to end up and the how is flexible - and with the union being for it there should (in theory) be a way to achieve it without actually having to get a big stick out.

 

As for your personal preferences, while I have sympathy the point is that regardless of what job/career any of us choose we can end up having our way of work change in ways we don't like as society changes.  I suspect, for example, that those who work retail haven't been entirely happy with changes over the last 40+ years, things like Sunday working, holiday working (see recent Boxing Day discussion elsewhere on RMweb), zero hour contracts, etc.  In the case of the railways, they have become a 7/365 operation and the working conditions need to change to reflect that reality - and as I said ideally through negotiation but if not then by being forced.

[adb968008]

On 28/12/2019 at 10:52, woodenhead said:

 

Local services need to be locally managed as elected mayors have suggested because they deal with the transport of people within defined areas - what business is it of central government about what times and frequency of services between say Bolton and Manchester - they don't do it with the buses or the trams so why do they insist on micro managing the trains?

 

Having a locally managed ticketing and timetabling means the trains, buses and trams in Manchester can be coordinated and have a combined pricing structure like London - why is London allowed to be different?

 

TFL is slowly extending it's reach with Crossrail - seems it's one rule for the South and another for the rest of the UK.

 

Be careful what you wish for, much of London’s success masks the failures, down to that it’s profitable.

 

Trains between Bolton and Manchester may thrive under Manchester’s central government... they will be happy to support a profit centre... but who pays for services to Blackburn, Burnley, Blackpool South, Morecambe etc.

 

If the profitable revenue of Blackburn to Manchester comes from Bolton to Manchester ticketing, you may find Manchester asking Lancashire to stump up the difference, where as Lancashire’s view is the entire route makes money and they should be entitled to a share. Of course money runs dry, and politicians can be stubborn.. you may find the Manchester - Blackburn service instead suddenly curtails at Bolton, and Lancashire has to find a new solution for a Blackburn to Bolton Route.. whilst balancing those costs against what they can afford elsewhere... maybe cut back on Blackpool South ?

 

Whilst some of the profit from Manchester’s commuters covers the losses of Lancashire’s rural services, if the future Lancashire took responsibility for their bit, and Manchester there’s... you could find luxury services in Manchester, Andy Burnham safely re-elected, and a return to horse and carts outside the county...

 

As a case in point.. look at TFL overground... West Croydon is the end of the line.. yet up-to Epsom downs on the same line, has a seriously unreliable service, that TFL could have had as a natural end point... but who pays and what makes money, political boundaries etc etc. So most of the Overgrounds passengers are forced to detrain and connect for stations further up the line and a ton of money was blown on a turn back siding instead.

 

Edited January 5, 2020 by adb968008