Southern's Timetable Reduction

[Gwiwer]

It's the "Right Time Railway" principle.

 

People complain if the trains are late.  People complain if they're on time.  We can't win.

 

If you are leaving zero time for a connection then unfortunately it is your fault - even if they are on adjacent platforms.

 

 

The point being that these are advertised in the timetable and are typically 2 -3 minute connections.   NR also advertises connectional allowances at many stations including 2 minutes at Hove, 2 at Barnham etc. implying these will be honoured when possible.

 

The problem has arisen, and specifically with this "right-time railway" concept, when the connecting service pulls in a couple of minutes late.  Often that is due to heavy loadings which are both a regular feature nowadays and exacerbated by Southern's inability to operate its own timetable and persisting with many cancellations.

 

If it were a zero-minute "connection" I would be happy to stand with the railway side and say "no connection" but that is not the case at Hove.  

 

Brighton has long honoured the "last-minute hold" due to the often significant number of transferring passengers and the probability that any late start of under a minute could be regained down the track.  Station staff are also very well aware of the backlash they are likely to receive if a Coastway Crawler pulls out as a slightly-delayed London pulls in. 

[The Stationmaster]

My point was supposed to be that most people seem to be unaware of the fact that the government already is running the railways (and to a far far greater extent than it did during nationalisation). They seem to think that re-nationalisation would result in the government making decisions currently made by private companies, when to a large extent they're already made by the government (as a look at a franchise specification shows). So whatever mess they would or wouldn't make, they are largely already making it.

 

 

I don't think it's surprising. There's no reason that most people should be particularly aware if Network Rail is or isn't private/company limited by guarantee/state-owned. And neither the government nor the TOCs are going out of their way to make it clear how much control the government has over passenger services, so it's hardly surprising that the private companies end up with the blame for what are actually government decisions, or that people might think that removing the profit motive might make things better. (Greedy train companies putting fares up every year etc...) 

 

 

 

Why would it cost money?

 

Network Rail is already state-owned. To be a TOC doesn't require much capital, does it? Everything is leased. I don't think setting up DOR to run East Coast required large quantities of government money. Surely all that would be necessary was to wait for franchises to

run out and then set them up like East Coast?

 

There have been various reasons given here why re-nationalisation probably wouldn't be an improvement, but I don't understand why it would require money to be poured in (unlike, say, a council wanting to buy its bus company back off FirstBus).

 

So it would cost more money because the state instead of the franchisee would be paying the lease costs for traction and rolling stock, the bills for fuel (including electricity of course), the costs of accommodation (much of which is in commercially rented property nowadays), the costs of publicity and advertising, and of course the wages/salaries/sick pay/pension contributions of the staff.  Plus there would need to be an organisation established to manage it all and provide central services which inevitably would turn out to be a nett additional cost to the industry (although in fairness logically it ought to be matched by stripping cost out of various 'Civil Service' functions such as RSSB).

 

Additionally at least one politico has indicated that nationalisation would mean more trains and/or coaches on existing trains which would obviously be an additional cost as  presumably the rolling stock companies would also be nationalised (an area which even fewer people seem to understand of course).  And as it would be paying I doubt the various arms of the state would be quite so keen to insist on new rolling stock as they have recently with some franchise tenders.  Overall I can see little alternative to costs increasing.

 

On the other side of the coin the state would - assuming it continues current commercial activity and markets still grow - get a slightly larger share of the revenue/profit cake which currently goes to the franchise holders.  But would that cover the increased costs? (to be honest I doubt it but I might be wrong).  Also what we don't yet know is whether or not under full state control Network Rail will continue to get so much funding for maintenance and investment - a lot of the former being necessary because BR never got such beneficial financial treatment from Govt.

 

Yes Govt do already have many fingers in the pie but with full state control of, say, all passenger franchises they would have even more and who other than some central railway management unit is going to tell them to keep their fingers out.  At present I get the impression that the franchisees have neither the gonads nor the financial muscle to tell Govt to go away (or words to that effect) and that to me would spell really big trouble.  And of course a single state railway would take us back to single pay scales and Conditions of Service and sorting out that, especially with the union or two bent on confrontation could take even longer than it did last time round (e.g. I joined BTR 18 years after it came into existence and i was in the LNER pension fund - not because i worked on a former LNER line but because it had become the fund for salaried staff - it took a good number of years after that for a proper BR pension fund to emerge).

[Coryton]

So it would cost more money because the state instead of the franchisee would be paying the lease costs for traction and rolling stock, the bills for fuel (including electricity of course), the costs of accommodation (much of which is in commercially rented property nowadays), the costs of publicity and advertising, and of course the wages/salaries/sick pay/pension contributions of the staff. 

 

I'm missing something here. The same costs have to be paid whether by a private company or a government owned one. Are you assuming that all these things would automatically cost more if a state company was paying? I though that rail privatisation showed that this wasn't necessarily so (even if it often is), when the big savings it was assumed that the new private companies would make failed to materialise.

 

Plus there would need to be an organisation established to manage it all and provide central services which inevitably would turn out to be a nett additional cost to the industry (although in fairness logically it ought to be matched by stripping cost out of various 'Civil Service' functions such as RSSB).

 

 

 

Again this seems somewhat perverse to me. I'm arguing from relative ignorance here because you have experience in the rail industry and mine is in something totally different, but surely nothing more is needed that wasn't there before and you're not duplicating functions (separate MD, advertising department, HR etc. etc. etc. for each TOC). By this argument, if - say - Arriva managed to put in a winning bid for all the franchises, the railway would suddenly become more inefficient because of the need to set up new central services that weren't required when the franchises were spread over several companies. Are you really arguing that splitting BR up into a myriad of separate companies with their own management and agendas and legal contracts between them was inherently more efficient than a single organisation?

 

 

Additionally at least one politico has indicated that nationalisation would mean more trains and/or coaches on existing trains which would obviously be an additional cost as  presumably the rolling stock companies would also be nationalised (an area which even fewer people seem to understand of course).  And as it would be paying I doubt the various arms of the state would be quite so keen to insist on new rolling stock as they have recently with some franchise tenders.  Overall I can see little alternative to costs increasing.

 

But there's no reason that a nationalised company couldn't lease trains from the private sector - plenty examples of that already in transport (London Underground), and in the UK in other areas (PFI schools and hospitals). And when a franchise ITT requires new rolling stock the taxpayer still picks up the tab, either in increased subsidy or reduced premiums, and the government presumably knows that. Whether that money is funnelled through a private company or not doesn't change things.

 

Also what we don't yet know is whether or not under full state control Network Rail will continue to get so much funding for maintenance and investment - a lot of the former being necessary because BR never got such beneficial financial treatment from Govt.

 

Yes Govt do already have many fingers in the pie but with full state control of, say, all passenger franchises they would have even more and who other than some central railway management unit is going to tell them to keep their fingers out. 

 

These arguments are more compelling.

 

And whether we agree or not on the arguments you've given above, I think we can both agree that the majority of people calling for nationalisation do not understand how the railway currently works, what nationalisation would involve, and why it wouldn't and couldn't be a return to what we had under BR.

 

 

 

[Coryton]

It's the "Right Time Railway" principle.

 

People complain if the trains are late.  People complain if they're on time.  We can't win.

 

No you can't win, but I think a lot of people would accept and understand their train running 2 minutes late to allow a connection, IF it doesn't then make them miss a connection further down the line or make the train even more late because its missed its path.

 

But whatever you do people will complain.

 

Some years ago I was on a train where a passenger was moaning about it sitting at an intermediate station for what seemed to them too long. I pointed out that it wasn't due out yet. They then suggested that as trains were late so often it ought to leave early.

 

I decided not to ask how they'd feel about it if they turned up at the station on time for a train to be told that it had already left. I could guess the answer though.

[Gwiwer]

 

 

 I was on a train where a passenger was moaning about it sitting at an intermediate station for what seemed to them too long.

 

Not related to the current disputes in any way but this has been a persistent bugbear of Sussex customers when the east / west coast services split / combine at Haywards Heath.  One portion sits there for up to ten minutes, the other for around five.  The reasons behind this are that it takes longer to couple / uncouple Electrostars than it did with the 1963-type units, the trains are effectively recessed in Haywards Heath loops while faster trains run through which improves line capacity and there is a notion that a train every half-hour to both east and west Coastway lines is a better service than the previous hourly offerings which ran complete.  

 

On the last point the complete trains were 8 or 12-cars long with 4 cars working east of Eastbourne to Ore and usually no more than 8 west of Worthing.  Currently the half-hourly trains are usually a 4-car unit on each portion (sometimes 8 on the Eastbourne) meaning there has actually been a reduction in service capacity from 12 cars once an hour to 4 cars twice an hour.  I know which I preferred given the current level of overcrowding.

 

A couple of minutes have been saved for one train hourly in the current timetable by adjusting the stopping pattern south of Haywards Heath but the journey time is still some 10 - 12 minutes longer than it was 50 years ago and is sometimes quicker via a nifty change at Brighton using the expresses.

[cromptonnut]

Seems like next week's RMT strike has been called off for Wednesday but remains on Thursday.

 

TSSA ballot over station changes to be announced Monday.

[jjb1970]

On the subject of passenger awareness and knowledge of the railways around them I think that sometimes this is seriously under estimated. Modern Railways sometimes talks about “trained commuters” and it is not a silly concept, regular travellers do tend to develop a very good understanding of schedules, ticketing and how to use trains. This is apparent if you compare travel at off peak times or in school holidays with rush hour travel. Despite the much larger numbers in the rush hour most people know what train they want, where the platforms are, at automated barriers they make use of available barriers and have their tickets ready, move along the platform, make use of space in the carriage etc. The result is that whilst it is busy, and maybe unpleasantly so, there tends to be a flow and it all works. When things go wrong people tend to have a good idea of what (if any) alternatives are available. By contrast, even though numbers can be lower in school holidays and much lower in school holidays it can be much more chaotic as people wait until getting to barriers before thinking that they need to get their ticket ready, congregate around platform entrances and exits and obstructing the flow, not spreading out to use the available barriers but blocking the platform for those behind, not spreading out along platforms etc and when things go wrong have no idea what they should do (admittedly, they have a fair point that the TOC should be helping them but it works a lot better if you have some idea).

On livery, white can work very well. The Japanese Shinkansen liveries of white with blue trim are iconic. The German ICE livery was very attractive. Provided it is kept clean it can work very well and in some ways white is a better colour in terms of the effects of dirt than many darker colours.

[roundhouse]

On the subject of passenger awareness and knowledge of the railways around them I think that sometimes this is seriously under estimated. Modern Railways sometimes talks about “trained commuters” and it is not a silly concept, regular travellers do tend to develop a very good understanding of schedules, ticketing and how to use trains. This is apparent if you compare travel at off peak times or in school holidays with rush hour travel. Despite the much larger numbers in the rush hour most people know what train they want, where the platforms are, at automated barriers they make use of available barriers and have their tickets ready, move along the platform, make use of space in the carriage etc. The result is that whilst it is busy, and maybe unpleasantly so, there tends to be a flow and it all works. When things go wrong people tend to have a good idea of what (if any) alternatives are available. By contrast, even though numbers can be lower in school holidays and much lower in school holidays it can be much more chaotic as people wait until getting to barriers before thinking that they need to get their ticket ready, congregate around platform entrances and exits and obstructing the flow, not spreading out to use the available barriers but blocking the platform for those behind, not spreading out along platforms etc and when things go wrong have no idea what they should do (admittedly, they have a fair point that the TOC should be helping them but it works a lot better if you have some idea).

On livery, white can work very well. The Japanese Shinkansen liveries of white with blue trim are iconic. The German ICE livery was very attractive. Provided it is kept clean it can work very well and in some ways white is a better colour in terms of the effects of dirt than many darker colours.

Tell me about it!

 

We commute during the week and then use trains around the country at weekends. Two very different experiences.

 

Most commuters (not all though - young females particularly bad at this) will wait for people to get off a train whilst at weekends and off peak there is far more pushing ot get on even before the first person steps off. However commuters can be particularly single minded and abrupt with those not used ot commuting.

 

The other big thing is that a peak hour train can be almost deadly quiet compared to some very noisy groups at other times. Off peak passengers will spread out often occupying a whole bay of 4 seats, getting annoyed when someone wants to sit there.

 

Our normal train home in the evening peak does get a fair mixture of commuters and tourist heading to Gatwick as its one of the few out of LBG at that time (others go through Gatwick fast) so there is often aisles full of cases as Electrostars have very small areas for bags. At present with the reduction in Southern services it doesnt split three ways at Redhill so all 12 coaches go to Gatwick. At the moment the front 4 don't get wedged with tourists all trying to walk to the front coach as they do not know which is the front 4 even when the displays do occasionally work properly.

[John M Upton]

I personally would like to see one of the two every hour Arun Valley trains routed via the Dorking line as they used to be.  Fast Horsham Dorking Sutton Clapham Victoria would be ideal and restore a better sevice between Horsham and Dorking which has nice new signalling but is woefully under utilised.

[jjb1970]

Off peak passengers will spread out often occupying a whole bay of 4 seats, getting annoyed when someone wants to sit there.

One of my biggest pet hates on trains is seat hogging. One ruse that really makes me cross is people who sit in an aisle seat the pretend to be sleeping at station calls to make people feel guilty about asking to be let into the window seat. And those who do let you in to the window when asked but make it clear that you're unwelcome, tut etc. And in table bays those who just spread their legs out in front of them with zero consideration for those opposite or to dissuade people from sitting there. And those lunatics who board a busy train and think that their bag has more right to a seat than a paying passenger.

[phil-b259]

I personally would like to see one of the two every hour Arun Valley trains routed via the Dorking line as they used to be. Fast Horsham Dorking Sutton Clapham Victoria would be ideal and restore a better sevice between Horsham and Dorking which has nice new signalling but is woefully under utilised.

The Horsham - Dorking section may have new signalling (note Dorking itself still has its late 1930s Southern Railway stuff though) but inwards of there the line starts to get very busy with all station stoppers - and lots of flat junctions, plus early 1980s signalling equipment. Line speeds are also low compared to the BML which is generally 90mph up to Croydon. As such diverting Arun Valley trains via Dorking is most certainly not the panacea people assume it to be.

 

The simple fact is that rather than trying to avoid it, the powers that be need to get a move on and provide complete grade separation north of E Croydon (along with the other things mentioned in the recent BL route strategy document) - which will improve things for all travellers.

[Gwiwer]

I personally would like to see one of the two every hour Arun Valley trains routed via the Dorking line as they used to be.  Fast Horsham Dorking Sutton Clapham Victoria would be ideal and restore a better sevice between Horsham and Dorking which has nice new signalling but is woefully under utilised.

 

 

I agree, but not entirely.

 

The Victoria - Dorking - Bognor / Portsmouth trains were never the busiest nor the quickest.  It was often possible to reach Chichester more quickly via the Portsmouth Direct from Waterloo changing at Havant for example.  London - Havant - Portsmouth traffic would have gone via the "Direct" almost without exception.  At the time of their introduction Croydon was not the huge commercial and retail centre it is now.  Gatwick Airport was very modest and served by the original "beehive" station; as much of the traffic there would have been local residents as air passengers.

 

Croydon and Gatwick have grown immensely in importance.  BR (SR) saw this and diverted the under-used Dorking line trains across to the main line to serve them rather than the much lesser-used stops at Dorking (North), Leatherhead, Sutton and Mitcham Junction.  The only significant loss was the all-day every-day Dorking - Horsham link.  That became a backwater and for some time only offered peak-hour weekday services.

 

Now we have a different service pattern.  Arun Valley trains split / combine at Horsham not Barnham and run twice an hour.  There is thus the luxury of four trains an hour between Horsham, Arundel and Barnham which is probably over-provision.  It should be possible for one of the trains in each hourly pattern to run via the Dorking route but where would it stop in today's world?  Mitcham Junction is an interchange with Tramlink but has short platforms (not of itself a problem if the SDO is working but neither is it ideal for 8-car trains).  Sutton remains a reasonably busy destination in its own right and sees some connectional traffic transferring between routes.  Leatherhead and Dorking have more suburban trains than they did 30 years ago.  The Dorking - Horsham section has never attracted large volumes of local traffic at the villages it serves.  

 

My question therefore is whether there is sufficient commercial justification for such a  service.  If there was it might by now have been provided given the capacity issues and RUS results from the BML.  What there might be instead is scope to have one of the Arun Valley trains run semi-fast to Barnham as now via Gatwick and split there for Bognor / Southampton while the other ran via Dorking to split at Horsham into Bognor / Portsmouth portions.  This removes one train from the Victoria - Croydon - Gatwick equation in each hourly cycle and while passenger capacity is an issue at times so is track capacity giving rise to frequent delays.  There is a fine balancing act here between offering enough seats and enough space on the metals for trains to run safely and reliably.  It might also alter the travel pattern for users of some smaller stations which would lose their direct trains to Gatwick and Croydon.  But it's a thought.

[Coryton]

Now we have a different service pattern.  Arun Valley trains split / combine at Horsham not Barnham and run twice an hour.  There is thus the luxury of four trains an hour between Horsham, Arundel and Barnham which is probably over-provision. 

 

 

The Arun valley trains split at Horsham into a non-stop service to Barnham and a most stations stopper.

 

So Arundel only gets two trains an hour not four.

 

Barnham does technically get four trains an hour, but since two are slow trains leaving just behind the fast ones, in reality it's effectively only two trains an hour.

 

Somebody who just missed one of the fast ones might catch a slow one getting to Barnham not far ahead of the next fast one but I wouldn't call that over-provision.

 

People who use the full barrier level crossings on the route might feel that four trains an hour each way is over-provision though.

[The Stationmaster]

 

I'm missing something here. The same costs have to be paid whether by a private company or a government owned one. Are you assuming that all these things would automatically cost more if a state company was paying? I though that rail privatisation showed that this wasn't necessarily so (even if it often is), when the big savings it was assumed that the new private companies would make failed to materialise.

 

 

 

Again this seems somewhat perverse to me. I'm arguing from relative ignorance here because you have experience in the rail industry and mine is in something totally different, but surely nothing more is needed that wasn't there before and you're not duplicating functions (separate MD, advertising department, HR etc. etc. etc. for each TOC). By this argument, if - say - Arriva managed to put in a winning bid for all the franchises, the railway would suddenly become more inefficient because of the need to set up new central services that weren't required when the franchises were spread over several companies. Are you really arguing that splitting BR up into a myriad of separate companies with their own management and agendas and legal contracts between them was inherently more efficient than a single organisation?

 

 

 

But there's no reason that a nationalised company couldn't lease trains from the private sector - plenty examples of that already in transport (London Underground), and in the UK in other areas (PFI schools and hospitals). And when a franchise ITT requires new rolling stock the taxpayer still picks up the tab, either in increased subsidy or reduced premiums, and the government presumably knows that. Whether that money is funnelled through a private company or not doesn't change things.

 

 

 

These arguments are more compelling.

 

And whether we agree or not on the arguments you've given above, I think we can both agree that the majority of people calling for nationalisation do not understand how the railway currently works, what nationalisation would involve, and why it wouldn't and couldn't be a return to what we had under BR.

 

 

 

 

 

As far as costs personnel direct costs are concerned there is already a state guarantee on railway pensions for those were there at the time of privatisation.  However at present all the pension costs fall on the franchisees and that cost would transfer to Govt so it would immediately pick up not just paybill costs but the pension costs and any pension deficits (which some funds do have).  So extra costs do fall to the state (and no doubt there will be calls to extend the guarantee to all pensions in the industry).  There will no doubt be similar calls in respect of travel facilities but provided freight is not included they would be largely cost neutral with possibly some loss of revenue but not much.  If the freight sector and the infrastructure manager are all combined under one 'National Railways' umbrella there would then be a potential loss of Income Tax revenue as lose people currently having travel treated as a Taxable Benefit would no longer be so taxed - hardly a massive sum I would imagine but again an additional cost to the state in terms of lost revenue - but that wouldn't happen if freight operators are left alone (the ideal situation) and infrastructure ownership remains totally separated.

 

Both these areas, and that concerning passenger rolling stock are examples of the muddled thinking coming from some politicos in that they simply haven't got a real clue so they don't make clear what they are actually talking about.  There is nothing at all wrong with the rolling stock companies continuing alongside a nationalised passenger train operator (after all BR leased some stock and traction) but the dumbo politicos turn their sights on the rolling stock leasers every now and them and might actually be daft enough to try and nationalise them.

 

There will inevitably have to be a centralised top level of management and it will be extremely busy having to deal in particular with staffing and industrial relations matters as well as standardising various disparate approaches.  For example we hear more and more cries about having standard ticketing arrangements - someone has to decide that and rule  on any disagreement between the various state owned franchises (otherwise why bother to have them under a common owner?).  So a central managerial organisation and standard setting organisation is inevitable and once contracts at all levels of the industry vanish someone will - as in the past - have to adjudicate between competing calls for investment, staff and whatever.  On the other hand you could keep totally independently managed passenger franchises - which would save absolutely nothing and not change anything either (when a perceived need to change seems to be one bone of contention with the pro-nationalisers).

 

All of which takes us to your final point where we are in total agreement.  'Nationalisation' is basically some sort of fairly meaningless political slogan and is  - in my view - becoming increasingly debased and meaningless in the various ways in which it is being spouted.  Nobody, least of all those most frequently spouting it, have actually explained what it means and what it would involve although that is mainly down in my view to their ignorance rather than anything more sophisticated than dogma and doggerel.  We are told by umpteen different people what will 'improve' with nationalisation without any indication of how they would actually achieve such improvement - but then of course many of those who spout are politicos of one sort or another so perhaps we should hardly expect better.

 

If people think the UK method of rail privatisation was badly thought out (and I would agree that some aspects of it were) then I suspect that is as nothing compared with some of the ideas allegedly offered to justify nationalisation.

[cromptonnut]

News from Friday which I missed.

 

 TSSA’s ballot among station staff at Govia Thameslink Railway closed today at 12pm.

 

Manuel Cortes, TSSA’s General Secretary, previously warned the dispute in GTR could spread to involve ticket office staff facing job losses with the closure or partial closures of 81 ticket offices. With a 45.2% turnout in TSSA’s ballot, this further demonstrates the level of anger widely felt among station staff members following GTR’s proposals to reorganise its station environment which raised safety concerns.

 

The outcome of the ballot has been sent to Govia Thameslink Railway notifying them of the result as follows:

 

QUESTION: Are you prepared to take part in industrial action consisting of a strike?

 

RESULT OF VOTING:

Number of ballot papers returned: 113

Number of papers found to be invalid: 0

Thus, total number of valid papers to be counted: 113

Numbers voting YES 66 (58.4 % of valid vote)

Numbers voting NO 47 (41.6 % of valid vote)

 

Before the ballot was due to close today, talks were tabled earlier in the week at the conciliation service ACAS. TSSA is pleased to report that some progress was made in these talks. In considering our union’s positon alongside the outcome of the ballot, consultation is taking place with TSSA’s elected representatives to consider what, if any action is appropriate in light of recent talks held.

[The Stationmaster]

News from Friday which I missed.

 

The question does seem a bit simplistic to say the least - and I wonder what percentage of those actually entitled to vote did so.  I'm sorry but if some union twit ever sent me a ballot paper like that I would be telling him in no uncertain terms to sort out what my union was at.  And I'm ashamed to say I once belonged to that one and all they ever did for me was lumber me with blithering idiots to 'look after my interests' on a couple of occasions  (and the second one was a  solicitor 'highly recommended by the TU movement for his knowledge of employment law' who knew less about it than I did and charged me for the privilege of me telling him what to do on my behalf). 

[Gwiwer]

The customers are revolting.  

 

http://www.itv.com/news/meridian/update/2016-09-05/angry-southern-rail-commuters-plan-court-action/

 

I some ways I can't blame them.  Delay repay is one thing.  But it does not compensate for missed appointments, loss of earnings and the alleged loss of some jobs through persistent lateness.  It does not compensate for the long-term stress and distress caused to a very large proportion of Southern's customer base.  It does not compensate for out-of-pocket expenses when late / last trains have been cancelled and passengers holding valid rail tickets have been directed to use buses or taxis to get home, or been left stranded and had to make other arrangements.  

 

I was also a victim despite living some distance beyond their territory.  On only one occasion during four weeks was I able to use the train I had a booked ticket for; all the others did not run.  The unsympathetic, unprofessional and possibly franchise-breaching attitude of other GTR staff notably those preventing access to Gatwick Express trains to all but Open ticket holders did nothing to endear me to rail travel.  I have yet to receive any form of response to several matters complained of other than the bland and hollow corporate apologies emerging from Southern HQ when it is the operator who could and should have moved far earlier to address problems of their own making.

[The Stationmaster]

The customers are revolting.  

 

http://www.itv.com/news/meridian/update/2016-09-05/angry-southern-rail-commuters-plan-court-action/

 

I some ways I can't blame them.  Delay repay is one thing.  But it does not compensate for missed appointments, loss of earnings and the alleged loss of some jobs through persistent lateness.  It does not compensate for the long-term stress and distress caused to a very large proportion of Southern's customer base.  It does not compensate for out-of-pocket expenses when late / last trains have been cancelled and passengers holding valid rail tickets have been directed to use buses or taxis to get home, or been left stranded and had to make other arrangements.  

 

I was also a victim despite living some distance beyond their territory.  On only one occasion during four weeks was I able to use the train I had a booked ticket for; all the others did not run.  The unsympathetic, unprofessional and possibly franchise-breaching attitude of other GTR staff notably those preventing access to Gatwick Express trains to all but Open ticket holders did nothing to endear me to rail travel.  I have yet to receive any form of response to several matters complained of other than the bland and hollow corporate apologies emerging from Southern HQ when it is the operator who could and should have moved far earlier to address problems of their own making.

 

Well at least they're going after the right people - GTR are just a tool of DafT in this nonsense and it is DafT which is at the back of a lot of i.  I still cannot see how some dumbo Civil Servant with no responsibility or knowledge can make an operational safety decision (for that is what it is) about whether or not a particular train service on any route can be converted to DOO(P).  It  almost leaves you wondering if they're in breach of the H&S act by favouring franchise bids which say they will introduce DOO(P)?

[roundhouse]

Its quite noticeable that when we do late evening trains, how quiet they are these days.

 

Ok last Friday was the last school holiday weekday but even so with the previous train cancelled for our route it was still quite empty.

We do not stay up in London as much as we used to these days as thats when the majority of trains get cancelled for any number of reasons.

 

Today, already there have been quite a few cancellations  for numerous reasons not least the fire alarms going off at London bridge, a trespasser at Earlswood and staff shortages.

[cromptonnut]

The Stationmaster, on 05 Sept 2016 - 14:06, said:

The question does seem a bit simplistic to say the least - and I wonder what percentage of those actually entitled to vote did so.  I'm sorry but if some union twit ever sent me a ballot paper like that I would be telling him in no uncertain terms to sort out what my union was at.  And I'm ashamed to say I once belonged to that one and all they ever did for me was lumber me with blithering idiots to 'look after my interests' on a couple of occasions  (and the second one was a  solicitor 'highly recommended by the TU movement for his knowledge of employment law' who knew less about it than I did and charged me for the privilege of me telling him what to do on my behalf). 

 

42.5% turnout and 113 ballot papers returned so I make that about 266 balloted (remember TSSA is a rather specialist union, primarily for ticket office and administrative staff, ASLEF is for drivers and RMT predominantly platform staff although some of my colleagues in the ticket office are RMT).

 

I am a TSSA member but I am not impressed so far with what the unions are doing either.  I chose to vote "no" on this occasion as although I do not agree with the plans for implementing the 'station host' in their current form, I didn't feel there was anything much to vote for as no firm proposals have been tabled and this feels more like a "shot across the bows" warning.  Much of the communication from them in the last few months is "use your free option to join the Labour party and vote for Jeremy Corbyn".

 

What frustrates me the most about this ongoing problem is that there are many of us who do try and do want to help people caught up in the mess but we are unable to do much because of the rules and decisions made by those further up the food chain.

 

If you come across someone appearing unhelpful, if you'd had abuse yelled at you for 8 hours a day despite trying to do your best, you'd probably feel demotivated as well.

[Fenman]

...

I was also a victim despite living some distance beyond their territory.

...

 

I know it's irritating and annoying (I went through a phase a year or so back where for several months I was collecting more than £200 a month in delay repay, and even then I wasn't claiming all that I was entitled to). But really - "a victim"?

 

I do wonder sometimes how on earth we ever got a reputation for stoicism, let alone a stiff upper lip.

 

Paul

[Guest]

Much of the communication from them in the last few months is "use your free option to join the Labour party and vote for Jeremy Corbyn".

 

I didn't want to click "Funny" to your entire post, it was just that bit that made me laugh. Sorry!

[phil-b259]

I didn't want to click "Funny" to your entire post, it was just that bit that made me laugh. Sorry!

 

Unfortunately its true - and not just of the TSSA. They seem more obsessed about socialist politics and totally unachievable aims than actually working with the reality of today - which yes, does mean that their 'empire' and ability to bring things to a standstill reduces.

[Guest]

Unfortunately its true - and not just of the TSSA.

 

Quite. A union should be there to serve the needs of its members, not its own (barely) hidden agenda. Pathetic really. As always, just my humble opinion...

[phil-b259]

 

What frustrates me the most about this ongoing problem is that there are many of us who do try and do want to help people caught up in the mess but we are unable to do much because of the rules and decisions made by those further up the food chain.

 

If you come across someone appearing unhelpful, if you'd had abuse yelled at you for 8 hours a day despite trying to do your best, you'd probably feel demotivated as well.

 

I think I have made this point before - its all very easy as a frustrated traveller to relieve your anger by blaming the staff you encounter on your journey, yet they too are human beings. If they have been shouted at, hassled, verbally abused by other travellers - or as in the case at Southern - feel as though management is being nasty, vindictive, ignoring their opinions, ram roading things through without decent consultation, while at the same time being in a union that seems to be positively loving being as obstructive and militant as possible, is it that much of a surprise that the staff are not at their best