Southern Rail Franchise

[phil-b259]

Whilst it is accepted that it may now be a case of trying to violently encourage a deceased gee-gee, it could be reasonably argued that the RMT saw the ScotRail deal as a precedent which they felt obliged to pursue. Wilkinson is being an utter nob by even mentioning it, since it allows the RMT to continue to reference it, whereas if he had one more brain cell, he could have simply stated that what happens in Caledonia, stays in Caledonia, etc.....

 

Wilkinson mentioned it (well actually threw a massive hissy fit if reports are to believed) while Southern and the RMT were having talks over the summer - hence the accusation of the talks being a sham because the ones setting the agenda on the Southern side weren't in the room.

 

Since then I believe Mr Wilkinson has been gaged - but he is very much still part of the railways team at the DfT.

 

As you say though that ship has well and trully sailed......

[royaloak]

Quite likely.

 

But things seem to have gone differently in Scotland with the same union but a different franchise and political situation.

 

Anyway we'll see in a few years if (unlike every previous DOO scheme in England?) trains still carry an OBS apart from 'exceptional situations' or whether they are dispensed with.

That very nice Mr Wilkinson (of Croydon speech 'fame') made it abundantly clear to Southern/GTR that the ScotRail solution was not an option, it was DOO with no strings full stop!

[royaloak]

The DfT have made very clear this is unacceptable with Mr Wilkinson saying he would have vetoed the deal if he had known about it.

 

What control does the DaFT have over Scotlands devolved railways?

[royaloak]

Quite likely.

 

But things seem to have gone differently in Scotland with the same union but a different franchise and political situation.

 

Anyway we'll see in a few years if (unlike every previous DOO scheme in England?) trains still carry an OBS apart from 'exceptional situations' or whether they are dispensed with.

Come 2020 the OBS (or any type of second person on board) will be a distant memory, except for teams of roaming RPIs, which is exactly as it is on every other English DOO scheme.

[Gwiwer]

Those of us comparing the Scottish Situation with Southern must not overlook the fact that Scotrail is a franchise while GTR is a management contract.  All other issues aside there are important differences which would mean any agreement in one region could not also be made in the other on the same terms.

[phil-b259]

What control does the DaFT have over Scotlands devolved railways?

While responsibility for letting the franchise has been devolved the DfT withheld certain powers and remains a co-signatory to the final agreement.

 

In short it has the power to veto attempts by the Scottish Parliament to nationalise the franchise or award it to a public sector body - or do anything that might have repercussions for the franchise in the England.

 

(the same is true with respect to the London Overground concession)

 

Thus while on the face of it Mr Wilkinson might not have the power to block the ScotRail / RMT agreement, that doesn't mean he does not have other tools available to him to cause problems.

[royaloak]

As such rather than protecting the OBS role, their continued action actually makes the removal of such a grade in a few years time easier - not harder.

I would hazard a guess that this OBS role is simply a halfway house to getting rid of the guards completely, there is no (real) money to be saved unless the staff are got rid of, come 2020 (or is it 2019?) when the franchise is let (it isnt currently a franchise it is a Management contract) we will see the second person removed/redeployed and then Wilkinson will have his dream of full DOO operation, once its in at Southern it will spread throughout the country as franchises are re-let, see the Northern 50% DOO etc.

[royaloak]

Thus while on the face of it Mr Wilkinson might not have the power to block the ScotRail / RMT agreement, that doesn't mean he does not have other tools available to him to cause problems.

That is one thing he is very good at!

[phil-b259]

The Public will be very sympathetic when these strikes are about job losses in 2019/20.

 

No they won't.

 

Passengers may well say they are in support of guards initially - but repeated industrial action rapidly turns that around. Just ask any Southern user how the feel about things after 10 months of disruptive industrial action and you will find they blame the RMT just as much as Southern management for the chaos - and to be frank couldn't care less about the intricacies of the dispute - as one group of disgruntled commuters said "we just want our lives back".

[caradoc]

Regarding Scotland; We now have the ludicrous situation that in a couple of years time, an Edinburgh to Glasgow Queen St High Level electric train will be cancelled if there is no Guard; Passengers can then simply catch the next electric train to Glasgow Queen St Low Level, which will NOT have a Guard, and never has since the line via Bathgate re-opened.

 

Let us not forget either that removing Guards from trains did not originate as an evil capitalist plot to line the pockets of fat cats, it started under BR in 1986, partly to reduce costs but also due to staffing issues, and to improve reliability.

 

What exactly is the RMT position regarding DOO; If it is implacably opposed to DOO as a matter of principle, as it seems, will it now campaign for all current DOO services to revert to full Guard provision ?

 

I will no doubt now be tarred as a 'DOO lover', however I do not, and never have, believed that all trains should be DOO; There are many services where this is simply not practical or sensible. I would like those totally opposed to DOO to provide the conclusive evidence that DOO is inherently less safe than Guard operation, the lack of this throughout this whole sorry dispute would suggest that, properly resourced and managed, DOO is a safe method of operation. I can only re-iterate that I have been travelling for 30 years on DOO services in Scotland and I have no qualms whatosever about safety on these trains.

[Coryton]

Let us not forget either that removing Guards from trains did not originate as an evil capitalist plot to line the pockets of fat cats, it started under BR in 1986, partly to reduce costs but also due to staffing issues, and to improve reliability.

 

Well it could be argued that BR removed Guards where appropriate for the reasons above, and now the plan is to remove them where not appropriate entirely to reduce costs.

[The Stationmaster]

Well it could be argued that BR removed Guards where appropriate for the reasons above, and now the plan is to remove them where not appropriate entirely to reduce costs.

 

That seems to be Mr Wilkinson's view and it is the area where I am, to put it very bluntly, utterly disgusted with his behaviour.  The decision to introduce DOO (of any sort) is a matter of operational safety and compliance with, or the necessary improvements to achieve, the conditions which are necessary for that sort of operation.  It is therefore a decision for operations management and for them to make a recommendation to the TOC's senior management as to whether or not such a course is feasible and, indeed, if it would be a realistic course to follow.  The actual situation on Southern is that some routes are not suitable for DOO and therefore will not be converted to it - whatever some remote Civil Servant happens to splutter.

 

It is something a Civil Servant would not even understand unless he had previously been some with an operational responsibility for such decisions on the railway.  It also removes the responsibility from its correct place (could it actually invalidate a Safety Case?) and is therefore a very dangerous course to follow.

 

I have long been in favour of DOO where it can be introduced in compliance with the conditions required for it - it definitely improves service reliability and it has a 'clean' operational safety record.  Obviously it can also potentially save money but that is more a by-product rather than the end in itself decided upon by a somewhat ill-informed Civil Servant who seems not to really know where to head in order to tackle the industry's costs and has picked what he sees as a simple target.  But, having not only made a decision which in my view remains one he is neither fit to make not organisationally responsible for, the idiot then launched a public attack on railway staff pay which clearly primed the unions to do battle with him.  Unfortunately - probably due to a failure to study the facts and hoping to raise emotions - they chose the rather dodgy ground of objecting on 'safety' without very much real evidence to support that position; so they, or rather the RMT, has ended up looking stupid and getting itself an ever worsening reputation with the travelling publc.

 

It has been a right mess on both sides and as long as certain people remain in certain positions and continue with various levels of stupid behaviour the regrettable thing is that it won't change.

[Zomboid]

The RMT could do with some proper PR work. They've managed to acquire a bit of a Bogeyman image which I think they revel in a bit, and don't seem to have anything other than claiming "safety" in public. In this case, the safety of DOO has been proven for decades - there are many reasons to object to DOO, but that one just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Personally it's a quality thing: on SWT I saw the guards doing loads of good work on the longer distance services. Traveling by train is often quite an expensive option, and the product doesn't always live up to that - guards, in their customer facing role, can add a lot of value in making train travel a quality product that's worth paying a bit more for.

[Mike Storey]

Which is why RMT continues to do battle, as it indicates to Gov't and TOC's they'll have a massive fight on their hands. The Public will be very sympathetic when these strikes are about job losses in 2019/20. The abstract concept of "railway safety" means nothing to them, because "it's never a problem", w/o realising how much effort guards and drivers put in beyond their contractual obligations to keep their (sometimes incredibly stupid) passengers safe.

 

I wonder how many folk realise that as these guards are laid off, the bill for that will be footed by the tax payer: whist the guards are in work, they pay taxes. When they're unemployed, not only do they pay less (or no) tax, but they also need benefits. And at the same time, TOC bosses are laughing their socks of all the way to their banks   Their mates (and fellow Tories) at DfT made sure their profits are sky-rocketing now they are relieved of a 50% tax burden on train crew (TOC's see guards as an inherited tax from them damned BR days) so making them even higher profits and thus bonuses.

 

In this case, the TOC will not be any better off directly, as a result of any staff costs savings, as it is a management contract and they get a fixed fee, largely based on their actual costs, which one would assume, will be adjusted should the govt get their way. The greater benefit should theoretically be from greater reliability, given that the chance of a crew member not being available will be cut by 50%. The risk is what extra poor performance (and associated costs and reputational risk) arises from having only the driver operationally in charge, in the case of delays at stations due to door or boarding problems, or in an operational incident, or indeed a fatality/serious injury. Experience elsewhere, so far, suggests that the former vastly outweighs the latter, but that is not a guarantee.

 

With franchises where the TOC takes commercial risk, they must reveal their planned costs, as well as expected revenue, on which their profit margin is calculated, to ensure "undue benefit" is not abstracted from the taxpayer. At margins of an average of 2-3%, this is not the banking sector (most private sector companies would not bother if they did not make at least 15% EBIT margin). TOC parents make their money largely from the sidelines, with additional, optional retail services, rentals, developments, property, car parking and so on. It is very unwise to attack the concept of franchising on the basis of the fat-cat accusation. The money saved through not having shareholder profit, is far less than the money that would be saved by destroying, probably, thousands of jobs both within the TOCs, with NR, with ORR, within DfT and certainly throughout the legal, accountancy and consultancy sectors, all only there to deal with the many interfaces between franchises and NR, and with each other. You can equally argue that throwing all these jobs to the wall would reduce the tax and national insurance take by far more than any "profit" saving. Another dilemma.

 

As regards staff being "laid off", if I have understood correctly, I believe alternative roles will be offered, and wastage (retirements, resignations etc) over time will be the way in which numbers eventually reduce, if recruitment does not keep pace? Or have I misunderstood and compulsory redundancies are demanded?

[Chameleon]

I still don't understand how removing conductors from trains is "modernisation and improvement to customers"? What's so modern and better about not needing a second person on board? Although they promised there will be someone whenever possible, it really is the start of a slippery slope. There will be more and more instances where there isn't someone available. God knows, there aren't even enough staff currently and they have to rely heavily on overtime to run their promised service. Where is the incentive for the company to hire more staff if they don't actually need them to run the trains?

This is really what the RMT are worried about. Before you know it, there will be no conductors at all and only a handfull of OBS as they are calling them, nobody to assist elderly or frail passengers or to keep a lid on the rowdy few, or to answer questions or help anyone who doesn't have a clue where they are going (there are surprisingly many of them).

Disabled passengers will almost certainly get a raw deal unless they book assistance in advance. And even then, there no guarantee there will be any.

 

Imagine, heaven forbid, that there's an accident that incapacitates the driver. No safety trained second person to call the signaller or to protect the line.

All in all a huge improvement to the customer experience, I'm sure you all agree.

[Coryton]

With franchises where the TOC takes commercial risk, they must reveal their planned costs, as well as expected revenue, on which their profit margin is calculated, to ensure "undue benefit" is not abstracted from the taxpayer. At margins of an average of 2-3%, this is not the banking sector (most private sector companies would not bother if they did not make at least 15% EBIT margin). 

 

I believe it's quite a lot less than bus companies manage - even in London. It might come out differently as return on capital invested though - I don't know if bus companies generally purchase their busses outright or not. 

 

Anyway the current media narrative is that greedy profiteering train companies are the cause of all fare rises and this is presumably what most people want to hear.

 

Rather like the argument that train fares are too complicated because there are 16 million fares (and some of them never get sold!). But a simple mileage based scheme with a single fare for each possible journey would give about 6.5 million fares if there was only one route between each station pair (some of which might never get sold because nobody has ever wanted to go by train from Lelant Sidings to Ardrossan South Beach).

 

It misses the point completely but sounds plausible. What matters is how many potential fares there are for the journey a passenger wants to make, not how many fares exist that aren't relevant to them.

[Coryton]

Imagine, heaven forbid, that there's an accident that incapacitates the driver. No safety trained second person to call the signaller or to protect the line.

 

While common sense suggests that this is a potential risk, experience so far on DOO services seem to show that the precautions put in place to permit DOO to operate safely do in fact work.

 

 

 

 

 

I still don't understand how removing conductors from trains is "modernisation and improvement to customers"? What's so modern and better about not needing a second person on board? Although they promised there will be someone whenever possible, it really is the start of a slippery slope. There will be more and more instances where there isn't someone available. God knows, there aren't even enough staff currently and they have to rely heavily on overtime to run their promised service. Where is the incentive for the company to hire more staff if they don't actually need them to run the trains?

This is really what the RMT are worried about. Before you know it, there will be no conductors at all and only a handfull of OBS as they are calling them, nobody to assist elderly or frail passengers or to keep a lid on the rowdy few, or to answer questions or help anyone who doesn't have a clue where they are going (there are surprisingly many of them).

Disabled passengers will almost certainly get a raw deal unless they book assistance in advance. And even then, there no guarantee there will be any.

 

Imagine, heaven forbid, that there's an accident that incapacitates the driver. No safety trained second person to call the signaller or to protect the line.

All in all a huge improvement to the customer experience, I'm sure you all agree.

 

[Glorious NSE]

With franchises where the TOC takes commercial risk, they must reveal their planned costs, as well as expected revenue, on which their profit margin is calculated, to ensure "undue benefit" is not abstracted from the taxpayer. At margins of an average of 2-3%, this is not the banking sector (most private sector companies would not bother if they did not make at least 15% EBIT margin). TOC parents make their money largely from the sidelines, with additional, optional retail services, rentals, developments, property, car parking and so on. It is very unwise to attack the concept of franchising on the basis of the fat-cat accusation.

Personally - where the TOC has to successfully manage a vast amount of change in a short time in a difficult environment, 3% strikes me as a bargain. Where all it has to do is more or less turn up and keep the lights on for 5 years with a franchise that doesn't have major issues or changes planned, it's maybe less of a bargain.

['CHARD]

Personally - where the TOC has to successfully manage a vast amount of change in a short time in a difficult environment, 3% strikes me as a bargain. Where all it has to do is more or less turn up and keep the lights on for 5 years with a franchise that doesn't have major issues or changes planned, it's maybe less of a bargain.

 

I completely agree, Martyn.  If people knew the lengths that the bid teams go to in an attempt to make these franchises work with a positive business case of any magnitude, I reckon they would be amazed, quite honestly.

[royaloak]

Lets also remember that the method of operation for DOO trains when introduced over 30 years ago is very different than the methods used today or proposed for 'tomorrow'.

 

30 years ago the second the train started to move the PTI (as it is now called)  was no longer the drivers responsibility, if somebody went down the gap it was basically tough, nowadays even if the train doesnt move the person responsible can find themseves in Court (see the latest Mersey Rail incident which keeps getting adjourned).

On the IET it was proposed that the bodyside cameras and screens would remain on and monitored (by the driver) while any part of the train was in the platform, that didnt happen 30 years ago, or Today for that matter so its another change being made to the operation to suit/fudge the modern scenario!

 

30 years ago there simply werent the passenger numbers we are carrying today (in fact passenger numbers were in free fall) resulting in platform crowding etc increasing the chances of somebody getting pushed into the side of the train etc.

 

30 years ago there were problems recruiting (quality) staff due to the poor wages and working conditions, that is now no longer the case (although having to go to bed before my 10 year old Son or the alarm going off at 02:30 for a 04:00 start is still pretty crappy).

 

30 years ago it was done with screens or mirrors on the platform offering a half decent viewing angle, now it is done with bodyside cameras which offer a very shallow viewing angle, even LU uses platform mounted cameras because of the better view they offer.  If anyone is interested 30 years it wasnt permitted to have train mounted or narrow angle platform mounted cameras because of the narrow field of view they offered, something removed from the instructions like various other inconvenient things have been over the years.

 

The methods of operation 30 years ago are very different to what happens today but everyone likes to think its exactly the same, 5 minutes research would show that to be the case, although any reference to the methods of working when DOO was introduced are strangely absent even though they were available about 5 years ago, very strange!

[royaloak]

If TOCs had full crew working (as SWT has at weekends and were working towards during the week, when I left them) then if you have a driver then you automatically have a guard because they start together, work the same trains together and finish together, unlike it is wher I am now where I could have 5 or 6 different guards in a shift.

As regards staff being "laid off", if I have understood correctly, I believe alternative roles will be offered, and wastage (retirements, resignations etc) over time will be the way in which numbers eventually reduce, if recruitment does not keep pace? Or have I misunderstood and compulsory redundancies are demanded?

How would you feel if you liked your job as a guard but were then told you were going to be sweeping the platforms because you had been 'displaced', the Company have offered you an alternative role so they have kept their end of the bargain, if you decide you dont want it then you are making yourself unemployed so no redundancy payment for you.

 

DBS/EWS did similar a few years back when they had too many drivers in Scotland, they offered some of them alternative employment in the South East, none of the staff took the offer up and so effectively made themselves redundant, I think they got paid redundancy but it was reduced by quite a large amount because they had been offered alternative employment but didnt take it.

 

Now I am not trying to be funny but how would you feel if the company you work for were being restructured and you were offered a much 'lesser' job than the one you do now?

[Glorious NSE]

Now I am not trying to be funny but how would you feel if the company you work for were being restructured and you were offered a much 'lesser' job than the one you do now?

I certainly wouldn't expect anyone to like it, but they would have to take a view on whether that was better than nothing. As somebody who was made redundant last year I can sympathise, but it is something that happens in many industries as things change.

 

As regards staff being "laid off", if I have understood correctly, I believe alternative roles will be offered, and wastage (retirements, resignations etc) over time will be the way in which numbers eventually reduce, if recruitment does not keep pace? Or have I misunderstood and compulsory redundancies are demanded?

 

One extra issue here is one of trust. A few years back the same 'change to DOO + OBS' was done on Gatwick Express, with the same promise of no job losses. At the next franchise change I believe they were then made redundant en-masse - so any promises could well be very temporary.

 

If only one of the involved parties was in a position to promise that definitely would not happen when Southern is re-franchised. Oh wait....

 

 

 

 

[royaloak]

One extra issue here is one of trust. A few years back the same 'change to DOO + OBS' was done on Gatwick Express, with the same promise of no job losses. At the next franchise change I believe they were then made redundant en-masse - so any promises could well be very temporary.

If only one of the involved parties was in a position to promise that definitely would not happen when Southern is re-franchised. Oh wait....

Lets also remember the Southern on board Catering staff that 'transferred' to Rail Gourmet and were made redundant the following week after the contract was terminated, as the staff had only been employed for a week (the transfer was classed as a new start, no PTR&R for caterers) they were simply given their P45s and told to pi um go away, there is zero trust in the Management (actually the DaFT if you peel away the layers of cow manure) from the staff in this dispute.

 

Every other DOO scheme in England has resulted on the complete removal of the second person on the train within a few years of implementation, I see no reasons (or guarantees) why this one would be any different.

[Coryton]

Lets also remember the Southern on board Catering staff that 'transferred' to Rail Gourmet and were made redundant the following week after the contract was terminated, as the staff had only been employed for a week (the transfer was classed as a new start, no PTR&R for caterers) they were simply given their P45s and told to pi um go away, there is zero trust in the Management (actually the DaFT if you peel away the layers of cow manure) from the staff in this dispute.

 

(Showing my ignorance here. but...) shouldn't TUPE have given them some protection?

[royaloak]

(Showing my ignorance here. but...) shouldn't TUPE have given them some protection?

It happened mid franchise, TUPE only applies when the franchise is re-let.

 

The whole situation stank to high heaven but it was all (very cleverly) done within the rules.

 

As I always say, it doesnt matter what is written down but rather what isnt written down and so open to interpretation.