Great Western Coffee Shop

From The BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42513069)


Surely there should be a better way of constructing the staffing relationship between the various elements of the rail industry than a system which results in significant disruption to the "business" of carrying passengers around?

Who's the cause of the current wave of strikes and work-to-rules is a hotly disputed subject.  Indeed its so hot that I know of people "out there" who have views that they don't share in public for fear of damaging (for many years) the relationship they have with their colleagues.

I would be very interested to learn what our members (yes, a self-selected and unscientific sample) really think - who they hold responsible.  Thus this secret poll - please select up to two options.

Follow up posts are welcome, but will of course be public.  If you have a view that you would like to put (if perhaps you feel that there's responsibility with the ORR or Network Rail) but would like it to be anonymous, please send me a personal message and - for this topic only - I'm happy to post onwards without your name, subject to other usual forum posting protocols.

At the risk of stoking an intense discussion ... from my Facebook feed (world shared, so no privacy being breached):

(http://www.wellho.net/pix/cfng.jpg)

Within the area in which I live and on most of the trains I travel on, there are two crew members - one driving the train who isn't at all visible to the passengers, and the other who's passenger facing most of the time during the journey, but breaks from attending to passengers to release and close the doors at each station along the way, and to assist the driver if there's an operational situation.

The customer facing role on anything but high frequency metro type journeys between gated stations is a key one.  It help re-assure passengers, it allows for questions to be answered and assistance given, and it helps ensure that everyone is able to buy the correct ticket, with explanations available of the hideously complex system if someone does not have the correct ticket, or has spent more than they need.  The routine breaking from this customer facing role to press door release buttons at specific points in the train breaks this ability to focus on looking after customers (and the revenue stream they generate); it does, though, make huge sense for that company representative to be able to break from immediate customer support into an operational support role in a "safety net" situation.

Looking at the headlines / suggestions implicit in the demonstration picture above, I find myself concerned as to the funding implications.  The 'profit' that TOCs make on train operation is around 3% - that's actually less that the amount that fares have risen today - with a substantial part of their costs being in staffing.  If the staff can be tuned to help ensure that revenue is routinely collected while maintaining their safety net role, there seems to be merit in the change.  Alternatives of adding an extra person put up costs and the cry of "ooze gonna pay for it" will ring out (passenger through fares, or taxpayer, or a cut in train services?).   But then I'm looking locally and note that the picture is Carlisle.   Is there a suggestion that services in that part of the UK will in future run with just a single staff member (driver) rather than two staff members?

It seems to me - and I could be completely wrong - that the present government, largely in the form of Mr. Grayling and, presumably, a number of representatives from the DfT and/or RDG who happen to think he is right, are hellbent on removing the Guard (or a significant part of their existing role) from as many UK rail services as possible.
I can only assume this is because they believe such action will save money - surely only a complete lunatic would regard this as a safety improvement - but I think they are wholly wrong.
Perhaps I haven't been paying attention but I don't recall hearing or reading anything recently regarding the TOCs' view on whether Guards should be retained as is, have their role modified (=downgraded) or be gotten rid of completely. If the Guard is such a drain on the TOC finances I am sure the franchisees would have had something to say about it.
The Trade Unions - and, lets be honest, we are talking almost exclusively about the RMT - appear to delight in using the merest suggestion of a change to the Guard's role - amongst other things - as a pretext for 'industrial action'.
As a passenger I would encourage the rail industry to adopt the approach that I have encountered on numerous GWR 'local' services in and around Exeter - that being a Guard on every train who, if the safety workload permits, will check & issue tickets as appropriate and on services that the TOC knows in advance are going to be (very) busy an additional member of staff so that the safety and revenue protection roles can be completely separated. Without having any evidence at all to back up such an assertion I believe that this approach must improve the overall financial performance (otherwise why bother).
     

+1. 

Getting rid of guards is about saving money.  Regardless of whether you think that they should be retained or not, it is rather revealing that the Government thinks that it is their job to drive forward this efficiency.  Surely the justification of the current private railway is that the private sector is free to find cost savings without the dead hand of government involvement.  The fact that the drive to "de-guard" trains comes from Government is an indirect admission from Government that the private sector cannot be trusted to find efficiency savings on the passenger railway.

Happy to go with Graham's position here - but that second person, although trained, doesn't need to open/close the doors necessarily if all infrastructure is in place for the driver to do so. In emergency, of course they drop the customer service role & help operationally. But the RMT aren't happy with that. They want a Scotrail deal all round as a minimum

Which is, I think, the position of several TOCs.

I'd be happy with 6% profit if it was being used to attract private investment into the railway (thereby reliving the passenger and/or taxpayer of making that investment), but it is not.  The simplistic pie charts being bandied about today show that about 25% of fares is spent on investment ("upgrading the network"), so the farepayer is being expected to pay for future improvements to the network which would not be the case if the system was set up for the ToCs to actually invest their own money.  We should be arguing for a profit high enough to attract private money into the industry and then we could have a go at reducing the tax payer subsidy and/or 25% of our fares that are being spent not on providing our journeys, but those which might be made by the next generation.   

Thatr means even higher fares? Where else will they get an extra ongoing 3% profit?

No, If you made the ToCs responsible for paying for upgrading the network, they would need to go to the markets to attract private money to upgrade the network and they would only be successful in attracting that private money if profit was higher, but the 25% of the fare spent on upgrades could be cut.  You would also have private investors watching the spending (and more importantly the overspending) like hawks.

This is what happens in the water industry.  A new law meant that sewage needs to be treated and the Government realises building the treatment works would cost big money which it didn't have.  It therefore privatised the water industry and makes the water companies pay for the investments.  They get the money from the markets.  Your water bill includes a chunk of profit which goes to the investors to encourage them to stump up the private money.  You may think that this is a good or bad way of doing things but at the very least the profit of the water companies keeps the private investment flowing in precisely the way that the 3% on your rail fare doesn't

Can't disagree with any of that, but presumably in order for the TOCs to grab this idea, premia to the Treasury would likely be a lot less offered than currently?

You may be right, and government would of course still need to decide what is the correct split of costs between the fare payer and the taxpayer (in many circumstances of course this is the same person).  But the real prize is to drive down the costs of running, maintaining and upgrading the network. 

I am not generally a right-wing ideologue and generally favour a mixed economy.   I will however admit that there is one big thing that the private sector does very well and that is cost control (because it is their own money rather than someone else's which is being spent)  But on the railways we seem to have all the disadvantages of private sector involvement (short termism, lack of democratic accountability, commercial secrecy, and money being syphoned off as profit) without allowing the private sector to put up their own money with the advantages (less short-term call on the taxpayer and vigorous cost controls)that brings.

Compare two large infrastructure projects - gwml electrification (publically funded) and Heathrow third runway (privately funded), and the GWML project has managed to add £2billion plus to the costs whilst Heathrow has shaved almost £2billion off their costs. 

The ROSCOs do, don't they?

But yes, all valid points. Getting all, including the 25% of those relating to staff, costs aligned with CPI would be a big start....

There is an article in this weeks Rail Magazine on the proposed Kings Cross remodelling that sheds some light on these costs.  They put it down to slavish adherence to rules (e.g. electrification clearances). An example quoted is the 5 year old footbridge at Kings Cross which would according to the rules need to be replaced again for £10 million because of the clearances. However they did a risk assessment (details in article) which showed that it was not necessary in that location. 

So, if rules are not to be adhered to, then what's the point of having them?

Oh, we all comment on ridiculous Health & Safety rules! Risk assessments are a good way ro work out whether they should apply in your particular project I feel

Good question.  And there is a plenty of evidence from decades of subsequent use that the BR electrical clearance rules of the 1980s were perfectly safe and that the newer more stringent rules were a mistake. 

Where is ET when you need him..... ???
The requirements are laid out in EU law (EN 50388:2012) and placed into UK requirements by the Rail Standards and Safety Board.  NR don't have much say in that (other than being a consultee during the standards production process).  The requirements are mandated in RSSB standard GL/RT1210 and GL/GN1610.

EN 50388:2012 is NOT produced by the EU NOR is it the law!  It is the a European Standard, produced by CENELEC (a committee of national standards bodies of which the British Standards Institution (BSI) is the UK member) and its status is just the same as a British Standard, because that is what it is in the UK (it is published by BSi as BS EN 50388:2012).

It only becomes the law if a legislator writes a law saying you have to comply with it. 

Since it is considered good practice if you don'e comply with it and cannot show good reason why not they you might be open to a civil action for damages from any injured party. In this case a risk assessment was done and so NR can demonstrate that they do not need to fully comply with this standard in this instance.

The RSSB's reference to it might give it more weight, but I will leave ET to comment on that. 

I believe it is driven by EU Law https://www.cencenelec.eu/standards/DefEN/Pages/default.aspx

...and in particular..

The regulation you refer to makes it quite clear that standards are not automatically a legal obligation.  It only covers the procedure for making such standards.

The page you link to is also clear on this.


The three European Standards bodies listed a separate bodies and are not part of the Commission.  Their members are the national standards bodies of the various member states (which include, but are not limited to the member states of the EU).

If EN 50388:2012 has any legal force it must come from a specific piece of National or European legislation

When the pigeon exploded at Hayes & Harlington, damaging the bridge, was it on the OLE that was put up for Heathrow Express/Heathrow Connect? If it was, then it would have been on the BR clearance rules... Mind you, I doubt that the ballistic qualities of sky rats was considered for the EN regulations.

Yes it was.

... for the EN regulations standard.

Please note the important distinction.  A standard is voluntary, regulations are not!

That's not how I read it.  See Section 6 here.......

http://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/23004/electrical-clearances-policy-statement.pdf

We need ET to give us his take on all of this.