NPR

Aslef have turned down the latest offer from Scotrail, although they also say they’re close to a deal. Who knows what’s happening there.

RMT have voted for strike action from mid June.

I’m meant to be on the train from Edinburgh to London on the 21st for work, and back on the 22nd. Then I’m on the train to Leeds on the 23rd for the cricket and back on the 25th. Super. Here’s hoping for a one day strike on the 24th.

Looks like the RMT saw my travel plans and went for max disruption to me personally.

Baws.

Biffer wrote: Thu Jun 09, 2022 10:41 am Looks like the RMT saw my travel plans and went for max disruption to me personally.

Baws.

Fuck you Mr Shapps

I'm supposed to be going to a gig in London on the 22nd. Supposedly not a strike day, but sandwiched between two of them I can't imagine it'll be without issue. Combined with them having cut services so that the last train home is much earlier than it used to be and catching it would be a close run thing at the best of times I may just not go. Which means I'll be down £23 for the ticket, but at least I won't have forked out the additional £31 for the rail fare.

That said I do support the drivers using the withdrawal of their labour to try and protect other staff members whose contributions aren't as directly noticeable and are seemingly constantly in the sights of the powers that be for being reduced in number and passed over for pay rises.

Re-nationalise rail. Private monopolies have done passengers no favours and are actively obstructive to changes which need to occur.

I spoke with a guy I know (kids in the same school as mine) who services train chassis, brakes etc. Company he works for is unionised. I tried having a civil conversation about much lower ticket revenues post-Covid, everyone's feeling the pinch etc etc, you get the idea. He was having none of it, said he wanted a 10% pay rise and wanted to work less hours as he didn't get to work from home like everyone else.

It was quite the chat!

sockwithaticket wrote: Thu Jun 09, 2022 12:19 pm
Re-nationalise rail.

You'd get 10x as many strikes. Probably 20x.

Kawazaki wrote: Thu Jun 09, 2022 12:26 pm

sockwithaticket wrote: Thu Jun 09, 2022 12:19 pm
Re-nationalise rail.

You'd get 10x as many strikes. Probably 20x.

Maybe, but cessation of the price gouging with constant above-inflation ticket hikes and running it to serve the public rather than shareholders would be a nice change of pace.

sockwithaticket wrote: Thu Jun 09, 2022 12:31 pm

Kawazaki wrote: Thu Jun 09, 2022 12:26 pm

sockwithaticket wrote: Thu Jun 09, 2022 12:19 pm
Re-nationalise rail.

You'd get 10x as many strikes. Probably 20x.

Maybe, but cessation of the price gouging with constant above-inflation ticket hikes and running it to serve the public rather than shareholders would be a nice change of pace.

I don't know what the correct model is for the British train network but nationalising it is very likely not it. That's not to say what we currently have is the best either.

Maybe it should be run like a cooperative?

sockwithaticket wrote: Thu Jun 09, 2022 12:31 pm

Kawazaki wrote: Thu Jun 09, 2022 12:26 pm

sockwithaticket wrote: Thu Jun 09, 2022 12:19 pm
Re-nationalise rail.

You'd get 10x as many strikes. Probably 20x.

Maybe, but cessation of the price gouging with constant above-inflation ticket hikes and running it to serve the public rather than shareholders would be a nice change of pace.

Not sure there's a lot of evidence for this. Prices reflect an unwillingness to subsidise rail travel rather than price gouging.

Ahh strikes.
Well how else are you going to get what you want in cunt ridden Britain? Good on them, Join a union. Work to live don't live to work.

Flying pickets were hillarious apparently. One night my steelworker buds, hardy industrial, larconic bastards all, ..were stood around a burning oil drum as was their want, innocently picketiing the plant.. ( I was on the Staff and we had an arselicking Union, didn't cross a picket line though...though one of us poor bastards had to go in and maintain the boiler and monitor gas pressure) , anyway they were stood around.. early morning.. picketing the gates..and four car loads emptied in the factory above them, and ran down the hill, destroyed lorries in the Lorry park, ran back up the hill and drove off..police pulled up 15 minutes later and arrested the poor innocent fuckers on the picket line.

Paddington Bear wrote: Thu Jun 09, 2022 1:33 pm

sockwithaticket wrote: Thu Jun 09, 2022 12:31 pm

Kawazaki wrote: Thu Jun 09, 2022 12:26 pm


You'd get 10x as many strikes. Probably 20x.

Maybe, but cessation of the price gouging with constant above-inflation ticket hikes and running it to serve the public rather than shareholders would be a nice change of pace.

Not sure there's a lot of evidence for this. Prices reflect an unwillingness to subsidise rail travel rather than price gouging.

If you are claiming you want to reduce emissions, reduce the number of cars on the road, reduce our overall carbon footprint, then subsidising trains is an easy way to do it. As things stand, a 50 mile train journey into London is costing me £50.00 for a return, i reckon would cost me £10.00 to drive (probably less with a hybrid/full electric) vehicle.

Paddington Bear wrote: Thu Jun 09, 2022 1:33 pm

sockwithaticket wrote: Thu Jun 09, 2022 12:31 pm

Kawazaki wrote: Thu Jun 09, 2022 12:26 pm


You'd get 10x as many strikes. Probably 20x.

Maybe, but cessation of the price gouging with constant above-inflation ticket hikes and running it to serve the public rather than shareholders would be a nice change of pace.

Not sure there's a lot of evidence for this. Prices reflect an unwillingness to subsidise rail travel rather than price gouging.

Subsidise all the way, it's already part subsidised by taxes.

Current pricing cannot be extricated from the myriad of private contractors involved in the process all pursuing profit rather than service delivery and the legal obligation to provide shareholder dividends. I'm at the point where I'm extremely willing to see how it runs and what the costs are when that's removed. Cost being the operative word. All services have one, but we pay it. The army cost X, the environment agency costs X etc. Rail is key infrastructure many workers cannot avoid using, let alone it's wider utility to the economy of providing transport for leisure and discretionary spending, and I don't understand why that should be left to the private sector.

ASMO wrote: Thu Jun 09, 2022 1:48 pm

Paddington Bear wrote: Thu Jun 09, 2022 1:33 pm

sockwithaticket wrote: Thu Jun 09, 2022 12:31 pm

Maybe, but cessation of the price gouging with constant above-inflation ticket hikes and running it to serve the public rather than shareholders would be a nice change of pace.

Not sure there's a lot of evidence for this. Prices reflect an unwillingness to subsidise rail travel rather than price gouging.

If you are claiming you want to reduce emissions, reduce the number of cars on the road, reduce our overall carbon footprint, then subsidising trains is an easy way to do it. As things stand, a 50 mile train journey into London is costing me £50.00 for a return, i reckon would cost me £10.00 to drive (probably less with a hybrid/full electric) vehicle.

How much scope is there to increase the number of passengers into London though? I thought that trains were already pretty crowded at peak times.

ASMO wrote: Thu Jun 09, 2022 1:48 pm
If you are claiming you want to reduce emissions, reduce the number of cars on the road, reduce our overall carbon footprint, then subsidising trains is an easy way to do it. As things stand, a 50 mile train journey into London is costing me £50.00 for a return, i reckon would cost me £10.00 to drive (probably less with a hybrid/full electric) vehicle.

Yep agreed, with that said we tend to only count fuel costs into how much it costs to drive somewhere, without adding in the cost of the car/MOT/insurance etc.

sockwithaticket wrote: Thu Jun 09, 2022 1:51 pm
Subsidise all the way, it's already part subsidised by taxes.

Current pricing cannot be extricated from the myriad of private contractors involved in the process all pursuing profit rather than service delivery and the legal obligation to provide shareholder dividends. I'm at the point where I'm extremely willing to see how it runs and what the costs are when that's removed. Cost being the operative word. All services have one, but we pay it. The army cost X, the environment agency costs X etc. Rail is key infrastructure many workers cannot avoid using, let alone it's wider utility to the economy of providing transport for leisure and discretionary spending, and I don't understand why that should be left to the private sector.

AIUI the current model essentially involves the rail operators taking 2% off the top to run the railway on the government's behalf. I'm not opposed to bringing back British Rail, but I am deeply sceptical that doing so will lower costs.

British trains for British people rather than the European governments that own the companies creaming in billions to add to their national coffers.

robmatic wrote: Thu Jun 09, 2022 2:39 pm

ASMO wrote: Thu Jun 09, 2022 1:48 pm

Paddington Bear wrote: Thu Jun 09, 2022 1:33 pm

Not sure there's a lot of evidence for this. Prices reflect an unwillingness to subsidise rail travel rather than price gouging.

If you are claiming you want to reduce emissions, reduce the number of cars on the road, reduce our overall carbon footprint, then subsidising trains is an easy way to do it. As things stand, a 50 mile train journey into London is costing me £50.00 for a return, i reckon would cost me £10.00 to drive (probably less with a hybrid/full electric) vehicle.

How much scope is there to increase the number of passengers into London though? I thought that trains were already pretty crowded at peak times.

Outside of peak there is scope, albeit round me the trains are usually pretty busy outside of unsocial hours.

There's also an element of 'if you build it they will come' - i.e. if numbers on a railway go up significantly it becomes easier to increase capacity/service patterns etc. For me in the SE the big issue is that there is precious little in the way of an M25 equivalent for rail. The other day I decided to watch one of the T20s - it was only 10 minutes more to get to Hove than it was for me to get to Radlett (8 miles away) by train, so I opted for the former. This would clear a lot of traffic off the roads.

I wonder to what extent it is carrot/stick - road use is pretty heavily subsidised and if you switched this round you'd probably make the railways pay.

Looks like it going to get worse through the Summer

Managers and train drivers could join the strikes across the railway, potentially setting up a complete national shutdown by the time of the Commonwealth Games in July.
The TSSA union, whose members manage control rooms, signalling and power for train operators and Network Rail, has launched its first strike ballot, while the Aslef union has called the first regional walkouts by drivers.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/ ... -action

robmatic wrote: Thu Jun 09, 2022 2:39 pm

ASMO wrote: Thu Jun 09, 2022 1:48 pm

Paddington Bear wrote: Thu Jun 09, 2022 1:33 pm

Not sure there's a lot of evidence for this. Prices reflect an unwillingness to subsidise rail travel rather than price gouging.

If you are claiming you want to reduce emissions, reduce the number of cars on the road, reduce our overall carbon footprint, then subsidising trains is an easy way to do it. As things stand, a 50 mile train journey into London is costing me £50.00 for a return, i reckon would cost me £10.00 to drive (probably less with a hybrid/full electric) vehicle.

How much scope is there to increase the number of passengers into London though? I thought that trains were already pretty crowded at peak times.

The trains I get on the Portsmouth Waterloo have had off peak services and number of carriages per service reduced, even at fairly peak times (pre-09:00). So there's definitely scope to increase back to those pre-pandemic levels.

Paddington Bear wrote: Thu Jun 09, 2022 2:57 pm

robmatic wrote: Thu Jun 09, 2022 2:39 pm

ASMO wrote: Thu Jun 09, 2022 1:48 pm

If you are claiming you want to reduce emissions, reduce the number of cars on the road, reduce our overall carbon footprint, then subsidising trains is an easy way to do it. As things stand, a 50 mile train journey into London is costing me £50.00 for a return, i reckon would cost me £10.00 to drive (probably less with a hybrid/full electric) vehicle.

How much scope is there to increase the number of passengers into London though? I thought that trains were already pretty crowded at peak times.

Outside of peak there is scope, albeit round me the trains are usually pretty busy outside of unsocial hours.

There's also an element of 'if you build it they will come' - i.e. if numbers on a railway go up significantly it becomes easier to increase capacity/service patterns etc. For me in the SE the big issue is that there is precious little in the way of an M25 equivalent for rail. The other day I decided to watch one of the T20s - it was only 10 minutes more to get to Hove than it was for me to get to Radlett (8 miles away) by train, so I opted for the former. This would clear a lot of traffic off the roads.

I wonder to what extent it is carrot/stick - road use is pretty heavily subsidised and if you switched this round you'd probably make the railways pay.

You might need some proper evidence to back up that claim that road use is heavily subsidised. It is ‘possible’ to get to that conclusion but there are some pretty convoluted steps required to get there.

shaggy wrote: Thu Jun 09, 2022 7:36 pm

Paddington Bear wrote: Thu Jun 09, 2022 2:57 pm

robmatic wrote: Thu Jun 09, 2022 2:39 pm

How much scope is there to increase the number of passengers into London though? I thought that trains were already pretty crowded at peak times.

Outside of peak there is scope, albeit round me the trains are usually pretty busy outside of unsocial hours.

There's also an element of 'if you build it they will come' - i.e. if numbers on a railway go up significantly it becomes easier to increase capacity/service patterns etc. For me in the SE the big issue is that there is precious little in the way of an M25 equivalent for rail. The other day I decided to watch one of the T20s - it was only 10 minutes more to get to Hove than it was for me to get to Radlett (8 miles away) by train, so I opted for the former. This would clear a lot of traffic off the roads.

I wonder to what extent it is carrot/stick - road use is pretty heavily subsidised and if you switched this round you'd probably make the railways pay.

You might need some proper evidence to back up that claim that road use is heavily subsidised. It is ‘possible’ to get to that conclusion but there are some pretty convoluted steps required to get there.

Roads are free to drive on and fuel duty hasn't been increased in over a decade, let's start from there.

I don’t know any of the figures and some of it might be subjective and difficult to calculate but the cost of road use in terms of accidents, and making large parts of cities and the countryside fucking ugly, noisy and polluted, must be quite considerable. For Yanks in particular, their obesity epidemic, is also surely partly caused by them driving everywhere rather than walking or cycling.

Kawazaki wrote: Thu Jun 09, 2022 12:26 pm

sockwithaticket wrote: Thu Jun 09, 2022 12:19 pm
Re-nationalise rail.

You'd get 10x as many strikes. Probably 20x.

It's working a treat in Scotland.

Blackmac wrote: Fri Jun 10, 2022 10:36 am

Kawazaki wrote: Thu Jun 09, 2022 12:26 pm

sockwithaticket wrote: Thu Jun 09, 2022 12:19 pm
Re-nationalise rail.

You'd get 10x as many strikes. Probably 20x.

It's working a treat in Scotland.

The nationalised railway in Scotland has now resolved the industrial dispute. Let’s see how long it takes the private companies in the rest of the country to follow suit.