Great Western Coffee Shop

http://www.itv.com/news/meridian/update/2015-06-10/talks-underway-to-prevent-great-western-strike/

They won't win but I suspect payment for 'new' technology will be demanded (and probably won)

Yes I agree, and it could rumble on for many, many months before any settlement is grudgingly accepted.

strike ballot on 30 June

[url][/http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-33046312url]

The latter isn't even in the control of FGW! Ridiculous

It's clear to me that the Union is after a political punchup with the Government - some of these demands are ridiculous and as you quite rightly say some are not even within the gift of FGW.

Clearly dinosaurs are not yet extinct.

Don't tell me you're surprised, TG?

The buffet isn't in control of FGW either - the trains do not have a buffet on them so it will be very difficult for FGW to meet RMT demands to have a buffet instead of a trolley.

I think FGW specified the train's layout, didn't they?

In practice, yes you are correct.
But in theory was not one of essential requirements of the new trains the ability to readily alter the internal layout so as to add a buffet ?

I think that the official line is still that a buffet could be added, though I agree that it wont happen.

Virgin West Coast have stated that they are to provide a shop type mini buffet on there version of IEP, and the safety duties of the guard will remain

Did you mean Virgin East Coast?

From First Great Western Press Release dated 3rd July.

I'm going to suggest you read these as contingency plans at this point


Not from the press release, but accompanying correspondence:


Full press release - http://atrebatia.info/rmt_set_july.pdf

Posted public at 08:00 upon appearance of press release on FGW site.

As with previous threatened disputes, I hope that a high priority will be given to ensuring that those trains that do run are of the maximum permitted length.
With so many services not able to run, there should be plenty of rolling stock available, and hopefully therefore no excuse for rush hour trains consisting of just 2 or 3 vehicles.

Will buffets and Pullmans be available ?. IMHO, they should be since one of the reasons for the dispute is the withdrawal of buffets. IMHO it would be a publicity gain for the relevant RMT staff to provide these services as normal, whilst pointing out that no such will be available on the new shorter trains.

Agreed, must be 6 car units however no doubt there will be a school of thought that sees this as an ideal opportunity to undertake maintenance.


As for catering, take a sandwich. The only people protesting about the withdrawal of buffets are the RMT and a few enthusiasts. If the service was profitable then FGW would have factored it in to the new trains. It's a commercial decision, as was dumping Travelling Chef....the space can better be used for more seats.

You may be right but I am not sure that is the full story.  AIUI, the decision to removed buffets was made by the DfT.  When given a free hand and not micromanaged by the DfT bean counters FGW has actually shown itself capable of investing in catering facilities.  Witness the installation of the the minibuffets. Something I understand that FGW spent real money on, were not forced to do and which was driven by customer service considerations only. 

Except a lot of depot staff are also in the RMT.

I see little point in running one train each weay a day on both Cotswolds routes.

Either no one will bother travelling as the times don't suit & will work from home, or it'll be so heavily oversubscribed that it'll leave pax behind. Not so bad in the AM where they can simply return home, but what happens in the evening? You could quite simply be stranded.

Frankly, don't bother trying & allocate them to other routes & bolster what you can offer there. Be far more use to more pax.

"Either no-one will bother travelling... or it'll be heavily oversubscribed"?!

Tell me, how do you work out that it'll be one of those two extremes, but can't possibly be somewhere in between?

As someone who actually lives in a Cotswold Line town I'm very glad they're planning to run something.

I can understand it as a statement.  I'd rather FGW said 'we aren't running any trains on xxx line today' so I know not to bother trying.  This is as opposed to standing on a platform for long periods knowing that when a train eventually arrives I will have to fight my way on to a rammed carriage that will take twice (or five times)  as long as normal to reach my destination due to making stops at every station and long dwell times whilst people try to shoehorn themselves on.

My manager understands 'there are no trains' as a statement, but 'we we attempt to run a service' translates to him as 'well why don't you just leave the house at 5am to make sure you're in by 9am'.

Although I do have leanings towards agreeing with the thinking one train a day in each direction is a next to useless token service, maybe the still to be agreed/announced arrangements with other operators of buses and trains may make some journeys less reliant on these one-off services at the penalty of a round the houses journey. Appreciate though this could be of no benefit where FGW is the only service, and would only crowd out other FGW services more if they are part of the journey.

.....and what happens if that one "homeward" service in the evening fails, which let's face it is a reasonable bet going by current reliability standards......are there replacement buses on standby? (no) will FGW foot the bill for hotels for stranded customers? (no).....how will people get home to the Cotswolds? I agree, one either way is worse than useless.

Are you agreeing or disagreeing with me? I'm not sure  ;D

Yes  ;D

Never run the last train because it might be cancelled? It's an interesting logic... but it kind of leads to not running any trains at all. :)

I would be seeking clarification if it might affect me, but if a train has been advertised as running, even if to an severely amended degree such as one train a day, then I would have thought that the NRCoC would still apply and that would then be considered the last train of the day so the following clause would apply:

43. Help from Train Companies if you are stranded
If disruption caused by circumstances within the control of a Train Company or a Rail
Service Company leaves you stranded before you have reached your destination printed
on or stored on your ticket, and the Train Company whose trains you are entitled to use
is unable to get you to that destination by other means, any Train Company which is in a
position to help will, if it reasonably can, either arrange to get you to that destination, or
provide overnight accommodation for you.

The list of 'circumstances outside the control of a Train Company' that follows that clause in the NRCoC makes no mention of industrial action.  So, they would be bound to provide a bus, or taxis, as they do now if the last train of the day is cancelled.

I need to get from Swindon to Gunnersbury on Friday 10th by 10:15. 

Thought best to avoid FGW altogether.  I could drive to Andover and catch the 08:05 and go via Waterloo.  Any better ideas? When is the Car Park full at Andover?

A few miles further to drive but what about Bicester North? Car par there is more than twice the size of Andover's. 575 spaces versus 262.

Little to choose in overall journey times to Gunnersbury, although via SWT is only two changes, versus three from Bicester North.

Via Waterloo fare is more expensive than via Marylebone.

Good point! I had imagined it would take more than 10 mins longer to get to Bicester.  However there is very little risk of traffic between Swindon and Andover and quite a risk in the peak around Oxford, particularly if there are no trains!

But the train we're saying does run, but so overcrowded that some fail to board. As the TOC has pre-warned that there are no further services available - & the strike is something outwith their control arguably - I think your suggdstion may not be the same as theirs.

*However*, I would expect the TOC to make this *abundantly* clear in advance...otherwise, yes, at least bustitution for those left behind

I know this will appear a daft question but I don't want to take anything for granted during a rail strike.  The London Paddington to Plymouth service is scheduled to run every two hours.  Does  that mean the service will run in the opposite direction?  I have to catch the train from Exeter St David's to Taunton on Thursday 9 July.

es, that means in every two hours in both directions

Thanks, ChrisB.

You also have the option of Cross Country services which will be running as normal, but may be a bit more crowded that usual.

I hereby nominate Bob M for the "Understatement of the day" award!  ;D

Excellent - I'll go to the Wetherspoons to celebrate!  ;D

Thanks bobm for letting me know that CrossCountry will be running, if there is a strike.  Best foot forward (or sharpest elbow), if it happens.

I'm noting the wording "Expected Rail Strike 09 July - 11 July 2015" on the front of the FGW web site, with a link to the press release.  Does the use of the word "expected" imply that there's little expectation of the talks achieving any steps sufficient to result in the action being cancelled or suspended?

Aren't they supposed to be meeting today?

Indeed - I was asking about an anticipated outcome.

I expect the strike to go ahead and have little faith in more talks averting the strike.

MOST strikes are over money, and in such cases an improved last minute offer is often made and either accepted or the action postponed whilst the improved offer is considered.

THIS dispute is however not primarily over money. It is over whom controls the doors, the withdrawal of buffets, and over who maintains the trains. Two of these subjects are not the sort of thing on which an improved offer can be made at the least minute.

FGW could offer to keep the doors under the control of the train manager, but probably wont IMHO.

As regards the withdrawal of buffets, the new trains are already being built without buffets. Whilst in theory flexibility of internal layout including the ability to add a buffet is an "essential requirement" of the design, I cant realistically see it happening. A compromise is just about possible by removing a luggage rack to provide a parking space for a trolley and then trying to persuade the RMT (and me) that this constitutes a buffet. I doubt that it would work, what the RMT (and I) want is a proper buffet that can prepare basic hot snacks to order. Bacon rolls, paninis, and the like, and not a parked trolley.

As regards the RMTs demand that maintenance of the new trains be brought in house, I don't believe that this can be done. Maintenance by the train supplier is part of the deal, with the contract based on the provision of a certain number of trains fit for use each day. IIRC the contract for the new trains does not even specify exactly how many are to be built, but instead specifies how many are to be available for use each day. It being up to the supplier to decide how many to build to provide the agreed number each day.

The issue isn't really about who controls the doors, but about always having a Train Manager on every train. The trains are capable of being operated without a Train Manager and that is what the RMT don't like. They want assurances that, despite the trains being able to run without a TM, FGW will never do so. FGW have repeated stressed that is not their intention to run the trains without a TM, apart from in extreme circumstances. Take this scenario - the TM is due to work a service from Paddington to Bristol but they have been displaced due to disruption and are stuck in Reading. No spare TM can be found so the only course of action available at present is to turf all the customers off the train and run it empty stock to Reading where the TM can join and allow customers to board. With the new trains it would be possible to run the train with all the customers on board to Reading and pick up the TM. This is the kind of circumstance that FGW are taking about, but the RMT would rather the current system is retained.

Yes, that's correct.  The RMT and some of their membership see it as the thin end of the wedge.  If they erode the responsibility of the TM and make it possible for trains to run DOO in exceptional circumstances, in years to come what's stopping the TOC from altering that further so that, for example, London to Penzance trains routinely only have a TM rostered between London and Exeter, or London to Worcester trains run DOO as standard.

The buffet car aspect of the action is pretty much a red herring as they can't really affect FGW or its customers to any great degree, though the TM dispute and the maintenance staff/train dispatchers obviously have much more power in that respect.

One thing that hasn't been mentioned mush is ASLEF's role in all of this.  The majority of FGW drivers do not work DOO trains, and you can be sure that there will be a resistance on the part of those that don't, principally on the HSS side of things, to start doing so without some kind of extra payment.  ASLEF have so far been reasonably quiet in this respect, they've said they support the RMT's campaign and that DOO should not be expanded, but over time it's yet another possible industrial action scenario.

The talks have stalled.  No great surprises there!

http://www.rmt.org.uk/news/talks-collapse-and-action-goes-ahead-on-first-great-western/ (http://www.rmt.org.uk/news/talks-collapse-and-action-goes-ahead-on-first-great-western/)

Have East Coast agreed to *all* these demands?

Not surprised they stalled. The press release from the RMT show's their belligerence. I really hope now that FGW stand firm and offer no concessions.

"There will also be a rally in support of RMT^s members on FGW in their dispute at 17.00 hours Wednesday 8th July at Paddington station"

I'm sure that will be a popular move amongst a few thousand commuters about to face two days of misery.

I assume that you definitely won't find any FGW RMT members using those trains on their day off though, because:

a.) they operate with the driver releasing and then closing the doors (when signalled to do so by the train manager),
b.) they have a catering trolley,
c.) they are maintained by in a depot controlled by the train manufacturer.

That's all so scary, it's little wonder XC trains run around empty most of the time...  ;D

Paul

Quite.  I have to say I admire the RMT for doing this.  If they believe in what they are doing they should be prepared to show their faces and argue their case. 

I suspect they won't be allowed to gather close to the concourse - it gets busy in any case, and it's almost incitement to public (dis)order....bet they go nearer the staff entrance on Eastbourne Terrace area.

All good points, though of course regarding point 'a', that's exactly what happens currently on non DOO turbo services operated by FGW.  If that method of operation was being suggested then I think settlement on that issue would be reached easily as the TM retains overall control of the dispatch and there would have to be one on every train.

Train times for Thursday 9th now available to view on Journey Planners, Real Time Trains etc.

Updated press release at https://www.firstgreatwestern.co.uk/strike and a link to a useful overview map (screen capture attached here). No news of any progress in the talks; wording remains such that it suggests that the strike will happen .    No news / information that I can see about ranger and rover ticket use for those of us planning to do some travelling on such tickets purchased ways ahead.  And a new question from me - "after the strikes and overtime ban - what then with regard to follow up action and/or resolution of the issues which are so significant that they're causing staff to withdraw their labour?"

Helpful map from FGW. However it would be more useful if it highlighted that other operators ARE running as normal on routes where FGW aren't - eg Salisbury-Portsmouth/Southampton-Brighton.

For those travelling to London, the tube is affected by strike action on Thursday as well.

There was from the RMT - check their website - talks broke down, nothing new on the table apparently - definitely going ahead.

The updated page on the FGW says no catering on any trains & bring your own suggested.


Yes, they ought to address that specifically - I think I saw tweeted advice that pro-rata refunds will be given.


More of the same I reckon. Possibly extended to 48hrs duration quite quickly.

I've just received the following in my e-mail:


If anyone is interested, please reply here or send me a personal message and I'll provide contact details.

National Express are taking advantage of FGW's woes:

http://www.nationalexpress.com/rail-disruption.aspx

What's not yet clear is whether where other TOCs cover the same route (or part of, but still might be more than useful), that these other TOCs will honour tickets where usually, travel would need to be with FGW. Inter-availability I think is the name of the game - but will they play ball?

Some ticket acceptance is in place with other operators on routes affected. That is made clear at https://www.firstgreatwestern.co.uk/strike when you click on the individual area links.

Where services are not operating there are some limited arrangements in place for Season Ticket holders to use local buses. Those already holding non-season train tickets on routes with no service will have to buy a bus ticket and claim a refund on their train ticket.

I have spotted one error in the info for individual routes though. For Westbury to Weymouth it says:

"Customers for Weymouth from Westbury are advised to take a South West Trains service to Southampton and change for connecting services to Weymouth. Tickets will be accepted on this route."

You can't take a SWT service from Westbury to Southampton. The advice should be to take a Bristol Parkway-Salisbury FGW service from Westbury to Salisbury and change to SWT there for Southampton.

LUTON Airport ??

SWT run 4 weekday services from Temple Meads to London Waterloo via Salisbury 

Yep, my bad.

I think it should still offer the option of FGW Bristol Parkway-Salisbury or SWT Bristol TM-Waterloo

At least SWT are being kind - they certainly don't have to accept FGW tickets unless the T&Cs allow - in which case, it applies 24/7 and wouldn't be different under this action.

I suspect XC aren't going to be so accommodating - but prove me wrong

Also - thankfully, the idea that NR should be broken up & run by each TOC hasn't gained credibility?....this action would have an even worse effect with the signallers being brought out too. I wonder whether other TOCs on the same routes would have a case for legal action?....maybe for another thread.

Okay then.

You don't say where that was cut 'n pasted from, but thanks.

Quoted from the FGW strike page under the 'Devon and Cornwall' link.

Just let a group try Groupsave though.....

I was also wondering about that. There are still FGW services running where XC operate in FGW land. Anyone with GroupSave should be directed to them.

That said, the information given makes no mention of ticket types, just that tickets will be accepted by CrossCountry. I very much doubt any CrossCountry Train Manager will be charging FGW ticket holders for a new ticket. If they do I'd expect that to be be refunded.

Besides which, outwith the strike, I remain of the opinion that, despite what CrossCountry might say to the contrary, GroupSave tickets should be valid on their services. Any operator restriction on the use of a ticket has to be printed on the ticket. The National Rail Conditions of Carriage says:


Train companies may supplement passengers rights in the NRCoC, but they can't over-ride them.

Ahhh, but isn't Groupsave an 'offer' by various TOCs? Which TOCs don't have to agree to.....

Again:


Equally, they can't pick and choose which conditions to abide by, just as the passenger can't. I'd like all split tickets to be valid on services that don't call at the split point. That doesn't mean I can ignore Conditions 19(a) & 19(b) just because I don't agree with them.

If CrossCountry don't want to accept GroupSave on inter-available routes then they need to get ATOC to either change the Conditions of Carriage or ensure the operator restriction is printed on the ticket.

I'm aware of at least three seperate instances where CrossCountry have refunded GroupSave passengers who were required to buy new tickets when said passengers asserted their rights under the NRCoC. I think CrossCountry are well aware they are on shaky ground and, to the best of my knowledge, they've never prosecuted anyone.

Anyways, this is off topic and is a discussion for another place and time.

A little more effort could be made for stations between Westbury and Weymouth rather than just say 'make alternative arrangements'.

You can add: For Dorchester and Upwey change at Southampton. For Yeovil change at Salisbury.

I am being a little pedantic here. Overall FGW have done a good job of providing info on their website.

The list of affected services says that Bristol - Gloucester will be every two hours, but there's no mention of what happens beyond (Gloucester - Worcester - Great Malvern), not even in the list of 'sorry -not operating' services.

Just one service each way between Worcester SH and Bristol TM listed by journey planners as running on Thursday.

0639 WOS-BRI 0836
1641 BRI-WOS 1817

Full timetables seem to be promised for Wednesday

Was always likely to be - the instruction to union members is not to book on for shifts which start after 18:30.  The vast majority working tomorrow will have started work by then - with the notable exception of the sleepers, which is why they are cancelled on Wednesday night but will run on Friday night as staff book on again after 18:30 on Friday.

It's 'Virgin Trains East Coast' (VTEC) now, not just 'East Coast', but I think the answer is no since I believe the plan remains that Agility Trains will be in charge of maintaining both IEP fleets (GW and EC). VTEC may have met most of the RMT's other demands though, I don't know.

I'm no commuter, and I'm in Wales not the south west, but I hope the broadcasters will find somebody who will air similar views to mine, which are:
1. assurance is needed, from the DfT, that this and all subsequent franchises must retain a Guard on every train or, at the very least, that a Guard must be diagramed on every train with heavy penalties for the operator if more than a specified number of services are without a guard (due to staff shortage, disruption etc.) on any one day (FirstGW only have any influence on the current franchise, so the assurance needs to come from DfT not them)
2. The structure of the industry which allows DfT/NR/TOCs to pass blame arround in circles needs to be tackled, with the reponsibilities of each entity clearly defined
3. The Intercity Express Programme has not been conducted with passenger's best interests, with capacity being reduced on certain lines (despite capacity increases for London and Bristol) by new shorter trains and the removal of guards and buffets.

Unless item (1.) above is addressed, I am please the RMT is taking industrial action although it is very disapointing there is no less-disruptive method of trying to make the DfT listen.

Every train? Even where there is DOO currently?

UPDATE: FGW have updated their strike info page on the website to reflect the above. If anyone from FGW reading this well done. Most of us on this forum want to see your customers affected by this action as little as possible so are glad to see the right info made available for those who need to travel during the strike.

Maybe this should be posted on the Pedants thread, but I have just received the following email from FGW....


An interesting use of the word 'alternation' - which, fortunately, does have the same meaning as 'alteration'   ::)  :-[  ;D

They won't listen and this strike will change nothing. Dft specified IEP (however good or bad we think it is) with First Group being the franchise holders who will introduce it to the GW network, so striking against FGW will make no difference. It was the same when HST was introduced. I was too young to remember this but I have read there was trouble with the unions then as well.

It wouldn't surprise me if FGW are under instruction from Dft to hold firm on this one and 'ride out' the industrial action.

If we're going "pedant", I'll say they are similar but not the same.

http://docstore.mik.ua/orelly/perl3/prog/ch05_08.htm

Alternation is a train at 08:36 or one at 08:49.
Alteration is changing the train at 08:49 to run at a different time such as 08:36.

I had also pointed out to FGW, via social media, the missing/ambiguous information on their 'strike' page.

I think it's a work in progress though as the Weymouth to Westbury bit currently says:


Indeed it will be needed. Tickets to Yeovil Pen Mill are not valid to Junction.

Apparently one of the new items offered on Monday was an assurance that DOO would not be extended beyond its present limits in the Thames Valley.  Thus if FGW had agreement to run an IEP without a Train Manager in times of disruption it couldn't go too far.

Apologies for Weymouth to Westbury bit, I made a typo in what I sent them, and with my note for it saying it will need ticket acceptance it was added to the site, I've requested it be sorted.

:)

Top work Ollie.  ;D

Could you perhaps also look to get the morning and evening service from Bristol to Worcester and back mentioned somewhere?

Also the Plymouth to Gunnislake section makes no mention of the morning and evening services that are planned to run.

The Cotswold Line service has been upgraded from "peak hour only" to "Between Worcester and Oxford: A two hourly service will operate at major stations along the line".

Excellent news. I might get a pint in Worcester on Friday evening after all...

Yes, good news indeed.  I think the Cornbury Festival is the main reason for the increase.  I think it'll be a Class 180 operated shuttle service.

I'm giving my previous post a 'bump' here, as this is a genuine invitation from Sky News to any of our readers in the South West who may want to put their views across.


I've already replied by e-mail to Siobhan:


Siobhan replied:


I quite understand that many of our railway staff members may be reluctant to take up this offer, but would any of our commuter passenger members be interested?

I'd simply send you a PM with details of Siobhan's e-mail address and mobile number, without obligation, for you to make contact with Sky News if you want to do so.

Thanks, CfN.  ;)

I'll ask about the Bristol to Worcester bit.

Unfortunately Plymouth to Gunnislake is now cancelled as there won't be enough crew to work it.

Indeed, a number of others did too.


No trains to Foregate Street, only Shrub Hill. Last one back from Shrub Hill just after 8....

Last train back isn't an issue, nor SH vs FS - we moor our narrowboat in Worcester and have functioning pairs of legs. :) Unfortunately it looks like the last Worcester-bound train is 19.40 from Charlbury, though, which is too early for us.

If you want to go clubbing, I've just noticed that, although FGW stated that the Thursday & Friday times would be the same, the 2148 ex-PAD is running on Friday as a turbo, so you have a 2310 to WOS too.

Oh, that's worth knowing - thanks. Bit old for clubbing but will mean we can set out on our boat first thing Saturday morning!

Public letter from Mark Hopwood


According to a @BBCNews tweet, they had further talks this morning.

Which proved fruitless.

No movement from the belligerents.

http://www.rmt.org.uk/news/intercity-express-programme-talks-breakdown--strike-is-on/

I see the plan is run a pretty much normal LTV service between Reading and Paddington - is this on the assumption that sufficient RMT members will turn up?

I'm just concerned at the possibility of waking up in the morning and having to deal with the consequences of a miscalculation and heaps of cancellations.

The LTV services will run DOO as they usually do.  There's only a very small percentage of drivers that are in the RMT, (95% or so are in ASLEF who are not in dispute), so, with not all trains running there should be a surplus of available drivers.

And so it begins...
I can report that Paddington at 16.30 resembled something akin to Dunkirk as everyone and their brothers attempted to board the 16.42 to Bourne end.

It's rather hot and sticky, and overcrowded due to being 2 carriages.

I am guessing that is more to do with folk getting to Padd before the Tube strike takes effect than the FGW industrial action

Well that was a novelty.....9 car Turbo from Reading to Taplow Central!

Westbound HSTs arriving at Reading from 1630 onwards full and standing - that's a long old haul to Exeter on your feet, clearly people getting away early.

and


Ouch...

I am guessing it is quite a lot to do with it only being 2 carriages?

It didn't help at all

The 17.49 PAD to MAI was a bit emptier than usual tonight.. again probably because people had left work early to avoid the tube strike

It is normally only 2 coaches, whilst it is a busy train I've not known it to be packed and standing

... With the toilet door open to house an extra person and one in the doorway. :D

I am now on my usual Thursday train out of Bradford-on-Avon. Running as the first service of the day instead of second. Platform was much busier than usual and would you believe it - the train is twice the normal size!

Got the 0654 from Taplow Central to Reading this morning, 3 cars as usual so expected it to be packed but if anything it was quieter than usual..........I guess people have decided to watch the cricket/tennis/sit in the sun (....sorry I mean work from home!)  :D

Reading station eerily quiet, barriers all open, half hearted group of rather scruffy looking pickets 10 metres from the station entrance with what seemed to be a local radio reporter nearby.

I note that there are a few last minute cancellations due to "members of staff being unavailable"..........last minute conversions to the comrades cause or a sudden & coincidental virus triggered by fine weather/live sporting events?

Couple of pals who got earlier trains to Paddington report that getting cabs was pretty easy despite Tube strike.

After all the delays last week with the weather I couldn't be arsed risking yet more delays from this strike, despite FGW saying most services would be running normally (I don't get all this union stuff so didn't realise most drivers are unaffected on the turbos), and so decided to work from home today and tomorrow.

I hope all of you that are, or have to travel are successful in your journeys, and if the LTV services do run OK then at least I will be prepared to go to the office during the next strike.

I had no problems whatsoever. My local station was very quiet compared to usual. Local train was a little late but still not as busy as normal despite being a 2 car rather than a 3 and running hourly rather than half-hourly.

Reading was quiet, I boarded a slightly delayed HST which was almost empty in 1st class. Paddington station wasn't overly busy, the gates were open.

The usual utter tube-strike chaos outside at the bus stops but I walk from Paddington anyway.

I find it ironic that our TVs have been filled with coverage of the 2005 tube bombings and their aftermath - including the shutting down of the network - 10 years ago this week, and here we are with a tube closure for very different reasons.

So my question is this...

Today, those that have travelled have reported reasonable to good travel experiences on FGW, but how much of that is due to the reduction in passenger numbers caused not by FGW's strike but the Tube strike?
In other words, will pax numbers increase markedly on Friday morning when the Tube reopens and will FGW's arrangements creak under those numbers?

Wish me luck I have to be in London this afternoon and am hoping to return to Bristol this evening !

I'll be in a position to answer that this time tomorrow.  ;)

Though I'm slightly surprised that FGW/Tube strike dates were chosen that overlapped so much.  I would have thought that maximum disruption would have been caused if one finished when the other started.

It wouldn't be the first time that the Trade Unions have succeeded where the Luftwaffe, IRA, Al-Qaeda etc have failed in closing down the Network......

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-33456837


Dream on, Mr Cash.....

With FGW not in a franchise but in management contract may be me being a bit sceptical and adding 2 and 2 and getting 5 that there is the hand of a Mandarin steering FGW to get DOO in place on SET also to get more seats in less carriages after all a buffet even a mini one takes seating space

FGW will be back in a franchise contract from September. A direct award admittedly, but not a management contract.

I'm a little confused... On the FGW Website there is the following:


But according to RTT the 08:02 service this morning did infact run as scheduled. With the times listed under Real Time I am reasonably comfortable in saying this train did infact run as planned.

(http://i.prntscr.com/76d20183c08a46d784b72c8bd4d04efc.png)

It seems the 17:03 London Paddington - Plymouth also stopped at Frome this evening...

(http://i.prntscr.com/edd29cd6f8464f989556c956d5cc0726.png)

As well as an 09:49 Bristol Temple Meads - Weymouth service...

(http://i.prntscr.com/3ad09fa7d1464c6ba5ec9c3cfa6f6491.png)

So if the FGW website is to be believed, trains ran on routes they claimed there would be no service...

I've mixed opinions on this personally. Was it sensible to say, no trains just in case we really can't run any trains. Or did they know these trains would run, just didn't want people to find out?

I am rather disappointed however that FGW are upholding peak time validity on tickets however. The only way back to Frome from London today was on a peak time train, when ordinarily there would be many options available with a change of trains.

So not only do you get one train, you pay full price for the privilege and that's just tough... Just wow... ::) :o :-X

My guess is that FGW planned for not having any conductors reporting for work at Weymouth this morning. In the event, someone did report for work so the train ran. I would think it's best to probably err on the side of caution and not create false hope that a service would be running when FGW didn't know if it would, especially in such a rural area where trying to find alternatives at short notice may be quite difficult.
 

FGW tweeted at 13:02 that ticket restrictions were lifted for the rest of the day.


TLM

I agree with everything you said there TLM :)

As I said, I have mixed views.

I did post this on FGWs Facebook page so I'll copy paste their response :)

I was unaware of the U Turn regarding Ticket Validity, very sensible. Personally I would have seriously objected to paying any excess if there was only 1 train that could get me home in the peak when ordinarily there would be many options.


For some of those stations it would still be awkward even with reasonable notice. I found the message on FGWs website rather insidious actually. "Customers should make alternative arrangements" Could be because from say the likes of Bruton, FGW are one of the only realistic public transport providers.

Without the train, try getting to Bristol by Bus... It would take most of the day to do less than 50 miles... My friend could drive it in probably 45 minutes

FGW did manage to run a few extra trains that I am aware of keeping an eye on the situation today: 0640 Weymouth-Bristol, 0949 Bristrol-Weymouth and 1600 Bristol-Paddington.

It's often the case that when a strike takes place that a few more trains are able to operate than originally planned, particularly if a strike goes on and staff eventually begin return to work.

The question is are the workforce who went on strike today prepared to walk again in a week or so time?

Purely for the record, here is the text of a press release issued by First Great Western at midday today (Thursday):

Just popping in for a quick Coffee before bed
As I said in my earlier post today I've been to London and back by FGW and lived to tell the tale
Without exception today has been the most pleasurable journey I've had in many a long while
Normaly I'm fit and quite able to walk quite well Thankyou but the last couple of weeks or so I've been using a walking stick due to problems with my back
The amount of help and assistance that I have been offered today has been exceptional every single member of FGW staff that I've had dealings with today have been under a great deal of pressure but regardless of the strike have done their upmost to ensure that I was able to complete my journey without any inconvience
So credit where it's due   To all those that worked so hard today to make my journey and everyone else's  as easy as it could be under the circumstances
A Very Big Thankyou   WP.

Nice necessary return trip to Oxford on the strike day.

The stations were easier to pass through with the barriers open - remember NSE's "open station" concept?

Also lots of smart suited helpful gents and perfumed boufant ladies in hi-vis vests were crowding round me to help. Apparently they were the managers, told to evacuate their desks for the duration.

It crossed my mind that this exchange could be made permanent as they're so good at customer service. I'd like to see what the uniformed staff could do in the alternative role. 

OTC

There is a lot to be said in any business for staff to try out many roles - a "win / win" even if it occasionally puts them out of their comfort zone. Clearly, there are exceptions due to health / medical / safety / training / knowledge / physical ability

Looks like the 0640 Weymouth-Bristol and 0949 Bristol-Weymouth services are running again today. Source FGW Journeycheck.
http://www.journeycheck.com/firstgreatwestern
A good place to see if additional trains are running today.

Oooooh be careful! You'll have another strike on your hands! Demarcation and all that!

Agreed thought the levels of politeness and customer service have been noticeably higher over the last couple of days.

Another very quiet morning it seems, I counted 5 in the carriage of my train this morning, normally at least 30, breezed through Reading and its open ticket barriers, same ramshackle collection of pickets outside drinking Starbucks coffee (the irony!), looking forward to a day topping up the tans no doubt.

Further Additional Trains:

0900 Bristol-Paddington
1200 Paddington-Bristol
1526 Bristol Temple Meads-Weston-super-Mare (stopping service)
1610 Weston-super-Mare-Bristol Temple Meads (stopping service)
1948 St Erth-St Ives

I've also been impressed by the staff working the services yesterday and today.

Impeccably polite and good service all round - some others could certainly learn from these people.

FGW Twitter team are doing a great job too.

I'm delighted that there were no reports of chaos on FGW yesterday, no reports of dangerous overcrowding, no reports of people left behind.

It's also heartening to read that more staff than expected turned up for work, showing that support for the action is far from rock solid. I wonder how the belligerents at the RMT will spin that.

I don't think that the RMT are going to win this one.
Not only is support for the strike a bit thin, but experience of previous disputes suggests that each successive strike tends to be less effective than the earlier ones.

More and more management grades learn to replace the strikers as time goes on, and a few more strikers drift back to work, and more customers find ways around the strike.

I predict that in a few years time that the new trains will be in use, without buffets, with the drivers controlling the doors, and the trains maintained by the builders of them.

As I have previously stated I have strong misgivings about the new trains, but I don't believe that buffets will be retrofitted despite the wishes of the RMT and me!
And I don't believe that the contract for supply AND MAINTENANCE of the new trains will be torn up to appease the RMT either.

I find this a bit of an odd one, as when the Wales & Borders franchise received the class 175's they were (and are) maintained at the purpose built facility in Chester by the manufacturer and the same with the Pendolino's & Voyagers for Virgin (both Alstom) - I don't recall such a fuss being kicked up then - I wonder what has changed?!

The 1707 Paddington-Bristol stopping service via Berks and Hants is now running. Should help cope with the Friday evening rush out of London a little.

Edit: 1600 Bristol-Paddington also running.

Mick Cash needs something to prove his worth to his members, Bob didn't, and had better fish to fry.

RMT strike on Southern suspended

From the BBC

This isn't over...

From the  Transport Salaried Staffs' Association (http://tssa.org.uk/en/Your-union/Your-company/company-pages/first-great-western/index.cfm/tssa-calls-ballot-at-first-great-western):

You won't get pax to the buffet on busy express services. The stats say so

Who's stats? Where can we find them? FGW haven't published any breakdown of the answers to their on train surveys. In fact we don't even know what the questions were, the sample size or when and where services were surveyed. A good question to put to Ben Rule perhaps. I'm choosing not to do so as I'm both a moderator and not wholly in agreement with the Q&A session.

I have no problem with trolley catering if it is done properly with the latest equipment - it works well with many inter city operators across the globe. I have a problem though if survey questions have been weighted in favour of the answer FGW wants.

With the Class 800/801 design alledgedly locked down by the DfT some time ago what exactly would FGW have done if the on train survey had favoured retention of buffets?

Show us the questions and full results of the survey FGW. Not just uncorroborated statements that the survey favoured an at seat service.

And you won't get a trolley through the train if it's a busy express either.  Example today - "I can't get the trolley through so please come and visit me in coach F".    But that's not stats - it's comment / hearsay on.  And I too would like to see the evidence behind what we're told.

The survey would not have favoured the retention of buffets. The purpose of a survey is to justify decisions already taken, not to find out what people really want.
I don't think the majority of customers want shorter trains, underfloor engines, or seats not aligned with windows either ! but that is what we are getting, it is called progress.

That is a cynical view.

And very often I have to admit I think it's the correct view ... but NOT ALWAYS.

I can point proudly to three surveys taken within the last year in which I have been involved which has given very real results and not entirely what I would have expected, nor any "planned" answer.   

The marketing effectiveness survey last summer for the TransWilts guided us on which or our many marketing tools had brought people onto the train, and formed the basis of informing where ongoing effort is most likely to be reflected in increased passenger use.  Two other surveys (Corhsam residents and Transwilts passengers) provided valuable flow and sensitivity data, and indeed they bias Transwilts suggestions for the future - nothing that caused a U turn, but some food for thought that's certainly move priorities around.  This is probably not the thread to go into them in depth.

As well as helping to confirm a decision already made (bad survey reason!), there are also surveys out there who's purpose is to involve and give ownership of decisions to the surveys, and such purpose can be there in the good surveys that will be used, the bad ones that are designed to confirm a decision, and in some others that are merely there to engage and to show that the surveyor is interested.   A classic question from one of the latter:
"Should more trains call at Bradford-on-Avon and Melksham" and the choice was "Yes", "No" - question asked (you may not be surprised) prior to 7th May. Sure - it engages, gets lots of positive answers, makes us realise that person asking really cares. Problem is there wasn't a suitable answer for me.  I believe that more trains should call at Melksham, with gaps of up to 2.5 hours halved ... but Bradford-on-Avon with 2 or more trains each way per hour, needs longer trains (which could be accommodated) rather than more of them (which would give severe infrastructure issues!)

This has been done to death elsewhere - you don't need a survey to tell you that something isn't making money - buffets seems to be an article of faith to some people on here, sadly they are clearly in the minority - it's a commercial decision, if buffets made money for FGW, they would have retained them - it's not a social enterprise.

Travelling Chef was binned because demand was low and it lost money, buffets are going the same way - its the wrong product in the wrong place at the wrong price......better quality and better value food is available at most stations and elsewhere to take on board....a sandwich/tea trolley is adequate to cater for the remainder.

Pullman is successful but it's a niche/luxury product for a niche market, affordable to very few.

Absolutely spot on, especially the commercial decision viz social enterprise comment. Of course of they were making money, they'd be retained

In my view, providing a buffet is part of running an inter city railway service, even if it does not make money directly.
After all how much profit is made by toilets, wheelchair spaces and luggage racks ? yet these facilities are provided as part of running a railway service.

Similar arguments apply to infrastructure. How much profit is made by waiting shelters ? none at all! yet they continue to be (reluctantly I suspect) provided.

I suspect trains would loose significant business if they were to loose the loos from longer distance ones.  And I suspect the same cannot be said of the buffet these days.  Legal and moral hot water if no wheelchairs, loss of business if no luggage.

All those items are still all heavily used. If they weren't, they too would be being reused some other way. The public are speaking that they don't need a buffet any longer, otherwise they'd use it!

Times move on....

I think those that have a tipple in the Buffet with their friends/colleagues on the way home will be upset that they lose the place they can all congregate and have a chat.

Having a chat with a TM last weekend he seems to think retaining the buffets is a necessity. Otherwise the loud sweary types will cause complaints by passengers. But management tell staff not to get into conflict. So the TM gets complaints for not doing anything.  Thus putting him in a situation they cannot do anything to resolve.

As for toilets, luggage racks and wheelchair places on Long Distance InterCity services. I don't think anyone in their right mind would expect ANYONE to travel Plymouth - London Paddington or Bristol Temple Meads - Newcastle without using a toilet at least once. That doesn't take into account delays.

Wheelchair Spaces are required by Equality Law s so that doesn't bear relevance in the debate here I think.

Luggage racks are just common sense for long distance trains. Sorry. But if you're going away for the week(end) and take a small suitcase then you'd expect to be able to carry it on the train. Indeed the NRCOC permits luggage on trains.

Sorry for briefness and if I appear rude. On a smart phone and train due imminently ;)

Sorry for

Possibly, although at times their very presence, especially if "loud and sweary" puts others off from going to the buffet and so it is a vicious circle - unless those at the buffet purchase enough to compensate for those put off!

And a few in peak-hour buffets win't buy enough to maje a profit

Are you seriously suggesting this as a reason why buffets should be retained?

I'd say it's a reason not to sell alchohol on trains, or at least not to those who are already inebriated (.......which is against the law in any case)

If people are being "loud and sweary" and upsetting other passengers, the TM should ask them politely to be quiet and if they don't,call the Police!

Selling alcohol to someone already drunk is akin to trying to put a fire out with petrol!

Agree with your other points re: toilets and luggage 100%

I've also had a TM tell me that he'd like buffets to remain as it somewhere for the drunks to gather. No buffet area apparently means these drunks will upset passengers elsewhere on the train.

I too think this is one of the flimsiest reasons for retaining buffets.

The drunks don't all congregate in the buffet - there are plenty on a Friday in particular that bring their own supplies.

I do tend to agree with the view that a rowdy crowd standing all round the buffet puts other people off going. It might be different if there was a seated 'snug' area like the 442s had so the counter is clear.

Indeed, sometimes it seems impossible to get away from them. This is one of the reasons why I'd rather do my current commute by car as I was getting pretty cheesed off with drunks (far worse in First Class incidentally - Swansea services) disturbing my journey whilst effectively being (generally quite discretely) encouraged and egged on by members of staff.



Agreed, it puts me off. Trains would be a better place without people who can't manage to drink in moderation.

So, Travelling Chef and (we're assuming) the current buffets lost/loose money but the Pullman doesn't. The Pullman is clearly the right product for the niche market it is there to serve. So, shouldn't the question be what product range (and pricing) would be sucessful in attracting customers to the mass-market buffet? I never had a chance to sample the Travelling Chef offer, partly because it was on a limited number of services and I'm not a frequent traveller on First Great Western and partly because I was not aware of it much before it was withdrawn. I wonder therefore how much it's failure was done to lack of advertising and limited provision of the offer.

The sort of items you can bring with you (sandwiches and drinks) are the sort of thing you can buy from a trolley. A buffet which offers little more than that isn't going to be very successful surely? So, doesn't the buffet need to offer something more? I think I've seen trolleys on some TOCs serving hot drinks branded as Starbucks, so would something like Wetherspoons buffet cars work?

At ^5 a pint?....I doubt it.

No progress in the talks between RMT and FGW this afternoon.

Not surprised, looks like a real stalemate in this dispute. Not looking good on the London Underground either with the unions joining forces again for another 24 hour walkout starting 2130 5th August.

Which ither unions have joined ASLEF?

ASLEF have announced a strike. I was asking Timmer which others I've missed joining them in the strike

Sitting (as I / we are) on the outside and looking in, I find it incredibly hard to see where a solution acceptable to both sides might come.   Let's hope it's incredibly hard because I'm uninformed, rather than because there simply is no solution.

Moderator note: Discussion on London Underground strike action has been given a dedicated topic:

http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=15954.0

I suspect it'll come down to money. The money the members won't want to lose by taking strike days/refusing overtime.

I get the sense that there isn't a huge groundswell of support across all RMT members at FGW for a protracted dispute. Only 41% of those balloted favoured strike action. The disruption the vocal minority caused was inconvenient but not catastrophic. I predict support will wane rather than harden.

The vocal minority of belligerents may not like the changes, but there are no planned redundancies and no planned changes to terms and conditions.

From the BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-33535992):


That latest open letter from Mark Hopwood in full:

From the Swindon Advertiser (http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/13420825._Substantially_revised__offer_made_by_First_Great_Western_to_RMT/)

'Buffet cars to remain in service on some routes'

I wonder what that means?  Perhaps the new AT300s for the Devon/Cornwall services from London will be built with a buffet?  After all, Mark Hopwood has gone on record saying it's too late to modify the SET 800/801s.

It's referring to the AT300s, this new commitment would require approval from DfT and Hitachi though, but it's something FGW would look to get as soon as possible.

Or perhaps the AT300 deal isn't going ahead and buffets will remain in HST sets used for far west services.

Presumably this will soon be clarified ? I doubt that FGW much care what I would like, but I expect that the RMT will want clarity along the lines of how many buffets are to be retained on which routes and for how long.
The options would seem to be

1) Add buffets to a token few of the SETs, probably not much more than a static trolley.
2) Retain HSTs with buffets for the far west.
3) Promise that the proposed AT300s for the far west will have buffets.

I doubt that any of the above will satisfy the RMT, or me !

1) Wont work unless proper buffets are fitted to a significant proportion , which seems unlikely
2) Wont satisfy the RMT as the dispute is about the new SETs and not about the possible retention of some HSTs.
3) Wont satisfy the RMT for the same as in 2, and also after dropping buffets from the SETs, no one will believe any promises about what might be on the AT300s.

I suppose that it MIGHT mean that doubts already exist about the capacity of the SETs, and that extra vehicles are to be built, perhaps lengthening the 9 car units to 10 car by building buffets. Not very hopeful though.

The RMT won't ever be satisfied, but they will eventually have to settle for some sort of compromise.  This proposal (assuming it is as we think) is an interesting one, and with the length of journey on the Cornish routes being quite significant, the case for a buffet is much stronger.  Personally I'd like to see them on all the Swansea services as well, but that now looks to be impossible.  However, I was assuming that Cornish services would be losing their buffets too, either when the AT300s arrive or the HSTs are rebuilt, so that at least is good news in my opinion.

What I find strange is that with their members, the drivers, having to do extra duties, i.e. push a button to close the doors, ASLEF haven't yet declared their hand in claiming extra money for this task!!

'Paved the way' sounds slightly ambiguous. Is it now guaranteed that a guard will be present or is this still 'a guard will be diagramed but may be left behind'?

The proposal is that trains wouldn't be able to run DOO unless it's an area that already has DOO, and even then it would only be if a train manager really couldn't be found.. e.g. disruption.

So, say disruption has caused displacement, so train manager is at Reading, but the train and driver are at Paddington. Current process would be cancel from Paddington, run empty to Reading and resume train, proposal would allow passengers to be on board to Reading where train manager could be collected.

Though as I understand it, the driver would still be fully responsible for dispatch duties regardless.

That sounds good if I'm a passenger at Paddington. What happens if the emergency alarm goes off in the disabled toilet on the way to Reading?

How often has that happened in the last year? (for the sake of example)

And what can be done while stuck between stations?

If it's for a medical reason, assistance can more easily be given while at a station, if it's because they've locked themselves in, well....

Agree, in most cases all that can be done between stations is to telephone for an ambulance to meet the train at the next station. With the general availability of cellphones another passenger could do that. Or presumably the driver can use the cab secure radio system to have the train met by a first aid team.

That system works extremely well on Chiltern in their DOO area.

I'm reassured by that.

I agree that assistance-at-the-next-worthwhile-station is the best strategy. Though I'm not sure that you could rely on other passengers with mobiles.

As all the suburban trains running between Paddington and Reading are already DOO and will have either a toilet for disabled or, in the case of the Crossrail trains, no toilet at all, why should your hypothetical case be any more significant/dangerous/awkward in a Class 800/801 train than a suburban train?

In any case the journey time from Paddington to Reading will soon be back to that achieved in the early days of the HSTs, i.e., 20 or 22 minutes. Assuming the hypothetical passenger goes to the toilet 5 minutes after the train has left Paddington and then, a bit later, calls for assistance the train will have less than 10 minutes to run to reach Reading.

If the passenger in the toilet for disabled waits much longer before calling for assistance then it is most likely that the next suitable stop will be Didcot or Newbury rather than Reading.

As a passenger I do have concerns about trains being run with only a driver.  I don't necessarily see the need for the second person to be a fully qualified Guard.  But I do think that there needs to be cast-iron guarantees that a train will not run without a second member of staff (with the ability to contact control, fetch a first aid kit, call the BTP, open a locked toilet door, and provide reassurance to passengers)  I don't care if that person is normally a buffet steward, a trolley steward, a ticket checker or a cleaner; but I think when you are talking about 600 people at 125mph with gaps of up to half an hour between stations,  having the driver as the only employee on board is going too far. 

A constructive proposal from the RMT would be to offer for Guards now freed from door opening duties to undertake a customer service role in order to pay their way.  After all, on aircraft the cabin crew are there for your safety and highly trained in aircraft evacuation etc, but they spend all their time looking after the passengers and only drop that role in an emergency.   

I wonder if FGW would accept that a train cannot leave without a Guard if in return the Guard agreed to push a drinks trolley and thereby cover some of his/her costs

oooh, you'll need to persuade the RMT that their highly trained, safety critical jobs aren't being dumbed down! Good luck on that one....

.......couldn't the driver push the drinks trolley through the train, check tickets and handle Customer Service issues too?

Once the train's moving there's not much for him to do between stations after all, surely he could just get one of the passengers to keep an eye on things up front whilst he's keeping busy pouring tea and clipping tickets?

.......got to sweat the assets after all!!!  ;D

I think I can spot a tongue well in a cheek there ... but got me thinking. Once all the local stuff's out the way on Crossrail, will that leave spare station capacity?   Why not have a longer time to turn trains around, get people to board earlier - that way you would have time to weight luggage and make extra charges for big / heavy items, and you could even install a sort of cafe in one of the carriages where people could buy food and drinks.  Making money even without the cost of moving the train  ;D

Inspiring suggestions...............how about a Wetherspoons on every train? Hot towels and massages? In "flight" movies? Beds in First class? The possibilities are endless!  :D

"glorified Kit-Kat sellers" is a term Comrade Bob Crow used to describe such a role I believe (other chocolate biscuits are available)

My tongue was slightly in my cheek.  But the point is that their job would could still be categorised as safety critical.  Trains would still be unable to leave without them and that means that they would still have a strong hand in negotiating pay because a strike would cost the company in the way that a catering or even a revenue protection strike would not (and let's be honest that is what the RMT cares about really). 

 It is a rather old fashioned view that having a safety critical job means that you can't do anything else other than sit in your cab in case you are needed (doubtless with a stack of detonators in hand, and a red flag under one arm ready to spring into action) .  The reality is that that kind of guard is becoming obsolete because of technology improvements.  It isn't unreasonable to say that passenger safety is enhanced by having an extra member of staff on the train other than the driver (who is after all busy driving and locked into the front cab), but the specification of that extra safety role should be informed by an objective analysis of what the main risks to passengers are and staff provided with the training to mitigate the main risks that exist today rather than the risks that existed in the days of less sophisticated signalling technology.  I would hazard a guess that the main risks to passengers today comes from medical emergencies and the behaviour of other passengers.  Train "Guards" to deal with those issues (or call for help from the ambulance and police services) and the argument that they are safety critical becomes stronger.

I am generally on the side of the worker against the bosses.  The RMT has done very well in getting decent pay for their members and I do not begrudge them that, but  it seems to me that the guard's role as currently understood will soon become obsolete (just like the locomotive fireman's role).  My advice to the RMT is that if they are not prepared to work with the TOCs and redefine the Guard's role then the role will disappear.  They ought to be redefining the role in a way that firstly makes it a more sensible economic position for the ToC (adding customer service roles to that helps) and which retains its status as safety critical by requiring training in mitigation of the current risks to passengers. 

The idea that there is a split between customer service roles and safety critical roles is stupid.  A look at the aviation and ferry industry will show you that.   

I think both movies and airline style pod beds are both in the specification of the new Caledonian Sleeper.

From the BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-33556849):

Well Mark Hopwood did warn there could be more strikes and that is looking very likely now with the RMT looking to drag other unions into the dispute as well.

Presumably, further ballots would be needed by the other unions first though?

Yep

From the Transport Salaried Staffs' Association (http://www.tssa.org.uk/en/Your-union/Your-company/company-pages/first-great-western/index.cfm/first-great-western-managers-being-balloted-for-industrial-action):

Hmm.  ::) :o :-X

In my view, that latest possible industrial action by TSSA (whether short of a strike or otherwise) has the potential to cause rather more disruption than the recent RMT action.

Would I be right in saying the RMT are waiting for the result of the TSSA ballot before announcing their next wave of industrial action?

The RMT was quoted as saying last week that they were meeting this week (today/yesterday?}to determine the next strike dates.....

"Many managers are working well in excess of their contracted hours in order to carry out their normal duties, and are often working from home or checking email and phones in their own time. Some are not taking all of their leave entitlement, and many don't take proper rest breaks at work. Most managers are committed professionals and are happy to do so. However, there are clearly problems of managers suffering excessive stress.

But First Great Western now wants its managers to take on the jobs of other staff as well as their own, exacerbating these problems and further degrading the work/life balance of managers. Managers are surely entitled to a decent personal and home life!"


Welcome to the real world.

Here we go again:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33762707

Details of the timings from the RMT (https://www.rmt.org.uk/news/rmt-names-new-strike-dates-on-first-great-western/)

Going to be fun getting all those in the SW back over the bank holiday - and Reading Festival might be struggling too!

RMT Press Release (http://www.rmt.org.uk/news/intercity-express-programme-iep030815/):

That's effectively the same three day weekend for all grades then, with the news in another thread about workers not being contracted for Sundays.....and likely not many serviceable trains on the Tuesday (1st) either, with no maintenance over the holiday weekend

I've just read on another forum, but haven't been able to corroborate, that the TSSA has called of it's ballot of FGW Management Grades (for action short of a strike) after receiving assurances that none of their members will be forced to cover the work of striking RMT staff.

They couldn't do without Management grades over a 3-day strike IMO - so hardly surprising.

At least should keep the vast majority of the Thames Valley services flowing....like last time.

There is a statement on the TSSA website  (http://www.tssa.org.uk/en/Your-union/Your-company/company-pages/first-great-western/index.cfm/fgw-ballot-of-managers-for-industrial-action)confirming the ballot has been called off.


Full statement continues in link above

BBC "take" at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33762707

Feels like games being played to be honest, with the main losers being customers.

As I understood it, no compulsory redundancies had already been guaranteed?

All the guff about "solidarity" is a bit of a joke, LTV's service was pretty good during the recent strike, with customer service being noticeably better!

LTV are a different union in the main?

Sorry, happy to be corrected if that's the case.......but the comment about improved customer service stands!  :)

A lot of LTV services are Driver Only Operated and as most belong to ASLEF, who are not in dispute, they ran.  LTV services which needed a guard (Marlow branch and Redhill/Gatwick) were affected.

The last I heard (and that was during the last strike) was that it was guaranteed no on-train job losses. There was no such guarantee on the engineering side as Hitachi will be doing all maintenance on the IEPs. This was one of the three reasons the RMT sighted for the strike. Don't know if anything further has been offered in negotiations since then.

TLM

Not to mention the Big Feastival at Kingham from 28th-30th August.

I'll be interested to see what difference the now resolved dispute with the TSSA has in terms of the level of service operated. I'm assuming that only managers qualified to operate as TM's are used. That being the case, personally I would find it very difficult to justify why, as a manager of the business, I wasn't prepared to use my skills to help my employer provide a service. Nor would I want to, as I would be keen to help keep my business running.

From my observation of the last strike, passengers appeared mostly to welcome and thank those stepping in. I'm sure there were exceptions, but most people appeared to understand the situation, and the efforts made to keep the service running.

Translation -

FGW - We need volunteers to help out during the strike.
TSSA - Managers! You are being coerced. Strike! Strike!
FGW - Nobody is being coerced, we are asking for volunteers.
TSSA - We have influenced a change to the evil corporation! Hurrah for us!
FGW - Huh?

So if I understand this correctly Hitachi are doing the maintenance on the trains which they manufactured (seems logical!), so how can FGW be expected to guarantee the jobs of maintenance staff who will have nothing to maintain? What a ridiculous position for the RMT to take......coupled with the farcical strike planned for the Underground this week, the action FGW RMT members are taking over the August Bank Holiday (what a cynical, selfish move) will achieve nothing other than further damaging public perception of the railway and its servants.

But as long as their members are being well-rewarded, they really couldn't give a toss!

.....seems quite fitting that the late Bob Crow was a staunch Millwall fan.....what's that song they sing at The Den?  "......no-one likes us, we don't care!"

Must have inspired him....and his successor!

or, TSSA members - Bloody hell, I could lose my bonus and chance of promotion with this!

From the FGW website (https://www.firstgreatwestern.co.uk/strike)

  The action by the RMT is disgusting and repulsive, I made my views known at my local station.
 
  The platform person totally agreed with me, which took me by surprise.
  Quite a few staff feel the same way, resigning from the union and working normally,
  according to my informant. 

I can see why they are fighting hard for the skilled maintenance staff as many of them face the prospect of losing their job at several depots, and as I understand it a proper PT&R undertaking from Hitachi hasn't been forthcoming for places like Old Oak Common where staff could easily transfer.

I'm less convinced by the other arguments, station staff and TM's will still be needed and, notwithstanding a juggling around of roles and responsibilities, I can see everyone still having a job at the end of it.  The buffet staff argument stands absolutely no chance of being won, though the AT300s may well have buffet as the longer distance nature of many of the journeys probably tips the balance in their favour over a trolley.

Perhaps the timing of this next wave of action will prompt FGW to make more offers to the union as a sweetener - given that bank holiday travel will be badly affected?  If the action does go ahead I can see the 'solidarity' crumbling quite quickly and there perhaps being one more round of action before the strike is called off as more and more staff present themselves for work.

I can see where they're coming from, but why didn't the RMT go into bat over all the earlier moves to 'train builder maintenance', with various Alstom, Bombardier or Siemens run depots?   Examples being Voyagers, Pendolinos and Desiros amongst others.

Why have they chosen the particular GW and Hitachi case to go to the barricades over, when they don't appear to be doing the same with VTEC/Hitachi?

Paul

And presumably Virgin East Coast have the same maintaining contract with Hitachi? So what deal have they done such that the RMT aren't active there too?

Confirmation of more talks between FGW and the RMT in GetReading (http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/reading-berkshire-news/train-strike-meetings-planned-between-9793828)

I take it from reading the above that Reading council is a Labour run council?

Yes, it is: see http://beta.reading.gov.uk/localresults  ;)

Told to me by a train manager, and posted here with permission (and after careful thought!).


I understand from the media and contacts that there are various talks underway.   So these issues may be being addressed, and furthermore I would be surprised to see an immediate response here in public.  However, posting it does help inform passengers, and rail industry members ... and that informing is SO necessary in addressing issues.

Fools.
Of course, if they could, I suspect DOO would be the option of choice. But they know there's a cat-in-hell's-chance, but they haven't thought it through to the conclusion yet. Oh dear, oh dear.

Why don't they simply negotiate to work the way XC does....that seems to work, and I suspect everyone's happy. Despatchers will still be needed, if only at peak/busy times. And Train Manager despatched at quiet stations and/or tmes

Admin Note: Edited to fix quotes - bobm

The problem I have with the XC Voyager method of dispatch (and hence the guard being in control of these new trains) is that although the guard is present on the platform, once they get into the train and close their local door, there is no-one on board observing the platform. As voyagers and SETs have no window for the guard to lean out of, all they can see is the area of platform immediately in front of them. Should the train need to be stopped in an emergency, the platform staff have to go down to the door or wait for it come past. If the guard is at the front of the train (a common occurrence in XC) you may as well wave it goodbye.

I would much rather have a driver with CCTV visual of the whole train available than a guard who can only see outside their door.

I believe that there should be a happy medium between these 2 viewpoints. Perhaps a guard on the platform with the driver observing the train as it pulls out?

Once the doors are closed, where's the danger that the train would need to be stopped? And why hasn't this yet been flagged up as likely with the Voyagers?

Someone moving too close to the train as they wave off people as it departs or someone attempting to board are two things which spring immediately to mind. 

People will soon realise that the latter is impossible once the stock is not slam door. You rarely if ever see this happen where there's no slam-door stock...

I see it happen quite often on Turbos at places like Ealing where passengers should be used to them by now.

Where they're DOO already - and the lack of accidents does actually tend toward FGW's ....

Didn't mean to like that post. ;)

I saw someone at Bristol TM today run up to a Voyager and repeatedly jab the door button after doors were locked. She got shouted at.

not by the train crew - either of them. And that wouldn't change.

I was merely replying to your 'rarely if ever' comment, which is wrong. 

Fortunately, very few people who try to board trains as they are leaving end up being injured of killed, but the Platform Train Interface, as it is now known, is the biggest risk area to injury or death that passengers face.  The RSSB are keen to develop safety in this respect following on from an incident where a passenger was killed as a DOO train left the platform with the platform staff having no method of alerting the driver and stopping the train.

On-board CCTV that is available to the driver until the last vehicle has left the platform is one way that could happen, though there are possible distractions such as observing the line ahead which could even make that system unsafe.  It is, however, a safer way of dispatching trains than having a TM, XC or FGW 180 style who has very limited vision from the door they are stood at, when compared with being able to look out of the train as now happens on the HST's.

Indeed, if money were no object, we'd be installing platform doors a la Jubilee line, that would close a split second before the train doors, at least trapping anyone on the platform, e=rather than in the doors of a moving train....

RMT has started playing silly b*ggers......This is the delicious moment a tube strike-supporting Londoner calling himself ^Joe^ was exposed as the RMT^s Political Officer Jared Wood on the BBC London Vanessa Show this morning:

http://www.sunnation.co.uk/listen-to-the-hilarious-moment-tube-strike-supporting-average-joe-outed-as-union-activist/ (http://www.sunnation.co.uk/listen-to-the-hilarious-moment-tube-strike-supporting-average-joe-outed-as-union-activist/)



Admin Note: Link replaced due to offensive comments in the previous link - which occurred after the link was posted here.  bobm

That will be happening at the Crossrail sub-surface stations, and should be considered for every station which has identical types of trains stopping at it all the time.  Trouble is there's not many places where that applies and I think that is just as big a barrier as the installation and maintenance costs (please excuse the pun!).

If anybody would like a little bit of light reading, here is a link to a recent report from the RSSB regarding a strategy to reduce the many Platform Train Interface incidents or all types:

http://www.rssb.co.uk/Library/improving-industry-performance/2015-01-platform-train-interface-strategy.pdf (http://www.rssb.co.uk/Library/improving-industry-performance/2015-01-platform-train-interface-strategy.pdf)

Regardless of length of train, a common stopping point could be arranged for each platform - it's the common length of each coach of each type of train is needed with doors in the same place on every coach. If that's ok, then it is possible. It might p*ss off commuters on short trains when they end up far up platforms, but is would be possible.

Due to the slightly unfortunate sequence of posts, am I the only one picturing an RMT official at every Crossrail sub-surface station, pretending to be someone they're not...  ;D

Installation and maintenance costs are reported by II as being quite high  ;)

Sorry!  ;D

That's the problem - there usually isn't a common length of each coach with doors in the same place.  On virtually all national rail stations there's various different stock operating with different lengths and door positions.  Taking the suburban stations on the GWML for example, the 166s have different door positions to the 180s, which are different to the HSTs.  Even after Crossrail the Class 345 Crossrail trains will probably differ to the Class 387s and even if they're the same then what about when an IEP has to make an unexpected stop to de-train the passengers?

Just not a practical solution at most stations, regardless of the cost.

On SWT's 444s the doors aren't even in the same positions on all successive coaches, they'd have to be differently organised if a train appeared in reverse formation...

Paul

FGW have released details of the planned service they intend to run should the strikes go ahead later this month. Details here: www.fgw.co.uk/strike

Broadly similar to the service offered last time but frequencies improved on some lines.

Things slightly different this time around due to engineering work taking place in the Bath area in that replacement bus services will run as normal. A half hourly rail shuttle service will operate between Bath and Bristol to connect with HST services to London which will all start/terminate at Bristol TM rather than continuing onto/starting at Bath Spa.

A much improved service on the Bristol to Taunton route, with roughly an hourly service all day, whereas previously was two peak hour services only in each direction.  Similarly on the Gloucester to Swindon line.  3 services each way on the Tarka line instead of 1.  And maybe a few more improvements too I would expect.

So as was historically the case with rail strikes, subsequent action tends to be less effective. I would have thought the union will be (privately) somewhat disappointed at the level of service FGW is stating it will operate. Hourly services from London to Cardiff, Bristol and Plymouth, together with a basic level of service on the majority of other principal routes is not bad at all.

Potentially not such a good service as hoped, depending on how many signallers turn up
http://www.rmt.org.uk/news/dismissal-t-rayner--signaller--network-rail140815/

Strike goes ahead as talks breakdown. It looks like more services will run this time around compared to the last round of industrial action.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-34007374

The full statement from the RMT
http://www.rmt.org.uk/news/intercity-express-programme-iep200815/


FGW have made changes to ticket restrictions
https://www.firstgreatwestern.co.uk/travel-updates/strike-information-update/ticket-information

Do we get void days for strike days?

Be interesting to see what support the strike gets.  Obviously not scientific, but a lot of staff I have spoken to are not in favour of further action - particularly if it involves three days over the bank holiday.  A couple have suggested there should be a re-ballot.

hmmm - I'm sure they argued previously that weekend travel on seasons were 'free', and that you actually paid for travel on 5days/week. It'll be interesting to see what is actually offered, but don't be surprised if nothing is offered, especially for the bank holiday.

but

seems that you need to apply if you're on a no service route

I can't see why strike action is going ahead this Sunday if 'limited progress has been made'? Whilst there is no agreement yet, it sounds like this dispute will be resolved so why inconvenience thousands of passengers and lose a day's pay when it's not going to achieve anything?

Yes, the tone of the rhetoric has changed slightly.  I will be surprised if any more dates are called after the bank holiday weekend and can quite possibly see this Sunday being the last day of action.

FGW have taken out full page adverts in the national press today, apologising in advance for the forthcoming disruption caused by the RMT strike.

(http://i598.photobucket.com/albums/tt68/bignosemac/Mobile%20Uploads/rps20150821_135037_zpswc8tua05.jpg)

I must point out that it's not my Daily Mail from which I grabbed that picture. It's Mumsy's. I feel a little dirty now having thumbed through it after I was told there was a letter from FGW in it.

I've heard several RMT members are planning on working or have cancelled their RMT membership.  I can see this Sunday being the last day of any official action. 

............that's what they all say, don't they hand them out free in most Wetherspoons?  ;D

Agree, I don't think that the RMT are going to win this one, and I feel that senior RMT figures are now planning on how to re-brand defeat as an heroic victory against the wicked employers.

FACT the new trains are being built without buffets. I am opposed to this as I have already stated, but I cant foresee a buffet being retrofitted.

FACT the new trains are to be maintained by the supplier, and I cant see this legal agreement being altered to please the RMT.

FGW MIGHT back down over whom controls the doors, but I doubt it, and no one outside the rail industry really cares.


I expect an alleged compromise to emerge along the lines of

1) buffets. Promise to consider fitting the AT300s with buffets. This is nothing to do with the actual dispute which is about the no buffet SETs. A promise to CONSIDER buffets on SOME future trains sounds a bit better to the brothers than "we lost. no buffet"

2)Maintenance. Better redundancy terms and more training for alternative roles.

3)Door control. A great victory for our brothers ! " We have secured from FGW an undertaking that train managers will be rostered for every new train" This undertaking has already been offered and rejected, but with a bit of spin could be made to sound like a partial victory.

Having planned to take another trip on the Wizard on the BH weekend, I guess it will not be running ??

If the strike goes ahead over the bank holiday weekend, FGW have confirmed the HST will not run.

If I were Mark Hopwood, I would have been referring to the "DfT's plans" for new stock that have been ordered for use by whoever happens to be running the franchise in future years, and First have absolutely no control over that stock.

Paul

I suspect there are dealings going on in secret between the DfT and FGW with the DfT using FGW as a shield.

With my "TransWilts" hat on, I have been helping to encourage people to use the Wizard from Swindon and Chippenham - with our end of the marketing being community based (in other words away from the railway, reaching people who are new to rail or very rare users).   From when the strike dates were announced, we tuned our marketing to encouraging people to travel on or by 22nd - listing dates that were "still to come"  and saying that 22nd was the last date we were certain of.    If people have a bad experience the first time they do something, they'll remember it for years and tell their friends / communities - and a strategic decision was taken not to sell a product which had/has a serious prospect of not being delivered, to the extent that it would spoil lots of people's days out.

IF it runs on 29th and we know in advance, we may do a short, sharp campaign and have a party! ... But we won't be submitting numbers as our finest achievement, I suspect - damage already done, and damage limitation already applied.

Basically the RMT left it far to late, this action should have taken place long before pen was put to paper although that depends on whether the DfT consulted fully with the operators and the unions however, I seem to recall conversations that the DfT didn't want the unions involved.
The only thing that can really be changed is control of the doors and I don't think anyone would object if we adopted the XC method of door control thus guaranteeing a train manager on all trains. 

I still firmly believe that either FGW has its hands tied or they've been given some kind of incentive to get this through purely because there doesn't seem to be much in the way of movement from First.

 

........just wondering what peoples travel experiences have been today with the strike going on? Better/worse/indifferent?

Seems strange striking on a Sunday.... in the middle of the holidays.... the weekend before a bank holiday.
Also as has been mentioned on another topic, not all the hsts are planned to operate on weekends/sundays anyway, and some of the ones that are normally planned are being covered by the drivers that are willing to work.
Hardly a major attempt to create as much disruption as possible.

I was thinking earlier that Sunday was an unusual day to choose along with buses replacing trains anyway connected with the work at Bath. With hourly services operating on IC routes with connecting services feeding into them and near normal Thames Valley services, if you needed to travel by train on FGW it could be done.

In a piece of excellent timing several months ago, Btline booked FGW tickets for travel over the bank holiday weekend. >:(

They are FGW advances from Paddington to Torquay. I'm not sure whether they will say FGW only.

Do I understand correctly that I can travel any date/time during the weekend with my tickets? The website is not 100% clear - they are now effectively anytimes are they not?

Also - can I use XC if necessary from Newton Abbot?

No they're not Anytimes at all....clearly states you can travel on ther days but at or close to the times currently booked to travel.

What's not clear yet is whether you can travel on an earlier day or just same or later day(s)

https://www.firstgreatwestern.co.uk/travel-updates/strike-information-update/ticket-information

"Advance Purchase

If you have an Advance Purchase (train^specific) ticket for travel on Sunday 23 August, your ticket will also be valid on the FGW train immediately before or after your booked time.

If you have an Advance Purchase (train^specific) ticket for travel between Saturday 29 August ^ Monday 31 August, your ticket will also be valid on the FGW train immediately before or after your booked time."

As I said, its not clear what happens if there are no trains to your destination on the date in question. Can you travel a day earlier? I read somewhere they'll allow travel the following day, but that might be after you want/need to arrive

So, if you have AP tickets that include travelling on the listed lines, you can travel the following day after the strike, but on lines that will be "normally operated", you can only travel on the train before or after your booked train - but that is only an "ask".

I can see that might be what was intended. But when I first read this bit:
I took it to mean (for advances) that your ticket is now valid on any other of the three days, but please travel at close to the same time of day.

Yes, that is how I read it too

I have been checking my trains from TRO to PAD next Sunday if the strike goes ahead.  At present there are no BRI to PAD services listed which is surprising.  Cecking BRI to PAD on the journey planner shows no through services either.  Fortunately my connection from SWI is a CNM to PAD service which should not be too full.  I am stuck with an advance ticket so can't even go via SAL.

This is what National Rail say on there website under the First Great Western strike page:
http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/service_disruptions/104437.aspx

But the FGW site suggests otherwise as it advises you to check your journey times using their planner

That's what I thought, although it appears to contradict further down where it says tickets are valid on the train before or after.

I wonder what defines as "close"? If this cannot be defined or enforced, then effectively all tickets become anytimes.

Good to know I've got some flexibility if services look busy, a pretty good service is going to run anyway.

If your service runs, I think you're expected to be on it....it's only if it isn't that the flexibility kivks in

A revised timetable has been put in place for Saturday 29 August - or at least my train from Taunton to Paddington has been rescheduled.  Previously it was the 10.45 arriving London at 12.38.  Now it is the 10.24 arriving 12.23.  The kind folk at First Great Western's Assisted Travel phoned me this afternoon.  No change as yet to the times of my return journey on the 30th.

Still no word on whether this weekend's action will take place. You kind of think that if it's going to be called off today would be the day we would hear something.

Looking at @FGW twitter feed, they are saying:

If your booked train IS running, you MUST get that train.
If your booked train is NOT running, you can only travel on the PRECEDING or PROCEEDING train.
If your journey involves a line that is closed you can travel on the DAY AFTER the strike has FINISHED (Tuesday).

So, no flexibility at all really,

I think for the sake of passengers and staff, who need to know whether they are working or not, they need to call it one way or the other today.

Do you really think that is uppermost in the RMT's mind? Really?

Seems to be confirmed as going ahead
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-34063596

Not at all. That's clearly been demonstrated by their choice to inflict travel disruption over the bank holiday weekend.

Reading that it appears they are just going round and round in circles until one of them breaks and backs down. If FGW can continue to run 70% of their services everytime the RMT strike, it won't be FGW who backs down.

.....you're assuming that there are functioning minds within the RMT.

I keep hearing words such as 'positive' and 'constructive' with regards to talks between FGW and the RMT. Well they can't be that positive or constructive if they are going on strike for three days over the bank holiday weekend. If they were then surely RMT would postpone this weekend's action to demonstrate how positive and constructive things are in the negotiations. By striking it only demonstrates that both sides are still far apart on getting an agreement.

I'm quite sure there are very good functioning minds within the RMT. Whether they care much about their members, or the railways, or whether perhaps they have some other agenda, is another matter.

I quite agree.


I am sure they care about their members to the extent that they want them to continue as members.  Trade Unions, like trade associations will only retain their members if they are seen as providing what their members want.  In recent years, particularly under Bob Crow, RMT have been very good at getting benefits for their members by brinkmanship and short strikes. To keep their members happy I suspect they have had to balance lost wages from striking against the longer term benefits of the settlements they reached. The present leadership has tried to continue this, but I suspect in they may have not been quite so clever at picking the topic or the timing this time. 

Of the three issues:

1) Train maintenance - it is out of FGW's hands as I understand it. RMT entered the dispute far too late if they were to influence this decision. 
2) Buffet cars v trolleys - despite the polarised views expressed here it appears to me that most people seem to prefer trolleys or use of station facilities.  FGW report that in their trials trolleys raised more income. So iif most passengers like it and so does FGW I think FGW will  make a stand on this one. After all no one is being made redundant.   
3) Guards/door operations - I suspect they could reach a settlement if this was the only issue. But remember again no one is being made redundant.   
 

 

Me too. Strike definitely ON
https://www.rmt.org.uk/news/strike-action-to-go-ahead-on-first-great-western/


They then go on to elaborate on the reasons. Not easily copy 'n paste-able.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/275448210/First-Great-Western-Why-we-are-striking

Round objects.

They're striking over doughnuts now ?!

.....don't tempt them!

I feel for the staff on this because their union leadership is leading them on a fight they can't win.

Why? Because it's not FGW that they are fighting, it's the Dft, who won't/can't back down because they have agreed to pay Hitachi mega money for these trains, way over the odds. Let's not forget one of the bidders lead by Alstom walked away from IEP because in their minds it didn't add up. They could do easily have provided a fleet of Pendolinos with loco haulage beyond the wires but for this quirky plan of operating bi-mode units.

I think this because by now if it was in FGW's power to do something about this, that would satisfy the RMT, that they would have done as this is not good for business having yet another strike to deal with no matter how many trains they run this weekend.

I'm interested in the fact that despite all the 'mega money' and 'way over the odds' statements that are going around (from a lot of people), that FGW have ordered a fleet of virtually identical trains (the AT300s) for the Cornish routes.  It must mean one or more of these factors influenced the decision:

1)  The AT300s are being procured at a much cheaper price than the IEP's.
2)  The AT300s are roughly the same price but in fact the price, when the maintenance and fleet availability contract is taken into account over 27 years, isn't actually that bad.
3)  FGW wanted compatibility with the IEP fleet to maximise fleet utilisation and be able to assist with failures.
4)  The DfT basically told FGW that they would be ordering those trains to continue to suck up to Hitachi.
5)  Other dark forces are at work.  That one's specially for you, Broadgage   ;)

I would add:

They were the only ones who could offer a bi-mode train in the timescale because it was an adaptation of an existing design - other would have had to start from a paper design they did for IEP bidding. 

The other option on the table was a non bi-mode HST life extension, so why the specific need for a bi-mode train - 53 miles under the wires is hardly much? 

Though perhaps another reason could be that FGW/DfT wanted a bi-mode train to improve the likelihood of electrification further west in the coming years and, as you rightly say, it would then have to come from Hitachi.

Apart from "dark forces" ;) I consider it likely that the AT300s are being obtained for a significantly lower price than the SETs.
A great deal of expense was no doubt incurred in the IEP project and would presumably be reflected in the price charged for the resulting trains. A follow on order for either more SETs, or as in this case for a very similar design would presumably be cheaper per train now that much of the development has been done.

Also the government had decided what they wanted, and few train builders seemed interested in such an odd design, there might have been a view that "we can charge what we want, the department for transport want them and no one else wants to build them"
FGW were in a much stronger position since they could have kept the HSTs  had they considered the price of the AT300s to be too high.

Thing is though, FGW aren't buying the AT300s. They will be purchased by Eversholt Rail.

They could have kept the HST's but for how much longer?  They are no 40 years old, albeit with new engines. To increase turn-round time they need power doors.  They would need major investment in life extension. Sooner or later they would have needed to be retrofitted with controlled emission toilets. Ultimately the body-shell must have a fatigue life! All that would cost a lot of money an how long would it extend their life? Another 10 years? and then what? 


We like the HSTs, they have been really good, but like a good sportsman they need to know when to retire - while people still think they are good and not leave it until they are considered unreliable and worn out. 

Of course it makes sense for FGW to order AT300s to have a compatible fleet after being forced to operate Dft's choice of SET. After 2019 FGW may not even be operating them, so yes I do think Dft are behind it.

It made no sense to keep the HSTs going. If they did, all you would be doing is delaying obtaining a replacement fleet in a few years time that would cost even more than placing this add on order with Hitachi now.

It's because of the high cost of SET that FGW/Dft have got to cut costs to balance the books. If this is not the case then why can't all FGW depot staff be guaranteed jobs at the new Hitachi depots? This I do have an understanding towards RMT's concerns. Who opens the doors and no buffet (sorry Broadgage) I do not.

Yes indeed, I agree with all that, but Scotrail seems to think those modifications are all achievable and worthwhile.  We'll see how that pans out!

I guess the point I was making is despite all the talk of the IEP being a massive waste of money and fares having to rise massively to afford to operate them, it appears that FGW considered it sensible to order some more - though I take the point about reduced costs due to the design now being practically 'off the shelf'.

I've no doubt Hitachi's new manufacturing facility will also benefit the country oconsiderably over the coming decades which few people seem to acknowledge and wouldn't have happened had the IEP not happened.

New technology always need fewer staff to maintain, a lot of it being automated. I suspect the hand of the DfT, not FGW (who cannot over-rule their paymasters) in the transfer of maintenance to Hitachi. If they'd left maintenance in-house, there's no way that the staffing could be reduced to levels actually needed, and many would be sitting around with little to do. ~It's called progress, and happens in all industries

I am not sure about this particular case but I have seen companies very effectively reduce staff levels to what was deemed necessary.

Of course a lot of people who always seem to be sitting about doing nothing will end up in the new structure ;)

Not likely with the strength of the RMT. hence the transfer to Hitachi, who possibly don't even recognise unions yet?

And so, because "W" and "X" cannot agree, "Y" (the customers) are inconvenienced / put off to the long term benefit of "Z" (people in non-rail travel industries).  Well done, chaps!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-34094375

Ah but both DfT and RMT is based in London and, like all London based (biased) organisations, assume that the rest of the country is just the same as London.  They therefore assume that rail users have no choice and so it will have no long term effect. 

Mark Hopwood was pretty straight on BBC regional news programs last night saying "The RMT need to recognise there's a good package on the table. They should accept it, get back to work and concentrate on looking forward to all the investment that will make a big difference for everyone who uses this railway".

Doesn't sound to me that FGW/Dft are going to be backing down anytime soon. Have the RMT boxed themselves into a corner on this one?

Due to no FGW trains between Cardiff and Swansea today, ATW are running a 4 car shuttle between these points.

I sincerely hope so, as the RMT are just tilting at windmills.

Later in the day the 1545, 1645, 1745, 1845 ex Paddington are scheduled to operate through to Swansea.

Looking at the board on Real Times Trains for services into and out of Paddington, so far everything running to the revised schedule with no services cancelled. Of course I cannot see what loadings are like but if they are good then this is a blow to RMT's plan to cause major disruption as FGW continue to operate a good service despite the strike.

The services hit hardest are local services outside of the Thames valley. With engineering work at Bath continuing, many of these local trains are replaced by buses anyway. Something that wouldn't happen if the strike was taking place at another time as sourcing replacement transport at short notice wouldn't be easy.

It looks like the Newquay branch service comprises solely of three Crosscountry services today and one tomorrow (The branch's normal summer weekend Crosscountry timetable). :o

I have represented the point about the IEP being a ^massive waste of money^ in this forum before and I continue to maintain that is the case. The reason is the way that the DfT has contracted Agility Trains to supply rolling stock in a Train Service Provision (TSP) agreement in which all the risks connected with train design, manufacture, testing, operation and maintenance are passed to the manufacturer. No train - no pay.

On the surface of it, this is a good thing, but it can have unintended consequences. If one is not prepared to accept any risk at all then one will pay through the nose for the privilege of allowing other people to carry it. This is the railway equivalent of the now discredited PPP/PFI  type of contract where the contractor supplies the capital for the project and the user pays a rent which reimburses the contractor for the capital, the financing costs of the capital and the daily use and maintenance of the facility.

The National Audit Office published a report on 9th July 2014 (Procuring new trains HC 531 Session 2014-15 9 July 2014) which was openly critical of the way the DfT procured the IEP and Thameslink trains.

The financial figures included in the NAO^s report for the IEP were analysed by the transport journalist Roger Ford in the August 2014 edition of Modern Railways on pages 30 to 31. He concluded that the annual charge on the train operator for the Western^s tranche of trains will be some ^300 million (my rounding).

The Office of Rail Regulation (as was) publishes a range of statistics on railway use, costs and revenues. In its document entitled ^GB rail industry financial information for the year ending 31 March 2014^ are included the annual rolling stock charges for the TOCs. Those for fGW amount to ^71 million. To this amount must be added the cost of daily maintenance, consumables (such as brake pads) and cleaning. In the ORR table is a heading ^Other operating expenditure^ which amounts to ^166 million for fGW which includes these, and many other, expenses. If it is assumed that half of this amount is for maintenance of the current fleet (to put the calculation on approximately the same basis as the IEP calculations) the direct cost of train operation comes to some ^150 million for the total fleet: that is all the High Speed Trains and all the trains required for the Thames Valley and Bristol suburban services, the Cotswold lines and the West Country.

In other words the annual cost of the IEP fleet looks to be double that which fGW currently pays for all of its trains.

In contrast the AT300 trains have been bought by Eversholt and the price quoted is the purchase price of the hardware. In the September 2015 issue of Modern Railways Roger Ford calculates that the monthly cost of ownership of these trains, that is lease rental to Eversholt plus maintenance, will be about half of that of an essentially identical vehicle contracted for by the DfT.

I attended a presentation made to the Railway Division of the IMechE on 27th June 2011. At that event one of the DfT^s civil servants responsible for the IEP, Stuart Baker, stated quite clearly that the charges for the trains would be paid by the TOC and guaranteed by the DfT.

This leaves the big open question as to how the difference between the monthly payments due for the Agility Trains^ vehicles and the Eversholt vehicles will be covered.

There are only two sources of money - the farepayers and the taxpayers. If fares are not to be increased then only the taxpayer comes into question. Either the subsidy paid to the TOC has to increase (or the premium paid is reduced) or the TOC pays the going rate for such a train and the taxpayer chips in the difference directly, but suitably disguised, via the DfT/Treasury.

Alternatively the TOC could play hard ball and order more AT300s to replace some or all of the IEPs leaving the DfT to make the TSP payments to Agility Trains by itself. That would be the nuclear option^!

The argument that increased traffic will pay for the higher TSP lease payments for the IEP is a nonsense - the difference is so large that the traffic growth of even 10% per annum would not cover it - it should not be forgotten that the higher payments start the moment the trains enter service - and anyway with such a growth rate the trains would run out of seats within a couple of years! The widely accepted view that electric operation is more economical is not born out by the fact that the TSP deal is more expensive that the current set up using diesel power.

I maintain that the current arrangement is unstable in the longer term and suggest that the DfT/Agility Trains contract will have to be reexamined. A possible move might be to obtain alternative quotes for the financing and for the maintenance separately - this will be cheaper than the current arrangement as the unknowns will reduce with a maturing programme. This could then mean that Agility Trains is reformed as a ROSCO (assuming it comes in with the best offer) and contracts the maintenance to Hitachi directly in the same way that the Class 395s were supplied by Hitachi and financed by a ROSCO (HBSC Rail) or the Class 390 Pendolinos were financed by Angel Trains and built and maintained by Alstom.

Something, somewhere, will have to give.


As long as it remains a 'screwdriver' assembly plant then the economic benefits will continue to be limited. It will only become interesting when higher added-value activities take place there as well - design, prototype production, testing and manufacture of higher added-value components and systems such as the power electronics, motors, train management systems and so on.

Yep, despite the FGW strike action page saying no services will operate between Par and Newquay, Cross Country services to/from Newquay are running as normal today and tomorrow as are services between Plymouth and Penzance. Couple these with the 2 hourly service FGW are operating, you can easily travel from London to Cornwall connecting at Plymouth.

4064ReadingAbbey posted (quote refusing to work)


At least partially through savings in staff/depots for maintenance....be interested to know what % that might be....

Thanks for your lengthy reply, and apologies for only quoting one small part of it.  I shall be awaiting events with interest...

I seem to recall reading that somebody had done the analysis and came up with IC125/Mark3 being good until 2035.

Newbury/Reading to PAD is indeed not very far when compared to the distance the Plymouth/Penzance services would be running beyond the wires. Personally, I felt that keeping the IC125s would have improved the likelihood of further electrification much more than brand new bi-mode trains. With IC125, a replacement would have been needed arround 2035 which should have been ample time to get the wires extended from Newbury to Plymouth at least, just as replacement of IC125 on the PAD-Bristol/Oxford/Swansea routes has triggered electrification of those lines. Of course the delay to the electrification programme might ruin that idea however.

I agree that it is DfT that RMT are/should be fighting here. I don't however understand why DfT can't/won't back down on some of the issues. In particular, the issue of guards should be solveable. Sure, drivers might not be too happy about having operating the doors added to their job description but the DfT should be able to make a guard compulsary on every service worked by the new class 80x-series trains, or at least mandate that a guard is diagramed WITH A HEFTY FINE for the operator SHOULD THEY FAIL TO PROVIDE THE BOOKED GUARD on any service.

You may well be correct, but isn't a bird in the hand worth two in the bush?

Example - There was a strategic decision taken about 3 or 4 years ago on the TransWilts.  A choice to have the service improved under LSTF in 2013, 2014 and 2015 for a trial period in the less than ideal condition of significant disruption during electrification works / Box tunnel, or waiting for that work to be completed to give a best clean trial at a time when there were no engineering works going on.   The choice was made not to wait, and indeed had we waited I suspect that the opportunity and impetus would have been lost.   As it is, we've not done too badly inspire of the summer Sunday service not having run to timetable once this year!

For sure, we now have a period where it's not realistic to campaign for 4 x the number of current services (or to have the TransWilts included in the current electrification) but - hey - what we've got's working and we do have a strategy forward.

On principle, I welcome new trains for the far South West services.  I don't know how it's all going to work out, I may be sad at the loss of certain facilities and through trains (but then there's some hypocrisy if I do more than be quietly sad at the loss of the Pembroke Coast Express as Ive never travelled on it), but there are many good people around in the rail industry who do know what they're doing, all be they mixed with a few who at times can benefit from customer inputs, steers, and occasionally outright shoves and protests.

Even more than the Pembroke Coast Express (which, it seems, will now run until 2018 (I had feared the new franchise agreement starting in the next few weeks would not include it), hopefully giving time for the Wales & Borders franchise to find a way to manage the traffic levels), my fear is that the bi-mode new trains for the far south west will mean no further electrification on the route for the 30yr life of the diesel engines. Also, although I don't generally mind underfloor engine noise, there is indesputable evidence that underfloor engines were not wanted on such a long journey, yet underfloor engines is exactly what they're getting.

A pleasant change to see a 180 doing shuttle duty on the Cotswold Line during the industrial action yesterday - presumably all the Turbos were required for Thames Valley services.

So where is this "indisputable" evidence? I've only seen some comments on here, and in the press. Certainly no survey of at least 1,000 pax that use the service - usually the minimum for an acceptable statistical survey

I would suspect most of the travelling public couldn't care less where the engine is. All they are interested in is getting to where they want to go.

Even that had problems with the number of people trying to get to Kingham for the Big Feastival.

A comment made by the managing director of First Great Western and printed in a respected railway magazine. He refered to stakeholders considering class 222 units to be not acceptable due to underfloor diesel engines and cramped interiors. Maybe 'evidence' was too strong a word, but I don't think the source can be disputed.

I would agree with that sentiment. Do you see more pax using the HSTs between Exeter & Plymouth say, or do pax just travel at the time they want to, regardless of stock. The latter is my opinion

Sounds like a specific comment on Meridians and the root causes of them not being acceptable.   Class 150 really isn't good for long distance journeys, partly due to underfloor diesel noise.  Class 158 much better, even though the engines are still underfloor.  Nothing to prevent similar improvement from 222 to AT300.

An interesting question! A back-of-the-envelope calculation would suggest^not very much!

The ORR spreadsheet I quoted above gives the total staff costs for fGW as ^260 million for 2013-14. The fGW web site claims that it employs some 5,000 people. This means that, on average, each staff member costs ^52,000 per year. If we assume that the introduction of the IEP reduces fGW staff count by 100 at each of the three main depots (London, Plymouth and Swansea) this would reduce the staff costs by ^15.6 million per year.

(It is clear that some residual work will continue to take place at two of the depots at least because of the presence of rolling stock based there used for the more local services, so I assume that not all the staff will be displaced and the buildings will continue to be operational.)

Based on the NAO^s figures the Train Service Provision payment to Agility Trains will be some ^300 million per annum.

So requiring Agility Trains to maintain the IEPs will potentially reduce fGW^s maintenance staff costs by a sum amounting to some 5% of the TSP payments. If I have underestimated the number of maintenance staff displaced by the IEP by a factor of 2, the staff cost reduction still only covers 10% of the TSP payments.

There remains a huge gulf!

(What I hope is that the DfT has now seen the error of its ways. It is significant that fGW has ordered the AT300s from a ROSCO, which is financing the deal and which in turn will buy the trains from Hitachi, rather than the DfT insisting that the extra trains are an ^add-on^ or taken from an option in the IEP contract with Agility Trains).

I thought the maintenance contract was direct with Hitachi? They will be paid for each train required by FGW


What I haven't yet seen is anything confirming who is to maintain the AT300s on order? Hitachi, the ROSCO that is financing them or FGW (I assume not the latter, otherwise the union wouldn't be up in arms about a Hitachi move, but don't know for sure)

Agility trains seems to be a wholly owned subsidiary of Hitachi that will own the trains.  It is not clear to me from their website whether they or Hitachi Europe actually carry out the maintenance. 

A briefing in the early days at Swindon Steam with Hitachi Europe head honcho gave me the distinct impression that Hitachi Europe were contracted to maintain. that, I think, was with the IET

Agility Trains is 70% Hitachi Rail Europe, and;

For the Inter City East Coast IEP fleet, 30% John Laing Investments.

For the Greater Western IEP fleet, 24% John Laing Investments, 6% MetLife Private Capital Investors.

http://www.agilitytrains.com/about-us

The sentence was intended to be read as "So (it was known by the DfT that by) requiring Agility Trains to maintain the IEPs.." the number of fGW maintenance staff would be reduced.

The DfT deal for the supply of sufficient trains to meet the timetable requirements has been made with Agility Trains West - not with Hitachi directly. As bnm clarifies Agility Trains West is a joint venture with Hitachi and two other partners. Agility Trains is very much a vehicle for raising the financing needed to cover the design, testing, manufacturing of the trains and the building of the maintenance depots. It will only start to receive income when the first train enters service - the TOC will pay the rent to Agility Trains, not to Hitachi.

Whether Agility Trains directly employs the staff for the maintenance and cleaning of the trains or whether some or all of these activities will be sub-contracted to Hitachi is not, as far as I known, in the public domain.


The RMT is dispute about the IEP trains not, as far as I am aware, about the AT300s.

As Eversholt will own the AT300s, it is up to Eversholt to decided who will maintain the trains. Eversholt itself, in common with the other ROSCOs, does not do any maintenance work itself - it is always contracted to third parties in many cases the operating TOC, sometimes the manufacturer and sometimes organisations such as Wabtec or Brush for heavier rebuilds. In any event any decision is likely to be made in conjunction with the operating TOC. As I understand it, the three sites currently being developed for the IEP are sized for, and sited to serve, the fleet being built and the routes on which they will be used - London to Bristol and Weston-super-Mare and London to South Wales and to the Cotswolds. They may have some excess capacity but, I would suggest, with the exception of the Old Oak Common depot they are not ideally sited for services to the West Country ^ ensuring train sets get to the right place for maintenance would seem to add an extra degree of complication to rolling stock planning.

So I would not be surprised to find these trains having their running maintenance done at somewhere like Laira or Long Rock - but whether the plant will then be under the TOC's direct control or that of Hitachi in one form or another, I have no idea.

Of those three depots (Old Oak Common (London), Plymouth and Swansea) surely only one (Plymouth) will continue to be a First GW depot? I thought Old Oak Common is to be demolished to make way for HS2 and Landore (Swansea) currently only houses IC125s (in future Landore will probably transfer to the Wales & Borders franchise).

I thought there was to be a new Depot for IEPs in Swansea at Maliphant

My post was not trying to predict what would happen to each of the depots - it was written as an answer to the question posed by ChrisB. As such it is simply intended as a ranging shot to determine what percentage of the Train Service Provision payments to Agility Trains for the IEP could be covered by possible fGW staff reductions ^ I thought this was clear.

In this case the three depots affected are Old Oak Common, St. Philip's Marsh and Landore. The IEPs will have little or no effect on Laira as it is not intended that they will work west of Exeter/Torbay so I left it out of the estimate.

I am aware that the existing fGW Old Oak Common depot is likely to be demolished as it lies in the path of HS2. I suspect that many if not most of the staff will come off fGW's books; some may transfer to other work within the organisation.

St. Philip's Marsh will lose the HST work, but will be retained to maintain the local diesel fleet. Landore will lose its HST work, but with luck the staff will transfer to the Welsh TOC, but they will come off fGW's books.

So I assumed that fGW's staff numbers would reduce by some 300, 100 at each of the 3 depots. These 300 make up 5% (approx) of the TSP payments. I also said that if I guessed wrongly and double that number leave fGW's books the cost reductions still only amount to about 10% of the TSP payments.

As I said, these are back-of-the-envelope calculations. They are almost certainly not accurate - but they give an order of magnitude estimation of the sums of money involved. And it seems that the IEP caper is a very expensive way to buy seat-miles.

Of course although this would reduce FGW's direct staff costs, it is not necessarily a reduction in overall staff costs by that amount as Hitachi or whoever is maintaining the new units will need to employ staff to do the maintenance. It is important to look at costs in the round. 

Too many organisations have outsourced work to make their headcount look good for the city only to find that that the outsourcing is costing them more than it did in house or they find that the outsourcing organisation does not do the work well enough or very commonly both. Why the city is so obsessed with headcount rather than cost I do not understand. 

Well it appears all the planned HSTs are running so far today and on top of that an additional PAD to RDG HST shuttle for the festival is also operating.

Seems the weather gods are on the side of FGW rather than the RMT. With it being rather inclement FGW aren't having to deal with hoards of day trippers to coastal areas.

As well as the staff costs, there are surely two other significant costs which will no longer apply unless I misunderstand the situation. 

Firstly the cost of maintaining the trains - twenty seven years worth of brake pads don't come cheap.  Not to mention the cost of replacement engines, transmissions, pantographs, bogies etc. etc. etc.  Then there's the likely total refurbishment of the trains which would be needed at least once, possibly twice, over the twenty-seven years.

Secondly, there's the cost of the maintenance depots themselves.  If Old Oak Common is to close then the cost of maintaining the building will cease, and with First not needing to contribute towards the costs of the new depot they also don't have to contribute towards the cost of modifying the old depots with equipment and a layout suitable for the new trains which they would have otherwise had to have done, or at least somebody other than Hitachi would have.

Both of those things would cost a lot of money over the full maintenance contract, maybe a small percentage of the overall costs, but does anyone case to estimate what they might be?

..........nope, just the hordes attending the Notting Hill Carnival and Reading Festival  ;) (for which to be fair they've laid on a couple of extra services from Paddington)

Agree just a please to compare the whole costs borne by all parties not just one small part of it borne only by FGW. 

These costs will be already covered in the increased costs we are discussing - the payments by the TOC to Hitachi/Angel Trains

Got there and back ok. In the end nobody bothered to check tickets!

It seems as if the guard was too busy to check tickets on a half full service which ran non stop Reading to Exeter.

Good job that the new trains will be DOO to free up time for guards to check tickets...

Aren't there barriers at both ends of that journey?

Barriers can't prevent dumb-belling, ensure a correct Advance is being used, check tickets of those who are connecting... and so on. There really should be an on board ticket check in the time between Reading and Exeter.

And Btline, the new trains aren't going to be DOO to Exeter. There will be a TM on board except in extremis and even then only in the Thames Valley will they ever run Driver Only. Even that may not happen if FGW concede further ground to the RMT belligerents.

Did you not read his final line :-)

Back to the subject in hand ::)

My daughter travelled from Gatwick Airport via Reading to Plymouth on Saturday 29 August and.....

She got a seat on every train....

The Reading to Plymouth train had a buffet open.....

Her ticket was checked on the train.....

The trains were on time......

Strike, what strike?  ::) :P ;)

Hmmm ...

The ticket check is necessary everytime on route calling at stations with significant passenger flows where there aren't ticket purchase facilities.   But where every station has sales (and barriers), perhaps a sometime check is all that's needed as a deterrent, perhaps with an announcement to visit the Train Manager in Coach C, or buy tickets if you still need them from the trolley.

People are only going to intentionally break the rules if - on balance - it's to their advantage.

Firstly, what on Earth is dumb-belling?

Secondly - had exactly the same experience Plymouth-Taplow (changing at Reading) - not a single ticket check throughout the whole journey (no barriers or staff at Taplow!) - was in 1st class Plymouth-Reading and the refreshment trolley came through several times but no ticket checks.

Apologies for straying off the main topic!

In this case "dumb belling" in generally understood to mean a type of ticket fraud whereby valid tickets are held for a short portion at each end of a journey, but no ticket is purchased for the longer bit in the middle.

Usually involves season tickets in which cases it is also known as the "short reason ticket fraud" but sometimes done with single tickets.

Can be detected by on board ticket checks, but not by ticket gates.

Firstly I was travelling to Torquay, which is unbarriered. Plus the Paddington bridge barriers were wide open.
There really is no excuse for no ticket checks on the long and slow 90 mins to Exeter.

As far as I have read, the new Hitachi trains will have the driver operating the doors (i.e. DOO). This will free up the guard to check tickets.
There are several DOO services in Glasgow with a guard who solely checks tickets.

That's because you didn't have a guard, you had a manager "guard".  And although they can be trained to work a train in 2 days, ticketing seems beyond that fast-tracking capability. 
TEs are off on strike too, which leaves RPIs and any ticket trained managers who might be about.

I think you would have had a Ticket Examiner in the Glasgow area rather than a guard.

 
... Or one of a number of TMs who have decided not to join the strike today.

Just to elaborate on Plymothian's post, FGW will have trained up a great many managers to do the safety critical functions of a guard, in order to maintain services during the strike. Many will have already had some safety critical training (eg Station Managers with dispatch competency). The training will have consisted of classroom sessions followed by practical training under the supervision of a competence manager. The trainee would then have to "learn the route", essentially by travelling up and down the route with a route learning guide, and observing tunnels, junctions, stations etc. Finally, the trainee would have to sit a competency exam, pass a practical test, and demonstrate in depth route knowledge. If he or she passed, they would be issued with a Scwid card which allowed them to act as a guard on the traction and routes on which they had been assessed. I went through this process a few years ago (before I retired) during another dispute which (I am glad to say) did not result in a strike.

Amongst all this (and keeping up with the day job), it would not be felt necessary to put them through the retail course that would allow them to check and issue tickets. From memory, I think this was a three week training course.

In the circumstances, I think it is churlish to complain about a lack of ticket checks. FGW are only able to operate such a good service during these strikes because there are enough managers who are prepared to step up to the plate and put the customers first. They deserve our full support. And FGW should be congratulated on having taken the steps necessary to maintain the service.

Indeed. The logic of saying "there should always be ticket checks" on strike days, when taken to its logical conclusion, suggests that those services should not operate on such days if tickets aren't going to be checked.

All seems quiet on this thread ... the strikes at the end of August have been and gone but I don't see publicity around "what next".   Could it be that a strike - or strike publicity - over the past few weeks might have diluted attention from (and perhaps influences some voters) in the labour leadership election, and on that basis there' been some sort of unofficial purdah? 

Or else Mr Cash's crew have told him clearly that he's on something he can't win, and that they aren't interested any longer in throwing their hard-earned away in some crazy PR for the RMT

It's too quiet and that is concerning. Could be cooking up something with Aslef.

I've read of rumours on other forums that ASLEF may be getting involved in the dispute. No news on a ballot though.

From Charity Today (http://www.charitytoday.co.uk/train-strike-proves-profitable-for-charity/):

Every cloud...

Top work fellas! :)

http://m.plymouthherald.co.uk/Redundancies-pipeline-Laira-train-depot/story-27890789-detail/story.html

Hopefully with the West fleet increasing Laira might get a slice of that extra work.

What really annoys us is the governments attitude to the introduction of our IEPs. They negiotiated the contracts with Hitachi and presumably had the opportunity to safeguard as many fleet maintenance jobs as they could.  They failed to do this and in my mind shows just what the government thinks of the working man. 

Or woman.

I agree with you wholeheartedly a-driver. But your post did rather remind me of this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFBOQzSk14c

This probably won't surprise many people, but may well end up being quite significant in terms of the current dispute between the RMT and GWR:

http://www.rmt.org.uk/news/rmt-and-aslef-executives-sign-joint-statement/ (http://www.rmt.org.uk/news/rmt-and-aslef-executives-sign-joint-statement/)

That's a major development. Not unexpected, but it does come from two unions who haven't always seen eye to eye.