National Rail strikes

[whole diary]

[JayMac]

The 'Service Updates' banner on the NRE^‡(resolve) homepage says 'strike off - please plan your journey using our journey planner'

Makes no distinction about what strike. Might confuse folks north of the border!

[John R]

Though Scotrail claim to be running 95% of services. Putting aside the merits of the dispute, it's hard to see the union winning it when there will be so little disruption.

And on those that aren't running, passengers will suffer little inconvenience. eg on the Far North Line, rail replacement buses to Wick will take 75 minutes less than the rail service they are replacing. That may not go un-noticed in these cost conscious times.

[Tim]

Oh there are safety concerns, BUT they are very complicated.  Any change of working procedure at least in theory carries a risk, but at the same time you can't stand still and working practices do need to modernise.

However where a change of working practice involves a greater potential risk to the travelling public & staff it should be thoroughly resisted. It should be the subject of negotiation and risk assessed from all possible angles before being bought into use. Importing risk to save money is not the way forward.

I realise my explantion of T3 possessions and PLB's above may have been incomprehensible or unpalatable for some. I have however had experience of engineers trains & T3 possessions.

Your explanation whas complex, but I think I understood the basic (serious) issue.  I have also heard NR^» (Network Rail - home page) say that some of their "new" working practoces are simply things that have been used for ages and with safety in some parts of the country. 

I am not in a position to judge what is and isn't safe either in theory nor especially in practice.  What we need really is the safety regulator to be sufficiently well informed, experienced, independent and robust for passegers like me to be able to trust it to do that job on my behalf.

We do also have to aviod falling into a "safety at any cost" arguement.  I am not saying that we are there yet but it is possible to make the railway so safe that it becomes unaffordable which forces potential customers onto much more dangerous alternative modes of transport.  I read an article by a H&S^▸ (Health and Safety) expert once who argued that the Hatfield crash killed 4 people but that the reaction to the crash caused speed restrictions to be imposed which forced people off the railway and onto the road where an estimated 200 people were killed. 

How many lives wudl have been saved if the money spent on TPWS^▸ (Train Protection and Warning System) has instead been used to clean hospitals?

[Btline]

And on those that aren't running, passengers will suffer little inconvenience. eg on the Far North Line, rail replacement buses to Wick will take 75 minutes less than the rail service they are replacing. That may not go un-noticed in these cost conscious times.

I'm assuming that the buses will not go to every stop then (following the A9). If the rail was re-directed this way, 45 minutes would be shaved off. With some level crossing upgrades, I'm sure over an hour could be cut off this slow journey.

[John R]

Yes it runs via the Dornoch Bridge, and a minibus goes the long way round. It's a shame the railway was not redirected over the bridge when the latter was built, although there was much debate at the time over it.   

[Chris from Nailsea]

From the BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page):

Rail dispute talks resume between RMT^▸ (National Union of Rail, Maritime & Transport Workers) and Network Rail

Negotiations to resolve disputes between rail maintenance workers and Network Rail will resume later.
The Rail Maritime and Transport (RMT) union and Network Rail will meet at the conciliation service Acas.
Four days of strikes were called off last week after a legal challenge to the union's ballots by Network Rail.
Meanwhile, Scottish rail workers on First ScotRail have begun a three-day walkout in a dispute over increased use of ticket inspectors instead of guards.
ScotRail said it would operate 95% of services during the strike, which the RMT says is over the safety implications of extended use of driver-only trains.
At Acas on Monday, the RMT and Network Rail will discuss the maintenance workers dispute about plans to axe 1,500 maintenance jobs and change rosters to allow more work in the evenings and at weekends.
A separate dispute over signal workers will be discussed at a later date, Acas said.
Network Rail's legal challenge concerned only the ballot of signallers, and did not relate to the RMT's ballot of maintenance workers and the Transport Salaried Staffs' Association (TSSA^» (Transport Salaried Staffs' Association - about)) ballot of supervisors.
But after the ruling, RMT and TSSA announced the two other strikes would be suspended and fresh ballots would be held, the timetable for which has yet to be announced.

[The SprinterMeister]

Your explanation whas complex, but I think I understood the basic (serious) issue.  I have also heard NR^» (Network Rail - home page) say that some of their "new" working practoces are simply things that have been used for ages and with safety in some parts of the country. 

I am not in a position to judge what is and isn't safe either in theory nor especially in practice.  What we need really is the safety regulator to be sufficiently well informed, experienced, independent and robust for passegers like me to be able to trust it to do that job on my behalf.

I'm not sure that it is correct to say that the T3 altered working practices have been used in other parts of the country. It has been trialled I believe but as I understand it the PWay men refused to work as there was also the possibility of trains being missrouted in error towards the possession. Again once the train ran over the detonators and saw the PLB it would come to rest before reaching the worksite. The misrouting of trains towards possessions hazard can be overcome by other means but the possibility of work trains running out of possessions is rather more intractable. I rather doubt that there is anyone at ORR^» (Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about) with practical experience of T3 possessions and their operation, therefore they are accepting the change with caveats to cover  themselves and distance them from any accident thereby caused. Any practical railwayman can see the hazard.

We do also have to aviod falling into a "safety at any cost" arguement.  I am not saying that we are there yet but it is possible to make the railway so safe that it becomes unaffordable which forces potential customers onto much more dangerous alternative modes of transport.  I read an article by a H&S^▸ (Health and Safety) expert once who argued that the Hatfield crash killed 4 people but that the reaction to the crash caused speed restrictions to be imposed which forced people off the railway and onto the road where an estimated 200 people were killed. 

How many lives wudl have been saved if the money spent on TPWS^▸ (Train Protection and Warning System) has instead been used to clean hospitals?

The Hatfield crash did cause a modal shift to road transport both by the passengers of their own voilition and the TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company)'s using rail replacement coaches and I can remember some passengers and traincrew being injured in a pitch in on a coach on the A38. As far as Railtrack was concerned however the risk was minimised as the injuries etc did not occur on their infrastructure. 'Not on their infrastructure' being the key words.

The formula for cost benefit has been applied to railways before in terms of ^ per life saved, which is why you got CDL^▸ (Central Door Locking) on slam door coaching stock instead of national implementation of the ATP^▸ (Automatic Train Protection) system still used by FGW^▸ (First Great Western). However I do not subscribe to the view that removing basic safety measures that have been in use virtually since the accident that contributed to the early demise of Charles Dickens merely to save money are they way forward. Particularly since to my certain knowledge they have been found to be worthwhile in preventing accidents.

[Tim]

I rather doubt that there is anyone at ORR^» (Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about) with practical experience of T3 possessions and their operation, therefore they are accepting the change with caveats to cover  themselves and distance them from any accident thereby caused. Any practical railwayman can see the hazard.

If that is the case then it is very wrong (both the lack of experience and even worse the self-serving backsdide-covering) and I would want to strike over it to (although perhaps the RMT^▸ (National Union of Rail, Maritime & Transport Workers) should be turning their guns on OOR as well as NR^» (Network Rail - home page))

As far as Railtrack was concerned however the risk was minimised as the injuries etc did not occur on their infrastructure. 'Not on their infrastructure' being the key words.

RT's view is understandable, but we are supposed to have a Minister of transport able to get an overview of risk across of modes and allocate money to where it is most needed.
 

However I do not subscribe to the view that removing basic safety measures that have been in use virtually since the accident that contributed to the early demise of Charles Dickens merely to save money are they way forward. Particularly since to my certain knowledge they have been found to be worthwhile in preventing accidents.

Neither do I.  But a rational policy would be for the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) to carry out ^ per life saved analysis across all modes.