First Great Western - industrial action in 2015 - merged topic

[whole diary]

[Timmer]

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.

[ChrisB]

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

[bobm]

RMT^▸ (National Union of Rail, Maritime & Transport Workers) strike on Southern suspended

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

Southern trains strike off

The RMT rail union has confirmed that a five-day strike by engineers on Southern Rail due to start this weekend has been suspended after a breakthrough in last minute talks with the company this morning.

The engineers had planned to walk out on Sunday and observe an overtime ban in a dispute over pay and conditions.

In a letter to members, RMT General Secretary Mick Cash, said: "Southern recognises that the hard work and commitment of our engineering staff has contributed towards the efficient operation of the company over the life of the franchise and any pay offer will be fully cognisant of this fact."

[JayMac]

This isn't over...

From the Transport Salaried Staffs' Association:

TSSA^» (Transport Salaried Staffs' Association - about) calls ballot at First Great Western
10 July 2015

TSSA, has called a ballot on industrial action at First Great Western.

It comes after a two day strike by the RMT^▸ (National Union of Rail, Maritime & Transport Workers) over the axing of buffet cars and the threat to jobs with the introduction of the new Hitachi express trains from 2017.
 
The union is asking over 300 managers to vote for action short of a strike in a ballot which opens on July 15 and closes on July 24.
 
Manuel Cortes, general secretary, said FGW^▸ (First Great Western) had taken a "high handed" approach to managers during the current walkout.
 
"First Great Western senior management think that they can just order our members about at will. They are being instructed to do jobs which they do not feel either qualified or confident to do.

"We have very serious concerns about the impact that this is having on passenger safety and have raised this issue with the ORR^» (Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about).
 
"We are also extremely concerned that the Company have refused to seriously engage with the unions about our  genuine concerns over the introduction of new trains in 2017.

"In particular, proposed reductions in on-board staff numbers will have a serious impact on passenger safety. Of course, standard class passengers will also get a third class service as they will no longer have access to a buffet car.

"Put simply, you can't rely on the trolley service on busy express trains."

[ChrisB]

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

[JayMac]

Who's stats? Where can we find them? FGW^▸ (First Great Western) 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^» (Department for Transport - about) 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.

[grahame]

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

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.

[broadgage]

-----------

With the Class 800/801 design alledgedly locked down by the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) some time ago what exactly would FGW^▸ (First Great Western) 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.

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.

[grahame]

The purpose of a survey is to justify decisions already taken, not to find out what people really want.

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!)

[TaplowGreen]

-----------

With the Class 800/801 design alledgedly locked down by the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) some time ago what exactly would FGW^▸ (First Great Western) 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.

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.

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.

[ChrisB]

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

[broadgage]

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.

[grahame]

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.

[ChrisB]

In my view, providing a buffet is part of running an inter city railway service, even if it does 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.

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....

[thetrout]

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^‡(resolve) 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^▸ (National Rail Conditions of Carriage) permits luggage on trains.

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

Sorry for