South Western Railways Waterloo - Bristol services axed

[whole diary]

[Mark A]

Statement from RMT^▸ (National Union of Rail, Maritime & Transport Workers) on covid-related timetable cuts.

https://www.rmt.org.uk/news/rmt-on-covid-linked-rail-reductions/

"...any attempt to use this crisis to cynically bulldoze through permanent cuts to services and staffing levels would meet the stiffest resistance from this trade union."

With the loss of the Bristol to Waterloos, that train has already departed, but hopefully this has primed the RMT to have 'conversations' when this tactic is repeated as it surely will be.

RMT's article flagged in the Stroud News and Journal piece on a Rail Delivery Group release that sounds as though it was dictated by the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about):

https://www.stroudnewsandjournal.co.uk/news/national/19825413.rail-firms-defend-decision-axe-hundreds-trains/

Mark

[grahame]

"... any attempt to use this crisis to cynically bulldoze through permanent cuts to services ... would meet the stiffest resistance from this trade union."

It would meet similar from the community too. 

I would love to be able to say we could trust the "powers that be" not to try the trick of slipping permanent changes through, but sad recent experience has proven that certain decision makers cannot be trusted - they established their spots last year, and what trust was broken over three months will take as many years to repair.

There are some excellent and earnest timetable and service planners around - indeed they make up the majority. Problem, perhaps, is that the political or politically-driven masters won't let them do the 'right' job, and those political decision infect outcomes.

[grahame]

From the Daily Mail

Grant Shapps insists the destruction of public property remains 'unacceptable' after the Colston Four trial

I do hope his comment was a general one, and not related to this particular case - for that was tried by a jury, who's verdict we should respect.  To my knowledge, Mr Shapps was neither present when the incident took place, nor in court during the trial, and he so he should understand the decision made by six men and women selected to look in detail at the case and come to a conclusion.


Mr Shapps should be very careful that he is not throwing stones while standing in a glasshouse.

"Transport Secretary Grant Shapps said the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) was 'not a country where destroying public property can ever be acceptable'" - and this from the very minister who had in his hands the public (nationalised) property of a much loved and much used train service from Bristol Temple Meads to Waterloo and chose - in spite of over 6,300 members of the public urging him to do otherwise - and destroyed that public property.

So does Mr Shapps consider that there should be one law for others, and a different one for him?

By all means remove the statue with due public review and consultation ... and I'm sure that if proper process had been followed with that train service, there would not have been the same outcry - and likely not the same result either!

[ellendune]

AIUI^▸ (as I understand it) this is not a perverse Jury as some politicians and Journalists have suggested. 

Here is the defence lawyers explanation of the case https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p0bfsnhj

I have read somewhere that two of the criteria quoted on this recording, are actually listed as a defence in the statute, and the third is an established common law defence.

I have read that the Judge gave clear guidance to the Jury by way of questions to help them decide whether or not the criteria were met for the Jury to acquit. 

[ellendune]

AIUI^▸ (as I understand it) this is not a perverse Jury as some politicians and Journalists have suggested. 

Here is the defence lawyers explanation of the case https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p0bfsnhj

I have read somewhere that two of the criteria quoted on this recording, are actually listed as a defence in the statute, and the third is an established common law defence.

I have read that the Judge gave clear guidance to the Jury by way of questions to help them decide whether or not the criteria were met for the Jury to acquit. 

More detailed and expert review from the Secret Barrister

[grahame]

That is a very interesting link, thanks, ellendune ... I have skimmed it and this passage shouted at me, when the author is addressing the question as to whether the verdict might be a threat to the rule of law. He concludes "no" but then goes on ...

What does, however, represent a genuine threat to the rule of law is when elected politicians, having not heard the evidence nor bothered to understand the relevant legal principles, attempt to undermine the verdicts of independent juries when the outcome of a criminal case does not meet with their approval. That is a very dark road indeed.

Hear, hear, hear!

[broadgage]

From the Daily Mail

Grant Shapps insists the destruction of public property remains 'unacceptable' after the Colston Four trial

I do hope his comment was a general one, and not related to this particular case - for that was tried by a jury, who's verdict we should respect.  To my knowledge, Mr Shapps was neither present when the incident took place, nor in court during the trial, and he so he should understand the decision made by six men and women selected to look in detail at the case and come to a conclusion.

I disagree with the verdict of the jury, but we should still respect that verdict.

It seems to me some jurys base the verdict not on the evidence presented to the court, but on their own moral and political views. In this particular case, I suspect that the jurors were opposed to slavery (almost everyone is opposed to slavery) and therefore based the verdict on this opposition and not on the evidence.

I have served on a jury several times, and was not in general impressed by fellow jurors. In one case the other members of the jury followed my lead without any understanding. Whilst I am satisfied that the correct verdict was reached, it was in effect trial by ME rather than by all 12 jurors.

[ellendune]

Whether the Jury's decision is in line with the evidence. That is their right

[TaplowGreen]

From the Daily Mail

Grant Shapps insists the destruction of public property remains 'unacceptable' after the Colston Four trial

I do hope his comment was a general one, and not related to this particular case - for that was tried by a jury, who's verdict we should respect.  To my knowledge, Mr Shapps was neither present when the incident took place, nor in court during the trial, and he so he should understand the decision made by six men and women selected to look in detail at the case and come to a conclusion.

I have served on a jury several times, and was not in general impressed by fellow jurors. In one case the other members of the jury followed my lead without any understanding. Whilst I am satisfied that the correct verdict was reached, it was in effect trial by ME rather than by all 12 jurors.

.......did you attend the subsequent executions in person?

[broadgage]

I did ask about priority seating for the executions but was told that we do not do this anymore.
Spent nearly two weeks on jury service and did not even get to watch a hanging.

[FarWestJohn]

Has Salisbury got a surplus of units now with the Bristol, Penzance, Plymouth and Paignton services all gone?

[Oxonhutch]

Being a near-Wallingford man, Blackstone's Ratio comes to mind.

"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."

Having done jury service only once - and quite distressing it was too - I console myself with the above regarding the subsequent verdict at my occasion.

[TonyK]

I did ask about priority seating for the executions but was told that we do not do this anymore.
Spent nearly two weeks on jury service and did not even get to watch a hanging.

So what's a hung jury? 

A jury can reach the right verdict, or a jury can reach the wrong verdict. It is, however, the correct verdict. You can't say the same about transport ministers.

[grahame]

Has Salisbury got a surplus of units now with the Bristol, Penzance, Plymouth and Paignton services all gone?

From my FOI^▸ (Freedom of Information) enquiry, on 19th April 2021, a member of the SWR^» (South Western Railway - about) team who's name has been redacted wrote to Graham Stockbridge at the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about):

Withdrawal of these services would allow the removal of route knowledge between Westbury and Bristol from both Drivers and Guards at both Salisbury and Yeovil Traincrew Depots. Given the limited number of trips this route knowledge is difficult and expensive to maintain, sometimes relying on rest day work. At least one Drivers and Guards turn would be saved each week day. Furthermore, there would be a reduction in fleet and fuel miles with an approximate value of [redacted]  p.a. as well as the avoidance of rail replacement services when engineering work applies. I am also aware that Northern Rail have enquired about the availability of Diesel trains and we also could consider released units for the start up of the Waterside Line.

The likely total saving is projected to be in the region of [redacted] p.a. (some of which is in future costs avoided rather than savings from our current costs).

However, take that with a pinch of salt because in the same letter (s)he also wrote:

Through journey opportunities from stations east of Salisbury to those north of Westbury will be removed; however, good connections and alternative services are available for passengers.

when the connections are typically as awful as they can be

GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) services between Salisbury and Bristol have been lengthened in recent years following the introduction of 5 car trains and turbo rolling stock.

which wrongly suggest that all trains that need it are now 5 cars

Further developments on this corridor are planned through Metro West and other schemes and given projected customer numbers there is little commercial need for SWR services which do not provide part of the regular clockface service on that route.

which overlooks the significant gap between the SWR services finishning and replacements starting

It was also pointed out to us in late November by SWR / DfT / GWR that there's less rolling stock available after a 158 and a 159 made a much closer connection than they should have done at the tunnel mouth at Fisherton.

[paul7575]

Has Salisbury got a surplus of units now with the Bristol, Penzance, Plymouth and Paignton services all gone?

AFAICS^▸ (As Far As I Can See) there’s not much point combining things that happened almost 15 years apart, because Penzance, Plymouth and Paignton withdrawal was done primarily to provide the stock for the hourly service to Exeter, following the Axminster doubling.  The fleet size hardly changed subsequently, although a single 158 was eventually transferred permanently to EMT^» (East Midlands Trains - about), now EMR^» (East Midlands Railway, also known as EMT (East Midlands Trains) - about).