Well, ‘management’ of course.  Who else?! 

We can now expect the RMT to get even more militant under Dempsey’s watch.  And it might be a long watch as he’s still quite a young man.

Not good news for the industry as a whole IMHO.  Though he is right about station staff being treated as a poor relation compared to other grades.

 
Sunday March 16

 

The A36 via the Limpley Stoke valley is... marginal... and a connection to it from the Batheaston bypass would be grim. A 'Proper' A46/A36 link would involve a dual carriageway connection from the east end of the current bypass via an 'A20-at-Folkestone' style tunnel to take it out of the valley and then to rejoin the existing road at Beckington. Awkward as the UK has been reluctant to undertake that sort of engineering task.

Mark

 
There's nothing wrong in avoiding Barf. Shame there isn't a Bath avoider for the railway. Never liked the place especially those who can't count when it comes to bikes in the HST TGS.

 
So who is doing the bullying?

 

Others have posted while I was writing this - I have decided still to post as it backs them up and has a few extras

Indeed - you have the very curious Batheaston bypass  (connecting the A4 East - West and the A46 headed north) crossing the River Avon twice that at one point on the same side of the Avon as the road headed south (A36) and only about a quarter of a mile from it. 



The way around it shown on this map is via the Clevedon Bridge which - however - is a revered piece of history and accessed along roads like the London Road and Bathwick Street which are unsuitable for HGVs, or for an easy increase in vehicle numbers.    Other ways are the toll bridge at Bathmapton (and I'm sure there are weight limits there) and through the old town and across the old bridge at Bradford-on-Avon with problems with air quality, congestion, vibration and so on, and which has a weight limit which is very visibly applied.

There is no blindingly obvious route north to the M4 from Warminster. There is a strong case for a road (the new A350)  that allows traffic to bypass Westbury, from the A36 where it crosses the main railway to the West Country, parallel to the railway to the Industrial area north of Westbury station.   That industrial area is altready linked to the M4 via the A350 though there are pinch points at Yarnbrook and in Melksham north of the Farmer's runabout that already - err - need attention.

We shouldn't be looking at the strategic route in isolation either.  Resident population growth is set to be and mandate to continue to be explosive, but the commercial / economic hub for that growth is the Bath and Bristol area, and good mass transit links are needed - beyond what we have at the moment, as the private car infrastructure already creaks at the seams.

 
Should route everything via M4 and the A34...

Musings from the top deck of a Swindon-Cirencester bus a week ago, and the sight (again) of the earthworks of the rail route between Cheltenham and Southampton cutting across the road, the old canal and fields at Siddington. It's a sight that's always evocative: the two rail routes playing a comparatively minor part in the railway age, and long out of use, but at least in part now paralleled by major roads constructed very much as 'Motorways by stealth'.

Roads are by their nature far better able to evolve piecemeal and as well as enjoying benefits we all pay the price.

Mark

 

You are spot on there !  When the "proper" A46/A36 link was cancelled, that really made the remaining work that was carried out on the A46/A4 a complete waste of time and money and achieved absolutely zilch.

 

Yes that is their problem, the strategic route they had before doesn't work any more so they need a new one.  When they planned it I think they assumed they could build the now aborted Swainswick - Batheaston bypass to avoid Bath. 

 

Totally agree.  All they are going to do as I understand it, is change the sign posts.  Though if they ever have money to spend on improvements it will be part of the justification. 

 

Seen on another forum - from Bruvver Dempsey - not sure if it's connected to the dispute on the original post, there seem to be a lot of them about! 


7th March 2025

Dear RMT Member

BREAKDOWN IN INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, STATION GRADES - GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY

As you may be aware RMT went into dispute with the company regarding Rest Day Work rates of pay, Sunday rates of pay, and back pay to achieve parity with Driving grades who were given enhanced Sunday and Rest Day Work payments in 2024. The company has an agreement with the Unions to treat all grades equally, which it was in breach of, both with Joint Stations Divisional Council and On Trains Divisional Council.

This dispute arose as the company appeared to be dragging their feet over obtaining a Department for Transport mandate to negotiate and JSDC ran out of patience.

Station staff have been treated as poor relations to other grades for far too long.

GWR obtained a mandate in January and talks commenced; but the company brought forward plans similar to their Workplace Reform proposals which they wished to negotiate alongside the dispute issue. This included, under the banner of a '7 Day Railway', proposals that would mean significant changes to every member's Terms & Conditions, and see Sundays brought into the working week. There has been no mention of any significant compensation for our members in exchange for these huge concessions.

JSDC insisted that the company settle the outstanding dispute before any further negotiations took place, and the company returned to the DfT for a mandate to do so. They returned with an offer which failed to even address the back pay issue, and only offered Safety Critical staff a Sunday enhancement, leaving Ticket Office staff, non-safety critical platform staff, TSSO staff, and Gateline staff offered nothing at all for Sunday working, and all Station Grades offered no enhancements for RDWK at all.

This in no way offered parity with the Driver's deal; it was a derisory offer that denigrates the vital work Station staff do, and was completely unacceptable to your Staff side representatives; we were unanimous in this. JSDC turned down the offer and the talks collapsed. We have expressed our willingness to talk to the company, but until the material dispute is settled, this is not possible.

It now appears that the company intends to press ahead with its desired reforms to current working practices without agreement from your representatives, and without first settling the current dispute.

JSDC remains open to continuing discussions with the company to find a way forward but we will not be bullied into accepting a settlement that does not respect the efforts our members make on behalf of the company, day in day out, in all weathers, on the frontline, delivering the best service we can.

 

Well......sort of.

There was also a train chartered from West Coast which departed half an hour late.

That said, after such a stunning English victory I am sure those heading back towards Bristol/London wouldn't have been too unhappy to wait a little longer to savour the atmosphere (..........and no doubt to accept the sincere congratulations of the locals!) 

 

Yes.

 
Pleasantly surprised that GWR managed to run the additional trains from both crew and rolling stock perspectives. Now how about 2 an hour via the B+H in a fortnight?

 

Oh - the same irony that rail franchising is declared dead and the TOCs will be nationalised, whereas flavour of the month in bus operation is a network designed by the public sector, with routes or areas operated by franchises?

 
Looking at the governments recent decision to abolish NHS England deemed a quango; is the new Briitish Railways just another quango overseen by the Department of Transport.

 

Claonaig is a VERY long way round and I don't think public transport goes anywhere near it  ... I suppose for passengers with their own transport headed for northern Dumbartonshire it might have been a viable alternative.




Even when Glen Sannox is running (and it seems it's back after being patched up later today), it's running to and from a jetty in Troon which is not rail connected and it involves a transfer bus, rather than the service from Arran running to Ardrossan Harbour on the mainland which [is/was] adjacent to - err - Ardrossan Harbour station

 
It sounds like the extra trains ran roughly as planned, though with some delays because the platforms were so crowded that the next trains weren't brought in until the one across the platform from them had been loaded. As for the match, this is a public transport forum and I have no knowledge or comment 

 

Men against boyos

 
... and Wales were well and truly stuffed.

Oops - I'm sorry, I shouldn't have said that out loud. 

Chris from England. 

 
The crew and customer profiles are both things we have noticed.   LONG discussion could follow but whilst we know and are concerned at the massive differences (in attitude but not in age, skin colour or current nationality) between us and most of the people we meet - we tend to be far more circumspect in talking about our views than I would be even in the regular member areas of the forum here.

 
From the BBC:

 
Delays to services at Cardiff Central

Due to overcrowding because of a sporting event at Cardiff Central trains have to run at reduced speed. Train services through this station may be subject to disruption on all routes. Disruption is expected until 21:45 15/03.

Additional Information
A major sporting event has taken place in Cardiff today, and many fans are making their way home.

In order for us, and TfW to run safely, it has been necessary to delay trains in and out of the station, as well as in the station whilst passengers board their trains.

On departure from Cardiff Central, trains in all directions have been reported as being extremely busy.

 
From the BBC:

 


Hopefully, then, ambulance drivers are instructed to carry at least 60p in coins at all times - or would they just dial '999' ?

 
I'm just catching up with this particular topic, whilst looking (as usual) for something else. 

Some thirty years ago, I went on a 'Western Mediterranean' cruise on the QE2.  My now wife was then a Merchant Navy Officer onboard, so I was invited to many cocktail parties, as a guest.  The catering staff were generally of Filipino or east European origin - the two waiters at our table in the dining room were Serbo-Croat, as they told us, lamenting the current troubles in their homeland at that time.

I'm not saying it was right - it was just the economic reality at that time: employ domestic staff as cheap as you can, long before the minimum wage and all that.

 

Just because someone has decided to call a route "strategic" doesn't mean it is capable of handling the required traffic volumes.  If only ...............

 

Bath is already "avoided" ! The closure of the Cleveland Bridge has already stopped heavy traffic from the A46 getting onto the A36 - as it used to do. This has moved traffic from the A46 to the A350. Bath has dumped its HGV problem onto West Wiltshire

You are just repeating what this useless Study is saying. The A350 and the A36 are barely capable of handling the existing traffic at the moment. To get it to the required capacity will take  £ Billions and 25+ years !

The "existing route" is not A46 to A36 even now, except in the simplistic minds of the "Study" who just seem to look at Google Maps. - unless the traffic goes over Bathampton Toll Bridge ! The proposed A350/A36 route is not "ideal" - it has just not been thought out. Even worse I don't think anyone has ever driven down that route.