If they gave 25 year franchises I think the system may have worked. 7 years with the possibility of extension as long as you won the bid was a shit way of doing it. They aren't a quick fix and it will get worse before it gets better.Cheers pal for taking the time to post that. It sounds a nightmare if I’m being honest. This short term contract was certainly part of the problem - it encouraged management to deal in cycles rather than strategically.
You have to think anything the government does with the fully nationalised system will be meaningful rather than a couple of vinyls.
I do mourn the loss of the restaurant carriage on the big trains. Proper freshly cooked food. You’ve got me feeling all nostalgic!!!
I get that.So many I know despise Starmer and hate Labour , there’s nothing he or the party can do to even change their opinion.
Truly think Reform will be the next party in power in 4/5 years and we are fucked.
Standardisation for a start. Companies with rolling stock with the same coupling mechanisms - but set at different heights so incompatible, so one company's trains can't rescue another's failed train (and no longer then spending millions to sort out the financial costs to each company).
And less rivalry for skills (different companies outbidding each other has been a major impetus for driver wages - rather than training their own).
And simplified fares.
If they gave 25 year franchises I think the system may have worked. 7 years with the possibility of extension as long as you won the bid was a shit way of doing it. They aren't a quick fix and it will get worse before it gets better.
Spotted dick?At least bring back the restaurant cars mate. I don’t mind trains being late if I can have an extra pudding.
Spotted dick?
Careful with those stats.If working conditions are bad surely they’d want to organise? But I do take your point. Part of the issue might be you walk in to an already unionised organisation it’s easier to join and organise versus trying to set one up from scratch.
Assuming your son-in-laws approach of voting with his feet was more likely than striking in the private sector I did a little check to see what turnover rates were like between the two - you’re almost twice as likely to leave a public sector job than private sector which may suggest employees are happier in the private sector.
Strike less,
Less likely to leave.
Yes there are shit managers as well.
I hope Labour don’t think being tough on immigration will win them votes…
It’s the only way they can ward off Reform. They simply have to be.
I hope Labour don’t think being tough on immigration will win them votes…
Well the stats I saw showed it to be around 11% churn for private sector against 15% for public sector. I think it goes to show that the "social contract" that public employees have traditionally enjoyed eg. good pension for a reduced salary, has diminished somewhat. Also a more fluid labour market where a job for life is a thing of the past.If working conditions are bad surely they’d want to organise? But I do take your point. Part of the issue might be you walk in to an already unionised organisation it’s easier to join and organise versus trying to set one up from scratch.
Assuming your son-in-laws approach of voting with his feet was more likely than striking in the private sector I did a little check to see what turnover rates were like between the two - you’re almost twice as likely to leave a public sector job than private sector which may suggest employees are happier in the private sector.
Strike less,
Less likely to leave.
Yes there are shit managers as well.
Labour ideally have to make it a non-story, rather than doing anything draconian.
The Tories let net migration rise so far above the average that bringing it down was always going to happen, and is a very easy thing to do, even without any actual tough actions.
They also tried to make asylum the issue, slowing down the claims, and towards the end pretty much stopped making decisions at all. If claims are dealt with quickly, the overall costs come down dramatically, and it becomes much less of a political issue.
Platforms? Different heights goes back before 1948 nationalisation. This is trains that can't rescue another because couplers are at different heights.Surely platforms are a standard height? Or are we simply talking millimetres? And they can be adjusted to all be the same?
if that is really a thing, and I’ve no reason to doubt you as you know your stuff on railways, then I’m am stunned. Surprised? No, stunned? yes.
It’s impossible. You can’t outdo Reform on immigration. Given the choice between the diet version and the real version people will always choose the latter.
Platforms? Different heights goes back before 1948 nationalisation. This is trains that can't rescue another because couplers are at different heights.
I'll check the new one I heard about, but companies have had to have "Thunderbird" locos stationed at various places to rescue failed trains, with adaptable couplers.
BR "standard" locos were designed by R A Riddles, largely based on LMS designs, but using standard components so you didn't need separate stock for each design.
The main deviation came with diesels, when every region went for diesel-electric, except the Western Region which went for diesels with hydraulic transmission. But you could still couple them together. This "AI generated" story must have been written by a Western Region AI system: "The mechanical skills required for maintaining hydraulic transmission are more similar to those available in the mechanical sector. This made diesel-hydraulics more appealing than diesel-electrics in Britain, which would have required a new discipline of electrical engineering."
Some of this will inevitably be due to people struggling to get on the housing ladder.Well the stats I saw showed it to be around 11% churn for private sector against 15% for public sector. I think it goes to show that the "social contract" that public employees have traditionally enjoyed eg. good pension for a reduced salary, has diminished somewhat. Also a more fluid labour market where a job for life is a thing of the past.
Well the stats I saw showed it to be around 11% churn for private sector against 15% for public sector. I think it goes to show that the "social contract" that public employees have traditionally enjoyed eg. good pension for a reduced salary, has diminished somewhat. Also a more fluid labour market where a job for life is a thing of the past.
Careful with those stats.
Is an internal transfer within the public sector counted as turnover?
And if turnover in the public sector is so high, those gold-plated pensions can't be that good.