Dear Amber
A few months ago, you were kind enough to give me some of your valuable time to discuss a few Rye-specific topics that would have been of interest to our readers.
One of these was Southern Rail, its performance as a railway company, and the problem of strike action. At the time (August) there were negotiations with the RMT union and you were cautiously optimistic that these would be successful and normality would return to the service.
Unfortunately, as we now know, that was not to be and industrial action has escalated to a point where it is far beyond inconvenience to passengers, and is starting to affect jobs and livelihoods. This, surely, cannot be condoned by any government. It seems, however, that Southern are as incapable of extracting themselves from this mess as they were of running an efficient service even before the strikes started.
In your recent newsletter you stated quite clearly that the strike was politically motivated, that safety was not an issue with driver-operated doors and that a significant proportion of trains elsewhere were already running using the system that the RMT, and now ASLEF, are striking over. In addition we are told that guards will still be on the trains to assist passengers when required, so jobs will not be lost.
This being the case, a politically-motivated strike can surely only be settled by politicians getting involved, and to hear the Minister for Transport repeating day after day that there is nothing he can do and it is a matter between the unions and the company is simply no longer a sustainable argument.
It is, of course possible that the current round of talks at ACAS may produce an answer that will satisfy both sides – and that would be excellent – but on the basis of the antagonists respective positions at the moment there would seem to be only very small cause for optimism over that.
I was also interested to learn recently – although others have doubtless known for some time – that, unlike other franchises, Southern are paid a fee to manage the railway while the Government collects the income from the fares. This, I assume, means that the Country, through the Government of the day, owns the railway with Southern effectively being the managing agents. This is probably a vast over-simplification of the position, but nevertheless it does mean that the Government, as well as Southern, has a responsibility towards the rail users to ensure that what they are paying for through fares and taxes, is available for their use.
Are you able to assure our readers, and rail users generally, that if the current round of negotiations brings no result, then the Government will finally step in. Whether this means taking over the negotiations, the railway, appointing another agent to run it or even finally siding with the unions, I don’t think the long-suffering rail users really care. All they want is a properly run railway that will take them to their destination and bring them home again efficiently and safely and surely they are entitled to expect a Government that claims to work for all, to ensure that that is exactly what they get.
Yours sincerely
John Minter
Editor, Rye News
What a brilliant letter – couldn’t gave said it better myself!
This is fundamentally an argument about driver-only trains.
One-man operated trains are dangerous. It is fairly easy to understand why. The driver is forbidden, for safety reasons, to leave his cab. Any ‘trouble’ on the train cannot be addressed, whether it is an assault or a heart-attack. ‘Addressed’ might mean something as simple as using a phone to call for outside assistance. The driver won’t necessarily even know anything has happened.
One-man trains also mean no disabled passengers can be carried because at unmanned stations there’ll be no one to operate the wheelchair ramps.
The QED is simple. The government is using this dispute to create the precedent to cut costs elsewhere all over the UK.
The Unions have to fight this to the end. And we should be there behind them.
This is NOT a dispute about Driver Only Trains (DOO). It is about Driver Controlled Trains (DCO) whereby the driver operates the doors – thought by many in the rail industry to be safer than the guard operating the doors – and the guard becomes an on-board attendant, checking fares and crucially having responsibility for safety matters. Southern are NOT proposing to run the trains with just the driver. There will normally be two people on board the train. It is a system run with no problems on other rail networks. Some in fact use DOO, but as I say, Southern are not proposing this. DCO, and indeed DOO, has been agreed by both ASLEF and the RMT with other rail operators.
There is an excellent analysis of the different operating systems, and the current dispute, here http://www.railfuture.org.uk/article1694-Train-staff-duties
Thamelsink trains, which are running from Brighton, safely operate DOO. It is ludicrous that one train going from Brighton to London operating DOO is deemed safe, whilst the other one from Brighton, run by Southern, is not deemed to be safe, even though, unlike the Thameslink train, there will be a second person on board under DCO, the system Southern are proposing. Many travellers who deem Southern’s proposals to be unsafe, accepting the unions’ arguments, are hapy to get on a DOO train on the tube network, and indeed a driverless train on the Docklands Light Railway!
Southern has not run the franchise well, and has handled this dispute badly. It has lost the public relations war, crucial in any industrial dispute. They have not got the message across that they are not proposing DOO. They have not got the message across that what they are proposing is run safely elsewhere, with the agreement of the RMT and ASLEF. One can only come to the conclusion that, as Amber Rudd has said, the unions motives are political.
I do agree that the Government should become involved, as the two sides seem incapable of reaching agreement. The longer-term outcome for both Southern and the unions may not be favourable. But what is essential is that this incredibly damaging dispute is settled as soon as possible. If that means transferring the franchise on a temporary basis to another operator, so be it. If that means the Government running the service, as they did on the East Coast Line, but making it crystal clear that this is no the first step in renationalisation, so be it. But it is crucial to the long-term benefit of rail users that rail operators are allowed to modernise. The unions must not be allowed to win this time.
Regarding John Howlett’s comment:
John, I know you feel strongly about this and have been loyally supporting your union friends throughout. However this is about trains on Southern joining many others over the national rail network which have been working with driver-operated doors for, in some cases, many years. Southern have undertaken that a second crew member will continue to be on the trains to look after passengers in the same manner (other than operating doors) as they do at the moment and even the rail regulator’s office has declared the system to be safe. In an earlier comment you suggested a campaign of civil disobedience. I suspect that the mood of the passengers right now is such that any civil disobedience is more likely to be directed against RMT and ASLEF than Southern. There is an interesting article in the Times today (Fri Dec 16) on all this.
Writers seem to be at odds over whether trains will be crewed by one person or two. This would seem to be a matter of public record and not a matter of debate. What am I missing? As we intend to visit Rye in the upcoming year via rail service, this is not an idle question from us, living in Philadephia PA, USA as we do.
There is no doubt that Southern is a failed train operator. It is only for ideological reasons that this Government pretends this is not the case and continues the franchise. So, yes, of course this is a political debate. The fact is that privatisation has led to a byzantine and dysfunctional railway system, with plenty of middle men making a handsome profit at the expense of the taxpayer and railway users. It is no surprise that the cost of rail travel per mile here is three times that of Germany. The current strikes are on the face of it about technological progress versus job cuts. The reality is that Big Business is encouraged by this Government to chip, chip, chip away at workers’ rights and to undermine public services across all sectors. In a constant quest for ‘efficiencies’, misery is brought to many and profit to a select few. The solution is obvious: nationalise the railways and provide proper funding. The Unions are not only standing up for their members, but for the public too. I applaud their resolve and they have my full support. It seems to me that the only mode of transport our ministers are truly interested in is the elevator in their ivory tower. Shame on them.
Eric
The trains on the Rye line are not part of the proposal to introduce DCO (whereby the driver operates the doors but there is a second employee on the train) but are affected by the strike action! Despite what John Howlett has said, Southern are not proposing to remove the second employee on the train. If you travel to Rye by train, there will be a driver and a second employee on the train.
Eric
This link explains the issues very clearly. http://www.railfuture.org.uk/article1694-Train-staff-duties
Dominic
How are the unions standing up for the public when through a totally unjustifiable strike they are depriving workers and students of the means to get to work, and losing millions for businesses in revenue? I wonder how much money Rye businesses have lost through this strike action. Renationalising the railway system would be disastrous – I remember only too well the appalling service, rolling stock and travelling conditions British Rail provided. And of course the unions were able to bring the entire network to a halt through strike action. A return to that power is,I think, the real reason why this current action is taking place.
Hello Tim
Thank you for your comments. I would be interested to know how many people other than you believe that Southern were providing a super fantastic, great value for money, no room for improvement service PRIOR to the start of the strikes. You are telling me about the workers and students that are deprived from getting to work. Thank you for that, I really wasn’t aware!
As it happens, we moved from Winchelsea to Rye in 2010 so that both my children could better travel to school to Ashford (I’m happy to talk about schooling in this country if you want) and so that my wife could travel to work in Eastbourne, Ashford & further afield. Other than that, we all rely heavily on the railway for travel socially too. So I think it is fair to say we have some experience of the Southern service. It is dire at its best. What is your experience, I’m interested to know?
Just this morning, my daughter went to Rye to catch the rail replacement bus to Hastings, only to find that it had left 10 minutes early, for no discernable reason. My son then wanted to catch a bus in the afternoon to Ashford, he missed this too (after having belittled his sister for not being savvy in these matters), so I had to drive him. This is a normal day.
We were lucky enough to travel around Europe this summer by train, partially to give my children an insight into the wider world before the UK hangs up its ‘closed for business’ sign (but that is another strand too). It was a wonderful experience, with the only hiccup being in Hungary, all trains were punctual, clean, reliable. It is possible. I’m aware that I’m privileged to have the resources to cope by other means, this is not the case for many.
The problem with British Rail was long term underfunding. A nationalised railway system can work, just look at many countries in Europe. Privatisation just sucks money out of the system, it doesn’t make it any better. I’m sure you’re right that this Government is keen to ban Union action. How will this make things better? Will you now be telling us that the NHS, the police, schooling, social care, prison service, etc, etc, are all working absolutely fine too? I await your comments.
p.s.: note to Editor. As far as I’m concerned, I’m pleased that Rye News is fully taking on the mantle of the earlier Rye PIG (Planning Information Group). A forum for robust discussion is welcome.
it has been brought to my attention that for some reason our section of railway has been chosen as battlefront for this dispute. As at Eastbourne depot there are plenty of drivers and guards spending their days seating around in staff rest room with no trains being allocated to them
Last Thursday 2912 and Friday 3012 two non strike days Southern choose to run no trains from Hasting to Ashford apprantly there was buses but non of these was scheduled on Southern app.
We now have 3 days of guard strike and I have been told the majority of guards at Eastbourne depot are non union and over 2/3 are turning up to work and not being allocated trains. Only 2 managers are allowed to work Eastbourne to Brighton trains.
I also hearing that come Tuesday there may be buses that day too so we could only assume there will buses from Rye station forseenable.
I have sent numerous emails about why Rye services are bing so affected compared to elsewhere to Southern stakeholder, transport focus and Amber Rudd and have recieved nothin back.
I would suggest if you do want trains back to Rye you use writetothem.com to send your concerns to Amber Rudd so she fully rea lists affect it is having on Rye town.
Regards
Paul
@marshlinktrains