Poor transport links: any one else thinking of fleeing East Dulwich?

[rendelharris]

DulwichLondoner Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> there are also other areas which have been less

> affected, e.g. Balham, from where Southern trains

> to Victoria have never run once every hour during

> rush hour, AFAIK and based on what local residents

> tell me.

That's a bit apples and oranges: Balham has sixteen services per hour to Victoria, whereas ED has four per hour to London Bridge. So if industrial action forced a loss of 75% of services, ED would be down to one train an hour while Balham would still have four. Southern are a disgrace but you have to take into consideration the volume of trains expected in ideal circumstances before simply assuming other areas are better off.

[KidKruger]

The increasing lack of certainty of full train service between ED and LB has certainly made the last couple of years shit as far as being based in ED and work goes, especially when I was travelling to Milton Keynes daily.

If I know anyone considering moving to ED it's the first (probably, only) warning I give.

Perhaps I was spoiled the first few years from 1990 and actually what I resent is the delta between then and now, either way it's nowadays predictable only in that there's less certainty now.

PLEASE don't anyone bang on about buses, train, walking - I don't do the turning-up at work in sweat thing, nor should I have to if we have a direct link to LB.

There are two things at play here IMO, (1) The bad way that Govt have set-up privatisation of our line, the contrcats they've agreed to, and the lack of accountability to the public, (2) Lazy ungrateful railway staff or unions, propa 1st world wankers.

ETA: the last word rhymes with 'Tankers', BTW.

[DulwichLondoner]

rendelharris Wrote:

> That's a bit apples and oranges: Balham has

> sixteen services per hour to Victoria, whereas ED

> has four per hour to London Bridge.

Ehm, no, it's not apples and oranges, it's the very crux of the matter.

Not all areas served by Southern are affected equally. Areas with more frequent connections, like Balham, can withstand these disruptions better precisely because they have more train services to begin with.

> [... ] before simply assuming other areas

> are better off.

I don't assume anything, I simply listen to what residents tell me. Of course there is the risk that residents may have exaggerated the reliability of the Balham line, because almsot everyone seems particularly invested in convincing themselves and others that wherever they live is the best place on Earth :)

[KalamityKel]

So... Does "poor transport links" simply relate to trains to make this qualification?

I'm bemused with the attitude that life is over because you can't get a train direct to your chosen destination.

Yet, the area itself offers many travel options to get you on your journey! *rolls eyes

[rendelharris]

KidKruger Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> PLEASE don't anyone bang on about buses, train,

> walking - I don't do the turning-up at work in

> sweat thing, nor should I have to if we have a

> direct link to LB.

> There are two things at play here IMO, (1) The bad

> way that Govt have set-up privatisation of our

> line, the contrcats they've agreed to, and the

> lack of accountability to the public, (2) Lazy

> ungrateful railway staff or unions, propa 1st

> world @#$%&.

>

> ETA: the last word rhymes with 'Tankers', BTW.

So the unions wanting better pay and conditions makes them first world problem J.Arthurs...your refusal even to listen to the suggestion of any other form of transport beyond a direct fast train, that's not a first world problem at all, I take it?

[DulwichLondoner]

@KalamityKel, I never said life is over. I am simply saying that this level of disruption, ongoing for such a long time, is unheard of in the developed world, is not acceptable, and is a material disruption, not a minor annoyance.

May I ask if you rely on Southern Fail for your commute, and if you have been affected at all?

Before I started to commute by motorcycle for this very reason, trust me, I did explore all the possible public transport alternatives (0verground, buses, etc): none was a walk in the park, I still arrived late lots of times, and there were many evenings when it could take me 90 minutes or more. For a 6-mile commute. And please don't mention pushbikes: in city traffic pushbikes are more dangerous than a motorcycle, I'd sweat a lot (yes, I know many don't, but I do) and it would be a pain to shower at the office (just a handful of showers for the whole building, long queues, etc).

@rendelharris , no one is blameless in this.

Southern and the Government want to exploit this as a way to crush the unions, all unions.

The unions have failed to make a case for how and why driver-only trains would be more dangerous. Maybe they are and the unions are right, but the unions have failed to make a clear and compelling case. Driver-only trains have been around for a while on many lines. Are they really more dangerous? I genuinely don't know, but the unions have not explained it clearly. By this I mean their official websites, their press releases, etc, not just what the press wrote about it. As you will remember from our discussions about 20mph and cycle lanes, I am not convinced until I see a modicum of evidence.

The problem with this kind of protracted industrial action is that unions end up causing a lot of damage to wide parts of the society as a whole, more than to the employer. There is a difference between a strike which, says, stops production in a factory and causes a direct economic damage to the employer, but not to the wider society, and something like this, which has a minimum financial impact on the employer (as most commuters buy season tickets anyway; yes, Southern had to refund about a month's worth of tickets, big deal...) but a huge impact on society.

What unions seem not to care about is that people from all walks of life use trains: from city traders who make hundreds of thousands of pounds to unqualified workers on minimum wage or zero hours and no job security. By behaving like this, rail workers are causing a lot of pain to people who are way, way worse off than them. If this were about a matter of life or death I could understand it, but it's not; rail workers already have pretty stable jobs , the unions have been successful in negotiating lots of pay rises, their pensions are not under attack in any way, etc etc.

Also, there is a very strong chance that their behaviour will be used as a pretext to curb unions and workers' rights in general, to make strikes harder for all, etc.

[KidKruger]

If the unions and industrial disputes gave a shit about the travelling public they could allow passengers on trains / through barriers without paying / tapping-in (oyster). That way the organisation gets hit financially a bit and society doesn't take the hit (as in DL's 'manufacturing' example, above).

I think unions take the piss, because they can, check out-out how bad the train service has been the last couple of years for evidence of that !

This thread is (chiefly) about train links to central London, right ? So obviously that's what people are going to whine about (like me) and discuss. If the thread was about bin-emptying, littering or parking then people would talk about that obviously, none of it is life-ending stuff so to point that out is sort of pointless because no-one has made the case that it is !

ETA: Basically, the relentless disputes and strikes are just one big Pity Party organised by the unions in a perverted 'victim' game.

[Penguin68]

So the unions wanting better pay and conditions makes them first world problem

It is fair to note that train drivers are actually quite well paid - by stopping overtime they will be reducing (some of them) their pay to well below the ?70k that some are able to earn with overtime. They are in a very different place than e.g. Picture House staff. Of course workers should have the right to earn whatever they can squeeze out of their employers (which, given the very curious deal that Southern did with HMG turns out to be us, if we are taxpayers) but let's not confuse them with people on the bread-line.

[Cardelia]

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> So the unions wanting better pay and conditions

> makes them first world problem J.Arthurs...your

> refusal even to listen to the suggestion of any

> other form of transport beyond a direct fast

> train, that's not a first world problem at all, I

> take it?

This isn't about pay and conditions. It's about the RMT (and ASLEF to an extent) wanting to consolidate their powerbase by retaining guards as key members of train crew. Currently the situation is 'no guard, no train' but when DOO comes in the only crucial member of train staff is the driver. Currently if guards go on strike the unions can bring services to a halt, whereas with DOO they have to get the drivers to go on strike in order to create the same level of disruption. The unions don't want to lose this influence hence their opposition to DOO. Anything from the unions regarding safety, pay etc. is a smokescreen, the real issue is power and influence.

[rendelharris]

Penguin68 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> So the unions wanting better pay and conditions

> makes them first world problem

>

> It is fair to note that train drivers are actually

> quite well paid - by stopping overtime they will

> be reducing (some of them) their pay to well below

> the ?70k that some are able to earn with overtime.

> They are in a very different place than e.g.

> Picture House staff. Of course workers should have

> the right to earn whatever they can squeeze out of

> their employers (which, given the very curious

> deal that Southern did with HMG turns out to be

> us, if we are taxpayers) but let's not confuse

> them with people on the bread-line.

I'm not, I was merely pointing out that it's a bit rich to complain that other people's problems are "first world" ? in other words they should man up and get on with it, lots of others have it worse ? while insisting that one's own problems are far more serious.

As I understand it, the main dispute with Southern is about the decision to move to single man operation regarding the doors and what the unions regard (probably rightly, as far as I can see) a long-term plan to lay off train guards. While it's true that drivers are very well paid at around 50,000 pounds a year plus overtime, I believe guards receive considerably less ? if anyone knows the actual sum I'd be interested to know. Yes, it's not like a campaign to get people paid a decent living wage, but it's more about fighting staff cuts rather than wages, isn't it?

[Penguin68]

Yes, it's not like a campaign to get people paid a decent living wage, but it's more about fighting staff cuts rather than wages, isn't it?

I think it's a bit more complex than that - driver operated doors would allow trains to run when there was a driver present but not (always) an additional train operative - but it is not clear that it would be the intention to phase out that staff member (yet) - just make sure that trains run even when one staff member may be missing. In fact many trains could be run without even a driver on a number of lines. It is true that some main line rains have a different sort of door cut-off than, for instance, do tubes (when the train will not run if the door is blocked open) - but this safety feature could be (and on some rolling stock has) been retrofitted.

It is always socially unfortunate when technology removes the need for certain types of job, but this does not mean we should demand old and failing technology to be kept just to keep people employed. Particularly where this leads to services being more expensive to customers (or taxpayers) than they need to be to provide equivalent (or better) levels of service.

We have coped without firemen (stokers) on trains for many years, and clippies on buses - also jobs lost through technology and system change. These things happen. Of course people can fight against that, but 'preserving jobs' is not, in and of itself, always or necessarily a good thing. No particular job carries an enduring moral imperative.

[DulwichLondoner]

rendelharris Wrote:

[...] it's more about fighting

> staff cuts rather than wages, isn't it?

It is about fighting potential job cuts in the long term but, mostly, as Cardelia rightly pointed out, it is about POWER.

We in London at least have alternatives, however unpleasant and painful.

If you commute from somewhere along the Brighton line you don't have many. What do you do if your end up stranded somewhere near Gatwick and there are no more trains? Get a cab for the remaining 30 or so miles every single time this happens?

[Jeremy]

KalamityKel Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I'm bemused with the attitude that life is over

> because you can't get a train direct to your

> chosen destination.

> Yet, the area itself offers many travel options to

> get you on your journey! *rolls eyes

But an extra 30mins each direction - which is realistic for some - is a huge deal for many of us. Especially if you have to drop off or pick up kids. (luckily for me it only makes around 10 mins difference to get the overground, but not everyone is as fortunate!)

[KidKruger]

"..with DOO they have to get the drivers to go on strike in order to create the same level of disruption. The unions don't want to lose this influence hence their opposition to DOO. Anything from the unions regarding safety, pay etc. is a smokescreen, the real issue is power and influence."

Which sort of whacks the union's Pity Party out of court, doesn't it ?!

The 'struggling worker' argument (strangely supported by posters on here) is cover for the divisive and damaging unions' approach to 'doing business'. It's sickening, the bare-faced self-interest and the abuse of the passengers from whom the money comes to pay their wages - the sense of self-entitlement bewildering.

[rendelharris]

So there's no truth in anything the unions say, it's all just a big scam got up to protect their power? Not an iota of justification in any argument they put forward? Moving into tinfoil hat territory. Where's your quote from, by the way, if you're going to put it out there as a truism let's at least see the source. ETA oh I see, quoting another poster. Which doesn't really demolish the alternative argument.

I find your sense of self-entitlement somewhat bewildering, it appears your right to get to your work in exactly the way you wish should have supremacy over any right (and sorry, it is still a right) a union has to take industrial action.

[Bic Basher]

Cardelia Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> rendelharris Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > So the unions wanting better pay and conditions

> > makes them first world problem J.Arthurs...your

> > refusal even to listen to the suggestion of any

> > other form of transport beyond a direct fast

> > train, that's not a first world problem at all,

> I

> > take it?

>

>

> This isn't about pay and conditions. It's about

> the RMT (and ASLEF to an extent) wanting to

> consolidate their powerbase by retaining guards as

> key members of train crew. Currently the situation

> is 'no guard, no train' but when DOO comes in the

> only crucial member of train staff is the driver.

> Currently if guards go on strike the unions can

> bring services to a halt, whereas with DOO they

> have to get the drivers to go on strike in order

> to create the same level of disruption. The unions

> don't want to lose this influence hence their

> opposition to DOO. Anything from the unions

> regarding safety, pay etc. is a smokescreen, the

> real issue is power and influence.

In ASLEF's case, they wanted to come to an agreement with Southern, yet it was their members who voted against the deal on safety grounds.

[KidKruger]

RH you crack me up mate '..I find your sense of self-entitlement somewhat bewildering..'.

yeah wanting to get a train journey in reasonable time and frequency, having already paid for the ticket sold to me by the rail company purporting to deliver a service. Yeah how fecking entitled is that ?! Like you never expect anything you pay for to be delivered/provided, right ?! Do me a favour and 'on yer bike' (which seesm to be how you like to get about).

Look - I know you just 'have' to 'win' 'arguments' so crack-on lad if you think begging for sources (what off the internet !?) makes you credible.

Right, the first quote was from you, the others are showing the use of the word as ironic/sarcastic/whatever, but you know that already innits.

[uncleglen]

All unions want improved pay and conditions regardless of whether the situation of their members is better or worse than others. As someone who has worked in the public sector and the private sector in the same type of job I can say that we are being held to ransom by the unions.

Public sector workers have a grand old time both in work and when they retire but they act like they are privileged. There should be no strike rules - why should the police be the only area of the public sector where this applies?

FYI I don't know the ins and outs, but I do know that the EU has some control over the railways and has issued directives and regulations I expect with a view to enabling ease of access across the EU transport systems.

A relative is a member of a Transport union and they were advised to vote Leave because of the interference in our systems by 'Europe'

[DulwichLondoner]

rendelharris Wrote:

> I find your sense of self-entitlement somewhat

> bewildering, it appears your right to get to your

> work in exactly the way you wish should have

> supremacy over any right (and sorry, it is still a

> right) a union has to take industrial action.

I'm not too sure who you were replying to.

As far as I am concerned, like I said, I don't know the first thing about rail safety. For all I know the unions could be right. What I know, though, is that they have utterly and miserably failed to explain their case.

Driver-only trains have been around for a while, on a number of lines. If the unions are right, I'd expect it would have been very easy for them to put together a couple of leaflets bombarding the public with detailed information on how and why those lines are more dangerous. AFAIK they haven't; their material only mentions a couple of isolated incidents, with no additional colour whatsoever to understand if those single cases are in any way representative.

Unfortunately we live in the era of fake news, Trump Le Pen Brexit etc, in which simply shouting something from the rooftops is way more important and effective than trying to prove it.

Finally, I am lucky because I have the alternative of commuting by motorcycle, because with my job it's not the end of the world if I occasionally arrive late, and because my job has never been threatened by this mess.

Many other people are not so lucky.

There are rumours of employers rescinding job offers to, or refusing to consider those who commute on SouthernFail.

If you are on a zero-hour contract and you show up late for a week in a row, you may be shown the door (with no notice nor anything). If you commute from Brighton into London Victoria you effectively have no alternatives.

For you it's absolutely OK that rail workers have been causing so much pain to all these people, including all those who are way, way worse off than them?

If you were one of those zero-hours workers who has been (don't make me swear) affected very negatively from a financial perspective, would your reaction still be the same?

PS Don't know about ASLEF, but RTM did confirm Cordelia's point in one of its leaflets. They said the government was keen on driver-only trains because it would make it harder for strikers to disrupt the service.

[Cardelia]

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> So there's no truth in anything the unions say,

> it's all just a big scam got up to protect their

> power? Not an iota of justification in any

> argument they put forward? Moving into tinfoil

> hat territory. Where's your quote from, by the

> way, if you're going to put it out there as a

> truism let's at least see the source. ETA oh I

> see, quoting another poster. Which doesn't really

> demolish the alternative argument.

DOO has been in place in the UK for several decades. There are a few places where trains with DOO and trains with conductor-operated doors have run on the same piece of track between the same stations. There is no evidence to suggest that DOO is in any way less safe than the use of guards/conductors. The Office of Rail and Road is an independent authority responsible for overseeing safety on the UK's railways. They say DOO is safe:

http://www.orr.gov.uk/news-and-media/press-releases/2016/orrs-statement-on-driver-only-operation

The Rail Safety and Standards Board is another independent authority responsible for rail safety. They say DOO is safe:

https://www.rssb.co.uk/hot-topics/driver-controlled-operation

The RMT's response is to accuse both organisations of whitewashing their report and making a mockery of their claim to be independent:

https://www.rmt.org.uk/news/rmt-slams-office-of-road-and-rail-report-into-southern-rail/

What was that about tinfoil hat territory?

[rendelharris]

DulwichLondoner Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> For you it's absolutely OK that rail workers have

> been causing so much pain to all these people,

> including all those who are way, way worse off

> than them?

Yes. Yes it absolutely is and that's the only thing I have been trying to convey. In fact, like the unions, I absolutely revel in it and hope no solution is ever reached so we can go on feeding our sadistic desire for everyone to have a shit life, that's the aim.

[rendelharris]

KidKruger Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> RH you crack me up mate '..I find your sense of

> self-entitlement somewhat bewildering..'.

> yeah wanting to get a train journey in reasonable

> time and frequency, having already paid for the

> ticket sold to me by the rail company purporting

> to deliver a service. Yeah how fecking entitled

> is that ?!

Presumably you then feel that the unions should be banned from withdrawing from overtime or taking strike action? You accuse the unions of having a bewildering sense of self-entitlement for working to rule to prevent what they see as detrimental changes, so the only conclusion is that your sense of self-entitlement leads you to believe that nobody should ever go on strike if it inconveniences you, doesn't it?

[DulwichLondoner]

rendelharris Wrote:

> You accuse the unions of having a

> bewildering sense of self-entitlement for working

> to rule to prevent what they see as detrimental

> changes, so the only conclusion is that your sense

> of self-entitlement leads you to believe that

> nobody should ever go on strike if it

> inconveniences you, doesn't it?

I can't speak for KidKruger, but I'd just like to bring your attention to the fact that, AFAIK, over the last 10 years or so no 'industrial action' has come even remotely close to bringing the type of pain, chaos and misery caused by this Southern Fail mess. Tube workers have gone on strike many times. Other rail workers have gone on strike many times. Yet, other than possibly some journalists for the Daily Torigraph or the Express, I'm not aware anyone has ever proposed abolishing unions or the right to strike in those occasions. But enough is enough, this Southern thing has no comparison in the developed world.

I don't think any one is saying that there should be no right to strike. The points are different:

1) the unions have miserably failed to substantiate the 'safety' point

2) If I remember correctly, Southern was willing to guarantee no job cuts but it wasn't enough

3) It's all very perverse because it causes minimal financial loss to the employer but huge disruption to society, including to lots of people who are substantially worse off than rail workers

4) It's also, if not primarily, about power.

This doesn't mean the other parties are blameless, far from it.

[rendelharris]

I'm glad you note that other parties aren't blameless. A huge amount of the rot on Southern has been taking place on non-strike days because of under-recruitment and congestion on the network. Southern didn't recruit enough drivers to cover overtime if their staff refused, as they are quite permitted to do without industrial action, to take up overtime offers, and so had to cancel huge chunks of timetable. In this current action, Southern say they are going to cancel a quarter of their trains: this is not because staff are on strike, it's simply because they won't be taking up overtime and Southern haven't recruited enough staff to cover their normal timetable sans overtime. And let's not forget the role of the government: they were all lined up to devolve Southern's suburban services to TfL last year, all of a sudden, Labour mayor, oh we've changed our mind.

[DulwichLondoner]

I remember Southeastern or another company that served Denmark Hill had a problem with understaffing around 2008-9, but nothing even remotely comparable to this.

However, as far as I understand it, resorting to overtime is an arrangement which suits both parties: the company finds it cheaper than hiring and training new staff, while unions are happy because its members get paid more.

This point seems unregulated - it evidently shouldn't.