Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

The rail strike – the vast majority aren’t affected – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited June 21 in General
imageThe rail strike – the vast majority aren’t affected – politicalbetting.com

Rail strikes tend to get a lot of coverage in the London-based media because it is only really the big cities that rely very much on rail for commuting. The capital is something of an outlier when it comes to the importance of rail. Also this comes after the pandemic when a very large proportion of office workers operated from home without the need to commute.

Read the full story here

«13

Comments

  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 17,045
    You can watch MAD GOD for free on amazon prime by signing up for a 7 day taster with Shudders, then cancelling

    Not saying you should, not very different from stuff Terry G has been doing since God was a boy. But you can.
  • gettingbettergettingbetter Posts: 336
    What is Mad God to do with rail strikes?
  • londonpubmanlondonpubman Posts: 1,617

    What is Mad God to do with rail strikes?

    Not every post is on topic here 👍
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 17,045

    What is Mad God to do with rail strikes?

    lorra steampunk in there
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 28,177

    What is Mad God to do with rail strikes?

    Not every post is on topic here 👍
    Depends on the topic. Sometimes something apparently off-topic becomes topical!
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 75,460

    What is Mad God to do with rail strikes?

    Not every post is on topic here 👍
    The understatement, it is too much!
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 17,030
    "Paul Bickerdike, Christian Peoples Alliance, candidate in the Wakefield By Election.
    "Vote for me cause I've never sexually assaulted anyone".
    Well that's a winner."

    https://twitter.com/pete_nicoll/status/1531327463896530944
  • LeonLeon Posts: 20,968
    My main objection to strikes is that they are BORING. People hoping for more money. Exciting, not
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 32,326
    Interesting polling.

    Noticeably it is the triple lock generation who object to the strikes most, even if they're plans are unaffected, while youngsters of working age are more sympathetic...
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 20,945
    Leon said:

    My main objection to strikes is that they are BORING. People hoping for more money. Exciting, not

    Prepare for a lengthy period of ennui should your travels ever end then.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 1,625
    Foxy said:

    Interesting polling.

    Noticeably it is the triple lock generation who object to the strikes most, even if they're plans are unaffected, while youngsters of working age are more sympathetic...

    The triple lock generation were ever thus, and they’re everywhere.

    Last night an aged Dutch taxi driver from Schiphol to anonymous hotel somewhere, I mention queues at the airport, he “the problem is the Young people today are lazy. They don’t want to work”.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 18,498
    Leon said:

    My main objection to strikes is that they are BORING. People hoping for more money. Exciting, not

    Its also people hoping not to have half of their safety colleagues fired by the government leading to insufficient maintenance and massive accidents like we had 20 years ago.

    This is the key point that keeps being missed. When they say they are striking to protect jobs, ask what the jobs are. The government have directed Network Rail to make massive cuts to maintenance and inspections. Which will literally leave people dead. Again.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 101,708
    Foxy said:

    Leon said:

    My main objection to strikes is that they are BORING. People hoping for more money. Exciting, not

    Yes, working class people wanting a bit of levelling come to them has the PB Tories clutching at their pearls at the ghastliness of it all.
    The truly sickening thing is pensioners getting a likely 10% increase their pensions whilst telling the people who work to their pensions to accept 3%.

    I'm so old I remember last year when the PM and many Tories were boasting about higher wages and delivering on that.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 20,945
    Foxy said:

    Interesting polling.

    Noticeably it is the triple lock generation who object to the strikes most, even if they're plans are unaffected, while youngsters of working age are more sympathetic...

    People with jobs in favour of pay rises shock.
  • TresTres Posts: 964
    Foxy said:

    Interesting polling.

    Noticeably it is the triple lock generation who object to the strikes most, even if they're plans are unaffected, while youngsters of working age are more sympathetic...

    No surprise from the most selfish generation in history.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 75,460
    edited June 21

    Foxy said:

    Leon said:

    My main objection to strikes is that they are BORING. People hoping for more money. Exciting, not

    Yes, working class people wanting a bit of levelling come to them has the PB Tories clutching at their pearls at the ghastliness of it all.
    The truly sickening thing is pensioners getting a likely 10% increase their pensions whilst telling the people who work to their pensions to accept 3%.
    Look, there is no choice about that, an election might happen at any moment!
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 18,193
    Leon said:

    My main objection to strikes is that they are BORING. People hoping for more money. Exciting, not

    Says the man with lots of money
  • Jim_MillerJim_Miller Posts: 276
    Malmesbury said: "IIRC the policy in the US military is to provide a Chaplin of whatever faith is professed by serving members. Whether or not they are permanently attached to the unit, or visit, is down to the number of members of that religion in the unit.

    They don't allow Wicca chaplins, though, again IIRC."

    That sounds right -- and I should have remembered that.

    On the general subject: In 1993, Congress passed, and Bill Clinton signed, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, with this purpose: "Government shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability." The Supreme Court ruled that the provisions binding states were unconstitutional, but it still applies to the federal government. (And many states have passed their own versions.)

    What inspired it? This: "In Smith, the Court upheld the state of Oregon's refusal to grant unemployment benefits to two Native Americans fired from their jobs at a rehab clinic after testing positive for mescaline, the main psychoactive compound in the peyote cactus, which they had used in a religious ceremony." source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Freedom_Restoration_Act

    (It has since been applied more broadly.)
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 20,934
    FPT Curse of the new thread. Just correcting @HYUFD:
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    Thanks to right wing media the definition of “woke” continues to expand and will not stop until it comes to mean “anything that’s in opposition to the Conservative party”.

    Unions: woke
    Big business: way too woke
    Pro-European tendencies: woke
    Teaching foreign languages at school: woke
    The metric system: woke as fuck
    Britain’s capital city, the whole of Surrey and Berkshire and all settlements north of Carlisle: yep, you guessed it, woke

    Here you go, a definitive guide to The Wokeness, for dim lefties who keep making this retarded point, believing it to be original if not interesting


    Woke Religion: A Taxonomy
    By
    @peterboghossian
    and
    @ShellenbergerMD



    https://twitter.com/peterboghossian/status/1458781564964331520?s=20&t=ZKME03Kosfa8ZzI3mJWkww
    Your retort is exactly the issue. The “anti-woke” have decided that everyone not right wing is therefore their caricature of woke.

    Most of us live our lives, try not to go out of our way to offend people for the sake of it, but object to the more puritanical attitudes of the Roundheads that populate parts of the left.

    But our pretty mainstream, normie and dare I say Blairite, views get grouped the Mail and friends as woke. So guess what, we stop listening to them. If you expand your list of enemies to incorporate most people in the country then generally in a democracy you end up losing.

    Everyone banged on in 2016 about how elite metropolitan Britain invented a fantasy globalist paradise that ignored the real voters. Now their opposite make the same mistake.
    You didn't even read it, and if you did you still probably wouldn't get it

    Intelligent lefties like you that do not accept the existential peril of Wokeness are a major part of the problem. You just think it is cranks, social justice warriors, etc. It is waaaaay beyond that
    No, the difference is I’m comfortable with it because I know social progress works through some form of dialectic.

    If I panicked at every bonkers proclamation by the Christian Right (and OK, some woke warriors do because it’s their oxygen) I’d be a quivering wreck.

    I just don’t have the same world view that we are a declining civilisation wrecked by decadence.
    By far the most important nation in the West is the USA. It is the armoury of the West and it’s ultimate bastion: with the constitutional defence of Free Speech and so forth

    If you don’t see rampant decline in America you’re a fucking moron, with all due respect

    And, yes, the decline is being accelerated by lunatics on the Left AND the Right
    America's problem is huge inequality combined with a collapse in social mobility, which is feeding a downwards spiral of hopelessness, rage and extremism. Its decline could be arrested and reversed by a couple of decades of moderate social democracy. I don't expect this to happen, though.
    America was at its height under Reagan, hardly a social democrat!
    What you mean is that America started going downhill under Reagan.
    The opposite he reversed the policies of the social democrat, high tax, high spend Carter and oversaw the economic boom of the 1980s. While also moving America on from the humiliation of Vietnam to begin the process of winning the Cold War and becoming the unchallenged global superpower
    His attack on the unions and cuts to government spending started the relentless rise in inequality and collapse in social mobility that has left America in the mess it is in now.
    Unemployment when Reagan left office in 1989 was 5% compared to 8% when he entered office in 1980. Union power in the US as in the UK pre Thatcher needed to be curbed
    What was UK unemployment when Thatcher became PM and what was it when she left?
    Little different admittedly but inflation fell from 15% in 1979 to 10% in 1990 and under 5% when Major left office
    RPI was 10.3% when Thatcher came to power in May 1979 and 9.7% in November 1990 when she left office, according to the ONS.

    So, to all intents and purposes, 10% when she arrived, 10% when she left.

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/inflationandpriceindices/datasets/consumerpriceinflation

  • No_Offence_AlanNo_Offence_Alan Posts: 2,741
    Foxy said:

    Interesting polling.

    Noticeably it is the triple lock generation who object to the strikes most, even if they're plans are unaffected, while youngsters of working age are more sympathetic...

    Presumably these are the same boomers who responded in polls during the COVID crisis that nightclubs should never re-open.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 98,988

    Foxy said:

    Leon said:

    My main objection to strikes is that they are BORING. People hoping for more money. Exciting, not

    Yes, working class people wanting a bit of levelling come to them has the PB Tories clutching at their pearls at the ghastliness of it all.
    The truly sickening thing is pensioners getting a likely 10% increase their pensions whilst telling the people who work to their pensions to accept 3%.

    I'm so old I remember last year when the PM and many Tories were boasting about higher wages and delivering on that.
    I would suggest financial services workers are doing rather better than the average state pensioner.

    'The mean monthly pay packet in the finance sector in February was 31% higher than in December 2019 in cash terms, compared with 14% across all sectors. Pay growth was driven by high earners, reflected in the higher mean figure. However, median pay in the finance industry was also significantly higher than for the economy at large.
    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/may/04/city-london-bonus-boom-risk-driving-up-inequality-institute-fiscal-studies
  • LeonLeon Posts: 20,968
    Foxy said:

    Leon said:

    My main objection to strikes is that they are BORING. People hoping for more money. Exciting, not

    Yes, working class people wanting a bit of levelling up to come to them has the PB Tories clutching at their pearls at the ghastliness of it all.
    I’m not pearl clutching, I’m just filing this under “dog bites man”

    Union strikes for money. Tory turns out to be sleazy. Labour leader is boringly worthy. Eggs go with bacon

  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 19,115

    What is Mad God to do with rail strikes?

    Not every post is on topic here 👍
    No! (faints)
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 2,939

    Leon said:

    My main objection to strikes is that they are BORING. People hoping for more money. Exciting, not

    Its also people hoping not to have half of their safety colleagues fired by the government leading to insufficient maintenance and massive accidents like we had 20 years ago.

    This is the key point that keeps being missed. When they say they are striking to protect jobs, ask what the jobs are. The government have directed Network Rail to make massive cuts to maintenance and inspections. Which will literally leave people dead. Again.
    Yes, this is the crux of the issue.
    The pay stuff is of course what will drive public opinion but the key issue is getting reform that does not lead to unecessary redundancy or safety short cuts.
  • Leon said:

    My main objection to strikes is that they are BORING. People hoping for more money. Exciting, not

    Its also people hoping not to have half of their safety colleagues fired by the government leading to insufficient maintenance and massive accidents like we had 20 years ago.

    This is the key point that keeps being missed. When they say they are striking to protect jobs, ask what the jobs are. The government have directed Network Rail to make massive cuts to maintenance and inspections. Which will literally leave people dead. Again.
    Who cares about the horrors of deferred maintenance? The hours and hours worth of delays.

    If that affects the Me of 2025, that's not my problem. What has future self ever done for me anyway?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 98,988

    FPT Curse of the new thread. Just correcting @HYUFD:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    Thanks to right wing media the definition of “woke” continues to expand and will not stop until it comes to mean “anything that’s in opposition to the Conservative party”.

    Unions: woke
    Big business: way too woke
    Pro-European tendencies: woke
    Teaching foreign languages at school: woke
    The metric system: woke as fuck
    Britain’s capital city, the whole of Surrey and Berkshire and all settlements north of Carlisle: yep, you guessed it, woke

    Here you go, a definitive guide to The Wokeness, for dim lefties who keep making this retarded point, believing it to be original if not interesting


    Woke Religion: A Taxonomy
    By
    @peterboghossian
    and
    @ShellenbergerMD



    https://twitter.com/peterboghossian/status/1458781564964331520?s=20&t=ZKME03Kosfa8ZzI3mJWkww
    Your retort is exactly the issue. The “anti-woke” have decided that everyone not right wing is therefore their caricature of woke.

    Most of us live our lives, try not to go out of our way to offend people for the sake of it, but object to the more puritanical attitudes of the Roundheads that populate parts of the left.

    But our pretty mainstream, normie and dare I say Blairite, views get grouped the Mail and friends as woke. So guess what, we stop listening to them. If you expand your list of enemies to incorporate most people in the country then generally in a democracy you end up losing.

    Everyone banged on in 2016 about how elite metropolitan Britain invented a fantasy globalist paradise that ignored the real voters. Now their opposite make the same mistake.
    You didn't even read it, and if you did you still probably wouldn't get it

    Intelligent lefties like you that do not accept the existential peril of Wokeness are a major part of the problem. You just think it is cranks, social justice warriors, etc. It is waaaaay beyond that
    No, the difference is I’m comfortable with it because I know social progress works through some form of dialectic.

    If I panicked at every bonkers proclamation by the Christian Right (and OK, some woke warriors do because it’s their oxygen) I’d be a quivering wreck.

    I just don’t have the same world view that we are a declining civilisation wrecked by decadence.
    By far the most important nation in the West is the USA. It is the armoury of the West and it’s ultimate bastion: with the constitutional defence of Free Speech and so forth

    If you don’t see rampant decline in America you’re a fucking moron, with all due respect

    And, yes, the decline is being accelerated by lunatics on the Left AND the Right
    America's problem is huge inequality combined with a collapse in social mobility, which is feeding a downwards spiral of hopelessness, rage and extremism. Its decline could be arrested and reversed by a couple of decades of moderate social democracy. I don't expect this to happen, though.
    America was at its height under Reagan, hardly a social democrat!
    What you mean is that America started going downhill under Reagan.
    The opposite he reversed the policies of the social democrat, high tax, high spend Carter and oversaw the economic boom of the 1980s. While also moving America on from the humiliation of Vietnam to begin the process of winning the Cold War and becoming the unchallenged global superpower
    His attack on the unions and cuts to government spending started the relentless rise in inequality and collapse in social mobility that has left America in the mess it is in now.
    Unemployment when Reagan left office in 1989 was 5% compared to 8% when he entered office in 1980. Union power in the US as in the UK pre Thatcher needed to be curbed
    What was UK unemployment when Thatcher became PM and what was it when she left?
    Little different admittedly but inflation fell from 15% in 1979 to 10% in 1990 and under 5% when Major left office
    RPI was 10.3% when Thatcher came to power in May 1979 and 9.7% in November 1990 when she left office, according to the ONS.

    So, to all intents and purposes, 10% when she arrived, 10% when she left.

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/inflationandpriceindices/datasets/consumerpriceinflation

    It was about 15% in 1979 and 10% when she left, down to about 3% by 1993
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22070491
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 17,045

    Foxy said:

    Interesting polling.

    Noticeably it is the triple lock generation who object to the strikes most, even if they're plans are unaffected, while youngsters of working age are more sympathetic...

    Presumably these are the same boomers who responded in polls during the COVID crisis that nightclubs should never re-open.
    I have always thought that, my ambition even in my 20s was to be sufficiently drunk at pub prices to go home at 11, not sit it out till 4 am at the 606 club
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 20,945
    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    Leon said:

    My main objection to strikes is that they are BORING. People hoping for more money. Exciting, not

    Yes, working class people wanting a bit of levelling come to them has the PB Tories clutching at their pearls at the ghastliness of it all.
    The truly sickening thing is pensioners getting a likely 10% increase their pensions whilst telling the people who work to their pensions to accept 3%.

    I'm so old I remember last year when the PM and many Tories were boasting about higher wages and delivering on that.
    I would suggest financial services workers are doing rather better than the average state pensioner.

    'The mean monthly pay packet in the finance sector in February was 31% higher than in December 2019 in cash terms, compared with 14% across all sectors. Pay growth was driven by high earners, reflected in the higher mean figure. However, median pay in the finance industry was also significantly higher than for the economy at large.
    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/may/04/city-london-bonus-boom-risk-driving-up-inequality-institute-fiscal-studies
    Are they stoking inflation?
    Shouldn't you be calling for restraint?
  • pingping Posts: 2,209
    edited June 21
    Fascinating stat on today’s NYT “Daily” podcast.

    “Back when boomers were in their 30’s, they owned about a 3rd of America’s real estate equity. Millennials control just 4%.”
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 75,460

    Leon said:

    My main objection to strikes is that they are BORING. People hoping for more money. Exciting, not

    Its also people hoping not to have half of their safety colleagues fired by the government leading to insufficient maintenance and massive accidents like we had 20 years ago.

    This is the key point that keeps being missed. When they say they are striking to protect jobs, ask what the jobs are. The government have directed Network Rail to make massive cuts to maintenance and inspections. Which will literally leave people dead. Again.
    Who cares about the horrors of deferred maintenance? The hours and hours worth of delays.

    If that affects the Me of 2025, that's not my problem. What has future self ever done for me anyway?
    My future self is such a dick. He's fatter and balder, and still has the gall to sit in smug judgement of all my mistakes.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 17,045

    Malmesbury said: "IIRC the policy in the US military is to provide a Chaplin of whatever faith is professed by serving members. Whether or not they are permanently attached to the unit, or visit, is down to the number of members of that religion in the unit.

    They don't allow Wicca chaplins, though, again IIRC."

    That sounds right -- and I should have remembered that.

    On the general subject: In 1993, Congress passed, and Bill Clinton signed, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, with this purpose: "Government shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability." The Supreme Court ruled that the provisions binding states were unconstitutional, but it still applies to the federal government. (And many states have passed their own versions.)

    What inspired it? This: "In Smith, the Court upheld the state of Oregon's refusal to grant unemployment benefits to two Native Americans fired from their jobs at a rehab clinic after testing positive for mescaline, the main psychoactive compound in the peyote cactus, which they had used in a religious ceremony." source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Freedom_Restoration_Act

    (It has since been applied more broadly.)

    Thanks for recommendation of Bok book, it is on list
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 2,939

    Foxy said:

    Interesting polling.

    Noticeably it is the triple lock generation who object to the strikes most, even if they're plans are unaffected, while youngsters of working age are more sympathetic...

    Presumably these are the same boomers who responded in polls during the COVID crisis that nightclubs should never re-open.
    All boomers are idiots, its a known known
  • LeonLeon Posts: 20,968
    I don’t think the ComRes poll tells us much


    I believe the RMT is “justified” in strike action, as long as their members agree, and it is within the law. That is the whole point of unions, to act for the common good of their workers, and get a better deal, especially in a time of high inflation

    Equallly, the government is justified in telling them to sod off, and face them down, if it so wills, and if it can
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 29,790

    Leon said:

    My main objection to strikes is that they are BORING. People hoping for more money. Exciting, not

    Its also people hoping not to have half of their safety colleagues fired by the government leading to insufficient maintenance and massive accidents like we had 20 years ago.

    (Snip)
    Hold on, can I have a source for that claim please?
  • Good evening. I want to send all PBers food and positive thoughts for the evening.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 5,496
    edited June 21
    Foxy said:

    Interesting polling.

    Noticeably it is the triple lock generation who object to the strikes most, even if they're plans are unaffected, while youngsters of working age are more sympathetic...

    However on the Savanta figures of the oldest age group identified the split between unjustified and justified is 48/44 which is hardly earth shattering. It isn't even a majority.

    Is it possible that an older age group is more tolerant of the way the world is. To an older group the language of justified/unjustified may be polemical nonsense anyway. The strike is part of the endless struggle between groups to get an advantage. The idea that it is some sort of fight between right and wrong should be kept for better causes.

    Should a train driver be paid more than care workers with dementia sufferers? Or physics teachers? I very much doubt if the rail union spokesmen really want to think across the sectors, or indeed across the globe. They are the mirror image of bankers. Like nearly all such causes right and wrong, good and evil does not enter into it.

    And the media discussion (eg R4 Today this morning) is shallow beyond belief.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 48,728

    Good evening. I want to send all PBers food and positive thoughts for the evening.

    Well, that's very kind of you, but can you afford the food given the cost of living?
  • Anyone think rail workers don’t deserve a pay rise? Essentially that is what we are arguing
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 7,975
    edited June 21

    Good evening. I want to send all PBers food and positive thoughts for the evening.

    Cheers. I’ll have a cherry bakewell please! :D
  • pingping Posts: 2,209
    edited June 21
    “According to Redfin, the median US home price is up 43% since March of 2020. In Austin (Texas) it’s up by 66%. And the median mortgage payment is at an all time high of more than $2500.”

    Insane.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 20,945

    Good evening. I want to send all PBers food and positive thoughts for the evening.

    Steak and chips mate. Cheers!
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 48,728

    Good evening. I want to send all PBers food and positive thoughts for the evening.

    Cheers. I’ll have a cherry bake well please! :D
    Bake well? Are you afraid it might be a Johnson style 'oven ready?'
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 7,975
    ydoethur said:

    Good evening. I want to send all PBers food and positive thoughts for the evening.

    Cheers. I’ll have a cherry bake well please! :D
    Bake well? Are you afraid it might be a Johnson style 'oven ready?'
    Auto bloody correct...
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 33,475
    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    My main objection to strikes is that they are BORING. People hoping for more money. Exciting, not

    Its also people hoping not to have half of their safety colleagues fired by the government leading to insufficient maintenance and massive accidents like we had 20 years ago.

    This is the key point that keeps being missed. When they say they are striking to protect jobs, ask what the jobs are. The government have directed Network Rail to make massive cuts to maintenance and inspections. Which will literally leave people dead. Again.
    Who cares about the horrors of deferred maintenance? The hours and hours worth of delays.

    If that affects the Me of 2025, that's not my problem. What has future self ever done for me anyway?
    My future self is such a dick. He's fatter and balder, and still has the gall to sit in smug judgement of all my mistakes.
    I fear I must warn you that your future self may wake at 4am, sick with regret and disgust at all your mistakes.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 18,498
    edited June 21

    Leon said:

    My main objection to strikes is that they are BORING. People hoping for more money. Exciting, not

    Its also people hoping not to have half of their safety colleagues fired by the government leading to insufficient maintenance and massive accidents like we had 20 years ago.

    (Snip)
    Hold on, can I have a source for that claim please?
    Widely reported by newspapers* that don't just parrot Tory lies. Or, watch Channel 4 News on Monday night. The minister himself said that having men visually inspecting tracks was old fashioned and we don;t need them and they can do digital inspections with trains now.

    *and trade press https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/biggest-rail-strike-in-modern-history-planned-in-response-to-maintenance-cuts-25-05-2022
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 75,460

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    My main objection to strikes is that they are BORING. People hoping for more money. Exciting, not

    Its also people hoping not to have half of their safety colleagues fired by the government leading to insufficient maintenance and massive accidents like we had 20 years ago.

    This is the key point that keeps being missed. When they say they are striking to protect jobs, ask what the jobs are. The government have directed Network Rail to make massive cuts to maintenance and inspections. Which will literally leave people dead. Again.
    Who cares about the horrors of deferred maintenance? The hours and hours worth of delays.

    If that affects the Me of 2025, that's not my problem. What has future self ever done for me anyway?
    My future self is such a dick. He's fatter and balder, and still has the gall to sit in smug judgement of all my mistakes.
    I fear I must warn you that your future self may wake at 4am, sick with regret and disgust at all your mistakes.
    In which case I feel sorry for him, I am so not a morning person.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 2,939

    Anyone think rail workers don’t deserve a pay rise? Essentially that is what we are arguing

    Level of that rise is what is being argued, not whether a rise should occur.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 48,728
    edited June 21
    Leon said:

    I don’t think the ComRes poll tells us much


    I believe the RMT is “justified” in strike action, as long as their members agree, and it is within the law. That is the whole point of unions, to act for the common good of their workers, and get a better deal, especially in a time of high inflation

    Equallly, the government is justified in telling them to sod off, and face them down, if it so wills, and if it can

    Roads on my route to work were eerily quiet this morning - much more so than normal.

    I think many people asked to work from home today.

    And of course, we* now can do that.

    As I said a couple of days ago, I think the RMT are at real risk of overplaying their hand.

    *As an economy. Not me personally or the likes of say @Foxy.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 20,945

    Anyone think rail workers don’t deserve a pay rise? Essentially that is what we are arguing

    It's wider than that though, isn't it?
    Should people who work have a pay rise of only 3% at a time of 11% inflation? And a labour shortage.
    Or not?
    That's the issue.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 7,975

    Leon said:

    My main objection to strikes is that they are BORING. People hoping for more money. Exciting, not

    Its also people hoping not to have half of their safety colleagues fired by the government leading to insufficient maintenance and massive accidents like we had 20 years ago.

    (Snip)
    Hold on, can I have a source for that claim please?
    Widely reported by newspapers that don't just parrot Tory lies. Or, watch Channel 4 News on Monday night. The minister himself said that having men visually inspecting tracks was old fashioned and we don;t need them and they can do digital inspections with trains now.
    I dont know much about trains, but I do know health and safety. You simply don’t make things less safe. You just don’t. I’d be interested to know what best practice around the world is re track inspection and other areas of contention. It may be that visual inspection by men/women walking the lines is the best way. It may be that automated trains can survey lines with technology. It may need both for best results.
    Truth is, I don’t know. I also suspect you don’t either.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 20,934
    Leon said:

    I don’t think the ComRes poll tells us much


    I believe the RMT is “justified” in strike action, as long as their members agree, and it is within the law. That is the whole point of unions, to act for the common good of their workers, and get a better deal, especially in a time of high inflation

    Equallly, the government is justified in telling them to sod off, and face them down, if it so wills, and if it can

    You're applying a very narrow interpretation. The RMT *is* their members, so the question is really: 'are the RMT members justified in striking?'

    A majority says they are according to ComRes.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 48,728
    edited June 21

    Leon said:

    My main objection to strikes is that they are BORING. People hoping for more money. Exciting, not

    Its also people hoping not to have half of their safety colleagues fired by the government leading to insufficient maintenance and massive accidents like we had 20 years ago.

    (Snip)
    Hold on, can I have a source for that claim please?
    Widely reported by newspapers that don't just parrot Tory lies. Or, watch Channel 4 News on Monday night. The minister himself said that having men visually inspecting tracks was old fashioned and we don;t need them and they can do digital inspections with trains now.
    I dont know much about trains, but I do know health and safety. You simply don’t make things less safe. You just don’t. I’d be interested to know what best practice around the world is re track inspection and other areas of contention. It may be that visual inspection by men/women walking the lines is the best way. It may be that automated trains can survey lines with technology. It may need both for best results.
    Truth is, I don’t know. I also suspect you don’t either.
    The Great Western Railway fired its trackside walkers in Wales (whose job was literally to walk along the track before the first train of the day and check things were OK) as an economy measure in 1933 and again in 1945.

    Both times it led almost immediately to fatal accidents, one caused by a rock fall at Friog between Tywyn and Barmouth, and another time when the Llangollen canal breached and washed away a long stretch of track.

    Both times they were reinstated...
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 29,790

    Leon said:

    My main objection to strikes is that they are BORING. People hoping for more money. Exciting, not

    Its also people hoping not to have half of their safety colleagues fired by the government leading to insufficient maintenance and massive accidents like we had 20 years ago.

    (Snip)
    Hold on, can I have a source for that claim please?
    Widely reported by newspapers* that don't just parrot Tory lies. Or, watch Channel 4 News on Monday night. The minister himself said that having men visually inspecting tracks was old fashioned and we don;t need them and they can do digital inspections with trains now.

    *and trade press https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/biggest-rail-strike-in-modern-history-planned-in-response-to-maintenance-cuts-25-05-2022
    That's the RMT's claim, isn't it? Where's their evidence to back that claim up?

    And BTW, you said 'half of their safety colleagues fired'. So source for that, please.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 33,475
    RMT doing Putin’s work!


  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 7,975
    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    My main objection to strikes is that they are BORING. People hoping for more money. Exciting, not

    Its also people hoping not to have half of their safety colleagues fired by the government leading to insufficient maintenance and massive accidents like we had 20 years ago.

    (Snip)
    Hold on, can I have a source for that claim please?
    Widely reported by newspapers that don't just parrot Tory lies. Or, watch Channel 4 News on Monday night. The minister himself said that having men visually inspecting tracks was old fashioned and we don;t need them and they can do digital inspections with trains now.
    I dont know much about trains, but I do know health and safety. You simply don’t make things less safe. You just don’t. I’d be interested to know what best practice around the world is re track inspection and other areas of contention. It may be that visual inspection by men/women walking the lines is the best way. It may be that automated trains can survey lines with technology. It may need both for best results.
    Truth is, I don’t know. I also suspect you don’t either.
    The Great Western Railway fired its trackside walkers in Wales (whose job was literally to walk along the track before the first train of the day and check things were OK) as an economy measure in 1933 and again in 1945.

    Both times it led to fatal accidents, one caused by a rock fall at Friog between Tywyn and Barmouth, and another time when the Llangollen canal breached and washed away a long stretch of track.

    Both times they were reinstated...
    We have come along way since then with technology. But it might be they need manual inspection. I’ve read somewhere that the Clapham disaster had lots of warnings in advance from people travelling the lines. Something like that.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 22,503
    edited June 21

    Leon said:

    My main objection to strikes is that they are BORING. People hoping for more money. Exciting, not

    Its also people hoping not to have half of their safety colleagues fired by the government leading to insufficient maintenance and massive accidents like we had 20 years ago.

    (Snip)
    Hold on, can I have a source for that claim please?
    Widely reported by newspapers that don't just parrot Tory lies. Or, watch Channel 4 News on Monday night. The minister himself said that having men visually inspecting tracks was old fashioned and we don;t need them and they can do digital inspections with trains now.
    I dont know much about trains, but I do know health and safety. You simply don’t make things less safe. You just don’t. I’d be interested to know what best practice around the world is re track inspection and other areas of contention. It may be that visual inspection by men/women walking the lines is the best way. It may be that automated trains can survey lines with technology. It may need both for best results.
    Truth is, I don’t know. I also suspect you don’t either.
    Gut feeling is that the automated trains are great for quickly ultrasonically scanning for things like incipioent fatigue cracking in railhead corners and checking for undue deflection under load of the track (as might be caused by a pumping sleeper without enough compacted ballast under it) but you do still need a visual inspection of the track and the area around it for anything that a robot wouldn't spot. We've had both for a long time now.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 20,934

    Leon said:

    My main objection to strikes is that they are BORING. People hoping for more money. Exciting, not

    Its also people hoping not to have half of their safety colleagues fired by the government leading to insufficient maintenance and massive accidents like we had 20 years ago.

    (Snip)
    Hold on, can I have a source for that claim please?
    Widely reported by newspapers* that don't just parrot Tory lies. Or, watch Channel 4 News on Monday night. The minister himself said that having men visually inspecting tracks was old fashioned and we don;t need them and they can do digital inspections with trains now.

    *and trade press https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/biggest-rail-strike-in-modern-history-planned-in-response-to-maintenance-cuts-25-05-2022
    When did you pinch @OldKingCole's avatar btw?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 22,503

    Good evening. I want to send all PBers food and positive thoughts for the evening.

    Aww, and just when I've had my dinner. A metaphorically filling and contentsome thought all the same.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 41,048
    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    My main objection to strikes is that they are BORING. People hoping for more money. Exciting, not

    Its also people hoping not to have half of their safety colleagues fired by the government leading to insufficient maintenance and massive accidents like we had 20 years ago.

    This is the key point that keeps being missed. When they say they are striking to protect jobs, ask what the jobs are. The government have directed Network Rail to make massive cuts to maintenance and inspections. Which will literally leave people dead. Again.
    Who cares about the horrors of deferred maintenance? The hours and hours worth of delays.

    If that affects the Me of 2025, that's not my problem. What has future self ever done for me anyway?
    My future self is such a dick. He's fatter and balder, and still has the gall to sit in smug judgement of all my mistakes.
    At least he's not a Giant Donkey Dick :)
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 52,205

    Good evening. I want to send all PBers food and positive thoughts for the evening.

    Cheers. I’ll have a cherry bakewell please! :D
    Asda cherry bakewell are 95p for 6 on offer but were £2.25

    Ridiculous difference
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 71,259
    edited June 21
    America Culture Wars episode 1085739....

    A YouTuber and academic made a video where he trained a GPT style approach on 4-Chan to see what the computer would horrid stuff it would spit out if you train it on terrible input and then deployed it on 4chan to troll them....Stanford university academics have organised a pile-on at the outrage of somebody even considering doing this demanding he is censured for it.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 5,496
    dixiedean said:

    Anyone think rail workers don’t deserve a pay rise? Essentially that is what we are arguing

    It's wider than that though, isn't it?
    Should people who work have a pay rise of only 3% at a time of 11% inflation? And a labour shortage.
    Or not?
    That's the issue.
    Which workers doing a useful job in any sort of service industry, manufacturing etc DON'T deserve a pay rise? I doubt if between us we can name any.

    Once seen in that light actions like the current one can be seen as fights not just with an employer, but fights seeking an advantage over other, often less well paid, workers.

    It is essential to the doctrines of the left that this particular discussion doesn't take place. The media largely connive with this.

  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 20,934
    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    My main objection to strikes is that they are BORING. People hoping for more money. Exciting, not

    Its also people hoping not to have half of their safety colleagues fired by the government leading to insufficient maintenance and massive accidents like we had 20 years ago.

    (Snip)
    Hold on, can I have a source for that claim please?
    Widely reported by newspapers that don't just parrot Tory lies. Or, watch Channel 4 News on Monday night. The minister himself said that having men visually inspecting tracks was old fashioned and we don;t need them and they can do digital inspections with trains now.
    I dont know much about trains, but I do know health and safety. You simply don’t make things less safe. You just don’t. I’d be interested to know what best practice around the world is re track inspection and other areas of contention. It may be that visual inspection by men/women walking the lines is the best way. It may be that automated trains can survey lines with technology. It may need both for best results.
    Truth is, I don’t know. I also suspect you don’t either.
    The Great Western Railway fired its trackside walkers in Wales (whose job was literally to walk along the track before the first train of the day and check things were OK) as an economy measure in 1933 and again in 1945.

    Both times it led almost immediately to fatal accidents, one caused by a rock fall at Friog between Tywyn and Barmouth, and another time when the Llangollen canal breached and washed away a long stretch of track.

    Both times they were reinstated...
    It's not still done today though is it?
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 18,498

    Leon said:

    My main objection to strikes is that they are BORING. People hoping for more money. Exciting, not

    Its also people hoping not to have half of their safety colleagues fired by the government leading to insufficient maintenance and massive accidents like we had 20 years ago.

    (Snip)
    Hold on, can I have a source for that claim please?
    Widely reported by newspapers that don't just parrot Tory lies. Or, watch Channel 4 News on Monday night. The minister himself said that having men visually inspecting tracks was old fashioned and we don;t need them and they can do digital inspections with trains now.
    I dont know much about trains, but I do know health and safety. You simply don’t make things less safe. You just don’t. I’d be interested to know what best practice around the world is re track inspection and other areas of contention. It may be that visual inspection by men/women walking the lines is the best way. It may be that automated trains can survey lines with technology. It may need both for best results.
    Truth is, I don’t know. I also suspect you don’t either.
    "You simply don't make things less safe".

    Railtrack did. For profit. And I do know (far too much) stuff about the railways. There absolutely are track recording equipment that can scan rails on the go. Network Rail has several such trains - but they act to supplement the visual inspections that remain critical.

    Last time we went down the "just cut the cost" route we ended up with people dead. Repeatedly. They simply did not know the condition of track and signalling equipment. So had to do emergency inspections and blanket speed restrictions until they could check and then repair everything. So we know where cutting the maintenance regime leads. This proposal has them double routine maintenance periods. To save money. They aren't even proposing to replace mk1 eyeballs with the inspection train on the same basis. Its half the maintenance the network needs now.

    Which will get people killed. Because you really do make things less safe when wazzocks without a clue about engineering make decisions for political and economic reasons.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 18,498

    Leon said:

    My main objection to strikes is that they are BORING. People hoping for more money. Exciting, not

    Its also people hoping not to have half of their safety colleagues fired by the government leading to insufficient maintenance and massive accidents like we had 20 years ago.

    (Snip)
    Hold on, can I have a source for that claim please?
    Widely reported by newspapers* that don't just parrot Tory lies. Or, watch Channel 4 News on Monday night. The minister himself said that having men visually inspecting tracks was old fashioned and we don;t need them and they can do digital inspections with trains now.

    *and trade press https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/biggest-rail-strike-in-modern-history-planned-in-response-to-maintenance-cuts-25-05-2022
    That's the RMT's claim, isn't it? Where's their evidence to back that claim up?

    And BTW, you said 'half of their safety colleagues fired'. So source for that, please.
    Its *Network Rail* making the claim. Read the article. quoting Network Rail justifying it. Are they denying it? Was the minister?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 22,503
    edited June 21

    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    My main objection to strikes is that they are BORING. People hoping for more money. Exciting, not

    Its also people hoping not to have half of their safety colleagues fired by the government leading to insufficient maintenance and massive accidents like we had 20 years ago.

    (Snip)
    Hold on, can I have a source for that claim please?
    Widely reported by newspapers that don't just parrot Tory lies. Or, watch Channel 4 News on Monday night. The minister himself said that having men visually inspecting tracks was old fashioned and we don;t need them and they can do digital inspections with trains now.
    I dont know much about trains, but I do know health and safety. You simply don’t make things less safe. You just don’t. I’d be interested to know what best practice around the world is re track inspection and other areas of contention. It may be that visual inspection by men/women walking the lines is the best way. It may be that automated trains can survey lines with technology. It may need both for best results.
    Truth is, I don’t know. I also suspect you don’t either.
    The Great Western Railway fired its trackside walkers in Wales (whose job was literally to walk along the track before the first train of the day and check things were OK) as an economy measure in 1933 and again in 1945.

    Both times it led to fatal accidents, one caused by a rock fall at Friog between Tywyn and Barmouth, and another time when the Llangollen canal breached and washed away a long stretch of track.

    Both times they were reinstated...
    We have come along way since then with technology. But it might be they need manual inspection. I’ve read somewhere that the Clapham disaster had lots of warnings in advance from people travelling the lines. Something like that.
    Further to this, here is a nice specific example where the Mark 1 Eyeball was needed onthe spot - and was not provided, with disastrous results. Anmd how the robot monitoring train is very useful, but is not sufficient.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grayrigg_derailment

    "The RAIB report noted that the Network Rail New Measurement Train ran over the site on 21 February. This train uses lasers and other instruments to make measurements of the track geometry and other features such as overhead line height and stagger, and the track gauge, twist and cant. It is not used to inspect points, but it does make a video record of the track which can be reviewed later. Responding to the suggestion that the train's video might have been used to detect the points damage and thereby prevent the accident, a Network Rail spokesman said:

    The [inspection] train runs at speeds of up to 125 mph, or 95 mph on this stretch. There would be no point somebody watching it at that speed as they wouldn't be able to pick up any faults. It has to be run in super-slow motion to spot faults. The train runs for up to 18 hours a day, seven days a week. It would probably take someone most of the month to watch one day's worth of data. It's not what it's there for. It's a backwards reference tool.[24]

    Network Rail admitted it failed to carry out a scheduled visual track inspection in the area on the Sunday before the derailment.[25] "

    The film would be great for quickly looking at the location of recorded anomalies, but you need to know where they are, and if the train can't pick them up ...
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 7,975

    Leon said:

    My main objection to strikes is that they are BORING. People hoping for more money. Exciting, not

    Its also people hoping not to have half of their safety colleagues fired by the government leading to insufficient maintenance and massive accidents like we had 20 years ago.

    (Snip)
    Hold on, can I have a source for that claim please?
    Widely reported by newspapers that don't just parrot Tory lies. Or, watch Channel 4 News on Monday night. The minister himself said that having men visually inspecting tracks was old fashioned and we don;t need them and they can do digital inspections with trains now.
    I dont know much about trains, but I do know health and safety. You simply don’t make things less safe. You just don’t. I’d be interested to know what best practice around the world is re track inspection and other areas of contention. It may be that visual inspection by men/women walking the lines is the best way. It may be that automated trains can survey lines with technology. It may need both for best results.
    Truth is, I don’t know. I also suspect you don’t either.
    "You simply don't make things less safe".

    Railtrack did. For profit. And I do know (far too much) stuff about the railways. There absolutely are track recording equipment that can scan rails on the go. Network Rail has several such trains - but they act to supplement the visual inspections that remain critical.

    Last time we went down the "just cut the cost" route we ended up with people dead. Repeatedly. They simply did not know the condition of track and signalling equipment. So had to do emergency inspections and blanket speed restrictions until they could check and then repair everything. So we know where cutting the maintenance regime leads. This proposal has them double routine maintenance periods. To save money. They aren't even proposing to replace mk1 eyeballs with the inspection train on the same basis. Its half the maintenance the network needs now.

    Which will get people killed. Because you really do make things less safe when wazzocks without a clue about engineering make decisions for political and economic reasons.
    I take it back, you do know. Cheers for the info. I’ll qualify the statement - you shouldn’t make things less safe...
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 4,487
    edited June 21
    algarkirk said:

    dixiedean said:

    Anyone think rail workers don’t deserve a pay rise? Essentially that is what we are arguing

    It's wider than that though, isn't it?
    Should people who work have a pay rise of only 3% at a time of 11% inflation? And a labour shortage.
    Or not?
    That's the issue.
    Which workers doing a useful job in any sort of service industry, manufacturing etc DON'T deserve a pay rise? I doubt if between us we can name any.

    Once seen in that light actions like the current one can be seen as fights not just with an employer, but fights seeking an advantage over other, often less well paid, workers.

    It is essential to the doctrines of the left that this particular discussion doesn't take place. The media largely connive with this.

    No, wrong way round I think. It's essential to the doctrines of the right, not the left, that worker is pitted against worker to chase limited resources. Divide and rule.
    The doctrine of the left is that all workers should be in strong trade unions that can win decent pay through unity against (where necessary) their employers or the state.
    In the current circumstances, all workers should be getting a decent pay rise, even though that is unlikely to match inflation.
    If in doubt, join a union.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 29,790
    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    My main objection to strikes is that they are BORING. People hoping for more money. Exciting, not

    Its also people hoping not to have half of their safety colleagues fired by the government leading to insufficient maintenance and massive accidents like we had 20 years ago.

    (Snip)
    Hold on, can I have a source for that claim please?
    Widely reported by newspapers that don't just parrot Tory lies. Or, watch Channel 4 News on Monday night. The minister himself said that having men visually inspecting tracks was old fashioned and we don;t need them and they can do digital inspections with trains now.
    I dont know much about trains, but I do know health and safety. You simply don’t make things less safe. You just don’t. I’d be interested to know what best practice around the world is re track inspection and other areas of contention. It may be that visual inspection by men/women walking the lines is the best way. It may be that automated trains can survey lines with technology. It may need both for best results.
    Truth is, I don’t know. I also suspect you don’t either.
    Gut feeling is that the automated trains are great for quickly ultrasonically scanning for things like incipioent fatigue cracking in railhead corners and checking for undue deflection under load of the track (as might be caused by a pumping sleeper without enough compacted ballast under it) but you do still need a visual inspection of the track and the area around it for anything that a robot wouldn't spot. We've had both for a long time now.
    I actually did weekly track inspections for a preserved railway; two of us walking two or three miles on a Saturday morning. One on one side of the track; the other on the other, looking for things like loose keys, dropped joints for note. Or where some idiots had put something on the line whilst it had been out of service during the week (never happened to me, but happened to someone else). Good fun, and a good opportunity for a natter with friends as we did it.

    Also, we would note things like trees growing too close to the line, and where there was too much undergrowth that would need to be burnt back later in a controlled manner. And a host of other things that would need fettling.

    That was old joined sixty foot 95-pound per yard bullhead rails, on timber and concrete sleepers. Most Network Rail lines have much more modern track systems - heavier flat-bottomed rail, continuously welded on concrete (or sometimes steel) sleepers.

    The stuff the NMT trains can recognise are quite amazing: and it should be noted that visual inspections often fail to detect problems as well. Whether track inspections are still needed, or at the same regularity, very much depends on the details. According to (1) from ten years ago: "Traditional inspection of rail condition consumes 1.3 million man hours of work each year." The NMT will remove 520,000 hours of this.

    Without the details, IMV it's impossible to say whether reducing the amount of manual inspections would impact safety.

    (1): https://www.railengineer.co.uk/track-inspection-at-125mph/
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 18,498

    Leon said:

    My main objection to strikes is that they are BORING. People hoping for more money. Exciting, not

    Its also people hoping not to have half of their safety colleagues fired by the government leading to insufficient maintenance and massive accidents like we had 20 years ago.

    (Snip)
    Hold on, can I have a source for that claim please?
    Widely reported by newspapers that don't just parrot Tory lies. Or, watch Channel 4 News on Monday night. The minister himself said that having men visually inspecting tracks was old fashioned and we don;t need them and they can do digital inspections with trains now.
    I dont know much about trains, but I do know health and safety. You simply don’t make things less safe. You just don’t. I’d be interested to know what best practice around the world is re track inspection and other areas of contention. It may be that visual inspection by men/women walking the lines is the best way. It may be that automated trains can survey lines with technology. It may need both for best results.
    Truth is, I don’t know. I also suspect you don’t either.
    "You simply don't make things less safe".

    Railtrack did. For profit. And I do know (far too much) stuff about the railways. There absolutely are track recording equipment that can scan rails on the go. Network Rail has several such trains - but they act to supplement the visual inspections that remain critical.

    Last time we went down the "just cut the cost" route we ended up with people dead. Repeatedly. They simply did not know the condition of track and signalling equipment. So had to do emergency inspections and blanket speed restrictions until they could check and then repair everything. So we know where cutting the maintenance regime leads. This proposal has them double routine maintenance periods. To save money. They aren't even proposing to replace mk1 eyeballs with the inspection train on the same basis. Its half the maintenance the network needs now.

    Which will get people killed. Because you really do make things less safe when wazzocks without a clue about engineering make decisions for political and economic reasons.
    I take it back, you do know. Cheers for the info. I’ll qualify the statement - you shouldn’t make things less safe...
    Appreciated. @Carnyx gave the Grayrigg example. You can't rely on the inspection train. And yet the minister went on Channel 4 News last night and said that you don't need old-fashioned practices like people walking the tracks when you can have digital inspections on a train. He has *no clue* what the inspection train can and cannot do or even what needs to be inspected. But "digital" has been the solution to all the railway budget problems for a few years.

    No, you can't. This is the problem. The DfT are directing both Network Rail and the rail operators what to do. DfT wazzocks don't have the first clue what they are talking about. Ministers definitely don't. But they are directing NR and saying "cut the staff, save the money".

    People will die. Again.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 29,790

    Leon said:

    My main objection to strikes is that they are BORING. People hoping for more money. Exciting, not

    Its also people hoping not to have half of their safety colleagues fired by the government leading to insufficient maintenance and massive accidents like we had 20 years ago.

    (Snip)
    Hold on, can I have a source for that claim please?
    Widely reported by newspapers* that don't just parrot Tory lies. Or, watch Channel 4 News on Monday night. The minister himself said that having men visually inspecting tracks was old fashioned and we don;t need them and they can do digital inspections with trains now.

    *and trade press https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/biggest-rail-strike-in-modern-history-planned-in-response-to-maintenance-cuts-25-05-2022
    That's the RMT's claim, isn't it? Where's their evidence to back that claim up?

    And BTW, you said 'half of their safety colleagues fired'. So source for that, please.
    Its *Network Rail* making the claim. Read the article. quoting Network Rail justifying it. Are they denying it? Was the minister?
    I did read the article. No mention of 'half', and no quote from Network Rail about 'safety critical jobs' - at least as far as I could see. It reads as though the 'safety critical' numbers claim comes from the RMT.

  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 18,498

    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    My main objection to strikes is that they are BORING. People hoping for more money. Exciting, not

    Its also people hoping not to have half of their safety colleagues fired by the government leading to insufficient maintenance and massive accidents like we had 20 years ago.

    (Snip)
    Hold on, can I have a source for that claim please?
    Widely reported by newspapers that don't just parrot Tory lies. Or, watch Channel 4 News on Monday night. The minister himself said that having men visually inspecting tracks was old fashioned and we don;t need them and they can do digital inspections with trains now.
    I dont know much about trains, but I do know health and safety. You simply don’t make things less safe. You just don’t. I’d be interested to know what best practice around the world is re track inspection and other areas of contention. It may be that visual inspection by men/women walking the lines is the best way. It may be that automated trains can survey lines with technology. It may need both for best results.
    Truth is, I don’t know. I also suspect you don’t either.
    Gut feeling is that the automated trains are great for quickly ultrasonically scanning for things like incipioent fatigue cracking in railhead corners and checking for undue deflection under load of the track (as might be caused by a pumping sleeper without enough compacted ballast under it) but you do still need a visual inspection of the track and the area around it for anything that a robot wouldn't spot. We've had both for a long time now.
    I actually did weekly track inspections for a preserved railway; two of us walking two or three miles on a Saturday morning. One on one side of the track; the other on the other, looking for things like loose keys, dropped joints for note. Or where some idiots had put something on the line whilst it had been out of service during the week (never happened to me, but happened to someone else). Good fun, and a good opportunity for a natter with friends as we did it.

    Also, we would note things like trees growing too close to the line, and where there was too much undergrowth that would need to be burnt back later in a controlled manner. And a host of other things that would need fettling.

    That was old joined sixty foot 95-pound per yard bullhead rails, on timber and concrete sleepers. Most Network Rail lines have much more modern track systems - heavier flat-bottomed rail, continuously welded on concrete (or sometimes steel) sleepers.

    The stuff the NMT trains can recognise are quite amazing: and it should be noted that visual inspections often fail to detect problems as well. Whether track inspections are still needed, or at the same regularity, very much depends on the details. According to (1) from ten years ago: "Traditional inspection of rail condition consumes 1.3 million man hours of work each year." The NMT will remove 520,000 hours of this.

    Without the details, IMV it's impossible to say whether reducing the amount of manual inspections would impact safety.

    (1): https://www.railengineer.co.uk/track-inspection-at-125mph/
    The truly alarming bit isn't that they want to cut visual inspections in favour of more NMT inspections. It is that they propose to double the length of time between inspections AND cut visual inspections.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 22,503
    edited June 21

    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    My main objection to strikes is that they are BORING. People hoping for more money. Exciting, not

    Its also people hoping not to have half of their safety colleagues fired by the government leading to insufficient maintenance and massive accidents like we had 20 years ago.

    (Snip)
    Hold on, can I have a source for that claim please?
    Widely reported by newspapers that don't just parrot Tory lies. Or, watch Channel 4 News on Monday night. The minister himself said that having men visually inspecting tracks was old fashioned and we don;t need them and they can do digital inspections with trains now.
    I dont know much about trains, but I do know health and safety. You simply don’t make things less safe. You just don’t. I’d be interested to know what best practice around the world is re track inspection and other areas of contention. It may be that visual inspection by men/women walking the lines is the best way. It may be that automated trains can survey lines with technology. It may need both for best results.
    Truth is, I don’t know. I also suspect you don’t either.
    Gut feeling is that the automated trains are great for quickly ultrasonically scanning for things like incipioent fatigue cracking in railhead corners and checking for undue deflection under load of the track (as might be caused by a pumping sleeper without enough compacted ballast under it) but you do still need a visual inspection of the track and the area around it for anything that a robot wouldn't spot. We've had both for a long time now.
    I actually did weekly track inspections for a preserved railway; two of us walking two or three miles on a Saturday morning. One on one side of the track; the other on the other, looking for things like loose keys, dropped joints for note. Or where some idiots had put something on the line whilst it had been out of service during the week (never happened to me, but happened to someone else). Good fun, and a good opportunity for a natter with friends as we did it.

    Also, we would note things like trees growing too close to the line, and where there was too much undergrowth that would need to be burnt back later in a controlled manner. And a host of other things that would need fettling.

    That was old joined sixty foot 95-pound per yard bullhead rails, on timber and concrete sleepers. Most Network Rail lines have much more modern track systems - heavier flat-bottomed rail, continuously welded on concrete (or sometimes steel) sleepers.

    The stuff the NMT trains can recognise are quite amazing: and it should be noted that visual inspections often fail to detect problems as well. Whether track inspections are still needed, or at the same regularity, very much depends on the details. According to (1) from ten years ago: "Traditional inspection of rail condition consumes 1.3 million man hours of work each year." The NMT will remove 520,000 hours of this.

    Without the details, IMV it's impossible to say whether reducing the amount of manual inspections would impact safety.

    (1): https://www.railengineer.co.uk/track-inspection-at-125mph/
    I dzon't doubt that the NMT helps reduce the need for manual inspections, like those whioch used the portable ultrasonic detector thingies, but the Minister was talking about eliminating them completely.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 18,498

    Leon said:

    My main objection to strikes is that they are BORING. People hoping for more money. Exciting, not

    Its also people hoping not to have half of their safety colleagues fired by the government leading to insufficient maintenance and massive accidents like we had 20 years ago.

    (Snip)
    Hold on, can I have a source for that claim please?
    Widely reported by newspapers* that don't just parrot Tory lies. Or, watch Channel 4 News on Monday night. The minister himself said that having men visually inspecting tracks was old fashioned and we don;t need them and they can do digital inspections with trains now.

    *and trade press https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/biggest-rail-strike-in-modern-history-planned-in-response-to-maintenance-cuts-25-05-2022
    That's the RMT's claim, isn't it? Where's their evidence to back that claim up?

    And BTW, you said 'half of their safety colleagues fired'. So source for that, please.
    Its *Network Rail* making the claim. Read the article. quoting Network Rail justifying it. Are they denying it? Was the minister?
    I did read the article. No mention of 'half', and no quote from Network Rail about 'safety critical jobs' - at least as far as I could see. It reads as though the 'safety critical' numbers claim comes from the RMT.

    And yet considering that the RMT are telling such communist lies, nobody at NR says "this isn't true". And the minister goes on TV and directly refers to the safety-critical jobs that he thinks are no longer needed.

    Its just possible that the RMT are telling the truth. The lack of denial from anyone does leave that possibility open, does it not? As NR have had to go to the RMT with their proposal of how many jobs they are cutting as part of the modernisation they speak of?
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 29,790

    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    My main objection to strikes is that they are BORING. People hoping for more money. Exciting, not

    Its also people hoping not to have half of their safety colleagues fired by the government leading to insufficient maintenance and massive accidents like we had 20 years ago.

    (Snip)
    Hold on, can I have a source for that claim please?
    Widely reported by newspapers that don't just parrot Tory lies. Or, watch Channel 4 News on Monday night. The minister himself said that having men visually inspecting tracks was old fashioned and we don;t need them and they can do digital inspections with trains now.
    I dont know much about trains, but I do know health and safety. You simply don’t make things less safe. You just don’t. I’d be interested to know what best practice around the world is re track inspection and other areas of contention. It may be that visual inspection by men/women walking the lines is the best way. It may be that automated trains can survey lines with technology. It may need both for best results.
    Truth is, I don’t know. I also suspect you don’t either.
    Gut feeling is that the automated trains are great for quickly ultrasonically scanning for things like incipioent fatigue cracking in railhead corners and checking for undue deflection under load of the track (as might be caused by a pumping sleeper without enough compacted ballast under it) but you do still need a visual inspection of the track and the area around it for anything that a robot wouldn't spot. We've had both for a long time now.
    I actually did weekly track inspections for a preserved railway; two of us walking two or three miles on a Saturday morning. One on one side of the track; the other on the other, looking for things like loose keys, dropped joints for note. Or where some idiots had put something on the line whilst it had been out of service during the week (never happened to me, but happened to someone else). Good fun, and a good opportunity for a natter with friends as we did it.

    Also, we would note things like trees growing too close to the line, and where there was too much undergrowth that would need to be burnt back later in a controlled manner. And a host of other things that would need fettling.

    That was old joined sixty foot 95-pound per yard bullhead rails, on timber and concrete sleepers. Most Network Rail lines have much more modern track systems - heavier flat-bottomed rail, continuously welded on concrete (or sometimes steel) sleepers.

    The stuff the NMT trains can recognise are quite amazing: and it should be noted that visual inspections often fail to detect problems as well. Whether track inspections are still needed, or at the same regularity, very much depends on the details. According to (1) from ten years ago: "Traditional inspection of rail condition consumes 1.3 million man hours of work each year." The NMT will remove 520,000 hours of this.

    Without the details, IMV it's impossible to say whether reducing the amount of manual inspections would impact safety.

    (1): https://www.railengineer.co.uk/track-inspection-at-125mph/
    The truly alarming bit isn't that they want to cut visual inspections in favour of more NMT inspections. It is that they propose to double the length of time between inspections AND cut visual inspections.
    Again, source please. I don't think that was in the article you linked to.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 16,562
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    Thanks to right wing media the definition of “woke” continues to expand and will not stop until it comes to mean “anything that’s in opposition to the Conservative party”.

    Unions: woke
    Big business: way too woke
    Pro-European tendencies: woke
    Teaching foreign languages at school: woke
    The metric system: woke as fuck
    Britain’s capital city, the whole of Surrey and Berkshire and all settlements north of Carlisle: yep, you guessed it, woke

    Here you go, a definitive guide to The Wokeness, for dim lefties who keep making this retarded point, believing it to be original if not interesting


    Woke Religion: A Taxonomy
    By
    @peterboghossian
    and
    @ShellenbergerMD



    https://twitter.com/peterboghossian/status/1458781564964331520?s=20&t=ZKME03Kosfa8ZzI3mJWkww
    Your retort is exactly the issue. The “anti-woke” have decided that everyone not right wing is therefore their caricature of woke.

    Most of us live our lives, try not to go out of our way to offend people for the sake of it, but object to the more puritanical attitudes of the Roundheads that populate parts of the left.

    But our pretty mainstream, normie and dare I say Blairite, views get grouped the Mail and friends as woke. So guess what, we stop listening to them. If you expand your list of enemies to incorporate most people in the country then generally in a democracy you end up losing.

    Everyone banged on in 2016 about how elite metropolitan Britain invented a fantasy globalist paradise that ignored the real voters. Now their opposite make the same mistake.
    You didn't even read it, and if you did you still probably wouldn't get it

    Intelligent lefties like you that do not accept the existential peril of Wokeness are a major part of the problem. You just think it is cranks, social justice warriors, etc. It is waaaaay beyond that
    No, the difference is I’m comfortable with it because I know social progress works through some form of dialectic.

    If I panicked at every bonkers proclamation by the Christian Right (and OK, some woke warriors do because it’s their oxygen) I’d be a quivering wreck.

    I just don’t have the same world view that we are a declining civilisation wrecked by decadence.
    By far the most important nation in the West is the USA. It is the armoury of the West and it’s ultimate bastion: with the constitutional defence of Free Speech and so forth

    If you don’t see rampant decline in America you’re a fucking moron, with all due respect

    And, yes, the decline is being accelerated by lunatics on the Left AND the Right
    America's problem is huge inequality combined with a collapse in social mobility, which is feeding a downwards spiral of hopelessness, rage and extremism. Its decline could be arrested and reversed by a couple of decades of moderate social democracy. I don't expect this to happen, though.
    America was at its height under Reagan, hardly a social democrat!
    What you mean is that America started going downhill under Reagan.
    The opposite he reversed the policies of the social democrat, high tax, high spend Carter and oversaw the economic boom of the 1980s. While also moving America on from the humiliation of Vietnam to begin the process of winning the Cold War and becoming the unchallenged global superpower
    His attack on the unions and cuts to government spending started the relentless rise in inequality and collapse in social mobility that has left America in the mess it is in now.
    Unemployment when Reagan left office in 1989 was 5% compared to 8% when he entered office in 1980. Union power in the US as in the UK pre Thatcher needed to be curbed
    What was UK unemployment when Thatcher became PM and what was it when she left?
    Little different admittedly but inflation fell from 15% in 1979 to 10% in 1990 and under 5% when Major left office
    :open_mouth::open_mouth::open_mouth:
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 48,728

    Leon said:

    My main objection to strikes is that they are BORING. People hoping for more money. Exciting, not

    Its also people hoping not to have half of their safety colleagues fired by the government leading to insufficient maintenance and massive accidents like we had 20 years ago.

    (Snip)
    Hold on, can I have a source for that claim please?
    Widely reported by newspapers that don't just parrot Tory lies. Or, watch Channel 4 News on Monday night. The minister himself said that having men visually inspecting tracks was old fashioned and we don;t need them and they can do digital inspections with trains now.
    I dont know much about trains, but I do know health and safety. You simply don’t make things less safe. You just don’t. I’d be interested to know what best practice around the world is re track inspection and other areas of contention. It may be that visual inspection by men/women walking the lines is the best way. It may be that automated trains can survey lines with technology. It may need both for best results.
    Truth is, I don’t know. I also suspect you don’t either.
    "You simply don't make things less safe".

    Railtrack did. For profit. And I do know (far too much) stuff about the railways. There absolutely are track recording equipment that can scan rails on the go. Network Rail has several such trains - but they act to supplement the visual inspections that remain critical.

    Last time we went down the "just cut the cost" route we ended up with people dead. Repeatedly. They simply did not know the condition of track and signalling equipment. So had to do emergency inspections and blanket speed restrictions until they could check and then repair everything. So we know where cutting the maintenance regime leads. This proposal has them double routine maintenance periods. To save money. They aren't even proposing to replace mk1 eyeballs with the inspection train on the same basis. Its half the maintenance the network needs now.

    Which will get people killed. Because you really do make things less safe when wazzocks without a clue about engineering make decisions for political and economic reasons.
    I take it back, you do know. Cheers for the info. I’ll qualify the statement - you shouldn’t make things less safe...
    Appreciated. @Carnyx gave the Grayrigg example. You can't rely on the inspection train. And yet the minister went on Channel 4 News last night and said that you don't need old-fashioned practices like people walking the tracks when you can have digital inspections on a train. He has *no clue* what the inspection train can and cannot do or even what needs to be inspected. But "digital" has been the solution to all the railway budget problems for a few years.

    No, you can't. This is the problem. The DfT are directing both Network Rail and the rail operators what to do. DfT wazzocks don't have the first clue what they are talking about. Ministers definitely don't. But they are directing NR and saying "cut the staff, save the money".

    People will die. Again.
    The DfT, DfE and DoH...any more departments that are more useless than a bull's udder?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 22,503
    edited June 21
    While we are on the topic of trains, was it someone from PB who recommended this to me? I'm enjoying it very much - very pretty book, fascinating collision (so to speak) between mediaeval and modern life, and British and American attempts to muscle in and the Japanese shifting like greased lightning to DIY.

    https://www.amazon.co.uk/Early-Japanese-Railways-1853-1914-Engineering/dp/0804849730/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1655842399&sr=1-1
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 18,498

    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    My main objection to strikes is that they are BORING. People hoping for more money. Exciting, not

    Its also people hoping not to have half of their safety colleagues fired by the government leading to insufficient maintenance and massive accidents like we had 20 years ago.

    (Snip)
    Hold on, can I have a source for that claim please?
    Widely reported by newspapers that don't just parrot Tory lies. Or, watch Channel 4 News on Monday night. The minister himself said that having men visually inspecting tracks was old fashioned and we don;t need them and they can do digital inspections with trains now.
    I dont know much about trains, but I do know health and safety. You simply don’t make things less safe. You just don’t. I’d be interested to know what best practice around the world is re track inspection and other areas of contention. It may be that visual inspection by men/women walking the lines is the best way. It may be that automated trains can survey lines with technology. It may need both for best results.
    Truth is, I don’t know. I also suspect you don’t either.
    Gut feeling is that the automated trains are great for quickly ultrasonically scanning for things like incipioent fatigue cracking in railhead corners and checking for undue deflection under load of the track (as might be caused by a pumping sleeper without enough compacted ballast under it) but you do still need a visual inspection of the track and the area around it for anything that a robot wouldn't spot. We've had both for a long time now.
    I actually did weekly track inspections for a preserved railway; two of us walking two or three miles on a Saturday morning. One on one side of the track; the other on the other, looking for things like loose keys, dropped joints for note. Or where some idiots had put something on the line whilst it had been out of service during the week (never happened to me, but happened to someone else). Good fun, and a good opportunity for a natter with friends as we did it.

    Also, we would note things like trees growing too close to the line, and where there was too much undergrowth that would need to be burnt back later in a controlled manner. And a host of other things that would need fettling.

    That was old joined sixty foot 95-pound per yard bullhead rails, on timber and concrete sleepers. Most Network Rail lines have much more modern track systems - heavier flat-bottomed rail, continuously welded on concrete (or sometimes steel) sleepers.

    The stuff the NMT trains can recognise are quite amazing: and it should be noted that visual inspections often fail to detect problems as well. Whether track inspections are still needed, or at the same regularity, very much depends on the details. According to (1) from ten years ago: "Traditional inspection of rail condition consumes 1.3 million man hours of work each year." The NMT will remove 520,000 hours of this.

    Without the details, IMV it's impossible to say whether reducing the amount of manual inspections would impact safety.

    (1): https://www.railengineer.co.uk/track-inspection-at-125mph/
    The truly alarming bit isn't that they want to cut visual inspections in favour of more NMT inspections. It is that they propose to double the length of time between inspections AND cut visual inspections.
    Again, source please. I don't think that was in the article you linked to.
    Frankly DYOR. The industry press has been talking about this for months. The minister said they want to cut these roles completely. NR have said they want to "modernise". And having put their plan to the union no agreement has been reached.

    As always the exact numbers are open to negotiation. But the only person seemingly denying the plan is you. And the rationale? Budget cuts - as NR says in the article I linked to. We don't preserve jobs made redundant with new technology - that is stupid. But that isn't this. And we have very live examples from recent history as to why this is a bad idea.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 29,790

    Leon said:

    My main objection to strikes is that they are BORING. People hoping for more money. Exciting, not

    Its also people hoping not to have half of their safety colleagues fired by the government leading to insufficient maintenance and massive accidents like we had 20 years ago.

    (Snip)
    Hold on, can I have a source for that claim please?
    Widely reported by newspapers* that don't just parrot Tory lies. Or, watch Channel 4 News on Monday night. The minister himself said that having men visually inspecting tracks was old fashioned and we don;t need them and they can do digital inspections with trains now.

    *and trade press https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/biggest-rail-strike-in-modern-history-planned-in-response-to-maintenance-cuts-25-05-2022
    That's the RMT's claim, isn't it? Where's their evidence to back that claim up?

    And BTW, you said 'half of their safety colleagues fired'. So source for that, please.
    Its *Network Rail* making the claim. Read the article. quoting Network Rail justifying it. Are they denying it? Was the minister?
    I did read the article. No mention of 'half', and no quote from Network Rail about 'safety critical jobs' - at least as far as I could see. It reads as though the 'safety critical' numbers claim comes from the RMT.

    And yet considering that the RMT are telling such communist lies, nobody at NR says "this isn't true". And the minister goes on TV and directly refers to the safety-critical jobs that he thinks are no longer needed.

    Its just possible that the RMT are telling the truth. The lack of denial from anyone does leave that possibility open, does it not? As NR have had to go to the RMT with their proposal of how many jobs they are cutting as part of the modernisation they speak of?
    Don't be ridiculous. You've - at beast - misread and misrepresented the article, and have now descended to the 'they're not denying it!" line.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 32,326
    algarkirk said:

    dixiedean said:

    Anyone think rail workers don’t deserve a pay rise? Essentially that is what we are arguing

    It's wider than that though, isn't it?
    Should people who work have a pay rise of only 3% at a time of 11% inflation? And a labour shortage.
    Or not?
    That's the issue.
    Which workers doing a useful job in any sort of service industry, manufacturing etc DON'T deserve a pay rise? I doubt if between us we can name any.

    Once seen in that light actions like the current one can be seen as fights not just with an employer, but fights seeking an advantage over other, often less well paid, workers.

    It is essential to the doctrines of the left that this particular discussion doesn't take place. The media largely connive with this.

    If they are jealous of the leverage that unionised workers have, then they should form or join a union themselves.

    A lot of the gig economy exists by pitting worker against worker to bid down pay and conditions. They desperately need unions.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 22,503
    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    My main objection to strikes is that they are BORING. People hoping for more money. Exciting, not

    Its also people hoping not to have half of their safety colleagues fired by the government leading to insufficient maintenance and massive accidents like we had 20 years ago.

    (Snip)
    Hold on, can I have a source for that claim please?
    Widely reported by newspapers that don't just parrot Tory lies. Or, watch Channel 4 News on Monday night. The minister himself said that having men visually inspecting tracks was old fashioned and we don;t need them and they can do digital inspections with trains now.
    I dont know much about trains, but I do know health and safety. You simply don’t make things less safe. You just don’t. I’d be interested to know what best practice around the world is re track inspection and other areas of contention. It may be that visual inspection by men/women walking the lines is the best way. It may be that automated trains can survey lines with technology. It may need both for best results.
    Truth is, I don’t know. I also suspect you don’t either.
    "You simply don't make things less safe".

    Railtrack did. For profit. And I do know (far too much) stuff about the railways. There absolutely are track recording equipment that can scan rails on the go. Network Rail has several such trains - but they act to supplement the visual inspections that remain critical.

    Last time we went down the "just cut the cost" route we ended up with people dead. Repeatedly. They simply did not know the condition of track and signalling equipment. So had to do emergency inspections and blanket speed restrictions until they could check and then repair everything. So we know where cutting the maintenance regime leads. This proposal has them double routine maintenance periods. To save money. They aren't even proposing to replace mk1 eyeballs with the inspection train on the same basis. Its half the maintenance the network needs now.

    Which will get people killed. Because you really do make things less safe when wazzocks without a clue about engineering make decisions for political and economic reasons.
    I take it back, you do know. Cheers for the info. I’ll qualify the statement - you shouldn’t make things less safe...
    Appreciated. @Carnyx gave the Grayrigg example. You can't rely on the inspection train. And yet the minister went on Channel 4 News last night and said that you don't need old-fashioned practices like people walking the tracks when you can have digital inspections on a train. He has *no clue* what the inspection train can and cannot do or even what needs to be inspected. But "digital" has been the solution to all the railway budget problems for a few years.

    No, you can't. This is the problem. The DfT are directing both Network Rail and the rail operators what to do. DfT wazzocks don't have the first clue what they are talking about. Ministers definitely don't. But they are directing NR and saying "cut the staff, save the money".

    People will die. Again.
    The DfT, DfE and DoH...any more departments that are more useless than a bull's udder?
    Not fair. The vestigial mammary glands in a male mammal are there because of the common developmental programme (which needs to allow for all the assorted bits to be there in embryo, as one might say, before the sex differentiation genes really kick in). The DfT, in contrast ...
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 18,498

    Leon said:

    My main objection to strikes is that they are BORING. People hoping for more money. Exciting, not

    Its also people hoping not to have half of their safety colleagues fired by the government leading to insufficient maintenance and massive accidents like we had 20 years ago.

    (Snip)
    Hold on, can I have a source for that claim please?
    Widely reported by newspapers* that don't just parrot Tory lies. Or, watch Channel 4 News on Monday night. The minister himself said that having men visually inspecting tracks was old fashioned and we don;t need them and they can do digital inspections with trains now.

    *and trade press https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/biggest-rail-strike-in-modern-history-planned-in-response-to-maintenance-cuts-25-05-2022
    That's the RMT's claim, isn't it? Where's their evidence to back that claim up?

    And BTW, you said 'half of their safety colleagues fired'. So source for that, please.
    Its *Network Rail* making the claim. Read the article. quoting Network Rail justifying it. Are they denying it? Was the minister?
    I did read the article. No mention of 'half', and no quote from Network Rail about 'safety critical jobs' - at least as far as I could see. It reads as though the 'safety critical' numbers claim comes from the RMT.

    And yet considering that the RMT are telling such communist lies, nobody at NR says "this isn't true". And the minister goes on TV and directly refers to the safety-critical jobs that he thinks are no longer needed.

    Its just possible that the RMT are telling the truth. The lack of denial from anyone does leave that possibility open, does it not? As NR have had to go to the RMT with their proposal of how many jobs they are cutting as part of the modernisation they speak of?
    Don't be ridiculous. You've - at beast - misread and misrepresented the article, and have now descended to the 'they're not denying it!" line.
    Again, DYOR. Or go watch last night's Channel 4 news to watch the minister set out exactly what he thought of these safety critical staff they intend to remove. Yes, you have gone down the track with one of those big spanners and I have not. So you know precisely why the role is critical. And still support them being scrapped apparently.

    "Nobody has said they are removing them" you will say. Again, DYOR. Channel 4 News. Last night. Live TV interview with the minister literally saying that.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 29,790

    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    My main objection to strikes is that they are BORING. People hoping for more money. Exciting, not

    Its also people hoping not to have half of their safety colleagues fired by the government leading to insufficient maintenance and massive accidents like we had 20 years ago.

    (Snip)
    Hold on, can I have a source for that claim please?
    Widely reported by newspapers that don't just parrot Tory lies. Or, watch Channel 4 News on Monday night. The minister himself said that having men visually inspecting tracks was old fashioned and we don;t need them and they can do digital inspections with trains now.
    I dont know much about trains, but I do know health and safety. You simply don’t make things less safe. You just don’t. I’d be interested to know what best practice around the world is re track inspection and other areas of contention. It may be that visual inspection by men/women walking the lines is the best way. It may be that automated trains can survey lines with technology. It may need both for best results.
    Truth is, I don’t know. I also suspect you don’t either.
    Gut feeling is that the automated trains are great for quickly ultrasonically scanning for things like incipioent fatigue cracking in railhead corners and checking for undue deflection under load of the track (as might be caused by a pumping sleeper without enough compacted ballast under it) but you do still need a visual inspection of the track and the area around it for anything that a robot wouldn't spot. We've had both for a long time now.
    I actually did weekly track inspections for a preserved railway; two of us walking two or three miles on a Saturday morning. One on one side of the track; the other on the other, looking for things like loose keys, dropped joints for note. Or where some idiots had put something on the line whilst it had been out of service during the week (never happened to me, but happened to someone else). Good fun, and a good opportunity for a natter with friends as we did it.

    Also, we would note things like trees growing too close to the line, and where there was too much undergrowth that would need to be burnt back later in a controlled manner. And a host of other things that would need fettling.

    That was old joined sixty foot 95-pound per yard bullhead rails, on timber and concrete sleepers. Most Network Rail lines have much more modern track systems - heavier flat-bottomed rail, continuously welded on concrete (or sometimes steel) sleepers.

    The stuff the NMT trains can recognise are quite amazing: and it should be noted that visual inspections often fail to detect problems as well. Whether track inspections are still needed, or at the same regularity, very much depends on the details. According to (1) from ten years ago: "Traditional inspection of rail condition consumes 1.3 million man hours of work each year." The NMT will remove 520,000 hours of this.

    Without the details, IMV it's impossible to say whether reducing the amount of manual inspections would impact safety.

    (1): https://www.railengineer.co.uk/track-inspection-at-125mph/
    The truly alarming bit isn't that they want to cut visual inspections in favour of more NMT inspections. It is that they propose to double the length of time between inspections AND cut visual inspections.
    Again, source please. I don't think that was in the article you linked to.
    Frankly DYOR. The industry press has been talking about this for months. The minister said they want to cut these roles completely. NR have said they want to "modernise". And having put their plan to the union no agreement has been reached.

    As always the exact numbers are open to negotiation. But the only person seemingly denying the plan is you. And the rationale? Budget cuts - as NR says in the article I linked to. We don't preserve jobs made redundant with new technology - that is stupid. But that isn't this. And we have very live examples from recent history as to why this is a bad idea.
    I also read some of the industry press, which would be of absolutely no surprise to anyone on PB. ;) I must read very different ones to you, though,

    I am not 'denying' the plan. I am asking *you* what *you* are basing your claims on, because they sniff wrong to me. That's not to say you're not right; it's just that they smell wrong. And so far you haven't been able to back them up.

    Railway unions have a long and sad history of using overwrought safety claims to preserve jobs: from the secondman nonsense to their opposition to Driver-Only Operation. At times they are correct to do so; at others (as with the two mentioned), they're ridiculous.

    Can I believe that removing manual inspections might impact safety? Yes. Can I believe they might not impact safety? Yes. The devil will be in the details.
  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 1,453
    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    Leon said:

    My main objection to strikes is that they are BORING. People hoping for more money. Exciting, not

    Yes, working class people wanting a bit of levelling come to them has the PB Tories clutching at their pearls at the ghastliness of it all.
    The truly sickening thing is pensioners getting a likely 10% increase their pensions whilst telling the people who work to their pensions to accept 3%.

    I'm so old I remember last year when the PM and many Tories were boasting about higher wages and delivering on that.
    I would suggest financial services workers are doing rather better than the average state pensioner.

    'The mean monthly pay packet in the finance sector in February was 31% higher than in December 2019 in cash terms, compared with 14% across all sectors. Pay growth was driven by high earners, reflected in the higher mean figure. However, median pay in the finance industry was also significantly higher than for the economy at large.
    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/may/04/city-london-bonus-boom-risk-driving-up-inequality-institute-fiscal-studies
    It might be a bit lower this year, given the effect of the stock market on bonuses.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 48,728
    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    My main objection to strikes is that they are BORING. People hoping for more money. Exciting, not

    Its also people hoping not to have half of their safety colleagues fired by the government leading to insufficient maintenance and massive accidents like we had 20 years ago.

    (Snip)
    Hold on, can I have a source for that claim please?
    Widely reported by newspapers that don't just parrot Tory lies. Or, watch Channel 4 News on Monday night. The minister himself said that having men visually inspecting tracks was old fashioned and we don;t need them and they can do digital inspections with trains now.
    I dont know much about trains, but I do know health and safety. You simply don’t make things less safe. You just don’t. I’d be interested to know what best practice around the world is re track inspection and other areas of contention. It may be that visual inspection by men/women walking the lines is the best way. It may be that automated trains can survey lines with technology. It may need both for best results.
    Truth is, I don’t know. I also suspect you don’t either.
    "You simply don't make things less safe".

    Railtrack did. For profit. And I do know (far too much) stuff about the railways. There absolutely are track recording equipment that can scan rails on the go. Network Rail has several such trains - but they act to supplement the visual inspections that remain critical.

    Last time we went down the "just cut the cost" route we ended up with people dead. Repeatedly. They simply did not know the condition of track and signalling equipment. So had to do emergency inspections and blanket speed restrictions until they could check and then repair everything. So we know where cutting the maintenance regime leads. This proposal has them double routine maintenance periods. To save money. They aren't even proposing to replace mk1 eyeballs with the inspection train on the same basis. Its half the maintenance the network needs now.

    Which will get people killed. Because you really do make things less safe when wazzocks without a clue about engineering make decisions for political and economic reasons.
    I take it back, you do know. Cheers for the info. I’ll qualify the statement - you shouldn’t make things less safe...
    Appreciated. @Carnyx gave the Grayrigg example. You can't rely on the inspection train. And yet the minister went on Channel 4 News last night and said that you don't need old-fashioned practices like people walking the tracks when you can have digital inspections on a train. He has *no clue* what the inspection train can and cannot do or even what needs to be inspected. But "digital" has been the solution to all the railway budget problems for a few years.

    No, you can't. This is the problem. The DfT are directing both Network Rail and the rail operators what to do. DfT wazzocks don't have the first clue what they are talking about. Ministers definitely don't. But they are directing NR and saying "cut the staff, save the money".

    People will die. Again.
    The DfT, DfE and DoH...any more departments that are more useless than a bull's udder?
    Not fair. The vestigial mammary glands in a male mammal are there because of the common developmental programme (which needs to allow for all the assorted bits to be there in embryo, as one might say, before the sex differentiation genes really kick in). The DfT, in contrast ...
    You're right. I withdraw my slur on bulls' udders.

    How about, 'more useless than a stone's brain cell?'
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 18,498
    Anyway, back on topic I'm not that surprised that Labour's strikes haven't been roundly condemned and Starmer with them. The "greedy union barons" trope is less effective when so many workers will be looking at their own position thinking the pay request sounds perfectly reasonable.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 22,298

    Leon said:

    My main objection to strikes is that they are BORING. People hoping for more money. Exciting, not

    Its also people hoping not to have half of their safety colleagues fired by the government leading to insufficient maintenance and massive accidents like we had 20 years ago.

    (Snip)
    Hold on, can I have a source for that claim please?
    Widely reported by newspapers that don't just parrot Tory lies. Or, watch Channel 4 News on Monday night. The minister himself said that having men visually inspecting tracks was old fashioned and we don;t need them and they can do digital inspections with trains now.
    I dont know much about trains, but I do know health and safety. You simply don’t make things less safe. You just don’t. I’d be interested to know what best practice around the world is re track inspection and other areas of contention. It may be that visual inspection by men/women walking the lines is the best way. It may be that automated trains can survey lines with technology. It may need both for best results.
    Truth is, I don’t know. I also suspect you don’t either.
    "You simply don't make things less safe".

    Railtrack did. For profit. And I do know (far too much) stuff about the railways. There absolutely are track recording equipment that can scan rails on the go. Network Rail has several such trains - but they act to supplement the visual inspections that remain critical.

    Last time we went down the "just cut the cost" route we ended up with people dead. Repeatedly. They simply did not know the condition of track and signalling equipment. So had to do emergency inspections and blanket speed restrictions until they could check and then repair everything. So we know where cutting the maintenance regime leads. This proposal has them double routine maintenance periods. To save money. They aren't even proposing to replace mk1 eyeballs with the inspection train on the same basis. Its half the maintenance the network needs now.

    Which will get people killed. Because you really do make things less safe when wazzocks without a clue about engineering make decisions for political and economic reasons.
    Ian Jack wrote a superb - and absolutely must read - essay on the Hatfield rail crash. It is contained in his book "The Country Formerly Known as Great Britain" and it (plus his essay on one of the musicians from Nelson, Lancashire, who died on the Titanic) are worth the price of the book alone.

    The stupid shortcuts which rail privatisation led to resulted in people being killed. Let's hope the same won't happen again.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 32,326
    Incidentally, I have been watching this little bit of social history, of an Asian family of immigrants in Birmingham. Lightweight history in some ways, but a great perspective on how things have changed in Brum.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0018ljt
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 29,790
    dixiedean said:
    That's horrific.

    But whilst the police acted with perhaps criminal incompetence, I'd argue that the neighbours and locals who subjected him to the abuse also share some of the blame.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 32,326

    Anyway, back on topic I'm not that surprised that Labour's strikes haven't been roundly condemned and Starmer with them. The "greedy union barons" trope is less effective when so many workers will be looking at their own position thinking the pay request sounds perfectly reasonable.

    Not a few workers are thinking "If the Rail workers get screwed, we are next, if the Rail workers get 7% then we are more likely to get that too"
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 22,503
    For some reason the thread is beginning to remind me of this old movie ...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ocWHK87qltY
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 39,634

    Leon said:

    My main objection to strikes is that they are BORING. People hoping for more money. Exciting, not

    Says the man with lots of money
    The world exists to entertain Leon.
    Hence the attempts to spark a wokery battle last thread.

    If we wished to be truly cruel, we’d run a fortnight of AV threads.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 32,326

    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    Leon said:

    My main objection to strikes is that they are BORING. People hoping for more money. Exciting, not

    Yes, working class people wanting a bit of levelling come to them has the PB Tories clutching at their pearls at the ghastliness of it all.
    The truly sickening thing is pensioners getting a likely 10% increase their pensions whilst telling the people who work to their pensions to accept 3%.

    I'm so old I remember last year when the PM and many Tories were boasting about higher wages and delivering on that.
    I would suggest financial services workers are doing rather better than the average state pensioner.

    'The mean monthly pay packet in the finance sector in February was 31% higher than in December 2019 in cash terms, compared with 14% across all sectors. Pay growth was driven by high earners, reflected in the higher mean figure. However, median pay in the finance industry was also significantly higher than for the economy at large.
    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/may/04/city-london-bonus-boom-risk-driving-up-inequality-institute-fiscal-studies
    It might be a bit lower this year, given the effect of the stock market on bonuses.
    They might have to drown their sorrows with champagne from less good vintages? Will this horror never end!
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 4,557
    edited June 21

    Leon said:

    My main objection to strikes is that they are BORING. People hoping for more money. Exciting, not

    Its also people hoping not to have half of their safety colleagues fired by the government leading to insufficient maintenance and massive accidents like we had 20 years ago.

    This is the key point that keeps being missed. When they say they are striking to protect jobs, ask what the jobs are. The government have directed Network Rail to make massive cuts to maintenance and inspections. Which will literally leave people dead. Again.
    If you don't think the rails are safe, why would you ride them? Plenty of alternatives are available, unless you're talking nonsense.

    If there are accidents then Network Rail will be accountable, but if the unions want to start managing the safety record they should quit the union and join management. Or maybe they're just Luddites trying to preserve their own jobs and feather their beds.

    But OGH is right. If the media weren't obsessing about it, I'd have no reason to know the rail strikes were even happening. Doesn't affect me an iota.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 18,498

    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    My main objection to strikes is that they are BORING. People hoping for more money. Exciting, not

    Its also people hoping not to have half of their safety colleagues fired by the government leading to insufficient maintenance and massive accidents like we had 20 years ago.

    (Snip)
    Hold on, can I have a source for that claim please?
    Widely reported by newspapers that don't just parrot Tory lies. Or, watch Channel 4 News on Monday night. The minister himself said that having men visually inspecting tracks was old fashioned and we don;t need them and they can do digital inspections with trains now.
    I dont know much about trains, but I do know health and safety. You simply don’t make things less safe. You just don’t. I’d be interested to know what best practice around the world is re track inspection and other areas of contention. It may be that visual inspection by men/women walking the lines is the best way. It may be that automated trains can survey lines with technology. It may need both for best results.
    Truth is, I don’t know. I also suspect you don’t either.
    Gut feeling is that the automated trains are great for quickly ultrasonically scanning for things like incipioent fatigue cracking in railhead corners and checking for undue deflection under load of the track (as might be caused by a pumping sleeper without enough compacted ballast under it) but you do still need a visual inspection of the track and the area around it for anything that a robot wouldn't spot. We've had both for a long time now.
    I actually did weekly track inspections for a preserved railway; two of us walking two or three miles on a Saturday morning. One on one side of the track; the other on the other, looking for things like loose keys, dropped joints for note. Or where some idiots had put something on the line whilst it had been out of service during the week (never happened to me, but happened to someone else). Good fun, and a good opportunity for a natter with friends as we did it.

    Also, we would note things like trees growing too close to the line, and where there was too much undergrowth that would need to be burnt back later in a controlled manner. And a host of other things that would need fettling.

    That was old joined sixty foot 95-pound per yard bullhead rails, on timber and concrete sleepers. Most Network Rail lines have much more modern track systems - heavier flat-bottomed rail, continuously welded on concrete (or sometimes steel) sleepers.

    The stuff the NMT trains can recognise are quite amazing: and it should be noted that visual inspections often fail to detect problems as well. Whether track inspections are still needed, or at the same regularity, very much depends on the details. According to (1) from ten years ago: "Traditional inspection of rail condition consumes 1.3 million man hours of work each year." The NMT will remove 520,000 hours of this.

    Without the details, IMV it's impossible to say whether reducing the amount of manual inspections would impact safety.

    (1): https://www.railengineer.co.uk/track-inspection-at-125mph/
    The truly alarming bit isn't that they want to cut visual inspections in favour of more NMT inspections. It is that they propose to double the length of time between inspections AND cut visual inspections.
    Again, source please. I don't think that was in the article you linked to.
    Frankly DYOR. The industry press has been talking about this for months. The minister said they want to cut these roles completely. NR have said they want to "modernise". And having put their plan to the union no agreement has been reached.

    As always the exact numbers are open to negotiation. But the only person seemingly denying the plan is you. And the rationale? Budget cuts - as NR says in the article I linked to. We don't preserve jobs made redundant with new technology - that is stupid. But that isn't this. And we have very live examples from recent history as to why this is a bad idea.
    I also read some of the industry press, which would be of absolutely no surprise to anyone on PB. ;) I must read very different ones to you, though,

    I am not 'denying' the plan. I am asking *you* what *you* are basing your claims on, because they sniff wrong to me. That's not to say you're not right; it's just that they smell wrong. And so far you haven't been able to back them up.

    Railway unions have a long and sad history of using overwrought safety claims to preserve jobs: from the secondman nonsense to their opposition to Driver-Only Operation. At times they are correct to do so; at others (as with the two mentioned), they're ridiculous.

    Can I believe that removing manual inspections might impact safety? Yes. Can I believe they might not impact safety? Yes. The devil will be in the details.
    Fine. Lets meet in the middle. Transport ministers think they have "digital" solutions to analogue problems. Grayling said that instead of spending on engineering to fix the Castlefield Corridor issue a cheaper "digital railway" solution would fix it. No such thing. And now we have jobby on Channel 4 News saying digital inspections will be more modern than eyeballs and thus fix the budget problem.

    Why this is bad is that the DfT directly mandate all the spending of all the elements they control - Network Rail, "nationalised" franchises and management contract franchises. So impossible ideas get proposed as real solutions and when they turn out to be fantasy the request is "so do something else then".

    Does Shapps want to create another Grayrigg or Hatfield? No. Not deliberately. But are they both ignorant and zealous enough to force the changes to the industry that allow them to happen? Absolutely. As you say, the devil is in the details. And we know from their public utterances - like on last night's C4 News - that the people making the decisions are clueless about reality...
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 29,790

    Leon said:

    My main objection to strikes is that they are BORING. People hoping for more money. Exciting, not

    Its also people hoping not to have half of their safety colleagues fired by the government leading to insufficient maintenance and massive accidents like we had 20 years ago.

    (Snip)
    Hold on, can I have a source for that claim please?
    Widely reported by newspapers* that don't just parrot Tory lies. Or, watch Channel 4 News on Monday night. The minister himself said that having men visually inspecting tracks was old fashioned and we don;t need them and they can do digital inspections with trains now.

    *and trade press https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/biggest-rail-strike-in-modern-history-planned-in-response-to-maintenance-cuts-25-05-2022
    That's the RMT's claim, isn't it? Where's their evidence to back that claim up?

    And BTW, you said 'half of their safety colleagues fired'. So source for that, please.
    Its *Network Rail* making the claim. Read the article. quoting Network Rail justifying it. Are they denying it? Was the minister?
    I did read the article. No mention of 'half', and no quote from Network Rail about 'safety critical jobs' - at least as far as I could see. It reads as though the 'safety critical' numbers claim comes from the RMT.

    And yet considering that the RMT are telling such communist lies, nobody at NR says "this isn't true". And the minister goes on TV and directly refers to the safety-critical jobs that he thinks are no longer needed.

    Its just possible that the RMT are telling the truth. The lack of denial from anyone does leave that possibility open, does it not? As NR have had to go to the RMT with their proposal of how many jobs they are cutting as part of the modernisation they speak of?
    Don't be ridiculous. You've - at beast - misread and misrepresented the article, and have now descended to the 'they're not denying it!" line.
    Again, DYOR. Or go watch last night's Channel 4 news to watch the minister set out exactly what he thought of these safety critical staff they intend to remove. Yes, you have gone down the track with one of those big spanners and I have not. So you know precisely why the role is critical. And still support them being scrapped apparently.

    "Nobody has said they are removing them" you will say. Again, DYOR. Channel 4 News. Last night. Live TV interview with the minister literally saying that.
    Go on, give a linkie then. Your claim; you back it up - as the article you linked *did not* back it up.
Sign In or Register to comment.