The rail industry is not a “job creation” scheme and companies must tackle
workforce reform if they are to slash costs, the man leading the transition
to new governing body Great British Railways (GBR) has warned.

Andrew Haines, chief executive of Network Rail, said the Treasury was
piling pressure on train operating companies to tackle a bloated workforce,
setting up a clash with unions as the sector moves to new contracts between
the government and rail firms.

“We mustn’t see the rail industry as a job centre, or job-creation
activity,” he told the Accelerate: Rail 2022 conference last week. “We know
that the mechanisms we’ve had in place historically have not incentivised
any of us to tackle them.”

From 2024, GBR will be the new “guiding mind” of the railway, making
decisions about trains and track, and offering management contracts to
train operators such as FirstGroup, Arriva and Go-Ahead Group.

Haines, who is leading the team that will set up GBR, said that the
Treasury would “lose patience” if costs were not tackled as the industry
seeks to wean itself off state support.

Passenger numbers collapsed during the pandemic and are only at about 65
per cent of pre-Covid levels. The Treasury has thrown at least £17 billion
at the railways since 2020.

Mick Lynch, general secretary of the RMT union, said: “It’s clear that
‘workforce reform’ is government and industry code for a jobs, pay and
pensions massacre, and we are preparing a national fight to defend our
members from this mayhem.

“All tactics are at our disposal including national industrial action.
There’s a storm brewing — and the RMT is ready for it.”

<https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/8da2e87a-a790-11ec-a0e9-23fd932feb90?shareToken=b76b9fc5bfd91fe4a2be271e1f69a15a>

In message <t16sf0$siq$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:34:24 on Sun, 20 Mar
2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:

>The rail industry is not a “job creation” scheme and companies must tackle
>workforce reform if they are to slash costs, the man leading the transition
>to new governing body Great British Railways (GBR) has warned.

That's an interesting observation, harking back to the alleged Golden
Past which was BR.

As late as the 80's, BR was the ultimate sink-job for the unemployable.
Not as bin-men (that's too much hard physical labour) or toilet cleaners
(unpleasant occupation) but just standing around making BR stations look
as if they aren't unmanned.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <t16sf0$siq$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:34:24 on Sun, 20 Mar
> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>
>> The rail industry is not a “job creation” scheme and companies must tackle
>> workforce reform if they are to slash costs, the man leading the transition
>> to new governing body Great British Railways (GBR) has warned.
>
> That's an interesting observation, harking back to the alleged Golden
> Past which was BR.
>
> As late as the 80's, BR was the ultimate sink-job for the unemployable.
> Not as bin-men (that's too much hard physical labour) or toilet cleaners
> (unpleasant occupation) but just standing around making BR stations look
> as if they aren't unmanned.

Same old stupid approach. Most industries lose around 5% of staff per year.
A hiring freeze will get them where they want. This just causes industrial
unpleasantness, passenger disruption. Also where staff are incentivised to
leave all the good ones go and you get left with the also rans. Every
organisation that I’ve had experience of that has introduced compulsory
redundancies has ended up with the remaining workforce demoralised and
cynical. This then takes years to fix.

On Sun, 20 Mar 2022 13:15:55 -0000 (UTC), Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <t16sf0$siq$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:34:24 on Sun, 20 Mar
>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>
>>> The rail industry is not a “job creation” scheme and companies must tackle
>>> workforce reform if they are to slash costs, the man leading the transition
>>> to new governing body Great British Railways (GBR) has warned.
>>
>> That's an interesting observation, harking back to the alleged Golden
>> Past which was BR.
>>
>> As late as the 80's, BR was the ultimate sink-job for the unemployable.
>> Not as bin-men (that's too much hard physical labour) or toilet cleaners
>> (unpleasant occupation) but just standing around making BR stations look
>> as if they aren't unmanned.
>
>Same old stupid approach. Most industries lose around 5% of staff per year.
>A hiring freeze will get them where they want. This just causes industrial
>unpleasantness, passenger disruption. Also where staff are incentivised to
>leave all the good ones go and you get left with the also rans. Every
>organisation that I’ve had experience of that has introduced compulsory
>redundancies has ended up with the remaining workforce demoralised and
>cynical. This then takes years to fix.

The problem with a hiring freeze is that you end up with an aging
workforce and are unable to replace high-quality staff who have left.

It's the same reason why voluntary redundancy can be counter-productive.
In theory, it minimises friction by ensuring that only those who want to
leave do leave. But the problem is that those who want to leave are more
likely to be those with higher skils who are happy to take your pay-pff
and are confident of their chances of getting another job elsewhere,
while the ones who won't take voluntary redundancy are those who are not
confident about their chances in the employment market. So reducing
staff by means of voluntary redundancy has a tendency to deskill your
staff, too. Which is not what you want.

Mark

Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Mar 2022 13:15:55 -0000 (UTC), Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <t16sf0$siq$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:34:24 on Sun, 20 Mar
>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>
>>>> The rail industry is not a “job creation” scheme and companies must tackle
>>>> workforce reform if they are to slash costs, the man leading the transition
>>>> to new governing body Great British Railways (GBR) has warned.
>>>
>>> That's an interesting observation, harking back to the alleged Golden
>>> Past which was BR.
>>>
>>> As late as the 80's, BR was the ultimate sink-job for the unemployable.
>>> Not as bin-men (that's too much hard physical labour) or toilet cleaners
>>> (unpleasant occupation) but just standing around making BR stations look
>>> as if they aren't unmanned.
>>
>> Same old stupid approach. Most industries lose around 5% of staff per year.
>> A hiring freeze will get them where they want. This just causes industrial
>> unpleasantness, passenger disruption. Also where staff are incentivised to
>> leave all the good ones go and you get left with the also rans. Every
>> organisation that I’ve had experience of that has introduced compulsory
>> redundancies has ended up with the remaining workforce demoralised and
>> cynical. This then takes years to fix.
>
> The problem with a hiring freeze is that you end up with an aging
> workforce and are unable to replace high-quality staff who have left.
>
> It's the same reason why voluntary redundancy can be counter-productive.
> In theory, it minimises friction by ensuring that only those who want to
> leave do leave. But the problem is that those who want to leave are more
> likely to be those with higher skils who are happy to take your pay-pff
> and are confident of their chances of getting another job elsewhere,
> while the ones who won't take voluntary redundancy are those who are not
> confident about their chances in the employment market. So reducing
> staff by means of voluntary redundancy has a tendency to deskill your
> staff, too. Which is not what you want.
>
> Mark
>

A 5 year hiring freeze is only going to change the mean age of the
workforce by 5 years. It gets rid of roughly 25% of your workforce. I doubt
the railway could cope with losing any more than that.

On Sun, 20 Mar 2022 13:40:55 -0000 (UTC), Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com>
wrote:

>A 5 year hiring freeze is only going to change the mean age of the
>workforce by 5 years. It gets rid of roughly 25% of your workforce. I doubt
>the railway could cope with losing any more than that.

You still have the problem that the people you lose may not necessarily
be the ones you can do without. Some key roles will always need filling
if they become vacant.

Mark

On Sun, 20 Mar 2022 14:08:29 +0000, Mark Goodge wrote:

> On Sun, 20 Mar 2022 13:40:55 -0000 (UTC), Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>A 5 year hiring freeze is only going to change the mean age of the
>>workforce by 5 years. It gets rid of roughly 25% of your workforce. I
>>doubt the railway could cope with losing any more than that.
>
> You still have the problem that the people you lose may not necessarily
> be the ones you can do without. Some key roles will always need filling
> if they become vacant.
>
> Mark

And that the ossification that sets in as no new enthusiasm and ideas get
brought in encourages the younger ones to leave more than the older ones,
so increasing the average age at more than real time.

(Says he working in retirement to help out the business that seems unable
to recruit and retain young engineers even when it wants to.)

nib

Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Mar 2022 13:40:55 -0000 (UTC), Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> A 5 year hiring freeze is only going to change the mean age of the
>> workforce by 5 years. It gets rid of roughly 25% of your workforce. I doubt
>> the railway could cope with losing any more than that.
>
> You still have the problem that the people you lose may not necessarily
> be the ones you can do without. Some key roles will always need filling
> if they become vacant.
>
> Mark
>

Well yes, but that’s handled by an exception authorisation scheme by HR.
I’ve seen it done.

nib <news@ingram-bromley.co.uk> wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Mar 2022 14:08:29 +0000, Mark Goodge wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 20 Mar 2022 13:40:55 -0000 (UTC), Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> A 5 year hiring freeze is only going to change the mean age of the
>>> workforce by 5 years. It gets rid of roughly 25% of your workforce. I
>>> doubt the railway could cope with losing any more than that.
>>
>> You still have the problem that the people you lose may not necessarily
>> be the ones you can do without. Some key roles will always need filling
>> if they become vacant.
>>
>> Mark
>
> And that the ossification that sets in as no new enthusiasm and ideas get
> brought in encourages the younger ones to leave more than the older ones,
> so increasing the average age at more than real time.
>
> (Says he working in retirement to help out the business that seems unable
> to recruit and retain young engineers even when it wants to.)
>
> nib
>

What salary is this business offering young engineers? I’ve seen some
laughably low starting salaries for such positions.

On 20/03/2022 13:15, Tweed wrote:
> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <t16sf0$siq$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:34:24 on Sun, 20 Mar
>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>
>>> The rail industry is not a “job creation” scheme and companies must tackle
>>> workforce reform if they are to slash costs, the man leading the transition
>>> to new governing body Great British Railways (GBR) has warned.
>>
>> That's an interesting observation, harking back to the alleged Golden
>> Past which was BR.
>>
>> As late as the 80's, BR was the ultimate sink-job for the unemployable.
>> Not as bin-men (that's too much hard physical labour) or toilet cleaners
>> (unpleasant occupation) but just standing around making BR stations look
>> as if they aren't unmanned.
>
> Same old stupid approach. Most industries lose around 5% of staff per year.
> A hiring freeze will get them where they want. This just causes industrial
> unpleasantness, passenger disruption. Also where staff are incentivised to
> leave all the good ones go and you get left with the also rans. Every
> organisation that I’ve had experience of that has introduced compulsory
> redundancies has ended up with the remaining workforce demoralised and
> cynical. This then takes years to fix.
>

Yes. But does anyone expect logical behaviour or long-term thinking from
the treasury?

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Haines, who is leading the team that will set up GBR, said that the
> Treasury would “lose patience” if costs were not tackled as the industry
> seeks to wean itself off state support.
>

How many national railway operators worldwide operate without state
support?

> Passenger numbers collapsed during the pandemic and are only at about 65
> per cent of pre-Covid levels. The Treasury has thrown at least £17 billion
> at the railways since 2020.
>

How does this compare with other countries?

Anna Noyd-Dryver

In message <t17j32$vji$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:00:35 on Sun, 20 Mar
2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:

>> Passenger numbers collapsed during the pandemic and are only at about 65
>> per cent of pre-Covid levels. The Treasury has thrown at least £17 billion
>> at the railways since 2020.
>
>How does this compare with other countries?

As a Covid lump sum, or as a subsidy per passenger mile?

Long term we subsidise the railways about 50%, and there are plenty of
countries who do more than that [iirc .ch has been 80%] No doubt all the
number are available somewhere; I recommend the UN Statistics Division.

But it's not a zero-sum game. Had the railways been shut during
lockdown, they'd have paid probably almost as much in furlough money.
And you might as well have the railway staff keeping up appearances,
as watching Netflix at home.
--
Roland Perry

On 20/03/2022 09:34, Recliner wrote:

> Andrew Haines, chief executive of Network Rail

My old boss, many moons ago. I can't take him seriously after a female
colleague pointed out what he did with his hand in his pocket during
meetings.

Ta,
--
Rob
"I have never understood why it should be necessary to become irrational
in order to prove that you care, or, indeed, why it should be necessary
to prove it at all." - Avon, Blake's 7

On 20/03/2022 16:00, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Haines, who is leading the team that will set up GBR, said that the
>> Treasury would “lose patience” if costs were not tackled as the industry
>> seeks to wean itself off state support.
>>
>
> How many national railway operators worldwide operate without state
> support?

It's the great tory myth that commuter railways can make a profit.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Mar 2022 13:15:55 -0000 (UTC), Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <t16sf0$siq$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:34:24 on Sun, 20 Mar
>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>
>>>> The rail industry is not a “job creation” scheme and companies must tackle
>>>> workforce reform if they are to slash costs, the man leading the transition
>>>> to new governing body Great British Railways (GBR) has warned.
>>>
>>> That's an interesting observation, harking back to the alleged Golden
>>> Past which was BR.
>>>
>>> As late as the 80's, BR was the ultimate sink-job for the unemployable.
>>> Not as bin-men (that's too much hard physical labour) or toilet cleaners
>>> (unpleasant occupation) but just standing around making BR stations look
>>> as if they aren't unmanned.
>>
>> Same old stupid approach. Most industries lose around 5% of staff per year.
>> A hiring freeze will get them where they want. This just causes industrial
>> unpleasantness, passenger disruption. Also where staff are incentivised to
>> leave all the good ones go and you get left with the also rans. Every
>> organisation that I’ve had experience of that has introduced compulsory
>> redundancies has ended up with the remaining workforce demoralised and
>> cynical. This then takes years to fix.
>
> The problem with a hiring freeze is that you end up with an aging
> workforce and are unable to replace high-quality staff who have left.
>
> It's the same reason why voluntary redundancy can be counter-productive.
> In theory, it minimises friction by ensuring that only those who want to
> leave do leave. But the problem is that those who want to leave are more
> likely to be those with higher skils who are happy to take your pay-pff
> and are confident of their chances of getting another job elsewhere,
> while the ones who won't take voluntary redundancy are those who are not
> confident about their chances in the employment market. So reducing
> staff by means of voluntary redundancy has a tendency to deskill your
> staff, too. Which is not what you want.
>
>

Most of the messroom and social media chat I've seen/heard around the
voluntary redundancy scheme is from people who would be retiring in the
next ten years anyway.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Mar 2022 13:40:55 -0000 (UTC), Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> A 5 year hiring freeze is only going to change the mean age of the
>> workforce by 5 years. It gets rid of roughly 25% of your workforce. I doubt
>> the railway could cope with losing any more than that.
>
> You still have the problem that the people you lose may not necessarily
> be the ones you can do without. Some key roles will always need filling
> if they become vacant.
>
>

Those won't be the ones eligible for voluntary redundancy, then; or if they
are, a replacement will be recruited as they would for a normal retirement
or resignation.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

In message <t182ci$mk1$2@dont-email.me>, at 20:21:38 on Sun, 20 Mar
2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Sun, 20 Mar 2022 13:40:55 -0000 (UTC), Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> A 5 year hiring freeze is only going to change the mean age of the
>>> workforce by 5 years. It gets rid of roughly 25% of your workforce. I doubt
>>> the railway could cope with losing any more than that.
>>
>> You still have the problem that the people you lose may not necessarily
>> be the ones you can do without. Some key roles will always need filling
>> if they become vacant.
>
>Those won't be the ones eligible for voluntary redundancy, then; or if they
>are, a replacement will be recruited as they would for a normal retirement
>or resignation.

A hiring freeze also affects an organisation's ability to replace key
workers who leave *other* than on any form of redundancy scheme. For
example if they retire (ago or ill health) or just get a better offer
from a different employer.

Most hiring freezes will also come with a ban on bribing people to
stay, even if that were otherwise possible in more than a handful of
industries.
--
Roland Perry

In message <t17ut5$dpn$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:22:13 on Sun, 20 Mar
2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>On 20/03/2022 16:00, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Haines, who is leading the team that will set up GBR, said that the
>>> Treasury would “lose patience” if costs were not tackled as the industry
>>> seeks to wean itself off state support.
>>>
>> How many national railway operators worldwide operate without state
>> support?
>
>It's the great tory myth that commuter railways can make a profit.

SWT and bits of what's now GTR used to. Even taking into account the
grants to Network Rail. But other operators don't have their particular
economies of scale, passenger densities, and just as important inflated
fares that they appear to be able to get away with due to a defacto
monopoly over other modes, even though their passengers might be mainly
commuters.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <t17ut5$dpn$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:22:13 on Sun, 20 Mar
> 2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>> On 20/03/2022 16:00, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Haines, who is leading the team that will set up GBR, said that the
>>>> Treasury would “lose patience” if costs were not tackled as the industry
>>>> seeks to wean itself off state support.
>>>>
>>> How many national railway operators worldwide operate without state
>>> support?
>>
>> It's the great tory myth that commuter railways can make a profit.
>
> SWT and bits of what's now GTR used to. Even taking into account the
> grants to Network Rail. But other operators don't have their particular
> economies of scale, passenger densities, and just as important inflated
> fares that they appear to be able to get away with due to a defacto
> monopoly over other modes, even though their passengers might be mainly
> commuters.

I suspect that with the post-Covid permanent wfh patterns, even those
prosperous commuter networks won't be able to make a profit on commuters
alone. They'll need to find ways of drumming up more leisure travel to fill
the gaps.

If they succeed, the loadings will be more balanced across the hours of the
day and the days of the week.

It's the same with the airlines, who are having to tempt more leisure
travellers to upgrade to the premium seats, to replace the missing business
travellers. And it's working: my recent experience is that Club class on BA
is completely full (I'm actually on a waiting list for a Club class seat on
a flight in May).

In message <t19faa$j7$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:08:26 on Mon, 21 Mar 2022,
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <t17ut5$dpn$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:22:13 on Sun, 20 Mar
>> 2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>> On 20/03/2022 16:00, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Haines, who is leading the team that will set up GBR, said that the
>>>>> Treasury would “lose patience” if costs were not tackled as
>>>>>the industry
>>>>> seeks to wean itself off state support.
>>>>>
>>>> How many national railway operators worldwide operate without state
>>>> support?
>>>
>>> It's the great tory myth that commuter railways can make a profit.
>>
>> SWT and bits of what's now GTR used to. Even taking into account the
>> grants to Network Rail. But other operators don't have their particular
>> economies of scale, passenger densities, and just as important inflated
>> fares that they appear to be able to get away with due to a defacto
>> monopoly over other modes, even though their passengers might be mainly
>> commuters.
>
>I suspect that with the post-Covid permanent wfh patterns, even those
>prosperous commuter networks won't be able to make a profit on commuters
>alone.

I'm sure that's true.

>They'll need to find ways of drumming up more leisure travel to fill
>the gaps.

Greater Anglia is currently advertising to potential passengers in East
Anglia (on various TV and catch-up channels) to the effect that "It's
not as dangerous as you think to travel on our trains, because we've
deep-cleaned them".

This is edging towards Ratner-ism "It's OK to buy our jewellery because
it's not as crap as you thought it was".

>If they succeed, the loadings will be more balanced across the hours of the
>day and the days of the week.

The number of tourists required is enormous (12-car trains 4tph, huge
numbers), and those tourists don't just need to be assured the trains
are sanitised, but their destinations are too. The Railways can't
guarantee that.

One of the biggest changes I've seen as a result of Covid is the typical
country-pub destination has doubled its prices while halving its opening
hours. This does not incentivise "turn up and go" tourists.

>It's the same with the airlines, who are having to tempt more leisure
>travellers to upgrade to the premium seats, to replace the missing business
>travellers. And it's working: my recent experience is that Club class on BA
>is completely full (I'm actually on a waiting list for a Club class seat on
>a flight in May).

How many of those are people playing catch-up with postponed family
reunions, although to the airline it doesn't really matter *why* they
are travelling. Nor is it analogous to domestic rail travel.
--
Roland Perry

On 21/03/2022 09:58, Roland Perry wrote:

> The number of tourists required is enormous (12-car trains 4tph, huge
> numbers), and those tourists don't just need to be assured the trains
> are sanitised, but their destinations are too.

Deep-cleaning of trains makes virtually zero difference to Covid
transmission - spreading via surfaces is minimal. (If the threat were,
say, Ebola then it would be a completely different matter.)

What's needed to make train travel safer re Covid is a dramatic increase
in forced ventilation (and maybe HEPA filtration). But I don't suppose
that's practicable with modern trains.

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <t19faa$j7$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:08:26 on Mon, 21 Mar 2022,
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <t17ut5$dpn$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:22:13 on Sun, 20 Mar
>>> 2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>> On 20/03/2022 16:00, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Haines, who is leading the team that will set up GBR, said that the
>>>>>> Treasury would “lose patience” if costs were not tackled as
>>>>>> the industry
>>>>>> seeks to wean itself off state support.
>>>>>>
>>>>> How many national railway operators worldwide operate without state
>>>>> support?
>>>>
>>>> It's the great tory myth that commuter railways can make a profit.
>>>
>>> SWT and bits of what's now GTR used to. Even taking into account the
>>> grants to Network Rail. But other operators don't have their particular
>>> economies of scale, passenger densities, and just as important inflated
>>> fares that they appear to be able to get away with due to a defacto
>>> monopoly over other modes, even though their passengers might be mainly
>>> commuters.
>>
>> I suspect that with the post-Covid permanent wfh patterns, even those
>> prosperous commuter networks won't be able to make a profit on commuters
>> alone.
>
> I'm sure that's true.
>
>> They'll need to find ways of drumming up more leisure travel to fill
>> the gaps.
>
> Greater Anglia is currently advertising to potential passengers in East
> Anglia (on various TV and catch-up channels) to the effect that "It's
> not as dangerous as you think to travel on our trains, because we've
> deep-cleaned them".

That was the slogan for public-transport operators a year ago.

I think most travellers aren't thinking about Covid any more. Life is
almost back to normal for most people in the UK. Indeed, now that masks are
no longer compulsory, it's interesting just how few people are wearing them
in UK airports.

>
> This is edging towards Ratner-ism "It's OK to buy our jewellery because
> it's not as crap as you thought it was".
>
>> If they succeed, the loadings will be more balanced across the hours of the
>> day and the days of the week.
>
> The number of tourists required is enormous (12-car trains 4tph, huge
> numbers), and those tourists don't just need to be assured the trains
> are sanitised, but their destinations are too. The Railways can't
> guarantee that.

I doubt that that's the issue for most would-be travellers now. It's back
to the old considerations of destination attractions and costs.

>
> One of the biggest changes I've seen as a result of Covid is the typical
> country-pub destination has doubled its prices while halving its opening
> hours. This does not incentivise "turn up and go" tourists.

As traffic returns, they'll also be able to return to normal.

>
>> It's the same with the airlines, who are having to tempt more leisure
>> travellers to upgrade to the premium seats, to replace the missing business
>> travellers. And it's working: my recent experience is that Club class on BA
>> is completely full (I'm actually on a waiting list for a Club class seat on
>> a flight in May).
>
> How many of those are people playing catch-up with postponed family
> reunions, although to the airline it doesn't really matter *why* they
> are travelling. Nor is it analogous to domestic rail travel.

Why not?

I was chatting to a chap returning from a three night cycling holiday
yesterday. He was travelling Club class from Seville, on his was way home
to Glasgow. Would it be any different if he was instead sampling the more
exotic delights of cycling in the Fens?

Postponed family reunions happened last year, when international travel
opened up again. Now, people are catching up on missed foreign holidays
from the last two years. For example, I plan to take at least five foreign
holidays this year. And it's great to be able to return to the UK with no
tests required, and no Covid-related paperwork.

On 2022-03-20 14:15:08 +0000, nib said:

> On Sun, 20 Mar 2022 14:08:29 +0000, Mark Goodge wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 20 Mar 2022 13:40:55 -0000 (UTC), Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> A 5 year hiring freeze is only going to change the mean age of the
>>> workforce by 5 years. It gets rid of roughly 25% of your workforce. I
>>> doubt the railway could cope with losing any more than that.
>>
>> You still have the problem that the people you lose may not necessarily
>> be the ones you can do without. Some key roles will always need filling
>> if they become vacant.
>>
>> Mark
>
> And that the ossification that sets in as no new enthusiasm and ideas get
> brought in encourages the younger ones to leave more than the older ones,
> so increasing the average age at more than real time.
>
> (Says he working in retirement to help out the business that seems unable
> to recruit and retain young engineers even when it wants to.)

Having been in the Engineering business for some years, there are a
number of reasons a lot of engineering companies have trouble with
recruitment, and despite what senior managing people who get quoted in
the media say, it is not due to too few young people wishing to pursue
an engineering career. To start with, engineering companies rarely
offer remuneration that is competitive with other business sectors that
value the same skill set, so the good engineering graduates rarely end
up doing engineering jobs.

Because the companies have a hard time bringing in new good engineering
graduates, they tend to be very reluctant to let those they have move
on to other roles, meaning things like career progression is stagnant,
and it is rare for someone who works in an engineerign technical role
to get the chance to move into more responsible decision-making and
management positions. This means that the perception of engineering as
a career is that you will never have the chance to actually move beyond
a pretty basic position.

Another issue is that people who have been in engineering technical
roles for a long time tend to get first-pick of the interesting and
challenging tasks, while the newbies get the dull and repetitive ones.
This means someone might go into an industry with the idea of getting
involved in the more interesting kinds of work done, but it turns out
the interesting stuff is all done by people in their 50s and 60s.

The other problem, not unique to engineering, but common in a lot of
technical type fields is that recruitment processes strongly favour
very specific experience over bringing in someone who is generally good
and training them to do the specifics of the job. I've just opened up
LinkedIn and the first job posting I found relevant to my profession on
their contains the following:

Description: Internship - Entry Level

As our ideal candidate you will have:
at least 5 years' relevant experience
experience in [two very industry-specific topics]
have experience with Catia V5

Who exactly is interested in an entry level internship level position
who already has 5 years of very specific industry related expertise,
and has proficiency with a specific design tool that nobody lacking a
corporate-scale IT budget is likely to be able to have access to?

Looking at the next post from a similar industry:
Description: Entry Level

As our ideal candidate you will have:
1-4 years' experience in the idnsutry
experience with Catia V5 required

The kind of people who actually meet these requirements but are
actually interested in applying for "entry level" positions are nevery
going to be the good ones.

Robin

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <t182ci$mk1$2@dont-email.me>, at 20:21:38 on Sun, 20 Mar
> 2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>> Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 20 Mar 2022 13:40:55 -0000 (UTC), Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> A 5 year hiring freeze is only going to change the mean age of the
>>>> workforce by 5 years. It gets rid of roughly 25% of your workforce. I doubt
>>>> the railway could cope with losing any more than that.
>>>
>>> You still have the problem that the people you lose may not necessarily
>>> be the ones you can do without. Some key roles will always need filling
>>> if they become vacant.
>>
>> Those won't be the ones eligible for voluntary redundancy, then; or if they
>> are, a replacement will be recruited as they would for a normal retirement
>> or resignation.
>
> A hiring freeze also affects an organisation's ability to replace key
> workers who leave *other* than on any form of redundancy scheme. For
> example if they retire (ago or ill health) or just get a better offer
> from a different employer.
>
> Most hiring freezes will also come with a ban on bribing people to
> stay, even if that were otherwise possible in more than a handful of
> industries.

This is true, if the hiring freeze is throughout the organisation and
non-negotiable, eg "we won't be able to run trains unless we recruit X".

There's also generally a flow upwards within in railway industry, with many
(presumably most) positions being filled internally; this means your
shortage of staff is more likely to occur among guards and catering staff,
as they move on to other roles.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

In message <t19jou$8n5$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 10:24:30 on Mon, 21 Mar
2022, JGD <news@prodata.co.uk> remarked:
>On 21/03/2022 09:58, Roland Perry wrote:
>
>> The number of tourists required is enormous (12-car trains 4tph, huge
>>numbers), and those tourists don't just need to be assured the trains
>>are sanitised, but their destinations are too.
>
>Deep-cleaning of trains makes virtually zero difference to Covid
>transmission - spreading via surfaces is minimal. (If the threat were,
>say, Ebola then it would be a completely different matter.)

That too.

>What's needed to make train travel safer re Covid

Or to at least make the perception (if it's perception which is putting
off discretionary passengers) mask wearing.

>is a dramatic increase in forced ventilation (and maybe HEPA
>filtration). But I don't suppose that's practicable with modern trains.

Plenty of them have air-con, and it's my understanding the aircon in
planes have HEPA filters.
--
Roland Perry