SHRENE'S

The name came out as "Shrene's" because someone couldn't spell the wifes name?

There is a new greasey pitstop opened up for business on the A6 just outside of Market Harborough heading towards Desborough.

The snack wagon inplace and open for business.

It's run by the wife of a former work colleague, a one Mr Valentine. He recently took voluntary redundancy, and with part of his settlement he bought this little burger wagon for his misses.

Oddjob! Because that is what he does nowadays, the oddjob that doesn't involve to much effort. Fetch the wife some fags if she runs out, that sort of thing. Enjoying fulltime leisure following redundancy, lurks here because if he was at home, he'd have to make his own cuppa!

Its a pucker little set-up, nice and clean, very reasonably priced, and good quality knosh. Bacon, sausages etc are sourced from local butchers, and you can tell it.

The long suffering other half! She's the host, chef, dishwasher and everything else.

Anyway, Mr Valentine's acquired a nickname from the many patrons of this establishment, "Oddjob!" Given to him, because he doesnt do a great deal apart from fetching the odd thing for his misses now and then, being a retired chap (DFA). Those that know him of old, would say that not a great deal has changed there at all.

Excellent value indeed and very tasty! 10 out of 10!

Anyway, all those that know him, I'm sure would wish him and his wife all the best for the future.



Anyway, its early days, with them having some good weeks and some bad ones. They have developed a number of regulars who frequent the wagon, hope it continues to improve for them.

Oddjob is away on a ciggy run.

The snack wagon situated in the layby top of Clackhill coming from Market Harborough towards Desborough.

The End Of An Era!

Mr Valentine takes a moment out from walking around umpteen trains.

Following a period of some uncertainty the was created when Network Rail announced that it was making substantial cuts into the workbanks, AmeyColas annuonced the need for a raft of redundancies across the companies.

After some deliberation with the Union, a voluntary redundancy package eventually emerged, far from perfect but it was unlikely to be improved upon. Member's had indicated in a ballot that they were prepared to take limited action, thus tying the hands of the Union and limiting the pressure that they could apply. What emerged was far from perfect, it has some glaring faults, but for some it is also far superior to what they could have expected.


For Ex-BR/Jarvis staff it is 75% of the BR redundancy matrix,for others it's £1,000 for each year of service up to a maximum of 20 years. It's generated mixed interest, attracting a modicum of interest. In some depots, it sounds like it has attracted the desired numbers of interested individuals, while in others it short of the mark.

Two of those that showed an interest in the voluntary option were Steve Valentine and Mark Styles, two engineering supervisors at the Bletchley depot.


Mr Valentine a veteran from BR days with over 30 years of service to the railway. A fine fellow who is liked by pretty much everyone. Somewhat outspoken at times for managements liking, he's been around long enough to have seen most everything that there is to see, he's been dumped on enough times over the years to sour his opinion of management on a permanent basis. He doesn't mince his words, he calls a spade a spade, and says it as he sees it, which does alarm some. Others see it for the true down to earth "honesty" that Steve epitomises, and admire him for that.

Former colleague Mr Ferguson pictured in a lighter moment with Mr Styles.

While Mr Styles is perhaps a bit less frank speaking, especially when members of the management are around. A trait that is perhaps prudent at times, to stay quite and bite ones tongue.



Both have worked hard, and both have been dumped on time and time again over the years. And both have become disheartened with the way things are going in the company and the industry in general.

As a result both have elected to take the voluntary option, collecting a bit of a wegde and going as soon as possible.


For Mr Valentine, the future's a tad uncertain. It's unlikely he'll get another job in a similar line to what he's doing in now in the industry. But he has a few iron's in the fire, hopefully one of them will work out for him.

Mr Styles has an advantage that age is more on his side, but the job situation is equally dire and opportunities are slim.


Those that know them will wish them luck when they do go at the end of this week, and a good few will be sorry to see them go. Many have worked with them for a good few years, and have come to consider them as friends, not just work colleagues.

They mark the continuation of a process that has gone on unabated since 1997, staff from BR day's are disappearing leaving in the industry only those who have no recollection of a nationalised railway or the benefits that it brings. When the last member of staff goes who has that experience, it will be an end of an era. And it will be a loss to the country.


They are the visble damage caused by a system that believe's that the persuit of profit above all else as the only way to go, and that it will solve every single problem that exist's in the world, now and in the future.

All we know is that we wish them luck in the future, whatever that may hold for them.


Mr Valentine doing what he liked to do after a busy day, stop at a greasey pitstop.

Knocking your pan out? or Not knocking your pan out?

The 9th of May, a Saturday night shift at Kilsby tunnel, nature of the job was fitting light brackets to the tunnel wall in preparation for an up coming renewals job in the tunnel. Now for almost everyone there, there wasn't a single thing particularly taxing about any of the activities undertaken. Certainly nothing that would lead any of them to saying the they had been "knocking their pan out", the reality was that it was a very easy shift indeed as such go.

But one individual present would seem to beg to differ with everyone else who was present in that perception, because he had a "gruelling shift", he had a real "nightmare of a shift", he really "knocked his pan out", complaining that "he'll be feeling the ill effects of such a gruelling night's work for weeks to come".

Below are a few short video clips, initially taken because it is such a rarity to see the individual in them do much anyday, and judge for yourselves whether or not he really "knocked his pan out" or not!



First you see a contractor drilling the first hole for a lighting barcket, then another conteactor places the bracket in position and inserts a rawplug and screw into the hole thats been drilled. Then our esteemed colleagues appears as if out of nowhere and taps the screw home with a hammer, then disappears off into the gloom of the tunnel again. Now with the bracket partially secured in position, a second hole can be drilled, rawplug and screw inserted, and the screw tapped home to complete the process. This was pretty much the sum total of his activities for most of the night, I leave it to you to judge whether or no that constitutes "knocking one's pan out".

Fairness for all?

A plain statement that not everyone may interpret in the same fashion!

Fact

On the railway, there has always been a hierarchy (a pecking order if you would like to call it that). This is initially based upon one's grade, the higher grade you are, the higher up the pecking order you are.

Then there are a number of other factor's which can modify this further. If you have two individuals of identical grade, but one is senior to the other (they have more service), then the senior one is ahead in the pecking order.

Juniority (this refers to skills etc), and can mean an individual with less service can effectively be ahead of colleagues with a higher grade and more service.

These are the three basic starting points in determining where in the hierarchy one is :

1) Grade.
2) Seniority.
3) Juniority.

Why do you need a hierarchy?

In any organisation, you need to have a chain of command. Where the issuing of instructions, orders and tasks flow from the top down through the chain of command.
You need to have someone in charge, and someone subordinate, having a situation where all are equal just leads to anarchy. And a natural consequence of this, is that your position within the hierarchy can have a direct implication as to the sort of tasks you will be assigned, and the level of your workload.

If you are at the very bottom of the hierarchy, you can expect virtually any task to be put on your plate. As a rule, the lower you are in that hierarchy, the harder the tasks that can be assigned to you and the more in the way of amount of work that you have to do. That is the way of the world, at the bottom you have to do everything imaginable, literally work yours balls off if required, and as you go up in the hierarchy, you can do a bit less and delegate task's to your subordinates. As you go up the ladder higher and higher, you do less and less.

So that lays down the basic elements for the allocation of tasks! But are there other factors which you might consider?

Yes, there are a number of factors, of which it is entirely reasonable to consider when allocating tasks, some of these would be unreasonable and unfair to others to ignore. It's part of how the chain of command works, recognition is given where it is deserved and conversely admonishment or punishment is given out where it is deserved.

The nature of recognition can vary immensely, from a mere thank you, or being allocated an easy task, to being given an earlier than expected finish or getting an easy shift somewhere at the lower level. Higher levels of management may well give recognition through promotion and so forth.

While admonishment or punishment can vary immensely also at the lower levels, from a mere bollocking for a misdemeanor, to giving someone no more than they are due (i.e. 30 min's for a meal break, and no more), to giving them a job that they wont find pleasant. And at higher levels, it can also mean a bollocking, or a disciplinary, demotion, suspension from duty, even dismissal.

Factor's which could be considered :

1) Attitude

Attitude to the job can have a dramatic influence upon allocation of tasks. An example being lookout, when you have an unpleasant task such as shovelling and a better one such as acting as lookout, and you have two individuals. One of them has a positive attitude who would take the responsibility of being a lookout seriously, while the other has a less than positive attitude and views it merely as a cushy number and a means to avoid hard work. Which would you choose?

2) Performance

Performance can be viewed as completing any given task within the required timescale and to the required standard. Initially this could be by reference to such things as experience gained over the years, i.e. how long it takes to do some task or other and to what standard. Or you could refer to such things as MIMMS, which are an extensive series of time and motion study results, which give a timescale for virtually every task or part thereof.

Also you could use the time taken to do a task by the majority as your benchmark, say if everyone took on average 30 mins to shovel six a piece, and someone took an hour or more on average. I think it would be safe to say they were performing poorly.

Also, if doing six a piece, someone consistently did their six to a less than perfect standard, stone still on the web of the rail and around the clips, beds looking like there was a body buried in them. Then that could also be considered as performing poorly.

Also you could consider such points as whether the put the tools they use away correctly or not, or if they doing lookout whether they put away the kit correctly, detonators locked away etc. This could also be considered as performing poorly.

What downside might poor performance elicit, at the least a reprimand or being allocated a less than desirable task.

Good performance on the other hand can be given recognition, and that can very well take the form of being allocated a easier task.

Also you could put under this category, the fact of whether an individual has already undertaken one or more tasks already. One such could be the driving of a vehicle to site, it wouldn't be unreasonable to allocate any tasks that required doing to those who had completed no task so far.

3) Timekeeping

A person's ability to adhere to their contractual hours, that means being at your booking on point at the allotted time, and not leaving your booking on point until the allotted time. Not something immensely popular, but that doesn't mean it's OK to flout it. Take the piss and it is guaranteed to get a response.

Turning up persistently late will get a negative response.

An immediate negative response would be the allocating of a less than desirable task to someone who is repeatedly late.

Also finishing earlier than one should can elicit a negative response, and at the very least it can mean that you are effectively in managements pocket, that you owe them. This can mean that they may ask you to do something at some point that you are not particularly keen on doing, but as you owe them, there's not allot that you can say against it.

Also, many may view that someone who makes considerably more from finishing earlier than they do has an unfair advantage. And many may feel it's fair to redress that imbalance in some fashion.

A easy way to redress that imbalance, is in the allocation of tasks. The more an individual benefits from finishing earlier, when there is a less than desirable task in the offing then it's only fair that they are more in the frame for that task than anyone else.

The easiest way to fulfill the requirements is to start at the designated time, and finish at the designated time. That way you have met what is expected of you, and you owe nothing in return, management have nothing that they can hold over you.

4) Initiative

Initiative can be viewed to cover a broad range of things, but at the simplest level you could say the following. If you notice a clip is missing, you go and find a clip and replace it, it you know that a duff jack is required, you fetch one.
Not merely point it out and expect someone else to do it, just because one is to bone idle and cant be bothered to put themselves out.

You have an undesirable task, who would you allocate it to? The individual who shows willing and initiative, or the bone idle one?

5) Flexibility

I would describe this as being prepared to do sometimes, things that you wouldn't particularly want to do, but you bite the bullet and put your self out and do it.

If there was an undesirable task in the offing, it's not unreasonable to allocate the less than desirable task's to those that exhibit the least flexibility, and conversely allocate the more desirable tasks to those that do exhibit flexibility.

**************************************************

The basic principle of all this is, that working hard when it is needed, having the right attitude, showing initiative, good time keeping, good performance, being prepared to be flexible at times can all have positive benefits in the long run. While short comings in these areas can have a definite downside. It is only fair that it should be so, why should an individual who performs poorly on all counts reap the same benefits as someone who will knock their pan out when its needed.

Do well and it is recognised, and you could find that when there is a shed load to do that you wont necessarily be on the sharp end.

Do poorly and it is recognised, and you most definitely will find you are on the sharp end every time and rightly so.

So the nature of the sort of the day one will have is largely determined by our own actions, how well or not as the case maybe, and has a directed influence on what sort of day we will have and what tasks we'll be given. So the better we do, the better day we'll have, and the reverse is equally true.

Car Park Chronicles

Car Park Chronicles

Mr Fraser suffered an apparent blow, when he enquired about the renewal of his car park pass earlier this year. He was informed that Amey was still willing to provide him with car parking facilities at his home station of Kettering, but that the manner in which they were provided had changed. Previously, the car park pass had been provided on an annual basis but when Amey enquired upon the matter, they were informed that long term car park tickets of a month or more could only be purchased by season ticket holders. So this left Amey with little choice but to tell him to purchase the ticket on a daily basis and that they would reimburse him.

Last year, the cost of an annual car park pass was £550, this year it has shot up to £834 a year. A ticket for a day costs £7.50p, so purchasing it on a daily basis is ultimately far more expensive to the company at the end of the day.

Another wrinkle is that while hes been very fortunately in getting these facilities provided for a number of years, hes been doubly fortunate in that none of the companies to date have ever made him pay the tax. The company are under absolutely no obligation to pay the tax, they chose to pay it at their discretion, the inland revenue's view is it is a benefit in kind and if the company does not pay it then he employee does, simple as that.

What are the fact's?

Is there anything in the way of mention of car park provision within his T and C's?
Answer: No!

So its a matter of discretion on the part of the company as to whether such facilities are provided. The law states that a company is under no obligation what so ever to provided car parking to employees, if it does, then this facility is classed as a benefit in kind and taxable as such. If a company chooses to pay that tax due themselves, it is a matter for their discretion. They are not obliged to.

How did they come to be provided in the first place?

When he worked for Jarvis Rail, he and another had problems with parking. The matter was raised with local management, and after some deliberation the company at their discretion provided car park facilities in the form of an annual car park pass. Because it was provided by them on a discretionary basis, it couldn't be interpreted as forming part of his T and C's by custom and practice, anything provided on a discretionary basis can never be custom and practice. The only other way is by a collective agreement, no such agreement exists.
Upon TUPE transfer to Grant Rail and subsequent TUPE transfer to Amey, both companies at their discretion decided to continue with the provision of car park facilities.

What do his T and C's say on the matter of purchasing the car park tickets on a daily basis?

His terms and conditions state that all expenses that are reasonably incurred in the course of his duties, can be claimed back through expenses. This does cover a multitude of items, train tickets, taxis, car parking, meals, just to name a few. The fact that not all previous companies rigidly enforced this item doesn't mean that not paying is an option for him. Claiming that he has never had to pay before is of no relevance, companies overlooked this matter at their discretion, and as such it cannot claimed ever to be custom and practice. Also there is the second problem in that custom and practice cannot supplant the express terms of ones terms and conditions, express terms being what is written down in black and white in the collective agreement. So what ever way you look at it, there is absolutely no grounds upon which he can claim that provision of car park facilities, or not having to pay first and claim it back are part of his terms and conditions. To claim so would be untrue!

Problem for him!

It can never be claim to be custom and practice, because its provided on a discretionary basis in the first place. This prevents it from ever becoming custom and practice, also the one item he might have thought would reasonably be classed as custom and practice is dead in the water because it cannot overrule and express term.

He would not want the union to seek a collective agreement on the subject, because I cant see how they would want a agreement that didn't apply to everyone within the company. And I know equally that a lot of members would benefit from such facilities, and would fell a bit aggrieved if they knew someone was getting it and they were being denied it themselves.

He basically want to keep getting it provided, but doesn't want to incur any of the downsides. Doesn't matter it others incur them as long as its not him.

Jim Fitzgerald

A former colleague and a character known to many working on the railway passed away recently His name was Jim Fitzgerald. Many knew him as "Jimmy Fitz" or just plain "Jimmy".

His bark was far worse than his bite, and you could have a good crack with him. One of the most frequent phrases he used to use was "You couldn't shovel shit from a dead donkey", and I can still hear it.

He was like an almost permanent feature, never seemed to change and was always there. When he retired, it was the passing of an era as "Jimmy" was one of the old school, one of a disappearing breed.

His passing away is part of the final closure on a chapter in railway history. Unnoticed, unknown by so many who rushed by on trains everyday, but for those who worked with him, he'll always be remembered.

Rest in Peace Jimmy