new harrogate 'super hub'?

daveyeff · Post by **daveyeff** » 08 Mar 2019, 16:59

got this from the mail centre driver this morning. he says a union rep at the mail centre was on about the recent meeting at York. and said the 'go-ahead' had been given to Royal Mail to have a new ''super hub' built at Harrogate. this is to deal with the larger parcels that we are no longer going to be doing. he says the rep said there is to be 60 jobs going from the floor (bullring) of Tyneside mail centre. so others in the north (leeds) (Sheffield) will also be targeted. is this the start of the EVRs?

Postie45 · Post by **Postie45** » 08 Mar 2019, 17:31

EVR is very expensive, and I think RM will only go down this route if desperate to reduce numbers. You may see some EVR but I dont see them pushing people out large scale, they get enough people leaving naturally through retirement and people leaving the business.

daveyeff · Post by **daveyeff** » 08 Mar 2019, 17:45

well they want deliveries reduced from 60,000 to 52,000, but mail centres have nowhere near the numbers that's in DOs

Post by **SpacePhoenix** » 08 Mar 2019, 19:55

Won't work, many yorks of large (especially Tracked) can often be well over half full with small stuff. The "super hubs" will need to have their own SD locker to deal with the inevitable SDs that get mixed in with the normal large or large Tracked

daveyeff · Post by **daveyeff** » 09 Mar 2019, 15:31

I don't think they give a monkey's about the workability of it. they'll cross that bridge when they come to it.

Post by **rambo1** » 13 Mar 2019, 09:17

daveyeff wrote:I don't think they give a monkey's about the workability of it. they'll cross that bridge when they come to it.

With the 'planning' capabilities of the company, there probably won't even be a bridge there! They'll get there, have to build a bridge, cross it then realise that there was already one 50 yrds down the river. They'll then think its a good idea to go back over the bridge they built, dismantle it, go down to the other bridge then realise it's too small for them to cross. They'll then abandon all desire to cross that particular river anyway and find something else to 'plan', having wasted much time and money.

postslippete · Post by **postslippete** » 13 Mar 2019, 17:21

rambo1 wrote:
daveyeff wrote:I don't think they give a monkey's about the workability of it. they'll cross that bridge when they come to it.
With the 'planning' capabilities of the company, there probably won't even be a bridge there! They'll get there, have to build a bridge, cross it then realise that there was already one 50 yrds down the river. They'll then think its a good idea to go back over the bridge they built, dismantle it, go down to the other bridge then realise it's too small for them to cross. They'll then abandon all desire to cross that particular river anyway and find something else to 'plan', having wasted much time and money.

That sounds like Royal Mail to me!! The money wasted by branding to Consignia before then reverting back springs to mind.

norfolk n chance · Post by **norfolk n chance** » 13 Mar 2019, 18:05

rambo1 wrote:
daveyeff wrote:I don't think they give a monkey's about the workability of it. they'll cross that bridge when they come to it.
With the 'planning' capabilities of the company, there probably won't even be a bridge there! They'll get there, have to build a bridge, cross it then realise that there was already one 50 yrds down the river. They'll then think its a good idea to go back over the bridge they built, dismantle it, go down to the other bridge then realise it's too small for them to cross. They'll then abandon all desire to cross that particular river anyway and find something else to 'plan', having wasted much time and money.

That's the best and most accurate description I've seen :