SWR: RMT ballot over role of guards *48 hour strike 8th/9th November*

[CN75]

It is certainly true that the reality is not quite what it should be. Non-Commercial guards are required to patrol their trains, normally it is perfectly possible to do so, but too often it doesn't happen. There are some trains where it is more difficult; 458s and 456s mainly, and with long trains and frequent stops, lots of passengers still won't see the guard even where they are patrolling the train. I do think there is a culture problem at certain depots though, where it is seen as perfectly acceptable to just sit in the cab and do the doors, and I don't think that enough has been done to tackle this. I just can't understand it personally. The role of the guard has clearly been under threat for a few years now, you would think staff would be doing everything possible to show their value. One thing that I do not think that will make staff more visible, proactive and customer focused however is attempting to remove the operational aspects of the role. All I think that will achieve is demoralising those who currently do a good job, unfortunately leading them to do less, whilst at the same time doing nothing to encourage those who need some encouragement to do a bit more at the moment.

Very true and there's radio silence from the unions about this: SWR guards are now in cabs on 450s and 444s more than not on weekends and as for 455s, all the money spent on door controls at each door is definitely not being put to use. Really tough on the ones who put pride into the job.

SWR they know they have to keep a second person on the train, mostly because of their legal agreement with the RMT made by Stagecoach (under duress, not out of the goodness of their hearts!).

They have already said that they won't touch the guards on the current stock that stays in the fleet. But their new metro fleet is 5 or 10 car walk through with DOO camera capability. Probably no choice on that, the government says it must have this. If the guard was doing the doors, the union will insist they would have to have a place of safety to work from. There probably isn't one apart from a cab in the design (As the 450 shows even when the guards have somewhere made for them in the train, many just shut themselves in cabs anyway). Operating the doors on a 10 car from the back cab probably isn't even practical at all stations let alone all the extra risk with being so far away from customers. So, give the driver this duty, and then if the guard needs to go to their place of safety, then the train still keeps going. The driver can probably do it more safely and quickly with the quality of cameras anyway, theoretically.

With such a long period replacing the metro fleet, they probably will have to have the same guards doing a 458 one minute and then a 701. So - however it is possible - their plan is probably a guard on board who doesn't do the doors on the new trains. And so the dispute kicks off.

At the moment the same old safety critical/safety trained is going on. There's obviously a lot of savings and productivity for SWR if they can claw back on this. Therefore if they have to go through a dispute they can probably eventually promise safety critical status, rules training, route knowledge or anything apart from doors. But they won't offer any of that until the union need something to show for the strike.

What's also helpful for them is SWR drivers contracts all say the normal method of operation is DOO and has done for about 20 years. Wouldnt seem that difficult for a judge to say that overrules any operating agreeements that currently prevent it?

None of these companies will lose money like the old strikes of years ago would, so there isn't much to lose. There's also nothing that would stop one of the 701s spreading further than the Metro at some point in the future. Maybe the union can get an agreement for train not running without a guard and be grown up about negotiating the rest of the changes. Doesn't look promising yet!

 

[emil]

Very true and there's radio silence from the unions about this: SWR guards are now in cabs on 450s and 444s more than not on weekends and as for 455s, all the money spent on door controls at each door is definitely not being put to use. Really tough on the ones who put pride into the job.

SWR they know they have to keep a second person on the train, mostly because of their legal agreement with the RMT made by Stagecoach (under duress, not out of the goodness of their hearts!).

They have already said that they won't touch the guards on the current stock that stays in the fleet. But their new metro fleet is 5 or 10 car walk through with DOO camera capability. Probably no choice on that, the government says it must have this. If the guard was doing the doors, the union will insist they would have to have a place of safety to work from. There probably isn't one apart from a cab in the design (As the 450 shows even when the guards have somewhere made for them in the train, many just shut themselves in cabs anyway). Operating the doors on a 10 car from the back cab probably isn't even practical at all stations let alone all the extra risk with being so far away from customers. So, give the driver this duty, and then if the guard needs to go to their place of safety, then the train still keeps going. The driver can probably do it more safely and quickly with the quality of cameras anyway, theoretically.

With such a long period replacing the metro fleet, they probably will have to have the same guards doing a 458 one minute and then a 701. So - however it is possible - their plan is probably a guard on board who doesn't do the doors on the new trains. And so the dispute kicks off.

At the moment the same old safety critical/safety trained is going on. There's obviously a lot of savings and productivity for SWR if they can claw back on this. Therefore if they have to go through a dispute they can probably eventually promise safety critical status, rules training, route knowledge or anything apart from doors. But they won't offer any of that until the union need something to show for the strike.

What's also helpful for them is SWR drivers contracts all say the normal method of operation is DOO and has done for about 20 years. Wouldnt seem that difficult for a judge to say that overrules any operating agreeements that currently prevent it?

None of these companies will lose money like the old strikes of years ago would, so there isn't much to lose. There's also nothing that would stop one of the 701s spreading further than the Metro at some point in the future. Maybe the union can get an agreement for train not running without a guard and be grown up about negotiating the rest of the changes. Doesn't look promising yet!

 

[BestWestern]

Very true and there's radio silence from the unions about this: SWR guards are now in cabs on 450s and 444s more than not on weekends and as for 455s, all the money spent on door controls at each door is definitely not being put to use. Really tough on the ones who put pride into the job.

SWR they know they have to keep a second person on the train, mostly because of their legal agreement with the RMT made by Stagecoach (under duress, not out of the goodness of their hearts!).

They have already said that they won't touch the guards on the current stock that stays in the fleet. But their new metro fleet is 5 or 10 car walk through with DOO camera capability. Probably no choice on that, the government says it must have this. If the guard was doing the doors, the union will insist they would have to have a place of safety to work from. There probably isn't one apart from a cab in the design (As the 450 shows even when the guards have somewhere made for them in the train, many just shut themselves in cabs anyway). Operating the doors on a 10 car from the back cab probably isn't even practical at all stations let alone all the extra risk with being so far away from customers. So, give the driver this duty, and then if the guard needs to go to their place of safety, then the train still keeps going. The driver can probably do it more safely and quickly with the quality of cameras anyway, theoretically.

With such a long period replacing the metro fleet, they probably will have to have the same guards doing a 458 one minute and then a 701. So - however it is possible - their plan is probably a guard on board who doesn't do the doors on the new trains. And so the dispute kicks off.

At the moment the same old safety critical/safety trained is going on. There's obviously a lot of savings and productivity for SWR if they can claw back on this. Therefore if they have to go through a dispute they can probably eventually promise safety critical status, rules training, route knowledge or anything apart from doors. But they won't offer any of that until the union need something to show for the strike.

What's also helpful for them is SWR drivers contracts all say the normal method of operation is DOO and has done for about 20 years. Wouldnt seem that difficult for a judge to say that overrules any operating agreeements that currently prevent it?

None of these companies will lose money like the old strikes of years ago would, so there isn't much to lose. There's also nothing that would stop one of the 701s spreading further than the Metro at some point in the future. Maybe the union can get an agreement for train not running without a guard and be grown up about negotiating the rest of the changes. Doesn't look promising yet!

My experience of SWT mainline services is that Guards almost always use the 'office' within the saloon, and as I've already mentioned the vast majority also make the required 'location announcements' advising where they can be found. Use of cabs tends to be rare from what I've seen. Given that many of their services are formed of more than one unit, with more than one saloon office and at least eight coaches, I'm unsure how the average passenger would know that the Guards are supposedly 'always in the back cab', unless your preferred seat is right next to it. There is also of course the matter of short platform door release, of which there is plenty and which cannot be undertaken from the back cab. Your suggestion that Guards don't use the saloon controls, to the extent that they are not required, is utter rubbish.

A place of safety should be provided for any train with on board staff, in order to allow refuge in the event of conflict and for the safeguarding of company revenue where applicable.

 

[BestWestern]

It was the company not the union that I said backed down, it seemed rather odd they so publicly stood up to the RMT before and during the strikes then quietly backed down a few months later, so if they repeat exactly the same scenario with SWR after going through several strikes in the process they’re going to look rather pathetic.
It’s been said on here SET was going to be guard dispatch except on oxford or bedwyn services, has that changed?

Ah, fair enough. Apologies then, I misunderstood your post!

 

[emil]

Obviously you are not aware the current servicing contract for class 444/450 goes beyond the current franchise until 2025. Therefore it would be a waste of money to replace them before this date.
Seeing Bombadier as a group are having problems in the US and previous problems with Rail in Austrailia, no doubt this will affect the income as a group and whether the class 701 actually get built as they need to finish crossrail trains first. You seem to know so much about drivers contracts SWR, Northern, Merseyrail. Really. There was a thread about different rolling stock practices guard open/close doors
https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...g-procedures-on-guard-operated-trains.131140/
To my knowledge current Northern stock cannot be modified to DOO. Only new trains being built will have this specification as laid down by DFT. ON SWR vast majority of stations outside Metro area are unstaffed.

 

[HarleyDavidson]

You're also going to have difficulties with access to platforms within the M25 boundary.

Stations affected are: Byfleet & New Haw, Weybridge, Hersham, Berrylands, Malden Manor - Chessington South, Stoneleigh, Cobham, Hinchley Wood

Outside M25: Brookwood, Ash Vale, Frimley, Bagshot, Wanborough, Witley, Liphook, Rowlands Castle, London Road, Horsley, Effingham Junction, Bookham, Fratton (if the lifts aren't working), Portchester, Swanwick, Botley, Hedge End, Eastleigh (lifts), Micheldever.

All of those listed have restricted access or no access to mobility impaired passengers, without assistance.

 

[TEW]

The stations that are more relevant when talking about guards are those which are accessible but unstaffed. The guard becomes vital then for ensuring the last bit is accessible, from the platform on to the train. There are a lot of stations that fall in to that category on SWR. Remove the guarantee of a second member of staff on Suburban services and a lot of stations become inaccessible overnight.

 

[FordFocus]

It was the company not the union that I said backed down, it seemed rather odd they so publicly stood up to the RMT before and during the strikes then quietly backed down a few months later, so if they repeat exactly the same scenario with SWR after going through several strikes in the process they’re going to look rather pathetic.
It’s been said on here SET was going to be guard dispatch except on oxford or bedwyn services, has that changed?

GWR wanted drivers to control doors on intercity services and opening up the theoretical possibility of having a DOO SET train from Penzance to London because of a guard been 'unavailable'. ASLEF sent a polite letter to GWR explaining their position against such proposals and since then the proposals were dropped.

There were some harmonisation attempts made to bring DOO in for all three sets of GWR drivers but they came to nothing. Something for the next franchise I suppose.

 

[HH]

Obviously you are not aware the current servicing contract for class 444/450 goes beyond the current franchise until 2025. Therefore it would be a waste of money to replace them before this date.

There never has been any intention to replace the Classes 444 or 450, but I don't see anywhere in CN75's post where he says that.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

What's also helpful for them is SWR drivers contracts all say the normal method of operation is DOO and has done for about 20 years. Wouldnt seem that difficult for a judge to say that overrules any operating agreeements that currently prevent it?

If true would that give SWR any scope for getting an injunction against the RMT?

 

[HH]

If true would that give SWR any scope for getting an injunction against the RMT?

No. I can't see why you'd think it would. RMT are representing the guards, not the drivers.

 

[CN75]

A place of safety should be provided for any train with on board staff, in order to allow refuge in the event of conflict and for the safeguarding of company revenue where applicable.

Which has meant the place of safety is the cab since brake vans went out of train designs. My point was the back cab on a 10 car won't be a safe place to operate the doors from for a traditional guard and the driver could have a better view on CCTV at the front, and then you don't have to worry about any short platforms either as the trains will use GPS.

The stations that are more relevant when talking about guards are those which are accessible but unstaffed. The guard becomes vital then for ensuring the last bit is accessible, from the platform on to the train. There are a lot of stations that fall in to that category on SWR. Remove the guarantee of a second member of staff on Suburban services and a lot of stations become inaccessible overnight.

Exactly, so that can't happen without breaching equality law. It doesn't even matter about whether there is wheelchair ramp access to platform, it's the fact that disabled people can board or change trains on a turn up and go basis. SWR have to have staff on the station or train or risk being prosecuted (Merseyrail have staff at 95% of their stations already).

The agreement with the RMT (see the link) (https://www.rmt.org.uk/news/rmt-calls-on-first-mtr-to-give-doo-assurances/) probably transfers to SWR from SWT as it is the same business really. So the definition of "DOO passenger or single person trains" is what's up for debate, on top of the whole equality law point. Does a DOO passenger train just have to feature a second person making it not DOO, or does that person have to do something about opening and closing doors/protecting trains etc? Mix that with the new walk through 701s wiping out all the 455/456/458/707 by in 2020 and SWR are left probably wanting a 'guard' who doesn't work the doors, ultimately without train dispatch knowledge and a good chance they have to guarantee the person.

The link also includes part of the driver's terms and conditions saying DOO is the standard operating mode on the back page. Even though the RMT got the agreements in 1998 in that link against DOO, all SWT driver contracts still say it is the normal method of operation because that isn't negotiated with the RMT.

 

[BestWestern]

Which has meant the place of safety is the cab since brake vans went out of train designs. My point was the back cab on a 10 car won't be a safe place to operate the doors from for a traditional guard and the driver could have a better view on CCTV at the front, and then you don't have to worry about any short platforms either as the trains will use GPS.

The provision of a place of safety and the dispatch of the train are two completely separate issues. If a Guard feels sufficiently at risk to have taken refuge, they are unlikely to continue working the train until the issue has been resolved. Dispatch is governed by safety, and on a long train the Guard will carry out their duties from a position which allows them to do so in a safe manner, not from somewhere unsafe because they're fearful of their safety. In that instance the train would stay put until assistance was rendered.

As for CCTV, many a DOO Driver will tell you that the quality of CCTV images of 20 sets of doors squeezed onto a tiny, grainy in cab monitor, affected by rain, bright sunlight and nighttime darkness, is abysmal. Safe it is not.

 

[CN75]

The provision of a place of safety and the dispatch of the train are two completely separate issues. If a Guard feels sufficiently at risk to have taken refuge, they are unlikely to continue working the train until the issue has been resolved. Dispatch is governed by safety, and on a long train the Guard will carry out their duties from a position which allows them to do so in a safe manner, not from somewhere unsafe because they're fearful of their safety. In that instance the train would stay put until assistance was rendered.

OK - what if it was too busy instead of being unsafe?

 

[Matt Taylor]

Talks between SWR and RMT started last week, there was another meeting yesterday and a further meeting is planeed for Thursday. The RMT appears keen to do a deal from what has been posted on their Facebook page but there is no word from SWR what their position is. I can't take an objective view of the overall situation without hearing from both sides. RMT members should check the relevant Facebook page for details of the discussions.

I fear that the comment about 'looking at the possibility of operating [Aventras] without a second member of staff' may turn out to be crucial in terms of whether RMT members are prepared to trust SWR.

 

[infobleep]

I’m sure the driver that had a medical episode a few months ago at the controls and was effectively saved by the guard (and Off duty medical staff) was grateful his train wasn’t one of those services that was runnning without a 2nd member of staff due to ‘exceptional circumstances’

It obviously costs to much to save his life so it's better he dies! I disagree with that opinion however.

Could someone tell me how many trains have been cancelled in the past year due to a lack of a guard? I'm sure it's far less than cancelled on Govia Thameslink Railway due to lack of a driver.

 

[TEW]

It obviously costs to much to save his life so it's better he dies! I disagree with that opinion however.

Could someone tell me how many trains have been cancelled in the past year due to a lack of a guard? I'm sure it's far less than cancelled on Govia Thameslink Railway due to lack of a driver.

The RMT were given a figure of 0.2% by SWR. I assume that is 0.2% of cancellations being due to no guard, rather than 0.2% of trains being cancelled due to no guard.

 

[HH]

The RMT were given a figure of 0.2% by SWR. I assume that is 0.2% of cancellations being due to no guard, rather than 0.2% of trains being cancelled due to no guard.

0.2% of cancellations would be very low. That would be something like 2 in every 100k trains. 2 in every thousand seems more likely.

 

[TEW]

0.2% of cancellations would be very low. That would be something like 2 in every 100k trains. 2 in every thousand seems more likely.

That was the figure I saw quoted. 0.2% of trains being cancelled due to no guard seems way to high. Given that on the most recent figures SWR's MAA for Reliability was 99.3% for Mainline, and 98.8% for Suburban. That would make lack of guard responsible for rather a high percentage of cancellations, where is in reality I imagine the main cause of delay is infrastructure failure.

 

[Malcolmffc]

Let’s face it, the RMT aren’t worried about safety, they just want to be able to continue to disrupt the train service when guards go on strike. Not being able to run a train just because a guard isn’t present is absurd. Yes, there is a microscopic chance of a safety-related issue that the guard could deal with, but everything in life involves risk.

How many passengers would choose having an OBS vs their train being cancelled?

 

[pompeyfan]

Rather than rehashing the whole RMT are villains debate by responding to the opinion above; I’ll contribute something useful.

Today would appear to be crunch day in respect of talks. I’d expect if a deal/compromise was to be reached, it would be at today’s meeting.

 

[Monty]

Rather than rehashing the whole RMT are villains debate by responding to the opinion above; I’ll contribute something useful.

Today would appear to be crunch day in respect of talks. I’d expect if a deal/compromise was to be reached, it would be at today’s meeting.

I'm not holding my breath.

 

[313103]

Let’s face it, the RMT aren’t worried about safety, they just want to be able to continue to disrupt the train service when guards go on strike. Not being able to run a train just because a guard isn’t present is absurd. Yes, there is a microscopic chance of a safety-related issue that the guard could deal with, but everything in life involves risk.

How many passengers would choose having an OBS vs their train being cancelled?

Lets face it Can you give me and the rest of US how many trains you have actually been on a cancelled train as a direct result of a guard being unavailable that is down to the guard? I very much doubt you can but lets see.

Would you argue the same point if a driver is not available ? i very much doubt it, but perhaps you should.

 

[pompeyfan]

I'm not holding my breath.

In which case we can guess what the less preferable outcome from today will be.

 

[BestWestern]

Let’s face it, the RMT aren’t worried about safety, they just want to be able to continue to disrupt the train service when guards go on strike. Not being able to run a train just because a guard isn’t present is absurd. Yes, there is a microscopic chance of a safety-related issue that the guard could deal with, but everything in life involves risk.

How many passengers would choose having an OBS vs their train being cancelled?

Yes, that's exactly right. RMT members take enormous pleasure from forfeiting their pay for absolutely no reason other than to annoy people like you. I'd go on strike every single day if I could, who needs to pay the bills and feed their family anyway...

 

[BestWestern]

OK - what if it was too busy instead of being unsafe?

Guards are well versed in working trains that are absolutely wedged, including plenty of trains where dispatching from a cab is not an option. It isn't a problem, we do it often.

 

[HarleyDavidson]

Let’s face it, the RMT aren’t worried about safety, they just want to be able to continue to disrupt the train service when guards go on strike. Not being able to run a train just because a guard isn’t present is absurd. Yes, there is a microscopic chance of a safety-related issue that the guard could deal with, but everything in life involves risk.

How many passengers would choose having an OBS vs their train being cancelled?

Another load of selfish, anti guard wibble.

 

[[.n]]

Let’s face it, the RMT aren’t worried about safety, they just want to be able to continue to disrupt the train service when guards go on strike. Not being able to run a train just because a guard isn’t present is absurd. Yes, there is a microscopic chance of a safety-related issue that the guard could deal with, but everything in life involves risk.

How many passengers would choose having an OBS vs their train being cancelled?

What a load of rubbish. The answer to your question, as a commuter, is that if the choice is OBS or cancelled I'll take cancelled.

 

[Wombat]

What a load of rubbish. The answer to your question, as a commuter, is that if the choice is OBS or cancelled I'll take cancelled.

You'd rather have your train cancelled than have it run with an OBS? Fair enough, but I'd be amazed if you weren't in a truly tiny minority. To be honest, I'd be very surprised if a large majority didn't favour running the train without any sort of second person on board, if the alternative is cancellation. (I'm assuming here that we're talking about a DOO train, of course, as there's not much benefit in having a train where nobody can close the doors).

 

[infobleep]

I think the last time someone opened the doors on the so called "wrong side" it was on platform 6/7 at Guildford and the doors were accidentally released on platform 7 by mistake. I mean what a cardinal sin, people got off safely and the doors were closed, no damage or anything and then doors were opened on 6.

I've actually been on a train here that happened. They then opened the doors to platform 6 but some passengers on platform 6 had gone over the foot ridge or down the underpass to platform 7. Running no doubt as they didn't wish to miss their train.