SWR: Guards/RMT Industrial Action. Next strike dates: 30/31 August, 1/2 September 2019

[Robertj21a]

A prediction for the latest ballot:

A larger percentage voting yes to carrying on striking however with a reduction of votes , with a reduction of those allowed to vote due to some moderate guards quitting the Union.

Doesn't that also partly depend on whether routine retirements are of the more militant or the more moderate members? - likewise the new recruits ?

 

[theironroad]

With SWR using longer formations you’d need 2, possibly 3 platform staff to dispatch a 12 car from many stations, surely if you’re going down the route of assisted dispatch it’d be cheaper just to use a guard. Could you imagine the cost paying 1/2 people to stand at every station to dispatch trains. Every station along the new line, along the Netley line, or from Poole down to Weymouth. Cheaper just to keep the guard.

I've never suggested that it would be a suitable model for all services, clearly it wouldn't be suitable for stopping services on the Weymouth or Portsmouth lines. A train running (edit: station abbreviation codes removed at moderator request as in violation of a policy......) could conceivably be run like this as all those stations are staffed (though may need some modifications.

For stopping services yes body side cameras would need retrofitting and monitors in cab and without some very clever engineering there's no room in the cab for monitors to be easily available to driver so I don't see retrofitting the entire fleet would be viable.

My point is that people just rule desiros out of the equation too easily.

I'm pretty sure you're aware of my view on this anyway and I believe every train in passenger service should have a fully trained guard on. I'm not particularly fussed about who opens the doors , but it needs someone on the platform to close them ideally in my opinion.

 

[theironroad]

A prediction for the latest ballot:

A larger percentage voting yes to carrying on striking however with a reduction of votes , with a reduction of those allowed to vote due to some moderate guards quitting the Union.

I don't know if it was you and I'm not saying it was, but someone here said last time that the ballot would fail
and the whole thing was over....didn't quite work out that way...

I'll wait until the fat and thin ladies and gents sing before guessing pollster results.

Anyone know When does the ballot close?

 

[footprints]

Anyone know When does the ballot close?

Opens 24th January, closes 7th February.

 

[theironroad]

Opens 24th January, closes 7th February.

Many thanks

 

[Kite159]

I don't know if it was you and I'm not saying it was, but someone here said last time that the ballot would fail
and the whole thing was over....didn't quite work out that way...

I'll wait until the fat and thin ladies and gents sing before guessing pollster results.

Anyone know When does the ballot close?

It was just an unfounded prediction at what I think will be the result this time round.

 

[father_jack]

I've never suggested that it would be a suitable model for all services, clearly it wouldn't be suitable for stopping services on the Weymouth or Portsmouth lines. A train running pmh,PMs,ftn,hav,pfd,hsl,gld,wok,wat or poo,bmh,bcu,sou,soa,win,wok,wat could conceivably be run like this as all those stations are staffed (though may need some modifications.

For stopping services yes body side cameras would need retrofitting and monitors in cab and without some very clever engineering there's no room in the cab for monitors to be easily available to driver so I don't see retrofitting the entire fleet would be viable.

My point is that people just rule desiros out of the equation too easily.

I'm pretty sure you're aware of my view on this anyway and I believe every train in passenger service should have a fully trained guard on. I'm not particularly fussed about who opens the doors , but it needs someone on the platform to close them ideally in my opinion.

Who's side are you exactly on ?

 

[theironroad]

Who's side are you exactly on ?

Thought my final paragraph was clear enough.

 

[Helvellyn]

When the Desiros were first introduced it was mentioned that the door buttons at the driver's desk were not live and would require connecting up in order to be used. Has this since changed.

Not that I am aware of.

With SWR using longer formations you’d need 2, possibly 3 platform staff to dispatch a 12 car from many stations, surely if you’re going down the route of assisted dispatch it’d be cheaper just to use a guard. Could you imagine the cost paying 1/2 people to stand at every station to dispatch trains. Every station along the new line, along the Netley line, or from Poole down to Weymouth. Cheaper just to keep the guard.

Exactly. It is why I and many others say it can be ruled out as a method of operation for 444s/450s.

I've never suggested that it would be a suitable model for all services, clearly it wouldn't be suitable for stopping services on the Weymouth or Portsmouth lines. A train running pmh,PMs,ftn,hav,pfd,hsl,gld,wok,wat or poo,bmh,bcu,sou,soa,win,wok,wat could conceivably be run like this as all those stations are staffed (though may need some modifications.

For stopping services yes body side cameras would need retrofitting and monitors in cab and without some very clever engineering there's no room in the cab for monitors to be easily available to driver so I don't see retrofitting the entire fleet would be viable.

My point is that people just rule desiros out of the equation too easily.

I and others rule it out because there are various scenarios where a DOO train in your example suddenly has to stop at an unstaffed station. And what happens if a staff member is sick? Issue not to call orders? It is why there are so many stations you can have assisted dispatch at but if someone is sick be prepared to do it yourself. A massive increase in mandatory dispatch stations is not what SWR wants.

Plus plenty of early and late trains stop at more stations. It remains simpler to have a Guard rostered for every train. And SWR has said it will do that. As per my earlier post there is disagreement about the scenarios when a 701 could run without a Guard, not helped by pretty much zero trust existing between SWR and the RMT.

 

[theironroad]

Not that I am aware of.


Exactly. It is why I and many others say it can be ruled out as a method of operation for 444s/450s.


I and others rule it out because there are various scenarios where a DOO train in your example suddenly has to stop at an unstaffed station. And what happens if a staff member is sick? Issue not to call orders? It is why there are so many stations you can have assisted dispatch at but if someone is sick be prepared to do it yourself. A massive increase in mandatory dispatch stations is not what SWR wants.

Plus plenty of early and late trains stop at more stations. It remains simpler to have a Guard rostered for every train. And SWR has said it will do that. As per my earlier post there is disagreement about the scenarios when a 701 could run without a Guard, not helped by pretty much zero trust existing between SWR and the RMT.

It remains simpler to have a guard guaranteed on every train, but that's not swr want.

So, take a scenario where swr have won the war and where is no guard available for a Waterloo to Bournemouth 1Wxx fast train, but a guard is available to take the same train on from Bournemouth to Weymouth. Imagine also that have trained drivers to open doors and close them under assisted dispatch and the trains have been updated to enliven desk controls.

Do control:
A) cancel the train between Waterloo and Bournemouth due to no available guard, or:
B) run the train doo with assisted dispatch and say for example not to call at Brockenhurst because no staff available at Brockenhurst and then pick up a guard at Bournemouth to work the train normally to Weymouth?

Answers on a postcard......

While it may not be the every day method of working, it could be possible and if the safety case allows it you can get your bottom dollar control will use it and there starts a small and then steeper slippery slope .......

I don't want it and believe every in service passenger train should have a guard on for a multitude of reasons.

 

[Ethano92]

It remains simpler to have a guard guaranteed on every train, but that's not swr want.

So, take a scenario where swr have won the war and where is no guard available for a Waterloo to Bournemouth 1Wxx fast train, but a guard is available to take the same train on from Bournemouth to Weymouth. Imagine also that have trained drivers to open doors and close them under assisted dispatch and the trains have been updated to enliven desk controls.

Do control:
A) cancel the train between Waterloo and Bournemouth due to no available guard, or:
B) run the train doo with assisted dispatch and say for example not to call at Brockenhurst because no staff available at Brockenhurst and then pick up a guard at Bournemouth to work the train normally to Weymouth?

Answers on a postcard......

While it may not be the every day method of working, it could be possible and if the safety case allows it you can get your bottom dollar control will use it and there starts a small and then steeper slippery slope .......

I don't want it and believe every in service passenger train should have a guard on for a multitude of reasons.

I apologise if I've missed something but I've read a few posts and am still confused as to why we are talking about the long distance services which I thought weren't affected by the outcome of the dispute as SWR only intend to run some 701 services without a guard, not a 444 to Weymouth? Nor a 450 Alton, a 442 to Portsmouth or a 158/9 to Salisbury. It's only the 701s to Hampton court etc involved right? And if the 701s are built with bodyside cameras (which would make sense as even if they would never run without a guard on SWR because RMT win, they could be used by another operator in a future life) then all of this assisted dispatch talk wouldn't be relevant except for very busy stations like Clapham junction or vauxhall in peaks which are staffed anyway in a similar way how Thameslink has assisted dispatch through the core and at East Croydon etc.

 

[bb21]

Please be reminded of the title of this thread and try to stay on topic please. This is not a DOO thread. Thank you.

 

[theironroad]

I apologise if I've missed something but I've read a few posts and am still confused as to why we are talking about the long distance services which I thought weren't affected by the outcome of the dispute as SWR only intend to run some 701 services without a guard, not a 444 to Weymouth? Nor a 450 Alton, a 442 to Portsmouth or a 158/9 to Salisbury. It's only the 701s to Hampton court etc involved right? And if the 701s are built with bodyside cameras (which would make sense as even if they would never run without a guard on SWR because RMT win, they could be used by another operator in a future life) then all of this assisted dispatch talk wouldn't be relevant except for very busy stations like Clapham junction or vauxhall in peaks which are staffed anyway in a similar way how Thameslink has assisted dispatch through the core and at East Croydon etc.

The dispute involves the majority of guards .

 

[OxtedSignaller]

Why would every platform become a staffed one, every station is risk assessed separately there is no reason why they need to be staffed unless there is an operational need, such as an operational need, due to unsuitable infrastructure or due to heavy footfall and it speeds up the process. No reason to staff everywhere, Southern already run DOO services down to Portsmouth Harbour and Southampton Central and the only stations they are dispatched at is the Harbour, Southsea and Central. If anything DOO means trains are dispatched from less stations as the cameras generally provide a better overview of the platform than a Guard can especially on crowded platforms at peak time. And it's not relevant to long distance routes, unless they are going to run the trains with bodyside cameras on these routes. Most TOCs are not fussed about providing a Guard on long distance routes with unsuitable rolling stock, every DCO train they implement is to them a step closer to where they clearly want to be. As rolling stock is replaced, they will continue the roll out. My understanding was SWR would provide a safety critical guard on services apart from exceptional circumstances to prevent cancellations, however on the new stock door control is intended to be passed over to the driver for consistency and due to the time savings particularly on metro routes. This seems a much better plan than the Southern method where by Guards are no more on 377 stock bar a couple of exceptions in the Metro area. As time goes on however I do think that existing staff will be safe, and if they keep their wages, pensions and pay rises you could argue in some cases they're being paid more for less work and responsibility which id only a good thing for workers but that's for another conversation...

 

[Muzer]

Why would every platform become a staffed one, every station is risk assessed separately there is no reason why they need to be staffed unless there is an operational need, such as an operational need, due to unsuitable infrastructure or due to heavy footfall and it speeds up the process. No reason to staff everywhere, Southern already run DOO services down to Portsmouth Harbour and Southampton Central and the only stations they are dispatched at is the Harbour, Southsea and Central. If anything DOO means trains are dispatched from less stations as the cameras generally provide a better overview of the platform than a Guard can especially on crowded platforms at peak time. And it's not relevant to long distance routes, unless they are going to run the trains with bodyside cameras on these routes. Most TOCs are not fussed about providing a Guard on long distance routes with unsuitable rolling stock, every DCO train they implement is to them a step closer to where they clearly want to be. As rolling stock is replaced, they will continue the roll out. My understanding was SWR would provide a safety critical guard on services apart from exceptional circumstances to prevent cancellations, however on the new stock door control is intended to be passed over to the driver for consistency and due to the time savings particularly on metro routes. This seems a much better plan than the Southern method where by Guards are no more on 377 stock bar a couple of exceptions in the Metro area. As time goes on however I do think that existing staff will be safe, and if they keep their wages, pensions and pay rises you could argue in some cases they're being paid more for less work and responsibility which id only a good thing for workers but that's for another conversation...

Because SWR long-distance stock has no cameras, and cameras cannot be retrofitted due to it being out of gauge.

 

[OxtedSignaller]

Because SWR long-distance stock has no cameras, and cameras cannot be retrofitted due to it being out of gauge.

Isn't that why the proposals are being introduced to coincide with the 701 stock. Existing stock wouldn't be running DOO like today because it isn't feesible. These proposals seem better than the ones SWT came up with years ago and were close to implementing which was full DOO with no second person in the Metro area. It was only inevitable this would happen again.

 

[Muzer]

Yeah, this entire pointless conversation was predicated on the totally baseless idea that SWR might want to introduce DOO on their long distance routes

 

[infobleep]

The journey planner was never updated yesterday. The only way to plan a journey was to use the live departure boards for each leg.

How come they couldn't have updated the journey planner prior to the Christmas shutdown of passenger services? Not enough staff avilable to input it?

 

[infobleep]

Post deleted as it references DOO and already been answered by other posters.

 

[Goldfish62]

Yeah, this entire pointless conversation was predicated on the totally baseless idea that SWR might want to introduce DOO on their long distance routes

Quite, while ignoring the fact that the 707s are fully equipped for DOO and ready to be used as such right now.

 

[infobleep]

Yeah, this entire pointless conversation was predicated on the totally baseless idea that SWR might want to introduce DOO on their long distance routes

Why wouldn't they want to, if they need to cut dwell times or are dwell times only a problem on Metro routes but nowhere else?

 

[Goldfish62]

Why wouldn't they want to, if they need to cut dwell times or are dwell times only a problem on Metro routes but nowhere else?

You've pretty much answered your own question.

 

[theironroad]

Ballot result due to be issued later today (Thursday 7/2)

Will be interesting to see where this dispute goes in light of the Northern breakthrough announced yesterday.

 

[theironroad]

Ballot results have been released with both strike action and action short of a strike approved RMT members. Details attached.

 

[Twotwo]

Stupid question, but what do they mean by ‘industrial action short of strike’?

 

[theironroad]

Stupid question, but what do they mean by ‘industrial action short of strike’?

It s normally a 'work to rule' or a strict adherence to contractual terms and conditions. Usually also involves an non-contractual overtime ban.

So the person is attending work rather than being away from work.

As the railway often relies on voluntary overtime and people being prepared to voluntarily vary their t&c to keep trains running , action short of a strike can be quite disrupting.

 

[moley]

The only people who will suffer are the passengers. All over a theoretical risk. Madness!

 

[Kite159]

Previous results:

Results:

753 entitled to vote, 538 turnout
Strike action:
Yes: 472
No: 65

Action short of a strike
Yes: 484
No: 51

3 spoiled

This time:

753 entitled to vote, 483 turnout
Strike action:
Yes: 425
No: 56

Action short of a strike:
Yes: 437
No: 46

Zero spoiled

----------

So less guards bothered to vote this time round?

 

[Robertj21a]

Previous results:



This time:

753 entitled to vote, 483 turnout
Strike action:
Yes: 425
No: 56

Action short of a strike:
Yes: 437
No: 46

Zero spoiled

----------

So less guards bothered to vote this time round?

270 failed to vote at all. I know it doesn't change the majority voting for action but it may suggest that quite a large number aren't terribly concerned.

 

[nuts & bolts]

Previous results:



This time:

753 entitled to vote, 483 turnout
Strike action:
Yes: 425
No: 56

Action short of a strike:
Yes: 437
No: 46

Zero spoiled

----------

So less guards bothered to vote this time round?

Not necessarily, quite a few Guards recently have transferred to Driving Grade so may changed union membership to ASLEF!