Deal agreed between RMT and SWR regarding future role of guards

[dingdinger]

It speeds up operation by about 20 seconds (about 5 for release and about 15 for dispatch) per station, which on the shorter distance stopping services makes a considerable difference, for one. It also frees up the guard to spend more time on revenue (give or take a quick glance out of the door at each station to see if there's a wheelchair user waiting for assistance).

There's no way it will save 20 seconds per stop.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There's no way it will save 20 seconds per stop.

It absolutely does. Watch just how much time is spent on the following:
1. Releasing the local door, getting out and observing the platform before pressing open (I accept this is optional on SWR, on most other TOCs it's mandatory)
2. Additional platform/PTI checks, close local door (particularly slow on Desiros) and then "buzz buzz, buzz buzz" (itself about 3-4 seconds)

It's quite considerable. Maybe not 20 seconds, but absolutely more than 10.

 

[DorkingMain]

It absolutely does. Watch just how much time is spent on the following:
1. Releasing the local door, getting out and observing the platform before pressing open (I accept this is optional on SWR, on most other TOCs it's mandatory)
2. Additional platform/PTI checks, close local door (particularly slow on Desiros) and then "buzz buzz, buzz buzz" (itself about 3-4 seconds)

It's quite considerable. Maybe not 20 seconds, but absolutely more than 10.

Nowhere near 20 seconds.

The RSSB's own report suggested 39 seconds dwell for guard dispatch vs. 30 seconds for driver dispatch, and I'd question even that given the document is one that tries to extol the benefits of DOO.

 

[TEW]

Not really knowing the history of all this; is the driver doing the door duties simply to allow the train to run DOO if the guard is not there? Otherwise, what is the advantage of the driver doing the door duties?

That was one of the original aims of the company, but they relented on that and agreed no passenger train would run without a guard.

 

[43066]

It speeds up operation by about 20 seconds (about 5 for release and about 15 for dispatch) per station, which on the shorter distance stopping services makes a considerable difference, for one. It also frees up the guard to spend more time on revenue (give or take a quick glance out of the door at each station to see if there's a wheelchair user waiting for assistance).

Having worked both DOO and guarded services there is no chance the saving is as much as twenty seconds per stop. DOO drivers are required to conduct safety checks before releasing the doors, and a pause of several seconds is looked for on downloads. Similarly the DOO dispatch process is very laborious (if done properly): checking starting signal; checking dispatch corridor; closing doors, gaining interlock; checking each monitor in turn and checking the signal again before taking power.

I’d suggest driver release guard close is a good compromise (and generally acceptable to both unions) to avoid guards having to interrupt ticketing transactions when arriving in a platform.

 

[DorkingMain]

That was one of the original aims of the company, but they relented on that and agreed no passenger train would run without a guard.

It's quite interesting that the whole dispute has now basically boiled down to the "seconds of dwell time" debate. The staff cost is going to be exactly the same, and the cancellation risk is now if anything greater - the train will have to be cancelled if the DOO cameras fail *or* there's no guard available.

It's little wonder both sides have been so sheepishly quiet about it - the RMT have given up their fight for guards to retain dispatch and the company are now going to pay more than they did before and only potentially save a couple of mins dwell time per trip.

 

[dingdinger]

Having worked both DOO and guarded services there is no chance the saving is as much as twenty seconds per stop. DOO drivers are required to conduct safety checks before releasing the doors, and a pause of several seconds is looked for on downloads. Similarly the DOO dispatch process is very laborious (if done properly): checking starting signal; checking dispatch corridor; closing doors, gaining interlock; checking each monitor in turn and checking the signal again before taking power.

I’d suggest driver release guard close is a good compromise (and generally acceptable to both unions) to avoid guards having to interrupt ticketing transactions when arriving in a platform.

Totally agree. I for one do not have a problem with DCO, but I just don't see any benefits. DO/GC is the ideal solution. No way will it save anywhere near 20 seconds per stop. Guards tend to get the doors open fairly quick on swr and it's only really using local doors on desiros where the extra time is taken for the guard to get back in and give the bells, and I'd imagine the 701s don't have that problem. As I've said previously the driver will take extra seconds viewing images on a cctv monitor as opposed to on the platform and will not be able to hurry passengers with a whistle.

 

[Ashley Hill]

I just cannot believe the RMT accepted this deal pretty much blind. Who would agree a deal without having a job description in place first. This could come back to bite them when SWR finally produce one.
It will not be very good customer service for Metro guards checking tickets. Shrugging your shoulders and walking away from a ticketless passenger (especially a scrote) will not endear you to those that have paid!

 

[Monty]

the changes in spare duties, holiday cover and the way Christmas is paid is a concern though.

The company essentially got DCO for free, and for us to get our hours down to the railway average we've had to give up a lot of the few perks we had. 3 hours of movement either side a spare turn is taking the piss, wouldn't be so bad if our max rostered day is still 11 hours. So one day one of us will get an 11 hour turn after 3 hours of spare movement and split breaks. I understand why some voted to agree to the deal but I just couldn't bring myself to do it, while on paper it looks like we've had a decent reduction in hours but anyone who has worked as a driver of guard where your working week is an 'average' it means very little, you'll still be doing 7 days on the bounce some weeks and with enforced overtime you'll still be touching 55-60 hours a week on occasion.

It absolutely does. Watch just how much time is spent on the following:
1. Releasing the local door, getting out and observing the platform before pressing open (I accept this is optional on SWR, on most other TOCs it's mandatory)
2. Additional platform/PTI checks, close local door (particularly slow on Desiros) and then "buzz buzz, buzz buzz" (itself about 3-4 seconds)

It's quite considerable. Maybe not 20 seconds, but absolutely more than 10.

I'm sorry but I completely disagree, driver may get the doors opened quicker (though a seasoned guard with excellent route knowledge will be just as fast) but he is going to loose time on dispatch as he has no real means to hussle passengers along. It gets even worse if there are stations where platform staff have to use unwieldy CD/RA equipment. A guard using his whistle liberally and shouting clearly is far more effective, and I'd bet my pension I'd beat any driver at my depot (sorry lads no hard feelings. ). If the Desiros are modified for driver open/guard close as is expected I suspect they will probably be the best performing units for dwell times at stations.

It's quite interesting that the whole dispute has now basically boiled down to the "seconds of dwell time" debate. The staff cost is going to be exactly the same, and the cancellation risk is now if anything greater - the train will have to be cancelled if the DOO cameras fail *or* there's no guard available.

It's little wonder both sides have been so sheepishly quiet about it - the RMT have given up their fight for guards to retain dispatch and the company are now going to pay more than they did before and only potentially save a couple of mins dwell time per trip.

If anything it will cost more (in the short term anyway), the drivers got their tidy little payrise and our hourly rate will go up, so any enforced overtime will have to be paid for. That said, nothing to stop the company to wait 2 years and throw another 5k at the drivers and bin the lot of us once new rolling stock replaces the old, that's where you save your money.

 

[TEW]

I just cannot believe the RMT accepted this deal pretty much blind. Who would agree a deal without having a job description in place first. This could come back to bite them when SWR finally produce one.
It will not be very good customer service for Metro guards checking tickets. Shrugging your shoulders and walking away from a ticketless passenger (especially a scrote) will not endear you to those that have paid!

The job descriptions do exist and were sent to all guards voting in the ballot.

 

[387star]

Yes

Then route knowledge will have to be to an acceptable standard

ASLEF stipulated OBS ' on Southern should be PTS trained however this was quietly dropped

Time for RMT to improve matters at Southern ?

 

[whoosh]

42 hours down to 37 is good, but as said above, 37 is the par for the course for Guards across the majority of the rail industry - South West guards have been lagging behind with their long working week for years.

2 hour movement to 3 hours movement to be allocated to an uncovered turn - that's either side of the spare book on time, so a six hour window of when your duty starts, is quite a bit of added flexibility for the company, as is;

Annual leave relief weeks in the roster.
Can't plan more than 4 weeks ahead for that week as you don't know what your days off will be that week until then.
Need to swap your annual leave week with a colleague with less than four weeks to go? No can do! (Even if they were willing to swap!)
Extra flexibility for the company there as well.

Lower rate of pay for new guards in their first year - a saving for the company.

New technology, lots of things will be done electronically paving the way to do away with 'Leading Guard' at some smaller locations who does extra admin work at the depot. A saving for the company.


It's a shame some people have picked out the percentage increase of the hourly rate due to the reduction in the working week down to something reasonable attained elsewhere about two decades ago - like it's all one way traffic handed on a plate to the guards - but haven't really acknowledged the productivity surrendered and exchanged.

It's not an unreasonable deal I don't think, but it has been a negotiation, with elements both sides weren't too keen on giving or giving up.

 

[winks]

40K a year for a comm guard ?
Lol. They’ve lost responsibilities and their working week has been reduced!

 

[DorkingMain]

40K a year for a comm guard ?
Lol. They’ve lost responsibilities and their working week has been reduced!

Only responsibility most commercial guards will lose for now is door opening on 450s. Otherwise their role is largely unchanged unless stock is modified / replaced.

 

[Starmill]

I'm amazed that the deal was allowed to proceed really. An incredible victory (or short term victory at the least) there for the Union, getting the government on the hook to cover an enormous increase in staff costs during a financial crisis.

It might indeed be difficult to remove it, as with it a wheelchair user can board any train without pre-booking, so it would be unreasonable to take that away.

It has already been lost on the former Southern London Bridge to Horsham services. No OBS on those. They've been replaced, at stations without staff, by road-based staff who can allegedly respond to 20 minutes' notice either by telephone or from the customer help point. They also cover some services to East Grinstead, which also would have carried guards.

 

[Ashley Hill]

Going by the agreement, SWR will seemingly let them know what this means at some point! In time when Guards become DCO only, the company will be good enough to write to them to let them know that their job description has changed and they're no longer competent...

job descriptions do exist and were sent to all guards voting in the ballot.

Which of you is correct?

 

[DorkingMain]

Which of you is correct?

TEW is correct. Full details of the proposal and an updated job description were sent out with the referendum email. I've seen both.

 

[Ashley Hill]

TEW is correct. Full details of the proposal and an updated job description were sent out with the referendum email. I've seen both.

Thanks.

 

[Watershed]

It's a shame some people have picked out the percentage increase of the hourly rate due to the reduction in the working week down to something reasonable attained elsewhere about two decades ago

And equally, DOO was arguably something reasonable attained elsewhere about three decades ago...

 

[Domeyhead]

This is not quite true - the deal makes provision for DCO operation across the network, when stock is adapted / introduced to be able to do so


With SWR it was a little bit of an odd case - DOO had already been put into contracts about 20 or so years prior. This was done with an understanding at the time it would only be used for ECS, or isolated trials on a handful of metro routes, but that stipulation was never actually put into the contract (simply, it said "DOO will be the normal method of operation"). 20 years down the line, the company basically threatened to evoke that clause with the 701s. ASLEF therefore pushed their members to vote for the deal on the basis that although it stipulated full DCO, it would guarantee a second member of staff on each train - the primary concern for a lot of SWR drivers wasn't so much having to deal with the doors, but having to deal with the passengers.

I keep seeing this claim or interpretation that trains would have run with only one member of staff (the driver) but TOCs have been at pains to say over and over again that they intended to keep running with an on board supervisor (or equivalent term) with duties focussed on revenue proitection and customer service, and that one would always be rostered - so the only time a train would ever run with literally only the driver on board would be in cases where a rostered supervisor was unavailable for whatever reason. The guarantees you mention from a passengers (remember them?) perspective simply preserve the status quo of having to leave a train half way along and watch it pull out and continue as ECS to the original destination (as I and many others had to do one winters evening at Chichester) because the guard had finished his shift.

 

[Clip]

Having worked both DOO and guarded services there is no chance the saving is as much as twenty seconds per stop. DOO drivers are required to conduct safety checks before releasing the doors, and a pause of several seconds is looked for on downloads. Similarly the DOO dispatch process is very laborious (if done properly): checking starting signal; checking dispatch corridor; closing doors, gaining interlock; checking each monitor in turn and checking the signal again before taking power.

I’d suggest driver release guard close is a good compromise (and generally acceptable to both unions) to avoid guards having to interrupt ticketing transactions when arriving in a platform.

I'm not disputing what you say however as someone who uses northern trains sometimes it seems like eternity for the guard to open the doors even on stations with straight platforms. I swear at Preston I could grab a brew and still be back in time before they have opened them

 

[DorkingMain]

I keep seeing this claim or interpretation that trains would have run with only one member of staff (the driver) but TOCs have been at pains to say over and over again that they intended to keep running with an on board supervisor (or equivalent term) with duties focussed on revenue proitection and customer service, and that one would always be rostered - so the only time a train would ever run with literally only the driver on board would be in cases where a rostered supervisor was unavailable for whatever reason. The guarantees you mention from a passengers (remember them?) perspective simply preserve the status quo of having to leave a train half way along and watch it pull out and continue as ECS to the original destination (as I and many others had to do one winters evening at Chichester) because the guard had finished his shift.

Because either the train needs the second member of staff to safely operate, or it doesn't. The fact it's a freezing evening in Chichester doesn't mean safety goes out of the window.

Once you add a condition that says "unless the train is not going to be able to run because there's no guard" you might as well not have any sort of guarantee.

It might seem excessive, but the reality is inconvenience to passengers is not an acceptable reason to compromise on safety.

 

[dingdinger]

I'm not disputing what you say however as someone who uses northern trains sometimes it seems like eternity for the guard to open the doors even on stations with straight platforms. I swear at Preston I could grab a brew and still be back in time before they have opened them

I went on a 3 coach Northern service last year which was stopping at long platforms-clearly the train was accommodated and the doors were taking an age to open.

 

[DorkingMain]

I went on a 3 coach Northern service last year which was stopping at long platforms-clearly the train was accommodated and the doors were taking an age to open.

Without wishing to go too off-topic here - I believe Northern guards are instructed to dispatch from the back. Therefore if they're doing tickets (particularly in coach 1 / 2) it can be a sprint back to the correct panel.

Obviously this is an argument in favour of drivers opening the doors, which I agree is a favourable method of operation.

 

[43066]

I keep seeing this claim or interpretation that trains would have run with only one member of staff (the driver) but TOCs have been at pains to say over and over again that they intended to keep running with an on board supervisor (or equivalent term) with duties focussed on revenue proitection and customer service, and that one would always be rostered - so the only time a train would ever run with literally only the driver on board would be in cases where a rostered supervisor was unavailable for whatever reason.

The RMT’s concern all along has been that removal of the safety critical aspect of the guards’ role dilutes and casualises the grade, thereby making it vulnerable to being dispensed with. Resistance to this seems a perfectly reasonable position for a trade union representing guards to take, no?!

Admittedly emphasising the customer service aspect of the guards’ role would be better than harping on about (marginal) safety considerations.

The guarantees you mention from a passengers (remember them?) perspective simply preserve the status quo of having to leave a train half way along and watch it pull out and continue as ECS to the original destination (as I and many others had to do one winters evening at Chichester) because the guard had finished his shift.

As a driver who has worked guarded trains for a couple of years now, I can’t think of a single incident where a train has been cancelled due to having a guard vice driver.

On the other hand the experience of boarding a train and encountering an aggressive beggar, or someone smoking a spliff, happens to me on a regular basis on the DOO services I commute on.

I don’t believe the passenger experience is improved one iota through DOO and fares are no cheaper.

I'm not disputing what you say however as someone who uses northern trains sometimes it seems like eternity for the guard to open the doors even on stations with straight platforms. I swear at Preston I could grab a brew and still be back in time before they have opened them

I believe northern still employ the guard-opens-local-door-before-releasing procedure. Driver open guard close would reduce this.

I currently operate guarded trains alongside DOO services and am often stopped and away quicker than the adjacent DOO service on the slows.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I believe northern still employ the guard-opens-local-door-before-releasing procedure. Driver open guard close would reduce this.

This is on balance probably my preferred method, because you get a release basically as soon as the wheels stop (give or take a quick monitor check) and the guard doesn't have to break off a transaction or push through crowds to get to a door to release. No reason it couldn't be adopted nationally (subject to fitting ASDO in some places where it isn't yet), and indeed it already is on large chunks of the network, including Avanti West Coast, Southern and possibly Southeastern, and indeed was the method used on Southern (and still is on the WCML itself) where guards were used.

 

[Domeyhead]

Because either the train needs the second member of staff to safely operate, or it doesn't. The fact it's a freezing evening in Chichester doesn't mean safety goes out of the window.

Once you add a condition that says "unless the train is not going to be able to run because there's no guard" you might as well not have any sort of guarantee.

It might seem excessive, but the reality is inconvenience to passengers is not an acceptable reason to compromise on safety.

The safety aspect of DCO was addressed many times by competent bodies and was not found to be an issue. There is a lot more of an issue in making passengers including solitary females and elderly people disembark unexpectedly at an intermediate station in the dark on a cold evening and trying to all make alternative arrangements at the same time. There is no point in dragging the safety corpse back from the grave because it was reviewed and a conclusion was reached by the appropriate competencies at the time. The RMT was and is not one of those appropriate competencies.

 

[DorkingMain]

The safety aspect of DCO was addressed many times by competent bodies and was not found to be an issue. There is a lot more of an issue in making passengers including solitary females and elderly people disembark unexpectedly at an intermediate station in the dark on a cold evening and trying to all make alternative arrangements at the same time. There is no point in dragging the safety corpse back from the grave because it was reviewed and a conclusion was reached by the appropriate competencies at the time. The RMT was and is not one of those appropriate competencies.

Safety cases are not "one size fits all" - what works effectively in one place may not work effectively in others. Even within TOCs you will find plenty of local arrangements and adaptions.

Delays / cancellations due to traincrew unavailable in the case of SWR are generally quite rare - it was found that where these did happen, a much greater proportion of these issues were down to drivers being unavailable than guards. It's very easy to mitigate against these things if you roster enough people as "cover" and have appropriate numbers of spares ready to cover work at short notice, including at strategic locations where crew are likely to change over. That's less a fault of the method of operation, and more a fault of planning.

DOO cameras also fail. Changing the method of dispatch from guard to driver with cameras does not eliminate the chance of a cancellation relating to the method of dispatch. Cameras can also fail at any point - and the guidance in these cases is to detrain and take the train out of service. This could even potentially be at a less desirable location than Chichester.

 

[Domeyhead]

Safety cases are not "one size fits all" - what works effectively in one place may not work effectively in others. Even within TOCs you will find plenty of local arrangements and adaptions.

Delays / cancellations due to traincrew unavailable in the case of SWR are generally quite rare - it was found that where these did happen, a much greater proportion of these issues were down to drivers being unavailable than guards. It's very easy to mitigate against these things if you roster enough people as "cover" and have appropriate numbers of spares ready to cover work at short notice, including at strategic locations where crew are likely to change over. That's less a fault of the method of operation, and more a fault of planning.

DOO cameras also fail. Changing the method of dispatch from guard to driver with cameras does not eliminate the chance of a cancellation relating to the method of dispatch. Cameras can also fail at any point - and the guidance in these cases is to detrain and take the train out of service. This could even potentially be at a less desirable location than Chichester.

I agree with your first point, but the RMT are not the answer nor the arbiter and the reality is that safety is the responsibility of other bodies of which more than one ruled on this- this has been covered in threads passim, but to summarise, the decisions on DCO safety and the various idiosyncasies and exceptions have all been made and the rulings are in the public domain. It is not relevant to start dragging in "passenger safety" yet again. I accept your point about traincrew availability, but your remedy of factoring in redundant idle capacity of surplus staff all over the place sat around on the off chance of a colleague going sick is impractical and commercially crazy, when the actual train does not even require the staff member in order to run, and it is not a fault of "planning". Does every bin lorry have a guy in the back reading the paper in case the driver sprains his wrist? DOes an operating theatre have a spare doctor in the canteen in case doc A gets a tummy bug? It doesn't happen anywhere else outside the railways for a good reason. Every single thing in life has a propensity to fail, from your doorbell to your car to your TV, so until you equip yourself with two of absolutely everything you ever need from cradle to grave it is not a good justification for carrying bodies round the network on every single train "in case something fails". This is all dragging back old arguments that have been done to death in other threads. This is not about "passenger safety".

 

[43066]

This is on balance probably my preferred method, because you get a release basically as soon as the wheels stop (give or take a quick monitor check) and the guard doesn't have to break off a transaction or push through crowds to get to a door to release. No reason it couldn't be adopted nationally (subject to fitting ASDO in some places where it isn't yet), and indeed it already is on large chunks of the network, including Avanti West Coast, Southern and possibly Southeastern, and indeed was the method used on Southern (and still is on the WCML itself) where guards were used.

You don’t ever just “release when the wheels stop” under any circumstances. In this industry you always take a minute before you do anything. That way whatever you’ve just done is guaranteed to be somebody else’s fault (I jest, but there’s an element of truth to that) .

Slightly off topic, but you’d be surprised by how utterly useless SDO is in practice. Southeastern’s variant doesn’t protect against a stop short release, or even a wrong side release, so long as you’re in the GPS “box” around the relevant station.

The safety aspect of DCO was addressed many times by competent bodies and was not found to be an issue. There is a lot more of an issue in making passengers including solitary females and elderly people disembark unexpectedly at an intermediate station in the dark on a cold evening and trying to all make alternative arrangements at the same time. There is no point in dragging the safety corpse back from the grave because it was reviewed and a conclusion was reached by the appropriate competencies at the time. The RMT was and is not one of those appropriate competencies.

And we all know (I hope) which safety body published a report that cited cost savings in its conclusions, and was then swiftly deleted once the relevant union got wind of it.

is that safety is the responsibility of other bodies of which more than one ruled on this-

Which bodies were these, please? Perhaps you could name them and cite the rulings?