So there's no actual threat, just assumptions and rumour?
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
RMT dispute on Merseyrail
- Thread starter pemma
- Start date
- Status
So there's no actual threat, just assumptions and rumour?
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
The proposed changes aren’t linked to any lack of respect or appreciation for decades of well preformed traditional guard skills, merely an understanding that like many other professions, times & technology have changed & the vast majority of urban metros worldwide are or soon will be operated in a very similar manner to current Merseyrail proposals, or go driverless
Last edited:
Guards used to do ticket checks. Then they stopped and it was moved to RPI's who are as rare as rocking horse poop. Then the incidences of ticketless travel and anti-social behaviour increase as it's seen as an easy wheeze.
It's a hard situation to recover from, having the guards suddenly start ticket checks solo again would lead to a fair few incidents early on. But other than doing pair working (1 guard and 1 rpi) for as many services as possible I don't see how they can do it without a lot of temporary 'muscle' to accompany guards.
But as a frequent traveller on Merseyrail, it's not that bad. Sadly there will certainly be a handful of utter trumpets who have gotten used to travelling for nothing that it will only end in tears with those guys. One tactic I saw used was to simply stop the train at the station until they get off, and announce it so all the nearby passengers knew exactly who was delaying the train.
It's a hard situation to recover from, having the guards suddenly start ticket checks solo again would lead to a fair few incidents early on. But other than doing pair working (1 guard and 1 rpi) for as many services as possible I don't see how they can do it without a lot of temporary 'muscle' to accompany guards.
But as a frequent traveller on Merseyrail, it's not that bad. Sadly there will certainly be a handful of utter trumpets who have gotten used to travelling for nothing that it will only end in tears with those guys. One tactic I saw used was to simply stop the train at the station until they get off, and announce it so all the nearby passengers knew exactly who was delaying the train.
No assumptions or rumour. I’ve seen a copy of the ACAS agreement where the company is insisting on being able to run a service as DOO if an OBS is unavailable.
My mate tells me that there have only been a few instances over the years where a service has been cancelled due to Guard rostering issues. So why the company is insisting on this measure only adds petrol to the flames.
The latest twist in dispatch is now cost. At the start of the dispute a figure of £5 million was quoted to fit the trains with Guard door controls. Now that the Metro Mayor has waded in guaranteeing a second safety person on each train the Guard controls cost has shot up to £15 million.
Bottom line is that the Guards and Drivers don’t trust the current management.
My mate tells me that there have only been a few instances over the years where a service has been cancelled due to Guard rostering issues. So why the company is insisting on this measure only adds petrol to the flames.
The latest twist in dispatch is now cost. At the start of the dispute a figure of £5 million was quoted to fit the trains with Guard door controls. Now that the Metro Mayor has waded in guaranteeing a second safety person on each train the Guard controls cost has shot up to £15 million.
Bottom line is that the Guards and Drivers don’t trust the current management.
I expect retrofitting the trains themselves to have the superfluous controls is £5m, although perhaps it has gone up considerably.
Not realising the permissable savings while simultaneously dealing with grant cuts will add further to that.
The ability to run DOO if necessary is sensible given the disruption caused so far. It's what is in operation in Scotland, so why not Liverpool.
Not realising the permissable savings while simultaneously dealing with grant cuts will add further to that.
The ability to run DOO if necessary is sensible given the disruption caused so far. It's what is in operation in Scotland, so why not Liverpool.
Last edited:
Maybe not, but neither will bosses trust a union that’s seemingly wasted 18 months of ACAS, the mayor’s & managements time only to continually move the goalposts & end up getting nowhere
Last edited:
Exactly.
It's one thing for the RMT to say "We don't trust the unaccountable TOCs", when the TOCs etc have every right to say "We can't trust the constant mind-changing, argument-shifting RMT."
Goldfish62
Established Member
- Joined
- 14 Feb 2010
- Messages
- 10,029
The RMT wants BR back. Perhaps they would also like the BR approach to disputes, where the guards would probably have been told by now to stop striking or be sacked.
trainophile
Established Member
In my experience most of the guards are like that, but they still need paying. I don’t think the dispute is related to their value in the field of customer service.
Can't really understand this fundamental idea that either the DFT or some of the TOCs have that a guard shouldn't be responsible for any safety duties on the train anymore. We've seen this sort of agenda pushed and pushed away from the status quo to the pain of passengers in the past. And then after many months for the agenda to be dropped and the whole thing may as well have been avoided. And then it moves to another TOC who's ordering new trains.
We seem to be lead to believe its progress or technological advances which means the driver should be in full control. And yet on many intercity routes which have new trains it was left with the guard, regardless that that goes against the agenda elsewhere.
Only today it's in the main news that a police offer was stabbed for stopping a van due to no insurance. Who on earth would want to attempt to issue a penalty fare on their own, underground, in a major city? What protection is there? Is it an experiment to see how safe it is?
We seem to be lead to believe its progress or technological advances which means the driver should be in full control. And yet on many intercity routes which have new trains it was left with the guard, regardless that that goes against the agenda elsewhere.
Only today it's in the main news that a police offer was stabbed for stopping a van due to no insurance. Who on earth would want to attempt to issue a penalty fare on their own, underground, in a major city? What protection is there? Is it an experiment to see how safe it is?
Whichever angle you choose you can pick cases to support it I suppose. You can look at Ireland which is entirely DOO bar Enterprise but which mans Little Buggleskelly with 2 trains per year, or Belgium which has publically withdrawn from all DOO proposals recently having concluded that having guards is preferable to them, including on S-Bahn services.
What is generally the case though is that once you force the issue the budget changes and once it's done it's nigh on impossible to reverse.
It just seems pointless though if it gets dropped later anyway. Why go away from the status quo if it causes passengers major grief which didn't exist before?
Absolutely, if DFT weren’t prepared to see it through, they shouldn’t have initially specified it as franchise commitments
Merseyrail users will be suffering strikes not because proposals are in any way unsafe,its purely an RMT belief that more strikes will force a similar capitulation successfully achieved on GWR & Scotrail
Its to be expected any union would defend its members interests. We should as a nation want to retain quality jobs with meaningful responsibility, good terms and conditions and a fair reward which keeps faces visible on the railway. Good quality jobs are in the interests of the whole population.
If, decades down the line the whole industry were regraded to an onboard supervisor type role, and say the conditions and responsibilities were closer to that of a customer host, there wouldn't seemingly be much of a promotion going from a booking office to in charge of the train would there?
nedchester
Established Member
- Joined
- 28 May 2008
- Messages
- 2,093
Absolutely. Technology has moved the whole process on and some areas within the railway wish to live in the past.
I'd also add that if the agreement was for in exception circumstances a train can run DOO if no OBS is available doesn't sound too onerous...…..but safety cry the RMT but they're happy for the passengers to travel on a bus (with just a driver) which statistically much less safe.
Except on intercity routes it seems, or is keeping the guard there living in the past?
OxtedSignaller
Member
- Joined
- 31 Jul 2010
- Messages
- 360
Why is it such a problem checking tickets? It happens throughout the country, Northern Rail Conductors check and sell tickets do they not on trains which run through Liverpool? The expectation that Guards, OBS, Customer Service Officers or whatever they are proposing they call the on board staff/Guards when the new trains are introduced is unrealistic and is something thought up by managers in a Head Office somewhere. Do they not realise how long it can take to write out a penalty fare, and also how are they supposed to check and verify peoples details if they are in the tunnel section where there is no signal, they will not even be able to sell tickets using card payment as the ticket machines these days require online authorisation. It would be a waste of time, and mean they are spending more time dealing with ticketing irregularities then spending time on customer service and retailing tickets which chances are would bring in more money. Retain RPIs and if they are unhappy with the level of fare evasion and the number of penalty fares being issued hire more.
Its all good and well saying they are scared of being replaced or made redundant, but until that happens its hearsay. The RMT seem to have some fear that they believe train operating companies want rid of all the staff, statistics however show a different story. It is very rare for TOCs to make a group of staff redundant, usually they simply move them around or restructure them. Striking and losing the company revenue is not going to help your case in any case especially when unlike most franchises Merseyrail losses are not underwritten by the government.
Its all good and well saying they are scared of being replaced or made redundant, but until that happens its hearsay. The RMT seem to have some fear that they believe train operating companies want rid of all the staff, statistics however show a different story. It is very rare for TOCs to make a group of staff redundant, usually they simply move them around or restructure them. Striking and losing the company revenue is not going to help your case in any case especially when unlike most franchises Merseyrail losses are not underwritten by the government.
This is simply not true. A simple search through google will bring the full agreement up.
Can you provide the link please?
I can see the need for platform dispatchers at Central (and possibly some of the other underground stations at peak times) but other than that, Merseyrail is perfectly suitable for DOO. A security presence on trains after 9pm would be welcome, but that's a general observation for any metro network, not just Merseyrail, there are unfortunately a number of unpleasant characters around.
But the RMT's primary objection is not so much about who opens the doors, but their ability to bring the network to a halt. Merseyrail Guards are relatively well paid for the area, they haven't to my understanding struggled to recruit, even for the temporary posts. If they become non-essential to the operation of the railway I can absolutely see a pay freeze or replacement with cheaper OBSs. But Merseyrail do need to control costs, fares against the marginal cost of a motor car are uncompetitive, particularly when multiple people are in the car, which makes fare increases difficult to justify, so operational costs need to come down as Merseytravel and the councils don't have money to spare. Ticket Machines and DOO/DCO are an inevitable part of this.
But the RMT's primary objection is not so much about who opens the doors, but their ability to bring the network to a halt. Merseyrail Guards are relatively well paid for the area, they haven't to my understanding struggled to recruit, even for the temporary posts. If they become non-essential to the operation of the railway I can absolutely see a pay freeze or replacement with cheaper OBSs. But Merseyrail do need to control costs, fares against the marginal cost of a motor car are uncompetitive, particularly when multiple people are in the car, which makes fare increases difficult to justify, so operational costs need to come down as Merseytravel and the councils don't have money to spare. Ticket Machines and DOO/DCO are an inevitable part of this.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
I don't know about DOO, but I'd imagine most people would be more than happy with a TfL style contactless system (touch in and out with capping) replacing ticket offices, with a TVM connected to ToD for long distance journeys. I'd certainly prefer that over a single-manned ticket office with poor training as seems inevitably to be the case, and they are often positioned well away from the platforms so don't provide a personal security benefit.
As correctly stated by @RMTGuard, Merseyrail have promised not to run any trains DOO but have requested that it be subject to review after an jointly agreed period if related cancellation & poor service levels are significant
Last edited:
nedchester
Established Member
- Joined
- 28 May 2008
- Messages
- 2,093
Most interesting. Thanks.
dcsprior
Member
I can fully understand why from the DfT's perspective (understand != agree with). With guards responsible for some safety aspects, they need to be on the train, therefore:
* There needs to be enough contingency in how many of them are employed to cover likely eventualities (sickness, getting stuck on another delayed service, time to recruit and train replacements for anyone who leaves)
* The employer needs to maintain good enough industrial relations with them to prevent strikes (or deal with the consequences)
Whereas if they are not considered safety-critical, they can employ just enough to cover shifts plus holidays (not considering sickness, or recruitment/training/etc) and can slowly pay them less and less well, until they're paid not much more than NMW.
stuart100100
Member
First 3 days of strikes have been called off
https://www.rmt.org.uk/news/rmt-suspends-first-three-days-of-strike-action-on-merseyrail/
https://www.rmt.org.uk/news/rmt-suspends-first-three-days-of-strike-action-on-merseyrail/
OxtedSignaller
Member
- Joined
- 31 Jul 2010
- Messages
- 360
I cannot see it being resolved anytime soon unfortunately. It's all good and well saying they are in talks but a few weeks ago they were saying they had costed for what they are calling Customer Sevice Officers and they will be bringing in revenue whilst working their trains, doing cleaning duties and most importantly the new trains were only suitable for DCO or DOO. Why did the RMT representatives sign an ACAS agreement and then change their mind on what the role will entail.
Polarbear
Established Member
With 30 September getting closer, what is the likelihood of the next three proposed strike days going ahead? These are currently scheduled for Monday 30 September, Wednesday 2 & Friday 4 October?
Xenophon PCDGS
Veteran Member
Has Steve Rotherham had any recent comments about the forthcoming proposed three days of strike action?
- Status