Robertj21a
On Moderation
- Joined
- 22 Sep 2013
- Messages
- 7,518
Thank you, one of the most sensible posts I've read on here for a long time.
-
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 DOO Dispute on West Midlands Trains
- Thread starter footprints
- Start date
- Status
Thank you, one of the most sensible posts I've read on here for a long time.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
OxtedSignaller
Member
- Joined
- 31 Jul 2010
- Messages
- 360
I think this discussion is about West Midlands Railway for which the method of working they want to move to is unknown at present other than the strike ballot of course. If you are talking about GTR that is not the case all the OBS staff are on permanent contracts. The fixed term contracts were when the government and GTR come to a settlement for which the result was to fund additional OBS staff however all those contracts were extended and made permanent.
thank you for clarifying. I’m aware this thread is for WMT, but as southern is still the test case in many way, their way of working has repercussions across the industry which is why I feel it relevant to this thread.
Apologies is this has already been posted but WMR have posted the following on their website:
https://www.westmidlandsrailway.co....est-midlands-trains-statement-in-response-rmt
https://www.westmidlandsrailway.co....est-midlands-trains-statement-in-response-rmt
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Well, I guess so, unless there's something about WMT's guarantee that we don't know, e.g. that in extremis a train might be allowed to run fully DOO rather than be cancelled.
OxtedSignaller
Member
- Joined
- 31 Jul 2010
- Messages
- 360
Looks that way. It's slightly contradictory given the agreement they made on Greater Anglia. It's exactly the same dispute as on SWR and Merseyrail where door control would be passed to the driver.
Does an official body have definitions for DCO/DOO?
It would help if all parties used them the same way, preferably IMO that DOO means the driver is the only staff member rota’ed for the train and DCO means the driver controls the doors but there is another staff member rota’ed for the train.
It would help if all parties used them the same way, preferably IMO that DOO means the driver is the only staff member rota’ed for the train and DCO means the driver controls the doors but there is another staff member rota’ed for the train.
Why? wouldn’t the latest bus or coach create less pollution than its equivalent DMU.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
I believe both actually mean the same thing (driver only operation means the train is only *operated* by the driver - it doesn't preclude a buffet steward, ticket examiner or whatever).
I do agree we could do with terms for each of the common situations, though, being:
- Train can run without a second member of staff
- Train cannot run without a second member of staff, but driver controls the doors fully
- Train has a guard who closes and dispatches but does not release the doors
- Train has a guard who retains full control of door operation and dispatch
...which I think are the 4 possibilities in the UK at present.
There might also at some point be a fifth which seems to be used elsewhere in Europe, I think the PKP FLIRTs use this:
- Train has a guard who gives the driver a signal to depart but then the driver controls departure after that
That is I suppose a variant of 9-bell dispatch where the guard signals to the driver what to do but has no actual close button.
Unfortunately the loudest shouter is the RMT, who prefer to use DOO as it immediately triggers the understandable passenger dislike of having no member of staff walking about (when DCO can mean more accessible staff than under guard door operation in some circumstances)
That fifth method of operation sounds like the least safe (opportunity for each person to subconsciously think the other is doing the checking)
That fifth method of operation sounds like the least safe (opportunity for each person to subconsciously think the other is doing the checking)
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
That's an interesting point. It's basically what London Underground do, though (albeit with platform staff rather than guards) - the raising of the bat is only assistance, the driver is still wholly responsible for safe dispatch, and if he sees it as appropriate can both dispatch before the bat is raised or not dispatch when it is raised.
I do agree that it's exceedingly unlikely that any route will close, either as a play in an industrial dispute or for any other reason.
However, I think it is principally a case of political motivation and climate change has very little to do with it.
Whilst the RMTs always officially wanted guards to retain full door controls, in practice they’ve often been willing to sign driver open guard close deals too , & as far as I’m aware have never taken strike action against it , certainly since BR times. if ever , given as previously stated by others, passengers rather than guards effectively had primary responsibility for door operation prior to that
All the current problems appear to exist because a previous willingness to negotiate full driver control of doors subject to certain conditions being met appears to have been withdrawn from any further TOC talks since the Greater Anglia deal.
Last edited:
RMT and ASLEF both made mistake of agreeing to the principle of DOO at certain times in the past. It's very difficult for either union to argue against something they've previously signed up to. The whole argument about what is safer is neither here nor there. The whole thing is now a joke. I hate to say it, but both unions created this situation by not standing firm about it years ago and being lured into flogging the family silver for a night in the pub.
I'm a driver and union member. I am 100% certain that DOO is not as safe as having a guard retaining full control of the doors, but my union, and its sister union have both in the past agreed to it... and that's why we are where we are. They opened the stable door 30-odd years ago and are now trying to stop the last few straggling horses from getting out.
This West Midlands dispute is just as predictable as every other TOC that still has guards. Political ideology and the profit motive will continue to press for DOO and the unions will still be telling people not to smoke, with a fag hanging out their mouth.
I'm a driver and union member. I am 100% certain that DOO is not as safe as having a guard retaining full control of the doors, but my union, and its sister union have both in the past agreed to it... and that's why we are where we are. They opened the stable door 30-odd years ago and are now trying to stop the last few straggling horses from getting out.
This West Midlands dispute is just as predictable as every other TOC that still has guards. Political ideology and the profit motive will continue to press for DOO and the unions will still be telling people not to smoke, with a fag hanging out their mouth.
Hopefully I can help here and that I too haven't misunderstood your question.
The responsibilities of a "competent person" is specific to the traction being worked I guess. Bear in mind in the case of the 2x5 IETs all the doors can be controlled from the Guard who will typically be in the rear set. Therefore there is no need to have a person who is competent in door control (guard) in the front set. However there are certain responsibilities that belong to the Guard's role that might be needed in the front set and of course the guard wont be able to reach that set unless at a station which is just a small proportion of the journey. Therefore a member of staff in the front set needs to be competent in those things (e.g. resetting call for aids, the deployment of wheelchair ramps and I would imagine the emergency call procedure to name a few) and like a guard, must be present for that set to operate with passengers in it. In most cases existing roles (e.g. catering managers) who are already present in the front sets are chosen to be the "competent person" so their job description remains a catering manager but they are competent to be in charge of the front set. I'd very much imagine this would be a safety critical role, just not trained to the same lengths as a guard and with normal duties to be carried out until needed.
Let me know if this helps and if not try and steer me in the right direction.
RPI
Established Member
- Joined
- 6 Dec 2010
- Messages
- 2,751
Basically yes, but they're not safety critical (I am one of these trained competent people by the way), as an RPI I just do my normal job but also occasionally have to do a ramp or report a fault to Hitachi. I'm also a visible member of staff in that portion of the train which is the most important thing to most passengers.
OxtedSignaller
Member
- Joined
- 31 Jul 2010
- Messages
- 360
What I fail to understand is how Driver Open Guard Close is classed as DOO by the RMT and some posters on this forum. Officially the train would still be classed as Guard Operated? The Guard still carrys the same responsibilities in the rulebook and surely the most risky part of the dispatch procedure on modern rolling stock with platform ballises is the closing of the doors and making sure the PTI is clear.
no one has ever said the above method is DOO, I believe some TOCs class it as DCO but I was always led to believe DCO was DOO with a 2nd member of staff booked on board such as a T/E or OBS.
That’s surely impossible to predict with any degree of certainty given considerable advancements in signalling, communication & on train technologies plus it’s likley the majority of countries operating modern passenger railways nowadays actually have some level of DOO operations within them and/or services with onboard staff employed in customer service rather than traditional guards roles
Last edited:
virgintrain1
Member
- Joined
- 29 Jul 2011
- Messages
- 209
Agreed, the vast majority of DOO worldwide will be on suburban networks & some very rural routes
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Indeed. DOO on InterCity type routes is extremely rare, though actual dispatch procedures vary. The DB IC-DoSto double deckers might be as the regional equivalents are, but I actually can't think of any others at all.
OTOH, DOO is rapidly becoming the norm for regional and local services - certainly, for instance, near enough all Swiss regional services are DOO.
the sniper
Established Member
- Joined
- 4 Sep 2007
- Messages
- 3,499
Maybe you fail to understand it because at a subconscious level, you're actually aware that isn't true?
The system of work used on Voyagers and Pendolinos (essentially Driver open/Guard close) was/is often colloquially understood to be 'DCO' where I am. I'm often surprised talking to colleagues in a TOC where DfT definition 'DCO' is being proposed, that many of them don't actually appreciate that what that means is not the Voyager/Pendolino, Driver open/Guard close, system of work, but what they recognise as DOO as per the rule book, with a second person.
I believe the high tech bullet trains in Japan still have a "traditional" guard!
The vast majority of suburban and metro trains in Japan are also still worked by what we would consider non-commercial Guards with full control of the doors.
see I would argue that Southerns OBS has been sold as DCO, but the voyager system is 10 bell dispatch. The guard still has full responsibility for the train safety check etc
td97
Established Member
- Joined
- 26 Jul 2017
- Messages
- 1,298
No "profit motive" when DOO analysis reporting usually concludes that it is difficult to make an economic case for DOO.
DfT desired it on Scottish TPE and North route core.
There is no 'Short Term' profit but there are gains in the long term. The case study revealed long term savings and determined that short term gains were determined by how the switch to DOO happened and that long drawn out strikes and industrial action was the most costly. What they also determined is that they should go for DOO at the TOCs where there is a greater pay off and greater potential to switch to DOO.
DCO is the middle ground and can reduce the potential for industrial dispute. It also allows for a reduction in staff costs and a natural turnover to the new grade. It will also allow a smoother introduction to DOO as new stock is brought in with higher standards, new technology to help with safety, PTI, and human factors and various concerns over the introduction of DOO.
From a personal perspective, DCO is the best of both words and should be the new minimal standard.
Driver open should be compulsory. Standing crushed against a door, staring at a platform, waiting for an SWR guard to open the doors is just bonkers.
I expect a well paid driver to know how long their train is and whether they have stopped in the right place. In the unlikely event they screw up I expect passengers not to jump into a void - who steps out blind when platform stepping distances/heights vary?
I expect a well paid driver to know how long their train is and whether they have stopped in the right place. In the unlikely event they screw up I expect passengers not to jump into a void - who steps out blind when platform stepping distances/heights vary?
- Status