RMT DOO Dispute on West Midlands Trains

ElectroSoldier · 25 Nov 2019

Carlisle said:
Given the last passanger death was on a guarded train, what’s the point in making provocative statements like that on this thread ?

And the last death on the very trains we are talking about is as a direct result of the driver not doing his job.
At the end of all this that is exactly what this is all about. It is putting a value on a persons life. It costs to much to safeguard lives to such an extent as to have a person watch out for them.
Merseyrail might look like the tube but it doesnt operate like the tube, and the safety systems can not carry over so I stand by my comment absolutely.

RailUK Forums

LowLevel · 25 Nov 2019

Carlisle said:
Given the last passanger dispatch related death was on a guarded train, what’s the point in making such provocative statements like that on this thread ?

The problem with these circumstances is you can pluck examples out to support most sides of the argument. For example the recent serious injury at Droitwich where the train was stopped from getting any worse by the guard happening to stick their head out of a droplight window in time to see someone go down the side. Previously the rule book did not mandate looking out except on slam door trains whereas now it says if you can, you should. Had the guard been required to look out from when the train started moving then it might not have happened at all.

STKKK46 · 25 Nov 2019

Merle Haggard said:
I'm puzzled by that; perhaps you mean 323s.
On the 350s, when the train stops the conductor releases his door, walks across the platform to make sure the train has stopped in the right place, returns and presses the button to open the door. The air system then thinks about releasing the seals before the doors slowly open.
That's before anyone gets off.
I'll have to time it on my next journey, but I'm sure it's more than 45 secs. per stop.
It is a contrast, I know, to the 323 on which response times seem to be almost instantaneous.

it does almost even out but I meant booked dwell times.

Carlisle · 25 Nov 2019

LowLevel said:
The problem with these circumstances is you can pluck examples out to support most sides of the argument. .

Indeed, that’s why I tend to agree with the many posters who’ve started on here over the years that the RMT should agree to participate in an independent enquiry and abide by its outcome, allowing us all to move on

pompeyfan · 25 Nov 2019

Carlisle said:
Indeed, that’s why I tend to agree with the many posters who’ve started on here over the years that the RMT should agree to participate in an independent enquiry and abide by its outcome, allowing us all to move on

I would imagine the enquiry would never truly be independent though

Robertj21a · 25 Nov 2019

pompeyfan said:
I would imagine the enquiry would never truly be independent though

Why not ?

pompeyfan · 25 Nov 2019

Robertj21a said:
Why not ?

when the RSSB came out and said DOO was safer, it ruffled a lot of feathers because at the time Charlie Horton was leading GTR and RSSB at the same time which led to claims it wasn’t impartial.

Robertj21a · 25 Nov 2019

pompeyfan said:
when the RSSB came out and said DOO was safer, it ruffled a lot of feathers because at the time Charlie Horton was leading GTR and RSSB at the same time which led to claims it wasn’t impartial.

That was some time ago. Surely it must be possible to have a truly independent assessment, after all Governments set up various independent inquiries all the time. I can well understand that the RMT won't want to co-operate but if they were a party to agreeing who was involved I don't see that they could hold out for long.

Bletchleyite · 25 Nov 2019

ElectroSoldier said:
It is putting a value on a persons life.

Which, as I pointed out, much as it seems raw, we absolutely have to do in order to consider the appropriateness of a given piece of safety related spending against the benefits of other things to spend it on.

Bletchleyite · 25 Nov 2019

LowLevel said:
The problem with these circumstances is you can pluck examples out to support most sides of the argument. For example the recent serious injury at Droitwich where the train was stopped from getting any worse by the guard happening to stick their head out of a droplight window in time to see someone go down the side. Previously the rule book did not mandate looking out except on slam door trains whereas now it says if you can, you should. Had the guard been required to look out from when the train started moving then it might not have happened at all.

In mainland Europe it's common for the guard to stand at an open passenger door until the train has left the platform. That's the best in that regard, though it does risk them falling out. Used to be the practice from the non-interlocked crew door on Merseyrail, too.

hwl · 25 Nov 2019

Robertj21a said:
That was some time ago. Surely it must be possible to have a truly independent assessment, after all Governments set up various independent inquiries all the time. I can well understand that the RMT won't want to co-operate but if they were a party to agreeing who was involved I don't see that they could hold out for long.

TfL has data from when the LO on the NLL went from guard controlled to DOO.
The incident rate per service and per passenger both went down despite passenger / crowding levels going up.
I suspect this is some of the data the RSSB has.

bussnapperwm · 25 Nov 2019

Inquiries are like trains in a way, they are impartial, but they still have lines they have to follow.

OxtedSignaller · 25 Nov 2019

They said the same on Southern apparently the number of dispatch irregularities and operational incidents decreased following the implementation of DOO/DCO.

43066 · 25 Nov 2019

Bletchleyite said:
In mainland Europe it's common for the guard to stand at an open passenger door until the train has left the platform. That's the best in that regard, though it does risk them falling out. Used to be the practice from the non-interlocked crew door on Merseyrail, too.

There’s a good argument for all stock to have opening drop-lights, accessible to whoever is dispatching - driver or guard.

pompeyfan · 25 Nov 2019

It massages the numbers as there’s no 2 bells against the red, which is classed as a SoL incident (as I’m sure you know). Personally I don’t think RTS on a red should be seen as dangerous, but that’s for a different discussion.

43066 · 25 Nov 2019

pompeyfan said:
It massages the numbers as there’s no 2 bells against the red, which is classed as a SoL incident (as I’m sure you know). Personally I don’t think RTS on a red should be seen as dangerous, but that’s for a different discussion.

I would respectfully disagree with you there. There’s a real risk of a SPAD and ensuing collision/derailment (not all platform starters are fitted with TPWS loops, as I’m sure you’re aware).

Two bells against a green (vice platform RA indication) is also treated as a SOL incident by some companies, which seems a little harsh.

sefton · 25 Nov 2019

Shaw S Hunter said:
It is not the role of the guard to provide enforcement of law and order, that responsibility belongs to the BTP (and other forces as appropriate). If you really think that guards should in fact take on that role then presumably you would support them receiving both the training and pay commensurate with that role. Not to mention the guaranteed early retirement.

The issue you are really talking about is a wider societal problem of increasing low-level anti-social behaviour and decreasing numbers of front-line police officers. Those two may well be connected. The chances of finding a random BTP patrol on a train nowadays is absolutely tiny despite there being obvious trains (and stations) to check. DOO or not makes no difference to that so it is somewhat disingenuous of you to suggest otherwise. Guards are there to ensure safe operation of the train, not to act as security staff. Yes showing their faces, perhaps without checking tickets, can help to promote a better atmosphere, but it also needs managers who support their staff, thereby motivating them, rather than undermining them. People Management 101.

I wasn't suggesting the guard enforces the law, but that if they consider they have people on the train who would be provoked by their presence and thus they need to hide themselves away behind a locked door, then just leaving the rest of the customers to experience that unsafe environment is unacceptable.

In the same way I would not expect a ticket office clerk to get involved if their is a punch up the other-side of the glass, but I wouldn't expect them to pull the window blind down, stick their fingers in their ears, and sing "lah, lah, lah" to drown out the noise.

They ARE the member of the train company present so they do have a duty to the customers. If that means they need to alert the driver and the BTP so the train can be halted at the next stop until BTP arrive, then so be it. And if BTP take an hour to arrive then the railways need to employ more BTP staff.

And as for only being there only "to ensure safe operation of the train", that is exactly the sort of attitude which leads to train companies playing with their train sets, and not understanding that the purpose of the railway is not to move rolling stock from here to there, but to provide a service to enable people to get from A to B.

Val3ntine · 26 Nov 2019

pompeyfan said:
It massages the numbers as there’s no 2 bells against the red, which is classed as a SoL incident (as I’m sure you know). Personally I don’t think RTS on a red should be seen as dangerous, but that’s for a different discussion.

As a fellow traincrew I have to disagree with you there, a ready to start against a red is a risk. A driver opening doors on the wrong side but no passengers getting out/falling out is still a risk for example, even if there happened to be no passengers on board at the time. Safety of the line incidents aren’t necessarily about what occurred as a result but an investigation into why it happened and to ensure there’s mitigations into preventing it happening again and not having the RAIB have their investigations after RTS against a red is given and just so happens to be perfect (imperfect) timing that the train develops a TPWS failure and proceeds into a junction in the path of an oncoming 100mph train.

Bletchleyite · 26 Nov 2019

Well... today on the south WCML tickets were done (middle set of 12.319 - perhaps Northern need to put that in their "have to have staff in all units" pipe and smoke it) and it wasn't even a guard I recognised... interesting.

pompeyfan · 26 Nov 2019

Val3ntine said:
As a fellow traincrew I have to disagree with you there, a ready to start against a red is a risk. A driver opening doors on the wrong side but no passengers getting out/falling out is still a risk for example, even if there happened to be no passengers on board at the time. Safety of the line incidents aren’t necessarily about what occurred as a result but an investigation into why it happened and to ensure there’s mitigations into preventing it happening again and not having the RAIB have their investigations after RTS against a red is given and just so happens to be perfect (imperfect) timing that the train develops a TPWS failure and proceeds into a junction in the path of an oncoming 100mph train.

I didn’t word my post as well as I should have. If you go over to DOO of course it’ll appear safer when you remove RTS against a red, however, if it’s the driver doing the doors, or the guard doing the doors and giving the bells, there’s just as much chance of that driver taking power against a red surely? If anything in theory DOO should be more dangerous, as the guard is cross checking the signal for the driver, so you have 2 sets of eyes checking the road, not one? And yet the stats are massaged to show DOO is safer, which brings me back to my initial point of any independent review not being as independent as some would hope.

however, to tie in with what @Carlisle says (not often we’ll agree on stuff), when I was younger, and I had to split stuff with siblings, one would do the dividing, and the other would get first choice, that way you couldn’t argue it was unfair as you’d done the dividing... could this logic be transferred over to the RMT

NoMorePacers · 26 Nov 2019

Bletchleyite said:
Well... today on the south WCML tickets were done (middle set of 12.319 - perhaps Northern need to put that in their "have to have staff in all units" pipe and smoke it) and it wasn't even a guard I recognised... interesting.

Surprising. Surely the company would be encouraging the opposite in order to justify their wish of having DOO?

387star · 26 Nov 2019

26 November 2019

RMT Press Office:

RMT and SWR agree to ACAS talks in guards' safety dispute tomorrow

An RMT Spokesperson said;

"Following a further exchange of correspondence both RMT and SWR have agreed to talks through ACAS tomorrow.

"The RMT team will be led by General Secretary Mick Cash and we believe that there is a deal there to be done and the union will work tirelessly to secure that objective."

Ends

Not sure where the SWR thread went

NoMorePacers · 26 Nov 2019

387star said:
26 November 2019

RMT Press Office:

RMT and SWR agree to ACAS talks in guards' safety dispute tomorrow

An RMT Spokesperson said;

"Following a further exchange of correspondence both RMT and SWR have agreed to talks through ACAS tomorrow.

"The RMT team will be led by General Secretary Mick Cash and we believe that there is a deal there to be done and the union will work tirelessly to secure that objective."

Ends

Not sure where the SWR thread went

Got locked due to the DOO debate restarting (I believe). Ask a moderator to add that to the thread there.

Robertj21a · 26 Nov 2019

pompeyfan said:
I didn’t word my post as well as I should have. If you go over to DOO of course it’ll appear safer when you remove RTS against a red, however, if it’s the driver doing the doors, or the guard doing the doors and giving the bells, there’s just as much chance of that driver taking power against a red surely? If anything in theory DOO should be more dangerous, as the guard is cross checking the signal for the driver, so you have 2 sets of eyes checking the road, not one? And yet the stats are massaged to show DOO is safer, which brings me back to my initial point of any independent review not being as independent as some would hope.

however, to tie in with what @Carlisle says (not often we’ll agree on stuff), when I was younger, and I had to split stuff with siblings, one would do the dividing, and the other would get first choice, that way you couldn’t argue it was unfair as you’d done the dividing... could this logic be transferred over to the RMT

How have the stats been 'massaged' - by whom ?. Is it being investigated ?

pompeyfan · 26 Nov 2019

Robertj21a said:
How have the stats been 'massaged' - by whom ?. Is it being investigated ?

As I’ve said twice before, guards giving 2 on the red is classed as a SOL incident, remove them and DOO suddenly has a lot less SOL incidents, it doesn’t mean the driver is any more or less likely to take power against a red.

Robertj21a · 26 Nov 2019

pompeyfan said:
As I’ve said twice before, guards giving 2 on the red is classed as a SOL incident, remove them and DOO suddenly has a lot less SOL incidents, it doesn’t mean the driver is any more or less likely to take power against a red.

Thanks, I think....

As someone not in the industry, just an interested bystander, I'm not sure how that's 'massaging' the figures. It's just two sets of figures drawn up from different data. To me, any massaging of figures suggests that there's something untoward going on which only a few key people may fully know the facts.

pompeyfan · 26 Nov 2019

Robertj21a said:
Thanks, I think....

As someone not in the industry, just an interested bystander, I'm not sure how that's 'massaging' the figures. It's just two sets of figures drawn up from different data. To me, any massaging of figures suggests that there's something untoward going on which only a few key people may fully know the facts.

sorry if it came across that I was talking down to you... you are correct that I suppose it’s not truly massaging figures, but both sides are equally as guilty for selecting figures that tell the story they want them too.

pt_mad · 27 Nov 2019

https://labour.org.uk/press/labour-...accessible-for-older-and-disabled-passengers/

Labour sets out plans to guarantee a guard on every train to make all rail services accessible for older and disabled passengers.

Surely pledges like this will just contradict DOO related disputes further, not to mention the guard guarantee on TFW, and the intercity TOCs choosing the keep the guard closing the doors?

Robertj21a · 27 Nov 2019

pompeyfan said:
sorry if it came across that I was talking down to you... you are correct that I suppose it’s not truly massaging figures, but both sides are equally as guilty for selecting figures that tell the story they want them too.

Thanks for that, no need for any apology, it can get a bit confusing for all of us. As I think you know, I take a keen interest in various rail issues, and like to think that I can spot 'rogue' statistics when I see them [from the media, TOC managements or unions]
Unfortunately, the use of fake, or at least cunningly contrived, data is all too common across the media nowadays and it's sometimes helpful to just question, or dissect, what is being said.

Robertj21a · 27 Nov 2019

pt_mad said:
https://labour.org.uk/press/labour-...accessible-for-older-and-disabled-passengers/

Surely pledges like this will just contradict DOO related disputes further, not to mention the guard guarantee on TFW, and the intercity TOCs choosing the keep the guard closing the doors?

If only we had something that covered the whole country, something like a nationalised railway where standard arrangements applied everywhere...........

[Yes, sorry, very tongue in cheek !]

RMT DOO Dispute on West Midlands Trains

Member

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

On Moderation

Established Member

On Moderation

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

On Moderation

Established Member

On Moderation

Established Member

On Moderation

Established Member

Established Member

On Moderation

On Moderation