• 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

Status
Not open for further replies.

GadgetMan

Member
Joined
9 Jan 2012
Messages
923
That deal looks acceptable to me assuming there are no other unpublished documents attached to it.

If the Guards turn this offer down then they would (as a Driver) lose my support and I'd start crossing their picket line.

When they approach Aslef, hopefully the observing CCTV as we drive off will be dropped out as I don't want that additional responsibility and would rather be left to concentrate on what's going on ahead.

The automated ready to start signal sounds strange, anybody know what that is?
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

pompeyfan

Established Member
Joined
24 Jan 2012
Messages
4,181
That deal looks acceptable to me assuming there are no other unpublished documents attached to it.

If the Guards turn this offer down then they would (as a Driver) lose my support and I'd start crossing their picket line.

When they approach Aslef, hopefully the observing CCTV as we drive off will be dropped out as I don't want that additional responsibility and would rather be left to concentrate on what's going on ahead.

The automated ready to start signal sounds strange, anybody know what that is?

I’m also intrigued by this automated RTS
 

HLE

Established Member
Joined
27 Dec 2013
Messages
1,405
That deal looks acceptable to me assuming there are no other unpublished documents attached to it.

If the Guards turn this offer down then they would (as a Driver) lose my support and I'd start crossing their picket line.

When they approach Aslef, hopefully the observing CCTV as we drive off will be dropped out as I don't want that additional responsibility and would rather be left to concentrate on what's going on ahead.

The automated ready to start signal sounds strange, anybody know what that is?

Well put. I deleted several drafts!

They'll lose any support from the regular passengers too. Plenty support them but if they do vote it down then expect it to be eroded.

Guessing the automated RTS is when the local switch is closed and interlock gained you pull off without waiting for the buzzer. Can't think of anything else that would be worth implementing!
 

BucksBones

Member
Joined
18 Jul 2017
Messages
332
Station announcements saying that despite industrial action being suspended the emergency timetable will be in operation tomorrow as it is too late to change it.*

*just posting for info; not passing comment!
 

O L Leigh

Established Member
Joined
20 Jan 2006
Messages
5,612
Location
In the cab with the paper
When they approach Aslef, hopefully the observing CCTV as we drive off will be dropped out as I don't want that additional responsibility and would rather be left to concentrate on what's going on ahead.

Quite. This needs to remain the duty of the guard/despatcher.

But existing CCTV DOO despatch systems do not even permit the driver to observe the train clear of the platform, even if this were considered acceptable. You hit a certain speed and the screens all go dark.

Guessing the automated RTS is when the local switch is closed and interlock gained you pull off without waiting for the buzzer. Can't think of anything else that would be worth implementing!

The guard better make sure he/she is back on board before all doors are closed then. There was an incident not so long back where a guard was left behind because the driver departed as soon as interlock was gained and didn't wait for the RTS signal.
 

Meerkat

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2018
Messages
7,421
I don’t wish to be insulting but if everyone went on strike due to a future threat to their job becoming irrelevant then we wouldn’t have cash machines or supermarkets, let alone home delivery etc etc.
 

Goldfish62

Established Member
Joined
14 Feb 2010
Messages
9,937
I don’t wish to be insulting but if everyone went on strike due to a future threat to their job becoming irrelevant then we wouldn’t have cash machines or supermarkets, let alone home delivery etc etc.
Herein lies the uniqueness of the railways. If the supermarkets, home delivery people etc went on strike they likely wouldn't have jobs to go back to due to the damage to the businesses. For the same reason you don't see very commonly see strikes at bus operators (many of which have RMT representation) even though pay and conditions are much worse than on the railways. On the railways financial damage to the business caused by industrial action does not normally affect the workers. That is what is so unusual and emboldens such action.
 

O L Leigh

Established Member
Joined
20 Jan 2006
Messages
5,612
Location
In the cab with the paper
Herein lies the uniqueness of the railways.

The other aspect to consider is that other industries do not generally have a government department leaning over their shoulder dictating the terms of their business thereby making it harder to reach a negotiated settlement that respects the wishes and aspirations of both the business and the staff that deliver it.
 

Meerkat

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2018
Messages
7,421
Quite. This needs to remain the duty of the guard/despatcher.

But existing CCTV DOO despatch systems do not even permit the driver to observe the train clear of the platform, even if this were considered acceptable. You hit a certain speed and the screens all go dark.
The guard better make sure he/she is back on board before all doors are closed then. There was an incident not so long back where a guard was left behind because the driver departed as soon as interlock was gained and didn't wait for the RTS signal.
How does the SC observe departure without an opening window?
I assume they shouldn’t get left on the platform as the local door won’t shut until they shut it.
 

Meerkat

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2018
Messages
7,421
The other aspect to consider is that other industries do not generally have a government department leaning over their shoulder dictating the terms of their business thereby making it harder to reach a negotiated settlement that respects the wishes and aspirations of both the business and the staff that deliver it.

that government department are protecting the taxpayers from having to fund a surrender deal that makes sense for a TOC, who are only bothered about the cost for a few years vs the cost of a strike.
 

O L Leigh

Established Member
Joined
20 Jan 2006
Messages
5,612
Location
In the cab with the paper
How does the SC observe departure without an opening window?

Which stock has no opening windows?

I would imagine that, in that case, the SC does it in the same imperfect way that the TMs on Voyagers do. My own preference is, as I've said in the past, to give the guard the CCTV monitors.

**EDIT**

Checking the platform as the train departs really shouldn't be the responsibility of the driver, as he/she should be looking down the line ahead, controlling the train speed and so on rather than having to divide his/her attention between driving the train and observing the CCTV monitors. My own experience of using the Electrostar CCTV despatch system is that this is already more than sufficiently mentally demanding without having to try and do it on the move.​

I assume they shouldn’t get left on the platform as the local door won’t shut until they shut it.

They shouldn't but, due to a mix-up, it has happened.

that government department are protecting the taxpayers from having to fund a surrender deal that makes sense for a TOC, who are only bothered about the cost for a few years vs the cost of a strike.

Quite. All of which underlines the unique atmosphere in which the railways operate. Parallels to other industries and their industrial relations really is meaningless.
 
Last edited:

Goldfish62

Established Member
Joined
14 Feb 2010
Messages
9,937
The other aspect to consider is that other industries do not generally have a government department leaning over their shoulder dictating the terms of their business thereby making it harder to reach a negotiated settlement that respects the wishes and aspirations of both the business and the staff that deliver it.
Fair point, although there were a lot of disputes in BR days and the government wasn't micromanaging like it does now. Nowadays TOCs propose "modernisation" because the DfT tells them to. BR did the same to save money and improve efficiency so the business could survive, given it was so starved of cash. BR also had a track record of being quite ruthless in dealing with disputes.
 

Meerkat

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2018
Messages
7,421
Which stock has no opening windows?

if guards have to operate from cabs then the passengers suffer

They shouldn't but, due to a mix-up, it has happened.
More like incompetence if a guard starts shutting his local door them leaps out!

Quite. All of which underlines the unique atmosphere in which the railways operate. Parallels to other industries and their industrial relations really is meaningless.
Not really, the DFT is a bit like a group board overseeing the local unit, and maybe the railways should become more like normal businesses
 

O L Leigh

Established Member
Joined
20 Jan 2006
Messages
5,612
Location
In the cab with the paper
if guards have to operate from cabs then the passengers suffer

In what way?

More like incompetence if a guard starts shutting his local door them leaps out!

It was more like a misjudgement. Either way, the guard should not have been left behind because the driver was not given the RTS signal. The guard was walking back down the platform to the rear cab when the train started away without him.

Not really, the DFT is a bit like a group board overseeing the local unit, and maybe the railways should become more like normal businesses

I don't believe the analogy stands up. Whether the staff are negotiating with the TOC or the TOC is simply acting as a proxy for the DfT, there is little chance of reaching a negotiated settlement unless both sides are prepared to be flexible. While the terms of the franchises are set by the DfT, failure to implement them means that the TOC defaults. This is not an atmosphere conducive to good industrial relations.

But on your wider point, yes I would like to see the railways operate more like normal businesses with greater ownership of their operations, the ability to invest and see a return and without the finicky micro-management from the DfT. Perhaps we'd see an improvement in service, value and industrial relations to the benefit of all.

Well, a guy can dream.
 

Robertj21a

On Moderation
Joined
22 Sep 2013
Messages
7,518
I don’t wish to be insulting but if everyone went on strike due to a future threat to their job becoming irrelevant then we wouldn’t have cash machines or supermarkets, let alone home delivery etc etc.

Indeed. Unfortunately, these debates can't usually get properly discussed on forums such as this as the mere mention of Trade Unions (particularly the RMT) simply leads to everyone taking sides and the Moderators eventually closing the thread down.
There is a need for a sensible, mature, discussion on the jobs, management and unions on the UK railway - but this is not the place for it.
 

CHAPS2034

Member
Joined
13 Mar 2018
Messages
530
Station announcements saying that despite industrial action being suspended the emergency timetable will be in operation tomorrow as it is too late to change it.*

*just posting for info; not passing comment!

Exactly the same thing happened on Northern when the strikes were suspended there.
 

Silverlinky

Member
Joined
3 Feb 2012
Messages
680
Not sure about the apparent implication that the new stock will only have the doors able to operated from the cabs.
Not sure?? In what way?
The SCCDP document clearly states cab (local) door, and where the conductor positions themselves on the platform....rear or intermediate cab. That sort of proves that intermediate door controls/panels will not be present.....or they could stand wherever they wanted couldn't they?

The guard would be able to reopen the doors from the cab in the event of someone or something becoming trapped in the doors.

There is mention of the guard giving two on the bell to signal ready to start, no mention of the driver giving two back before taking power. And also mention of exploring the possibility that in future once interlock is gained the driver would receive an audible sound and that the guard would not even be giving two on the bell any more.
 

Silverlinky

Member
Joined
3 Feb 2012
Messages
680
which I can understand and sympathise with, but that doesn't answer my question as to why some WMT guards are unhappy with those proposals.
Because they want things to stay as they are.......and are asking why are you taking bits of the role off us.....and how long before you take the whole of the role off us?

On paper they are doing less work but still being paid the same.....you wonder why they'd moan about that! However, most are looking at the bigger picture and are genuinely worried (rightly or wrongly) about the future of their role...not just with this company, but with many other TOC's as is apparent at the moment.
 

Silverlinky

Member
Joined
3 Feb 2012
Messages
680
As Meerkat said above, the proposed deal may make guards less visible to passengers.

Think of a 5 car 730......is the guard really going to be in the front coach approaching a station when he/she needs to be in the rear or intermediate cab when the doors are opened? Passengers may get to realise that the further they sit away from a rear or intermediate cab then the less chance there is of them having their tickets checked! (unless on long journeys)....will a guard make their way more than a coach away from the door controls if the train is stopping at Tring, Berkhamsted, Hemel, Apsley, Kings Langley for example? Or Marston Green, Lea Hall, Stechford.......not going to get very far before its time to get to the back cab again are they?

This proposed MoW could lead to guards being even more reluctant to leave the cab then they (apparently) are at the moment.
 

pompeyfan

Established Member
Joined
24 Jan 2012
Messages
4,181
Don’t even the 701s and 345s have at least 1 panel per coach with PA, door close and signal bell?
 

LowLevel

Established Member
Joined
26 Oct 2013
Messages
7,546
Not sure?? In what way?
The SCCDP document clearly states cab (local) door, and where the conductor positions themselves on the platform....rear or intermediate cab. That sort of proves that intermediate door controls/panels will not be present.....or they could stand wherever they wanted couldn't they?

The guard would be able to reopen the doors from the cab in the event of someone or something becoming trapped in the doors.

There is mention of the guard giving two on the bell to signal ready to start, no mention of the driver giving two back before taking power. And also mention of exploring the possibility that in future once interlock is gained the driver would receive an audible sound and that the guard would not even be giving two on the bell any more.

Not sure as in I don't believe a deal that ties the guard to the cab is a good thing for anyone concerned. As a guard myself I am firmly in favour of the guard having a strong presence in the train. Cab based dispatch on the Cross City line is not something to be perpetuated to me.
 

Robertj21a

On Moderation
Joined
22 Sep 2013
Messages
7,518
As Meerkat said above, the proposed deal may make guards less visible to passengers.

Think of a 5 car 730......is the guard really going to be in the front coach approaching a station when he/she needs to be in the rear or intermediate cab when the doors are opened? Passengers may get to realise that the further they sit away from a rear or intermediate cab then the less chance there is of them having their tickets checked! (unless on long journeys)....will a guard make their way more than a coach away from the door controls if the train is stopping at Tring, Berkhamsted, Hemel, Apsley, Kings Langley for example? Or Marston Green, Lea Hall, Stechford.......not going to get very far before its time to get to the back cab again are they?

This proposed MoW could lead to guards being even more reluctant to leave the cab then they (apparently) are at the moment.

So, how does this compare with the 12-coach DOO Thameslink trains that frequently criss-cross the centre of London ?. They don't have anybody to check tickets, at any time.
 

43066

Established Member
Joined
24 Nov 2019
Messages
9,226
Location
London
It was more like a misjudgement. Either way, the guard should not have been left behind because the driver was not given the RTS signal. The guard was walking back down the platform to the rear cab when the train started away without him.

That’s likely a serious error by the driver in question - although I wouldn’t completely discount the possibility of a defect with the bell code system.

HSTs (no cab door controls, no interlock) have been started with doors open and the guard on the platform after the driver heard (or thought he heard) two on the bell - difficult to prove either way because the bell codes are not recorded on the OTMR.

In light of these incidents some HST drivers open the cab door and look out until the guard has reentered the train and the hazard lights have extinguished, indicating the doors have been locked.
 

theironroad

Established Member
Joined
21 Nov 2014
Messages
3,692
Location
London
I'd imagine that the future they are looking at is that as soon as the cab/local door interlock circuit is complete an audible tone will sound in leading cab and that is authority for driver to depart. Sounds like the rule book derogation they may request will remove the need for the driver to return the bells/tone. Their new process may remove a second or two from the despatch process.

If a SC can see the whole length of the train by using drop down window as it departs ,then the driver observing CCTV seems superfluous. If the SC cannot see, due to curvature, poor weather etc then there may be some added benefit.

Have guard door control panels in every coach (like 444s) certainly gives guards more flexibility to do safety patrols, assistance requirements and revenue than having to return to a cab.
 

43066

Established Member
Joined
24 Nov 2019
Messages
9,226
Location
London
I'd imagine that the future they are looking at is that as soon as the cab/local door interlock circuit is complete an audible tone will sound in leading cab and that is authority for driver to depart. Sounds like the rule book derogation they may request will remove the need for the driver to return the bells/tone. Their new process may remove a second or two from the despatch process.

If a SC can see the whole length of the train by using drop down window as it departs ,then the driver observing CCTV seems superfluous. If the SC cannot see, due to curvature, poor weather etc then there may be some added benefit.

Have guard door control panels in every coach (like 444s) certainly gives guards more flexibility to do safety patrols, assistance requirements and revenue than having to return to a cab.

My initial reaction to reading that was one of horror! But, on reflection, I suppose that system is no less safe than a guard closing their local door and manually giving two on the bell. The absence of droplights means they can’t monitor the trains departure other than through their local window in any case.

Presumably the guard will retain the ability to give one on the bell if they see anything untoward?
 

Silverlinky

Member
Joined
3 Feb 2012
Messages
680
They were told not to stick their heads out of the windows a few years back anyway.....so droplight or no droplight it doesnt really matter! Things getting in their eyes (although I remember one guard who used to don protective glasses before giving two on the bell so he could still stick his head out!) not to mention the occasional irate passenger who'd just missed his train, or been thrown off the train spitting at the guard as he went by with his head out of the window.......
 

theironroad

Established Member
Joined
21 Nov 2014
Messages
3,692
Location
London
They were told not to stick their heads out of the windows a few years back anyway.....so droplight or no droplight it doesnt really matter! Things getting in their eyes (although I remember one guard who used to don protective glasses before giving two on the bell so he could still stick his head out!) not to mention the occasional irate passenger who'd just missed his train, or been thrown off the train spitting at the guard as he went by with his head out of the window.......

I get the feeling that most TOCs want to discourage guards and drivers from sticking their head out of a window.
 

43066

Established Member
Joined
24 Nov 2019
Messages
9,226
Location
London
I get the feeling that most TOCs want to discourage guards and drivers from sticking their head out of a window.

I used to do it all the time as a DOO driver. Mk1 human eyeball wins every time against grainy, washed out monitors (platform curvature permitting).

Nowadays, I no longer have droplights, but dispatch is someone else’s problem. I much prefer things that way!
 

O L Leigh

Established Member
Joined
20 Jan 2006
Messages
5,612
Location
In the cab with the paper
As Meerkat said above, the proposed deal may make guards less visible to passengers.

I suppose that depends on precisely what the role of the guard is. Is the guard someone with a safety critical role to play during despatch or just someone to hold the punters hands? Besides, by definition a guard can only be in one place at a time. No matter where he/she is in the train there are passengers who won’t see them.

That’s likely a serious error by the driver in question - although I wouldn’t completely discount the possibility of a defect with the bell code system.

The guard in question told me himself precisely what happened, so there’s no ambiguity.
 

43066

Established Member
Joined
24 Nov 2019
Messages
9,226
Location
London
The guard in question told me himself precisely what happened, so there’s no ambiguity.

Did that guard know for a fact that the driver hadn’t heard an erroneous signal generated in error by the bell code system?

Rare, admittedly, but it has happened.

EDIT: unless I’ve misunderstood your scenario, assuming it was relatively modern stock, how could the driver possibly have got interlock with the guard still on the platform?

Procedure where I am is that the guard closes doors, does the safety check, then closes their local door giving interlock, ding ding and away.

Something not adding up there I’m afraid.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top