O L Leigh
Established Member
I’ll have to PM you tomorrow night when I’m back to my laptop. I can’t work out how to send a PM from the mobile site.
-
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
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
if you click the name of the person you want to PM, a new window should pop up with the option to start a new conversation.
O L Leigh
Established Member
Is that a PM though?
If you wouldn’t mind doing so, that would be much appreciated. Sounds like a useful learning point.
The usual way is to either forget the local door switch on power door stock and lock oneself out or to go and investigate a door fault, resolve it, get interlock and in both cases have the driver take off without the bells and leave you there. Happened plenty of times over the years. Easiest on slam crew door 150s where you get interlock as soon as the passenger doors are closed.
PMs are called Conversations on this forum software.
Wouldn’t you leave your local door open in those scenarios, though?
Are 150s cab doors interlocked? If not I can see how that could happen - if the driver screws up.
Sprinter107
Member
- Joined
- 26 Mar 2019
- Messages
- 935
I've known the guard get left behined a few times on 150/1s across the years.
well this cuts to the essence of the problem. The RMT insists the guard has to despatch for safety, despite the ORR, foreign practice, and all the current DOO. But they use “second person for safety” ambiguously knowing that most passengers think “second person for safety” means someone walking up and down the train. So guard dispatching from a cab does not give passengers the safety they think they are getting by supporting the RMT message.
Robertj21a
On Moderation
- Joined
- 22 Sep 2013
- Messages
- 7,520
True. The passenger who wants a 2nd staff member on board is thinking about their own immediate concerns (seeking advice, personal safety etc) - who presses door buttons is utterly irrelevant, and of no real concern to them.
It would be interesting to know what proportion of passengers correctly know who is operating the doors.
Robertj21a
On Moderation
- Joined
- 22 Sep 2013
- Messages
- 7,520
They have no need to know, it's just another function on the railways, like signaller, ticket clerk, despatcher etc. It's only on a forum like this that anyone believes it should be a matter of interest for the average passenger.
But if they think the driver already does the doors (after all bus drivers do) then their wish for a second person on the train certainly isn’t for a guard stuck in a cab pushing door buttons.
TBF the shorter the trains the more likely people will have noticed that the guard is pushing door buttons (though not necessarily if the guard is in a cab at a door the passenger doesn’t go through), but I am constantly shocked by how little awareness the general public has of anything!!
If the WMT involves guards operating from all the passenger doors (ie whichever they happen to be near) then the passengers gain over DOO. If the guard works from a cab then the passenger (and taxpayer) are losing out to Luddism
Depends on if WMT gets the rolling stock fitted with intermediate/saloon door controls. (Class 196 and 730)
Though if the WMT deal involves the guard out the door for the whole time doors are open then passengers (and ticket checking) loses all that time and the time the guard has to allow for getting to a door in time.
Is it too complicated to have a different procedure for staffed stations?
Is it too complicated to have a different procedure for staffed stations?
That is a far too simplistic way of looking at it. Or are passengers on the mainly unmanned platforms that these trains serve not passengers who may need attention too? It's not just about being a ticket checker and getting in the way while people are boarding and leaving a busy train is stupid.
I worked a busy train a few days ago and there was serious service disruption. I didn't check a ticket all shift because I spent the whole time trying to work out how to get a diverse range of people to the places they wanted to be.
Revenue is always bottom of the guard's workflow. That is what Revenue Protection Inspectors are there for.
Fair point for unmanned stations - hence my query whether procedure could be different for staffed stations.
We are agreeing there - you were helping passengers, and the less time you spend working the doors the more you can help them. That is what passengers want from a second person IMO
I disagree. If I work the doors I decide when the train leaves, not the driver. This gives me, as the person with a general awareness of what is going on inside the train, a significant advantage in completing my work without having to worry about a) being left behind b) adjusting the door operations to suit if a passenger needs help. It should never come down to having to operate a safety system (pull a pass com) to make sure I can do what I need to do.
The time in question is in reality dead time in terms of undertaking any activities on board. The company's interest is in reducing station dwell which is a different thing entirely.
O L Leigh
Established Member
Thank you. It’s been a while since I had to send a PM and the software has clearly changed since the last time.
That’s to do with a mismatch in expectations, though. The passengers may not understand that the platform check carried out by the guard is for safety reasons, but that does not undermine the message that the guard’s role is safety related. But experience shows that the punters know exactly where the guard is if needed.
I don’t think many people do care that much who operates the doors and that the driver opening them on arrival can reduce dwell times. But that doesn’t make it a slam dunk. However, we can’t really go much further down this line of discussion without the risk of prompting another red note from the mods, so perhaps we ought to leave it there.
Silverlinky
Member
- Joined
- 3 Feb 2012
- Messages
- 689
The ballot result was out today, RMT members on WMT have voted to accept the revised deal which involves the new moethod of working whereby the Driver will open the doors but the guard will continue to do the rest of the dispatch procedure.
Of course there will be specifics around the new rolling stock when it arrives, and the modification of the current stock when it takes place, but the immediate action is done and dusted and normal service can resume!!
https://www.rmt.org.uk/about/ballot...ard--west-midlands-trains231219/?preview=true
Of course there will be specifics around the new rolling stock when it arrives, and the modification of the current stock when it takes place, but the immediate action is done and dusted and normal service can resume!!
https://www.rmt.org.uk/about/ballot...ard--west-midlands-trains231219/?preview=true
Silverlinky
Member
- Joined
- 3 Feb 2012
- Messages
- 689
It should be noted that in the first industrial action ballot there were 616 people eligible to vote, of which 484 votes were cast (78.6% turnout)
This time, assuming numbers are roughly the same, only 424 papers were returned, meaning one in three didn't vote on the deal at all.
This time, assuming numbers are roughly the same, only 424 papers were returned, meaning one in three didn't vote on the deal at all.
Goldfish62
Established Member
- Joined
- 14 Feb 2010
- Messages
- 10,046
Par for the course. In the last SWR strike ballot 40% of those eligible to vote didn't do so.
bb21
Emeritus Moderator
- Joined
- 4 Feb 2010
- Messages
- 24,151
Not quite so simple. When I operate from local doors, I know where the run-on points are on the platform, I can position myself strategically, see who is running for a train but a few seconds behind, and use route knowledge to decide whether I could allow these people on without causing delay to mine and other services. With driver close, it is time up, no one near the doors, close up, and those people can go figure and wait an hour for the next train.
Just one example where guard close does have its advantage in customer service.
Too many people just think this is a black and white issue while it is anything but.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
As an advantage over guard open it also means a transaction can be completed without delaying people getting off, which means less overall delay to the train. This being the case it is my favoured option and I'm generally happy with the result provided LNR do the work to fit intermediate panels. It does cost a little more time than full DOO (the time taken to close the local door plus "ding ding, ding ding" per station, basically - so about 15-20 seconds depending on the unit?) but as you say has benefits too. Whereas I can see few advantages of guard *release* where an ASDO system is fitted. (Where it isn't you have a slightly elevated risk of doors released off the platform compared to two sets of eyes).
bb21
Emeritus Moderator
- Joined
- 4 Feb 2010
- Messages
- 24,151
I am generally in support of driver open guard close. I am not entirely convinced by the argument about performance improvements. There are some gains but the real extent of gains is much exaggerated, with some equally achievable by improvements and modifications to operating procedures. That said, some guards don't really help themselves or the cause but I won't go into further details on that as this latter point has been made repeatedly on the forum before.
DOO alone isn't going to get anywhere near close to solving the current performance issues across the national network, or make any significant contribution.
theironroad
Established Member
Quite why SWR can't adopt this method of working with driver open guard close is beyond me, but SWR only want driver open and close (full DCO).
Anyway, better not go off topic ......
Deal approved
RMT transport union members at West Midlands Trains have scored a victory over bosses in a dispute over scrapping guards on trains. After only three days of solid strike action before Christmas, management buckled and agreed to preserve the guards' role with responsibility for opening train doors being transferred to drivers.
With no changes to pay and conditions attached, the offer was accepted by a a nearly two to one majority. While many guards were prepared to fight on in defence of their role and to prevent any loss in responsibilities this is without doubt a victory as the company had originally intended to completely strip away the guards' safety responsibilities.
The growing numbers of drivers refusing to cross the guards' picket lines played an important part in forcing the company to capitulate so early.
However with West Midlands Trains' parent company now under fire for its appalling service performance it might not be long until battle lines are redrawn as a new franchise holder decides to attack staff in the pursuit of shareholder profits.
Tom Woodcock, RMT member
https://m.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/30085/08-01-2020/west-midlands-rmt-guards-jobs-saved
RMT transport union members at West Midlands Trains have scored a victory over bosses in a dispute over scrapping guards on trains. After only three days of solid strike action before Christmas, management buckled and agreed to preserve the guards' role with responsibility for opening train doors being transferred to drivers.
With no changes to pay and conditions attached, the offer was accepted by a a nearly two to one majority. While many guards were prepared to fight on in defence of their role and to prevent any loss in responsibilities this is without doubt a victory as the company had originally intended to completely strip away the guards' safety responsibilities.
The growing numbers of drivers refusing to cross the guards' picket lines played an important part in forcing the company to capitulate so early.
However with West Midlands Trains' parent company now under fire for its appalling service performance it might not be long until battle lines are redrawn as a new franchise holder decides to attack staff in the pursuit of shareholder profits.
Tom Woodcock, RMT member
https://m.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/30085/08-01-2020/west-midlands-rmt-guards-jobs-saved
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
- Status