I have no vested interests: Zero, Zilch, none, I remain entirely impartial. If anyone wants to pose a question, or ask about specific instances I will answer them to the best of my knowledge. I have been involved in accidents directly and indirectly, and the last thing I want to do is give a dishonest answer about this matter. If I really, seriously thought it significantly undermined safety, I would not take the line I am.
To answer OL Leigh's questions:
'Firstly, I agree that a DOO service poses a lesser risk in the event of a derailment, but only with the following caveats. 1) The derailment doesn't occur in a CSR blackspot, and 2) that the front of the train does not hit an obstruction like a bridge or OLE stanchion thereby squashing the driver flat. In this instance a DOO service poses a greater risk.
To my knowledge CSR blackspots are quite rare, an accident in such a spot would be unlucky
If a driver approaches an obstruction or derailed, he would very likely hit 'Emergency on the DOO radio' anyway. Even so, if the train derailed its highly likely that staff and passengers, and people on the line side, would make emergency calls. I've witnessed this happen, and emergency services rang us, not the other way about. This was within 3 minutes, which is a damn site quicker than guards running up the line and scrambling through wreckage looking for dets, flags and clips. Passengers have also been known to use lineside phones - they aren't daft.
However, I am not sure what these "uncertainties" are that the RSSB claim make the difference between DOO and full-manning insignificant.
Uncertainties in data, with some TOCs DOO is statically slightly safer, with others it's not. It also depends how the data is normalised.
But what really strikes me as odd is the inference that TPWS is more effective on DOO services than fully-manned services. This I really do not understand. All services have TPWS, so why should it be more effective on one type of service than another?
To be frank, I'm still thinking on that. I'll see if I can find the full report to understand what they mean by this better.
Turning to the PTS course, frankly everyone should have one anyway. You can learn it in an hour or two. I guess it's just the way it works, even simple skills like that, attract extra pay agreed through the union/management machinery. But of course, in an emergency, it doesn't stop anyone going on the lineside anyway, to prevent loss of life.
There has been several reports on DOO, and there is ongoing risk assessments. I'm not entirely sure who you would rather do the report other than the HMRI or RSSB, or RAIB. If it was a bunch of consultants, the RMT would say they came to the conclusions ATOC wanted. As far as I can see, there will always be accusations they are not independent. Having said that, people put their names to these things, and if something did go wrong they would have their professional independence put under scrutiny. If they were found to be manipulating data there would be serious consequences.
The RMT oppose as they hold the opinion a guard operated train is safer overall. Don't hesitate to ask any questions incidently.
Dear Colleagues
ROLLING STOCK ISSUES, ROLE & RESPONSIBILITY OF THE GUARD – SCOTRAIL
NO EXTENSION OF DOO ON THE AIRDRIE TO BATHGATE LINE
THE TRUTH
Q: Why are the Guards, Drivers and Sleeper Train Managers on Scotrail being balloted for strike action?
A: Because First Scotrail and the Scottish Government are hell bent on extending DOO onto the new line between Edinburgh and Glasgow via Airdrie and Bathgate. This is in breach of the RMT’s agreement with First Scotrail which states that they will not extend DOO and that the Guards will continue to have control over the power operated doors.
Q: But First Scotrail say that they are not bound by any such agreement because they did not own the franchise when it was signed in 2001?
A: Our position is that the 2001 agreement was TUPEd over from National Express to First Group because it was a key agreement protecting the jobs and operational safety role of the Guard. In all other TUPEs involving the TOCs the 2001 Guards Agreement has been TUPEd across to the new franchise holder. This is what happened on Scotrail. Until now First Scotrail have NEVER cancelled that agreement with this union nor entered any discussion to do so.
Q: But RMT didn’t object to the conversion of the Larkhall branch line to DOO four years ago?
A: The Larkhall branch line is a part of the railway covered by the Strathclyde Manning Agreement (SMA). The Airdrie to Bathgate link is outside the boundaries of SMA and is therefore precisely an extension of DOO in breach of the 2001 agreement. The SMA was imposed on our Union in the 1980s following an unsuccessful national ballot of all RMT Guards. Since then every single Guard’s ballot conducted by this union has been overwhelmingly carried.
Q: But haven’t the Hitachi 395 “Javelins” come into service with DOO on the High Speed link to the Channel Tunnel?
A: Yes, some Javelins have started a trial running with DOO, but not yet on all planned routes. The RMT has balloted all our Guard members on Southeastern Trains twice against the extension of DOO on the SET network and they have returned an overwhelming YES vote. The employers ran to the High Court using the undemocratic and repressive anti trade union laws. Once again the High Court judge upheld the employers
“reasonable argument” and declared the RMT ballot null and void. We have NEVER AGREED to DOO on the Channel Tunnel rail link and remain in dispute with Southeastern over this issue.
Q: But surely we all know that money for public service is very tight at the moment and is only going to get tighter whichever party wins the next General Election. Isn’t First Scotrail entitled to make whatever cuts and savings in order to get “the best value” for money for the taxpayer?
A: First Group is already massively subsidised by the UK taxpayer for “running” its franchises to the tune of £140 million last year. First Scotrail receives subsidies amounting to 75% of the cost of operating the railways in Scotland. Yet the salary of the highest paid director was £429,274 last year compared to the £300,000 additional cost of employing 32 new Guards on the Airdrie and Bathgate service. Last year First Scotrail made profits of £18.444 million with a massive £18 million dividend going straight back to the First Group shareholders. Wouldn’t you agree that paying obscene amounts to Directors and £18 million back to shareholders in a business which is 75% subsidised by the taxpayer is hardly “best value” for the tax payer?
The RMT want a further 32 Guards on the new Airdrie – Bathgate route. £300K is a small price to pay for the massive safety dividend that a fully operationally trained Guard provides. All other new rail projects that are planned in Scotland are being upgraded by electrification and the introduction of new rolling stock AT THE TAXPAYERS EXPENSE. First Group will not be paying for any of this. It will be Transport Scotland and the Scottish Government that’ll be forking out the money (Guards are taxpayers too!) while First Group has its snouts in the trough and pockets all the so called profits from successive subsidies to the tune of 75%. Is it any wonder that RMT campaigns for renationalisation of the railways to get these bloodsuckers out of the industry?
Q: But the Scottish Government has cancelled the Glasgow Airport Rail link (GARL) due to costs and the current economic situation.
A: Almost a year ago Scotrail management threatened this Union that any action over DOO on Airdrie to Bathgate line would cause the cancellation of several future projects, including the GARL. But well before this union moved to ballot its members Scottish Finance Minister John Swinney had cancelled GARL as part of public sector spending cuts caused by the economic meltdown, caused by the bankers. Many rail construction projects may well be cancelled or postponed over the next few years but that won’t be the fault of the RMT protecting the safety role of Guards in Scotland. What we say with absolute certainty is that unless we keep Guards on the Bathgate to Airdrie line management will make every single line in Scotland DOO by either electrification, the introduction of new DOO rolling stock or both.
Q: First Scotrail say that Transport Scotland has told them that DOO would be more efficient and that the extra costs of the Guard are NOT irrelevant as the unions have claimed.
A: RMT is quoting what Stewart Stephenson, the Scottish Transport Minister told the union’s delegation when we met him on the 5th January 2010. The Minister made it crystal clear that he agreed with the union’s figures - £300,000 being the annual cost difference between the cost of keeping the Guard on board rather than a Ticket Examiner and a one off £1.4 million conversion cost for the 334 rolling stock. He then went on to say that he also agreed with the union that in the context of the £300 million overall cost of the Airdrie to Bathgate project the cost of retaining the Guard was “irrelevant.”
Q: But management’s bulletin says that Transport Scotland say it isn’t “irrevelant”?
A: Transport Scotland is a quango run by highly paid unelected civil servants. Stewart Stephenson is the democratically elected Transport Minister for Scotland. We are very angry as a democratic union that the management of a global multi-national First Group would seem to be conspiring with unelected civil servants to undermine the clear and unequivocal views of the elected Transport Minister.
Q: But won’t it be safe because of always having a T/E on board (the second person)?
A: First Group has been caught red handed by this whole issue. The Minister told us that he believed that every service in the Strathclyde area had a T/E on board as the second person. We told him that many services ran without a T/E at all or only for part of a turn. He said he wanted to know more because First Group was supposed to pay a fine to Transport Scotland when there was no second person on board. Since then we have written to the Minister indicating that in just one of the seven T/E depots 400 services in a 14 day period were uncovered or only partially covered. We also told him that the T/Es were not trained in any route knowledge, any evacuation or safety procedures and were not even issued HI-VI vests by Scotrail’s owners. First Group are daily in breach of their franchise agreement in not having a T/E on every DOO train in the Strathclyde area. First Group’s Steve Montgomery told your union on 2nd November 2009 that if the T/E didn’t turn up for DOO service on the Airdrie to Bathgate then the train would run without a T/E on board. RMT is processing hundreds of attendance sheets from several more T/E depots in the Strathclyde area and will be presenting a detailed safety dossier to the Minister as he has requested us to do. We have just been informed that Scotrail have launched a recruitment drive for T/Es on the Strathclyde area.
Q: Wouldn’t DOO be safe anyway? First Group claim that services have been run safely for over 25 years in the Strathclyde area?
A: RMT would like to draw attention to at least 3 major incidents that have occurred during that time.
Accidents do happen.
* 1990 - Derailment at Finnieston West Junction
* 1991 - Fatal collision at Newton Junction
* 1994 - Fatal derailment / obstruction on line at Branchton
In the first incident the Guard performed his duties to the book preventing a much worse situation developing by applying his emergency brake. In the second incident one train in DOO operation was in a head on collision with another which was guarded. Both Drivers were killed – once again the Guard did his job to the letter and safely evacuated the passengers and safeguarded the trains and adjacent track. In the third – known as Wemyss Bay – the train hit concrete lids laid on the track and derailed. The Driver and a passenger were killed. The T/E through no fault of his own lacked the training and equipment to know what to do and some delay was incurred in the emergency serviced reaching the scene. Our point is that accidents can and will happen.
What is always necessary is that there is a fully trained person with route knowledge and the safety training afforded to a Guard to ensure that in the event of such incidents, injuries, deaths and destruction is minimised and perhaps avoided all together. That’s the safety role of the Guard. That’s why this union’s view is safety first at all times and not the modern cult of Risk Assessment that introduces the notion of dicing with death for the sake of PROFIT.
Q: But the Transport Minister says that he’s going to consult independent outside bodies to ascertain whether it’s safe or not to remove the Guard.
A: Yes, he said he’d be consulting regulatory bodies such as the Rail Safety Standards Board (RSSB) and the Rail Accident and Incidents Board (RAIB). We immediately replied that we had no faith in these so-called independent bodies, especially the RSSB.
Q: But they are independent aren’t they?
A: The RSSB’s certainly not independent. It is a limited company all of whose running costs are paid by the Association of Train Operating Companies (ATOC) and Network Rail. It is a classic case of who pays the piper calls the tune. Ever since the 2001 agreements were signed by all the TOCs, ATOC have been working to undo that agreement and one of the main ways they have plotted to do so is by taking over control of the RSSB.
A little bit of history might explain.
The 2001 agreement with the TOCs had 15 clauses. The first two are well known. They are:
1. No extension of DOO for the life of the franchise.
2. Guard control over the power operation of doors.
It was agreed that the other 13 safety issues would be referred to the RSSB. Over a year later the RSSB had still not given its verdict on whether these clauses should be put back into the Rule Book.
Your union decided that it had to deal with the situation industrially. Under the anti-trade union laws, it isn’t possible to ballot for strike action against the decisions of a body like RSSB. We can only take strike action against the employer. Legal advice was that we could however ballot the individual employing companies to force them to approach RSSB together with the RMT to persuade them to put the Guards’ safety role back into the Rule Book. At that time, GNER and, yes, First Group (for all their TOCs) agreed to sponsor the approach to RSSB. But this meant that we could no longer be in dispute with these companies and their TOCs. Rather than proceed with a dispute involving only half of our Guards membership, we decided to wait for the RSSB’s decision. RSSB came back in June 2003 with an absolute rejection of all the points. They based this view on the Risk Assessment approach.
Then, in 2007, RSSB deleted the Railway Group Standard covering the role of the guard and devolved the decision by any TOC to introduce DOO to the TOC itself.
Q: With no conditions?
A: Yes, as long as they did their own Risk Assessment.
Q: Are there any independent Risk Assessors in the railway industry at all?
A: No, only ones that give the answers that they’re paid for. For instance, Halcrow did a Risk Assessment for Southeastern Trains saying that the Hitachi Javelins (395s) could operate in DOO on any form of signalling on Southeastern Trains. They have all possible types – block signalling, track circuit signalling and moving block signalling on the High Speed Link. Therefore, in one “Risk Assessment”, Halcrow gave a green light to any DOO stock throughout the whole railway network. Our experts looked at it and it was a shoddy, inaccurate piece of work. But it fitted the bill for the TOCs.
Q: So why did you accept the Transport Minister’s decision to go to the RSSB and RAIB?
A: We did not accept it. We told the Minister that we have no confidence whatsoever in the RSSB or the RAIB and most importantly in any Risk Assessment method whatsoever.
Q: What do you mean?
A: The very name Risk Assessment is in direct opposition to the RMT position of safety first. It’s like saying that because there hasn’t been a fatal disaster for, say, 10 years on a certain franchise, that we can now decide to do away with the operational safety role of the guard.
It’s as if you said I haven’t had a house fire or a burglary for 20 years so I’ll not bother with my buildings insurance or contents insurance any longer: not a very wise decision.
And to quote Stuart Stephenson, Scottish Transport Minister once again “There’s nothing harder to get than insurance when you need it!”
Q: Management have said that the Guards ‘course’ they are giving their strike-breaking force is safe?
A: That’s an insult to every single Guard on the rail network. On Scotrail, a new Guard does a four-week course before commencing extensive route learning. The strike-breakers ‘course’ is just one week for “training” and “route learning”. The ‘course’ in the school is being done with the answers provided. Route learning is being done by sending them out with the exam papers alongside copies of the right answers.
Q: What’s the Union doing about it?
A: First, we are fully aware that many Supervisors, Managers and Trainers are being forced to do these “courses” with threats of losing their jobs if they don’t.
We wrote to Steve Montgomery telling him to cease and desist and to confirm this in writing by noon on Thursday 20th January 2010. He has failed to reply. The matter will be placed in front of the GGC. Both RMT and TSSA have written to their members concerned telling them to decline to do the course if they can and to report all bullying and harassment to the RMT’s Scottish office or Head Office immediately.
Any victimisation of any member on Scotrail leading to them losing their job will lead to a ballot of all RMT Scotrail members for their reinstatement.
Q: But management say the strike-breaker’s course has been safety validated?
A: They would say that wouldn’t they? But they have not said by whom. Perhaps it is the HMRI, which would be no surprise as their role in all disputes is a disgrace. They simply rubber stamp whatever management wants during a dispute. The HMRI is now part of the Office of Rail Regulator (ORR) which is based within the Department of Transport, which of course doles out the franchise in the first place.
Q: As you have mentioned civil servants, can I ask what the union makes of the letter or letters between Transport Scotland and First Group quoted in management’s propaganda leaflet no.3?
A: Good question. The union has never seen them. What we can say is that they completely contradict what your union was told at its meeting with the Scottish Transport Minister. There are two possibilities.
First, the Minister was soft soaping us or maybe simply lying OR the Minister is simply not in control of his civil servants. It’s probably a little bit of each. In any event, it should not surprise us that the elected representatives and the civil servants are nowadays no longer there to serve the public but to serve the major multi-national corporations like First Group.
Head of First Group, Muir Lockhead, is a major donor to the SNP and no-one should forget that Transport Scotland and the SNP government gave First Group a two year extension on their franchise without even any bidding process.
Q: Why will any strike action cost the Scottish taxpayer millions, as management are spinning to the media?
A: Because we have totally demolished their economic arguments, First Group are still trying every which way to convince the Scottish public that it will be their tax money and theirs alone that will be at stake.
The fact is that there is a clause in EVERY SINGLE franchise agreement indemnifying the franchises for all revenue losses and fines in the event of strike action. It means that the privatised rail managements have absolutely no economic reason to sit down and come to agreements with the unions.
RMT and its group of MPs at Westminster have campaigned long and hard against this scandal.
Remember DOO on the Airdrie to Bathgate line will only be the thin end of a wedge for DOO to come in throughout Scotland. Vote YES in the ballot, return your ballot papers now and at the latest, for the 9th February 2010.
