New South Western franchise: Awarded to First/MTR

[pompeyfan]

I didn’t mean to start off the SWR DOO debate again, apologies admin.

The DfT/SWR believe they can provide a better service for passengers with the driver doing the doors, and occasionally running a train without a 2nd member of staff.

There was a debate earlier about who has learnt the most from the Southern dispute, and pains me to say it, but DfT have left the RMT in the their wake. The DfT have an objective, their official objective is a lot less sinister then perhaps their true intent, but, they have adapted their gameplay to better beat the union.

The union say x, y and z happens if you remove guards from trains, the company fights back with ‘we’re not getting rid of guards’. Instantly you lose public support because they perceive the union as being unreasonable.

The other thing that annoys me as well is that we hear a fluffy PR release after talks from the companies involved promising the world, and then you hear the union PR after a meeting which is the chimes of doom. There has to be a middle ground which is why the only fair way to know what goes on behind those closed doors is to have an unbiased employee in that room, or to do an unedited live TV debate, similar to what was done with Southern a few years ago.

Someone once said to me ‘a compromise is when neither side get exactly what they want, but they stopped the other side from getting what they wanted’

I personally want the RMT to make a deal with SWR, because otherwise it’s going to go exactly the same way as southern where contracts are torn up. They still have leverage now, sell DOO to the company but tie them up in loopholes to make it as difficult as possible to run services DOO, and futureproof it so that GO-Via/Arriva/Stagecoach/anyone else who wants to come and run a train company can’t then chip away at those conditions.

 

[BestWestern]

I didn’t mean to start off the SWR DOO debate again, apologies admin.

The DfT/SWR believe they can provide a better service for passengers with the driver doing the doors, and occasionally running a train without a 2nd member of staff.

There was a debate earlier about who has learnt the most from the Southern dispute, and pains me to say it, but DfT have left the RMT in the their wake. The DfT have an objective, their official objective is a lot less sinister then perhaps their true intent, but, they have adapted their gameplay to better beat the union.

The union say x, y and z happens if you remove guards from trains, the company fights back with ‘we’re not getting rid of guards’. Instantly you lose public support because they perceive the union as being unreasonable.

The other thing that annoys me as well is that we hear a fluffy PR release after talks from the companies involved promising the world, and then you hear the union PR after a meeting which is the chimes of doom. There has to be a middle ground which is why the only fair way to know what goes on behind those closed doors is to have an unbiased employee in that room, or to do an unedited live TV debate, similar to what was done with Southern a few years ago.

Someone once said to me ‘a compromise is when neither side get exactly what they want, but they stopped the other side from getting what they wanted’

I personally want the RMT to make a deal with SWR, because otherwise it’s going to go exactly the same way as southern where contracts are torn up. They still have leverage now, sell DOO to the company but tie them up in loopholes to make it as difficult as possible to run services DOO, and futureproof it so that GO-Via/Arriva/Stagecoach/anyone else who wants to come and run a train company can’t then chip away at those conditions.

Even at Southern they didn't 'sell DOO to the company'! Once you do that, the war is well and truly over, it's just a matter of time.

 

[pompeyfan]

Even at Southern they didn't 'sell DOO to the company'! Once you do that, the war is well and truly over, it's just a matter of time.

You’re correct, they didn’t sell DOO to the company, they stood firm (admirable as it is) and look where it got them, it took ASLEF to start throwing punches before anyone actually started taking the RMT seriously.

Many slated ASLEF members for taking the deal, but long term its kept a 2nd person on the train for far longer than the RMT were able to, and yet even still, RMT ex conductors are still in dispute with GTR, what are they hoping to salvage?

 

[TEW]

I didn’t mean to start off the SWR DOO debate again, apologies admin.
The DfT/SWR believe they can provide a better service for passengers with the driver doing the doors, and occasionally running a train without a 2nd member of staff.

That was a reason they gave in the past, doesn't seem to be in fashion any more. They can't seem to make their mind up what their justification is for introducing DOO. It started off with being about reducing dwell times, then it was improving customer service and at the moment it is about reducing cancellations. I'm sure it will be something else next week. If even the company can't come up with a clear, consistent argument for why they want DOO, does that not tell you something.

I didn’t mean to start off the SWR DOO debate again, apologies admin.
I personally want the RMT to make a deal with SWR, because otherwise it’s going to go exactly the same way as southern where contracts are torn up. They still have leverage now, sell DOO to the company but tie them up in loopholes to make it as difficult as possible to run services DOO, and futureproof it so that GO-Via/Arriva/Stagecoach/anyone else who wants to come and run a train company can’t then chip away at those conditions.

It is very easy to say the RMT should agree DOO with SWR knowing that it will have no impact on you at present. (I'm sure that they will come for everyone else when the Desiros are up for replacement mind.) I don't think your colleagues directly affected would be too happy if the RMT agreed DOO with SWR. If Southern has taught us anything, it is that agreements don't mean anything. In the past there were agreements supposedly limiting the extent that Southern could run trains DOO. And look what they meant when push came to shove, absolutely nothing. Once you agree DOO, you have lost. You may not have lost today, tomorrow or next week. But one day, it will come back to bite you.

 

[theironroad]

When the 442s went to Gatwick from swt they installed door controls in the driving cabs so they can run DCO but the hiccup was dispatch process as they couldn't fit cameras and monitors to the train, so multi-person station staff dispatch was used with one member of staff standing next to the driver to relay the appropriate instructions for dispatch. The 444/450 desiros have had door controls fitted on the drivers desk since they were built, but have never been activated.

There's no reason why fast services on major parts of mainline routes couldn't run doo, though would need some staffing increases at the relevant stations.

So post 2020 the only swr operated stock that would have no in cab door controls would be 158/159.

As soon as the principle of doo is on on swr, then all depots will be at risk of guards role/obs attrition. Then the future will be along the lines of ticket examiners on Scotrail Glasgow suburban services which are doo and the TE is on their feet pretty much constantly. Many Swt guards and commercial guards won't know what has hit them if they are required to perform to to the same levels of activity.

Guards helping out the company in this dispute are only hastening the demise of their own jobs.

 

[emil]

When the 442s went to Gatwick from swt they installed door controls in the driving cabs so they can run DCO but the hiccup was dispatch process as they couldn't fit cameras and monitors to the train, so multi-person station staff dispatch was used with one member of staff standing next to the driver to relay the appropriate instructions for dispatch. The 444/450 desiros have had door controls fitted on the drivers desk since they were built, but have never been activated.

There's no reason why fast services on major parts of mainline routes couldn't run doo, though would need some staffing increases at the relevant stations.

So post 2020 the only swr operated stock that would have no in cab door controls would be 158/159.

As soon as the principle of doo is on on swr, then all depots will be at risk of guards role/obs attrition. Then the future will be along the lines of ticket examiners on Scotrail Glasgow suburban services which are doo and the TE is on their feet pretty much constantly. Many Swt guards and commercial guards won't know what has hit them if they are required to perform to to the same levels of activity.

Guards helping out the company in this dispute are only hastening the demise of their own jobs.

Due to the way desiro's 444/450 are currently configured train wouldn't be able to stop at any intermediate stations. Replacement not due until at least 2025.
I have used Glasgow suburban services and certainly wouldn't use them at night as it's not safe. Can't rely on BTP in Glasgow as that is being merged with Police Scotland so less of them available.
The 158/159 would have been replaced if Stagecoach had kept the franchise.
The 442's are in a bad state of corrosion due to open storage and being over 30 years old.

 

[theironroad]

Due to the way desiro's 444/450 are currently configured train wouldn't be able to stop at any intermediate stations. Replacement not due until at least 2025.
I have used Glasgow suburban services and certainly wouldn't use them at night as it's not safe. Can't rely on BTP in Glasgow as that is being merged with Police Scotland so less of them available.
The 158/159 would have been replaced if Stagecoach had kept the franchise.
The 442's are in a bad state of corrosion due to open storage and being over 30 years old.

Well the 442 project seems to be ploughing on.
Yes, in doo operation the 444/450 wouldn't be able to be dispatched from any stations that didn't have sufficient staff so could only use stations which are appropriately staffed.

 

[Carlisle]

Once you agree DOO, you have lost. .

Given the RMT. and it’s predecessor has agreed DOO on many routes since 1982 (even earlier on metros) and its not since been deemed unsafe, I can’t really understand what point your trying to make, other than possibly suggesting these decisions should ultimately be down to the unions rather than the industry itself

 

[emil]

Well the 442 project seems to be ploughing on.
Yes, in doo operation the 444/450 wouldn't be able to be dispatched from any stations that didn't have sufficient staff so could only use stations which are appropriately staffed.

It not a question of dispatch staff it's the units themselves. Anyway only Waterloo is staffed 24/7. Limited number stations with staff from first service to last train at present and over 140 stations with no staff at all.

 

[pompeyfan]

That was a reason they gave in the past, doesn't seem to be in fashion any more. They can't seem to make their mind up what their justification is for introducing DOO. It started off with being about reducing dwell times, then it was improving customer service and at the moment it is about reducing cancellations. I'm sure it will be something else next week. If even the company can't come up with a clear, consistent argument for why they want DOO, does that not tell you something.


It is very easy to say the RMT should agree DOO with SWR knowing that it will have no impact on you at present. (I'm sure that they will come for everyone else when the Desiros are up for replacement mind.) I don't think your colleagues directly affected would be too happy if the RMT agreed DOO with SWR. If Southern has taught us anything, it is that agreements don't mean anything. In the past there were agreements supposedly limiting the extent that Southern could run trains DOO. And look what they meant when push came to shove, absolutely nothing. Once you agree DOO, you have lost. You may not have lost today, tomorrow or next week. But one day, it will come back to bite you.

I agree with your points, they are all perfectly valid, but can you seriously see SWR backing down and conceding to the RMT?

 

[theironroad]

It not a question of dispatch staff it's the units themselves. Anyway only Waterloo is staffed 24/7. Limited number stations with staff from first service to last train at present and over 140 stations with no staff at all.

I'm not sure you've read my posts thoroughly.

I've said that appropriate staffing is needed and that means from first to last train and in sufficient numbers to dispatch.

444/450s were wired from build with door controls on the drivers desk and they are still there. They have never been used.


Assume a straight platform, the whole length of which can be seen from front of train.
1) train arrives in platform, driver releases doors, passengers get off and on
2) member of station staff standing on platform adjacent to drivers cab checks train is ready t depart and checks that safe to close doors
3) station staff dispatcher tells driver to close doors, driver presses door close button. Doors close.
4) station staff dispatcher checks that all doors safely closed and no human or other bits and pieces sticking out of train. Driver also checks they have door interlock illuminated
5)station staff dispatcher gives driver 'the tip', 'right away' that station duties are complete and the train is 'ready to start'
6) driver says goodbye and off they go

It was in use in Gatwick express and also southern at Southampton and could be used at staffed stations elesewhere, but could only be used at stations with staff and driver cannot themselves complete the whole dispatch process from the cab at unstaffed stations.

 

[BestWestern]

You’re correct, they didn’t sell DOO to the company, they stood firm (admirable as it is) and look where it got them, it took ASLEF to start throwing punches before anyone actually started taking the RMT seriously.

Many slated ASLEF members for taking the deal, but long term its kept a 2nd person on the train for far longer than the RMT were able to, and yet even still, RMT ex conductors are still in dispute with GTR, what are they hoping to salvage?

Only the RMT could tell you what their intended aim is now on Southern, it is indeed rather difficult to see what else they hope to achieve in that particular situation. However, the RMT and Aslef supporting one another to defeat a common enemy is exactly how it is supposed to work, and it worked as well here as it could have done under the circumstances. There were always going to be limitations to what could be achieved at a toc already running predominantly DOO, which of course is exactly why GTR was chosen to pitch the first battle. However, the battle wasn't won by the government, the staff are still required on board and their jobs remain secure. That was realistically probably the best that could ever have been hoped for there. That aspect is very different when transferred to Drivers who have never suffered DOO and have no desire to go anywhere near it.

 

[pompeyfan]

I believe that drivers at South Western are contracted to drive trains DOO-P, so whether they want to or not, they may be required to driver services DOO-P. I hope that ASLEF can find a loophole in that particular part of the drivers contract which results in no DOO-P services on the SW, I truly do.

 

[TEW]

It not a question of dispatch staff it's the units themselves. Anyway only Waterloo is staffed 24/7. Limited number stations with staff from first service to last train at present and over 140 stations with no staff at all.

There are more stations that just Waterloo staffed 24/7.

 

[TEW]

I believe that drivers at South Western are contracted to drive trains DOO-P, so whether they want to or not, they may be required to driver services DOO-P. I hope that ASLEF can find a loophole in that particular part of the drivers contract which results in no DOO-P services on the SW, I truly do.

It is there unfortunately. However SWR have not tried to argue that action by the small number of RMT drivers at present against DOO is illegal, despite it being in their contracts.

 

[Starmill]

I have used Glasgow suburban services and certainly wouldn't use them at night as it's not safe.

Complete hyperbole...

However, the RMT and Aslef supporting one another to defeat a common enemy is exactly how it is supposed to work, and it worked as well here as it could have done under the circumstances.

It did? Really? That does not seem to be the way a lot of RMT members view the situation with the Aslef deal?

 

[Olaf]

I didn't attend or know about it but how do you know that Transport Focus only announced it on the day?

Because could not find any earlier announcement on their news feed.

 

[Carlisle]

Complete hyperbole...


It did? Really? That does not seem to be the way a lot of RMT members view the situation with the Aslef deal?

Exacly, initially the joint ASLEF/RMT campaign concentrating on PTI concerns etc was intended to prevent anything more radical than the recent Scotrail (Driver release guard close) deal being agreed on any lines that weren’t already DOO

 

[Bookd]

In the modern world any business (not only railways) if they are to succeed need the staff and employers to be on the same side in meeting demand from customers to meet more demanding requirements of service.
When Best Western describes the TOCs as a common enemy this just sounds like a class war, and in any war there will be casualtys - usually those with fewer resources.
As to never-ending disputes think of the outcome for miners, dock workers, shipbuilders.....

 

[BestWestern]

Complete hyperbole...


It did? Really? That does not seem to be the way a lot of RMT members view the situation with the Aslef deal?

No, it isn't viewed at all favourably, for obvious reasons. However, as I said above, under the circumstances it was the best deal that was ever likely to be achieved, and it was a significantly better deal than the DfT were aiming for.

 

[emil]

I'm not sure you've read my posts thoroughly.

I've said that appropriate staffing is needed and that means from first to last train and in sufficient numbers to dispatch.

444/450s were wired from build with door controls on the drivers desk and they are still there. They have never been used.


Assume a straight platform, the whole length of which can be seen from front of train.
1) train arrives in platform, driver releases doors, passengers get off and on
2) member of station staff standing on platform adjacent to drivers cab checks train is ready t depart and checks that safe to close doors
3) station staff dispatcher tells driver to close doors, driver presses door close button. Doors close.
4) station staff dispatcher checks that all doors safely closed and no human or other bits and pieces sticking out of train. Driver also checks they have door interlock illuminated
5)station staff dispatcher gives driver 'the tip', 'right away' that station duties are complete and the train is 'ready to start'
6) driver says goodbye and off they go

It was in use in Gatwick express and also southern at Southampton and could be used at staffed stations elesewhere, but could only be used at stations with staff and driver cannot themselves complete the whole dispatch process from the cab at unstaffed stations.

No the key has to be removed by the driver before the door control work in the leading cab. This would increase dwell time which the DFT wanted to reduce.

 

[CN75]

Only the RMT could tell you what their intended aim is now on Southern, it is indeed rather difficult to see what else they hope to achieve in that particular situation. However, the RMT and Aslef supporting one another to defeat a common enemy is exactly how it is supposed to work, and it worked as well here as it could have done under the circumstances. There were always going to be limitations to what could be achieved at a toc already running predominantly DOO, which of course is exactly why GTR was chosen to pitch the first battle. However, the battle wasn't won by the government, the staff are still required on board and their jobs remain secure. That was realistically probably the best that could ever have been hoped for there. That aspect is very different when transferred to Drivers who have never suffered DOO and have no desire to go anywhere near it.

In fact GTR did not say any staff would lose their jobs or be withdrawn from trains in their franchise (nor did the government). Greater Anglia, SWR are saying the same. Northern have guaranteed the jobs and salaries for the franchise and appear to be proposing a mixture of train and station jobs in future. As the government doesn’t pay any staff costs and TOCs have to cover those, in reality the more staff the merrier for the DfT.

ASLEF leaders do appear to have learned driver’s strikes won’t kill off the issue and will be faced down. Their GTR strike action was eventually cut short amid strong signs that if it continued ASLEF could split and get weakened, and risk the government doing things like opening train driver academies. Since then, there has barely been any action on the issue at any TOC involved from ASLEF.

The RMT have continued with the tactics of occasional one day strikes while the TOCs have just got stronger at dealing with them with contingency plans. The press releases about Scotland and Wales have been the same for months. These tactics have cost some of their members thousands of pounds and led to the union being seen as so irrelevant that by their own press releases, the TOCs who can run a full service on strike days are not even bothering to meet them beforehand. This is why they are the only ones who have learned nothing from the Southern fiasco. In a couple of months, they may have no leverage left at SWR and Northern to negotiate and will just get what they are given in due course. Unfortunately they have hotheads rather than tactical negotiators able to sell difficult messages to members running the show. It’s not about surrender really, just accepting some change and working out how the RMT can be powerful and effective in the new arrangements.

The whole situation is more complicated than the TOCs and the government versus the brothers in arms. If there really was a plan to just wipe out staff everywhere, nobody can properly explain why the DfT would be going to all this trouble and make extreme promises to the contrary about jobs. The DfT’s remit is to get the best services for customers that they can from the operators. They see guards doing operationally obsolete tasks instead of helping passengers as their primary focus and so the DfT have just accepted bids that promise to change that for these franchises.

 

[coppercapped]

Exacly, initially the joint ASLEF/RMT campaign concentrating on PTI concerns etc was intended to prevent anything more radical than the recent Scotrail (Driver release guard close) deal being agreed on any lines that weren’t already DOO

Really? If you are referring to the joint statement made by the two Unions on 27 November 2015 then your statement seems at odds with the Unions' position. The statement read:

We are completely opposed to Driver Only Operation and its forms, including Driver Controlled Operation (DCO) and Driver Door Operation(DDO), throughout the network. We firmly believe this method of operation is less safe for passengers and the workforce and our unions will not agree to the extension of DOO or DCO /DDO under any circumstances. This includes recent proposals for DOO by Great Western in respect of the new IEP trains and the government's proposals for DCO for the next Northern Rail franchise.
The responsibility of the driver of the train is to drive, which requires 100% focus. It is less safe for both the driver and passengers if the driver is distracted by additional duties such as protecting the platform train interface. The guard/conductor should retain responsibility for door operation.
We are particularly concerned,for example, that there have been a number of incidents in the last year across all sectors where even more pressure has been placed on drivers rather than questioning the safety of DOO.
We are also opposed to DOO and DCO/DDO because its introduction would remove the current guarantee that passengers will always have a safety critical safety second person on the train who can not only deal with emergencies but can also provide general reassurance and assistance to passengers.
It is essential for the safety of both the driver and passengers to have the guarantee of a guard/conductor on the train to protect the train driver and passengers in the event of driver incapacity. This was demonstrated by a recent incident at Sutton Weaver where a driver received a severe electrical shock and was assisted by the guard who was able to call for the emergency services and accompany a doctor who was travelling on the train to provide emergency first aid.
With record passengers numbers we now need more rail staff, not less.Services for passengers should be improved by investment in modern railway infrastructure and rolling stock - not by dismissing and deskilling guards and placing event more responsibility on the driver.
We will campaign in unity to oppose any extension of DOO and DCO/DDO and to seek to explore ways of reversing it where it has been introduced. This will include making our views clear to the employers, government and other politicians.

My emphasis. That goes a bit further than your interpretation.

 

[BestWestern]

In fact GTR did not say any staff would lose their jobs or be withdrawn from trains in their franchise (nor did the government). Greater Anglia, SWR are saying the same. Northern have guaranteed the jobs and salaries for the franchise and appear to be proposing a mixture of train and station jobs in future. As the government doesn’t pay any staff costs and TOCs have to cover those, in reality the more staff the merrier for the DfT.

ASLEF leaders do appear to have learned driver’s strikes won’t kill off the issue and will be faced down. Their GTR strike action was eventually cut short amid strong signs that if it continued ASLEF could split and get weakened, and risk the government doing things like opening train driver academies. Since then, there has barely been any action on the issue at any TOC involved from ASLEF.

The RMT have continued with the tactics of occasional one day strikes while the TOCs have just got stronger at dealing with them with contingency plans. The press releases about Scotland and Wales have been the same for months. These tactics have cost some of their members thousands of pounds and led to the union being seen as so irrelevant that by their own press releases, the TOCs who can run a full service on strike days are not even bothering to meet them beforehand. This is why they are the only ones who have learned nothing from the Southern fiasco. In a couple of months, they may have no leverage left at SWR and Northern to negotiate and will just get what they are given in due course. Unfortunately they have hotheads rather than tactical negotiators able to sell difficult messages to members running the show. It’s not about surrender really, just accepting some change and working out how the RMT can be powerful and effective in the new arrangements.

The whole situation is more complicated than the TOCs and the government versus the brothers in arms. If there really was a plan to just wipe out staff everywhere, nobody can properly explain why the DfT would be going to all this trouble and make extreme promises to the contrary about jobs. The DfT’s remit is to get the best services for customers that they can from the operators. They see guards doing operationally obsolete tasks instead of helping passengers as their primary focus and so the DfT have just accepted bids that promise to change that for these franchises.

We are of course each entitled to our opinions on what the DfT agenda is really about.

 

[coppercapped]

We are of course each entitled to our opinions on what the DfT agenda is really about.

Could you be less elliptical?

 

[BestWestern]

Could you be less elliptical?

Probably not on this thread without being told off! Needless to say, I do not accept the apparent view of some that all the DfT wants is to give Guards a fluffy new job title and pay them the same money for doing less work as a long term situation. The intention is destaffing, pure and simple, albeit with a graduated approach because the government lacks the guts to be honest and face the reaction.

 

[CN75]

Probably not on this thread without being told off! Needless to say, I do not accept the apparent view of some that all the DfT wants is to give Guards a fluffy new job title and pay them the same money for doing less work as a long term situation. The intention is destaffing, pure and simple, albeit with a graduated approach because the government lacks the guts to be honest and face the reaction.

The DfT is hoping some of the guards will do more work in future.

 

[BestWestern]

The DfT is hoping some of the guards will do more work in future.

Is that right!?? Ok chap!

I think you'll find what the DfT is actually hoping is that they simply won't exist any more.

 

[coppercapped]

Is that right!?? Ok chap!

I think you'll find what the DfT is actually hoping is that they simply won't exist any more.

Ten or fifteen years ago I might have agreed with you. At that time fare income did not cover the costs of train operation and the TOCs, taken as a whole, were in receipt of a subsidy from the taxpayer via the Treasury and the DfT. Understanding the financial pressures the TOCs faced, reducing the cost of operation by employing fewer staff would have appeared a logical path to follow.

Since then a combination of fare increases, increasing numbers of passengers and reduced costs of operation mean that the TOCs, taken as a whole, now pay the DfT premiums amounting to several hundred of millions a year. The reduced costs of operation have not been achieved by the expedient of cutting staff because, as has been pointed out earlier in this thread, the number of staff employed by the TOCs has increased by about half since the early days of privatisation. Staff numbers then had not changed significantly from the numbers employed by BR’s Train Operating Units in their final days.

Passenger surveys reported by Transport Focus and similar organisations show that passengers like, appreciate and want visible staff in the trains. None of the TOCs have said they want to reduce the numbers of on-board staff - just that their duties will change. If the TOCs were to remove some or all of the on-board staff then it is entirely possible that the change would, at the margins, have a negative effect on passenger numbers on some types of services. I doubt whether any TOC would want to run the risk - they have enough risk to cope with anyway.

The DfT has little or no interest in the numbers of staff employed by an individual TOC. Bidders for a franchise make their offers based on their understanding of the market and the costs of operation of the train services. Using your argument, if a bidder thought he could gain an advantage by increasing the number of trains operated with only one member of staff on board - thus reducing the subsidy required or increasing the premium paid - then it would have been included in his bid. This has not happened.

I can only conclude that your posts are intended to create and maintain fear, uncertainly and doubt (known in the IT world as ‘FUD’!) among non-driving on-board staff as to their future employment prospects and so generate an atmosphere which could encourage support of industrial action. You are Mike Cash ‘lite’ and I claim my five pounds!

 

[BestWestern]

Haha, not sure whether to be insulted or flattered! (Actually I think I know the answer!)

Interesting points, certainly. Only, McNulty wasn't fifteen years ago, was it? Nor was the document released by the RSSB setting out the pathway to implimentation of McNulty, and the cost savings of his DOO. That was far more recent. So why, if destaffing is of no interest to the DfT, were they still persuing it?

I'm sorry, I disagree with your interpretation. I wish I didn't, but sadly I suggest the recent evidence does not support the idea that the government has no interest in staff cuts to save money.