Remaining DOO disputes?

[O L Leigh]

I'm not sure precisely what you mean by the phrase "relevance in the union movement generally". If you mean the General Secretary gets to put the case across on the six o'clock news then I think that comes under the heading "nice to have" rather than being a necessary prerequisite for adequate representation.

On the point of finance, surely the cost of supporting action scales proportionately to the size of the action so that the fewer members who need support the less it costs. In any case, I don't think that a union the size of the RMT is going to disappear with the guards grade. They are also representing other grades and have members in other industries too.

 

[tiptoptaff]

TfW in its original form had an agreement of no DOO throughout the 15 years of the franchise. As of 5 days ago of course that franchise is no longer in operation so whether or not that agreement remains is open to question.

The drivers there however have no DOO agreement in their contracts and aren't likely to accept one without a fight. And I suspect the Welsh assembly have even less energy for that fight right now than Westminster does, especially as they were one of the groups that pushed for no DOO in the original franchise.

AIUI, the agreement was actually no DOO on heavy rail services. This done so that they could walk DOO in on the Metro areas that became tramtrains.

Or allow me to put another way, the agreement was made knowing full well they wanted DOO for the tram trains and was written such that the drivers and on-board crew wouldn't be able to refuse at the time

 

[craigybagel]

AIUI, the agreement was actually no DOO on heavy rail services. This done so that they could walk DOO in on the Metro areas that became tramtrains.

Or allow me to put another way, the agreement was made knowing full well they wanted DOO for the tram trains and was written such that the drivers and on-board crew wouldn't be able to refuse at the time

Indeed, I do recall it being phrased in such a way that there was a certain vagueness on whether or not it applied to the Valleys, no doubt deliberately.

That said, AFAIK the Valleys drivers, like those on Mainline, don't have any provision for DOO-P in their contracts so that bridge will still need crossing at some point.

 

[tiptoptaff]

Indeed, I do recall it being phrased in such a way that there was a certain vagueness on whether or not it applied to the Valleys, no doubt deliberately.

That said, AFAIK the Valleys drivers, like those on Mainline, don't have any provision for DOO-P in their contracts so that bridge will still need crossing at some point.

I get on well with an ex-Valleys guards manager. It was definitely written to allow Metro to go DOO

I'm sure the drivers issue was thought about. I'd assume it'll be a case of when the time comes hiring all new trainees on different "Metro" contracts and making a number of heavy rail TfW Valleys drivers redundant, and offered new jobs as a Metro driver

 

[craigybagel]

I get on well with an ex-Valleys guards manager. It was definitely written to allow Metro to go DOO

This I can believe

I'm sure the drivers issue was thought about. I'd assume it'll be a case of when the time comes hiring all new trainees on different "Metro" contracts and making a number of heavy rail TfW Valleys drivers redundant, and offered new jobs as a Metro driver

This I can't. They'd have a strike across the entire TOC if they tried doing it that way.

In a similar manner to what happened at Southern, talks are due to start in the next two weeks between TfW and ASLEF regarding some big changes to T&C's that are required as part of the franchise plans. Bringing Sundays inside will be part of that, and no doubt some form of DOO for the Valleys as well.

 

[tomoufc]

On the other hand there is nothing stopping the drivers making that decision for themselves to not cross the picket line, if they feel so strongly about the matter. It was the drivers on MerseyRail and the West Coast depots on WMR refusing to cross picket lines en masse following their own principles and crucially without being organised that gave the respective management teams a pretty tremendous shock by all accounts and seemed to have forced a climb down. I understand Euston in particular was like a warzone.

There is form for it - the same depots on the WCML famously refused to drive their trains DOO in the 90s and defeated the roll out then too.

I think this is very important, and something that gets missed in these discussions.

I would like to slightly disagree with the 'without being organised' bit, however. There is a popular assumption that strike action happens because the leaders of unions decide so. But this is a good example of how workers on the ground collectively self-organise without organisation by officials. It's also something many people seem to get wrong about the RMT too - it's company councils, which are made up of lay members, which decide on whether to organise a strike, not the national leadership (although, of course, they have some influence). Arguably, it's the democratic nature of the RMT that has led to its militancy, not the political ideology of its leaders, as some like to claim.

 

[Watershed]

This I can't. They'd have a strike across the entire TOC if they tried doing it that way.

In a similar manner to what happened at Southern, talks are due to start in the next two weeks between TfW and ASLEF regarding some big changes to T&C's that are required as part of the franchise plans. Bringing Sundays inside will be part of that, and no doubt some form of DOO for the Valleys as well.

I wouldn't rule out TfW putting the Metro operations under a separate legal entity, with former Valleys drivers and guards simply 'repurposed' as Mainline drivers and guards, and given the opportunity to transfer to other depots or roles.

Of course that still doesn't stop strike action - organised or wildcat - but if the only thing that is being "lost" is route knowledge over the Valleys...

 

[tiptoptaff]

I wouldn't rule out TfW putting the Metro operations under a separate legal entity, with former Valleys drivers and guards simply 'repurposed' as Mainline drivers and guards, and given the opportunity to transfer to other depots or roles.

Of course that still doesn't stop strike action - organised or wildcat - but if the only thing that is being "lost" is route knowledge over the Valleys...

Exactly.

Metro in all likelihood will be separated completely from the W&B franchise when it's up and running. I'm fairly certain that's always been the plan, and why using DOO tram trains isn't as problematic for them as we like to think.

In the Valleys, just as many people will apply to be £30-35k a year tram drivers as apply to be £45k a year train drivers now. They won't struggle to recruit people even with a cut in pay for the Metro side

 

[craigybagel]

I wouldn't rule out TfW putting the Metro operations under a separate legal entity, with former Valleys drivers and guards simply 'repurposed' as Mainline drivers and guards, and given the opportunity to transfer to other depots or roles.

Of course that still doesn't stop strike action - organised or wildcat - but if the only thing that is being "lost" is route knowledge over the Valleys...

Exactly.

Metro in all likelihood will be separated completely from the W&B franchise when it's up and running. I'm fairly certain that's always been the plan, and why using DOO tram trains isn't as problematic for them as we like to think.

In the Valleys, just as many people will apply to be £30-35k a year tram drivers as apply to be £45k a year train drivers now. They won't struggle to recruit people even with a cut in pay for the Metro side

If that was the case, then why are they still recruiting for both Mainline and Valleys on normal contracts?

I've no doubt that they wouldn't struggle to recruit for lower pay for the Valleys in future if that's what they wanted to do, but the question is what do they do with the 200 or so Valleys drivers they have now? You can't transfer them all to the mainline and replace them with new hires, there aren't anywhere near enough jobs for them all (and if there was, then why would they be currently filling mainline vacancies with new hires, for the first time in decades, when they could fill them up with ex Valleys drivers in a couple of years instead?).

I do agree that I can see there being a big operational separation between the Valleys and the Mainline, but I wouldn't expect them to go down the nuclear route to bring it about.

 

[Watershed]

I do agree that I can see there being a big operational separation between the Valleys and the Mainline, but I wouldn't expect them to go down the nuclear route to bring it about.

The recruitment of additional Mainline and Valleys crew is clearly to deliver the significant service uplift, and the combination of the two would suggest they're not intending to press the nuclear button. But if they can present a credible alternative option, TfW would gain a better hand in any negotiations.

 

[Ashley Hill]

talks are due to start in the next two weeks between TfW and ASLEF regarding some big changes to T&C's that

Notice they've gone to ASLEF first to dangle their filthy carrot. Win that agreement and the RMT may as well give up.

 

[craigybagel]

The recruitment of additional Mainline and Valleys crew is clearly to deliver the significant service uplift, and the combination of the two would suggest they're not intending to press the nuclear button. But if they can present a credible alternative option, TfW would gain a better hand in any negotiations.

True. I'm just not entirely convinced the alternatives are all that credible. But we shall see.

Notice they've gone to ASLEF first to dangle their filthy carrot. Win that agreement and the RMT may as well give up.

What makes you think they've gone to ASLEF first? AFAIK they'll need to have similar talks with RMT as well - there are certain features of the guards contact that would need changing to keep up with the demands of the new franchise as well. Plus I don't know for certain that they are going to make DOO part of it - I'm just speculating that that would be the most likely time to do it (rather then going down the mass dismissal and rehiring route).

I would reckon the vast majority of drivers at TfW are dead set against DOO and that it'll be a big struggle to get it in, but time will tell.

 

[Ashley Hill]

What makes you think they've gone to ASLEF first? AFAIK they'll need to have similar talks with RMT as well - there are certain features of the guards contact that would need changing to keep up with the demands of the new franchise as well

It was you're quote that said talks were due to start with ASLEF in the next two weeks that gave me that idea. Nobody has said anything about talks with RMT. At my TOC the drivers received a handsome harmonisation package which included future provision for DOO. Guards harmonisation has been effectively kicked into the long grass.

 

[craigybagel]

It was you're quote that said talks were due to start with ASLEF in the next two weeks that gave me that idea. Nobody has said anything about talks with RMT. At my TOC the drivers received a handsome harmonisation package which included future provision for DOO. Guards harmonisation has been effectively kicked into the long grass.

I'm not a member of RMT (any more) so I'm not sure when their talks are starting - but they are supposed to at some point, that much I know.

I honestly don't know what the plans are for DOO - all we can do is speculate. But it won't be an easy task for TfW to get it in, rest assured of that. If I was a betting man, I'd expect the Valleys to get an agreement similar to Greater Anglia (drivers have complete control of doors but trains can't run in service without a guard on board) rather than a full DOO agreement but I'm just a lowly common driver, this is all way above my head for now.

 

[tiptoptaff]

It was you're quote that said talks were due to start with ASLEF in the next two weeks that gave me that idea. Nobody has said anything about talks with RMT. At my TOC the drivers received a handsome harmonisation package which included future provision for DOO. Guards harmonisation has been effectively kicked into the long grass.

I'm sure you'll note that "Harmonisation" only harmonised two areas of the business not all of them, and the DOO provision is partly due to one sector already being DOO and to lack such an agreement would have meant guards returning to the commuter services that have been DOO for 30years.

There's no agreement for extension of DOO beyond its current boundaries

 

[O L Leigh]

I would like to slightly disagree with the 'without being organised' bit, however. There is a popular assumption that strike action happens because the leaders of unions decide so. But this is a good example of how workers on the ground collectively self-organise without organisation by officials. It's also something many people seem to get wrong about the RMT too - it's company councils, which are made up of lay members, which decide on whether to organise a strike, not the national leadership (although, of course, they have some influence). Arguably, it's the democratic nature of the RMT that has led to its militancy, not the political ideology of its leaders, as some like to claim.

Even that assessment is somewhat simplistic, as the company councils do not simply decide to call a strike. What you've missed is the whole "failure to agree" (FTA) procedure that ultimately can lead up to the point where the union notifies the TOC of it's intention to ballot for industrial action, and this generally only happens once the FTA process has been exhausted. It is only at this point, where the ballots have been sent out, that the rank and file membership gets an opportunity to have it's say.

As for perceived militancy, I think that rather depends on how you frame it. Trying to untangle whether it is top-down or bottom-up is going to be like untangling the proverbial Christmas lights, and it's not a conversation I'd like to get involved in. I also think the word "militancy" also infers a value judgement which will mean different things to different groups of people. Is the RMT "militant" or an active and vigorous trades union?

I will just ask again, in case you missed it first time around. Who are you writing this article for and where is it likely to appear?

 

[Ashley Hill]

There's no agreement for extension of DOO beyond its current boundary.

Not at the moment but sprinters will not be around forever. Come the time ASLEF will be too late to argue as its already in their package. All new drivers to the TOC come under the new T & Cs.

 

[tiptoptaff]

Not at the moment but sprinters will not be around forever. Come the time ASLEF will be too late to argue as its already in their package. All new drivers to the TOC come under the new T & Cs.

I know, I work under those Ts and C's. But extension of DOO will come as part of a wider agreement on other things like Sundays and working week arrangements. It'll get folded in with other things and then sold by the RMT in the press as selling out

 

[AgentGemini]

Just a quick note for the correspondent's original question, as to which and what strikes are live.

WMR's is in strange territory at the moment. On one hand they have supposedly 'successfully dealt' with RMT and the guards (though I am informed that day to day relations are still somewhat disdainful) with an agreement where a guard will be on aboard and that drivers open, guards close doors and that there should be saloon based control panels. However, the first 196s to be waltzing around on trials between Birmingham and Hereford and Birmingham and Shrewsbury are conspicuously missing these and also have not yet achieved quality test running requirements. Secondly, WMR will need to drive through new contracts with the drivers where they open the doors. Old-school (ex BR) and more experienced drivers do not want the doors at any cost - they simply do not wish the responsibility. However, their fear is that brand new and inexperienced drivers (as there has been a massive recruitment for Birmingham based drivers) will force it through by sheer numbers, grasping at the proverbial carrot of whatever Abellio offers them, money, money, money. This has yet to be decided though and so I would not count WMR as effectively resolved yet.

 

[Watershed]

Just a quick note for the correspondent's original question, as to which and what strikes are live.

WMR's is in strange territory at the moment. On one hand they have supposedly 'successfully dealt' with RMT and the guards (though I am informed that day to day relations are still somewhat disdainful) with an agreement where a guard will be on aboard and that drivers open, guards close doors and that there should be saloon based control panels. However, the first 196s to be waltzing around on trials between Birmingham and Hereford and Birmingham and Shrewsbury are conspicuously missing these and also have not yet achieved quality test running requirements. Secondly, WMR will need to drive through new contracts with the drivers where they open the doors. Old-school (ex BR) and more experienced drivers do not want the doors at any cost - they simply do not wish the responsibility. However, their fear is that brand new and inexperienced drivers (as there has been a massive recruitment for Birmingham based drivers) will force it through by sheer numbers, grasping at the proverbial carrot of whatever Abellio offers them, money, money, money. This has yet to be decided though and so I would not count WMR as effectively resolved yet.

The salary is currently on the higher side for a regional TOC so I'm not sure how much leeway there necessarily is for an increase. Obviously Covid means that any deal will face strong scrutiny by the DfT; it remains to be seen whether they would prefer to simply live with the performance loss associated with guard opening of doors, if this is the cheapest option.

 

[AgentGemini]

What performance loss though? I have read that perhaps ten to twenty seconds a stop could be saved through DOO. However to me this is bean counting and not practical.
First of all, a guard steps down to physically ensure that their train is placed correctly on the platform (and that they are about to open the right side!) Quite a few guards have told me, that as rookies, the step down saved them from doing something very silly like arming the doors onto an opposite track (I do not want to think further on this, and neither did they) or arming the doors full on an SDO stop. I am informed that drivers are already 'practicing' for DOO or such by turning their shoulders and leaning their heads out of the windows to monitor the platforms etc. This alone will cost five to ten seconds and thus render the point nearly moot! "But they'll have cameras and monitors" I am told. Having seen the grainy scaley monitors some southern services use and the fact that CCTV screens half the time are frankly useless, I can imagine drivers will ignore these and revert to craning their heads out as noted above.

Secondly, it is all very well trying to squeeze an extra ten seconds out of a service here and there, but it is not as if the savings could allow for even more extra services could they? Some lines could not handle any more capacity. I refer to the Birmingham Snow Hill lines and the infamous May 2019 timetable garbage fire. Abellio thought that they could simply ram more services into the spaces between trains at peak time, which in the end caused the Snow Hill lines to near collapse. By that I mean at one point during London Midland days, SH statistics helped propped up the company. After Abellio had broken it, the SH have been a problem child ever since and still are even during covid era 'super sunday' timetables. By throwing in more (and ill planned)services, any time there was a breakdown or disturbance the ripple effect was deeper than pre May 19 scheduling.

COVID has placed everything on ice but behind the scenes, drivers are still being recruited left right and centre, and the 196s are - or were being trial run. I understand these have been cheap, and have caused issues including break down slap bag in the middle of single line branch routes.

 

[tiptoptaff]

Neither for or against DOO or DCO but the stock I work means I do both full guard operation and driver-open guard close.

The performance loss with guard open currently is minimal. Trains are quiet and they can be at a door as the train stops.

In normal peak times, I've been on guarded stock that's seen it be upwards of a minute before they've been able to reach a door. I can do it seconds after stopping.

As a professional driver, I back myself to stop in the right place and platform the train correctly. Stop shorts and overruns with all doors open happen, but they happen often enough on guarded services too.

If 20-30seconds is the average loss, then as trivial as it may seem, on a metro/stopping service with 10+ stops then that's possibly 5extra minutes on a 25minute journey. The performance penalty then being something like 20%! Which is a lot by anyone's standards

 

[Watershed]

What performance loss though? I have read that perhaps ten to twenty seconds a stop could be saved through DOO. However to me this is bean counting and not practical

On a Stourbridge Junction to Stratford-upon-Avon service that stops at 24 intermediate stations, 10-20 seconds per stop adds up to between 4 and 8 minutes. Given the total journey time is normally 86 minutes that's an instant journey time reduction of 5-10%. That's almost equivalent to the sort of saving you might expect from electrifying the line, and certainly nothing to be sniffed at.

First of all, a guard steps down to physically ensure that their train is placed correctly on the platform (and that they are about to open the right side!) Quite a few guards have told me, that as rookies, the step down saved them from doing something very silly like arming the doors onto an opposite track (I do not want to think further on this, and neither did they) or arming the doors full on an SDO stop. I am informed that drivers are already 'practicing' for DOO or such by turning their shoulders and leaning their heads out of the windows to monitor the platforms etc. This alone will cost five to ten seconds and thus render the point nearly moot! "But they'll have cameras and monitors" I am told. Having seen the grainy scaley monitors some southern services use and the fact that CCTV screens half the time are frankly useless, I can imagine drivers will ignore these and revert to craning their heads out as noted above.

This is exactly what beacons such as C-ASDO are there to help with - they inherently prevent wrong side release and ensure that only platformed doors are released. Given that trains will be longer than platforms in at least some locations, it's pretty unlikely that driver door release would be enabled any other way.

Even when the guard is at the door panel upon stopping - inhibiting their ability to undertake revenue activities, which is a problem on the largely unbarriered Snow Hill lines - driver door release is always quicker. Particularly with CAF stock, which was clearly intended for driver release, and requires slower workarounds to make guard release work.

Secondly, it is all very well trying to squeeze an extra ten seconds out of a service here and there, but it is not as if the savings could allow for even more extra services could they? Some lines could not handle any more capacity. I refer to the Birmingham Snow Hill lines and the infamous May 2019 timetable garbage fire. Abellio thought that they could simply ram more services into the spaces between trains at peak time, which in the end caused the Snow Hill lines to near collapse. By that I mean at one point during London Midland days, SH statistics helped propped up the company. After Abellio had broken it, the SH have been a problem child ever since and still are even during covid era 'super sunday' timetables. By throwing in more (and ill planned)services, any time there was a breakdown or disturbance the ripple effect was deeper than pre May 19 scheduling.

The introduction of the 196s with driver release alone would help bring improved reliability to the existing timetable. See the improvement of reliability and punctuality that occurred when GWR's 80x were running on HST timings.

 

[whoosh]

That brings up another point that has confused me somewhat - on Southern, the drivers did go on strike. The result of that was a 28% pay increase, although it did nothing to help the guards.

They were due a pay rise anyway. I do hope that you are taking into account that it was:

1) A five year deal, not all at once.
2) That the percentage rise for the first four years was exactly the same percentage rise as the four year deal drivers at Great Northern and Thameslink got (the other part of GTR) - who were already DOO.
3) The last year was RPI or 2.5% whichever was higher.

 

[Ashley Hill]

Quite a few guards have told me, that as rookies, the step down saved them from doing something very silly like arming the doors onto an opposite track

It's know that drivers have both over-released and off-side released but nothing seems to happen to them. If they were suspended and disciplined in the same way that guards are for such offences then drivers wouldn't touch DOO/DCO with a barge pole!

 

[43066]

It's know that drivers have both over-released and off-side released but nothing seems to happen to them. If they were suspended and disciplined in the same way that guards are for such offences then drivers wouldn't touch DOO/DCO with a barge pole!

You must work on a different part of the railway to me!!!

 

[O L Leigh]

It's know that drivers have both over-released and off-side released but nothing seems to happen to them. If they were suspended and disciplined in the same way that guards are for such offences then drivers wouldn't touch DOO/DCO with a barge pole!

Gadzooks!! I do believe he's got it.

Believe me, drivers are disciplined for door-related incidents. And it's not only the threat of tea and biccies with the gaffer that makes a lot incredibly wary of DOO/DCO.

 

[172007]

On a Stourbridge Junction to Stratford-upon-Avon service that stops at 24 intermediate stations, 10-20 seconds per stop adds up to between 4 and 8 minutes. Given the total journey time is normally 86 minutes that's an instant journey time reduction of 5-10%. That's almost equivalent to the sort of saving you might expect from electrifying the line, and certainly nothing to be sniffed at.


This is exactly what beacons such as C-ASDO are there to help with - they inherently prevent wrong side release and ensure that only platformed doors are released. Given that trains will be longer than platforms in at least some locations, it's pretty unlikely that driver door release would be enabled any other way.

Even when the guard is at the door panel upon stopping - inhibiting their ability to undertake revenue activities, which is a problem on the largely unbarriered Snow Hill lines - driver door release is always quicker. Particularly with CAF stock, which was clearly intended for driver release, and requires slower workarounds to make guard release work.


The introduction of the 196s with driver release alone would help bring improved reliability to the existing timetable. See the improvement of reliability and punctuality that occurred when GWR's 80x were running on HST timings.

Class 172's are being retro fitted with the same camera equipment. Suspect all /3's are done and 005 & 008 at Ilford for I assume the same mods. 730's I assume will have same equipment.

 

[Tom Quinne]

They might well be more correct then me to be fair - I was watching from afar, and at the time as a member of a different Union. But Southern already had DOO in their drivers contracts so I'm not sure how much ASLEF could take argue against that at the time.

TfW in its original form had an agreement of no DOO throughout the 15 years of the franchise. As of 5 days ago of course that franchise is no longer in operation so whether or not that agreement remains is open to question.

The drivers there however have no DOO agreement in their contracts and aren't likely to accept one without a fight. And I suspect the Welsh assembly have even less energy for that fight right now than Westminster does, especially as they were one of the groups that pushed for no DOO in the original franchise.

Tfw publicly stated there would be NO DOO on any heavy rail / Mainline train.

Note the heavy rail / Mainline, not metro / TramTrain services...

Same for GWR - was DOO ever really a realistic possibility? I assume what unites the two was the introduction of class 800/801s.

GWR DOO was a very real proposal on the West services with the introduction of Class 165 & 166 units, now fitted with bodyside cctv.

 

[craigybagel]

Tfw publicly stated there would be NO DOO on any heavy rail / Mainline train.

Note the heavy rail / Mainline, not metro / TramTrain services...

Indeed they did, and they may well want to go DOO on the Valleys - but as I mentioned earlier in the thread, it might not necessarily be that easy to do.