• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

RMT DOO Dispute on West Midlands Trains

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
31 Jul 2010
Messages
359
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

TH172341

Member
Joined
22 Aug 2010
Messages
392
Not surprised this has occured and seems to have goalpost shifting after the April 2018 statement but that is all I will say. I would have thought the 172/2 and /3s would be a challenge to do. Seem to remember comments before that space is at a premium in there and that the proposed driver advisory screen never got used due to reflective sunlight issues. Also a challenge on the Stratford line with request stops. Hence I suspect this is more to do with the New Street services,WCML and Cross City lines.
 

RPI

Established Member
Joined
6 Dec 2010
Messages
2,742
That's a TOC policy and not all TOCs operate it, as I understand it (in particular there is not "at least one competent member of staff in each unit" of a 12-car 319 formation - there are only two members of staff and there are three units). But in any case, Class 350s do have through gangways.
Beat me to it, certainly isn't in the rule book, GWR guards are allowed to work either set in a multiple formation with the exception of 10 car IET's which have to have a guard in one set and a lead host (or another guard/TE/RPI) in the other set, again this is a company agreement rather than a rulebook issue.
 

Carlisle

Established Member
Joined
26 Aug 2012
Messages
4,124
Beat me to it, certainly isn' GWR guards are allowed to work either set in a multiple formation with the exception of 10 car IET's which have to have a guard in one set and a lead host (or another guard/TE/RPI) in the other set, again this is a company agreement rather than a rulebook issue.
That’s identical to the long-standing agreement that applies to the Voyager family units when operating in multiple.
 

virgintrain1

Member
Joined
29 Jul 2011
Messages
207
That’s identical to the long-standing agreement that applies to the Voyager family units when operating in multiple.

On Voyagers the TM can technically switch between sets as long as there is a Retail Service Manager in both sets. If just 1 RSM they must go in the front and TM in the back.
 

Chrisgr31

Established Member
Joined
2 Aug 2011
Messages
1,675
Beat me to it, certainly isn't in the rule book, GWR guards are allowed to work either set in a multiple formation with the exception of 10 car IET's which have to have a guard in one set and a lead host (or another guard/TE/RPI) in the other set, again this is a company agreement rather than a rulebook issue.

On the Southern 171s the guards travel in whichever unit puts them in the place to operate the doors at each station. As the trains are made up of 4 and 2 car units it can vary a bit.
 

Class 170101

Established Member
Joined
1 Mar 2014
Messages
7,909
OK, there are the 230s, which I guess would be easy enough to fit, though realistically the Marston Vale will always have a second member of crew for revenue collection otherwise it might as well be free.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Marston Vale service group moved to EWR for operation there and that will see the demise of the 230s.
 

pompeyfan

Established Member
Joined
24 Jan 2012
Messages
4,181
I understand the 350s are to be retrofitted with cameras (though I don't think any have been done yet) and DfT policy is for all new units to be so fitted. I guess that just leaves Classes 170 (are any staying?) and 172 which could presumably also be retrofitted? Have I missed any stock that WMT will have by the end of the franchise? If not, all routes does seem technically viable at least.

OK, there are the 230s, which I guess would be easy enough to fit, though realistically the Marston Vale will always have a second member of crew for revenue collection otherwise it might as well be free.

I would be very much surprised if the 350s are retrofitted as the cab is very cramped similar to the other desiros. There is literally nowhere to put the screens.
 

RPI

Established Member
Joined
6 Dec 2010
Messages
2,742
On Voyagers the TM can technically switch between sets as long as there is a Retail Service Manager in both sets. If just 1 RSM they must go in the front and TM in the back.
Likewise with IET's, the guard can be in either set (except for certain short platforms) as long as a competent person is in the other set.
 

RPI

Established Member
Joined
6 Dec 2010
Messages
2,742
As for DMU's on GWR the guard can be in either set with no competent person in the other set, except for some short platforms.
 

scrapy

Established Member
Joined
15 Dec 2008
Messages
2,081
That is probably correct however the RMT policy and what they argue for has now changed. As well as a Guard being guaranteed on every train they will also not accept an agreement which relinquishes any part of the door operation to the driver.
Do you have any evidence to back this up? As far as I'm aware RMT are currently in meaningful negotiations with both Northern and TPE regarding driver open, guard close method of work where conditions and stock are suitable.
 

virgintrain1

Member
Joined
29 Jul 2011
Messages
207
Why bother? Why would you want a lengthy dispute that will damage the brand? What TOC looked at Arriva Northern and thought, well that went well (and that was a franchise commitment).

The remaining franchise length also plays a factor in the TOC seeing any real financial gains. (Attached image of a document from the RSSB looking at the financial savings of DOO)

This of course is before the usual pro and anti DOO arguments that we are not going into.

IMG_20190922_115408.jpg
 
Last edited:

Meerkat

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2018
Messages
7,420
Likewise with IET's, the guard can be in either set (except for certain short platforms) as long as a competent person is in the other set.

What is a competent person, is it different from what makes a guard ‘safety critical’?
 

Dave1987

On Moderation
Joined
20 Oct 2012
Messages
4,563
What is a competent person, is it different from what makes a guard ‘safety critical’?

A competent person is someone trained and examined in the rules that apply to their role. Whatever name you give their role a competent person is clearly defined.
 

Meerkat

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2018
Messages
7,420
A competent person is someone trained and examined in the rules that apply to their role. Whatever name you give their role a competent person is clearly defined.

In this instance they are not performing their main role, they are being competent to be on their own in a unit. Is that the safety critical bit of being a guard, or a much lower level?
 

Dave1987

On Moderation
Joined
20 Oct 2012
Messages
4,563
In this instance they are not performing their main role, they are being competent to be on their own in a unit. Is that the safety critical bit of being a guard, or a much lower level?

Guard/train manager/conductor it doesn’t matter what the role is called, to be a “competent person” they will be trained and examined in rules that apply to what their job entails. A competent person is someone who is trained to a certain standard and is on a competency management system to maintain that competence. I am not familiar with exactly what is going on in this instance but the definition of a competent person is as I have described.
 

RPI

Established Member
Joined
6 Dec 2010
Messages
2,742
What is a competent person, is it different from what makes a guard ‘safety critical’?
I think others beat me to it, but in terms of the GWR IET'S certain grades receive basic training for doing "Front Set Lead" (FSL) or "Lead Host" (LH) most customer hosts are now LH trained, initially Ticket Examiners and RPI'S were used for this and can be used for this duty now, the training is very basic but covers the use of ramps, resetting the call for aid buttons, using the Intercom to communicate with the Guard, location of emergency equipment etc.
 

RPI

Established Member
Joined
6 Dec 2010
Messages
2,742
If there is none of the above available, or indeed a 2nd guard then one set must be locked out of use, again this isn't a rulebook requirement but simply a TOC agreement. Yet ironically IET's are used DOO on some routes.
 

Meerkat

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2018
Messages
7,420
I think others beat me to it, but in terms of the GWR IET'S certain grades receive basic training for doing "Front Set Lead" (FSL) or "Lead Host" (LH) most customer hosts are now LH trained, initially Ticket Examiners and RPI'S were used for this and can be used for this duty now, the training is very basic but covers the use of ramps, resetting the call for aid buttons, using the Intercom to communicate with the Guard, location of emergency equipment etc.

Thank you, that is much more helpful. So they can’t cover all the safety critical work of a guard?
 

Starmill

Veteran Member
Fares Advisor
Joined
18 May 2012
Messages
23,224
Location
Bolton
I find it fascinating how the railway industry has developed in a way that makes it so susceptible to long-term industrial disputes. The unique combination of fudged government-contracted private operator effectively makes it almost inevitable.

For example, in the public sector, the government is a monopsonist (the only buyer of labour), so if there's a dispute about the same thing that isn't resolved again and again, eventually they'll just impose the changes themselves and make everyone sign a new contract. That's exactly what happened with the junior doctors for example.

In the private sector however, Union leaders usually have some regard for the commercial interest of the company during a dispute. The British Airways strike has effectively been called off because it has cost the company too much at reputation level. If most companies faced the level of disruption Northern and GTR did, there would be a risk they would go out of business, either because they've run out of money in the short term or because their brand has become too damaged by comparison with their competitors in the long term.

This leads to the sort of bizarre situation we have here, where a dispute is recurring without any apparent consensus on the way forward, but an apparent quasi-unlimited threat exists to the business' commercial position as a result of industrial action.

To put it another way, as a result of the 90s privatisation, the government has lost control over the terms of employment contracts, but they've still retained an overall responsibility to protect the service delivery from shutdown by insolvency or termination at the firm running the trains today. Essentially this is a form of free insurance provided by the taxpayer, and by extension a state guarantee of permanent employment positions.

This is being repeated across the industry with varying outcomes, but with a relatively slow pace of change and little satisfaction from anybody. I can't believe I haven't quite understood it this way previously.

Taken to its logical conclusion, this line of reasoning implies only two ways out unless mutual agreement can be found:

- The government could impose new employment contracts on all railway employees, either through nationalisation or some other vehicle

- Loss-making routes hit by industrial action could be threatened with closure, either on a temporary basis until the dispute is resolved, or permanently

Increasingly I'm wondering if both of these ought not to be on the table, unpalatable and extreme as they both are? The alternative might be the continuation of the current disputes over and over, nationally. Eventually, the question might be over what causes less damage to the business position.

Those on these boards itching to ditch some of the least economically and socially useful services in the country might like to take note. I have to say that I personally think that this would be the worst possible outcome.

I will also pose the question that many people who hold such contracts will doubtless despise me for: should the state continue to provide effectively unlimited free insurance for the existence of the overall quantum of railway jobs, without any real oversight as to the pay and terms these offer? Of course, when taking into account the role the state played in setting up the current market, one might justifiably argue they should.
 
Last edited:

Dave1987

On Moderation
Joined
20 Oct 2012
Messages
4,563
Thank you, that is much more helpful. So they can’t cover all the safety critical work of a guard?

I’m sorry but your original question was “what is a competent person”, and that is what I explained. You can rename a role to your hearts content, which is what happens often with modern management, but to be a competent person you must be trained to a certain standard.
 

387star

On Moderation
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
6,653
The OBS role on southern is now around two years old
trains that should have an OBS on my commute do appear to
 

Journeyman

Established Member
Joined
16 Apr 2014
Messages
6,295
From another post:

4. Presently, the new traction WMT has ordered will be wired for conventional operation but at present does not have door panels on the design stage.


Isn't thst the crux of the issue. These units are ordered and paid for, to a set specification, laid out above...

You want to change that specification? Hmmm. *sucks air through teeth*

ScotRail specified the 385s without saloon door control panels. Having to put them in to appease the RMT cost someone (not sure who paid for it) five million quid.
 

Meerkat

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2018
Messages
7,420
I’m sorry but your original question was “what is a competent person”, and that is what I explained. You can rename a role to your hearts content, which is what happens often with modern management, but to be a competent person you must be trained to a certain standard.

I know what competent means! I was clearly interested in what made these particular people, with different roles and therefore different role competencies, competent to be alone in a unit. Specifically whether they have the ‘safety critical’ competencies of a guard.
 

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
29,182
Location
Fenny Stratford
This seems to have somewhat appeared right out of the blue?

Informed passengers have known this is coming although it hasn't been public until now

I wouldn't be surprised if the Marston Vale service group moved to EWR for operation there and that will see the demise of the 230s.

They seem determined NOT to do that. They say that there isnt enough capacity in the diesel fleet to cover it.

I can confirm it's on all routes.

ALL routes? Are we sure?
 

pompeyfan

Established Member
Joined
24 Jan 2012
Messages
4,181
Can anyone confirm the whispers that new entrants to OBS grade are effectively only on a 12 month contract or is that nonsense? Whether or not Govia initially wanted the role to stick around, the nay sayers seem to have got it wrong, even if I 100% don’t agree with the method itself.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top