RMT DOO Dispute on West Midlands Trains

[Robertj21a]

So, in essence, we're partly back to the old chestnut - how is it that 12-coach trains have routinely operated DOO through London for very many years without serious problems arising ?

 

[Bletchleyite]

And we all know how that works out. They'll then say "oh, trains can run if needs be without a OBS/TE as the driver will be able to control the doors" and from there it's a slippery slope.

That's what I thought the Southern OBS would be - but it seems to be a success as a role in its own right, even if it's a slightly odd one, and doesn't look like it'll go anywhere any time soon.

 

[bussnapperwm]

So, in essence, we're partly back to the old chestnut - how is it that 12-coach trains have routinely operated DOO through London for very many years without serious problems arising ?

I like how you ignore incidents such as the FCC one near Kentish Town West from back in May 2011 and similar in your DOO support.

 

[Silverlinky]

I like how you ignore incidents such as the FCC one near Kentish Town West from back in May 2011 and similar in your DOO support.

Eight years ago? How many incidents have there been WITH guards still on the train? Kentish Town v Liverpool James Street...both in 2011.

There are no plans to run trains DOO on WMT.......and even if there are, at some point in the future its the DFT who ultimately decides whats what.

The DFT let out the new WMT franchise with a commitment to DCO (or a form of) in it.......this is not "company driven" but is in fact "government driven"..... people seem to be losing sight of that.

WMT are trying to implement what they have been told to implement as per the original franchise spec and subsequent bid.

 

[Robertj21a]

I like how you ignore incidents such as the FCC one near Kentish Town West from back in May 2011 and similar in your DOO support.

We've been over all this a thousand times in, I think, the Southern/DOO thread. Anyone can always go and search out a particular case from many years ago and try to justify their cause by emphasising its importance - even so, it has to be calculated against the sheer number of such DOO trips, volume of passengers being carried etc etc.

 

[Silverlinky]

https://www.aslef.org.uk/visageimag...issionsandreports/ASLEFwestmidlandstrains.pdf

Going back to 2016...long (18 months) before Abellio were awarded the franchise......

 

[Starmill]

That's what I thought the Southern OBS would be - but it seems to be a success as a role in its own right, even if it's a slightly odd one, and doesn't look like it'll go anywhere any time soon.

They look massively lucrative to me. GTR have advertised them at salary £35k rising to £37k, plus sale commission. Presumably some overtime is also available, and that's before we come to profit sharing scheme, free travel benefit and the Railway Pension.

Or to put it another way they're paid more than many guards, but they don't have the legal duty that guards with a safety critical brief do. This means that their work is less risky.

This isn't the thread for it, but it's quite questionable if the OBS staff represent value for money compared to guards at, say, EMR Regional.

 

[Robertj21a]

They look massively lucrative to me. GTR have advertised them at salary £35k rising to £37k, plus sale commission. Presumably some overtime is also available, and that's before we come to profit sharing scheme, free travel benefit and the Railway Pension.

Or to put it another way they're paid more than many guards, but they don't have the legal duty that guards with a safety critical brief do. This means that their work is less risky.

This isn't the thread for it, but it's quite questionable if the OBS staff represent value for money compared to guards at, say, EMR Regional.

Any reason for choosing EMR Regional ? -it seems a strange comparison when Southern OBS are often on the trunk London routes from Sussex etc.

 

[Starmill]

Any reason for choosing EMR Regional ? -it seems a strange comparison when Southern OBS are often on the trunk London routes from Sussex etc.

Not really, I could have also chosen Transport for Wales and maybe a handful of others. I was choosing an example of where the guard can be relied upon to actually interact with passengers wherever there's an opportunity to do so. Hull Trains for example would certainly also fit the bill, but I wasn't sure if their guards are paid less than the figures from the ad quoted.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

They look massively lucrative to me. GTR have advertised them at salary £35k rising to £37k, plus sale commission. Presumably some overtime is also available, and that's before we come to profit sharing scheme, free travel benefit and the Railway Pension.

Or to put it another way they're paid more than many guards, but they don't have the legal duty that guards with a safety critical brief do. This means that their work is less risky.

This isn't the thread for it, but it's quite questionable if the OBS staff represent value for money compared to guards at, say, EMR Regional.

I have made the point previously that there really needs to be a complete review of the whole concept of DOO on the national network which would consider not just the safety aspects but also the financial and the customer service aspects. As such it would be essential for local passenger groups to be involved in such a review. I wonder to what extent the OBS pay rates mentioned were influenced by the need to ensure proper accessibility to rail services for all passengers by guaranteeing a second member of staff on all trains with enhanced pay helping to improve staff retention. Given the costs of making routes DOO-compatible and the fact that GTR drivers also received a generous pay rise it seems that from a purely cost POV it would have been better to have never pursued implementation of DOO in the first place! Is anybody learning any lessons from all this?!

 

[OxtedSignaller]

They look massively lucrative to me. GTR have advertised them at salary £35k rising to £37k, plus sale commission. Presumably some overtime is also available, and that's before we come to profit sharing scheme, free travel benefit and the Railway Pension.

Or to put it another way they're paid more than many guards, but they don't have the legal duty that guards with a safety critical brief do. This means that their work is less risky.

This isn't the thread for it, but it's quite questionable if the OBS staff represent value for money compared to guards at, say, EMR Regional.

The cost of living is higher in the South of England and also OBS pay and working weeks includes Sunday as part of the working week. They are paid more a less the regional average for other TOCs including their owns Conductors.

 

[Starmill]

The cost of living is higher in the South of England and also OBS pay and working weeks includes Sunday as part of the working week. They are paid more a less the regional average for other TOCs including their owns Conductors.

Wouldn't you expect there to be a small premium for the safety critical nature of the work of a guard?

 

[Starmill]

I have made the point previously that there really needs to be a complete review of the whole concept of DOO on the national network which would consider not just the safety aspects but also the financial and the customer service aspects.

I agree. I think that, at the moment, value for money and customer care quality are both being overlooked, in favour of the same old debate along the same old lines about who is in control of what. It will probably not come as a surprise that I am almost as interested in both good value for money and good quality customer care as I am in safety standards.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

I agree. I think that, at the moment, value for money and customer care quality are both being overlooked, in favour of the same old debate along the same old lines about who is in control of what. It will probably not come as a surprise that I am almost as interested in both good value for money and good quality customer care as I am in safety standards.

Which is why I believe passenger groups need to have more say in such discussions. And by that I do mean local groups, who are far more likely to have real world experience of rail travel, rather than national bodies, who far too often know little about the trials and tribulations that are part of the rail travel experience across far too much of the network currently.

 

[Robertj21a]

Wouldn't you expect there to be a small premium for the safety critical nature of the work of a guard?

Not really. So many services have operated perfectly well as DOO that it must put into doubt whether those 'safety critical' issues are really so critical to the safe operation of the railways. The whole issue tends to get a bit clouded by the RMT insistence on doors.....doors....doors......

 

[pompeyfan]

Just a gentle nudge this isn’t a DOO thread.... it’s all been done to death.

 

[Robertj21a]

Just a gentle nudge this isn’t a DOO thread.... it’s all been done to death.

Sort of fair comment - but the heading suggests that this is indeed a DOO thread !

 

[pompeyfan]

Sort of fair comment - but the heading suggests that this is indeed a DOO thread !

fair point but the rules for this post on page 1 explicitly state this thread isn’t to be used as a generic DOO/OBS/Guard pro/con thread.. as someone mentioned previously, it’s the railway version of Brexit, we all have our opinions and heated debates aren’t going to change people’s perspectives of the methods of operations.

 

[Sprinter107]

Maybe the opinions of the drivers who will have to work any such trains should be taken into consideration.

 

[ComUtoR]

Maybe the opinions of the drivers who will have to work any such trains should be taken into consideration.

DOO - Bad
DCO - Acceptable

 

[43066]

DOO - Bad
DCO - Acceptable

From a driver’s perspective, wouldn’t you rather have a guard dispatching you?

 

[NoMorePacers]

From a driver’s perspective, wouldn’t you rather have a guard dispatching you?

For all we know, he might do. But I assume he means that he'll just accept doing the doors if there's still a second person for customer service duties.

 

[ComUtoR]

From a driver’s perspective, wouldn’t you rather have a guard dispatching you?

For all we know, he might do. But I assume he means that he'll just accept doing the doors if there's still a second person for customer service duties.

DOO is bad, stupid, and poor for both the passenger and operational side. However, the railway must adapt to the changing needs and changing environment. I am prepared to accept the traditional Guard/Driver way of working is a little bit antiquated and I'm prepared to accept that there have been significant technological advancements. But, we also have to admit that DOO doesn't work and that there have been various incident that highlight the downsides. Passengers do want someone to provide customer service, ticketing, revenue, security etc. There has to be someone who can assess the reasons why there are delays and there has to be someone who can provide additional assistance in an emergency. The doors are a bit of a red herring tbh and all sides need to move on from that debate.

I've worked Metro/Mainline Guards/DOO/Driver open, Guard close and an element of DCO and I can say that working with a Guard is the best option operationally and has a significant impact on my day. If that Guard was reduced to being a second member and DOO was increased to have a second member of staff I really believe that is the way forward.

I would also like ALL stations to be staffed from the first to the last train like LO has. This again has a benefit for both passenger and staff.

The RMT does have one thing right and shouldn't waiver from that position. Staff should be well trained. That is the only way they can support each other. A second member of staff who doesn't have any skills or reasonable training is a burden and can be detrimental.

The entire DOO debate is about money. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[43066]

I can say that working with a Guard is the best option operationally and has a significant impact on my day.

If that Guard was reduced to being a second member and DOO was increased to have a second member of staff I really believe that is the way forward.

The above statements seem a little contradictory.

Personally, having driven both DOO and guarded trains, I’d always rather work with a guard.

In my view it’s regrettable that both of the main railway unions have sold out for DOO in the past. The entire debate has become a bit of a joke!

 

[ElectroSoldier]

Yep.
Its all about the TOCs trying to reap more profit from the revenues by dropping safety standards. In this case removing safety staff.

 

[Dave1987]

Not really. So many services have operated perfectly well as DOO that it must put into doubt whether those 'safety critical' issues are really so critical to the safe operation of the railways. The whole issue tends to get a bit clouded by the RMT insistence on doors.....doors....doors......

Actually issues with new trains have meant other TOCs have been grateful that guards have kept safety critical competencies. As much as the RMT are not good at communicating their points it has certainly benefited other TOCs to retain guards training to a certain standards. I know that probably doesn’t go with your ideology but it is the truth. DFT have actually been saved by the RMT's insistence elsewhere.

 

[Mag_seven]

I would also like ALL stations to be staffed from the first to the last train like LO has.

In an urban environment yes, but rural halts with just three trains a day?

 

[ComUtoR]

The above statements seem a little contradictory.

Personally, having driven both DOO and guarded trains, I’d always rather work with a guard.

Personally, I'd have a Guard every time. Hence my use of 'acceptable' DOO sucks and I really don't like it. A second staff member is an upgrade. I am just at a point in this entire debate where I see the benefits of both side and that the way forward for everyone is to compromise at DCO. Staff remain employed, trains have 2 people and both operational and passenger sides are supported. That, as the RMT rightfully espouses. Staff MUST be well trained. If dispatch is degraded then the second member of staff can step in and assist. They can act as a competent person, they can help and assist in an emergency. Yes, that means that the second member of staff is basically still as qualified and trained as a Guard. Which is why I'd support DCO with trained staff.

We are digressing....

 

[ComUtoR]

In an urban environment yes, but rural halts with just three trains a day?

Yes. Staffed stations is a benefit for passengers. If I am out in the boonies and decide to take the train and rock up to the local station, I want a staff member there to assist me. If I was a lone female* then again, I'd want staff. Disabled (invisible or otherwise), reduced mobility, etc. I'd want staff there. I would say that having no staff at outlying stations is more of a risk because of the remote environment.

My kids get the train and I feel more at ease when they get on at a staffed platform than when they get off, in the dark, at their un-staffed one.

 

[Carlisle]

I have made the point previously that there really needs to be a complete review of the whole concept of DOO on the national network

That’s theoretically a good idea but in practice a complete waste of time given the RMTs position is currently so entrenched it couldn’t accept any verdict other than it being deemed unsafe & should be discontinued.