RMT Industrial Action - EMR

[Hadders]

12 car 365s which have no inter connecting gangways operated non-stop between Kings Cross and Cambridge for years, going back to British Rail days I believe. Only a driver on board as they are DOO.

 

[dk1]

12 car 365s which have no inter connecting gangways operated non-stop between Kings Cross and Cambridge for years, going back to British Rail days I believe. Only a driver on board as they are DOO.

That really makes no odds though. Very different manning agreements on differing routes.

 

[nanstallon]

It is all very well saying RMT is looking after its members, and has no wider responsibility, but their behaviour is destroying public confidence in the railways. They have presumably got golden handshakes lined up for their members if they are made redundant.

 

[43096]

That really makes no odds though. Very different manning agreements on differing routes.

It means it's clearly not about safety, though. if it was then they'd be in dispute on every TOC that operates the same way.

 

[Bevan Price]

How many 360s is EMR getting ?
There will be 37 Class 350/2 going spare in a year or so. That would soon remove any "difficulties" about lack of gangways.

 

[dk1]

How many 360s is EMR getting ?
There will be 37 Class 350/2 going spare in a year or so. That would soon remove any "difficulties" about lack of gangways.

All 21.

 

[Bald Rick]

Any concession made here to 'be reasonable' will almost inevitable cost them further down the road, it's a slippery slope.

It isn’t a slippery slope at all, that makes it sound like agreeing to anything new will lead to doom and gloom. This is about agreeing to something that is accepted practice all over the network, and has been for over a century. The RMT often argues for equal arrangements across TOCs - and yet when one is proposed they don’t want it ?

12 car 365s which have no inter connecting gangways operated non-stop between Kings Cross and Cambridge for years, going back to British Rail days I believe. Only a driver on board as they are DOO.

10/12 car EMUs have been running around without interconnecting gangways and one driver / one guard for as long as anyone here can remember. The LSWR was running 3 units in multiple without connecting gangways in 1916.

That really makes no odds though.

I’m afraid it does, because agreements can be changed. If, as suggested above, the RMT believe it is unsafe on EMR, then they need to explain what exactly is unsafe about it, when it is perfectly accepted practice elsewhere; and therefore why they believe it should not be changed. Otherwise, frankly, they look stupid.

 

[dk1]

I’m afraid it does, because agreements can be changed. If, as suggested above, the RMT believe it is unsafe on EMR, then they need to explain what exactly is unsafe about it, when it is perfectly accepted practice elsewhere; and therefore why they believe it should not be changed. Otherwise, frankly, they look stupid.

No it doesn’t. That’s like saying DOO is used Liverpool St-Ipswich so it can be used through to Norwich too. Doesn’t work like that & the comparison was Kings X to Cambridge which is an even worse comparison with the MML.

 

[the sniper]

It isn’t a slippery slope at all, that makes it sound like agreeing to anything new will lead to doom and gloom. This is about agreeing to something that is accepted practice all over the network, and has been for over a century. The RMT often argues for equal arrangements across TOCs - and yet when one is proposed they don’t want it ?

On what grounds would you defend 2 TMs on 2x222 if you've conceded 1 TM on 2x360? Presumably you wouldn't, hence why you can casually agree to that. The last statement is just daft. Why don't they accept DOO on that logic... If anything you highlight the issue, once something has been conceded somewhere, it becomes harder to defend the same thing elsewhere. One 'helpful' Company Council in one TOC can give away everything, does that mean every other TOC CC should concede the same ground?

Usually agreeing to anything, on both sides, does lead to doom and gloom, for somebody...

 

[Bald Rick]

No it doesn’t. That’s like saying DOO is used Liverpool St-Ipswich so it can be used through to Norwich too.

I’m very specifically and carefully not opening a DOO discussion!

My point is that - yes there are different agreements, but they can be changed. If one side doesn’t want to change them, it needs to explain why. And if those reasons are not given, or do not stand up to logic, then it needs calling out.

On what grounds would you defend 2 TMs on 2x222 if you've conceded 1 TM on 2x360?

Personally I wouldn’t, as it’s a nonsense. But this isn’t about 1TM on 2 x 360s it’s about 1TM on 3x360s, which aren’t running. The RMT is asking, sorry instructing, it’s members to strike about an issue that isn’t actually affecting them.

 

[dk1]

I’m very specifically and carefully not opening a DOO discussion!

Probably for the best. This goes around & around & around…

 

[David Burrows]

12 car 360s worked in perfect safety in DOO mode on GE main line from the time they were introduced until they were transferred to MML recently, so how come it is, after all these years, now a problem with not only a driver but a conductor as well. When they were out of the area for DOO working as 12 cars on GE they had one guard/conductor, call it what you will. Yet another dispute dug up somehow for unions to get excited over. Sounds like any excuse for a strike again.

 

[the sniper]

Personally I wouldn’t, as it’s a nonsense.

I'm not sure you'd get re-elected.

But this isn’t about 1TM on 2 x 360s it’s about 1TM on 3x360s, which aren’t running.

Nothing for the operator to lose in coming to an agreement then.

 

[O L Leigh]

The RMT is asking, sorry instructing, it’s members to strike about an issue that isn’t actually affecting them.

I say this for the benefit of others because I believe you already know this. No union “instructs” it’s members to strike. It can recommend that they take this course, but the decision to take disruptive action is subject to a ballot of the membership. If strikes have been called this is due to the will of the members.

Besides, we’re all getting bogged down in details and comparisons that aren’t actually pertinent. EMR have an agreement with their staff about the level of staffing on non-gangway units running in multiple and are now proposing a method of working for 12 car Cl360s that is outside of that agreement. Clearly they have failed to reach a new agreement (or perhaps EMR have simply failed to consult at all) and so the two sides are at an impasse. Either a method of working is accepted or it isn’t, but where such agreements exist it is not for either side to vary the terms as they see fit without the agreement of the other. Whether we think that the situation is ludicrous or not really doesn’t matter.

 

[whoosh]

One of the issues with Class 222 Meridians as I remember, was that a 'panic button' was provided in the buffet in case a Custoner Host was being attacked or robbed etc. This was basically a variation on the 'call for aid' in disabled areas/toilets.
Call for aids only sounded in the saloon, for the Train Manager to deal with, not the Driver's cab (which I believe happened on Voyagers - MML Driver's reps objected to 'call for aids' sounding in cabs as being a distraction, so only a passcomm would sound in a cab).

This could lead to the scenario of a Customer Host in the leading set being attacked and pressing the 'panic button', the Train Manger in the rear set responding, but then being unable to contact the driver until the panic button was reset (which wouldn't be a priority of the Customer Host being attacked). The train would in the meantime be continuing on it's merry way...

So a second Train Manager was argued for, for the front set.

If that's right, what I remember being told at the time, then the design and specification of the units was the underlying issue, and also explains a little why Voyagers weren't subject to the same industrial relations problems and resolutions.


In the future, RMT members will quite possibly be going to be subjected to redundancies when Hitachi trains arrive (if their communications handsets are set up differently), as the company can argue a second Train Manager isn't needed.
A completely unstaffed unit on EMR doesn't currently happen, but if it came in on 12 car 360s, then the company can play the 'precedent has been set' card, and RMT member's jobs will be definitely under threat.

The RMT are trying to protect their jobs, sometimes people win when that happens by the employer making concessions, sometimes (like Gatemen on the tube when sliding doors came along, and then the second, front Guard, on the tube, when the 'louaphone' communication with the Driver came along) it doesn't.

 

[swt_passenger]

How many 360s is EMR getting ?

They’ve already got them, it’s all happened months ago...

 

[O L Leigh]

If that's right, what I remember being told at the time, then the design and specification of the units was the underlying issue, and also explains a little why Voyagers weren't subject to the same industrial relations problems and resolutions.

I'm unsure of the parallel with Voyagers as I'm unsure of the technical distinctions between them and Meridians.

However, on XC at least, you need one TM per set. If you don't have that then the unstaffed set must be locked out of use.

 

[43066]

In the future, RMT members will quite possibly be going to be subjected to redundancies when Hitachi trains arrive (if their communications handsets are set up differently), as the company can argue a second Train Manager isn't needed.
A completely unstaffed unit on EMR doesn't currently happen, but if it came in on 12 car 360s, then the company can play the 'precedent has been set' card, and RMT member's jobs will be definitely under threat.

I’m sure that is a concern in the minds of some.

Albeit worth remembering the vast majority of 222 operations are single units, so to the extent these are replaced by a double 810 there won’t be a reduction in TMs even if there’s only one per train rather than per unit.

 

[Taunton]

Well it seems the solution is to run only 8-car sets, and have passengers squashed in the aisles or unable to get on.

 

[Failed Unit]

Well it seems the solution is to run only 8-car sets, and have passengers squashed in the aisles or unable to get on.

With current loadings. The only time I can see them needing 12 coaches is if Thameslink is dead.

 

[Killingworth]

Interesting that WMR went for new through corridor DMU and EMU stock. Sensible move that other operators might regret not making with RMT disputes like this one breaking out across the land.

As a traveller I'd prefer such an arrangement. It helps to even out loadings, must make revenue protection a lot easier, and assists any staff to patrol the entire train while on the move. Being in the portion of a train with no access to staff makes a mockery of repeated onboard exhortations to contact a member of staff if something's not right.

As an aside it's also interesting that RMT has a fairly newly elected General Secretary. In his position it's not surprising for hard lines to be taken, especially in the early month's.

 

[Bletchleyite]

About time we increased DOO.

"Well, if you won't do what guards did and do on lots of other routes, then we'll go DOO" - quite compelling. 319s on the WCML operate 12 car formations with only one guard.

 

[DB]

Interesting that WMR went for new through corridor DMU and EMU stock. Sensible move that other operators might regret not making with RMT disputes like this one breaking out across the land.

Northern ordering 2-car units without gangways (195s) seemed particularly illogical.

 

[Killingworth]

Northern ordering 2-car units without gangways (195s) seemed particularly illogical.

Quite! And operating 150/2s and 150/1 in multiple rather than pairing 150/2 units to permit walk through seems perverse.

 

[Bletchleyite]

You say "They clearly think that it is not reasonable to change an agreement to reflect the progress that has been made with other companies". On that basis you'd agree to one TM on any 360x2 or x3, because it's done elsewhere. Well, now you've agreed that, you haven't got a leg to stand on defending 2 TMs on 222x2.

Good. There is no need for that either. One is fine, the driver is in the other one.

Northern ordering 2-car units without gangways (195s) seemed particularly illogical.

I agree in principle given that they always intended to operate the 2-car sets in pairs, but this is silly and counter to how other parts of the railway already operate.

As a traveller I'd prefer such an arrangement. It helps to even out loadings, must make revenue protection a lot easier, and assists any staff to patrol the entire train while on the move. Being in the portion of a train with no access to staff makes a mockery of repeated onboard exhortations to contact a member of staff if something's not right.

No, it doesn't, as most if not all post-BR stock has passcoms rather than alarm handles, so you can contact a member of staff from any vestibule in the train, you do not need to be in the same portion as them to do so.

 

[24Grange]

"Well, if you won't do what guards did and do on lots of other routes, then we'll go DOO" - quite compelling. 319s on the WCML operate 12 car formations with only one guard.

Indeed - Thameslink through Baldock only have the driver on board. No other staff. They used to do Ticket inspectors or what ever the PC word is them these days, but since covid they have all disappeared.

 

[whoosh]

However, on XC at least, you need one TM per set. If you don't have that then the unstaffed set must be locked out of use.

Ah, thanks for that. I thought they only had 1 TM. That is the same as MML/EMT/EMR then.

Personally I wouldn’t, as it’s a nonsense. But this isn’t about 1TM on 2 x 360s it’s about 1TM on 3x360s, which aren’t running. The RMT is asking, sorry instructing, it’s members to strike about an issue that isn’t actually affecting them.

Until the morning when the timetable changes and a 12 car comes out of the sidings for the service to London. Then the TM has the awkwardness of refusing to work it - parallels with 12 car Gatwick Express DOO! A resolution should be negotiated before that happens ideally.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Indeed - Thameslink through Baldock only have the driver on board. No other staff. They used to do Ticket inspectors or what ever the PC word is them these days, but since covid they have all disappeared.

To be fair Thameslink operate units where the driver can walk through the whole set without going on the ballast. But in 319 days they couldn't.

Until the morning when the timetable changes and a 12 car comes out of the sidings for the service to London. Then the TM has the awkwardness of refusing to work it - parallels with 12 car Gatwick Express DOO! A resolution should be negotiated before that happens ideally.

Well, we know how that was solved. And with DfT wanting cost cutting and being in favour of DOO, these guards really should be careful of what they are doing here, otherwise they'll be OBS before long.

 

[Killingworth]

No, it doesn't, as most if not all post-BR stock has passcoms rather than alarm handles, so you can contact a member of staff from any vestibule in the train, you do not need to be in the same portion as them to do so.

In practice I'd suggest the majority of passengers encountering a difficulty today would be more likely to wait for the next station, use their phone or send a tweet! The option of quietly moving to another carriage is what most would try to do to avoid potential conflict.

 

[dk1]

About time we increased DOO.

Isn’t there some sort of agreement with ASLEF on no further extension of DOO on the network & hence why no further routes have been added (as far as I am aware) for many moons.