• 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 raises serious SWR safety breaches

Status
Not open for further replies.

emil

Member
Joined
15 Nov 2014
Messages
68
Location
Poole
Some issues reported from 8th November
https://www.rmt.org.uk/news/rmt-raises-serious-swr-safety-breaches/
RMT RAISES SERIOUS SWR SAFETY BREACHES


RMT raises serious safety breaches during South Western Railway strike action with regulator.

RAIL UNION RMT said today that it has written to the rail safety regular, the Office of Road and Rail, setting out a series of serious safety breaches during last week’s strike action on South Western Railway.
The incidents, which occured on Wednesday 8th November, all involve the use of poorly trained "contingency guards" in an effort to break the RMT strike action and highlight again how the safety regulator the ORR - which is funded to the tune of £2.3 million by South Western Railway co-owner, First Group - is failing ‎in its statutory duty to maintain public safety during industrial action.
The incidents highlighted by RMT in letters to the ORR are as follows;

The contingency Guard of the 1320 Waterloo-Woking (2F33) is reported to have given the Ready-To-Start on a red signal (WM191) at Wimbledon. This apparent breach is then compounded by the fact that:

1) The contingency guard reported this unsafe act retrospectively (i.e. after already having departed Wimbledon), when it is a strict requirement that guards must report such an act prior to continuing to work the train any further.

2) The signaller at Wimbledon was not made aware of this, which is very serious given the contingency guard concerned is alleging that an equipment failure (falsely lit off indicator) was responsible for their giving the RTS on red. Footage from the train concerned is still awaited, however footage obtained from other trains does not corroborate this and initial investigations have yet to show any faults with the equipment.

3) The contingency guard finished working their turn and went home without completing the necessary incident report forms. Again, a serious breach of rules which require all traincrew to complete and submit reports concerning safety breaches at or before the end of their duty.

• 2U21, 09:28 Waterloo to Windsor, the PUG activated the door panel early and prior to arrival at Wraysbury and Sunnymeads resulting in the train stopping short at the platform. Despite these incidents, which under normal circumstances would have led to our member’s dismissal. The PUG was allowed to continue because of it being a “minor training issue”.

• 05:14 service Waterloo to Guildford service arrived at a gulley platform 6/7 where doors were opened on both sides. Operational procedures are that even in gulley platforms doors should only be opened on one side.

• 1P39, 13:30 Waterloo to Portsmouth Harbour. A ready to start indication was given to the driver against a red at Petersfield.

• We have a report of the PUG leaving the Guards Operating Panel prior to departure and therefore failed to properly observe the platform in direct contravention of the rule book. I am awaiting further details on the time and service running number.

• We also have a report of another PUG opening the doors prior to arrival at Windsor. I am awaiting further details on the time and service running number.

• We also have a report of a manger despatching a train against a red signal at Waterloo while wearing limited PPE. I am awaiting further details on the time and service running number.

RMT General Secretary Mick Cash said;
"Once again this union is forced to raise a catalogue of serious safety breaches resulting from the dangerous use of fake guards during industrial action with the official safety regulator.

‎”RMT has warned repeatedly that the use of these ill-equipped individuals is a disaster waiting to happen and yet again the supposedly independent safety inspectorate have failed to act on those warnings.

“We now expect them to take this latest catalogue of incidents seriously and to act accordingly. "
ENDS

EDITORS NOTES:
Copies of RMT letters to ORR below:
Ian Prosser
HM Chief Inspector of Railways
ORR
One Kemble Street
London
WC2B 4AN

Dear Ian

SOUTHWESTERN RAILWAY – STRIKE DAY INCIDENTS

Following my letter of yesterday I have been given details of a further incident which needs investigating.

The contingency Guard of the 1320 Waterloo-Woking (2F33) is reported to have given the Ready-To-Start on a red signal (WM191) at Wimbledon. This apparent breach is then compounded by the fact that:

1) The contingency guard reported this unsafe act retrospectively (i.e. after already having departed Wimbledon), when it is a strict requirement that guards must report such an act prior to continuing to work the train any further.

2) The signaller at Wimbledon was not made aware of this, which is very serious given the contingency guard concerned is alleging that an equipment failure (falsely lit off indicator) was responsible for their giving the RTS on red. Footage from the train concerned is still awaited, however footage obtained from other trains does not corroborate this and initial investigations have yet to show any faults with the equipment.

3) The contingency guard finished working their turn and went home without completing the necessary incident report forms. Again, a serious breach of rules which require all traincrew to complete and submit reports concerning safety breaches at or before the end of their duty.

Please advise me of any action you intend to take in this regard.

Yours sincerely

Mick Cash
General Secretary

Ian Prosser
HM Chief Inspector of Railways
ORR
One Kemble Street
London
WC2B 4AN

Dear Ian

SOUTHWESTERN RAILWAY – STRIKE DAY INCIDENTS

You will be aware from our recent talks that Southwestern Railway put out a press release that ORR had “scrutinised” their operational plans for days on which our members were taking legitimate industrial action. You did indicate that you would not have used this word to describe your inspection of the company’s plans. You did however confirm to us that Southwestern had submitted their proposals for independent verification by a third-party entity.

You will therefore be surprised that there were a number of failures and incidents yesterday that as was the case with Greater Anglia lead us to question the validity and the safety of those plans in light of poor operational experience.

We have had the following incidents reported to us:

• 2U21, 09:28 Waterloo to Windsor, the PUG activated the door panel early and prior to arrival at Wraysbury and Sunnymeads resulting in the train stopping short at the platform. Despite these incidents, which under normal circumstances would have led to our member’s dismissal. The PUG was allowed to continue because of it being a “minor training issue”.

• 05:14 service Waterloo to Guildford service arrived at a gulley platform 6/7 where doors were opened on both sides. Operational procedures are that even in gulley platforms doors should only be opened on one side.

• 1P39, 13:30 Waterloo to Portsmouth Harbour. A ready to start indication was given to the driver against a red at Petersfield.

• We have a report of the PUG leaving the Guards Operating Panel prior to departure and therefore failed to properly observe the platform in direct contravention of the rule book. I am awaiting further details on the time and service running number.

• We also have a report of another PUG opening the doors prior to arrival at Windsor. I am awaiting further details on the time and service running number.

• We also have a report of a manger despatching a train against a red signal at Waterloo while wearing limited PPE. I am awaiting further details on the time and service running number.

No doubt your inspectors will investigate these incidents and come to the same conclusion that you have with other operators which seems to be that everything in the garden is rosy until we have another incident that might result in a more serious outcome before you finally step in to stops these shoddy working practices.

Yours sincerely

Mick Cash
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

adamello

Member
Joined
9 Nov 2016
Messages
230
again if the RMT aren't careful, this could easily read as, 'human element is likely to make errors and are compounded by paperwork"
 

Monty

Established Member
Joined
12 Jun 2012
Messages
2,349
While some may see this as simple RMT propaganda there is some merit to this if the claims prove to be correct. We as fully trained members of train crew are expected to report all operational incidents immediately and written reports to be filed by the end of the shift (in fact it's even easier now that you can do a report from an app provided on a company issued mobile). It's also worth pointing out, if there was even the slightest hind that they guard acted negligently (or were unfit to continue) they are taken off their booked turn and replaced. It's also quite right that in many of these incidents could end in the dismissal of said guard.
 

Moonshot

Established Member
Joined
10 Nov 2013
Messages
3,646
While some may see this as simple RMT propaganda there is some merit to this if the claims prove to be correct. We as fully trained members of train crew are expected to report all operational incidents immediately and written reports to be filed by the end of the shift (in fact it's even easier now that you can do a report from an app provided on a company issued mobile). It's also worth pointing out, if there was even the slightest hind that they guard acted negligently (or were unfit to continue) they are taken off their booked turn and replaced. It's also quite right that in many of these incidents could end in the dismissal of said guard.

How many fully trained guards have actually been taken off turns because of negligence? How many have been dismissed?
 

Monty

Established Member
Joined
12 Jun 2012
Messages
2,349
How many fully trained guards have actually been taken off turns because of negligence? How many have been dismissed?

More than you would think, I known several guards (and drivers for that matter) to be taken off turns because the powers that be suspected they were at fault. I've also known a number to be dismissed for various offences ranging from giving the ready to start against and failing to report it immediately (like the RMT has alleged a PUG/Contingency Guard has done) and opening doors on the wrong side. I'm not saying these people were dealt with unfairly but I fully expect a PUG to be held to the same standards as we are.
 

Moonshot

Established Member
Joined
10 Nov 2013
Messages
3,646
More than you would think, I known several guards (and drivers for that matter) to be taken off turns because the powers that be suspected they were at fault. I've also known a number to be dismissed for various offences ranging from giving the ready to start against and failing to report it immediately (like the RMT has alleged a PUG/Contingency Guard has done) and opening doors on the wrong side. I'm not saying these people were dealt with unfairly but I fully expect a PUG to be held to the same standards as we are.

I also know a number of guards who have given RTS against a red.......none of them were dismissed. And its right they are not dismissed.....because occasionally it happens.
 

adc82140

Established Member
Joined
10 May 2008
Messages
2,928
Dear Mick,

A lot of commuters, including myself, want to see the guard retained on all services. It gives us a sense of security in the event that something goes amiss, and they are the face of the TOC to the travelling public. However what I can't quite understand is firstly the tone of your press releases (fake guards etc.), and the lack of professionalism in dealing with the ORR, if that indeed is the real letter you sent. We are not nine year olds- for "fake guards", perhaps you could substitute the more grown up language of "people acting up in the role of guard that we believe not to be suitably trained". The last paragraph of your letter to Ian Prosser is quite beyond belief. How can you expect anyone to take you seriously? If my own trade union behaved like this I would be less than impressed. As a non rail employee, I can't presume to speak for anyone who works in the industry, but I think they deserve better than this.


A. Commuter.
 

Moonshot

Established Member
Joined
10 Nov 2013
Messages
3,646
Dear Mick,

A lot of commuters, including myself, want to see the guard retained on all services. It gives us a sense of security in the event that something goes amiss, and they are the face of the TOC to the travelling public. However what I can't quite understand is firstly the tone of your press releases (fake guards etc.), and the lack of professionalism in dealing with the ORR, if that indeed is the real letter you sent. We are not nine year olds- for "fake guards", perhaps you could substitute the more grown up language of "people acting up in the role of guard that we believe not to be suitably trained". The last paragraph of your letter to Ian Prosser is quite beyond belief. How can you expect anyone to take you seriously? If my own trade union behaved like this I would be less than impressed. As a non rail employee, I can't presume to speak for anyone who works in the industry, but I think they deserve better than this.


A. Commuter.


Just out of interest, would you be happy to see someone in uniform inside every train whether they were trained as a guard or not?
 

adc82140

Established Member
Joined
10 May 2008
Messages
2,928
Interesting question- as an enthusiast, I'd like them to be trained as a guard, because I know what they do and what their safety role is. However if I knew nothing about the railways, I'd be saying that anyone in uniform would do. This is where the RMT should be educating the travelling public (and the media) about the role of the guard that's not immediately obvious, rather than putting out silly press releases. They have a point with these incidents, but once again diluted it with rhetoric. I suppose at least no one was called a "basket case" or "fat cat" this time. We can be grateful for small mercies.
 

Moonshot

Established Member
Joined
10 Nov 2013
Messages
3,646
Interesting question- as an enthusiast, I'd like them to be trained as a guard, because I know what they do and what their safety role is. However if I knew nothing about the railways, I'd be saying that anyone in uniform would do. This is where the RMT should be educating the travelling public (and the media) about the role of the guard that's not immediately obvious, rather than putting out silly press releases. They have a point with these incidents, but once again diluted it with rhetoric. I suppose at least no one was called a "basket case" or "fat cat" this time. We can be grateful for small mercies.

Ok so if the guards role as current evolves more along the lines of a more customer focused individual who has the capability of dealing with anti social behaviour ( which is a big concern for passengers ), do you think its right ( at my TOC at least ) that the TOC is guarenteeing all individuals the same T and Cs if they accept the fact that opening and closing doors is a task which can be handled elsewhere ?
 

adc82140

Established Member
Joined
10 May 2008
Messages
2,928
In my opinion- doors- with current technology, ie poor quality CCTV, should be undertaken by the guard.

T&C's- how long are they guaranteed for? For ever, or for a fixed time? For new starters as well, or just existing staff?
 

Moonshot

Established Member
Joined
10 Nov 2013
Messages
3,646
In my opinion- doors- with current technology, ie poor quality CCTV, should be undertaken by the guard.

T&C's- how long are they guaranteed for? For ever, or for a fixed time? For new starters as well, or just existing staff?

In your opinion , CCTV quality is poor......yet Southern Drivers have just accepted a revised deal around DOO.....I would have thought that if drivers as a group ( who are very safety conscious ) would have rejected a deal if they felt safety was being compromised.

As for T and Cs, clearly job roles change with the advent of technology ( that happens everywhere ). Railways in my neck of the woods are certainly not as advanced with technology as they ought to be, but that is changing.
 

Temple Meads

Established Member
Joined
2 Sep 2010
Messages
2,230
Location
Devon
I notice that the working details are published in the RMT release - there is an outcry if these are released into the public domain after 'regular' traincrew are involved in such incidents..!

There are undoubtedly some very serious safety issues with using poorly trained contingency staff though.
 

Moonshot

Established Member
Joined
10 Nov 2013
Messages
3,646
I notice that the working details are published in the RMT release - there is an outcry if these are released into the public domain after 'regular' traincrew are involved in such incidents..!

There are undoubtedly some very serious safety issues with using poorly trained contingency staff though.

Yes you are correct on your first point

At my TOC, a lot of services were covered by Conductor team managers.....the very same CTMs who assess guards.
 

Darandio

Established Member
Joined
24 Feb 2007
Messages
10,674
Location
Redcar
In your opinion , CCTV quality is poor......

Maybe it is quite a valid opinion, maybe they have read the multiple comments on this very forum of drivers complaining about poor cctv? Has something changed on this point since those comments were made?
 

Moonshot

Established Member
Joined
10 Nov 2013
Messages
3,646
Maybe it is quite a valid opinion, maybe they have read the multiple comments on this very forum of drivers complaining about poor cctv? Has something changed on this point since those comments were made?

Not that I m aware of....but I m quite confident that if there is poor quality CCTV knocking about, then something would be done about it.
 

al78

Established Member
Joined
7 Jan 2013
Messages
2,400
I also know a number of guards who have given RTS against a red.......none of them were dismissed. And its right they are not dismissed.....because occasionally it happens.

I don't follow the logic here. It sounds like an argument along the lines of someone shouldn't be penalized for a mistake, because occasionally people make mistakes. I can appreciate that in the case of a mistake due to a flaw in the system, and/or with no potential severe consequences, but not in the case where the mistake is careless and significantly increases the risk of a nasty consequence.
 

Moonshot

Established Member
Joined
10 Nov 2013
Messages
3,646
I don't follow the logic here. It sounds like an argument along the lines of someone shouldn't be penalized for a mistake, because occasionally people make mistakes. I can appreciate that in the case of a mistake due to a flaw in the system, and/or with no potential severe consequences, but not in the case where the mistake is careless and significantly increases the risk of a nasty consequence.


So would you class a SPAD as careless?? Clearly no driver comes to work with the intention of going through a signal showing a red aspect, but from time to time it happens.
 

Moonshot

Established Member
Joined
10 Nov 2013
Messages
3,646
Yes we are. Still, nothing gets done about it.

In which case I m of the opinion that drivers are perfectly entitled to insist on a guard or station staff to perform despatch duties at a station with poor CCTV.....or simply refuse to stop at that station
 

adc82140

Established Member
Joined
10 May 2008
Messages
2,928
Maybe it is quite a valid opinion, maybe they have read the multiple comments on this very forum of drivers complaining about poor cctv? Has something changed on this point since those comments were made?

This. I'm finding it difficult as an outsider to understand what has changed. I wouldn't fancy having to check 12 carsworth of tiny CCTV images, knowing you're responsible if someone gets trapped or falls over and you fail to notice. Is uprated CCTV included in the Southern ASLEF deal?
 

Darandio

Established Member
Joined
24 Feb 2007
Messages
10,674
Location
Redcar
This. I'm finding it difficult as an outsider to understand what has changed. I wouldn't fancy having to check 12 carsworth of tiny CCTV images, knowing you're responsible if someone gets trapped or falls over and you fail to notice. Is uprated CCTV included in the Southern ASLEF deal?

Nothing that appears to be out in the open at least. Bringing it back to enquiring whether a deal would be accepted if safety was being compromised in this way, the cynics would offer other reasons why the deal was accepted!
 

Moonshot

Established Member
Joined
10 Nov 2013
Messages
3,646
This. I'm finding it difficult as an outsider to understand what has changed. I wouldn't fancy having to check 12 carsworth of tiny CCTV images, knowing you're responsible if someone gets trapped or falls over and you fail to notice. Is uprated CCTV included in the Southern ASLEF deal?

Dont know is the honest answer...I m based up North where this just isnt SOP just now.
 

ComUtoR

Established Member
Joined
13 Dec 2013
Messages
9,399
Location
UK
I'm DOO. How do I insist on a Guard ? How do I insist on platform staff where there is none ? How do I refuse to stop at a station when I don't know the DOO monitors are not functioning or plain useless ? Why are trains allowed to stop at stations where there are known issues where parts of the unit is not visible in the monitors ? Why are we allowed to stop at stations where there is insufficient light to dispatch due to the station lights failing or in one situation, where they were timed to go out before the last service ?

Why, after numerous reports of poor lighting, poor CCTV, Broken DOO monitors, are issues still not addressed ?

Stuff does not magically get addressed instantly. Quite often they are left in an unfit state or we are simply not told and find out upon discovery. You can literally have a set of DOO monitors out all day and no one told about them being broken but still get moaned at by the Signaller because its been reported numerous times.
 

Moonshot

Established Member
Joined
10 Nov 2013
Messages
3,646
Nothing that appears to be out in the open at least. Bringing it back to enquiring whether a deal would be accepted if safety was being compromised in this way, the cynics would offer other reasons why the deal was accepted!

Im generally not cynical , but since I work alongside drivers every day, I would find it difficult to accept they would accept a dilution of safety standards.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top