RMT settle dispute with Greater Anglia

[grumblingalong]

Indeed, does anyone know what the agreement is?

For the benefit of all forum members


"From the beginning of 2019, modified or new rolling stock manufactured by Bombardier and Stadler will be introduced on the Greater Anglia franchise.

The company confirm that on the introduction of the modified or new rolling stock on the Regional, Intercity and part of the Great Eastern routes each train will only operate if there is a Conductor on board with relevant safety critical competencies. Train drivers will operate the train doors and undertake train dispatch in normal circumstances subject to undertaking a safety risk assessment of train dispatch for those locations affected on a station by station basis. This assessment will be undertaken with the involvement of company and trade union representatives and will be completed prior to the introduction of the first new trains onto the GA network in December 2018.

The station by station risk assessment will cover the train services on these routes and will include the operation of the doors by the driver and the associated train despatch process.

At stations on these routes where the driver has sole charge of the door operation and the associated train dispatch process then robust arrangements will be put in place to ensure:

1. All Conductors will maintain competence in door operation / train dispatch within normal duties for potential use during periods of degraded working / equipment failure.
   
   
2. That robust arrangements need to be put in place to ensure that Conductors remain on board these services such as times that Conductors are assisting customers on and off the train and that the train does not depart without them.

It is recognised by both parties that the impact of disruption on our customers should be minimised and the parties will work together to achieve this aim.

The list of routes covered by the agreement are: -

• Marks Tey to Sudbury
  
  
• Colchester to Clacton / Walton (excluding Colchester to Colchester Town)
  
  
• Manningtree to Harwich Town
  
  
• Ipswich to Felixstowe
  
  
• Ipswich to Cambridge/Peterborough
  
  
• Ipswich to Norwich via Diss
  
  
• Ipswich to
  
  
• Lowestoft Norwich to Yarmouth
  
  
• Norwich to Lowestoft Norwich to Sheringham Norwich to Stansted
  
  
• Norwich to Ipswich (trains formed of class 720 rolling stock)
  
  
• Intercity Services between Liverpool Street and Norwich (trains formed of class 745 rolling Stock)
  

Additionally, on the following routes, in the event that a Conductor is displaced due to service disruption, in order to prevent impact on safety, performance, customer experience or accessibility, a train may proceed to the point at which a Conductor is able to join the train:

• London Liverpool St – Ipswich
• Stansted Airport – Ely

The above agreement and the previously given commitment to maintain the Conductor establishments covers the period of the current franchise. Greater Anglia undertake to seek clarification from the DfT over the future role of the Conductors beyond the current franchise.”

 

[Kite159]

So in summary, the driver controls the doors freeing up the guard to be more customer focus, selling tickets/answering queries with the numerous unstaffed/Pay-Train stations without having to dash to the nearest door release panel to open the doors?

Existing DOO area remains the same in terms of operation so that the commuter services from Liverpool Street towards Ipswich/Cambridge?

 

[XDM]

Thankyou grumblingalong.

Am I right in saying, from your list, that of all the GA services, only
Norwich to Ely will remain with guard operated doors.

That seems odd. Is it a mistake?

 

[Bletchleyite]

This seems an excellent compromise with most of the benefits of both DOO and guarded operation. I hope the same can be agreed on Northern.

 

[387star]

Indeed, does anyone know what the agreement is?

It's been discussed above

Driver operates doors but the Guard is Guaranteed on the train is how I remember it

The guards will still operate doors on fixed turns to maintain competency and may operate doors at certain stations

 

[387star]

So one down four to go

Understand West Mids may enter into the same agreement

 

[the sniper]

I thought there was no proposal to extend DOO though this agreement. Yes I know there is disruption clause about DOO running within an existing DOO area but nothing about extending it into anywhere else. I am sure anyway it's nothing that cannot be solved with a nice hefty pay rise.

As per the rule book, this agreement will require the Drivers to take on the full liability of DOO train dispatch working across a very widely extended area. Unless GA plan for some eventuality where a Driver can require the Conductor to do the doors for them as a norm, GA are going to be paying a fortune to cover the pay rise that'll be required to get them to accept that deal.

That'll need paying for at some point. Hopefully the deal included a financial incentive in the short to medium term for the RMT members, as they'll be paying the ultimate price for the Princes ransom once the franchise ends.

EDIT: Alternatively GA think existing agreements with ASLEF already allow for this extension of DOO dispatch, and if ASLEF don't agree, we'll see another test of strength like the 12 car DOO agreement on Southern...

 

[OxtedSignaller]

As per the rule book, this agreement will require the Drivers to take on the full liability of DOO train dispatch working across a very widely extended area. Unless GA plan for some eventuality where a Driver can require the Conductor to do the doors for them as a norm, GA are going to be paying a fortune to cover the pay rise that'll be required to get them to accept that deal.

That'll need paying for at some point. Hopefully the deal included a financial incentive in the short to medium term for the RMT members, as they'll be paying the ultimate price for the Princes ransom once the franchise ends.

I do not see it being as difficult though as they will dress it up like on GTR and throw in all the drivers who already operate DOO services. Of course like you said it's a deal that buys time, they are transitioning to full DOO and it is always going to cost a fair whack as starion lighting will need to be upgraded, certain stations will require more staff in order to perform DOO dispatch duties etc etc. I would imagine ASLEF have been consulted on it beforehand and I cannot see ASLEF realistically turning it down completely if they are incentivised and surely it's part of their contract anyway as they already operate DOO services.

 

[Domh245]

I would imagine ASLEF have been consulted on it beforehand and I cannot see ASLEF realistically turning it down completely if they are incentivised and surely it's part of their contract anyway as they already operate DOO services.

Only for the (currently) EMU services, all of the local DMU and Intercity services are conventionally operated and I would expect that the unless the contracts were harmonised the drivers on those services won't have had DOO in their contract.

 

[craigybagel]

The RMT is formed of many branches and committees, some better than others. I am in no way disputing the RMT does a good job of holding companies to account but it does have its pitfalls like with the OBS debacle on Southern. Officially they are in dispute however it's all been brushed under the carpet and forgotten as if it never happened and they wont even recognise the staff.

I think there's some fair points there - and as an RMT member myself I'm certainly not blind to the many mistakes the union has made.

My point though was that there were an awful lot of people suggesting that strike action was entirely in vain - that DOO was inevitable and that RMT should be negotiating the best possible transition to DOO rather then fighting it. This outcome today has shown that actually RMT may have done the right thing, these battles are sometimes winnable. Not always, as was shown with Southern (although they've still achieved some smaller successes there) but enough to make it worth a go.

It also shows that the union isn't stuck in the stone age, and isn't unable to negotiate, other common views on this forum. They have achieved a compromise that seems to keep both their members and Greater Anglia management happy. Again, if this can happen here then why not at the other franchises currently in dispute?

 

[XDM]

Only for the (currently) EMU services, all of the local DMU and Intercity services are conventionally operated and I would expect that the unless the contracts were harmonised the drivers on those services won't have had DOO in their contract.

This is not true.
Anglia drivers were happy to work class 170 diesel units DOO between Ipswich & Liverpool Street when there were through 170 services from either or both Lowestoft & Yarmouth to & from Liverpool Street.
I accept these through services stopped some time ago, but the principle of working diesel units DOO in East Anglia has been established & it was proved perfectly safe.

 

[HH]

AEA management are completely different to the wide boys of GTR. Really I wonder why this has taken so long - did DfT have to give their blessing?

 

[HLE]

So one down four to go

Understand West Mids may enter into the same agreement

Yes that’s a rumour that was flying around a few weeks back. It addresses the most critical point of having a second safety competent person on board.

Driver controlled doors are always a question of when not if.

 

[Sleepy]

I will repeat what I said earlier: ASLEF / GA drivers (Non - DOO) are not prepared to allow door operation extension to any extra routes than currently operated today. ££££ bunged at drivers may not sway them as current deal offered has too many strings attached is current opinion for example. Driver shortages could very quickly cause big issues for GA if they upset ASLEF as huge amounts of rest day working is the norm and lots drivers of drivers of a certain age are looking to early retirement rather than work DOO.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes that’s a rumour that was flying around a few weeks back. It addresses the most critical point of having a second safety competent person on board.

Driver controlled doors are always a question of when not if.

Driver controlled doors on rural routes will allow significant time savings. A lot of time is wasted on guards getting to panels in the middle of a financial transaction.

As I'd never expect a rural service to run without someone to collect fares anyway, this all seems very sensible. As I said, Northern should heed this one, it'd fit perfectly.

 

[Sleepy]

Driver controlled doors on rural routes will allow significant time savings. A lot of time is wasted on guards getting to panels in the middle of a financial transaction.

Can't speak for other TOC but not the case on GA 99% of the time.

 

[387star]

I will repeat what I said earlier: ASLEF / GA drivers (Non - DOO) are not prepared to allow door operation extension to any extra routes than currently operated today. ££££ bunged at drivers may not sway them as current deal offered has too many strings attached is current opinion for example. Driver shortages could very quickly cause big issues for GA if they upset ASLEF as huge amounts of rest day working is the norm and lots drivers of drivers of a certain age are looking to early retirement rather than work DOO.

Of note is GWR recently got a harmonisation deal with a competitive pay rise for certain sectors voted in with no DOO extension

 

[tsr]

Can't speak for other TOC but not the case on GA 99% of the time.

Interesting that it certainly was not the case on GTR either (and still isn’t on their conductor-worked services). And obviously GTR were allegedly meant to be getting their staff away from doors, and have been subject to the most vigorous DOO dispute of recent years.

Priorities for crew at any competently-managed TOC are safety then revenue, in that order, always. Safety includes good timekeeping - late-running trains cause a multitude of issues.

 

[grumblingalong]

Thankyou grumblingalong.

Am I right in saying, from your list, that of all the GA services, only
Norwich to Ely will remain with guard operated doors.

That seems odd. Is it a mistake?

No, all routes will have drivers operating the doors, but with conductors guaranteed on board and trained to do the doors if required.

Only exception to the guarantee of a guard on board, although they will be rostered to be, will be in pre existing DOO areas, during service disruption.

 

[craigybagel]

This is not true.
Anglia drivers were happy to work class 170 diesel units DOO between Ipswich & Liverpool Street when there were through 170 services from either or both Lowestoft & Yarmouth to & from Liverpool Street.
I accept these through services stopped some time ago, but the principle of working diesel units DOO in East Anglia has been established & it was proved perfectly safe.

Were those services not worked by Colchester drivers, who already had a DOO agreement in place from when they were a FGE depot? To this day I believe there is still a link there that sign 170s and through to Peterborough. Those services did after all replace the former FGE Ipswich services.

 

[Starmill]

Were those services not worked by Colchester drivers, who already had a DOO agreement in place from when they were a FGE depot? To this day I believe there is still a link there that sign 170s and through to Peterborough. Those services did after all replace the former FGE Ipswich services.

Seems likely given that a very early Colchester to Peterborough and a couple of rather late evening Peterborough to Colchester services survive.

 

[306024]

Were those services not worked by Colchester drivers, who already had a DOO agreement in place from when they were a FGE depot? To this day I believe there is still a link there that sign 170s and through to Peterborough. Those services did after all replace the former FGE Ipswich services.

Some were, but Liverpool St had a fair chunk of that work as two units started and finished at the London end. Ipswich and Norwich also had DOO work on these services south of Ipswich. Liverpool St and Ipswich still have some DOO passenger work on 321s, but Norwich no longer have any DOO passenger work.

When the through Lowestoft / Peterborough services were introduced Colchester drivers gained a share of the Peterborough work to ensure sufficient work for the number of drivers at the depot. Ipswich depot gained more work at the same time with the hourly Cambridge service.

 

[dk1]

This is not true.
Anglia drivers were happy to work class 170 diesel units DOO between Ipswich & Liverpool Street when there were through 170 services from either or both Lowestoft & Yarmouth to & from Liverpool Street.
I accept these through services stopped some time ago, but the principle of working diesel units DOO in East Anglia has been established & it was proved perfectly safe.

There is no agreement for any DOO outside the currently agreed routes & none for these drivers to operate any doors even with the now guaranteed second person North of Ipswich or on any of the other local routes. We worked the 170s on the Lowestoft/Peterborough/Yarmouth DOO only South of Ipswich & only if they where single units. There where plans by NX in 2011 to possibly operate them DOO South of Ely to Stansted but this was dropped when they lost the franchise to Abellio.

 

[Carlisle]

Of note is GWR recently got a harmonisation deal with a competitive pay rise for certain sectors voted in with no DOO extension

They’ll likley wait until the next franchise in 2020 for any major changes such as more DOO or DOO dispatch to be proposed on GWR

 

[387star]

So RMT agreeing to a deal before ASLEF rather than the other way round

 

[Z12XE]

AIUI the ASLEF reps told the company to settle the dispute with the RMT before they’d agree anything. That could just be messroom talk though...

 

[Shunter_69]

The harmonisation proposals for drivers have had to wait until the guard dispute was resolved. Hopefully means we’ll get the full details to mull over rather than the 1000’s of rumours we’ve had to put up with over the last few months.