Role of on board staff on Merseyrail trains and associated issues (e.g. ticket selling/checking)

[jamesst]

A fully-trained competent second member of crew checking tickets on trains means Merseyrail (and Merseytravel) can dispense with the services of Carlisle security services reportedly causing grief as reported on this forum numerous times

Not a chance, a few people whinging on here doesn't mean a company will get rid of a firm who's staff are far cheaper and on far worse t&Cs that there own in house staff. Carlisle are going nowhere.

 

[Chucky]

This is all very interesting. I've just read the PDF on the RMT website.

It basically says (as part of the proposed new method of working) the driver opens the doors when satisfied its safe to do so, observes the platform train interface (PTI), receives a signal from the Train Manager to say they have completed station duties (observed the signal is clear and that the PTI was clear at the point when they stepped back onto the train), the driver then observes the PTI and closes the doors when it's safe to do so. The driver will check the signal and perform the train safety check before starting away.

From what I can work out (and please correct me if I've misunderstood), it's basically full DOO with a second member of staff standing unnecessarily on the platform and sending an unnecessary signal to a driver who is already observing the PTI and must continue to do so after the second person has re-entered the train and ceased to observe the PTI. The responsibility rests with the driver because it's still down to the driver to observe the PTI before closing the doors, and to perform the train safety check before departing.

It's basically a pointless and unnecessary door-related role being given to the RMT as a sop. The only real safety critical duties they have are to do with train protection. It's DOO by any other name and it would make far more sense to just make it full DOO and be done with it (because the responsibilities of the driver are that of full DOO, and ASLEF will expect to be paid accordingly before agreeing to taking on these duties). The TMs could then concentrate solely on tickets, assistance and safety-critical train protection. It's pointless having someone else needlessly involved in the PTI when it's all going to be the drivers fault if there's an issue anyway.

If this agreement does come in I'd expect to see, at a minimum, to see the ticket offices closed to pay for it. I also wouldn't expect the TM's completely unnecessary role in the dispatch process to be something that lasts for long.

The RMT seem to be hanging everything on the very shoogly peg that is the doors when they could probably have got their guard members a better deal if they'd just let the doors go (they pretty much have anyway!) and concentrated on the rest of the conditions. I expect most Merseyrail guards and ticket office staff with any sense have seen the writing on the wall and will be actively looking for another job. I know I would be.

 

[AntoniC]

As a regular Merseyrail commutwe who boards and departs at barriered stations (Southport & Moorfields) I often wonder how many people dont buy tickets and chance it for a free ride.
So having a member of staff checking tickets sounds like a good idea to me !.
What would also help is Merseyrail stopped having a desk at the Old Hall St exit at Moorfields to sell tickets to ticketless passengers.

 

[nedchester]

This is all very interesting. I've just read the PDF on the RMT website.

It basically says (as part of the proposed new method of working) the driver opens the doors when satisfied its safe to do so, observes the platform train interface (PTI), receives a signal from the Train Manager to say they have completed station duties (observed the signal is clear and that the PTI was clear at the point when they stepped back onto the train), the driver then observes the PTI and closes the doors when it's safe to do so. The driver will check the signal and perform the train safety check before starting away.

From what I can work out (and please correct me if I've misunderstood), it's basically full DOO with a second member of staff standing unnecessarily on the platform and sending an unnecessary signal to a driver who is already observing the PTI and must continue to do so after the second person has re-entered the train and ceased to observe the PTI. The responsibility rests with the driver because it's still down to the driver to observe the PTI before closing the doors, and to perform the train safety check before departing.

It's basically a pointless and unnecessary door-related role being given to the RMT as a sop. The only real safety critical duties they have are to do with train protection. It's DOO by any other name and it would make far more sense to just make it full DOO and be done with it (because the responsibilities of the driver are that of full DOO, and ASLEF will expect to be paid accordingly before agreeing to taking on these duties). The TMs could then concentrate solely on tickets, assistance and safety-critical train protection. It's pointless having someone else needlessly involved in the PTI when it's all going to be the drivers fault if there's an issue anyway.

If this agreement does come in I'd expect to see, at a minimum, to see the ticket offices closed to pay for it. I also wouldn't expect the TM's completely unnecessary role in the dispatch process to be something that lasts for long.

The RMT seem to be hanging everything on the very shoogly peg that is the doors when they could probably have got their guard members a better deal if they'd just let the doors go (they pretty much have anyway!) and concentrated on the rest of the conditions. I expect most Merseyrail guards and ticket office staff with any sense have seen the writing on the wall and will be actively looking for another job. I know I would be.

It is ridiculous and just a sop to the RMT, I can see that still changing in time especially if money gets tighter for Merseytravel. And yes the deal will be sorted with train crew and not soon after ticket offices will shut and replaced by mobile tickets and TVMs. It’s inevitable.

 

[D821]

As a regular Merseyrail commutwe who boards and departs at barriered stations (Southport & Moorfields) I often wonder how many people dont buy tickets and chance it for a free ride.
So having a member of staff checking tickets sounds like a good idea to me !.
What would also help is Merseyrail stopped having a desk at the Old Hall St exit at Moorfields to sell tickets to ticketless passengers.

Fully agree. There are lots of people who get on around Birkenhead, for example, who use it as a free service. Why bother paying if no one ever checks your ticket? If an inspector does get on, they move carriage or get off at the next stop and wait for the next free train.

 

[Kite159]

Fully agree. There are lots of people who get on around Birkenhead, for example, who use it as a free service. Why bother paying if no one ever checks your ticket? If an inspector does get on, they move carriage or get off at the next stop and wait for the next free train.

Probably the sort of people who think paying £20 every now & again as a penalty fare will still be cheaper than buying the correct fares. Although that attitude might change when the penalty fare amount increases to £100 (whenever that will happen) or the RPI decides not to dish out a £20 penalty fare & goes down the "day in court" route.

 

[D821]

It's worth the risk, unless you're getting off at one of the larger station that has barriers and staff, the chances of you getting caught are low.

 

[railwaytrack]

The PDF file on the RMT website claims that the now proposed method is "option 10"! How on earth are there at least ten different options! I can think of maybe three or four possible methods at the very most? Does anyone know what all of the other considered options were?

What is of particular interest is that the document states that they will issue Penalty Fares. I think this is first time that a safety critical member of staff can issue Penalty Fares. I am not sure if this is a good idea. I think just checking and selling tickets would be better.

 

[Watershed]

The PDF file on the RMT website claims that the now proposed method is "option 10"! How on earth are there at least ten different options! I can think of maybe three or four possible methods at the very most? Does anyone know what all of the other considered options were?

What is of particular interest is that the document states that they will issue Penalty Fares. I think this is first time that a safety critical member of staff can issue Penalty Fares. I am not sure if this is a good idea. I think just checking and selling tickets would be better.

Chiltern have RPI trained guards at their Aylesbury depot. I'm sure there will be other examples. The training to issue Penalty Fares isn't actually that significant, it's just that most TOCs don't want to bother with it and would rather have dedicated RPIs.

 

[skyhigh]

What is of particular interest is that the document states that they will issue Penalty Fares. I think this is first time that a safety critical member of staff can issue Penalty Fares. I am not sure if this is a good idea.

Why do you think that?

 

[bramling]

Chiltern have RPI trained guards at their Aylesbury depot. I'm sure there will be other examples. The training to issue Penalty Fares isn't actually that significant, it's just that most TOCs don't want to bother with it and would rather have dedicated RPIs.

Out of interest, do they issue penalty fares as part of guard duties, or would they act as RPI in that role’s own right for a shift?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Why do you think that?

Because a lone guard doing PFs is likely to be assaulted in the course of doing so? Revenue teams usually operate as groups of at least 3.

 

[skyhigh]

Because a lone guard doing PFs is likely to be assaulted in the course of doing so? Revenue teams usually operate as groups of at least 3.

From memory the document stated that they would only issue penalty fares if in pairs - they wouldn't issue them alone. I was just wondering why 'safety critical staff' seemed to be the issue in the post I quoted.

 

[RPI]

Because a lone guard doing PFs is likely to be assaulted in the course of doing so? Revenue teams usually operate as groups of at least 3.

I work alone a lot of the time doing PF's and MG11's......

 

[D821]

What would also help is Merseyrail stopped having a desk at the Old Hall St exit at Moorfields to sell tickets to ticketless passengers.

Interestingly, the desk hasn't been there this week.

 

[Facing Back]

I work alone a lot of the time doing PF's and MG11's......

Can I ask what an MG11 is please?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I work alone a lot of the time doing PF's and MG11's......

Interesting, I don't think I've ever seen that myself.

 

[RPI]

Interesting, I don't think I've ever seen that myself.

What, me doing it or just general

We often work alone, the majority of the time in pairs, but at least a couple of times a week alone.

When working alone we generally stick to the less dodgy routes, at my depot there are only three of us that currently work full time hours so often only one will be in, there is scope to meet up with inspectors from other depots for part of the shift though.

 

[the sniper]

Can I ask what an MG11 is please?

A form on which a witness statement is recorded, for the purpose of potential prosecution.

 

[gray1404]

I work alone a lot of the time doing PF's and MG11's......

I suppose you always have the option of just selling a ticket if you think it could get contentious if you did a PF or MG11.

 

[Bikeman78]

That new way of working just shouts out slowness compared to the 507/508 operation.

I've always been impressed with how slick the Merseyrail operation is, especially compared with Northern.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I've always been impressed with how slick the Merseyrail operation is, especially compared with Northern.

I find it a bit slow and old-fashioned (if a little quaint), though to be fair a monkey riding a tricycle towing a flat-wagon would sometimes make Northern's operation look bad.

 

[Moonshot]

When is this proposal being balloted?

 

[karlbbb]

This is all very interesting. I've just read the PDF on the RMT website.

It basically says (as part of the proposed new method of working) the driver opens the doors when satisfied its safe to do so, observes the platform train interface (PTI), receives a signal from the Train Manager to say they have completed station duties (observed the signal is clear and that the PTI was clear at the point when they stepped back onto the train), the driver then observes the PTI and closes the doors when it's safe to do so. The driver will check the signal and perform the train safety check before starting away.

From what I can work out (and please correct me if I've misunderstood), it's basically full DOO with a second member of staff standing unnecessarily on the platform and sending an unnecessary signal to a driver who is already observing the PTI and must continue to do so after the second person has re-entered the train and ceased to observe the PTI. The responsibility rests with the driver because it's still down to the driver to observe the PTI before closing the doors, and to perform the train safety check before departing.

It's basically a pointless and unnecessary door-related role being given to the RMT as a sop. The only real safety critical duties they have are to do with train protection. It's DOO by any other name and it would make far more sense to just make it full DOO and be done with it (because the responsibilities of the driver are that of full DOO, and ASLEF will expect to be paid accordingly before agreeing to taking on these duties). The TMs could then concentrate solely on tickets, assistance and safety-critical train protection. It's pointless having someone else needlessly involved in the PTI when it's all going to be the drivers fault if there's an issue anyway.

If this agreement does come in I'd expect to see, at a minimum, to see the ticket offices closed to pay for it. I also wouldn't expect the TM's completely unnecessary role in the dispatch process to be something that lasts for long.

The RMT seem to be hanging everything on the very shoogly peg that is the doors when they could probably have got their guard members a better deal if they'd just let the doors go (they pretty much have anyway!) and concentrated on the rest of the conditions. I expect most Merseyrail guards and ticket office staff with any sense have seen the writing on the wall and will be actively looking for another job. I know I would be.

Merseyrail are really making a mess of this, aren't they?

Overheard a guard chatting to one of the security/revenue staff on a train the other day at the rear vestibule with the door open, and they were not subtle at all in slagging off Merseyrail's future, in very close earshot to passengers (myself included).

 

[Bletchleyite]

Merseyrail are really making a mess of this, aren't they?

Well, one could argue that it's actually the Unions that are, as there is only one method of operation that makes sense for urban metros and is used on pretty much all of them worldwide bar New York; I will leave it to the reader to work out what that method is, but it doesn't involve "ding ding". Though I don't entirely get why, having decided to capitulate, they don't just fit panels and do driver release, guard close rather than inventing new and slightly bizarre methods not used anywhere else. And if they object to that, let them strike; that's a safe method of operation used on more UK trains than not for years, particularly at a TOC like Merseyrail where balises could easily be fitted to totally prevent wrong-side/short release.

Even that wouldn't waste the DOO cameras as they could have the driver take a further glance before pulling off.

 

[Facing Back]

A form on which a witness statement is recorded, for the purpose of potential prosecution.

thank you

 

[43066]

Well, one could argue that it's actually the Unions that are, as there is only one method of operation that makes sense for urban metros and is used on pretty much all of them worldwide bar New York;

I don’t think a union representing guards successfully opposing the introduction of DOO can really be said to be “making a mess of things”! Their objective isn’t to wave through the most efficient/cheapest solution at the expense of their members.

Though I don't entirely get why, having decided to capitulate, they don't just fit panels and do driver release, guard close rather than inventing new and slightly bizarre methods not used anywhere else.

I agree. Driver open guard close would probably have been a better compromise position - and would likely to be more acceptable to ASLEF as means drivers don’t have to assume PTI risk as I think they do under the current arrangement.

 

[Skie]

I've always been impressed with how slick the Merseyrail operation is, especially compared with Northern.

It used to be slicker (and arguably safer for passengers) when they were allowed to open the cab doors before the train stopped and importantly keep the cab door open with their foot to watch the train leave the station.
Now they have to close the door and peer out of the window to spot any PTI issues that might develop between them closing the door and sending the ready to start signal to the driver.

When is this proposal being balloted?

From the linked RMT page: “The on-line referendum will close at 10:00am on Thursday 12th May 2022”

 

[Bletchleyite]

I agree. Driver open guard close would probably have been a better compromise position - and would likely to be more acceptable to ASLEF as means drivers don’t have to assume PTI risk as I think they do under the current arrangement.

Though I do like the idea that if there are DOO cameras the driver should have a glance before taking power. Two pairs of eyes are better than one, and this could well as a result prove the safest method of operation anywhere on the network by plugging the gap you note in the quote below.

It used to be slicker (and arguably safer for passengers) when they were allowed to open the cab doors before the train stopped and importantly keep the cab door open with their foot to watch the train leave the station.

It wasn't sticking their foot in it. 507/508 cab doors have no interlock, all they needed to do was not close it! They may have used their foot against it so as not to lose balance and fall out, that said.

Now they have to close the door and peer out of the window to spot any PTI issues that might develop between them closing the door and sending the ready to start signal to the driver.

This change coupled with hustle alarms added 2 minutes to the Ormskirk-Liverpool running time, FWIW.

 

[Skie]

It wasn't sticking their foot in it. 507/508 cab doors have no interlock, all they needed to do was not close it! They may have used their foot against it so as not to lose balance and fall out, that said.

Bit of both really, as you said there is no cab door interlock so the train doesn’t care what’s going on. You could simply wait to close the cab door or stand with your foot in the groove and close the cab door along with the passenger doors, then unwedge your foot when satisfied the train was clear of the platform. Latter option would cause the door to slam closed which was probably more satisfying for everyone but the fitters .