ScotRail DOO dispute discussion

[ainsworth74]

Would I be right in thinking that in practice what is being proposed here is similar to what happens on 220s/221s and 390s?

I figure we're going to end up with something along those lines. My preference would be for the driver to release and the guard to close which saves faffing about with ten bell dispatch (guard buzzes 1-2 to driver, driver closes all doors bar local and buzzes 1-2 back, guard ensures safe to dispatch closes local door and buzzes 2 to driver an they buzz 2 back and moves off). Far more logical and I would think quicker.

I can also the RMT going for it on a pragmatic basis as well.

 

[WatcherZero]

Word is RMT are going to recommend to their members to accept the deal but they are a bit embarrassed that it compromises their 'No to DOO under any circumstances' campaign.

RMT in Scotland has proven to be a lot more pragmatic than they have in the South when a similar offer was rejected.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

I suspect the difference with Scotrail is that they already work under a regime where they can be penalised for failing to provide a second member of traincrew, even if that second person is a non-safety-critical Ticket Examiner. Therefore there is a reduced scope for making savings by running trains with just a driver so that also reduces the incentive for management to get involved in a serious dispute over the matter. The real issue will be what the long-term prospects are regarding the pay on offer to that second member of traincrew. No doubt that will be under detailed scrutiny by the RMT right now.

In short it's the difference between Transport Scotland and DfT oversight. I very much doubt it will set any useful precedent for the battles still to come over DOO at the likes of Northern or ATW.

 

[speedy_sticks]

The only solution for me is that the conductor carries out platform duties at every stop, I don't care how it is done as long as it is.

 

[Altnabreac]

I figure we're going to end up with something along those lines. My preference would be for the driver to release and the guard to close which saves faffing about with ten bell dispatch (guard buzzes 1-2 to driver, driver closes all doors bar local and buzzes 1-2 back, guard ensures safe to dispatch closes local door and buzzes 2 to driver an they buzz 2 back and moves off). Far more logical and I would think quicker.

I can also the RMT going for it on a pragmatic basis as well.

I expect that what Scotrail want to implement is more a case of DOO but with a guaranteed safety trained member of staff onboard. I suspect though they will want it to be signed of by ORR as safe single man operation.

From what the RMT announcement says it seems bascially Scotrail have decided to implement what they were already planning on the Edinburgh - Glasgow via Falkirk route (DOO operated trains with a safety trained conductor on board) on all the newly electrified routes (and also North Berwick - Edinburgh - Carstairs - Glasgow).

This has more teeth than the Strathclyde DOO agrement in two ways:

• The second onboard staff member will retain their safety critical training (and presumably higher pay than a TE)
• The service will not run in the absence of the second onboard staff member (TEs are scheduled to be on all services in Strathclyde but services can run without one if their is illness / other reasons for unavailability)

However I suspect Scotrail will want to have a wee bit more leverage at the end of all this. They may well sign an agreement with the RMT to not operate without the second staff member and to continue safety training that staff member. But if the system they are implementing is fundamentally safe and signed off for DOO then it gives them leverage over the RMT in future if they decide to start implementing rest day working bans or other industrial action.

So I suspect they will want to exclude the second staff member entirely from the door closure procedure so that if the RMT push their luck in future they could swiftly rescind the agreement and switch to DOO.

We shall see though.

 

[Dave1987]

I expect that what Scotrail want to implement is more a case of DOO but with a guaranteed safety trained member of staff onboard. I suspect though they will want it to be signed of by ORR as safe single man operation.

From what the RMT announcement says it seems bascially Scotrail have decided to implement what they were already planning on the Edinburgh - Glasgow via Falkirk route (DOO operated trains with a safety trained conductor on board) on all the newly electrified routes (and also North Berwick - Edinburgh - Carstairs - Glasgow).

This has more teeth than the Strathclyde DOO agrement in two ways:

• The second onboard staff member will retain their safety critical training (and presumably higher pay than a TE)
• The service will not run in the absence of the second onboard staff member (TEs are scheduled to be on all services in Strathclyde but services can run without one if their is illness / other reasons for unavailability)

However I suspect Scotrail will want to have a wee bit more leverage at the end of all this. They may well sign an agreement with the RMT to not operate without the second staff member and to continue safety training that staff member. But if the system they are implementing is fundamentally safe and signed off for DOO then it gives them leverage over the RMT in future if they decide to start implementing rest day working bans or other industrial action.

So I suspect they will want to exclude the second staff member entirely from the door closure procedure so that if the RMT push their luck in future they could swiftly rescind the agreement and switch to DOO.

We shall see though.

Why would the union need a rest day work ban or anything of the sort if the company sticks to the agreement? It's this kind of thinking that is why you've got the mess you have 'down south'. If the company and the union come to an amicable agreement that both sides are happy with the union will be happy to work with the company. It's when the management start going against agreements that things get nasty and RDW bans etc come in.

As the bearded one always says "look after your staff and then your staff will look after your customers".

 

[Altnabreac]

Why would the union need a rest day work ban or anything of the sort if the company sticks to the agreement? It's this kind of thinking that is why you've got the mess you have 'down south'. If the company and the union come to an amicable agreement that both sides are happy with the union will be happy to work with the company. It's when the management start going against agreements that things get nasty and RDW bans etc come in.

As the bearded one always says "look after your staff and then your staff will look after your customers".

I'm suggesting Scotrail will be thinking about the sort of discussions they might be having over pay and conditions in 2022, not just now.

Currently Scotrail will be looking for a solution to roll out the new electric trains without lots of strikes. But it would be foolish of them not to try and reduce the RMTs leverage in future disputes by making the role of the Guard mandated by local agreement but not required by law / safety case. Equally the RMT may resist that part of the deal and try to maintain a role for the Guard in dispatch.

This proposal, including the above guarantees, is subject to ScotRail and the RMT entering into discussion about and agreeing a method of train dispatch for these services. Once this proposal and the method of dispatch are agreed it will be adopted for the Abellio ScotRail franchise and will apply beyond.

This quote from the RMT suggests agreement is not yet reached on the details of dispatching and may yet prove troublesome. Suspect that it will be the remaining barrier to a deal being agreed.

 

[Dave1987]

I'm suggesting Scotrail will be thinking about the sort of discussions they might be having over pay and conditions in 2022, not just now.

Currently Scotrail will be looking for a solution to roll out the new electric trains without lots of strikes. But it would be foolish of them not to try and reduce the RMTs leverage in future disputes by making the role of the Guard mandated by local agreement but not required by law / safety case. Equally the RMT may resist that part of the deal and try to maintain a role for the Guard in dispatch.



This quote from the RMT suggests agreement is not yet reached on the details of dispatching and may yet prove troublesome. Suspect that it will be the remaining barrier to a deal being agreed.

So you are saying that the company should put themselves in a position where they can easily go back on local agreements at their leisure? What's the point in having a local agreement then! If the company and the union cooperate then there won't be any industrial action of any kind. They are talking and coming to some sort of agreement and you are already talking about ways that ScotRail could breach that agreement. I'm very very happy to see that the company and union are engaged in productive discussions and I'm in no way involved in ScotRail at all.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

The only solution for me is that the conductor carries out platform duties at every stop, I don't care how it is done as long as it is.

Guard operation in this manner is fundamentally flawed though - the lack of droplights available for the guard to inspect the train as it departs the platform really puts safety into the lap of the gods, particularly with longer stock lengths and despatch from intermediate doors being necessary.

Platform visibility from the doors being fitted to the Class 385 stock doesn't look like being any different to Class 170 visibility, and they're no better than any other power door stock, so it'll be easy for a guard to lose a drunken or confused passenger down between the side of the train and the platform edge, at which point the CPS or Procurator Fiscal (in Scotland) will likely throw the guard to the wolves. Christopher McGee and now Martin Zee know this only too well.

HSTs are about the only units where guard door operation is safer than driver door operation, and that's only going to be the case as long as they have droplights.

That doesn't mean guards should be dispensed with - I'm quite clear that I believe a second properly trained (PTS + AC/DCCR where needed) needs to be retained, but I'm less precious about the guard doing the doors, I just don't think it's the best option in light of the limitations of current stock.

 

[Moonshot]

Guard operation in this manner is fundamentally flawed though - the lack of droplights available for the guard to inspect the train as it departs the platform really puts safety into the lap of the gods, particularly with longer stock lengths and despatch from intermediate doors being necessary.

Platform visibility from the doors being fitted to the Class 385 stock doesn't look like being any different to Class 170 visibility, and they're no better than any other power door stock, so it'll be easy for a guard to lose a drunken or confused passenger down between the side of the train and the platform edge, at which point the CPS or Procurator Fiscal (in Scotland) will likely throw the guard to the wolves. Christopher McGee and now Martin Zee know this only too well.

HSTs are about the only units where guard door operation is safer than driver door operation, and that's only going to be the case as long as they have droplights.

That doesn't mean guards should be dispensed with - I'm quite clear that I believe a second properly trained (PTS + AC/DCCR where needed) needs to be retained, but I'm less precious about the guard doing the doors, I just don't think it's the best option in light of the limitations of current stock.

150/1s have the same droplights.......and yes you are right, its impossible to see down the platform with pretty much any other stock. Oddly enough not so long back the driver initiated an emergency stop at a platform for something I had no chance of seeing.

 

[IanXC]

ScotRail RMT strikes called off for talks

Strikes planned by ScotRail workers are off for the time being to allow further talks with union bosses.
Members of the Rail, Maritime and Transport (RMT) union are fighting plans to have drivers instead of guards operate the doors on some services.
The union insist the dispute is about "ensuring that Scotland's trains run safely".
But ScotRail said the RMT had been running a campaign of "disinformation that doesn't bear any scrutiny".

In a statement, RMT General Secretary Mick Cash said: "The union has made sufficient progress to enable us to suspend the current programme of industrial action on ScotRail to allow for further detailed discussions on the issue of platform train despatch procedures

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-36966104

As mentioned up thread, platform despatch procedure seems to be the final sticking point.

 

[68000]

The DOO services in Strathclyde have operated safely and has been demonstrated to operate safely therefore the idea of a cancelled service because a guard is not available is poor from a passenger point of view as the risk being mitigated with the guard is miniscule

 

[43096]

HSTs are about the only units where guard door operation is safer than driver door operation, and that's only going to be the case as long as they have droplights.

As the ScotRail HSTs will have power doors they'll be no better than other stock unless the guard is dispatching from the TGS van end (which will presumably retain slam doors).

 

[Sadsmileyface]

I would question what you continual union bashing agenda is actually adding to this debate. It would seem the RMT are actually on the cusp of a very decent result in ScotRail one that both union members and passengers will be very happy about but please don't let that stop you having a few more digs at the union.

I can assure you that there is an extremely vocal faction of the Conductors who are in absolutely no way happy about this development. This is not what they wanted, however since the entire dispute was fought under a deliberately misleading banner of "safety" and not "who presses door buttons", they have found themselves reasoned into a corner because they cannot now come out and admit that this was actually about who presses buttons, because conductors pressing buttons means weighty bargaining power when it comes to withdrawing labour, which is all the RMT know how to do.

The RMT have had this sudden change of heart for one very specific reason, and I doubt that reason will still have that job in a year. A stupid mistake was made and it's allowed ScotRail to cue up the corner pocket pretty neatly. The only losers in this are the non-militant staff who had no choice but to go along with this and now find themselves out of pocket. The unions nonsense chump-change-cheques are pretty embarrassing.

 

[craigybagel]

I can assure you that there is an extremely vocal faction of the Conductors who are in absolutely no way happy about this development. This is not what they wanted, however since the entire dispute was fought under a deliberately misleading banner of "safety" and not "who presses door buttons", they have found themselves reasoned into a corner because they cannot now come out and admit that this was actually about who presses buttons, because conductors pressing buttons means weighty bargaining power when it comes to withdrawing labour, which is all the RMT know how to do.

The RMT have had this sudden change of heart for one very specific reason, and I doubt that reason will still have that job in a year. A stupid mistake was made and it's allowed ScotRail to cue up the corner pocket pretty neatly. The only losers in this are the non-militant staff who had no choice but to go along with this and now find themselves out of pocket. The unions nonsense chump-change-cheques are pretty embarrassing.

And your source for this is?

I'm sure if there is such a vocal section and it makes up a majority of the conductors concerned they'll be able to express their views and vote down any deal with Scotrail where they give up button pressing privileges?

 

[Observer]

Seems like this solution is pretty much the best of both worlds as the conductors would keep full competency in exchange for letting the drivers control the doors, but won't this get backlash from former guards on the existing EMU lines who were pushed into the ticket examiner position and lost their full competency? They didn't get this offer during the Airdrie-Bathgate strikes.

 

[Dave1987]

I can assure you that there is an extremely vocal faction of the Conductors who are in absolutely no way happy about this development. This is not what they wanted, however since the entire dispute was fought under a deliberately misleading banner of "safety" and not "who presses door buttons", they have found themselves reasoned into a corner because they cannot now come out and admit that this was actually about who presses buttons, because conductors pressing buttons means weighty bargaining power when it comes to withdrawing labour, which is all the RMT know how to do.

The RMT have had this sudden change of heart for one very specific reason, and I doubt that reason will still have that job in a year. A stupid mistake was made and it's allowed ScotRail to cue up the corner pocket pretty neatly. The only losers in this are the non-militant staff who had no choice but to go along with this and now find themselves out of pocket. The unions nonsense chump-change-cheques are pretty embarrassing.

Well you are seem to be so anti union there is no point in even discussing it with you. By the way I'm a union member, so by your reckoning I must be a militant socialist pig ready to strike at the drop of a hat.

 

[313103]

ScotRail has evidence of the RMT telling its members to implement an overtime ban prior to balloting. Naughty little RMT!

Yes or No
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Care to share it with us then?

Hmmmm
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I've seen it, yes.

I take that as a No then!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I can assure you that there is an extremely vocal faction of the Conductors who are in absolutely no way happy about this development. This is not what they wanted, however since the entire dispute was fought under a deliberately misleading banner of "safety" and not "who presses door buttons", they have found themselves reasoned into a corner because they cannot now come out and admit that this was actually about who presses buttons, because conductors pressing buttons means weighty bargaining power when it comes to withdrawing labour, which is all the RMT know how to do.

The RMT have had this sudden change of heart for one very specific reason, and I doubt that reason will still have that job in a year. A stupid mistake was made and it's allowed ScotRail to cue up the corner pocket pretty neatly. The only losers in this are the non-militant staff who had no choice but to go along with this and now find themselves out of pocket. The unions nonsense chump-change-cheques are pretty embarrassing.

You sound like someone who is either working for the Management team at Scotrail, or someone who has a grudge against the union. Whatever you sound very bitter, could well be a former employee who was once in the RMT and maybe lost there job for whatever, hence why you know (and i use the term loosely) how the Conductors are feeling right now.

 

[Altnabreac]

Seems like this solution is pretty much the best of both worlds as the conductors would keep full competency in exchange for letting the drivers control the doors, but won't this get backlash from former guards on the existing EMU lines who were pushed into the ticket examiner position and lost their full competency? They didn't get this offer during the Airdrie-Bathgate strikes.

My understanding is that when Bathgate - Edinburgh went over to TEs the existing conductors who signed that route were all retained at Haymarket depot and deployed onto other routes with new TEs recruited for Airdrie - Edinburgh.

I don't think there was any conversion of Conductors to TEs as part of the Airdrie - Bathgate. The only exception could have been some West Lothian based Conductors who preferred to be based out of Bathgate as a TE than Haymarket as a Conductor. Not sure if anyone did convert though?

 

[reb0118]

My understanding is that when Bathgate - Edinburgh went over to TEs the existing conductors who signed that route were all retained at Haymarket depot and deployed onto other routes with new TEs recruited for Airdrie - Edinburgh.

I don't think there was any conversion of Conductors to TEs as part of the Airdrie - Bathgate. The only exception could have been some West Lothian based Conductors who preferred to be based out of Bathgate as a TE than Haymarket as a Conductor. Not sure if anyone did convert though?

Edinburgh, Stirling, & at one time Glasgow QS depots covered the Bathgate route. After the switch to DOO we were over complement for a while but natural wastage plus an increase in other services soon took up the slack.

Sent from my SM-N910F using Tapatalk

 

[Altnabreac]

Edinburgh, Stirling, & at one time Glasgow QS depots covered the Bathgate route. After the switch to DOO we were over complement for a while but natural wastage plus an increase in other services soon took up the slack.

Thanks. I didn't think anyone had become a TE as a result of the changes.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

Thanks. I didn't think anyone had become a TE as a result of the changes.

ISTR at the time a figure of 8 being mentioned as the over-compliment at Edinburgh. In the grand scheme of things that number wasn't worthwhile for either RMT or Scotrail to prolong the dispute.

 

[dcsprior]

First item on Reporting Scotland is that there's now agreement in principle between the RMT and Scotrail which (assuming it's ratified by the union membership) will mean an end to the dispute.

Article from the BBC Website is here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-37412894

ScotRail said it has reached an in-principle agreement with the RMT union to bring to an end a dispute over driver-only operated trains.
The company said the agreement included a guarantee that a conductor would be retained as the second member of staff on board new trains being rolled out next year.
The dispute led to several days of strikes over the summer.
Further industrial action was suspended earlier this month for more talks.
ScotRail said the RMT would now present the proposal to its members in a company-wide vote.
The company said discussions had also taken place with Aslef, the train drivers' union, and a similar in-principle agreement reached.
The RMT said it would make its position clear once the proposed deal has been discussed by its national executive on Tuesday.
'Negotiating table'
ScotRail Alliance managing director Phil Verster said: "I am pleased that we have reached an in-principle agreement with the RMT and Aslef unions that, if formally agreed, will bring this dispute to an end.
"This will end the uncertainty for our people and our customers, and will allow us to concentrate on delivering the best possible service for Scotland, every single day.
"What we have put forward in our proposal will make our service more efficient and more effective while maintaining and enhancing the service we provide to our customers.
"It means that the new faster, longer, greener trains that will arrive in autumn next year really will be a revolution in how we deliver our service."
An RMT spokesman said: "After long hard hours at the negotiating table, and a sustained period of determined and solid industrial action involving our members, RMT's team will be reporting back to the unions executive tomorrow where the details will be considered in full.
"A further statement will be issued by the union after that executive meeting."

 

[ANorthernGuard]

If only GTR would come to the same agreement

 

[380101]

The proposal agreed in principle is that the Driver opens the doors and the guard retains control of the PTI and closing of the doors and dispatching the train. Full GOP panels to be fitted on the 385s so the guards can reopen doors if required.

 

[ANorthernGuard]

The proposal agreed in principle is that the Driver opens the doors and the guard retains control of the PTI and closing of the doors and dispatching the train. Full GOP panels to be fitted on the 385s so the guards can reopen doors if required.

As a Guard with Northern I would be happy with that. There has to be some compromise after all.

 

[Blindtraveler]

As a passenger this certainly seams a good solution. Instant door release by the driver certainly will help timekeeping but the extra safety chritical member of staff means a lot to me as a service user and I have always come down on the side of keeping or introducing said person when thinking over the pros and cons. I wonder if longterm a similar way of working will cascade to some or all the DMU services? Also will other TOCs suggest this way of working when the sticky issue of DOO comes up at Northern, LM, AGA etc?

 

[ainsworth74]

The proposal agreed in principle is that the Driver opens the doors and the guard retains control of the PTI and closing of the doors and dispatching the train. Full GOP panels to be fitted on the 385s so the guards can reopen doors if required.

Sounds perfectly sensible to me and it's pleasing to see that cooler heads have prevailed with a good solution! I won't lie driver release with guard closing has always made a lot of sense to me (though the XC style ten-bell dispatch is an absurd way of doing things vs just giving the guard a panel to close the doors themselves!).

 

[Blindtraveler]

Good point, 10 bells on the shots stopper would get very anoying very quickly!

 

[Anvil1984]

As a passenger this certainly seams a good solution. Instant door release by the driver certainly will help timekeeping but the extra safety chritical member of staff means a lot to me as a service user and I have always come down on the side of keeping or introducing said person when thinking over the pros and cons. I wonder if longterm a similar way of working will cascade to some or all the DMU services? Also will other TOCs suggest this way of working when the sticky issue of DOO comes up at Northern, LM, AGA etc?

Being cynical but probably not. The Dft are probably seething that Transport Scotland have allowed this solution whist they want TOCs to go further towards DOO (my opinion based on the Southern dispute)