SWR: Guards/RMT Industrial Action. Next strike dates: 30/31 August, 1/2 September 2019

[XDM]

This week will be the last straw for many non militant SWR guards.
Services ran well, except for Network Rail failings.

The main routes had frequent well filled services with announcements better, clearer, & fuss free compared with those from many usual guards.
Plus regular info on which coaches passengers would find empty seats in.
Fellow passengers said they had never got this helpful advice from the regular guards.

Stayed on Woking platform for a while & noticed three trains were guarded by men in full guard's uniform.
So good hearted RMT guards are drifting back.

I predict the strike will be effectively finished within 8 weeks.

But RMT will never declare it over. See section 4B of the union's key aims.

Objects
4. The objects of the Union shall be:-


(b) to work for the supersession of the capitalist system by a socialistic order of society;

 

[Ethano92]

People who choose not to listen to the automated voice don't need to likely because they already know that "this train is the X service to Y calling at LMN..." and can recognise where they need to get off even if they were looking at their phone the whole time.

If there was an important enough announcement to be made, the driver would say it instead of the guard, still a human voice. If you are suggesting it's the human element that may stop antisocial behaviour then why not just make the driver say a few words now and then without actually saying he's the driver so people don't know if theres a guard or not. You could say that's too much for the driver but I've had plenty of DOO services with constant updates from the driver.

 

[Carlisle]

For example, simply saying over the PA that you’re the Guard and are currently situated at the middle of the train is a start and literally speaks volumes. .

True, but it’s the possibility that it could be argued that given appropriate training, a security officer, caterer, or even cleaner might potentially fulfill some of those duties at least equally as effectively in future that’s really worrying the RMT and led to this dispute, not the unions desperate concern for passenger safety on the few trains that might be permitted to run DOO during disruption

 

[A Challenge]

Sorry if this is already been asked, but will the Alton trains still be stopping short at Farnham and replaced by busses in the Saturday strikes?

 

[Joe Paxton]

Please click here to download the xxx timetable (Coming soon)

That is the message on the SWR strike webpages for the strike service on forthcoming Saturdays (3, 10, 17 and 24 Nov).

Anyone have any idea whether today's strike service (Sat 27 Oct) might be useful as a guide for what services might run on these Saturdays to come?

 

[infobleep]

That is the message on the SWR strike webpages for the strike service on forthcoming Saturdays (3, 10, 17 and 24 Nov).

Anyone have any idea whether today's strike service (Sat 27 Oct) might be useful as a guide for what services might run on these Saturdays to come?

I think it will be with many be minor changes on the day or shortly before.

Of course Network Rail engineering works will obviously make the need to have some differences.

Not sure if we've had a strike yet when Network Rail have closed parts of Waterloo for engineering works.

 

[infobleep]

Why do distances between stops matter? Finsbury park to Stevenage on a fast Thameslink train certainly isn't short but nobody's complaining.

I meant that it's on their suburban route whether it's suburban or not. Journey times to Guilford from Waterloo via Cobham are only an hour and if you look at the timetable, the longest distance between 2 stops on that route is 7 minutes when it skips 3 stations between wimbledon and surbiton, the rest are only around 3-5 minutes

The Waterloo service to Haslemere that stops at all or nearly all stations between Woking and Haslemere does not have long gaps between stations.

I doubt long gaps exist on services that stop at all stations between Woking and Basingstoke. What is the longest gap between Guildford and Ascot? Yet none of these trains are going to be DOO. I suspect the time lost on the Cobham line trains currently is less than the time lost on the 450 stock, due to the time it takes for those doors to open.

If they are that concern about saving time, why didn't they agree to replace the 450 stock too?

As for the longest gap on Cobham line services. The 7:15 Guildford to Waterloo runs fast from Surbtion to Waterloo. That is longer than 7 minutes.

 

[infobleep]

I'm against a passenger train running without a second safety critical trained member of staff on board. However, I am not against changes to the role as long as they are implemented in a safe way with proper plans in place.
The way the RMT is handling this is a complete and utter embarrassment. The incidents mentioned above occur on multiple occasions daily across the SWT network with regular Guards. A tip on a red isn't ideal, however, it isn't the end of the world and it certainly isn't any worse if a contingency Guard does it instead of a regular Guard.
As far as the stop short, again, a regular occurance which unfortunately happens because like Guards, Drivers are also human and sometimes errors happen. They are dealt with by due process in the aftermath. As long as no doors have been released its not the Guard/contingency Guards fault anyway.
The only issue I would have is if incidents involving contingency Guards were being dealt with differently than with a regular Guard but from what I'm aware, there's no evidence that this is the case.
The RMT leadership are complete morons if they believe this is a good way to publicly conduct themselves.

Here here. I couldn't agree more with your first and last comments.

 

[Robertj21a]

I wonder if, with hindsight, the RMT and its members will regret that they progressed this issue. With a general hardening of attitudes it wouldn't take much for a TOC to go for a gradual change to DOO - after all, the RMT is trying to cause as much trouble as possible for the company already (despite all their assurances).
There's only so much that they need to take - nobody likes to be held hostage regardless of whatever they do.

 

[swt_passenger]

If they are that concern about saving time, why didn’t they agree to replace the 450 stock too?

Probably because the ITT specifically referred to the dwell time problems on inner suburban routes and at high churn stations such as Clapham Junction, and the vast majority of the affected services are operated by 455, 456, 458.

 

[Schweir]

Why are they forcing anyone who wants to go beyond Bournemouth towards Weymouth to change trains? Is it because the 12 cars won't fit any platform beyond Bournemouth (well perhaps with the exception of Weymouth) and this also means that they don't have to bother coupling trains at Bournemouth, or as I suspect, it is due to an alternative reason?

 

[swt_passenger]

Why are they forcing anyone who wants to go beyond Bournemouth towards Weymouth to change trains? Is it because the 12 cars won't fit any platform beyond Bournemouth (well perhaps with the exception of Weymouth) and this also means that they don't have to bother coupling trains at Bournemouth, or as I suspect, it is due to an alternative reason?

Possibly affected by the much reduced frequency to Weymouth.
Splitting the service at Bournemouth is also a normal precaution during bad weather, so perhaps they do it as a precaution against delay propagation as well.

 

[Ethano92]

The Waterloo service to Haslemere that stops at all or nearly all stations between Woking and Haslemere does not have long gaps between stations.

I doubt long gaps exist on services that stop at all stations between Woking and Basingstoke. What is the longest gap between Guildford and Ascot? Yet none of these trains are going to be DOO. I suspect the time lost on the Cobham line trains currently is less than the time lost on the 450 stock, due to the time it takes for those doors to open.

If they are that concern about saving time, why didn't they agree to replace the 450 stock too?

As for the longest gap on Cobham line services. The 7:15 Guildford to Waterloo runs fast from Surbtion to Waterloo. That is longer than 7 minutes.

I'm not talking about anomalies such as that. Either way, it's not as if it's running for anything more than 20-30minutes without a station stop so it honestly doesn't matter.

They didn't replace the 450s because as already said they don't usually operate the services in question with the real focus being the trains calling at vauxhall, Clapham, Earlsfield and wimbledon then sharing tracks as far as raynes park. Dwell times on this route needs to be as short as possible because there are so many services using the line. Same can be said for services between Waterloo and Twickenham.

They only trains to operate DOO will their suburban services so if you think Cobham shouldn't be considered suburban, how are you now trying to mention services down to haslemere and Basingstoke.

 

[3141]

Why are they forcing anyone who wants to go beyond Bournemouth towards Weymouth to change trains? Is it because the 12 cars won't fit any platform beyond Bournemouth (well perhaps with the exception of Weymouth) and this also means that they don't have to bother coupling trains at Bournemouth, or as I suspect, it is due to an alternative reason?

I think there may be several reasons. They want to produce a timetable that they can staff with the number of guards that are likely to be available, and they want to serve as many passengers as they can. They'll look at certain routes where the number of passengers is lower, and decide not to run trains on them because they'd be making use of guards who would then no longer be available for routes where passenger numbers are greater. Yeovil to Exeter as well as Bournemouth to Weymouth. If you send a guard beyond Bournemouth, or beyond Yeovil Junction, it's a considerable time before he comes back again. Maybe during that time some other guard has dropped out, or not turned up, and you could have made use of the one who's gone off westwards and won't reappear for a couple of hours. Plus, as swt_passenger has said, they may be concerned that while that train is down at Weymouth it may get delayed, and that means that when it gets back to Bournemouth it will be late for its next journey to London, and maybe the guard will run out of hours and they'll have to cancel it or terminate it at Basingstoke.

I'd be surprised if they have a great deal of flexibility or spare staff available for the service they run on strike days, so running the trains they can where the demand is greatest and in a way that reduces the possibility of problems seems a good idea.

 

[Schweir]

Possibly affected by the much reduced frequency to Weymouth.
Splitting the service at Bournemouth is also a normal precaution during bad weather, so perhaps they do it as a precaution against delay propagation as well.

I think there may be several reasons. They want to produce a timetable that they can staff with the number of guards that are likely to be available, and they want to serve as many passengers as they can. They'll look at certain routes where the number of passengers is lower, and decide not to run trains on them because they'd be making use of guards who would then no longer be available for routes where passenger numbers are greater. Yeovil to Exeter as well as Bournemouth to Weymouth. If you send a guard beyond Bournemouth, or beyond Yeovil Junction, it's a considerable time before he comes back again. Maybe during that time some other guard has dropped out, or not turned up, and you could have made use of the one who's gone off westwards and won't reappear for a couple of hours. Plus, as swt_passenger has said, they may be concerned that while that train is down at Weymouth it may get delayed, and that means that when it gets back to Bournemouth it will be late for its next journey to London, and maybe the guard will run out of hours and they'll have to cancel it or terminate it at Basingstoke.

I'd be surprised if they have a great deal of flexibility or spare staff available for the service they run on strike days, so running the trains they can where the demand is greatest and in a way that reduces the possibility of problems seems a good idea.

Thanks for the responses

 

[Adsy125]

I think there may be several reasons. They want to produce a timetable that they can staff with the number of guards that are likely to be available, and they want to serve as many passengers as they can. They'll look at certain routes where the number of passengers is lower, and decide not to run trains on them because they'd be making use of guards who would then no longer be available for routes where passenger numbers are greater. Yeovil to Exeter as well as Bournemouth to Weymouth. If you send a guard beyond Bournemouth, or beyond Yeovil Junction, it's a considerable time before he comes back again. Maybe during that time some other guard has dropped out, or not turned up, and you could have made use of the one who's gone off westwards and won't reappear for a couple of hours. Plus, as swt_passenger has said, they may be concerned that while that train is down at Weymouth it may get delayed, and that means that when it gets back to Bournemouth it will be late for its next journey to London, and maybe the guard will run out of hours and they'll have to cancel it or terminate it at Basingstoke.

I'd be surprised if they have a great deal of flexibility or spare staff available for the service they run on strike days, so running the trains they can where the demand is greatest and in a way that reduces the possibility of problems seems a good idea.

The thing is they're still running trains to Weymouth so surely it doesn't make lots of sense to run a Bournemouth-Weymouth and Waterloo-Bournemouth seperately if they can resource them individually. It also means passengers traveling further are less likely to get seats than people just getting on at Bournemouth.

 

[Helvellyn]

I've also seen many comments about current trains and stations not being able to handle it but I thought the dispute was over future 701 trains, not suddenly running a 455 without a guard. there are a lot of patches that aren't clear and everyone seems to understand the dispute slightly differently, including myself; nobody can agree.

It is only the 701s so pretty much anything operated by 455s/456s, 458s or 707s today.

The dispute is essentially what constitutes when to run without a Guard because that could be DOO by the back door. My gut is that it isn't because Driver's will be more cautious leaving stations because it won't be an everyday method of operation so there will be increased dwell times. But it would be preferable to have that rather than have trains blocking platforms in disruption as can happen now, particularly at Waterloo.

The 158s/159s, 442s and 444s/450s will not be affected by this because they are not set-up for DOO(P) operation and the company isn't going to invest to make them so. I guess the fear is that they could go that way if those fleets are replaced in the next franchise but that is fighting a battle that could happen in 2025/2026 today.

SWR are right when they say they are recruiting more Guards. The rosters will still have a Guard fostered on every train. As I said it just comes back to the definition of exceptional. That and the fact there seems to be zero trust between the new Senior management (brought in by First/MTR) and RMT. The Head of On Train Service is the same person who has been there for six years but he's not driving this change given it's coming from Exec level and above.

Stayed on Woking platform for a while & noticed three trains were guarded by men in full guard's uniform.
So good hearted RMT guards are drifting back.

Could equally be non-union or ex-RMT members. I'd be surprised if any active RMT members were working.

 

[bb21]

The thing is they're still running trains to Weymouth so surely it doesn't make lots of sense to run a Bournemouth-Weymouth and Waterloo-Bournemouth seperately if they can resource them individually. It also means passengers traveling further are less likely to get seats than people just getting on at Bournemouth.

The shuttle makes the service more robust.

Also not many contingency guards sign the route all the way Weymouth to London.

 

[Carlisle]

The dispute is essentially what constitutes when to run without a Guard because that could be DOO by the back door. My gut is that it isn't because Driver's will be more cautious leaving stations because it won't be an everyday method of operation so there will be increased dwell times. .

Id always thought the plan was to transfer routine door operation on the brand new stock to drivers rather like the recently signed GA deal with guards onboard ?

 

[winks]

Spotted 3 proper guards today on services I’ve been on. I bet the RMT were thinking this week was the killer one whereby the Company would offer somemthing acceptable. It hasn’t happened and now we have weekend strikes which will have less impact (except for the Rugby fans ).

SWR Adopting southerns approach...?

 

[Goldfish62]

I think it will be with many be minor changes on the day or shortly before.

Of course Network Rail engineering works will obviously make the need to have some differences.

Not sure if we've had a strike yet when Network Rail have closed parts of Waterloo for engineering works.

The issue with forthcoming Saturdays is rugby internationals at Twickenham. There are already signs on the M25 warning of delays next Saturday due to the rugby. If there isn't a significant uplift to services through Twickenham there will be serious crowd safety issues.

 

[CN75]

Id always thought the plan was to transfer routine door operation on the brand new stock to drivers rather like the recently signed GA deal with guards onboard ?

SWR want drivers to operate doors routinely on class 701s, but guards will be on the trains. Presumably that means the customers will be able to see them during journeys in the metro area, which would be a massive improvement on the present situation. The RMT should embrace it, because this is the future of the guard’s role if it has a chance of surviving long term in any form.

The 158s/159s, 442s and 444s/450s will not be affected by this because they are not set-up for DOO(P) operation and the company isn't going to invest to make them so. I guess the fear is that they could go that way if those fleets are replaced in the next franchise but that is fighting a battle that could happen in 2025/2026 today.

The dispute is really about the RMT losing it’s industrial relations leverage. Any concerns about the current and future guards competence level could be resolved by accepting that 701s have driver operated doors with guards on board, but requiring that no matter where they work a guard must also have to work on 450/444/159/442 stock in their roster as well as 701s. This preserves all their skills and competency levels, industrial relations bargaining power and guarantees the grade isn’t split for the future.

 

[Goldfish62]

SWR want drivers to operate doors routinely on class 701s, but guards will be on the trains. Presumably that means the customers will be able to see them during journeys in the metro area, which would be a massive improvement on the present situation. The RMT should embrace it, because this is the future of the guard’s role if it has a chance of surviving long term in any form.



The dispute is really about the RMT losing it’s industrial relations leverage. Any concerns about the current and future guards competence level could be resolved by accepting that 701s have driver operated doors with guards on board, but requiring that no matter where they work a guard must also have to work on 450/444/159/442 stock in their roster as well as 701s. This preserves all their skills and competency levels, industrial relations bargaining power and guarantees the grade isn’t split for the future.

RMT called upon SWR to accept a similar deal as with GA so I assume they're willing to hand over door control fully to drivers on the 701s. It's the operating sometimes without a guard that I assume is the sticking point, rather than who operates the doors

 

[winks]

So essentially the RMT are striking over the meaning of “exceptional circumstances” that is it...wow

 

[Robertj21a]

So essentially the RMT are striking over the meaning of “exceptional circumstances” that is it...wow

I thought that had always been the case.

 

[winks]

Hardly a strike matter really. But obviously members voted for it ....

 

[Goldfish62]

So essentially the RMT are striking over the meaning of “exceptional circumstances” that is it...wow

Is it not that their view is that there should be no circumstances in which a train runs just with a driver, not the defined circumstances in which it could?

 

[Dieseldriver]

So essentially the RMT are striking over the meaning of “exceptional circumstances” that is it...wow

Not really a minor issue though. I think the way RMT has handled this is appalling however, the issue of DOO, staffing of passenger trains (capable of carrying up to 1000 people) and allocation of safety critical tasks is not some insignificant little issue. The way its been handled by both sides is unacceptable.

 

[Wychwood93]

The shuttle makes the service more robust.

Also not many contingency guards sign the route all the way Weymouth to London.

More to do with traction current index stuff - 12 450 or 10 444 fine to Poole. Beyond that there is not enough juice available to run more than a 5, in general, it is possible...….. but. The dear old PSU, power supply upgrade, never quite made it west of Poole - stuck now in a 1980's time-warp.

 

[Carlisle]

More to do with traction current index stuff - 12 450 or 10 444 fine to Poole. Beyond that there is not enough juice available to run more than a 5, in general, it is possible...….. but. The dear old PSU, power supply upgrade, never quite made it west of Poole - stuck now in a 1980's time-warp.

Yes i don’t know if it’s true but it was originally claimed the power supply problems west of Poole were down to the national grid being unable to supply any more than 11 kv to the substations when installed rather than. BR trying to do it on the cheap