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

[pompeyfan]

Could have been a peak extra pair of 159s or something? Do those exist?

Not via Southampton. Usually the only services that Swaythling gets is 2 car 158s which fit, 159 which also fit, 4 car 158s which would be a front two only and various Desiros which only open up 4 x 20m or 3 x 23m.

 

[theironroad]

The Swaythling incident is odd, I was under the impression Romsey Rocket services weren’t running, and even if they were running, they must have been running as a 4 car 158, which is very rare except for football days. Usually it’s just a 2 car pottering around.

While the RMT have not cited dates for each incident , a quick rtt look shows that 2s43 ran on 26/7 RT, did not run 28/7 and did run on 31/7. Rtt shows that 2s43 was RT leaving SOA and arrived 1527 1/4 and left 1529 3/4 a dwell time of 2.5 mins which seems unusually long for swaythling. Rtt also shows 2s43 pathed for a dmu.

A

 

[pompeyfan]

While the RMT have not cited dates for each incident , a quick rtt look shows that 2s43 ran on 26/7 RT, did not run 28/7 and did run on 31/7. Rtt shows that 2s43 was RT leaving SOA and arrived 1527 1/4 and left 1529 3/4 a dwell time of 2.5 mins which seems unusually long for swaythling. Rtt also shows 2s43 pathed for a dmu.

If it ran as a 2Sxx I would think it sensible to believe it was run as a 4 car 158, as most of the figure 6 route is not electrified (I know you probably know that, just explaining for those that don’t). 4 carriages seems excessive though, unless they were running every 2 hours and the services were strengthened, they can get very busty.

 

[D1009]

So essentially you're saying that the RMT press release is lying.

My reading of the RMT press releases was that it listed a number of complaints which took place in the context of volunteers being paid to act as guard, so it was only an implication that all of the instances noted actually involved such people. Are you trying to say that all RMT press releases are always factually accurate? Surely the whole object of a press release like that is to advance their cause rather than provide actual information.

You stated in post #409 that it was a Salisbury guard working during the strike, implying that it was a regular guard rather than a 'contingency' guard.

So which is it, or don't you know?

i did not state anything, it was part of a question, which I wouldn't have asked had I known the answer. I was speculating based on the memory of many Salisbury guards not supporting the strikes early on. If it was a an actual guard, the way SWR management handled the subsequent internal inquiry could have caused the Salisbury guards to change their position to supporting the strikes. Pure speculation on my part, I repeat.

 

[infobleep]

My reading of the RMT press releases was that it listed a number of complaints which took place in the context of volunteers being paid to act as guard, so it was only an implication that all of the instances noted actually involved such people. Are you trying to say that all RMT press releases are always factually accurate? Surely the whole object of a press release like that is to advance their cause rather than provide actual information.

i did not state anything, it was part of a question, which I wouldn't have asked had I known the answer. I was speculating based on the memory of many Salisbury guards not supporting the strikes early on. If it was a an actual guard, the way SWR management handled the subsequent internal inquiry could have caused the Salisbury guards to change their position to supporting the strikes. Pure speculation on my part, I repeat.

The way you phrased your question sounded like you were ask if it was due to the person being a Salisbury guard rather than asking if it was a Salisbury guard, which I think is what you were asking.

 

[TEW]

If it ran as a 2Sxx I would think it sensible to believe it was run as a 4 car 158, as most of the figure 6 route is not electrified (I know you probably know that, just explaining for those that don’t). 4 carriages seems excessive though, unless they were running every 2 hours and the services were strengthened, they can get very busty.

It was a 2Sxx, and it was a 4-car 158. It appears that only 2 out 3 diagrams were operating on the 'Salisbury 6' route, so 3 trains every 2 hours, so that might be why it was a 4-car. Two round trips were cancelled later in the evening as a result of the operational incident.

 

[pompeyfan]

It was a 2Sxx, and it was a 4-car 158. It appears that only 2 out 3 diagrams were operating on the 'Salisbury 6' route, so 3 trains every 2 hours, so that might be why it was a 4-car. Two round trips were cancelled later in the evening as a result of the operational incident.

That would seem to sum it up. Not important in the grand scheme of things, but still interesting none the less.

 

[D1009]

The way you phrased your question sounded like you were ask if it was due to the person being a Salisbury guard rather than asking if it was a Salisbury guard, which I think is what you were asking.

We'll I hope I've clarified it now.

 

[Muzer]

Once again, swr class 158/159 do not have asdo.


Edit: since selecting the text to quote it and posting it, it appears the poster has deleted his or her post which originally said that they thought Clapham junction and swaythling short platforms had been resolved by asdo.

Yes, apologies, I saw the other responses which I had somehow managed to skim over before and so I thought I'd save people having to respond by deleting it, but obviously I was too late...

 

[theironroad]

It was a 2Sxx, and it was a 4-car 158. It appears that only 2 out 3 diagrams were operating on the 'Salisbury 6' route, so 3 trains every 2 hours, so that might be why it was a 4-car. Two round trips were cancelled later in the evening as a result of the operational incident.

Which suggests that either the individual concerned was taken off track or the unit was removed from service . I'd hazard the former....

 

[theironroad]

Yes, apologies, I saw the other responses which I had somehow managed to skim over before and so I thought I'd save people having to respond by deleting it, but obviously I was too late...

Haha, no worries...

 

[theironroad]

A postscript on bbc south today just now said that today's talks between swr and RMT have broken down without agreement and Saturday's action will go ahead..

It was also mentioned that swr claimed that the RMT have turned down the exact deal that the RMT accepted with another TOC recently (I guess they mean Anglia)

No doubt more details to come.

 

[pompeyfan]

I think the question on a lot of people’s mind is, is it actually the same deal as GA, or has SWR cherry picked.

 

[Alex-JER/LGW]

I was on the 159 that stopped short at Overton last night, it was the 17:50 ex:Waterloo with a substitute guard working.Yes there was an issue at Overton,however the RMT press release is fiction as no passengers were in any danger. The substitute guard recognised his error, no passengers left the train, he gave a clear explanation and moved everyone forward to the next unit.
Yes an error was made however he dealt with it in an appropriate and timely manner. I am just grateful that these substitutes are working to enable me to commute into work, because if I acted the way in which these striking guards did I would swiftly be sacked and rightly so. They are rapidly losing support from the travelling public on the west of England line as they are not impacted in any way by SWR changes as this line will always require guards on trains due to the single line and rural nature.

 

[D1009]

I was on the 159 that stopped short at Overton last night, it was the 17:50 ex:Waterloo with a substitute guard working.Yes there was an issue at Overton,however the RMT press release is fiction as no passengers were in any danger. The substitute guard recognised his error, no passengers left the train, he gave a clear explanation and moved everyone forward to the next unit.
Yes an error was made however he dealt with it in an appropriate and timely manner. I am just grateful that these substitutes are working to enable me to commute into work, because if I acted the way in which these striking guards did I would swiftly be sacked and rightly so. They are rapidly losing support from the travelling public on the west of England line as they are not impacted in any way by SWR changes as this line will always require guards on trains due to the single line and rural nature.

I hadn't realised the incident was as recently as last night, given the press release was issued today.

 

[TEW]

because if I acted the way in which these striking guards did I would swiftly be sacked and rightly so.

SWR guards are taking lawful industrial action, they can't be sacked, and rightly so.

 

[TEW]

I think the question on a lot of people’s mind is, is it actually the same deal as GA, or has SWR cherry picked.

SWR claimed they had already offered a deal the same as that reached on Greater Anglia, but as anybody who has seen the wording will know, that claim is complete nonsense.

 

[theironroad]

SWR claimed they had already offered a deal the same as that reached on Greater Anglia, but as anybody who has seen the wording will know, that claim is complete nonsense.

Interestingly the RMT are saying they dispute swr saying talks failed and they consider them live (rmt press release) the RMT understood that the talks ended today so that swr could go back to Aberdeen and Hong Kong to consult on the deal.

 

[theironroad]

I was on the 159 that stopped short at Overton last night, it was the 17:50 ex:Waterloo with a substitute guard working.Yes there was an issue at Overton,however the RMT press release is fiction as no passengers were in any danger. The substitute guard recognised his error, no passengers left the train, he gave a clear explanation and moved everyone forward to the next unit.
Yes an error was made however he dealt with it in an appropriate and timely manner. I am just grateful that these substitutes are working to enable me to commute into work, because if I acted the way in which these striking guards did I would swiftly be sacked and rightly so. They are rapidly losing support from the travelling public on the west of England line as they are not impacted in any way by SWR changes as this line will always require guards on trains due to the single line and rural nature.

The use of words of 'putting passengers in danger ' is pretty much the exact wording that a regular guard's line manager would use with them when they interview about the incident. That's after the regular guard has been removed from duty, possibly screens for drugs and alcohol and then not allowed to work a train until a follow up interview and an 'action plan' has been formulated where amongst other outcomes, the guard will be subject to heighthened monitoring. In addition to being lectured about how he or she put passenger safety at risk, the regular guard would also get a lecture about the time loss to the service and to knock on delays. Welcome to the railway. But hey, in your opinion they should get fired anyway.

 

[D1009]

I was on the 159 that stopped short at Overton last night, it was the 17:50 ex:Waterloo with a substitute guard working.Yes there was an issue at Overton,however the RMT press release is fiction as no passengers were in any danger. The substitute guard recognised his error, no passengers left the train, he gave a clear explanation and moved everyone forward to the next unit.
Yes an error was made however he dealt with it in an appropriate and timely manner. I am just grateful that these substitutes are working to enable me to commute into work, because if I acted the way in which these striking guards did I would swiftly be sacked and rightly so. They are rapidly losing support from the travelling public on the west of England line as they are not impacted in any way by SWR changes as this line will always require guards on trains due to the single line and rural nature.

If the incident was exactly as you have described, I would say it was more than an error, he failed to follow the rules which require him to ensure the whole of the train is platformed before the doors are released.

 

[Bromley boy]

The use of words of 'putting passengers in danger ' is pretty much the exact wording that a regular guard's line manager would use with them when they interview about the incident. That's after the regular guard has been removed from duty, possibly screens for drugs and alcohol and then not allowed to work a train until a follow up interview and an 'action plan' has been formulated where amongst other outcomes, the guard will be subject to heighthened monitoring. In addition to being lectured about how he or she put passenger safety at risk, the regular guard would also get a lecture about the time loss to the service and to knock on delays. Welcome to the railway. But hey, in your opinion they should get fired anyway.

Indeed.

The hypocrisy of TOCs is extraordinary in these situations. Exactly the same thing happened on the Southern during the recent dispute.

A stop short + release is the kind of incident that would see you off track and quite possibly sacked if you had more than one in a short space of time on the grounds of passenger safety (speaking as a DOO driver here but guards are held to similar standards). It would also be endorsed on your record and follow you around for the rest of your career when changing TOCs.

Yet when stand-in guards have the same incidents it’s all swept under the carpet. Suddenly safety, the stick used to beat regular staff over the head with, goes out of the window.

because if I acted the way in which these striking guards did I would swiftly be sacked and rightly so.

You’d be sacked for participating in industrial action? I think you’ll find that would be unlawful - unless you’re saying you believe employees shouldn’t have the right to strike?

 

[CN75]

SWR guards are taking lawful industrial action, they can't be sacked, and rightly so.

As the industrial action has now gone past twelve weeks total on the latest ballot, they could be sacked lawfully at this point for staying on strike (link).

 

[Robertj21a]

If the incident was exactly as you have described, I would say it was more than an error, he failed to follow the rules which require him to ensure the whole of the train is platformed before the doors are released.

I'm struggling to see why that isn't an 'error' - what does your fuller explanation add to the fact that it was an error ?

 

[341o2]

Last Sturdays Corfe to Wareham service was cancelled due to RMT action

 

[Goldfish62]

As the industrial action has now gone past twelve weeks total on the latest ballot, they could be sacked lawfully at this point for staying on strike (link).

This is true and has been employed in industrial disputes in the past (Inc BR, who tended to be quite ruthless at times), but would be kind of unwise in this situation, I'd say...

 

[Carlisle]

Indeed.

The hypocrisy of TOCs is extraordinary in these situations. Exactly the same thing happened on the Southern during the recent dispute.

A stop short + release is the kind of incident that would see you off track and quite possibly sacked if you had more than one in a short space of time on the grounds of passenger safety (speaking as a DOO driver here but guards are held to similar standards). It would also be endorsed on your record and follow you around for the rest of your career when changing TOCs.

Yet when stand-in guards have the same incidents it’s all swept under the carpet. Suddenly safety, the stick used to beat regular staff over the head with, goes out of the window.

A largely pointless argument I tend to think , given ( regardless of whether we eventually see more DOO or not ) both major rail unions nowadays are willing to agree deals for drivers to release doors, on all compatible stock,(indeed at times they’ve both actively pushed it as an alternative to DOO) so guards checking of platforms prior to releasing doors will be almost redundant in a few years, however these current disputes turn out .

 

[infobleep]

I think the question on a lot of people’s mind is, is it actually the same deal as GA, or has SWR cherry picked.

It is the same deal as the BBC say it is. If it isn't the same deal then surely SWR are lying; the BBC are misquoting or the BBC are stating something that isn't the case.

 

[infobleep]

SWR claimed they had already offered a deal the same as that reached on Greater Anglia, but as anybody who has seen the wording will know, that claim is complete nonsense.

So they are lying then?

 

[Sebastian O]

As the industrial action has now gone past twelve weeks total on the latest ballot, they could be sacked lawfully at this point for staying on strike (link).

I believe it has to be twelve weeks of continual strikes..

 

[TEW]

So they are lying then?

Either they are lying or clueless, or probably both.