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

[infobleep]

I agree with the last paragraph. The general feeling is one of distrust towards the company by the guards grade.

It must be noted though that looking at Twitter it would appear support from the public is rapidly disappearing. The grade ‘do nothing’, ‘are allergic to work’, ‘work shy’, and my personal favourite ‘should all be sacked on the spot as there’s plenty of homeless veterans that would love a £32-£38k a year job’ .....

Surely Twitter is more likely to have those that are moaning and those supporting are less likely to post.

 

[infobleep]

The strikes are a one off abnormal event not of TfL's or the local authorities' making.

That doesn't answer my question of why they have a legal duty to run them for free in London but not for free outside of London.

The strikes are affecting both inside and outside of London.

 

[infobleep]

This argument is true in the sense a guard is useful in a hypothetical emergency, but when trains on virtually identical tracks all around the South East on similar trains do not require someone ‘doing nothing’, having one on SWR is indefensible. Guards doing ‘as much as they can’ is what ultimately justifies them being on the trains.

The old job of opening the doors is dead and it is time to move on, and the RMT have accepted this now at other companies. SWR guards are working trains from cabs on a daily basis for no good reason which is why the public are turning on them for being pointless.



The theory is that the fewer operational decision makers are involved, the lower the risk of miscommunication. Because the risk of injury is by far now highest at the platform for passengers, the theory is that having only the driver involved in dispatch is safest as there is less chance of a misunderstanding. Modern train CCTV systems can now give as good a view to the driver in the cab as a guard could on a platform and on some trains (long trains or curved platforms) CCTV is usually safer as there is a constant view of the platform until the train moves. A guard has to go back to the train, close the door etc. and during that time there could be an increase in risk of a passenger incident at the platform which went unseen. This is the RSSB theory.

The risk rate for non platform based incidents that affect passengers is so low on any train that there is no real effect on passenger safety. The chances of the driver being incapacitated and nobody besides the guard being quickly aware are as good as nil because of the technology improvements in the last twenty years on the railway. Every train in the UK has a radio system that can stop trains dead in seconds nowadays, which makes the old emergency protection arrangements largely redundant. This is why the minimum training requirement is making a REC.

The benefits of having a guard on board for passengers are heavily weighted towards tasks that have no operational effect on safety nowadays, as long as the train concerned has a CCTV system. Times have moved very quickly.

It is easy to forget how good the SWR offer on the table is: every train keeps a guard except in emergencies where the guard can’t be supplied last minute. It’s a strong offer when the alternatives could have been proposed genuine DOO conversion with staffing on the platforms where needed, etc.

Any negotiation that doesn’t allow to run a train without a guard when the guard is not available for an unplanned reason will not work for SWR. The RMT handing over door control etc. does nothing to make the service more reliable in those circumstances as the train still requires a guard to run.

It worked for South West Trains so why shouldn't it work for South Western Railway?

 

[infobleep]

Looking at the bigger picture, why would the railways main governing body deem it essential to fund a traditional guard on every train indefinitely on say the Hampton Court or Shepperton branch when the nearby and almost identical Epsom downs, Tattenham Corner or Slough branches have operated perfectly successfully without one for the last 25 years.

Well why wouldn't one part of the DfT talk to the other part as they are the same organisation? But they didn't. What would the DfT allow more new rolling stock on SWR franchise but do very little for Cross Country in the way of rolling stock? They are both TOCs.

The general feeling does seem to be more supportive of the RMT than it has been previously in this dispute. SWR have made some strange decisions and the way they are communicating with and treating guards, even those who have worked during strikes, is causing staff to distrust the company. Even those who did not support the strikes initially are starting to see that they may well be justified and necessary after all.

I distrust the company due to some of their press releases surrounding this. They spun them out to appear as if nothing is changing, by highlighting first what is not changing.
If they are so keen to run without guards during disruption, why are they not prepared to do that on the 450 trains or get rid of them for new trains that don't need guards during disruption?

They are getting rid of the 707s so surely they could have proposed getting rid of the 450s?

It seems they just want to do what suits them and to hell with everyone else.

 

[infobleep]

That is not quite what the offer is.

SWR currently insist that they want to make the service more reliable, but it doesn't make much sense. Guard unavailability accounts for such a tiny percentage of train cancellations that it would simply not be worth having this dispute if eliminating them was the reason.

What percentage of delays are due to guards and what percentage are due to drivers? The new plan does nothing to help passengers if the driver is delayed...... I'm aware it's not currently possible to do much, bar employ more drivers to cover disruption. Perhaps they should employ some more drivers to cover potential disruption. After all this is about minimising disruption is it not? [I don't think it is myself].

 

[infobleep]

The 7:35 could have done with being 10 carriages today rather than 8. It was leaving people behind at New Malden and people were stood along the platform as if waiting for 10 carriage trains. I suspect the 7.03 having all its stops cancelled between Surbtion and Waterloo didn't help.

I don't know if the staffing delays were due to the strike or the failure of the power supply at Guildford or both.

On the live departure board for Guildford, on National Rail Enquiries, there was no mention of the strike, only the earlier power supply problems.

 

[Warwick]

Looking at the bigger picture, why would the railways main governing body deem it essential to fund a traditional guard on every train indefinitely on say the Hampton Court or Shepperton branch when the nearby and almost identical Epsom downs, Tattenham Corner or Slough branches have operated perfectly successfully without one for the last 25 years.

Ah, the unanswerable question.

 

[Goldfish62]

At least this time SWR has bothered to do some research on local bus alternatives and arranged ticket acceptance.

 

[infobleep]

At least this time SWR has bothered to do some research on local bus alternatives and arranged ticket acceptance.

How do you know they didn't do research before?

 

[swt_passenger]

If they are so keen to run without guards during disruption, why are they not prepared to do that on the 450 trains or get rid of them for new trains that don't need guards during disruption?

They are getting rid of the 707s so surely they could have proposed getting rid of the 450s?

Getting rid of the 707s is nothing whatsoever to do with the method of door operation, it’s to do with standardising the train type used at inner suburban stations. So not of much relevance to the future use of the 450 fleet. I think you’re flying an irrelevant kite here.

 

[Goldfish62]

How do you know they didn't do research before?

I thought that was obvious. Because why would they find out which routes to direct passengers to and then just state on the website that "local buses may be available"?

 

[infobleep]

Getting rid of the 707s is nothing whatsoever to do with the method of door operation, it’s to do with standardising the train type used at inner suburban stations. So not of much relevance to the future use of the 450 fleet. I think you’re flying an irrelevant kite here.

Well 450s will require a guard at all times so I am lead to believe. Surely if they replace them with something else newly built, then during disruption they might be able to run without a guard. That was my point. I referenced the 707s because they were an example of a rolling stock that was going.

I know the 707s aren't going due to door issues but they are going none the less so if they can get rid of them, why not the 450s. I mean they are apparently so keen to avoid disruption to passengers, which with the 450s running they can't.

 

[infobleep]

I thought that was obvious. Because why would they find out which routes to direct passengers to and then just state on the website that "local buses may be available"?

Maybe they couldn't come to an agreement to have ticket acceptance but now they can.

 

[swt_passenger]

Well 450s will require a guard at all times so I am lead to believe. Surely if they replace them with something else newly built, then during disruption they might be able to run without a guard. That was my point. I referenced the 707s because they were an example of a rolling stock that was going.

Isnt it just possible that 450, 444, and DMU operated routes are to remain operated by commercial guards as now, and they are not part of the problem? I’m sure that’s been said by an SWR insider somewhere in the various threads.

 

[Goldfish62]

Maybe they couldn't come to an agreement to have ticket acceptance but now they can.

I think that's possibly clutching at straws. They could have still stated the bus routes, and not given incorrect information about non-existent TfL bus services in Shepperton.

 

[infobleep]

Isnt it just possible that 450, 444, and DMU operated routes are to remain operated by commercial guards as now, and they are not part of the problem? I’m sure that’s been said by an SWR insider somewhere in the various threads.

Well if they keep all routes with commercial and non-commercial guards then try ee would be no problem. My point is they are choosing to have a problem when it suits them.

 

[infobleep]

I think that's possibly clutching at straws. They could have still stated the bus routes, and not given incorrect information about non-existent TfL bus services in Shepperton.

Even on Twitter I think they were referring to non-existant Shepperton route.

You are right that I was clutching at straws.

Let's hope more his details are provided for Saturday, in perticular Hinchley Wood and Claygate.

It will be interesting to see how different Saturdays timetable will be. It will depend I was hold on the staff levels they have. Does this mean they have different numbers of people avilable to work as contingency each Saturday?

 

[Goldfish62]

Even on Twitter I think they were referring to non-existant Shepperton route.

You are right that I was clutching at straws.

Let's hope more his details are provided for Saturday, in perticular Hinchley Wood and Claygate.

It will be interesting to see how different Saturdays timetable will be. It will depend I was hold on the staff levels they have. Does this mean they have different numbers of people avilable to work as contingency each Saturday?

You are indeed correct re Twitter. I and several others pointed it out to them over several days, but got no response. Can't say I was impressed.

As you say, it'll be interesting to see what this Saturday brings. One of the issues with the summer is that contingency guards will be taking their family holidays, as will drivers for operators who would otherwise provide replacement bus services.

All-in-all it would appear that the strikes are perfectly timed by the RMT to revitalise their dispute.

 

[infobleep]

If there is a reduced service, as South Western Railway claim, why are trains such as the 18:44 Waterloo to Portsmouth not stopping at Clapham Junction? That train is usually the 18:45 and it stops at West Byfleet instead. It's not even stopping at West Byfleet.

Are South Western Railway concerned that too many people will be on the trains? However if that was the case, why is the 18:27 to Exeter stopping there?

 

[swt_passenger]

Well if they keep all routes with commercial and non-commercial guards then try ee would be no problem. My point is they are choosing to have a problem when it suits them.

As is the trade union, as far as I can see.

 

[infobleep]

Acorrding to SWR Twitter staff, they are not stopping more fast trains in the evening peak, than they currently are in the strike timetable, due to the reduced service.

Run more trains and they can't stop at Clapham Junction. Run less trains and they still can't stop. This doesn't seem to apply to snow timetables or Christmas season ones though.

Given that is the case, why is it the 18:27 that is stopping at Clapham Junction and not some other train instead. That is the first to do so since the 16;52. That only has 9 carriages. I don't know how busy it is today but usually it is very busy. Wouldn't it make more sense to stop a 12 carriage train?

After the 18:27, the next one is the 19:12. Nothing imbetween. That skips Woking. Surely that's not due to passenger numbers? (it usually skips Woking by the way). Then we are back to the 19:27, which doesn't have 12 carriages either.

The 19:46 is making an extra stop and then you have the 19:52 as usual. I don't know how many carriages they have but it will either be 8 or 12. There is no 19:22 as that service isn't running from London.

The 18:44, which leaves a minute earlier than its usual counter part, the 18:45 skips Clapham Junction but should be 12 carriages. It usually stops at West Byfleet but is skipping it. I imagine that's because other trains are serving West Byfleet but I don't know.

I am no expert so maybe stopping at 9 carriage train at Clapham Junction is the best thing to do. Just seems very odd, given the reason they are not stopping is did to the reduced service.

It's interesting to also note that in the morning the x05 and x35 stopping services from Woking to Waterloo are actually stopping at Wimbledon, Earlsfield, Clapham Junction and Vauxhall. Surely with the reduced service they should skip those? After all normally there is 4 stopping trains and hour and currently it's only 2!

 

[infobleep]

As is the trade union, as far as I can see.

The trade union have a problem because they don't consider it to be safe to run without a guard. I fully admit I agree with them, as do some of my friends who regularly commute to London.

South Western Railway ha e their reasons for wanting to run without a guard but I remind to be convinced that the main one is due to disruption.

They have form in promoting lesser reasons and ignoring the main reasons for something not happening. Only have to look at the timetable not happening later this year. They promote a reason which isn't as important as one they ignore publicly.

 

[Goldfish62]

Talks tomoorrow at ACAS according to the BBC.

 

[Parallel]

Anyone know if GWR are stopping at any additional stations between Salisbury and Fareham (including the two they actually run)?

 

[Carlisle]

It worked for South West Trains so why shouldn't it work for South Western Railway?

Stagecoach appeared to have a deep personal commitment to retaining the traditional guards role, possibly in the main due to Mr Souters individual opinions but not necessarily a view shared by the majority of the industry at large.

 

[greaterwest]

Anyone know if GWR are stopping at any additional stations between Salisbury and Fareham (including the two they actually run)?

They didn't last weekend. Dunbridge and Dean received no service. They could perhaps stop at Swanwick too but that gets Southern services too. It's worth noting SWR did run a limited Netley line service last Saturday.

 

[Goldfish62]

Stagecoach appeared to have a deep personal commitment to retaining the traditional guards role, possibly in the main due to Mr Souters individual opinions but not necessarily a view shared by the majority of the industry at large.

I think the deep personal commitment was one of making enough money out of the franchise to not have to bother rocking the boat. Remember that the 458s were ordered on the basis of DOO and that SWT erected DOO equipment.

Souter has stated his interest in autonomous driverless buses so I doubt he really has any commitment to guards on trains. It just suited him at the time.

 

[cjmillsnun]

Stagecoach appeared to have a deep personal commitment to retaining the traditional guards role, possibly in the main due to Mr Souters individual opinions but not necessarily a view shared by the majority of the industry at large.

Stagecoach kept guards because they wanted to go down this route initially but were warned that SWT would likely come to a standstill if they did. They had already had their issues with drivers leaving and sensibly decided to focus on improving their service instead of further conflict.

 

[infobleep]

Stagecoach appeared to have a deep personal commitment to retaining the traditional guards role, possibly in the main due to Mr Souters individual opinions but not necessarily a view shared by the majority of the industry at large.

We are all entitled to our opinions and often its the people at the top who make the choices and sometimes it's based on their views or even beliefs.

I can believe that people think trains without guards is safe or safe enough but I disagree.

I do like SWR commitment to loos on every train in time, which maybe SWT wouldn't have done. So I'm not saying SWT are all bad but on this issue and the fact they seem to want to write press releases which hide the main reasons for doing stuff, I I'm not keen. The latter leads me to distrust them even.

 

[TEW]

Talks tomoorrow at ACAS according to the BBC.

Correct, Saturday's strike is still on for now though.