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

[3141]

I think we need to be honest and accept the 'average' passenger wants to see staff patrolling the train and they do not mind exactly what role they hold.

I do not think most people feel less safe on a train with a TE/OBM/OBS patrolling the train than on most of the trains I get on a typical evening, which have a Guard not venturing from the back cab. Maybe some people do, but they will surely be in a minority.

I don't think that we know what the "average" passenger is, let alone what he or she thinks about staff patrolling a train.

If you asked people for the their views, the precise words of the question would be crucial. "Don't you feel so much safer when you see a member of staff patrolling the train?" would produce a different set of results from "Don't you agree that there's no point having a guard who just sits in the rear cab and doesn't do anything?", especially if it's the rear cab of a ten-coach class 707.

If somebody, or a group of people, begin to behave in a manner that worries me, how would I get the guard to the scene? Where exactly is the guard? Some guards might have the physical size or the force of character to deal with the problem, but certainly not all of them.

Some recent posts on this thread have referred to guards being fully occupied with dealing with passengers one way or another west of Salisbury. Many of those services consist of three coaches and the guard can get along the train. People may ask the guard a question when they see him, but that doesn't mean that they absolutely needed to ask that question. East of Salisbury where the train may have six, eight or nine coaches, you may not see the guard at all. Sometimes the guard may announce "I shall be passing through the train" and indeed he does, on the way to the rear cab where he remains for the rest of the journey. Is that "patrolling the train" which passengers are supposed to consider worthwhile?

It's interesting that when the Southern dispute started, the RMT had a lot to say about "safety-critical" staff, implying that the guard was essential for the safe operation of the train. Now the emphasis is shifting to the safety of passengers during the journey, in terms of reassurance about having someone who might be able to help them if they needed it.

I am perfectly happy with what SWR are proposing to do, including running a train without a guard in times of disruption, when I imagine most passengers would prefer to be able to travel on a guardless train than have no train at all.

 

[HowardGWR]

Having barriers should not stop anyone carrying out ticket checks, passengers can travel in from the surrounding stations on the Barnstaple/Exmouth/Paignton lines travelling to stations on the west of England lines, people will buy a St David's to Central (or vice versa) ticket to get through the gates, passengers may also wish to see the guard for connections/assistance, there also seems to be quite a flow to and from Pinhoe from stations East of there.

Yes, I am aware that some people break the law and that travelling RPIs are needed for random checks .....and? I mean this; the barriers are a deterrent that should mean that only visits from RPIs are needed on commuter trains - the penalties in the high three figure bracket would deter most potential miscreants, one feels.

 

[Ethano92]

I don't think that we know what the "average" passenger is, let alone what he or she thinks about staff patrolling a train.

If you asked people for the their views, the precise words of the question would be crucial. "Don't you feel so much safer when you see a member of staff patrolling the train?" would produce a different set of results from "Don't you agree that there's no point having a guard who just sits in the rear cab and doesn't do anything?", especially if it's the rear cab of a ten-coach class 707.

If somebody, or a group of people, begin to behave in a manner that worries me, how would I get the guard to the scene? Where exactly is the guard? Some guards might have the physical size or the force of character to deal with the problem, but certainly not all of them.

As for the comment of the 707 being two halves, same can be said for the 455s and 458s except for the rare time their gangway doors are actually unlocked. If you are in the wrong part of any of these trains you are simply travelling without a guard.

You could argue the 701s will solve this problem but who's to say the guards won't just hide in the back cab again

 

[JP]

You would still need to be aware of how diseases spread - HIV for example. I often come across used plasters when I'm doing a rubbish run and there is a chance (but thankfully not yet) that I could come across a syringe, and I don't fancy spending a month on PEP.

The chances of catching HIV from a used plaster are pretty much minimal. Even if you picked up the syringe used by a HIV positive person and then used it to inject something into yourself the chance of getting HIV is about 0.5%. Even being spat on the chances are negligible.

 

[footprints]

Other than drain away the last dregs of remaining public support, can anyone explain what this week's strike action on SWR has actually achieved?

 

[Goldfish62]

Other than drain away the last dregs of remaining public support, can anyone explain what this week's strike action on SWR has actually achieved?

Regarding draining of public support, you ain't seen nothing yet. Wait until up to 82,000 rugby fans try to reach Twickenham over the next few Saturdays.

 

[infobleep]

Do you explain to people that DOO refers to the operation of the train, and there may still be other staff on the train even if it is driver only operated?

I don't think many 'average' passengers actually know if staff who they see patrolling the trains are actually Guards or not, and I can't imagine anyone feels less safe on the electric services around places like Glasgow than on the diesel ones, or on a Southeastern/GTR train with an OBM/OBS rather than a Guard, do you think people do?

I think we need to be honest and accept the 'average' passenger wants to see staff patrolling the train and they do not mind exactly what role they hold.

I do not think most people feel less safe on a train with a TE/OBM/OBS patrolling the train than on most of the trains I get on a typical evening, which have a Guard not venturing from the back cab. Maybe some people do, but they will surely be in a minority.

So I really don't get @infobleep's point at all.

I do sometimes state if their is an emergency, there needs to be someone to help and not just the driver.

Of course I am also referring to trains running with no one of them, bar the driver, due to late running. I'm not personally convinced that a driver totally dealing with the doors is faster but I don't talk about that bit as such as my mine interest is the safety.

Your quite right passengers don't know if the person patrolling is a guard or not and probably don't care. However they would care if their a train crash and the person patrolling can't help due to having no track side safety training or the person simply doesn't exist on the train as it was running late. I know in the case of South Western Railway they are not looking to turn the guards into OBSs but I suspect people are cynical and think they might or just remove hem from the suburban services. I don't consider places like Cobham that surbuban however.

Their press releases have certainly had spin and I speak as someone who doesn't like the RMT press releases. I like neither! I'm not into spin. Just present the facts truthfully in away people understand and don't bury what you actually want to do further down in the hope people don't notice.

 

[infobleep]

General question. Do driver operated doors generally speed up dwell times? It's just because I've noticed on DOO services the doors appear to be released faster and the train departs sooner after the doors have shut. I know there are reasons for this, but are guard operated doors slower to a point it's recognised within the railways or not so much?

Perhaps you could argue the doors stay open for less with a guard because they can rush people with whistles.

The reason I bring this up is because I overheard some people talking about how "irrelevant guards are on suburban, short distance services" (which I agree with to some extent though irrelevant is a stretch in my opinion) and it got me thinking, would driver operated doors help the slow lines out of Waterloo with trains stopping at every Station only 2 or 3 minutes apart even if there was still some form of 2nd staff member on the train. Surely if dwell times could be further reduced at stations beyond wide doors and fewer seats, there could be some sort of benefit made.

Generally, i don't believe it would make much of a difference to the majority of people's journies if there wasn't a guard on short distance services, i don't agree with the whole 'health and safety' card being played because I don't tend to hear people saying they feel unsafe on the tube, Thameslink etc. Especially with the advance of CCTV and wide, walkthrough, brightly lit trains which the 701s will be

The distances on the Cobham line are not short. Some are as long if not longer than some of the distances between stations on the main line, although the mainline will have some larger gaps between stations too.

 

[Ethano92]

The distances on the Cobham line are not short. Some are as long if not longer than some of the distances between stations on the main line, although the mainline will have some larger gaps between stations too.

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

 

[footprints]

RMT rant about a 'scab army' of 'phoney guards' incoming!

As Northern and South Western guards strike again in fight for safety RMT raises new safety warning over use of phoney guards.

• 2K31 12:57 Waterloo to Waterloo (rounder) ready to start signal given by a Contingency Guard (PUG) to a driver on a red signal at St Margaret’s .
• 1A29 11:23 Waterloo to Farnham a short stop was in place at Surbiton station, a 12 car train on a 10 car platform.
• 2C61 19:20 Waterloo to Reading ready to start signal given by a Contingency Guard (PUG) to a driver on a red signal at Twickenham.
• 1T57 18:09 Waterloo to Portsmouth Harbour ready to start signal given by a Contingency Guard (PUG) to a driver on a red signal at Fareham.

RMT General Secretary Mick Cash said:

"It is appalling that rather than settling their disputes these train companies are prepared to throw huge sums of money at a scab-army of volunteer managers who are a clear danger to passengers. It’s about time the safety regulator, who is funded by the private train companies, stopped letting the piper call the tune and took action to stop this dangerous nonsense."

Full scab-laden tantrum on the RMT website.

 

[Kite159]

Wouldn't that short stop at Surbiton be more down to driver error than guard error?

Poor Micky getting all hot & bothered again

 

[Dieseldriver]

RMT rant about a 'scab army' of 'phoney guards' incoming!


Full scab-laden tantrum on the RMT website.

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.

 

[Midmat]

Wouldn't that short stop at Surbiton be more down to driver error than guard error?

Poor Micky getting all hot & bothered again

But they are all 12 car platforms, there isn't a 10 car platform as the statement seems to suggest in any case? I'd have thought too that if the train was at the 10 car stop markers, they would be at the end of the platform too due to class 444s (so long enough for a 12 car 450) or are there seperate 10 car stop markers for 444s and 455s/456s which are shorter? In any case, the statement doesn't make clear what the actual issue was...

1A29 11:23 Waterloo to Farnham a short stop was in place at Surbiton station, a 12 car train on a 10 car platform

 

[wastedlife]

The 10 and 12 car stop markers are at the same place definitely on platforms 1-3 at Surbiton with no differentiation between 450/444 and 455/456; I rarely get a 10 car train going into platform 4 and you pretty much only ever see 12 car trains in platform 4 during disruption, but I believe the 10 and 12 car markers are in the same place there too. Conclusion: RMT statement doesn't appear to make sense, on the face of it. Unless they mean the stop short was at the 8 car marker.

 

[CN75]

In addition from the quoted press release:

Further to that I have a reports coming in that due to the signal failure between Woking and Surbiton trains have been re-routed via the new line (Surbiton to Guildford via Cobham). The Contingency Guards (PUG) are not trained on this route and therefore have no route knowledge. The company are quoting to my reps, “that as long as the Driver knows the route it is fine”.

It is not ‘fine’ as the ORR will know, and these significant breaches of safety have to cease.

As an aside, route knowledge requirements for guards are TOC discretion. There is no national standard for compliance and the rule book says that guards will be supplied with knowledge by their company. There is nothing to prevent SWR or any other company giving their contingency guards anything more than a PTS qualification and a brief about what direction the trains go as long as the trains don’t stop at stations along a route - as long as their own standards allow it and the ORR agrees. There is no reason the ORR would disagree. This appears to be SWR taking advantage of the RMT already being on strike to dilute guard safety standards safe in the knowledge it is a risk-free industrial relations climate.

It’s easy to deeply sympathise with the SWR guards. They are playing their most powerful card and it isn’t working, and following all the leadership’s instructions losing thousands of pounds. It should prompt pressure from members to the RMT on a change of tactics - negotiation could secure a better deal or they will be swept aside and get what they are given later on. This is where the infighting will probably break out on a widespread scale and the ‘scab’ word becomes bandied about in the workplace. Old timers and union reps will attempt to prevent dissent in the ranks by isolating anyone daring to question the striking as they cling on to the same old strategy.

 

[swt_passenger]

What would RMT do if SWR start issuing press releases every time a ‘real’ guard makes an error? No need to mention names, just the train ID, departure time, and station.
Post #972 states these sort of incidents are far from unusual...

 

[Stigy]

Quite an interesting one yesterday afternoon - the 1539 Waterloo-Guildford via Epsom was cancelled because of the lack of a guard. Some interesting comments from the rest of the pissed-off passengers, including "Of course there's no guard, they're all on strike", and "I don't know what the problem is, they run these trains without guards some of the time anyway".

Not sure what the source of the second comment was - my guess is that there are times when the guard is not visible apart from dispatch, with no PA announcements or anything, so it is quite possible to board and alight the train without seeing the guard, and if you think it's the people on the platform that do dispatch...

Guards are often not visible, which unfortunately doesn’t do them any favours when their jobs are apparently at risk. I’ve been approached by numerous passengers who are surprised when I tell them ALL SWR trains have guards on them.

Guards should be visible to customers or at the very least be making announcements.

 

[nuts & bolts]

It’s almost 12 months to the day when the RMT disruption commenced. I remember making a Poppy donation on that day.

 

[Helvellyn]

What would RMT do if SWR start issuing press releases every time a ‘real’ guard makes an error? No need to mention names, just the train ID, departure time, and station.
Post #972 states these sort of incidents are far from unusual...

Or salary, "perks", terms and conditions. Yes it's shift work but when you add on the value of the free travel and free parking...

 

[Ethano92]

Talking on twitter, many of the people in favour of the strikes seem to argue their point across and ignore points you give to them.In general, they pretend no other services are operated DOO and when I mention southern, Thameslink etc, they tell me I'm wrong and "to stop comparing SWR to the way the tube does things". I say if thameslink can operate Peterborough to Horsham DOO, people can manage an hour and a half to Reading DOO (I think I've said that before on here)

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.

One fair point I did find was that with an many unstaffed stations, who will help the mobility impaired off the train? Id like to see infrastructure worked on such as platform humps for a harmonious fleet but that's not gonna happen, will it go back to having to pre book which I understand hasn't been needed on lines out of Waterloo before.

Also RMT are surely starting to loose public support by now?

 

[Matt Taylor]

Wouldn't that short stop at Surbiton be more down to driver error than guard error?

Irrespective of where the train stops it remains the responsibility of the guard to ensure the train is fully accommodated before releasing the doors.

 

[winks]

Just because the rugby is on or any other sporting event will not change the fact the 2/3 of trains still run. In fact they (SWR) will probably endevaour to put more services on. It was very busy today on trains going into London and coming out at 9pm but it is half term. The companies attitude is they will persevere with this...commuters and day passengers can still get about without a proper guard! Also the RMT keep highlighting the fact that railway assaults are up and violence on trains has increased and hence this is a greater reason to keep a guard on board. However it is not a guards job to intervene in fights or act as “ policeman” the rmt know this yet they are desperately clutching at straws. Most guards are told to avoid these scenarios from my experience.

 

[Stigy]

Just because the rugby is on or any other sporting event will not change the fact the 2/3 of trains still run. In fact they (SWR) will probably endevaour to put more services on. It was very busy today on trains going into London and coming out at 9pm but it is half term. The companies attitude is they will persevere with this...commuters and day passengers can still get about without a proper guard! Also the RMT keep highlighting the fact that railway assaults are up and violence on trains has increased and hence this is a greater reason to keep a guard on board. However it is not a guards job to intervene in fights or act as “ policeman” the rmt know this yet they are desperately clutching at straws. Most guards are told to avoid these scenarios from my experience.

You’re right that it’s not a Guard’s job to necessarily intervene in situations such as you describe, however, the fact that there’s a Guard on board the train would more often than not act as a deterrent. As long as they make themselves known to the travelling public, be that through manual announcements or being visible throughout the journey.

 

[embers25]

Irrespective of where the train stops it remains the responsibility of the guard to ensure the train is fully accommodated before releasing the doors.

Fair enough, but the RMT should be demanding both the contingency guard and driver be not allowed on further services given both are at fault, but ASLEF would have something to say about that. Massive double standard highlighting the futility of this dispute.

 

[winks]

Stigy - correct I agree with you, seeing the small contingent of striking guards outside basingtoke station yesterday just made me wonder why they are prepared to lose so much money over nothing. The company have promised more guards not to get rid of them.

 

[RichardN]

I think the 8 car stop marks on the down platforms at Surbiton would leave enough room for 10x 450 coaches to be on the platform...

 

[Carlisle]

however, the fact that there’s a Guard on board the train would more often than not act as a deterrent. .

I’d also tthougt that’d be completely true, however a previous DOO related discussion on here a few years back didn’t conclude statistically anyway that serious violent incidents were more common on DOO than non DOO trains

 

[Stigy]

Stigy - correct I agree with you, seeing the small contingent of striking guards outside basingtoke station yesterday just made me wonder why they are prepared to lose so much money over nothing. The company have promised more guards not to get rid of them.

Exactly. I think also that it comes to a point during any on-going industrial action whereby the TOC eventually take the view that they’ve lost so much money anyway, and caused so much disruption to the travelling public, that the strikes are becoming ineffective and as such, would be quite easy to actually implement some form of DOO.

 

[3141]

…,however, the fact that there’s a Guard on board the train would more often than not act as a deterrent. As long as they make themselves known to the travelling public, be that through manual announcements or being visible throughout the journey.

As I don't assault people on trains I cannot be sure what motivates the people who do, but I doubt that they ask themselves whether or not there's a guard on the train before they do it. Not all guards make manual announcements when there's an automated system that in normal circumstances does the job perfectly adequately. As for "being visible throughout the journey", even if that's what the guard intends to do, the length of the train, the number of passengers, and ticket inspections, make it impractical. This is another example of what I said in an earlier post: the argument for retaining guards has moved away from operational safety and is increasingly about passenger reassurance.

But since SWR are not proposing to operate without guards, except in times of disruption, the strike is increasingly pointless, except to protect the power of the RMT. I'd certainly have been happy to travel without a guard (though it's not actually possible in a class 159) when the !609 from Waterloo to Salisbury was cancelled yesterday "because a member of staff was not available".

 

[Stigy]

As I don't assault people on trains I cannot be sure what motivates the people who do, but I doubt that they ask themselves whether or not there's a guard on the train before they do it. Not all guards make manual announcements when there's an automated system that in normal circumstances does the job perfectly adequately. As for "being visible throughout the journey", even if that's what the guard intends to do, the length of the train, the number of passengers, and ticket inspections, make it impractical.

It’s not just about violent assaults whereby the offenders planned or set out to do what they do. Many incidents are opportunistic, such as theft of passenger property, sexual assault or criminal damage. I’d take an educated guess that 90% or so of these incidents wouldn’t occur if there was a visible presence on the train.

I’m not saying Guards should patrol all trains as it’s not practical I agree. However the automated announcements take away an important human element, and don’t explain some of what an actual voice could. 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. I’ve never heard any automated announcements that say there is actually a Guard on the train? Plus, as soon as an actual human starts to speak over a PA, people tend to listen, whereas they don’t when the usual automated voice begins.