SWR: RMT ballot over role of guards *48 hour strike 8th/9th November*

[theironroad]

The unions could move with the times and stop using safety as an excuse for blocking progress.

Ah, the utopian land of 'progress'.
...and ordinary working people standing up to defend their livelihoods is 'blocking progress'

No doubt you're part of the 1% and sweating the labour you employ.

 

[HH]

They could guarantee a second safety critical member of staff on every train for the length of the franchise. The dispute would be over immediately if they did that.

No, that would not be enough. RMT want control of the doors, not just being safety critical.

 

[TEW]

No, that would not be enough. RMT want control of the doors, not just being safety critical.

They would happy to discuss door operation. They are happy to discuss everything from the starting point of a guarantee of a safety critical second member of staff on every train.

 

[HH]

They would happy to discuss door operation. They are happy to discuss everything from the starting point of a guarantee of a safety critical second member of staff on every train.

That's probably the end point for First.

Those positions make negotiation rather difficult, because neither side is going to want to get to that point quickly, in case the other side takes that as a sign that they'll go further...

 

[TEW]

That's probably the end point for First.

Those positions make negotiation rather difficult, because neither side is going to want to get to that point quickly, in case the other side takes that as a sign that they'll go further...

If that was the end point for SWR it would not seem like a good business decision to allow a potentially very disruptive and costly strike to ahead.

 

[HarleyDavidson]

I bloody hate strikes, no one wins with 'em, it only creates losers on both sides and all it does is leave bitterness & resentment on both sides.

Both sides need to be locked in some rooms with ACAS and get the issue sorted, before its too late.

 

[HH]

If that was the end point for SWR it would not seem like a good business decision to allow a potentially very disruptive and costly strike to ahead.

I agree. But my experience is that neither TOCs nor Rail Unions are very good at negotiating.

 

[Clip]

No doubt you're part of the 1% and sweating the labour you employ.

Why would they have to be this just because they have a different opinion than you do?

 

[Alteran Ancient]

I've overheard some complaining from union members that SWR are planning to swap over to using CD/RA signal dispatch at Waterloo as opposed to old-fashioned bat & flag as SWT have been used to over the past 15 years. Perhaps this is seen as a precursor to making the guards' role less critical?

I've said it before and will say it again. So long as SWR kept their guards, I'd be fine to see then evolve to a system closer to what SE have been using for the past decade - driver opens, driver closes at manned stations (via platform dispatchers) and guard closes at unmanned stations. This would save dwell times without introducing opportunities for passengers to be put in danger, whilst keeping a second safety-trained member of staff on board.

All sides should sit down at the negotiating table - SWR should be prepared to listen to concerns, aware that the RMT don't make empty threats, and the RMT should be prepared to accept some change in operational procedures as long as neither careers or passenger safety are being threatened.

But as we know, ASLEF and RMT have been duking it out with Southern for several years now and the RMT hasn't really got anywhere - all that has happened is the RMT's ability to pull-off an effective strike has disappeared, and that's their only bargaining chip.

 

[CN75]

I bloody hate strikes, no one wins with 'em, it only creates losers on both sides and all it does is leave bitterness & resentment on both sides.

Both sides need to be locked in some rooms with ACAS and get the issue sorted, before its too late.

The strikes will poison the atmosphere at SWR for years. Once the reality sinks in after the first few days, the strikes achieve little then the nastiness will start in work and outside. Another issue is the new trains are the only ones which won’t have guards guaranteed for the franchise in the messages sent out to SWR staff, so therefore for now will only affect the London area crew. Zero impact on the jobs of the rest is what SWR are saying. Will those guards be so keen to lose thousands striking for colleagues elsewhere knowing this?

SWR will have a clause for industrial action cover in their contract with the DFT, just like all the other TOCs involved, meaning apart from reputational damage there will be none of the traditional financial hit that makes strikes so powerful. That’s the strategy the government is taking to get TOCs to make unpopular changes, which neutralises the RMT.

 

[HarleyDavidson]

Why would they have to be this just because they have a different opinion than you do?

Because there are quite a few DOO-P trolls on here who do it just to bait traincrew and MoS.

 

[Clip]

Because there are quite a few DOO-P trolls on here who do it just to bait traincrew and MoS.

Read the post I quoted and my comment and then answer it correctly.

 

[ainsworth74]

Both sides need to be locked in some rooms with ACAS and get the issue sorted, before its too late.

It's been my opinion for quite a while now that the relevant TOC and RMT teams need to be locked in a room together with no phones and no computers and just a few pads of paper, some pens, some water and a plate of biscuits and told that they will be let out of the room once they have an agreement. Until then the door stays closed and locked.

 

[HarleyDavidson]

It's been my opinion for quite a while now that the relevant TOC and RMT teams need to be locked in a room together with no phones and no computers and just a few pads of paper, some pens, some water and a plate of biscuits and told that they will be let out of the room once they have an agreement. Until then the door stays closed and locked.

Are moderators allowed to be that sadistic?

Oh wait. I'm just as bad.

 

[HH]

I'd take away the biscuits.

 

[HowardGWR]

It wouldn't work, if we accept what has happened with the SN ASLEF deals, twice.

In any case what deal is there to be reached with RMT? They either accept the ending of a function or they don't.

 

[pompeyfan]

Not seen it mentioned but last night there was an incident at Worting junction involving an up 1Txx, brick thrown from an over bridge which caused considerable damage to the windscreen and shook the driver up considerably. Apparently the guard handled the situation really well and actually assisted the driver in moving the train forward so that passengers were able to detrain at a station. Had the 2nd crew member not been safety critical, the situation could have been very different.

Kudos obviously to the driver as well for maintaining his nerve and to Siemens for such a solid product.

Attached image is being circulated on social media

 

[infobleep]

Not seen it mentioned but last night there was an incident at Worting junction involving an up 1Txx, brick thrown from an over bridge which caused considerable damage to the windscreen and shook the driver up considerably. Apparently the guard handled the situation really well and actually assisted the driver in moving the train forward so that passengers were able to detrain at a station. Had the 2nd crew member not been safety critical, the situation could have been very different.

Kudos obviously to the driver as well for maintaining his nerve and to Siemens for such a solid product.

Attached image is being circulated on social media

I don't think those who want to get rid of the guards care if it's worse to be fair. In other words they don't mind something like that happening infrequently, with a worse outcome than last night of course.

 

[AdamL]

I don’t post often on forums and with regards to DOO I’m very much split on the issue. However, with regards to the incident last night at Worting (which I know no details about except what I have seen posted online), the Guard cannot have helped to move a train forward with such an obscured windscreen (assuming it was driven from the affected cab).

Rule book RSSB GE/RT8000 module TW5 section 2.3 states that if a windscreen becomes obscured or broken another Driver with the appropriate route knowledge must be provided for the train to continue. A Guard does not have the appropriate route knowledge and therefore is no use in this situation*.

A Guard (or any other competent person such as an OBS) can be used to accompany the Driver to ensure he or she is not too shaken up by the event and hit the emergency stop plunger should the competent person believe the Driver is not reacting appropriately to the situation ahead. They (Guard, OBS etc.) cannot provides route knowledge information in the event of broken window.

* please don’t get me wrong, an additional member of staff onboard can be very useful in controlling the public onboard to avoid an uncontrolled evacuation taking place and providing reassurance for the Driver but to say the Guard was useful in moving the train forward is potentially misleading. But if the Guard was so vital in this situation for the Driver, why are ECS and Freight movements allowed with just the Driver?

On a side note, I do find it strange that trains formed of 2 coaches quite often have a Guard, yet those formed of 12 coaches down South don’t. Surely it should be the other way around with 12 coach trains even having 3 members of staff onboard, and not just 2. With new ways of working, new technology etc. it’s a shame no one is having an intelligent conversation about what the future of the railway will look without a threat of a strike.

 

[Darandio]

I don't think those who want to get rid of the guards care if it's worse to be fair. In other words they don't mind something like that happening infrequently, with a worse outcome than last night of course.

Meaning that they are quite happy to see a driver killed every now and then?

Thats a new low, even in a thread of many lows.

 

[pompeyfan]

An OBS isn’t classed as a competent person in any way.

SWR are saying in their own press release the guard assisted the driver in moving the train the 3 miles from Worting to Basingstoke.

In regard to the rest of your post it’s not for me to comment either way. Local media are now reporting the events;

https://trib.al/J0oNk1u

The value of having guards on trains has been illustrated by an incident in which a brick was thrown from a bridge, leaving the driver needing help to get to a nearby station, a union has said. A South Western Railway (SWR) service was struck by an object near Basingstoke yesterday, smashing the windscreen. The guard went to the driver’s cab to help him take the train to Basingstoke station.

The Rail, Maritime and Transport union said the incident proved the value of having guards on trains - the issue which has sparked a series of disputes at companies including SWR.

 

[Clip]

An OBS isn’t classed as a competent person in any way.

SWR are saying in their own press release the guard assisted the driver in moving the train the 3 miles from Worting to Basingstoke.

In regard to the rest of your post it’s not for me to comment either way. Local media are now reporting the events;

https://trib.al/J0oNk1u

Interestingly enough that picture has been taken from another train so i take it it was coupled up to another then before it was moved?

 

[AdamL]

Having chatted to an OBS in the past, they can act as a ‘competent person’ for certain situations (e.g. checking the line / ineffective drivers vigilance). The rule book just says the Driver is responsible for briefing the ‘competent person’ on how to stop the train in an emergency.

However, the rule book is very clear on who can assist moving a train forward with a broken / obscured drivers windscreen and that does not include the Guard. But I guess control / the signaller has given special permission in this case for the train to be moved forward under special circumstances.

From my limited knowledge from reading articles, SWR has made no commitment either way to operate Trains DOO or with a Guard (or any combination in between). I support a lot of what the RMT wants (i.e. a second person on board) but I don’t like the way they are doing it. From the outside, it feels like they are stuck in the past and don’t want any form of change. And the latest press release by the RMT shows that they themselves don’t know what’s “safe” and permitted by the rule book their members sign.

The problem with the Railways is that it’s hugely Union led, and that results in two sides (management versus union) starting off on completely the opposite sides of the spectrum, to eventually meet somewhere in the middle. Neither side wants to give in more than the other for the fear of the opposite side getting more out of the deal. Change will always happen, and you’re either going to go with it and adapt to the times (albeit safely) or get left behind making it look you’re dragging your heels and wanting to cause disruption.

 

[Domh245]

SWR has made no commitment either way to operate Trains DOO or with a Guard

They talk about wanting to keep two members of staff on the train, and also talk about how they haven't yet decided how to operate the new fleet. But then later on say "we would like to be able to operate the new metro trains with one person on board in the rare event the second person is unavailable at short notice and the train is otherwise able to get customers to their destinations" which can only be read as having DOO with non safety-critical 2nd members of staff. They obviously won't come out and say it, because of the backlash it'll cause, but they are certainly implying it.

 

[HarleyDavidson]

Having chatted to an OBS in the past, they can act as a ‘competent person’ for certain situations (e.g. checking the line / ineffective drivers vigilance). The rule book just says the Driver is responsible for briefing the ‘competent person’ on how to stop the train in an emergency.

However, the rule book is very clear on who can assist moving a train forward with a broken / obscured drivers windscreen and that does not include the Guard. But I guess control / the signaller has given special permission in this case for the train to be moved forward under special circumstances.

From my limited knowledge from reading articles, SWR has made no commitment either way to operate Trains DOO or with a Guard (or any combination in between). I support a lot of what the RMT wants (i.e. a second person on board) but I don’t like the way they are doing it. From the outside, it feels like they are stuck in the past and don’t want any form of change. And the latest press release by the RMT shows that they themselves don’t know what’s “safe” and permitted by the rule book their members sign.

The problem with the Railways is that it’s hugely Union led, and that results in two sides (management versus union) starting off on completely the opposite sides of the spectrum, to eventually meet somewhere in the middle. Neither side wants to give in more than the other for the fear of the opposite side getting more out of the deal. Change will always happen, and you’re either going to go with it and adapt to the times (albeit safely) or get left behind making it look you’re dragging your heels and wanting to cause disruption.

And I don't think that you know what you're on about really. It's all very well quoting the rule book verbatim, but do you know what other instructions run along aside it for emergency working? Probably not.

As quite a few drivers and a lot of crew know, if they were to stick absolutely to the letter of the rule book, you wouldn't get many trains running. I'm not saying we don't run to the rule book, we do, it's just at times the rules need to be flexed a little (with permission) to get out of certain situations and emergencies that the rule book doesn't cater for.

That move would have been done extremely slowly, at around 5 mph as if you go below that the holding brake may kick in and stop the train unnecessarily, also as the guard would be on the secondmans side of a 444 calling out the signals and keeping a very close eye on what's ahead, there will be a speedo & an emergency stop plunger available on the console, should anything untoward happen. And any such move would have only been done as an absolute last resort and with special authority.

 

[Midmat]

Any speculation on what service SWR will run if the strike goes ahead?

 

[AdamL]

HarleyDavidson - I’m not going to worry too much about your comment regarding what I know and what I don’t know (It may surprise you). Yes I stated things in black and white from the rule book (it’s an open forum after all) but it was to highlight a point about certain rules being stretched when the RMT is fighting a case on safety - and arguably the rule book and the rules contained make the railway safe. It could be argued that may be it’s safer to clear the line using whatever means available to avoid trains building up but this isn’t exactly the argument RMT should be using as to why a Guard is so important as stretching the rules could have been achieved by an OBS!

The Guards on SWR now more than ever before need to be visible to get the public on their side - that means frequent train walks, providing clear information when a train is delayed and making sure they are actually on the platform when dispatching a train (i.e.following the rule book) and yes I’m talking about the suburban network even though the stations are very close together as that’s where Domh245 has pointed out the future changes may occur.

RMT needs to seriously up their game on they way they are handling this issue on all TOCs. RMT stickers littering the train windows isn’t the way forward and does not come across as professional.

Midmat - I’m waiting very much to see what SWR are capable of delivering on the strike days and I guess a timetable may be out in a week or so (unless anyone else has more information).

 

[Monty]

That move would have been done extremely slowly, at around 5 mph as if you go below that the holding brake may kick in and stop the train unnecessarily, also as the guard would be on the secondmans side of a 444 calling out the signals and keeping a very close eye on what's ahead, there will be a speedo & an emergency stop plunger available on the console, should anything untoward happen. And any such move would have only been done as an absolute last resort and with special authority.

I find it quite amusing that a Guard technically cannot be used as a competent person I'm a situation such as this but it's perfectly acceptable to be used as a competent person for a propelling movement during which the driver wouldn't even be in the leading cab and the Guard would be on his own in the front relaying the signals to the Driver via the cab to crew..

Which is probably why an exception in this case was made.

 

[AdamL]

I find it quite amusing that a Guard technically cannot be used as a competent person I'm a situation such as this but it's perfectly acceptable to be used as a competent person for a propelling movement during which the driver wouldn't even be in the leading cab and the Guard would be on his own in the front relaying the signals to the Driver via the cab to crew..

Which is probably why an exception in this case was made.

I’m not convinced a Guard can - rule book again says “have the required knowledge over the entire route over which you have to travel”.

I believe in the past you could (this part is what I’ve heard) as Guards in the past could also carry out assistance protection but they can’t anymore. Shame as help is always appreciated and this indicates to me that Guards operational responsibilities over the years have slowly been eroded away.

 

[Monty]

I’m not convinced a Guard can - rule book again says “have the required knowledge over the entire route over which you have to travel”.

I believe in the past you could (this part is what I’ve heard) as Guards in the past could also carry out assistance protection but they can’t anymore. Shame as help is always appreciated and this indicates to me that Guards operational responsibilities over the years have slowly been eroded away.

Does depend on the company and the time I guess, I as a guard have been trained on propelling movements and assistance protection. In fact I carried out assistance protection for my driver a few years ago.