W Driver Only Operated Trains (DOO) discussion

[455driver]

Isn't the current preferred option for Penzance services to be bimode IEPs with additonal engines to cope with the steep gradients around Cornwall and Devon?

That is one option, the decision should be made at the end of the month.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Isn't the current preferred option for Penzance services to be bimode IEPs with additonal engines to cope with the steep gradients around Cornwall and Devon?

Sort of. It is an option but the DfT have not yet decided whether to approve it. And technically they are not IEPs since, if approved, they would be procured outside of the Intercity Express Programme.

 

[gareth950]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-33046312

'No compulsory redundancies'

FGW operations director Ben Rule said: "We are not removing train managers or customer hosts from these trains, and we will be serving hot and cold food and drink on more trains than we do today.

"We are being very clear from the very start. We need every train manager and customer host we have got - plus at least 100 more over the course of the franchise - for our plans to deliver the very best customer service on our long distance services.

"There will be absolutely no compulsory redundancies for those currently working on board these trains."

He added: "We've also promised no changes to pay or conditions of employment, with retraining and redeployment available for those who do no want to make the switch to the newer trains."

http://www.itv.com/news/meridian/up...great-western-hits-back-at-rmt-strike-ballot/

First Great Western hits back at RMT strike ballot


First Great Western hit back at the RMT saying it will employ 100 more staff but confirm there will be changes to the current role of the guard. The new trains will have sliding doors that will be controlled by drivers rather than guards.

First Great Western say they have already outlined these plans formally to the RMT, and wrote to staff last week highlighting the proposals and the commitments to jobs. The rail company says they remain keen to talk with the RMT further.

"We are not removing train managers or customer hosts from these trains, and we will be serving hot and cold food and drink on more trains than we do today"

– Ben Rule, Operations Director, First Great Western

So FGW seem to have stated pretty explicitly in the above articles that there will be no job losses, no compulsory redundancies and safety on IEP trains will not be compromised. Can someone please explain to me what this dispute is actually about? Is it, as ITV news suggested, over the fact that the driver will be operating the doors and not the guard? If the guard was going from the trains completely I'd understand why the RMT are up in arms, but FGW have stated guards will be staying on every IEP train.
As for the loss of buffets, hasn't that already started on the HSTs? Mini-buffets instead of full buffet cars? Will the travelling public really be up in arms over loss of buffets, when hot and cold food & drink will be served at seat instead?

 

[NSEFAN]

So FGW seem to have stated pretty explicitly in the above articles that there will be no job losses, no compulsory redundancies and safety on IEP trains will not be compromised. Can someone please explain to me what this dispute is actually about? Is it, as ITV news suggested, over the fact that the driver will be operating the doors and not the guard? If the guard was going from the trains completely I'd understand why the RMT are up in arms, but FGW have stated guards will be staying on every IEP train.

Guard =/= train manager. The former has more safety critical roles and is therefore usually on higher pay. The statement from FGW says that there will be no changes to pay or conditions, but this could be interpreted to mean that roles themselves will not be changed. As such, converting to train manager status would probably mean a cut pay for guards.

As I'm sure we've gone over many times before on this forum, having fewer safety trained staff also increases risk. Reduced numbers of safety critical staff is perhaps acceptable in built up areas but perhaps not so acceptable in the middle of nowhere, as may be the case with an intercity train. I can understand why all staff might be concerned with a reduction in the number of safety trained people on board, as it increases risk to everyone. The debate to be had is how much risk is acceptable? I don't think we'll ever see consensus on that one, though.

 

[D1009]

Can someone please explain to me what this dispute is actually about? Is it, as ITV news suggested, over the fact that the driver will be operating the doors and not the guard? If the guard was going from the trains completely I'd understand why the RMT are up in arms, but FGW have stated guards will be staying on every IEP train.
As for the loss of buffets, hasn't that already started on the HSTs? Mini-buffets instead of full buffet cars? Will the travelling public really be up in arms over loss of buffets, when hot and cold food & drink will be served at seat instead?

Can I respectfully suggest you read the thread from the start, as these matters have already been debated.

 

[gareth950]

Guard =/= train manager. The former has more safety critical roles and is therefore usually on higher pay. The statement from FGW says that there will be no changes to pay or conditions, but this could be interpreted to mean that roles themselves will not be changed. As such, converting to train manager status would probably mean a cut pay for guards.

OK well thanks for explaining that for me, I thought that train managers and guards had the same or similar duties. That explains the proposed strike action then.
As for reading through every page of this thread from the start, as I'm a full time student currently in exam season, I'm sure once exams are over i'll find the time to read all 43 pages so far.......

 

[yorkie]

In most cases a 'Train Manager' would be a name for the role of a Guard; that's the term Virgin Trains uses for example.

However someone patrolling the train, checking tickets and assisting customers is not necessarily a Guard. An example of this is on the Scotrail electric services in Strathclyde.

Furthermore, a Guard is not necessarily commercial (ie, unable to sell tickets). An example of this is on South West Trains inner suburban services.

The merits of each has been discussed numerous times, in numerous threads, including this one, so it's best we don't go round in circles again

 

[Flamingo]

In over ten years, it's the first thing the RMT have balloted for strike action with that I have been prepared to vote Yes.

At present, I am trained in, assessed in, and responsible for an awful lot more than checking if a door is open or closed, and telling the driver they are. That only change on the new trains is that the driver will be able to check this from inside the cab himself (as well as doing all his other duties).

On the trains that are being run without anybody other than a driver on them (which is the proposal), who else will do all the other things I do? Conversly, why do I have to do any of them now?

All guards don't have to do all duties on all trains. But the "when did your train last crash?" Argument (which I've already been asked by a manager) is not a good one. My house has never caught fire either - should I cancel my house insurance?

 

[SpacePhoenix]

and for the maintenance contract to be kept in house.

I can't see the union winning the argument on that part, all new stock over the last ten years seems to be maintained at depots operated by whoever the manufacturer is

 

[Clarence Yard]

Particularly as FGW played no part in the decision as to who maintained the units and have no influence in the matter whatsoever. That was determined by the DfT when they procured the units.

And the decision about the buffet cars wasn't up to FGW either. The DfT closed that one down very early. At least the EC bidders could change their sets, albeit only slightly.

I do wish the union would stick to the real matter, the role of the guard, instead of trying to drag everyone else in with points of dispute that are not going to go anywhere.

 

[Flamingo]

Particularly as FGW played no part in the decision as to who maintained the units and have no influence in the matter whatsoever. That was determined by the DfT when they procured the units.

And the decision about the buffet cars wasn't up to FGW either. The DfT closed that one down very early. At least the EC bidders could change their sets, albeit only slightly.

I do wish the union would stick to the real matter, the role of the guard, instead of trying to drag everyone else in with points of dispute that are not going to go anywhere.

I'm pretty sure the DfT are involved in the decision on the guard as well. The railway is micromanaged to such an extent that this would not be proposed without the DfT having had an input...

 

[Flamingo]

Just saw this

IEP FGW Ballot Result
Strike Action Votes Cast1408 Yes1131 No275 Spoilt2
Action Short of Strike Cast1408 Yes1248 No157 Spoilt3
Full info http://www.rmt.org.uk/about/ballot-results/intercity-express-programme300615/?preview=true

 

[jopsuk]

For reference, any idea of the number eligible to vote in the ballot?

 

[HH]

I'm pretty sure the DfT are involved in the decision on the guard as well. The railway is micromanaged to such an extent that this would not be proposed without the DfT having had an input...

Too damn right. It was early in the re-started TSGN bid that we realised that DOO had become a "flavour of the month" at DfT. Now bidders have had to talk them out of blanket DOO on Northern. Just shows how much DfT understand about running a railway. Unburdened by knowledge and responsibility they are free to specify any daft idea they come up with.

 

[313103]

For reference, any idea of the number eligible to vote in the ballot?

50% turnout with a 80% Yes vote.

Or never enough to satisfy some people in here.

 

[Flamingo]

For reference, any idea of the number eligible to vote in the ballot?

I'm not sure, but I think the "Yes" vote is comfortably over 50% of all papers sent out...

 

[Starmill]

He may not be an idiot. There are guards, albeit in the minority, who neglect revenue duties and use safety duties as an excuse, rather than there being actual safety duties preventing them doing revenue duties.

I'm afraid you're correct. That is a route where, most of the time, there needs to be an onboard ticket check because some of the stations are badly staffed and most lack gates. How FGW sort that out is up to them, and of course they must ensure its safe, but they shouldn't neglect the need for ticket checking on the basis that it might cost more to let the dishonest get away with it!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Too damn right. It was early in the re-started TSGN bid that we realised that DOO had become a "flavour of the month" at DfT. Now bidders have had to talk them out of blanket DOO on Northern. Just shows how much DfT understand about running a railway. Unburdened by knowledge and responsibility they are free to specify any daft idea they come up with.

I despair of them sometimes. The TOC's main focus might be ripping off anyone and everyone to turn a profit, but at least they have people who know how to tun a railway. Apparently unlike a lot of those at DfT!

 

[Saint66]

BBC Breaking News ‏@BBCBreaking 2 minutes ago
First Great Western rail workers to strike for 48 hours from 18:30 BST on 8 July over jobs row, RMT union says http://bbc.in/1Nssry5

 

[didcotdean]

Plus an overtime ban from 1830 hours on the 10th July until 2359 hours on the 11th July 2015. (RMT site)

 

[Flamingo]

I have to say, personally, I'm very sad and upset over this. It'will be the first time I have ever gone on strike or taken any sort of industrial action in over thirty years of work, and I still don't understand why we're being pushed into it, but at this stage I see no other option.

 

[gareth950]

What are the chances of services running normally again by the Saturday morning on 11th July?

 

[SpacePhoenix]

It also said maintenance of the new rolling stock should remain in-house and there should be no job losses.

With that part of the unions grievance they've no chance of winning as generally all new stock both underground and mainline is generally maintained by the manufacturer

 

[DelayRepay]

I have to say, personally, I'm very sad and upset over this. It'will be the first time I have ever gone on strike or taken any sort of industrial action in over thirty years of work, and I still don't understand why we're being pushed into it, but at this stage I see no other option.

May I wish you and your colleagues well, from one of your (occasional) passengers.

 

[Kite159]

So the RMT are striking over decisions made by the DfT, regarding no standard class buffet (so more passenger space for either seats or luggage?), replaced with a trolley service (such as on XC).

Having the driver control the doors (similar to other modern stock like Voyagers & Pendolinos)?

and wanting to keep maintenance in-house when in general all stock is maintained by the manufacturer on contract to have a certain number of sets available every day?

It's not even like DOO is new for FGW as the Turbos run DOO on certain lines, and having the 2nd member of staff available to check/sell tickets without having to dash back every couple minutes to open/close the doors, similar to the Strathclyde electrics.

---

And only a 50% turnout, so half the members who could vote couldn't be bothered voting?

 

[Captain Chaos]

But Scotland has a manning agreement. FGW don't. Just their word and God knows what else afterwards. There is no real guarantee after 2019 that staff will still be on these trains. If we had such an agreement in place, with firm rules in place as to when these trains can run fully DOO, written in stone, then I'd happily accept it.

If they really want us and believe we are truly needed, now is the time to really show it. Let's get an agreement signed. It's in everyone's best interests, surely?

 

[the sniper]

Having the driver control the doors (similar to other modern stock like Voyagers & Pendolinos)?

Voyagers & Pendolinos aren't DOO. The Guard has responsibility for dispatching the train and is responsible for the safety of the passengers, and is trained as such. A Voyagers or Pendolino can't run in service without a Guard.

 

[Kite159]

Voyagers & Pendolinos aren't DOO. The Guard has responsibility for dispatching the train and is responsible for the safety of the passengers, and is trained as such. A Voyagers or Pendolino can't run in service without a Guard.

But doesn't the driver operate the doors? (as per previously in the thread)

With the train manager (on Virgin) telling the driver when to close the doors [Voyager] or closing the doors [Pen]

 

[yorkie]

On Voyagers (& Pendolinos?) the driver releases the doors but doesn't close them. The Guard does that.

A closer comparison would be Southeastern High Speed or Scotrail Strathclyde services.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

But Scotland has a manning agreement. FGW don't. Just their word and God knows what else afterwards. There is no real guarantee after 2019 that staff will still be on these trains. If we had such an agreement in place, with firm rules in place as to when these trains can run fully DOO, written in stone, then I'd happily accept it.

If they really want us and believe we are truly needed, now is the time to really show it. Let's get an agreement signed. It's in everyone's best interests, surely?

I'd support that.

 

[craigybagel]

On Voyagers (& Pendolinos?) the driver releases the doors but doesn't close them. The Guard does that.

A closer comparison would be Southeastern High Speed or Scotrail Strathclyde services.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I'd support that.

Not quite. On Voyagers the Driver opens the doors, and then closes them himself but only on the Guards command (10 bells). On Pendolinos though it is a case where the driver opens and the guards close.

However, the important thing to note is that regardless of the train, at Virgin if there is no guard then that train will not move one inch if there are passengers onboard.

FGW is proposing full driver operation of the doors, with the guard taking no part in the dispatch process. They are also proposing that if there is no guard available, then that train can still run with passengers anyway.

I'm not going to go into the rights and wrongs of all that again- there has been way too much argument on this thread and it'll only go around in circles, but it is different. And for FGW crews, it is worrying, hence the result of the ballot.

 

[455driver]

FGW wont give any straight answers to the questions they are being asked, they are sort of answering some questions but those answers are open to conjecture and certainly don't give a definitive, clear answer.

Every train will have a TM rostered! Is that on the base roster or daily roster and what exactly is a TM, it doesn't say train manager on anything I have read, for all we know it could be ticket monitor. These are the type of question they are refusing to answer! This question has been put directly to them and the reply was the usual 500 words which didn't answer it at all.

We were all sent a leaflet about the proposals and one of the driver went through it highlighting all the unanswered bits or bits open to interpretation, there was an awful lot of his writing on the form!