General query regarding industrial action

[northwichcat]

I understand during industrial action it would be illegal to hire in staff from other TOCs to cover services. However, what is the situation regarding rolling stock? Would it have been possible for ATW to have loaned Sprinters to Northern and GWR yesterday to strengthen their usual services which were busier due to the ATW strike?

 

[swt_passenger]

I understand during industrial action it would be illegal to hire in staff from other TOCs to cover services. However, what is the situation regarding rolling stock? Would it have been possible for ATW to have loaned Sprinters to Northern and GWR yesterday to strengthen their usual services which were busier due to the ATW strike?

I think that stock has been used for strengthening by other TOCs, something like this happened in the FGW/SWT area a few years back but I cannot remember the details of why, and which direction the units were loaned.

 

[FordFocus]

I understand during industrial action it would be illegal to hire in staff from other TOCs to cover services. However, what is the situation regarding rolling stock? Would it have been possible for ATW to have loaned Sprinters to Northern and GWR yesterday to strengthen their usual services which were busier due to the ATW strike?

A good question.

From a TOC point of view ATW probably wouldn't be proactive in hiring out to help passengers. During days of industrial action TOCs take the attitude of 'every man for themselves, nothing to do with us!'. They wouldn't want to add mileage onto the fleet and probably want to catch up on maintenance.

From a union POV, I'm not entirely sure there would be grounds for GWR staff to refuse to take a GWR 158+ATW 158 unless there were fundamental differences in the unit e.g. cab layout, emergency equipment or handling characteristics.

 

[158747]

I believe ATW used FGW 158s in South Wales during the FGW guard's dispute last summer.

 

[Bertie the bus]

It isn't illegal for companies to hire outside strike breakers. EMT did it a couple of years ago with DRS locos, coaching stock and staff on the Crewe - Derby route during an industrial dispute. Although other TOCs aren't going to lend their staff to ATW if it means cancelling their own services and incurring fines.

 

[PHILIPE]

I believe ATW used FGW 158s in South Wales during the FGW guard's dispute last summer.

Correct. Working shuttles between Cardiff and Swansea.

 

[TEW]

I think that stock has been used for strengthening by other TOCs, something like this happened in the FGW/SWT area a few years back but I cannot remember the details of why, and which direction the units were loaned.

SWT loaned a 3-car 158 from FGW to work Salisbury-Southampton-Romsey services during the FGW strike last Summer.

 

[bramling]

I understand during industrial action it would be illegal to hire in staff from other TOCs to cover services. However, what is the situation regarding rolling stock? Would it have been possible for ATW to have loaned Sprinters to Northern and GWR yesterday to strengthen their usual services which were busier due to the ATW strike?

No reason why not.

However, there are some issues / difficulties:

1) It is really financially worthwhile for either TOC?

2) You'd need to get the stock back to it's correct location for the next day's service.

3) Drivers at the other TOC would need to be fully trained on the type of stock in question. Since privatisation, the fragmentation of trains between different TOCs and ROSCOs means units that were built as part of the same class often now have various custom modifications. The working crews would need to be fully trained and familiar with the trains.

4) Lengthening would only be practicable if platform lengths can accommodate longer trains. Especially outside the London area this is often an issue.

 

[northwichcat]

4) Lengthening would only be practicable if platform lengths can accommodate longer trains. Especially outside the London area this is often an issue.

In the case of the passengers Northern would take during an ATW strike:

Chester to Manchester - 4 car 150s can be used on any service and most services are booked as 2 car 142s and 2 car 150s, so loaned 150s could be an option. Careful diagramming could mean ATW 150s start and end the day in Chester and prevent the need for the usual ECS movements of Northern stock to/from Chester, a taxi can instead be arranged for the drivers to get to/from their bases.

Earlestown to Manchester - Now most services are 319s there's not a lot Northern could do to add extra capacity, pre-319s perhaps loaned 150s could have been an option.

Crewe to Manchester - Similar to the above with most services being booked as 323s.

 

[DarloRich]

Assuming drivers would cross a picket line to move the trains ( which i am not sure they would) the idea is sensible in theory if not entirely practical in reality

 

[northwichcat]

Assuming drivers would cross a picket line to move the trains ( which i am not sure they would) the idea is sensible in theory if not entirely practical in reality

Surely if they have to cross picket lines to get to other operator's trains stabled at shared stations/sidings then they have to cross picket lines to get to their own trains?

Would Virgin cancel a whole load of services during a Northern strike due to the Pendolinos sharing a depot with the Northern 323s?

 

[40129]

Good question.

In theory, LM could have used ATW cl-153s to strengthen the Shrewsbury - New Street service by attaching them to its own cl-170s. However, are ATW Cl-153x the same as the LM examples? Also, there is the question of crossing the picket line at Abbey Foregate CS. Whilst it should be perfectly acceptable for LM crews to cross the line to reach their own trains I can foresee confrontation or at least resentment were the same crews to cross said picket line in order to borrow an ATW train

 

[PHILIPE]

Good question.

In theory, LM could have used ATW cl-153s to strengthen the Shrewsbury - New Street service by attaching them to its own cl-170s. However, are ATW Cl-153x the same as the LM examples? Also, there is the question of crossing the picket line at Abbey Foregate CS. Whilst it should be perfectly acceptable for LM crews to cross the line to reach their own trains I can foresee confrontation or at least resentment were the same crews to cross said picket line in order to borrow an ATW train

Paperwork would have to be processed to cover ATW 153s to work LM trains due lack of safety case.

 

[BestWestern]

Paperwork would have to be processed to cover ATW 153s to work LM trains due lack of safety case.

Providing that ATW's 153s do not differ in any material way from LM's, they should be clear for use surely? FGW had a pair of LM 153s on loan for a long period (eventually absorbing them into it's own fleet), and has also used ATW Class 150s on a daily basis. That's in addition to the continuing use of SWT Class 158 units, and the previous use of Class 159s. In the case of the SWT sets, they were deemed sufficiently similar to FGW's own Class 158 fleet that a simple Traction Notice was all that crews required to be competent to operate them. And that's despite there actually being a fair few modifications and differences. If traction and crews are already cleared, the paintjob on the outside really shouldn't be an issue!

 

[PHILIPE]

Providing that ATW's 153s do not differ in any material way from LM's, they should be clear for use surely? FGW had a pair of LM 153s on loan for a long period (eventually absorbing them into it's own fleet), and has also used ATW Class 150s on a daily basis. That's in addition to the continuing use of SWT Class 158 units, and the previous use of Class 159s. In the case of the SWT sets, they were deemed sufficiently similar to FGW's own Class 158 fleet that a simple Traction Notice was all that crews required to be competent to operate them. And that's despite there actually being a fair few modifications and differences. If traction and crews are already cleared, the paintjob on the outside really shouldn't be an issue!

They are SUITABLE to attach or work but have no Safety case. I have had experience of this when working as a diagrammer. It only took 2 minutes to arrange but in these days of privatization it had to be done.

 

[BestWestern]

They are SUITABLE to attach or work but have no Safety case. I have had experience of this when working as a diagrammer. It only took 2 minutes to arrange but in these days of privatization it had to be done.

I'm perplexed as to how a safety case document can discriminate between a train in one livery and another identical train in a different livery? :-/ Does it list each individual unit in the TOCs fleet? I could understand how it would apply if the trains were of the same class but of a different sub-class, i.e. a Class 159/1 is in fact a renumbered Class 158/7 and thus may be different to a Class 159/0.... But surely a 153 is a 153?!

 

[PHILIPE]

I'm perplexed as to how a safety case document can discriminate between a train in one livery and another identical train in a different livery? :-/ Does it list each individual unit in the TOCs fleet? I could understand how it would apply if the trains were of the same class but of a different sub-class, i.e. a Class 159/1 is in fact a renumbered Class 158/7 and thus may be different to a Class 159/0.... But surely a 153 is a 153?!

Haven't you heard of bureaucracy ? This is not BR any longer. A unit belonging to a TOC cannot necessarily work another TOCs train without the Safety Case of that TOC. If you require any further answers suggest you address your queries to the people who drew up privatisation. I do know that some GWR and ATW units share the same Safety Case going back to the early days. As I said, only wants a piece of paper acknowledging agreement between the two parties.

 

[northwichcat]

It isn't illegal for companies to hire outside strike breakers. EMT did it a couple of years ago with DRS locos, coaching stock and staff on the Crewe - Derby route during an industrial dispute. Although other TOCs aren't going to lend their staff to ATW if it means cancelling their own services and incurring fines.

I remember a few years back a union announcing a Royal Mail strike in November and then objecting to Royal Mail bringing in temporary staff to cover for the strikers claiming it was illegal but Royal Mail claimed they were only bringing in the same number of temporary staff that they usually did pre-Christmas.

 

[bolli]

A good question.

From a TOC point of view ATW probably wouldn't be proactive in hiring out to help passengers. During days of industrial action TOCs take the attitude of 'every man for themselves, nothing to do with us!'. They wouldn't want to add mileage onto the fleet and probably want to catch up on maintenance.

From a union POV, I'm not entirely sure there would be grounds for GWR staff to refuse to take a GWR 158+ATW 158 unless there were fundamental differences in the unit e.g. cab layout, emergency equipment or handling characteristics.

Its an aside to the point made, but I understand that GWR drivers cannot drive ATW 158s due to the ETRMS equipment for operating on the Cambrian Coast.

ATW drivers do drive GWR units regularly however, and have regular turns doing so - Often on my commute home, I used to see a FGW/GWR 158 on a FGW/GWR service with an Arriva driver in the cab.

 

[PHILIPE]

Its an aside to the point made, but I understand that GWR drivers cannot drive ATW 158s due to the ETRMS equipment for operating on the Cambrian Coast.

ATW drivers do drive GWR units regularly however, and have regular turns doing so - Often on my commute home, I used to see a FGW/GWR 158 on a FGW/GWR service with an Arriva driver in the cab.

ATW have a couple of Driver's jobs for GWR to Bristol as part of a longstanding agreement. Not quite correct re GWR drivers and ATW 158s, probably only if ETRMS in operation. If that applied, the only ATW drivers who could work them would be Machynlleth and Pwllheli.

 

[BestWestern]

Haven't you heard of bureaucracy ? This is not BR any longer. A unit belonging to a TOC cannot necessarily work another TOCs train without the Safety Case of that TOC. If you require any further answers suggest you address your queries to the people who drew up privatisation. I do know that some GWR and ATW units share the same Safety Case going back to the early days. As I said, only wants a piece of paper acknowledging agreement between the two parties.

That is truly silly! God bless the modern railway! :roll:

I'm genuinely curious though, what does the wording actually say, in order to permit a unit 'belonging' only to the one TOC?

 

[pdeaves]

A unit belonging to a TOC cannot necessarily work another TOCs train without the Safety Case of that TOC.

You are totally correct. However, what BestWestern is trying to point out is that London Midland has its own 153s to run its own services on its own safety case. Already. Today. Therefore they can run 153s, whoever they have to pay the rental charge to and whatever colour it is.

My TOC does just that on a daily basis (for a different class type; we don't need more 153s!).

Your 'objection' only applies if the TOC doesn't already have that class type on its books (so it would cause bureaucratic issues if, say, a TOC running class 321s wanted to borrow 320s from Scotrail; they are almost the same but not close enough for the paperwork).

 

[PHILIPE]

That is truly silly! God bless the modern railway! :roll:

I'm genuinely curious though, what does the wording actually say, in order to permit a unit 'belonging' only to the one TOC?

Don't know rhe process chapter and verse but I assume that if working for another TOC would then have to be covered by the safety conditions of that TOC

 

[6Gman]

Surely if they have to cross picket lines to get to other operator's trains stabled at shared stations/sidings then they have to cross picket lines to get to their own trains?

Would Virgin cancel a whole load of services during a Northern strike due to the Pendolinos sharing a depot with the Northern 323s?

Going to a depot to pick up your own company's unit is not crossing a picket line (since your own company is not party to a trade dispute).

Going to a depot to pick up a unit which belongs to a company which is party to a trade dispute, on the other hand ......

 

[kevconnor]

I understand during industrial action it would be illegal to hire in staff from other TOCs to cover services.

It's not illegal to hire staff in, what is illegal is for any company that meets the description of a recruitment agency to provide agency workers to work at a company in the event of a strike

 

[BestWestern]

You are totally correct. However, what BestWestern is trying to point out is that London Midland has its own 153s to run its own services on its own safety case. Already. Today. Therefore they can run 153s, whoever they have to pay the rental charge to and whatever colour it is.

My TOC does just that on a daily basis (for a different class type; we don't need more 153s!).

Your 'objection' only applies if the TOC doesn't already have that class type on its books (so it would cause bureaucratic issues if, say, a TOC running class 321s wanted to borrow 320s from Scotrail; they are almost the same but not close enough for the paperwork).

That's what I was getting at, yes!

 

[dk1]

I recall industrial action by ASLEF being called but one of the drivers had deflected to RMT. Some of the more pushy & poor managers only interested in point scoring insisted that he should work a train as there where dozens of spare guards. Thankfully common sense prevailed & this decision was overruled on the grounds that it would put pressure & unnecessary stress on the driver concerned & that the very limited service would confuse passengers who where under the impression no services where operating.

 

[scotsman]

Surely if they have to cross picket lines to get to other operator's trains stabled at shared stations/sidings then they have to cross picket lines to get to their own trains?

Would Virgin cancel a whole load of services during a Northern strike due to the Pendolinos sharing a depot with the Northern 323s?

It's highly unlikely that Northern Drivers would picket an Alstom site...

 

[TDK]

ATW have a couple of Driver's jobs for GWR to Bristol as part of a longstanding agreement. Not quite correct re GWR drivers and ATW 158s, probably only if ETRMS in operation. If that applied, the only ATW drivers who could work them would be Machynlleth and Pwllheli.

All Atw drivers who sign 158's can work them with the ERTMS working but only in level "0" you will only use level "2" on the Cambrian however the ERTMS can easily be isolated for drivers who do not sign ERTMS equipped trains. You don't understand how the current ERTMS works Philipe.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

That's what I was getting at, yes!

As long as the 153's are compatible with class 170's if being attached

 

[PHILIPE]

All Atw drivers who sign 158's can work them with the ERTMS working but only in level "0" you will only use level "2" on the Cambrian however the ERTMS can easily be isolated for drivers who do not sign ERTMS equipped trains. You don't understand how the current ERTMS works Philipe.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


As long as the 153's are compatible with class 170's if being attached

I'll admit I don't fully but I said if not in operation so that, I presume, would be on lines other than the Cambrian routes.