Gatwick Express Industrial Relations

[BestWestern]

Perhaps it's operated with trains like the 185s where the doors slam on closing despite not being manual doors.

Perhaps! There's a slam door on a 442 Guard's van, maybe it's that!

The reality here is that the battle lines have been firmly drawn in the great DOO war. Aslef are a powerful union and they have set out a clear policy on the matter, as of course have the RMT. Aslef's membership appears to broadly agree with the policy, and support for union action is generally very strong. Besides outright industrial action, Aslef operate a policy of sanctioning, or not, rest day working at many locations. Currently at GWR, ongoing issues have led to that sanction being withdrawn. Services have been cancelled as a result. TOCs need to appreciate that the days of bringing in piecemeal DOO here and there, by whatever agreements they could wangle, are over; at least in the current climate. DOO, the risks it brings and the livelihoods it threatens, is now a deeply contentious issue and the operators need to grasp that fact; it isn't going to go away. Attempting to bludgeon their way past the issue, as we've seen a fair bit of lately, will not work. Such is the current state of play.

 

[Carlisle]

GatEx has changed, with more trains through to Brighton. These were traditionally operated by Southern, which do have guards.

No the Brighton line actually went DOO around 1998 with the exception obviously of the (fairly numerous at that time) remaining slam door services and trains longer than 8 coaches as the newly installed platform monitors/mirrors weren't built for anything longer , however the rest of Southern outside their London suburban network as you correctly point out has always had guards

 

[northwichcat]

at least in the current climate. DOO, the risks it bring and the livelihoods it threatens, is now a deeply contentious issue and the operators need to grasp that fact. Attempting to bludgeon their way past the issue, as we've seen a fair bit of lately, will not work. GTR are currently discovering this for themselves; GWR found out last year, and Arriva up north have it to come. Such is the current state of play.

With the Northern franchise it was reported Govia, Arriva and Abellio all said to DfT they didn't want the risk of lengthy industrial action if DOO was imposed. They compromised on DCO where it involves no compulsory redundancies and two members of franchise staff on all trains (no 3rd party RPIs.) However, it seems the RMT don't appreciate the effort made as they were protesting against DOO and compulsory redundancies on the franchise launch day.

 

[BestWestern]

With the Northern franchise it was reported Govia, Arriva and Abellio all said to DfT they didn't want the risk of lengthy industrial action if DOO was imposed. They compromised on DCO where it involves no compulsory redundancies and two members of franchise staff on all trains (no 3rd party RPIs.) However, it seems the RMT don't appreciate the effort made as they were protesting against DOO and compulsory redundancies on the franchise launch day.

Both unions are equally opposed to DCO & DOO; there is little practical difference. DCO simply offers 'a second staff member', it still relies on the Driver operating the doors and taking full responsibility for dispatch, which is the very nub of the issue. GWR tried the same approach, also without success.

 

[tsr]

TOCs need to appreciate that the days of bringing in piecemeal DOO here and there, by whatever agreements they could wangle, are over; at least in the current climate. DOO, the risks it brings and the livelihoods it threatens, is now a deeply contentious issue and the operators need to grasp that fact; it isn't going to go away. Attempting to bludgeon their way past the issue, as we've seen a fair bit of lately, will not work. Such is the current state of play.

The problem here is that DOO operation certainly has been coming in on a piecemeal basis on GTR routes and only now is further rollout deemed totally unacceptable. This shift is a good thing but it doesn't help achieve any clarity within union campaigns, conversation with the general public, internal discussions or whatever else. For example, at the last timetable change/recast, DOO was introduced on regular services at Merstham, and also expanded from one service a day to a half-hourly off-peak service at Coulsdon South. There appeared to be little or no objection to this by drivers on the Thameslink side of GTR, despite DOO at these stations having previously been a contingency measure only (apart from the 0530 Redhill - London Victoria at Coulsdon South) for a number of years. When you have anomalies like this, it becomes hard for all involved to sort out who actually wants which procedures, who doesn't care, and how to tell the general public that 2 busy stations are fine with DOO but none of the rest in the area may be adapted (not that I personally think it is acceptable, and/or safe, with DOO, but I don't wish to flood the forum with my opinions on this).

 

[LowLevel]

It requires the driver to operate the doors and crucially removes route knowledge and most operational training from the other crew member. DCO is no different operationally to DOO as defined in the current rulebook. The presence of a revenue and customer service bod even if employed by the franchise is neither here nor there.

See previous Gatwick Express conversion. On introduction of DOO on board crews were retained on a non safety critical basis. When they got bored of them they took them off the trains and now there isn't even a trolley.

 

[physics34]

A 12 car that can potentially carry 1000 people having just 1 member of crew is crazy. Not only for safety reasons but I think the passengers deserve a train host at the very least on a "premium" service.

Simple as that. There are loads of other reasons against DOO but unfortunately it should never have been agreed in the first place.

If 12 car working is eventually agreed on GatEx services then it opens up a can of worms for 12 car Southern services too.

I'm aware that GoVia are desperate for the East Grinstead line services to go DOO with or without 12 cars.

 

[sarahj]

Just for clarification, since someone posted the T&C's. Working on the railway you also have a separate document on the full agreements. With conductors it's called CRI, I guess the drivers is called DRI. Changes to these documents have to be agreed between the union and the company. These documents clarify what is meant by the T&C's to stop any misunderstanding.

I don't have access to these documents for posting, would not post and would be suspicious of anyone who does.

 

[Deepgreen]

The problem here is that DOO operation certainly has been coming in on a piecemeal basis on GTR routes and only now is further rollout deemed totally unacceptable. This shift is a good thing but it doesn't help achieve any clarity within union campaigns, conversation with the general public, internal discussions or whatever else. For example, at the last timetable change/recast, DOO was introduced on regular services at Merstham, and also expanded from one service a day to a half-hourly off-peak service at Coulsdon South. There appeared to be little or no objection to this by drivers on the Thameslink side of GTR, despite DOO at these stations having previously been a contingency measure only (apart from the 0530 Redhill - London Victoria at Coulsdon South) for a number of years. When you have anomalies like this, it becomes hard for all involved to sort out who actually wants which procedures, who doesn't care, and how to tell the general public that 2 busy stations are fine with DOO but none of the rest in the area may be adapted (not that I personally think it is acceptable, and/or safe, with DOO, but I don't wish to flood the forum with my opinions on this).

Is that the 455 stabler from platform 4 at Redhill?

 

[BestWestern]

The problem here is that DOO operation certainly has been coming in on a piecemeal basis on GTR routes and only now is further rollout deemed totally unacceptable. This shift is a good thing but it doesn't help achieve any clarity within union campaigns, conversation with the general public, internal discussions or whatever else. For example, at the last timetable change/recast, DOO was introduced on regular services at Merstham, and also expanded from one service a day to a half-hourly off-peak service at Coulsdon South. There appeared to be little or no objection to this by drivers on the Thameslink side of GTR, despite DOO at these stations having previously been a contingency measure only (apart from the 0530 Redhill - London Victoria at Coulsdon South) for a number of years. When you have anomalies like this, it becomes hard for all involved to sort out who actually wants which procedures, who doesn't care, and how to tell the general public that 2 busy stations are fine with DOO but none of the rest in the area may be adapted (not that I personally think it is acceptable, and/or safe, with DOO, but I don't wish to flood the forum with my opinions on this).

Complicated!

There are two things at play here; there is the Aslef union policy of 'no extension of DOO', and then there are local agreements at company and depot level. The 'no extension' is a policy of rejecting any 'new' DOO operations, over routes where such operations are not currently used. For instance, IEP could in theory run DOO out of Paddington and as far as Didcot and not breach this policy, because DOO is already in use (the definition of 'new DOO' has been clarified as geographical, rather than new trains on existing DOO routes). IEP could not, however, continue beyond Didcot towards Swindon, because there is no current DOO running on that route. In the case of GatEx, what is at play is not the national policy but the local agreement, which we are told clearly says DOO will extend only to ten car trains.

I would imagine on the routes you mention above, as DOO was already agreed there would have been no realistic way to resist it being increased, regardless of whatever Aslef's policy might have been at the time.

 

[fabs]

No need to be suspicious Sarahj. I didn't post anything, just supplied a link to something that is in the public domain.
If ASLEF (or indeed anyone else) pay lip service to their online profile and don't keep it updated then that is not the fault of anyone else.
As I said, I'm fundamentally against DOO and DCO.

 

[Bald Rick]

Has that agreement been superceded since 2012? The agreement also lists which classes of train GatEx drivers are expected to drive, and 387s are (obviously) not listed in that. I'd also mention the limit to how many DOO trains can be passed on an adjacent line in a 60-minute period, given how busy the Brighton Main Line is these days...

If you read the agreement carefully, the maximum of 2 trains passing adjacent lines in 60 minutes condition applies to lines that are not equipped with continuous track circuits nor Driver / Shore radio. The Brighton Main line has both.

I wonder if the document has been superceded.* As you quite correctly say, the agreement linked to does not include Class 387s as specified rolling stock, so presumably this has been agreed to previously in some other documentation. As sarahj states, there is presumably a separate agreement for this (and many other) matters.

* going OT, but the linked document does show how out of date and in some cases in contravention of the law that some elements of these agreements are. I'm sure that safeguarded Drivers will be delighted to hear that they are entitled to receive privilege rate tickets for a female relative employed as their housekeeper, providing she earns less than £36/week.

 

[ExRes]

* going OT, but the linked document does show how out of date and in some cases in contravention of the law that some elements of these agreements are. I'm sure that safeguarded Drivers will be delighted to hear that they are entitled to receive privilege rate tickets for a female relative employed as their housekeeper, providing she earns less than £36/week.

Phew, thanks for that as I was just about to give my aunt a pay rise to £39 per week, that's one for the can then

 

[ComUtoR]

I wonder if the document has been superceded.* As you quite correctly say, the agreement linked to does not include Class 387s as specified rolling stock, so presumably this has been agreed to previously in some other documentation. As sarahj states, there is presumably a separate agreement for this (and many other) matters.

I found a couple of documents that certainly suggest that that document has indeed been superseded. The superseded documents I found stated :

3 Definitions
Change to an Existing DOO Scheme
Means:-
• increasing the length of route covered by a DOO scheme and (in the case of DOO(Passenger) Schemes) including additional stations not previously used for DOO, or
• changing the method of working or the equipment provided for DOO, for example:-
∗ changing the method of train despatch for DOO(P) trains at stations from platform staff to fixed mirrors or CCTV;
∗ increasing the maximum length of trains over that previously specified for an existing DOO(P) scheme;
∗ replacing platform mirrors with CCTV.

This list is not exhaustive

However; those documents have since been withdrawn as of 2008. From what I've read and from my own experience I certainly believe that each scheme as its own agreement and they are managed under each TOC's safety case or T&C's

 

[Bald Rick]

Phew, thanks for that as I was just about to give my aunt a pay rise to £39 per week, that's one for the can then

I employ my nephew. He has asked for the privilege tickets, but I have had to refuse, as he is not a female relative, and the Union say it's not in the agreement so that's that.

 

[zn1]

well Kudos to the driver for not accepting the Job as Doo and running it regardless so that his working diagram and units operating circuit wasnt disrupted.

Govia seem to have problems with their train crew agreements, London midland had their problems with sunday workings a few years ago etc

i am guessing the that Management cant see a real difference between 10 & 12 CAR operating, thats their issue.

Gatex has always in my mind never been more than 10 cars - never needed to be even in the Mk2 days when operated by intercity, then by operating by the Darths. so there is a historical operating thing here, even with 442 operation 10 car is the max.

i can see aslefs point here, Gatex always was an enitity of its own and has been for over 30 years, even in the BR days it was considered a flagship service.

the new units are 4 cars and have been delievered as such so they can be augmented one assumes in to other jobs, as a common core fleet electrostars are essentially the same unit regardless of the class number.

perhaps when the procurement was being sorted 5 car sets should have been procured instead of the standard 4 cars ??

 

[Deepgreen]

Would it have been possible to have isolated one unit (or even just two cars) such that passengers could only use the (say) front two units (i.e. nearest the driver), or would that not have satisfied the requirements of the agreement? Obviously that would not be anything other than a very short-term solution in any case. I suspect the situation will be either to run 8 car 387s or 10 car 442s (or a mixture) in the interim.

 

[matt_world2004]

If the issue is visibility on a 12 carriage train couldnt the driver have locked off the rear carriages until the point that they were clearly visible? or Closed the doors as normal and done a walk through to check no one was stuck in the doors.

 

[BestWestern]

If the issue is visibility on a 12 carriage train couldnt the driver have locked off the rear carriages until the point that they were clearly visible? or Closed the doors as normal and done a walk through to check no one was stuck in the doors.

A walk-through would be entirely pointless on a twelve car train; it would take several minutes to walk from the rear back to the cab, during which time a safety issue could easily have occurred. The Driver is required to observe the train at the point of dispatch and be satisfied that there are no hazards, not simply check that the doors are closed. For example, a person may approach the train and begin jabbing the door buttons, at which point is isn't safe to dispatch. The James Street fatality did not involve anybody being trapped in doors.

There is also the matter of delays, which would be enormous. As for locking the rear unit out of use, such a move would likely require authorisation from control in order to be squeaky clean, which they may or may not give. That's assuming one unit of three can be locked out with the TMS on an Electrostar; I presume it probably can.

 

[Deepgreen]

If the issue is visibility on a 12 carriage train couldnt the driver have locked off the rear carriages until the point that they were clearly visible? or Closed the doors as normal and done a walk through to check no one was stuck in the doors.

The first part was more or less my point, but the second would have involved massive cumulative delays from the driver doing a walking check of a 12 car train at each stop.

 

[tony6499]

It's part of a signed agreement for working DOO over that part of the Brighton Mainline, anything over 10 coaches requires a guard so well done to that driver for sticking to his guns.

 

[bnm]

TOCs need to appreciate that the days of bringing in piecemeal DOO here and there, by whatever agreements they could wangle, are over; at least in the current climate. DOO, the risks it brings and the livelihoods it threatens, is now a deeply contentious issue and the operators need to grasp that fact; it isn't going to go away. Attempting to bludgeon their way past the issue, as we've seen a fair bit of lately, will not work. Such is the current state of play.

All these battles were fought over secondmen. Where are they now?

This passenger is more than happy to travel on DOO services, which operate day in, day out safely and intensively in the UK.

 

[northwichcat]

This passenger is more than happy to travel on DOO services, which operate day in, day out safely and intensively in the UK.

Some passengers being interviewed for BBC News in Manchester last year thought Northern and TPE had already got rid of guards citing there was no visible staff presence on many services.

 

[BestWestern]

All these battles were fought over secondmen. Where are they now?

This passenger is more than happy to travel on DOO services, which operate day in, day out safely and intensively in the UK.

We're all aware of your anti-Guard views; your comment here doesn't seem particularly relevant though. The battle is different this time, both unions have a clearly stated and very firm stance on the issue.

 

[Bishopstone]

I'm a supporter of guards on trains.

If they're going to appear on workings which are non-stop between Gatwick and Victoria - at least 30 minutes running time between station duties - I would expect their visible presence throughout the train to be the rule rather than the exception, however, and for this requirement to be tightly supervised.

 

[bnm]

We're all aware of your anti-Guard views; your comment here doesn't seem particularly relevant though. The battle is different this time, both unions have a clearly stated and very firm stance on the issue.

I am not anti-guard, and I get mightily ****ed off having to repeat that for the hard of thinking.

I am anti dinosaur rail unions. And anti those union members who go through their railway working life constantly antagonistic toward management. I know of no other industry where there is so little collaboration and consent between staff, management and unions. I'm also no fan of entrenched positions. They rarely succeed.

 

[Dave1987]

I am not anti-guard, and I get mightily ****ed off having to repeat that for the hard of thinking.

I am anti dinosaur rail unions. And anti those union members who go through their railway working life constantly antagonistic toward management. I know of no other industry where there is so little collaboration and consent between staff, management and unions. I'm also no fan of entrenched positions. They rarely succeed.

You know it's funny, at other TOC's where the company talks to the unions, discusses their plans, and safe methods of working are agreed nothing like this ever happens. When you get management straight out of uni who believe because they have a pointless degree and a bit of paper to prove it, that they know better than people who have been doing the job for years, you get situations like this.

Most disputes on the railway happen when the management are trying to force things through and not the "dinosaur rail unions".

 

[Agent_c]

You know it's funny, at other TOC's where the company talks to the unions, discusses their plans, and safe methods of working are agreed nothing like this ever happens. When you get management straight out of uni who believe because they have a pointless degree and a bit of paper to prove it, that they know better than people who have been doing the job for years, you get situations like this.

Most disputes on the railway happen when the management are trying to force things through and not the "dinosaur rail unions".

My experience is outside of the railway, but that sums up how it works in my experiences too. Someone gets a management role without any understanding on how to do the jobs that report to you, comes up with some meaningless metrics that require improvements in the wrong areas and without any understanding as to why things are the way they are, and then they end up pulling their hair out wondering why it doesn't end up working.

 

[HLE]

I am not anti-guard, and I get mightily ****ed off having to repeat that for the hard of thinking.

I am anti dinosaur rail unions. And anti those union members who go through their railway working life constantly antagonistic toward management. I know of no other industry where there is so little collaboration and consent between staff, management and unions. I'm also no fan of entrenched positions. They rarely succeed.

Yet I know of a lot of industries and professions that don't have a union, that get shafted by management when it comes to hours and working conditions etc, all in the name of 'efficiency' - roughly translates to 'cheaper'. I know countless people that say they dare not speak up when asked to do something against their contract or asked to stay late to finish work regularly for no overtime pay or time in lieu (and things like working rest days for nothing, yes nothing - not asked but told) that dare not say no to the gaffers for fear of losing their job. Sounds like you're in favour of the do as your told attitude.

At least railway staff will still stick up for themselves, and won't let management intimidate them. If the unions, staff and management have agreed a 10 car limit
then try to sneakily introduce a 12 car DOO service that hasn't been agreed then well done to that driver for sticking up for his fellow staff as well as himself.

Just because other industries have sold themselves down the river when it comes to working conditions doesn't mean to say everyone should. Simply letting management do what they like without any form of retaliation is taking it back to the Victorian era of work. Do as you are told and don't ask questions or there's the door.

I don't want to bring politics into it, but you can certainly tell which party is in number 10 these days!

 

[bnm]

And, to be clear, I have no truck with the more antagonistic elements of management.

However, the excuse that "we've being doing the job for years" doesn't wash with me either. No progress can ever be made with that attitude.