RMT dispute on Merseyrail

[XDM]

One reason they could make the improvements on London Overground was that they were able to save £5 million year on guards pay,allowances,& dressing them. But other Lines that turned DOO, bedpan in 1983,Southern in 1990,Strathclyde,C2C around 2005,all saw big improvements in punctuality once the guards had been paid off. Having one brainey person,the driver, in charge of the train gets rid of split responsibility & miscommunication between the driver & AN other in one go.

 

[muz379]

One reason they could make the improvements on London Overground was that they were able to save £5 million year on guards pay,allowances,& dressing them. But other Lines that turned DOO, bedpan in 1983,Southern in 1990,Strathclyde,C2C around 2005,all saw big improvements in punctuality once the guards had been paid off. Having one brainey person,the driver, in charge of the train gets rid of split responsibility & miscommunication between the driver & AN other in one go.

So you are admitting the only way that other TOCs are going to be able to reap the benefits of moving to DOO is by de-staffing ? Despite what you now must acknowledge are fake promises around a second member of staff on trains ?

 

[313103]

The insinuation either intentional or not that drivers are some what brainier then any other member of staff is not lost on me as a vast percentage of those brainier drivers were once thick station staff or heaven forbid guards!

The notion that Lines that went DOO have vastly improved reliability since Guards have gone is very misleading as well Bedpan was fraught with DMU failures before DOO and had major problems after DOO when the motors on the class 317 became unstable at high speed and for at least a year a blanket speed restriction was imposed on the units.

It is also very disingenuous to think reliability has actually improved since guards have been shafted out on London Overground, more or less right up to and with the exception of the Olympic games London Overground would have at least some sort of works going on to affect reliability, the derailment at Camden Road, numerous unit failures also didnt help. Perhaps you can give me actual evidence that guards were the problem on London Overgrounds reliability figures.

 

[Tetchytyke]

other Lines that turned DOO, bedpan in 1983,Southern in 1990,Strathclyde,C2C around 2005,all saw big improvements in punctuality once the guards had been paid off.

I'd be very interested in how you worked this out. Show your calculations please.

The BedPan had new trains. Strathclyde had new trains. C2C had, er, new trains. London Overground also had new trains. NSE not only had new trains, it had new trains with power doors to replace the slammers.

New trains being more reliable than old ones? Trains with automatic door closing more punctual than slam-door stock? Nah, it must be the guards slowing everything down.

 

[Bletchleyite]

New trains being more reliable than old ones? Trains with automatic door closing more punctual than slam-door stock? Nah, it must be the guards slowing everything down.

Guarded operation does add about 10-15 seconds to a station stop over DOO (about 5 of those seconds being saved if you move to driver-released doors - and as I've said before I am in full support of that being used throughout the network). But that is by the by - even if it takes an hour to open and close the doors you just write it into the timetable[1], so there is no reason for it to cause unpunctuality.

[1] The addition of hustle alarms required 2 minutes to be added to Ormskirk-Liverpool running times - I jest not!

 

[Tetchytyke]

Guarded operation does add about 10-15 seconds to a station stop over DOO

Because of the different way of operating, it does take longer. The driver can open and close the doors with a push of the button from their seat, whereas the guard has to move between the local door and the platform several times when releasing and closing the doors.

But that isn't what I said.

XDM specifically referred to punctuality, claiming that the trains were more reliable and punctual as a direct result of the guards going. I said it was more likely that getting rid of slam door stock will have had much more of an impact.

 

[Carlisle]

NSE not only had new trains, it had new trains with power doors to replace the slammers.
.

The 313/314/315 units will have been 10-15 years old before they became DOO and South Centrals 455s about 5 years old and SPT class 303s about 25 years old before DOO

 

[HH]

Slam door stock didn't have door problems (!); they were simpler trains and generally very reliable.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Slam door stock didn't have door problems (!)

They did when people didn't close them!

I remember the 308s replacing Pacers on the Airedale and Wharfedale lines, and the number of times the guard had to go trotting along the train to close doors that had been left open by passengers.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's a real shame the UK said "not invented here" to UIC folding automatic slamdoors.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Guarded operation does add about 10-15 seconds to a station stop over DOO (about 5 of those seconds being saved if you move to driver-released doors - and as I've said before I am in full support of that being used throughout the network). But that is by the by - even if it takes an hour to open and close the doors you just write it into the timetable[1], so there is no reason for it to cause unpunctuality.

[1] The addition of hustle alarms required 2 minutes to be added to Ormskirk-Liverpool running times - I jest not!

Because of the different way of operating, it does take longer. The driver can open and close the doors with a push of the button from their seat, whereas the guard has to move between the local door and the platform several times when releasing and closing the doors.

But that isn't what I said.

XDM specifically referred to punctuality, claiming that the trains were more reliable and punctual as a direct result of the guards going. I said it was more likely that getting rid of slam door stock will have had much more of an impact.

For any given TOC where it's blatantly obvious that the whole train is accommodated in the platform, why aren't guard's allowed to release the doors at the same time they release their local door

 

[theironroad]

Because of the different way of operating, it does take longer. The driver can open and close the doors with a push of the button from their seat, whereas the guard has to move between the local door and the platform several times when releasing and closing the doors.

The guard can technically release the doors at the same speed as the driver. An immediate release can be made as soon as the train comes to a stand.

however, whoever releases the doors has to be certain that the train is fully accommodated in the platform to prevent doors opening without a platform alongside and most guards know this from route knowledge when pulling into the station.

 

[daikilo]

however, whoever releases the doors has to be certain that the train is fully accommodated in the platform to prevent doors opening without a platform alongside and most guards know this from route knowledge when pulling into the station.

Really (indeed it makes sense), but how does the driver "know" then when the guard has to check?

Regarding the question of statistical evidence that reliability has improved, it is not just the statistics but whether it is a proven correlation or just a concidence.

 

[HH]

They did when people didn't close them!

That is very true. Where there were staff they would go along and close them; where there weren't passengers left on the train usually did it themselves, but of course that's not a perfect solution - I do recall seeing trains travelling with a door rattling, or even flapping on once occasion.

 

[M28361M]

Ballot in favour of action. 1st strike confirmed for 13 March (link):

RAIL UNION RMT confirmed today that members have voted overwhelmingly for both strike action and action short of a strike in a ballot for industrial action after Merseyrail’s continued failure to provide cast iron assurances around the future of the safety critical role of the guard.

Action has by RMT’s Merseyrail guards and drivers has been confirmed as follows: Members not to book on for any shifts between 0001hrs and 23.59 hrs on Monday 13th March. In addition members will not work any rest days from 00.01 hrs on Tuesday 7th March indefinitely.

81.8% of members voted for strike action with 93.5% backing action short of a strike.

 

[TEW]

For any given TOC where it's blatantly obvious that the whole train is accommodated in the platform, why aren't guard's allowed to release the doors at the same time they release their local door

They can on quite a few TOCs. Why they can't on others I'm not sure. Perversely it seems to be TOCs with shorter trains such as Northern and Scotrail that mandate the guard stepping on the platform before releasing doors.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Ballot in favour of action. 1st strike confirmed for 13 March (link):

Do you think that Joe Anderson will be making a comment on this?

 

[danbarnstall]

http://www.merseytravel.gov.uk/about-us/media-centre/news/Pages/Liverpool-City-Region-leaders-respond-to-result-of-RMT-ballot-for-Merseyrail.aspx

“I can understand that union members want to make sure their frustrations are heard, but against a backdrop of funding cuts, we have tried to make sure that existing staff have job security, which is more than most other people in both the public and private sector have. That’s why it is extremely disappointing that RMT members have voted to take action, rather than engage in further talks with Merseyrail.

“The new trains are vital to the city region, and as leaders we took a decision with full consideration and understanding of how the trains will be operated. We have listened to the RMT’s concerns over driver controlled operation (DCO), but I, the other City Region leaders and the members of the Merseytravel Committee are all convinced that these new trains will be safer than the ones they replace....

He already has.

Think it's time I invested in my own transport again. Can't afford to use Merseyrail now with 3 years of strike action ahead.

 

[shakey1961]

The RMT don't want DOO, and the general public don't want DOO either. Why won't management listen to everyone?

No DOO!!!!

Dispute easily resolved - keep the guards or train managers. The public will feel safer knowing there is someone there to help out in any emergency.

Very short sighted of management.

 

[Bletchleyite]

the general public don't want DOO either

Don't pretend to speak for the entirety of the general public.

I do not think DOO makes sense on much of the railway - on Northern I think guards are needed but driver door release - but I do think DOO makes sense on Merseyrail just as it does on LU. Platform staff and byelaw squads will be of more value than guards.

This does not mean that guards do not bring value. It's just that in the case of Merseyrail there are better ways to staff it in my view.

 

[shakey1961]

From the selections I've just heard on BBC Radio Merseyside, everyone was voicing concerns, then again that's is the BBC singling out people protesting against it.

I just think trains are better with the driver and the guard. OK let the driver operate the doors, but keep another person on too.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I just think trains are better with the driver and the guard. OK let the driver operate the doors, but keep another person on too.

What in that context would the second person do? Sit there getting bored in case of emergency?

They could do tickets, but present guards don't, and don't I believe want to.

 

[Kite159]

The guards probably signed their own death warrant a few years ago when they agreed to give up revenue in exchange for a pay rise.

Merseyrail is a mostly self enclosed system which little interaction with other trains*, very much like London Underground which is a lot busier. Platform staff at the busy stations to give the CD/RA messages to the drivers with busy platforms, with revenue protection officers rooming the network with ticket checks with £100 penalty fares.

Even with the current system of having a guard, if you have two units joined together the guard can only be in one of those units so if something happens in the front unit the driver is on their own if the train comes to a stop in between stations.

All the striking will do is make the passengers change their mode of transport from the train to buses or private car [both which are more dangerous per passenger death].

*Southport, Bidston & Hunts Cross area, with the odd RHTT during leaf fall season*

 

[robertclark125]

I was chatting to a friend on Facebook about a more infamous TV dispute, that being the 1987/8 TVam dispute. Before I return this to the railways, I'd better explain. In late 1987, the main broadcasting union at TVam, the ACTT, called its members out on strike form 24 hours, in a dispute over staffing levels for a charity Christmas roadshow. The management said it was a news item, needing just four people, wheras the ACTT said it was an outside broadcast, needing six people.

Anyway, management locked the strikers out when they tried to return to work after the 24 hour strike, and refused even to talk until they accepted sweeping changes. Then, in December 1987, just two weeks after the strike started, management decided to start making programmes themselves, sometimes with disasterous results. But, the on air mistakes got less, and the strikers were sacked.

I know employment law has changed since then, but on that occasion, the ACTT had hoped to do what it did at ITV as a whole in 1979, or at Thames in 1985, or Yorkshire Television in 1970, and turn the screens black. The fact that they failed to do so at TV-am, saw the strike deemed a failure.

Returning to Merseyrail, from what I've read today, and in a railway magazine published before the ballot was announced, that management have been preparing for this. Not knowing what is going to happen, as I don't have a crystal ball, but the challenge for the RMT is now to try and make sure no trains run, and there is maximum disruption. If Merseyrail have done what I think they've done, and been prepared for this long before the ballot, then it'll be interesting to see how many trains they do run.

If it's not a lot, with much reduced frequencies, then the RMT will consider it a success. If management have been prepared, and they run a near normal service, and we don't know what service they're proposing to run yet, then it may well be the RMT strike action was unsuccessful, in that they failed to stop trains running.

I also can't help wondering if Joe Anderson, the Liverpool mayor, will seek to hold talks himself.

 

[HLE]

It was mentioned on the other thread about a national RMT strike.

Certainly don't want that to happen - but causing maximum disruption will probably be the only way to get management to listen

 

[robertclark125]

It was mentioned on the other thread about a national RMT strike.

Certainly don't want that to happen - but causing maximum disruption will probably be the only way to get management to listen

I think a national RMT could be challenged in court, simply because they would then be involving members of companies who aren't involved in the dispute which has led to the initial strikes.

I'm not an employment lawyer, but I'm just going on what I THINK I know.

 

[yorkie]

...and the general public don't want DOO either. ....

Rightly or wrongly the general public are not particularly fussed about the method of operation but do typically want to see a member of staff patrolling the train, so many would rather have the Strathclyde model of having a ticket examiner patrolling the train, than be on a train where you don't see any staff in passenger accommodation, as is typically the case on Merseyrail (or many other TOCs on a Saturday night).

 

[Bletchleyite]

Rightly or wrongly the general public are not particularly fussed about the method of operation but do typically want to see a member of staff patrolling the train, so many would rather have the Strathclyde model of having a ticket examiner patrolling the train, than be on a train where you don't see any staff in passenger accommodation, as is typically the case on Merseyrail (or many other TOCs on a Saturday night).

And because of the risk to someone patrolling the train alone, that may mean, assuming money for, say, two people is available, those two are best together on a late evening "vomit comet" train with a reputation for issues with nobody at all on a train at, say, 2pm on a weekday carrying an old bloke and his dog and proverbial pushbike.

FWIW I think most members of the public do think the driver does the doors, even where there is a "ticket man" on board. Possibly less so on something like a Pacer where it's very visible, but certainly where the guard lives in the back cab and does them from there.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think a national RMT could be challenged in court, simply because they would then be involving members of companies who aren't involved in the dispute which has led to the initial strikes.

I'm not an employment lawyer, but I'm just going on what I THINK I know.

I would expect so, particularly on TOCs, for example Virgin Trains West Coast, where there is absolutely no intention whatsoever to implement DOO in any form (beyond the 10-bell Voyager dispatch system). It's already been established that it is not legal to strike against a future franchisee changing that view until they have (a) taken over and (b) expressed said view.

 

[ComUtoR]

Rightly or wrongly the general public are not particularly fussed about the method of operation but do typically want to see a member of staff patrolling the train, so many would rather have the Strathclyde model of having a ticket examiner patrolling the train, than be on a train where you don't see any staff in passenger accommodation, as is typically the case on Merseyrail (or many other TOCs on a Saturday night).

If the general public want a member of staff on board then the RMT should be supported in their desire to guarantee that second member of staff. If the general public want it then why don't the DfT make it a franchise specification to have that second person guaranteed. If the general public want that second member of staff then why doesn't the TOC guarantee one or introduce them on other DOO services.

Oh yeah, the general public's desires mean Jack Shee