New South Western franchise: Awarded to First/MTR

[Matt Taylor]

In addition to the action on December 31st it should be pointed out that a 'work to rule' will be in place from December 27th until further notice.

 

[Wombat]

In addition to the action on December 31st it should be pointed out that a 'work to rule' will be in place from December 27th until further notice.

Ooooh, is that the reason for today's "shortage of train crew" problems? I was wondering about that; it didn't affect me but there were a lot of services impacted. I had thought that perhaps there was a nasty infection going around one of the depots or something, but your comment would explain it better.

Edit: sorry, I clearly can't read - obviously it isn't December 27th yet. In that case, can anyone shed any light on today's cancellations? I know that trains are sometimes cancelled on an individual basis but I don't remember seeing a large batch of such cancellations before.

 

[bb21]

Ooooh, is that the reason for today's "shortage of train crew" problems? I was wondering about that; it didn't affect me but there were a lot of services impacted. I had thought that perhaps there was a nasty infection going around one of the depots or something, but your comment would explain it better.

Edit: sorry, I clearly can't read - obviously it isn't December 27th yet. In that case, can anyone shed any light on today's cancellations? I know that trains are sometimes cancelled on an individual basis but I don't remember seeing a large batch of such cancellations before.

Around Christmas you always see lots of shortages as some people either bunch their annual leaves or just don't turn up for work.

 

[pompeyfan]

The above mentioned actions by @Matt Taylor has been cancelled, with the announcement of 3 extra strike days.

Southern also experienced crewing issues yesterday according to their twitter.

 

[Bookd]

The above mentioned actions by @Matt Taylor has been cancelled, with the announcement of 3 extra strike days.

Southern also experienced crewing issues yesterday according to their twitter.

How long can these strikes continue?
Staff must lose money every time, and there is no prospect of the guard's role changing in the near future, so the staff must become fed up with supporting the RMT political campaign.

 

[Goldfish62]

Ooooh, is that the reason for today's "shortage of train crew" problems? I was wondering about that; it didn't affect me but there were a lot of services impacted. I had thought that perhaps there was a nasty infection going around one of the depots or something, but your comment would explain it better.

Edit: sorry, I clearly can't read - obviously it isn't December 27th yet. In that case, can anyone shed any light on today's cancellations? I know that trains are sometimes cancelled on an individual basis but I don't remember seeing a large batch of such cancellations before.

I certainly recall such instances on SWT in the past, usually around Christmas or during the summer.

 

[Suraggu]

The work to rule action has been cancelled.

 

[387star]

4 January 2018

RMT Press Office:

RMT challenges South Western Railways for urgent clarification over guarantee of a second member of staff on trains.

General Secretary Mick Cash said.

"We have seen the press statement from SWR guaranteeing to roster a second member of staff on their trains which is at odds with what they have been telling us directly.

"I have written to the company today seeking urgent clarification on whether they genuinely mean that a second safety critical member of staff will be guaranteed to be be present on their trains. No ifs, no buts.

"This a crucial issue that goes right to the heart of the dispute and the company now need to clarify for us and their passengers exactly what they mean in their public statements. "

Ends

 

[F Great Eastern]

"We have seen the press statement from SWR guaranteeing to roster a second member of staff on their trains which is at odds with what they have been telling us directly.

"I have written to the company today seeking urgent clarification on whether they genuinely mean that a second safety critical member of staff will be guaranteed to be be present on their trains. No ifs, no buts.

He's spinning words big time here. Does anyone notice the difference between the wording of the two bits I've highlighted in bold?

On one hand he's saying that SWR have said they will roster someone on all trains and that's not what they have told him to portray that SWR is saying one thing in public and another behind the scenes.

Then he goes on to imply that SWR have said something that they haven't and asking if they mean it - they never used the word guaranteed just that they would make sure that someone is rostered.

Either the RMT don't see the difference between the two claims, or more likely, they are playing dumb deliberately to try and paint SWR as the big bad guys in this dispute.

 

[Kite159]

I see the timetables for next week have gone up

Slightly concerning about the seemingly random (near) 2 and a half hour gap in Salisbury - Waterloo services in the early afternoon (13:21 then nothing to 15:47) (going by the timetable PDF on the SWR website, however seems RTT suggests no gap).

Could make the difference for me deciding to use that 15:47 next Friday or driving to Basingstoke to avoid overcrowding on what normally is a busy service (schools train)

 

[700007]

I had an interesting thought earlier.

Not sure if anyone else has realised this, or mentioned this elsewhere, but with the introduction of the Elizabeth line/ Crossrail in 2019 to Reading, this obviously means Oyster would be accepted all the way to Reading. However, technically that means I could also travel to Reading using an SWR service via Staines, Bracknell and Wokingham. Would SWR accept Oyster at the intermediate stations as a method of payment, and would they allow you to travel on their service with an Oyster regardless past Feltham?

I can imagine Oyster at Staines would be very welcomed.

 

[theironroad]

Just because crossrail may allow Oyster to be used to reading doesn't necessarily mean swr will. In which case you wouldn't have a valid ticket if checked en route.

 

[Robertj21a]

He's spinning words big time here. Does anyone notice the difference between the wording of the two bits I've highlighted in bold?

On one hand he's saying that SWR have said they will roster someone on all trains and that's not what they have told him to portray that SWR is saying one thing in public and another behind the scenes.

Then he goes on to imply that SWR have said something that they haven't and asking if they mean it - they never used the word guaranteed just that they would make sure that someone is rostered.

Either the RMT don't see the difference between the two claims, or more likely, they are playing dumb deliberately to try and paint SWR as the big bad guys in this dispute.

Surely the main 'spin' isn't just that, it's the key difference (as usual) between 'staff' and 'safety critical staff'. How Mick Cash can suggest that there is any fundamental change by SWR is beyond me - he's claiming that SWR have said something that they clearly haven't. I came to the conclusion some time ago that it's Mick Cash himself that's a large part of all these problems and his stupid attempts to distort clear statements just reinforces why the RMT is so poorly thought of nowadays.

 

[pompeyfan]

From what I can tell, SWR have said the 2nd crew member will still be classed as safety critical, still have routes, PTS and evactuation training for this franchise.

As it stands, the only thing they don’t agree on is the gap between guaranteeing to roster a 2nd crew member and there actually being a 2nd crew member on every service.

I completely get the concern that at the end of the franchise the next franchisee could just go see you later, here’s your p45 or you can reapply for your job but with X/Y/Z reduced. That is a very real threat, but the public are rapidly losing patience as SWR/DfT are being very switched on with the wording and are swallowing all the media about current guarantees and the guarantee at the beginning of the next franchise thanks to everyone’s favourite minister, Mr Grayling.

The one thing that is true is that the RMT are hemorrhaging members, which means when the dust eventually settles and different talks begin, the RMT have a lot less collective bargaining power.

Edit: to clear up misunderstanding from a mistype.

 

[Domh245]

From what I can tell, SWR have said the 2nd crew member will still be classed as safety critical, still have routes, PTS and evactuation training for this franchise.

As it stands, the only thing they don’t agree on is the gab between guaranteeing a 2nd crew member and there being a 2nd crew member on every service.

Maybe I've been misunderstanding things, but surely Safety Critical means that if they aren't there it doesn't run - they are critical to the running of the train. Otherwise, they are just "Safety Trained" or some such.

 

[TEW]

As it stands, the only thing they don’t agree on is the gab between guaranteeing a 2nd crew member and there being a 2nd crew member on every service.

Not quite. SWR say they will roster or plan a 2nd member of staff on every service, which is someway short of guaranteeing a 2nd member of staff on every service.

 

[Carlisle]

Maybe I've been misunderstanding things, but surely Safety Critical means that if they aren't there it doesn't run - they are critical to the running of the train. Otherwise, they are just "Safety Trained" or some such.

Possibly they’d retain safety critical competence for operating existing stock and maybe even the new stock if operating outside a future DOO cleared area

 

[pompeyfan]

Not quite. SWR say they will roster or plan a 2nd member of staff on every service, which is someway short of guaranteeing a 2nd member of staff on every service.

You’re correct, I mistyped. That is indeed what I meant but only had my eyes open about 10 minutes before I replied. My apologies.

Safety critical is somewhat of a red herring. Platform staff are classed as safety critical if they are involved in dispatch of a train, but they’re not essential in the running of the Railway. Therefore this new 2nd crew member role could be considered as safety critical without the member of staff being on every train.

 

[Matt Taylor]

Rather unfortunate that a schedule card was issued yesterday showing a 707 operated Windsor service as DOO!

 

[pompeyfan]

Rather unfortunate that a schedule card was issued yesterday showing a 707 operated Windsor service as DOO!

Oops!

 

[Bookd]

Oops!

Amongst the knowledgeable forum members this seems to come down to how you interpret 'trained' and 'critical' .
There are years to negotiate over this before anything can change, so what is the point of 3 strikes this week which will cost the striking staff a lot just after Christmas and cause huge inconvenience to passengers.

 

[Bigfoot]

Amongst the knowledgeable forum members this seems to come down to how you interpret 'trained' and 'critical' .
There are years to negotiate over this before anything can change, so what is the point of 3 strikes this week which will cost the striking staff a lot just after Christmas and cause huge inconvenience to passengers.

I know of a few guards who have been taking part in the strike action who will not be taking part this coming week because they can't afford to have 4 unpaid days just after Christmas. There are also some who are not sure the action will actually help their case as no real sitting down discussions have taken place.

 

[theironroad]

Rather unfortunate that a schedule card was issued yesterday showing a 707 operated Windsor service as DOO!

Who knows? Maybe some driver managers have been given enhanced training to operate them DOO during the disputes. Could all have been signed off by the rssb/orr or whoever validates TOC s safety cases.

 

[moley]

So, just pulling a few posts together here...

SWR say that there will be some services, essentially on new stock within a specific geographic area (i.e. not mainline), that could be DOO however they have no planned intention of running them as DOO. SWR are guaranteeing to roster a 2nd safety trained member of staff per service (and presumably a few spare). However when, at short notice, a DOO service does not have that 2nd member of staff, SWR want to run the service anyway, the RMT want it cancelled.

As a point of law, SWR cannot enter into any agreement that commits the next franchisee to anything. The DfT could, but whether they will.

 

[pompeyfan]

So, just pulling a few posts together here...

SWR say that there will be some services, essentially on new stock within a specific geographic area (i.e. not mainline), that could be DOO however they have no planned intention of running them as DOO. SWR are guaranteeing to roster a 2nd safety trained member of staff per service (and presumably a few spare). However when, at short notice, a DOO service does not have that 2nd member of staff, SWR want to run the service anyway, the RMT want it cancelled.

As a point of law, SWR cannot enter into any agreement that commits the next franchisee to anything. The DfT could, but whether they will.

Grayling has written an open letter to Mick Cash ‘... I am prepared to give guarantees of employment beyond the length of these [the current] franchises, if this will allow RMT to brings [sic] its disputes over DCO to an end.

 

[theironroad]

Grayling has written an open letter to Mick Cash ‘... I am prepared to give guarantees of employment beyond the length of these [the current] franchises, if this will allow RMT to brings [sic] its disputes over DCO to an end.

You have a link or copy of the letter please?

 

[TEW]

However when, at short notice, a DOO service does not have that 2nd member of staff, SWR want to run the service anyway, the RMT want it cancelled.

Correct, just like it is now. Can anyone remember complaints of guard shortages causing mass cancellations before the dispute? I certainly can't. There are plenty of ways the number of cancellations could be reduced below it's already tiny number, admittedly these would all probably increase costs. I wouldn't be surprised if more cancellations have been caused by this dispute than would have been caused by guard shortages for the whole length of the franchise, had SWR not caused this dispute, assuming the number continued along previous trends.

 

[theironroad]

Correct, just like it is now. Can anyone remember complaints of guard shortages causing mass cancellations before the dispute? I certainly can't. There are plenty of ways the number of cancellations could be reduced below it's already tiny number, admittedly these would all probably increase costs. I wouldn't be surprised if more cancellations have been caused by this dispute than would have been caused by guard shortages for the whole length of the franchise, had SWR not caused this dispute, assuming the number continued along previous trends.

Prior to this dispute I've seen trains cancelled and reported as no crew when I know for sure that a driver and guard were available but Wicc and DRMs have lost the plot and a grip.

 

[Carlisle]

There are plenty of ways the number of cancellations could be reduced below it's already tiny number, admittedly these would all probably increase costs. .

Exacly, so is it better to fund additional positions that could patrol trains for an entire shift apart from their break/ meal times or jobs that probably in many cases would be sitting spare for most or all of their shift, just in case.?

 

[moley]

Correct, just like it is now. Can anyone remember complaints of guard shortages causing mass cancellations before the dispute? I certainly can't. There are plenty of ways the number of cancellations could be reduced below it's already tiny number, admittedly these would all probably increase costs. I wouldn't be surprised if more cancellations have been caused by this dispute than would have been caused by guard shortages for the whole length of the franchise, had SWR not caused this dispute, assuming the number continued along previous trends.

The public very much see this as RMT causing the dispute not SWR. SWR said they would review working practices, not unreasonable, ahead of new stock arriving and RMT pre-emptied the result by throwing their toys out of the pram if the status quo was not guaranteed to be retained. Surely the RMT should have been an integral part of the review and waited for the conclusion? The RMT don’t have the public onside.