No doubt most of the staff will, by now, just automatically assume that it will remain forever more.
Spoken, I assume, as a person who works in the industry and knows the majority of staff?
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
RMT Industrial Action - EMR
- Thread starter 43055
- Start date
- Status
Spoken, I assume, as a person who works in the industry and knows the majority of staff?
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Robertj21a
On Moderation
- Joined
- 22 Sep 2013
- Messages
- 7,691
No, based on previous comments (over many years) from many railway staff.
Just who in the rail industry will know the majority of staff ? - it would be a really difficult attainment.
Just who in the rail industry will know the majority of staff ? - it would be a really difficult attainment.
I will break the trend but I'm afraid as a time served train guard I think it's a daft dispute. Guards have been working trains with multiple portions alone for a very long time indeed. It is not ideal from a customer service or revenue protection standpoint but that's on the company not the union. OK, in past times things were rather more relaxed about jumping out of the train on to the lineside and clambering up into another portion if need be.
However there are various undesirable outcomes for the guards.
Multiple train managers are expensive. You are suddenly running an outer suburban service alongside Thameslink with twice the manning cost. Remap the service to Thameslink and it could easily be driver only. Even if it remained with EMR all you'd need to make the train DCO would be dispatch staff over a full shift. Use some 700s which might be spare if Thameslink services are reduced permanently and suddenly you have an effective answer to the Corby service merging into their network and getting away from the current issues using and maintaining the 360s.
If you give other grades safety training you could be training your replacements. Again - move dispatch to the driver/platform staff and you've still got safety trained revenue protection or customer hosts working on board costing less than train managers and able to move around freely.
Accept that the bird has flown with these trains and get on with it.
It isn't quite the same story as the 170s as the routes they operate are rather different in character but the principle remains for me - I find this to be an entirely contrived dispute and a waste of everybody's time and effort.
However there are various undesirable outcomes for the guards.
Multiple train managers are expensive. You are suddenly running an outer suburban service alongside Thameslink with twice the manning cost. Remap the service to Thameslink and it could easily be driver only. Even if it remained with EMR all you'd need to make the train DCO would be dispatch staff over a full shift. Use some 700s which might be spare if Thameslink services are reduced permanently and suddenly you have an effective answer to the Corby service merging into their network and getting away from the current issues using and maintaining the 360s.
If you give other grades safety training you could be training your replacements. Again - move dispatch to the driver/platform staff and you've still got safety trained revenue protection or customer hosts working on board costing less than train managers and able to move around freely.
Accept that the bird has flown with these trains and get on with it.
It isn't quite the same story as the 170s as the routes they operate are rather different in character but the principle remains for me - I find this to be an entirely contrived dispute and a waste of everybody's time and effort.
BrokenSam
Member
You sound jealous? I wouldn't pray for the downfall of anyone's livelihood.You're right, it's often mentioned [I wonder why.....].
Still, not to worry, the railway blinkers have served many very well over the years. No doubt most of the staff will, by now, just automatically assume that it will remain forever more.
Killingworth
Established Member
A welcome voice of informed reason!
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
I wish we could clone @LowLevel and put one on every* train - an exemplary guard in every way, or at least it seems so from their postings on here.
* No DOO debate please
I am far from perfect but whilst I have little love or care for my actual employer (in terms of the corporate entity that it is) I do care deeply about doing the right thing for the railway itself. This frequently brings me into moaning territory with both the management and my trade union however I would like to think that I am well respected enough that it is accepted by all parties that I make constructive comment with the best intentions.
Who knows where this will go though.
Who knows where this will go though.
Failed Unit
Established Member
I suspect it is a bit of a non event as they won’t need 12 car trains for a while. Shame that was all that was available at the time.
Anyone know if they did decide to swap to 350s how much extra training would be needed?
I suspect the ROSCO won’t give a good deal here, so it is probably too expensive.
Anyone know if they did decide to swap to 350s how much extra training would be needed?
I suspect the ROSCO won’t give a good deal here, so it is probably too expensive.
43096
On Moderation
- Joined
- 23 Nov 2015
- Messages
- 18,808
You won’t get any deal from the ROSCO. They’ve signed a long term lease with Angel for the 360s. If you decide you want to go for the 350/2s instead, they are Porterbrook’s, so no way are Angel going to accept unilateral lease termination. You’d be paying for two fleets.
Always amazing how little people consider the commercial and contractual implications when playing “fantasy fleets”…
Angel own the 360s
Porterbrook own the 350/2s.
Hence Angel won't want to see the 360 leave EMR...
It will very much be an event if they come out on strike (for an issue tha isn’t happening).
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Well, one option for the TOC would be to agree to the demands for non-gangwayed EMUs only, and then only run 8-car for the foreseeable, and seek some gangwayed EMUs to replace them in due course before going to 12-car? That might be the easier way out. It's not like EMUs are scarce at the moment, and if commuting doesn't pick up there will be loads spare.
whoosh
Established Member
- Joined
- 3 Sep 2008
- Messages
- 1,890
How long is their lease on 360s?
NSEFAN
Established Member
How difficult would fitting gangways to the end of 360s be? Are they not essentially 350s without them? Not only would this surely resolve the dispute issue, but be a better experience for both staff and passengers.
Not sure the length of the lease , but won't the 810's replace them in 2023.
greatvoyager
Established Member
Corby is due to remain 360 operated, the 810s replace 180s and 222s on Nottingham/Sheffield services.
Ah I see. Thanks for that.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
I suppose the SWT Junipers were chopped about to change them into faux-Desiros, but that would be costly.
Not for the drivers!
The 458s had gangways from new, though.
NSEFAN
Established Member
That's true. Perhaps a design which can retract when using a leading cab could be used. But as Bletchleyite said, its all cost which I'm sure the operators could do without.
I suppose the limiting factor for practicability might be how much the structural integrity of the train is compromised. If the cab is a seperate entity then perhaps it is not so bad.
whoosh
Established Member
- Joined
- 3 Sep 2008
- Messages
- 1,890
This is all entering the £millions mark where it's probably cheaper to put 2 TMs on the few 12 cars you'd run!
43096
On Moderation
- Joined
- 23 Nov 2015
- Messages
- 18,808
The 460s that were converted to 458531-536 with gangways didn’t, though.
Probably cost so much it would be cheaper to ride a strike out!
Killingworth
Established Member
From Derbyshire Times
If indeed EMR have no intention of operating 12 car trains in service they can't have explained that very well. I'd be interested to see the briefing sent out with the RMT ballot paper and the voting returns calling for such action.
To most readers of that paper this must seem totally mad! "No other alternative?"
If indeed EMR have no intention of operating 12 car trains in service they can't have explained that very well. I'd be interested to see the briefing sent out with the RMT ballot paper and the voting returns calling for such action.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
If they indeed don't intend to operate 12-car trains for now, this needs to just go away, in which case they might as well just agree it because it won't cost them anything if they aren't going to operate any 12-car trains anyway.
weastebusdepot
Member
No intention at the moment, but that doesn't mean never if passengers numbers ever recover to a point they are needed. After all the new platform 4 at Wellingborough was built to accommodate 12 car 360s to match all the other stations on the route and there's an OFF indicator that can't be seen by anyone other than the guard in the rear portion of a 12 car train.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Indeed, but you could leave the debate until then. Or if as is likely in the "new world" there are only say 2 12-car workings each way per day, then it's probably cheaper just to agree to it.
weastebusdepot
Member
Well there are 21 units and it requires 14 of them to run every service as 8 car. Given that most days poor reliability means even that can't be achieved leading to one or two diagrams being 4 car, perhaps the scenario of a 12 car train might remain a myth for a long time anyway.
- Status