Class 701 'Aventra' trains for South Western Railway: progress updates

[Towers]

https://www.rmt.org.uk/news/members...-and-extension-of-doo-swr140624/?preview=true


Rmt have agreed to full guard training roll out. Interesting part in there about guard dispatch aswell, what it means we shall see.

Anyway the roll out should now ramp up quickly I imagine.

Interesting that the tone of that communication is very much that SWR didn’t want any sort of guard door control at all and it has been be hard fought for by the union, while the suggestions on this thread seem to be that guard door control at certain locations might well be essential?

 

[OneTrackMinded]

Anyway the roll out should now ramp up quickly I imagine.

Hold your horses, we still don't the situation with the driver training or ASLEF for that matter (at least to my knowledge anyway, correct me if I'm wrong)

 

[DMckduck]

Interesting that the tone of that communication is very much that SWR didn’t want any sort of guard door control at all and it has been be hard fought for by the union, while the suggestions on this thread seem to be that guard door control at certain locations might well be essential?

Don't see the point personally in having guards work a few stations here and there. The train won't be able to run regardless without them on in that situation so may aswell just hand them control of the closing anyway.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Jun 2024 ==

https://www.rmt.org.uk/news/members...-and-extension-of-doo-swr140624/?preview=true


Rmt have agreed to full guard training roll out. Interesting part in there about guard dispatch aswell, what it means we shall see.

Anyway the roll out should now ramp up quickly I imagine.

Another RMT publication which says an awful lot without actually saying much at all?

 

[Goldfish62]

Interesting that the tone of that communication is very much that SWR didn’t want any sort of guard door control at all and it has been be hard fought for by the union, while the suggestions on this thread seem to be that guard door control at certain locations might well be essential?

It's very strange wording: "retain control of the doors *where possible *".

It's possible to retain control of the doors everywhere. I assume the RMT mean "where necessary" or "where required".

 

[Stephen42]

It's very strange wording: "retain control of the doors *where possible *".

It's possible to retain control of the doors everywhere. I assume the RMT mean "where necessary" or "where required".

No, I assume they've pushed to be able to do the doors more frequently than absolutely required. SWR may have made the argument that in some circumstances it would not be feasible for guards to do the doors and those to be embedded into the principles of operation.

 

[Goldfish62]

No, I assume they've pushed to be able to do the doors more frequently than absolutely required. SWR may have made the argument that in some circumstances it would not be feasible for guards to do the doors and those to be embedded into the principles of operation.

I see, thanks. I guess we'll find out when/if they finally enter service with SWR.

 

[OneTrackMinded]

No, I assume they've pushed to be able to do the doors more frequently than absolutely required. SWR may have made the argument that in some circumstances it would not be feasible for guards to do the doors and those to be embedded into the principles of operation.

Might as well make it full guard operation at that point... what a massive waste of time this DOO thing has been in that case

 

[Goldfish62]

Might as well make it full guard operation at that point... what a massive waste of time this DOO thing has been in that case

Can't see the DfT being too happy with the pay uplift for the drivers in return for them doing the doors only for them never to do the doors...

 

[OneTrackMinded]

Apparently yesterday's 701044 service was a training run

 

[InOban]

Might as well make it full guard operation at that point... what a massive waste of time this DOO thing has been in that case

No. In 2024 the important routine duties of the 'guard ' (whatever the role is called) are revenue protection and and looking after the safety of the passengers on the train. It is unfortunate that it will from time to time be necessary to take them away from that to ensure safe dispatch

 

[Towers]

No. In 2024 the important routine duties of the 'guard ' (whatever the role is called) are revenue protection and and looking after the safety of the passengers on the train. It is unfortunate that it will from time to time be necessary to take them away from that to ensure safe dispatch

No; a “guard” (Rulebook term) is a trained, safety critical member of crew who has operational competence and responsibilties, nearly always involving routine dispatch duties (it would be very rare for them not to have any dispatch responsibility). Other brands of on board staff are available, but it is not remotely unusual for a guard to be dispatching; it most certainly is not an occasional “from time to time” thing!

 

[DMckduck]

No. In 2024 the important routine duties of the 'guard ' (whatever the role is called) are revenue protection and and looking after the safety of the passengers on the train. It is unfortunate that it will from time to time be necessary to take them away from that to ensure safe dispatch

The second you take away operational duties, guards are only an agreement away from disappearing off the train.

Then once it's happened it's too late

 

[InOban]

But both the TOCs and the passengers want fully-skilled on board staff . They just don't want them disappearing every few minutes to operate the doors.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

But both the TOCs and the passengers want fully-skilled on board staff . They just don't want them disappearing every few minutes to operate the doors.

Indeed once you give them door responsibility you can say goodbye to any other duties being performed routinely.

 

[DMckduck]

But both the TOCs and the passengers want fully-skilled on board staff . They just don't want them disappearing every few minutes to operate the doors.

The TOCS and DFT want as few staff onboard trains as possible as It saves money that will not be passed on to the customer.

 

[Mainsideman]

But both the TOCs and the passengers want fully-skilled on board staff . They just don't want them disappearing every few minutes to operate the doors.

The guard has to key on and step onto the platform at every station to check for assistance. If they need to do that may aswell give them door control.

 

[Towers]

Indeed once you give them door responsibility you can say goodbye to any other duties being performed routinely.

No idea where on earth that’s coming from; guards have for decades combined dispatch responsibilities with their on board duties and continue to do so up and down the country daily. A lazy member of staff will be lazy regardless, there are examples in most industries; that is where a lack of on board presence comes from, it’s got nothing to do with doors! A properly designed train should allow guards ample opportunity to undertake dispatch from a range of locations on board, including ample scope to use passenger doors within the coaches. It really doesn’t prevent the efficient execution of customer facing duties; indeed the guard being clearly visible on the platform at every stop as they carry out dispatch gives a significant benefit in allowing people to swifly locate them.

 

[Peter Sarf]

The TOCS and DFT want as few staff onboard trains as possible as It saves money that will not be passed on to the customer.

But it does save the customer money - the DfT/Treasury which means the tax payer. Hopefully said "money tree" will feel more inclined to continue to subsidise the railways if they see the railways making efforts to save money .

 

[MasterPhillips]

No idea where on earth that’s coming from; guards have for decades combined dispatch responsibilities with their on board duties and continue to do so up and down the country daily.

But on an SWR service on the Hounslow loop stopping every 2 to 3 minutes this is pretty much never the case. In my opinion the new system where the guard is freed up for ticket checks is the best of both worlds and can still close doors if necessary.

 

[Goldfish62]

But on an SWR service on the Hounslow loop stopping every 2 to 3 minutes this is pretty much never the case. In my opinion the new system where the guard is freed up for ticket checks is the best of both worlds and can still close doors if necessary.

Exactly, and my experience of the same system on Greater Anglia, where unlike SWR, it was introduced with relatively little difficulty, is that it's excellent. And judging by the general great attitude of the guards they're content with it as well.

But then this is the South Western, where apparently nothing must ever change.

 

[DMckduck]

But on an SWR service on the Hounslow loop stopping every 2 to 3 minutes this is pretty much never the case. In my opinion the new system where the guard is freed up for ticket checks is the best of both worlds and can still close doors if necessary.

The guard is not freed up to do anything, they still have to key on and open local door at every station in a suitable location to assess the platform for any persons requiring assistance.

The guard keying on and off is part of the drivers dispatch process and they cannot start this until it has occurred.

Any gripes about this? Best off speaking to ASLEF about it and whilst you're at it, ask them why the use of ASDO override on the 701 is until further notice not allowed to be used...

 

[Goldfish62]

Ask them why the use of ASDO override on the 701 is until further notice not allowed to be used...

Just out of interest, what's ASDO override?

 

[TEW]

Just out of interest, what's ASDO override?

If the ASDO fails to recognise where it is at all then only the front 4 coaches will be released. If it has a GPS location but fails to read the balise it will only open the coaches of the shortest platform at the location. This can be overrided and all doors released, which is what happens at present on Desiros. On 701s the drivers will not operate the override and the guard will have to manage the situation with however many doors have opened and local doors.

 

[Goldfish62]

If the ASDO fails to recognise where it is at all then only the front 4 coaches will be released. If it has a GPS location but fails to read the balise it will only open the coaches of the shortest platform at the location. This can be overrided and all doors released, which is what happens at present on Desiros. On 701s the drivers will not operate the override and the guard will have to manage the situation with however many doors have opened and local doors.

Great, thanks.

How much in practice would this impact, I wonder?

In Cornwall, where nearly all London trains are 9 car IETs only Penzance and Liskeard are able to accommodate the whole train, with ASDO at all other (minimum 8) stations. Given it's driver release of doors the same agreement with ASLEF presumably applies. I travel there quite a lot and have never experienced any issues with doors not releasing so I guess it's not much of a problem.

 

[DMckduck]

Great, thanks.

How much in practice would this impact, I wonder?

In Cornwall, where nearly all London trains are 9 car IETs only Penzance and Liskeard are able to accommodate the whole train, with ASDO at all other (minimum 8) stations. Given it's driver release of doors the same agreement with ASLEF presumably applies. I travel there quite a lot and have never experienced any issues with doors not releasing so I guess it's not much of a problem.

It's increasingly rare with newer trains but it can still happen from time to time. Most of the time when the fault occurs it just opens in default mode, which if on a fully accommodated platform the override would then be used.

 

[TEW]

Great, thanks.

How much in practice would this impact, I wonder?

In Cornwall, where nearly all London trains are 9 car IETs only Penzance and Liskeard are able to accommodate the whole train, with ASDO at all other (minimum 8) stations. Given it's driver release of doors the same agreement with ASLEF presumably applies. I travel there quite a lot and have never experienced any issues with doors not releasing so I guess it's not much of a problem.

It's pretty rare for the ASDO to need to be overriden on current stock. When the 458/5s were first introduced it was very common on those, and they were modified so that the guard operates the ASDO override to speed it up. That was a paticular issue with the 458/5s though.

 

[Goldfish62]

It's pretty rare for the ASDO to need to be overriden on current stock. When the 458/5s were first introduced it was very common on those, and they were modified so that the guard operates the ASDO override to speed it up. That was a paticular issue with the 458/5s though.

Yes, I remember passengers used to regularly get carried beyond their intended station when the 458/5s were first introduced!

However, all sounds like a minor issue.

 

[43096]

The TOCS and DFT want as few staff onboard trains as possible as It saves money that will not be passed on to the customer.

It is passed on to the taxpayer, though, and I’d bet most customers are taxpayers.

 

[OneTrackMinded]

It scrolls now? Would like to see a video of that. I assume you mean the internal screens since the external display has done that since day 1

Has anyone got any information about this claim?

 

[TEW]

Has anyone got any information about this claim?

There was a PIS update in the past few weeks so it's definitely possible.