Alternatively if the union accepted that there is no necessity for a second safety critical role then the money that was not budgeted for could be spent on other things or saved and the service could start.
It would be a complete U-Turn and much much more expenditure. I would say not very likely, but with the governments of late... anything in theory is possible.
Unfortunately, probably as unlikely as the first option of the DfT changing thier minds.
Strike action called at Chiltern against driver-only operation
RAIL union RMT announced strike action today (September 29) on Chiltern Railways after members voted overwhelmingly for industrial action against driver-only operation (DOO) planned for East West Rail services.www.rmt.org.uk
*current, RMT owned, chiltern staff.
RMT have stopped publishing ballot results on their website, which was previously wonderfully transparent. Everything is now alas by press release -- "overwhelming" is the majority they say..
They tend to mention existing DOO in general without referring to specific operators, and with respect to specific incidents E.g. this press release from 2025 makes reference to the Huntingdon stabbing incident and the fact that DOO Thameslink trains also run:
These days passengers have - mobile phones. So alerting the authorities is possible by maybe hundreds of passengers.
Thanks for some clarity and both good points. Twelve car Thameslink services running late at night can definitely feel "uncomfortable" to passengers but it's difficult to see how one guard on such a train could make them safe? Safer perhaps.
It's nothing to do with what's dangerous, and everything to do with RMT protecting their power-base.
They don't have the ability too though? Because the drivers as I understand are ASLEF and the trains have no guards to strike...
And for some reason, ASLEF don't appear to have that many issues with it all. Not publicly, anyway.
It will have a near zero impact, and they'll probably see that they possess less power than they think they have now.
.. and according to Rail, it actually was overwhelming: https://www.railmagazine.com/news/r...-railways-confirmed-in-east-west-rail-dispute
Ahh, I see. Yes.
That would be an accurate report, yes.
Usually are - but obviously both thresholds were reached (turnout and majority) given the outcome.
That’s a really important point. Delays don’t just affect the immediate start date,they can also make future reopenings look less viable if additional security costs become part of the equation. Hopefully, the focus stays on finding practical solutions rather than letting these extra costs become a reason to delay reopening again.
This sort of problem almost certainly wouldn't get factored into the Economic or Financial Appraisal. However, it will mean that there's an additional risk on the project register, and that will need to have some form of mitigation. If the mitigation is financial (e.g. contingency for delay in opening) then that would affect the overall decision whether or not to go ahead.
If potential future reopenings have to be based on provision of minimum 2-person train crews, that's a negative input into the cost/benefit equation, making them less likely to gain approval.
You don't need an anti-rail agenda to find millions of pounds of public money spent on the railway with no virtually no return or benefit from it. Ordsall Chord, HS2, Botley Road bridge, GWEP just to name a few