Lumo - QUALIFIED Customer Train Driver/Instructor - Euston/Preston/Stirling - (25/03/25)

[NorthernTech]

I don’t think this is completely accurate.

It came from someone who had been offered a job, and from said contract. So accurate.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 Jun 2025 ==

This comes up all the time regarding Lumo. Reliable sources say this has never been enforced and there are no plans to.

It seems no different to if I'm traveling pass on my own operator helping the buffet staff by taking orders to seats if it's busy.

If it’s written into a contract then it ‘could’ be enforced at any point and therefore a possibility of it being part of their drivers day-to-day duties. And possibly why they may be struggling to recruit, that and the DC pension of course

 

[Horizon22]

It came from someone who had been offered a job, and from said contract. So accurate.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 Jun 2025 ==


If it’s written into a contract then it ‘could’ be enforced at any point and therefore a possibility of it being part of their drivers day-to-day duties. And possibly why they may be struggling to recruit, that and the DC pension of course

Something written into a contract of course could be enforced but that doesn't mean it will be enforced. Lots of contracts have things such "and any other tasks deemed suitable at the discretion of Manager X", but in reality, little happens because it's a minefield.

As others have stated, this has been brought up several times in the past year or so regarding Lumo and there's been first-hand reports of people here that it doesn't happen.

 

[43066]

It came from someone who had been offered a job, and from said contract. So accurate.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 Jun 2025 ==


If it’s written into a contract then it ‘could’ be enforced at any point and therefore a possibility of it being part of their drivers day-to-day duties. And possibly why they may be struggling to recruit, that and the DC pension of course

Yep - it’ll give some pause for thought. I suspect the loss of the decent pension and somewhat uncertain future of open access as a concept will be seen as bigger issues by many.

 

[greatkingrat]

Something written into a contract of course could be enforced but that doesn't mean it will be enforced. Lots of contracts have things such "and any other tasks deemed suitable at the discreption of Manager X", but in reality, little happens because it's a minefield.

As others have stated, this has been brought up several times in the past year or so regarding Lumo and there's been first-hand reports of people here that it doesn't happen.

If they genuinely have no intention of enforcing it, why not just remove it from the contracts?

 

[NorthernTech]

Something written into a contract of course could be enforced but that doesn't mean it will be enforced. Lots of contracts have things such "and any other tasks deemed suitable at the discreption of Manager X", but in reality, little happens because it's a minefield.

As others have stated, this has been brought up several times in the past year or so regarding Lumo and there's been first-hand reports of people here that it doesn't happen.

Not really a ‘minefield’ if it is clearly written in a contract as opposed to the usual ‘any other tasks deemed….’ This states that the company ‘may’ at any point expect their drivers to do this. So the initial question was, do other companies state this same thing or is it just Lumo? With their ethos being cheaper tickets/budget offering you’d think that cutting staff costs is something that they would actively look at, and this clear statement written into a contract would be one way to save.

Yes, I have read that others have said previously that this is not something that has happened ‘yet’, but a new service, new depots and what seems a struggle to recruit could POSSIBLY end up being a part of duties. They have written this into a contract for a reason, and the whole point of this forum is to discuss both sides to this, make people aware of the jobs they are looking at, and not be shot down by forum staff for highlighting a point taken from a known source

 

[Horizon22]

If they genuinely have no intention of enforcing it, why not just remove it from the contracts?

Can't help you with that one. Could be anything ranging from "maybe they could in exceptional circumstances" to "laziness". You'd be shocked how many clearly out of date job descriptions are regularly posted for new vacancies that have clear errors in them.

 

[43066]

Not really a ‘minefield’ if it is clearly written in a contract as opposed to the usual ‘any other tasks deemed….’ This states that the company ‘may’ at any point expect their drivers to do this. So the initial question was, do other companies state this same thing or is it just Lumo? With their ethos being cheaper tickets/budget offering you’d think that cutting staff costs is something that they would actively look at, and this clear statement written into a contract would be one way to save.

Yes, I have read that others have said previously that this is not something that has happened ‘yet’, but a new service, new depots and what seems a struggle to recruit could POSSIBLY end up being a part of duties. They have written this into a contract for a reason, and the whole point of this forum is to discuss both sides to this, make people aware of the jobs they are looking at, and not be shot down by forum staff for highlighting a point taken from a known source

It’s potentially a minefield for the company in the sense that asking drivers to undertake non driving passenger facing roles is a. The use of an expensive resource to undertake something that lower paid employees could do, and b. Fraught with the risk of said drivers stating they no longer feel fit to drive due to being on the receiving end of abuse from passengers etc. So I’m not surprised it doesn’t happen in practice.

The fact it’s in the contract would be a factor I’d consider - when I’m sitting spare the last thing I’d want is to be asked to go and start playing at being a guard. It also makes it easier for the company to under resource the guard grade.

 

[NorthernTech]

If they genuinely have no intention of enforcing it, why not just remove it from the contracts?

Exactly

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 Jun 2025 ==

It’s potentially a minefield for the company in the sense that asking drivers to undertake non driving passenger facing roles is a. The use of an expensive resource to undertake something that lower paid employees could do, and b. Fraught with the risk of said drivers stating they no longer feel fit to drive due to being on the receiving end of abuse from passengers etc. So I’m not surprised it doesn’t happen in practice.

The fact it’s in the contract would be a factor I’d consider - when I’m sitting spare the last thing I’d want is to be asked to go and start playing at being a guard. It also makes it easier for the company to under resource the guard grade.

That is the exact thing said by the guy at work. He didn’t want the guard role, and why he applied for a cab position and the responsibilities that come with driving alone. I can see why the business may want to utilise staff to cover other roles, but I’ve never heard of it used in the railway this way.

 

[notadriver]

Exactly

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 Jun 2025 ==


That is the exact thing said by the guy at work. He didn’t want the guard role, and why he applied for a cab position and the responsibilities that come with driving alone. I can see why the business may want to utilise staff to cover other roles, but I’ve never heard of it used in the railway this way.

I can’t see that happening unless you were unable to drive medically any more. I’ve been on a few Lumo trains and never seen the driver come out of the cab to do teas and coffees.

 

[Jaggy2k3]

Hi all. Does anyone by any chance have contact details for the recruitment team ?

 

[NorthernTech]

I can’t see that happening unless you were unable to drive medically any more. I’ve been on a few Lumo trains and never seen the driver come out of the cab to do teas and coffees.

They are not gonna just walk out of the cab and start other duties but most likely join the service as a staff member and either be guard or trolley service person. In which case, unless it was obvious by their uniform, you‘d never know that they were a driver but just Lumo staff member.

 

[43066]

I can’t see that happening unless you were unable to drive medically any more. I’ve been on a few Lumo trains and never seen the driver come out of the cab to do teas and coffees.

But the fact remains that it’s a term of the contract, whereas it isn’t at operators.

If you’re medically unfit to drive you’ll likely also be unfit to act as a guard - there may be edge cases where you can to one but not t’other. I’d rather not have that possibility enshrined in my contract, though!

 

[NorthernTech]

Driver probably isn’t going to do the doors on 222s as they don’t have cameras

Looks like Alstom are refitting these for Lumo and updating the cctv cameras, according to article in Rail Forum. Not sure whether this is just internal CCTV cameras, but I’d be surprised if this doesn’t mean external door cameras too.

Alstom secures £50 million contract to enhance and service Class 222 trains for Lumo - Rail Forum

Refresh and maintenance work by Alstom will support FirstGroup’s new cross-border intercity service Contract supports 50 roles across Alstom sites […]

www.railforum.uk

 

[43066]

Looks like Alstom are refitting these for Lumo and updating the cctv cameras, according to article in Rail Forum. Not sure whether this is just internal CCTV cameras, but I’d be surprised if this doesn’t mean external door cameras too.

Alstom secures £50 million contract to enhance and service Class 222 trains for Lumo - Rail Forum

Refresh and maintenance work by Alstom will support FirstGroup’s new cross-border intercity service Contract supports 50 roles across Alstom sites […]

www.railforum.uk

I’d be surprised if they add door cameras for what is only intended to be an interim fleet - surely easier just to use traditional guard dispatch as the ambassadors are fully trained guards, possibly combined with CD/RA. It’s not as if there’s a huge performance advantage to DOO dispatch, especially on trains that won’t be stopping very much.

 

[357]

I’d be surprised if they add door cameras for what is only intended to be an interim fleet - surely easier just to use traditional guard dispatch as the ambassadors are fully trained guards, possibly combined with CD/RA. It’s not as if there’s a huge performance advantage to DOO dispatch, especially on trains that won’t be stopping very much.

Agreed. I can't see them being fully DOO.

From my own experience the time advantage comes from drivers opening the doors, closing of the doors has minimal time difference.

 

[NorthernTech]

If they did add door cameras, wouldn’t this be DCO rather than DOO? Isn’t DOO when there is no guard? The article says that the contract is to maintain the lumo 222’s for 5 years, so if they did want to add those cameras, five years is a fairly significant amount of time.

 

[43066]

If they did add door cameras, wouldn’t this be DCO rather than DOO? Isn’t DOO when there is no guard? The article says that the contract is to maintain the lumo 222’s for 5 years, so if they did want to add those cameras, five years is a fairly significant amount of time.

It’s DOO in the rule book sense as the drivers take dispatch risk. Adding cameras to an existing mid life fleet isn’t a straightforward process - I obviously stand to be corrected if they do go this route, but I suspect it’ll be seen as too risky/costly.