RMT Industrial Action - EMR

[Meerkat]

EMR dont care do they? I assume they just ring up the DfT and ask if they want to concede to the RMT and set an expensive precedent, or save money by not running the trains and not paying the TMs.

 

[Sleepy]

To be honest given the choice between a ticket office that is supposed to be open for a few hours 5 or 6 days a week but which closes whenever the usual member of staff is on holiday or sick or a TVM that is accessible at all hours of the day and night 7 days a week I imagine most passengers would opt for the latter.

If a ticket office isn't covered for absence on a regular basis that is down to poor management. TVM'S can't give advice on tickets, make reservations, provide boarding assistance for elderly or disabled, clean the station, lock up toilets..... TVM'S at unmanned stations are normally card only.

 

[Watershed]

From Derbyshire Times

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.

I can sort of see where they get that from - if they let this pass without doing anything they will, both in practice and legally, be taken to accede to the change in procedures. Whereas by objecting - in this case very strongly - they can make sure that nothing is taken to be accepted.

Now, like many people, I think they're handling this in a very 'courageous' manner, but that is another matter...

 

[whoosh]

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.

My calculations (a three hour round trip including turnaround time is 3 trains - and another 3 for the opposite half-hour) make it 18 units to run all of the half-hourly Corby trains as 12 cars. Regular 12 car trains were planned before Covid - perhaps not for all of the trains and 18 out of 21 units though! They aren't running now, but no-one is sure when they may return to the plans for having them.

There are certainly enough units for the majority of trains in service to be 12 cars.

 

[Killingworth]

The following is copied from today's Stakeholder briefing from EMR. Apologies for any formatting errors.

Dear Colleague,

As you may be aware, the RMT Union informed us last month their Train Manager members have voted in favour of strike action and action short of a strike.

We have now been informed their members will strike on eight consecutive Sundays, starting on Sunday 8 th August. We have been clear throughout – striking is the wrong decision for EMR, the wider rail industry and the communities we serve.

Train Managers work on both EMR Connect and EMR Intercity services to and from London St Pancras International. Therefore, although the dispute is solely in relation to EMR Connect and the operation of our Class 360 units, there will be an impact on our longer distance, EMR Intercity services too.

This action is in addition to the ongoing Sunday strike action taken by Senior Conductors who operate EMR Regional services.

EMR Connect – a safe railway for customers and our staff EMR

Connect was introduced in May this year and is operated by Class 360 Electric Multiple Units (EMUs). Each train is comprised of four carriages with a drivers cab at each end. Each drivers cab spans the full width of the train – as a result is it not possible to walk from one train to the other. This is also the case with our EMR Intercity fleet of Class 222 Meridians and Class 180’s.

The Class 360’s were previously operated by our colleagues at Greater Anglia. For the last 17 years, they were operated under Driver Only Operation (DOO) and there was not another member of staff permanently located on the train. This was the case if the train was operated with four, eight or 12 carriages.

In order to improve the visibility of staff for customers, EMR took the decision to introduce a Train Manager onto the Connect Services. This was not required under any safety case, and was solely to improve the customer experience and further protect revenue. Additionally, as a safety trained member of staff, the Train Manager takes responsibility for opening and closing the doors.

The RMT has objected to this method of operation and therefore balloted Train Managers for strike action and action short of a strike. As a matter of principle, the RMT expect to see a Train Manager per 4 car set. So when we run our 360’s as sets of 8 carriages, they expect to see two Train Managers on board. When we run sets of our 360’s as sets of 12 car carriages, they expect to see three Train Managers on board. Despite 6 months of negotiation, the RMT has failed to produce any safety case or evidence of any kind to justify this demand.

Clearly, EMR fundamentally disagrees, our method of operation for 360 sets in multiple unit formation is safe:

Our method of operation is in line with the wider industry custom and practice, as seen in;
​

• West Midlands Trains: Class 170 & 172 units
• Greater Anglia: Class 321 12 car units​
• South Western Railway: Class 455 & 456 units​
• ScotRail: Class 170 units​
• TransPennine Express: Class 185 units
• Transport for Wales: Class 175 units​
• Northern Rail: Class 150/1 units
  
  It is an improvement on the operation in Greater Anglia where cl.360 services have safely operated as Driver Only Operation for over 17 years.
  
  
• Since the introduction of cl.360’s at EMR, these units have run in sets of 8 carriages. There have been no operational or safety incidents attributable to not having a Train Manager on each unit.​
• The RMT are signatories to the risk assessment (29th March) that underpins EMR’s method of work for this traction, and EMR consulted with RMT for 6 months prior to their entry into service​
• Our method of work has been fully safety validated internally, and has been reviewed by the ORR​
• Feedback from customers on our EMR Connect route where cl.360 services operate remains overwhelmingly positive and there has not been a single issue raised in relation to colleague visibility.​
• Customer satisfaction for cl.360 services is at 80%, which is the highest satisfaction score at present across all EMR routes by a significant margin.​
• To support revenue protection on our EMR Connect services we are opening a Revenue Protection depot in Kettering and increasing our Revenue Protection Officer (RPO) headcount in St Pancras. These additional colleagues will work alongside the Train Managers to collect revenue.​

Next steps

We remain willing to hold further discussions with the RMT on this issue and in relation to the strikes taken by Senior Conductors on EMR Regional services. However, we have been clear throughout that we will not enter discussions while strikes are scheduled, all available management resource at that point is devoted to keeping our services running for customers. We urge the RMT to suspend their strike action and return to meaningful discussions.​

Impact on EMR Services

We will continue to operate EMR Intercity and EMR Connect services but on a slightly reduced basis. However, we are continuing to train more contingency managers to mitigate the impact of the strikes on our customers.

• EMR Intercity – Will reduce to one train per hour to Nottingham and one train per hour to Sheffield, but these services will be lengthened to provide extra seating capacity for customers wherever possible.​
• EMR Connect – There will be a limited impact on EMR connect services, we are planning to run roughly 80% of normal Sunday services, and will look to lengthen these services and provide more seats wherever possible.​
• Timetables will shortly be available on our website at https://www.eastmidlandsrailway.co.uk/railstrike​

Conclusion

As ever, please do not hesitate to get in touch if you have any further queries or feedback. In the meantime, we will keep you updated with any further developments. Thank you for your continued support and engagement.

Kind regards,

Neil Grabham
Customer Services Director,
East Midlands Railway "​

 

[Bletchleyite]

So they are saying they want a guard in every set, not just a safety critical member of staff in every set (i.e. the driver counts)? So 3 guards in a 12-car not 2, and an 8 is also affected?

I'm afraid that's cloud cuckoo land for a medium-distance commuter service. Let them strike then!

Not having a completely unstaffed unit I sort of see (though several other TOCs do have that), but this request is totally unreasonable in my book.

 

[Horizon22]

The way they've worked that makes it sound like EMR might try and angle for DOO ("GA did it fine, so why can't we"), in the medium-term if they/DfT are prepared for that fight.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Aug 2021 ==

So they are saying they want a guard in every set, not just a safety critical member of staff in every set (i.e. the driver counts)? So 3 guards in a 12-car not 2, and an 8 is also affected?

I'm afraid that's cloud cuckoo land for a medium-distance commuter service. Let them strike then!

That's the current GWR way (well safety-trained Lead Hosts) although of course that's only 2 staff required (normally the trained staff member is catering crew already on train anyway) not 3!

 

[Bletchleyite]

The way they've worked that makes it sound like EMR might try and angle for DOO ("GA did it fine, so why can't we"), in the medium-term if they/DfT are prepared for that fight.

I would be absolutely and utterly astonished if GBR did not push for more DOO as a pure cost-saver, regardless of the rights and wrongs of it.

 

[Horizon22]

I would be absolutely and utterly astonished if GBR did not push for more DOO as a pure cost-saver, regardless of the rights and wrongs of it.

I agree, but lets not make this another DOO thread!

 

[the sniper]

So they are saying they want a guard in every set, not just a safety critical member of staff in every set (i.e. the driver counts)? So 3 guards in a 12-car not 2, and an 8 is also affected?

I'm afraid that's cloud cuckoo land for a medium-distance commuter service. Let them strike then!

Not having a completely unstaffed unit I sort of see (though several other TOCs do have that), but this request is totally unreasonable in my book.

As said, the problem is the precedent in relation to the TMs long running position regarding the 222s and coming 810.

I wouldn't be surprised if 3 TMs to a 360x3 would be something the RMT would be willing to concede in discussions over more widely acceptable arrangements. Or maybe they're banking on EMT having little need to run more than a handful 12 car sets for the foreseeable future, so they'll concede as it doesn't really matter. Though I think the unions are aware they aren't really dealing with the operator anymore.


== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Aug 2021 ==

I would be absolutely and utterly astonished if GBR did not push for more DOO as a pure cost-saver, regardless of the rights and wrongs of it.

Indeed, likely spruced up in a worse form of 'DCO'. If people think there are a lot of disputes now, brace yourself for the next few years... DOO will just be one element under dispute though and probably won't be the most disruptive.

 

[Robertj21a]

The following is copied from today's Stakeholder briefing from EMR. Apologies for any formatting errors.

Great to see such a clear and comprehensive explanation from EMR. Perfectly clear to everyone who can read.
No doubt the RMT will now attempt some silliness to confuse the issue.

 

[LowLevel]

Great to see such a clear and comprehensive explanation from EMR. Perfectly clear to everyone who can read.
No doubt the RMT will now attempt some silliness to confuse the issue.

Bearing in mind my early postings about how the dispute is in my opinion a daft waste of time, that statement whilst very detailed needs taking with the same pinch of salt you'd apply to an RMT release.

Working the trains with a guard isn't something they chose to do to improve the customer experience, they don't have much choice in the matter with the present set up and neither does providing on board staff necessarily go hand in hand with door operations and implying that because they chose to do the first with the latter being the consequence is disingenuous. That's not to say it can't change of course as I mentioned earlier.

Their quotation of alternative operators who run trains in this manner is also not exactly correct - some of those require a member of staff - albeit it can be the driver - in all portions of the train and others such as GA have guards on 12 car trains purely to mitigate limitations of DOO dispatch from the era the equipment was introduced - IE the mirrors can't work for 12 car dispatch, nothing to do with providing on board service which is a key part of the TM's role (until now when an Intercity grade has been put on outer suburban trains, with perhaps predicable results).

My ideal solution would be to agree one guard who can move around where they see fit and to agree to provide the additional revenue protection staff being recruited as far as possible (EMR RPOs and Hosts have basic evacuation training and refreshers anyway).

 

[XAM2175]

The 460s that were converted to 458531-536 with gangways didn’t, though.

Ah yes, I'd managed to forget that. Cheers.

 

[Robertj21a]

Bearing in mind my early postings about how the dispute is in my opinion a daft waste of time, that statement whilst very detailed needs taking with the same pinch of salt you'd apply to an RMT release.

Working the trains with a guard isn't something they chose to do to improve the customer experience, they don't have much choice in the matter with the present set up and neither does providing on board staff necessarily go hand in hand with door operations and implying that because they chose to do the first with the latter being the consequence is disingenuous. That's not to say it can't change of course as I mentioned earlier.

Their quotation of alternative operators who run trains in this manner is also not exactly correct - some of those require a member of staff - albeit it can be the driver - in all portions of the train and others such as GA have guards on 12 car trains purely to mitigate limitations of DOO dispatch from the era the equipment was introduced - IE the mirrors can't work for 12 car dispatch, nothing to do with providing on board service which is a key part of the TM's role (until now when an Intercity grade has been put on outer suburban trains, with perhaps predicable results).

My ideal solution would be to agree one guard who can move around where they see fit and to agree to provide the additional revenue protection staff being recruited as far as possible (EMR RPOs and Hosts have basic evacuation training and refreshers anyway).

Understood, and I appreciate that both sides will put their own 'spin' on it. However, for any consumption by the general public, the company has issued a statement which is very clear to just about anybody. The RMT has had a poor track record (imho) for explaining their own particular cause.

 

[LowLevel]

Understood, and I appreciate that both sides will put their own 'spin' on it. However, for any consumption by the general public, the company has issued a statement which is very clear to just about anybody. The RMT has had a poor track record (imho) for explaining their own particular cause.

Agreed - the RMT case is basically "something could happen in the unmanned portion and it might take time to get someone to it". In practice the stations are fairly close together and the 360s have a pass com override. If an egress is pulled that's a bit different but again I wouldn't say if you did a proper risk assessment that it warrants having multiples of staff.

As I've previously mentioned I am a die hard RMT member and always have been, but I also like to think I have some common sense and this issue has been blown out of all proportion in this case.

I can't be doing with the union signing off DCO albeit under sufferance in some areas and then objecting to plans that keep guards doing their proper jobs on trains in an efficient if less than optimal manner.

 

[riceuten]

It's like reading the Daily Mail here, sometimes. The reality is that TOCs want to operate with as few staff as possible and with minimal regards to passenger safety and comfort.

 

[Robertj21a]

It's like reading the Daily Mail here, sometimes. The reality is that TOCs want to operate with as few staff as possible and with minimal regards to passenger safety and comfort.

Interesting, I assume that you can evidence that statement?

 

[Falcon1200]

Their quotation of alternative operators who run trains in this manner is also not exactly correct - some of those require a member of staff - albeit it can be the driver - in all portions of the train

On the other had they could have, but did not, cite other examples, such as Scotrail's Class 318, 320 and 334 sets, all of which regularly run in 6-car formation with no access between the units - And DOO ! On some long journeys too, eg Edinburgh/Helensburgh.

 

[43066]

I can't be doing with the union signing off DCO albeit under sufferance in some areas and then objecting to plans that keep guards doing their proper jobs on trains in an efficient if less than optimal manner.

Agreed. I’m sure a sensible compromise position will be reached in due course: eg. 1 host (+ some training and a T key) and 1 TM on 12 cars?!

I suppose the question that needs to be asked is how negotiations proceeded before this escalated to strike action, which is almost always a failure on both sides.

 

[Meerkat]

Agreed. I’m sure a sensible compromise position will be reached in due course: eg. 1 host (+ some training and a T key) and 1 TM on 12 cars?!

Who is that sensible for?
Costly, and immediately leads into DOO and 2 hosts (“well the EMT accept that a unit is safe with a host on it……”)

 

[alistairlees]

On the other had they could have, but did not, cite other examples, such as Scotrail's Class 318, 320 and 334 sets, all of which regularly run in 6-car formation with no access between the units - And DOO ! On some long journeys too, eg Edinburgh/Helensburgh.

In Southeastern land there are regular 10-car 465/466 combinations, consisting of separate 4 + 4 + 2 car sets, without corridor connections. There's one driver and one guard on mainline routes; and just one driver on DOO metro routes.

 

[alf]

It's like reading the Daily Mail here, sometimes. The reality is that TOCs want to operate with as few staff as possible and with minimal regards to passenger safety and comfort.

It’s also like reading the Morning Star here, sometimes.

 

[Class 170101]

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.

GA used to operate 20 from 21. So 14/21 is somewhat disappointing from an availability / reliability standpoint.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Presumably there is a Group Standard that governs the minimum requirements across the network and given the unions are represented on specific standard committees they must be a signatory to this. There can then be local arrangements to go beyond this requirement which from reading through above posts is in place for certain classes of EMR trains which EMR don't want to extend to the class 360's which is there prerogative. If it wasn't safe ORR would take enforcement action against EMR.

 

[Watershed]

Presumably there is a Group Standard that governs the minimum requirements across the network and given the unions are represented on specific standard committees they must be a signatory to this. There can then be local arrangements to go beyond this requirement which from reading through above posts is in place for certain classes of EMR trains which EMR don't want to extend to the class 360's which is there prerogative. If it wasn't safe ORR would take enforcement action against EMR.

Group Standards are not really the limiting factor here - as far as they're concerned, if the correct infrastructure were in place, all trains across the network could run DOO.

ORR satisfaction comes from (amongst other things) having a Safety Case underpinned by suitable risk assessments. But ultimately this is an industrial relations issue, no more, no less.

The RMT are trying their damnedest to increase the company's reliance on their grade (for their own purposes, none of which have very much to do with safety or customer service).

Whilst the company is trying to operate 12 car trains without paying more to staff them than 8 car trains (again, for their own cost saving purposes, none of which has very much to do with safety or customer service).

As with the Scotrail guards' overtime dispute, this is going to be somewhat of a bellwether as to who really runs the industry in the post-Covid world.

 

[Aictos]

The issue with the RMT and this comes from their own material but their intention is for all portions of the train to have a fully trained guard regardless of the operator or the type of operation so a 12 car train would have 3 guards on it, one I would presume is lead guard with the other two assisting.

But as a RMT member I don't support the stance taken by my fellow members as the current operation of one guard and one driver works, the only downside to the Class 360s is they don't have inter unit gangways like the Class 350s.

If they did then I doubt the union would be as vocal as they are now as the guard could easily walk between units and patrol the entire train.

As it is, personally I think the Class 360s are better off for fast parcel freight and have the Class 350/2s instead which would resolve a lot of the issues at a stroke but at the moment the latter is not available.

 

[Falcon1200]

The RMT are trying their damnedest to increase the company's reliance on their grade (for their own purposes, none of which have very much to do with safety or customer service).

Agree.

Whilst the company is trying to operate 12 car trains without paying more to staff them than 8 car trains (again, for their own cost saving purposes, none of which has very much to do with safety or customer service).

Agree too, although employing more staff than is actually necessary increases the cost of providing the service, and that money has to come from somewhere - Fares or subsidy ?

 

[driverd]

Who is that sensible for?
Costly, and immediately leads into DOO and 2 hosts (“well the EMT accept that a unit is safe with a host on it……”)

Which, in fairness, is better than DOO and no host, because SWR/Southern accept this is a safe method of work.

Yet another own goal from the RMT. Personal prediction is a southern style approach from GBR. Let time wear the staff down, when they're fatigued, it's a new contract or nothing.

 

[TPO]

The unions also need to bear in mind that the railways are less essential than they were, particularly to the Home Counties commuters the Tories are scared of.
It’s touch and go whether staff less units would be something passengers don’t like (and maybe not realised was happening), or whether the ‘it’s been fine in loads of other places for donkeys’ years‘ wins.
But the level of training the public want from that onboard staff member might be a lot less than the RMT want - a risk that another grade is invented that then makes the guard/TM vulnerable.
Personal safety could be a minimum wage security bod. What else do they need to be??

Group Standards are not really the limiting factor here - as far as they're concerned, if the correct infrastructure were in place, all trains across the network could run DOO.

ORR satisfaction comes from (amongst other things) having a Safety Case underpinned by suitable risk assessments. But ultimately this is an industrial relations issue, no more, no less.

The RMT are trying their damnedest to increase the company's reliance on their grade (for their own purposes, none of which have very much to do with safety or customer service).

Whilst the company is trying to operate 12 car trains without paying more to staff them than 8 car trains (again, for their own cost saving purposes, none of which has very much to do with safety or customer service).

As with the Scotrail guards' overtime dispute, this is going to be somewhat of a bellwether as to who really runs the industry in the post-Covid world.

I admit to being cynical, but I can't help think this is a testing of the waters by RMT.

It's not so long since ATW on the South Wales Valleys (in the days before widespread TVMs) would put 1 guard on a 4-car Pacer set and the Guard would to revenue duties in BOTH units- moving between them at each station- otherwise everyone would get on the front set and not pay. At busier times (e.g. the run up to Christmas) a second person may be put on to do revenue too, but this was more about selling tickets to reduce the crodign due to huge queues at Cardiff Central/Queen Street than having "a person in each set." The Guards all seemed enthusiastic enough (maybe got commission on ticket sales) and no rumblings about safety from RMT then.

The future of the mainline railway is yet to be decided in the new post-COVID world, a much lower peak passenger loading is already predicted and there's an argument that more freight on a railway with a focus on long-distance leisure plus some suburban metro-type operations may be a future which better matches the requirements for rail transport in a situation where there is more home working and more on-line shopping; it would probably also require rather less govt money. In such a situation the Guard could become a bit of an endangered species, I do wonder if RMT are trying to lay down a precedent for suburban metro services but if so my instinct is that they will fail.

The home counties commuters are currently much less likely to be effected by a TOC staff rail strike, and of course the Southern dispute showed the DfT what tactics would be effective to win such a dispute. If ever there was a time for the govt to break RMT on the guards issue, now is it. Also, a public that has mostly had no pay-rise or has lost job, and not seen a guard if they did get the train during the past 12 months, is unlikely to have much sympathy for the RMT demands (or for that matter any pay increase demands), and the safety argument won't really fly as many people who get trains have experience of being on DOO stock and never seeing a guard. Nor is a guard much help if you're being attacked by a drunk of an evening as chances are they will be in the back cab and not come out.

It's uneasy times and I don't think the rail unions are helping themselves (or the railway as a whole) at the moment on a number of issues. Change is in the air.....

TPO

 

[43055]

EMR has updated the strike action page this week. It appears the action is suspended today and next week to allow talks to take place but the same timetables are to remain in place. The dates below also show that today is the last day announced for the Regional side so maybe back to normal timetables on Sunday for them soon?

Temporary changes to EMR services due to industrial action. | EMR | East Midlands Railway

Industrial action by members of the RMT union has been suspended on Sundays 10th and 17th October to allow for productive discussions between EMR and RMT. It will not be possible to rewrite our advertised timetable and reinstate services in time for these dates but we're pleased that we have been able to reach a position where EMR and RMT can come together to work on resolving the disputes.

Regional, Intercity and Connect routes affected.
Sunday 10th October

Intercity and Connect routes affected only.
Sunday 17th, 24th, 31st October
Sunday 7th, 14th, 21st November