RMT Industrial Action - EMR

[Robertj21a]

To be fair Thameslink operate units where the driver can walk through the whole set without going on the ballast. But in 319 days they couldn't.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Aug 2021 ==



Well, we know how that was solved. And with DfT wanting cost cutting and being in favour of DOO, these guards really should be careful of what they are doing here, otherwise they'll be OBS before long.

For all the fuss at the time, the OBS role at Southern seems to have gone very well. I can't even recall any relevant issue being raised on this forum for a considerable time.

 

[GLC]

Interesting that WMR went for new through corridor DMU and EMU stock. Sensible move that other operators might regret not making with RMT disputes like this one breaking out across the land.

Keep in mind however, that cabs with gangways are much more cramped, and subject to acceptable by driver’s unions as well. Indeed, the 385 introduction was delayed due to issues with the windscreen, partly caused by the addition of gangways, and I believe drivers are still not happy with the layout. Not enough to cause a dispute mind so a net win compared to this situation, but gangways aren’t a complete panacea

 

[Bletchleyite]

As a thought, would they accept the situation with gangways? The 350/2s will be available soon, have no planned home and the couple of years until they become available will see reduced demand so they could just run 8-car formations instead of 12.

 

[Lemmy99uk]

Northern ordering 2-car units without gangways (195s) seemed particularly illogical.

Many years ago, under the previous Northern franchise, I had an off the record discussion with one of the directors about the company’s (under the radar) attempts to procure new units outside the franchise agreement in order to alleviate some of the chronic overcrowding.

I suggested that any additional DMUs should be through gangwayed but was told the the cost of said gangways added about 10% to the price of a vehicle and was therefore not affordable.

 

[DB]

Keep in mind however, that cabs with gangways are much more cramped, and subject to acceptable by driver’s unions as well. Indeed, the 385 introduction was delayed due to issues with the windscreen, partly caused by the addition of gangways, and I believe drivers are still not happy with the layout. Not enough to cause a dispute mind so a net win compared to this situation, but gangways aren’t a complete panacea

But two other TOCs are having what are pretty much the same units as Northern, but with gangways. It would not therefore seem likely that this is a significant point of contention. Most of Northern's older DMU fleet also had gangways (Pacers and 150/1s I think being the only exceptions).

 

[185]

IMO
Dispute could have been possibly averted - meeting the union halfway with a (financially self-funding) RPO/RPA, with basic safety training, stuck in all the front (+middle) sets which any sensible firm should have planned for, prior to the introduction of non-gangwayed trains. Was acceptable on TPE, can't see the issue here - they are either zero cost or money generating. EM's inherited management in it's various franchise forms have for some years been un-pragmatic and gone head to head with the union with terrible consequences for passengers.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Dispute could h ave been possibly averted - meeting the union halfway with a (financially self-funding) RPO/RPA, with basic safety training, stuck in all the front (+middle) sets which any sensible firm should have planned for, prior to the introduction of non-gangwayed trains. Was acceptable on TPE, can't see the issue here - they are either zero cost or money generating.

Why would they not assume they could work the same way as many other South East operations, though? This is no different an operation than LNR's Northamptons, and Class 319s run in 12-car formation with one driver and one guard on those. The guard if I recall tends to occupy the front cab of the rear unit, the driver is in the front unit (obviously) and the middle one is unstaffed.

A revenue protection bod in the other unit would not likely make much money in this context as there are far fewer non-barriered stations in the South East than up north.

 

[185]

not likely make much money in this context as there are far fewer non-barriered stations in the South East than up north.

Barriers stop persons walking through with no tickets.

They don't, as you already know, stop people walking through with:-
...one-stop child £1.15 tickets travelling halfway across the country
...persons using an Oyster to open mainline station gates then travel to Blackpool South (it's zone 28, Bakerloo Line, I promise)
...then at point of exit walking out at unbarriered stations (eg 75% of Euston) or claiming their phone battery has (i) gone flat / (ii) alien abduction / (iii) dog ate homework.

The income of majority of on-board RPAs and Guards generally was close to, at or above self funding prior to Covid.

Teams of ad-hoc revenue inspectors (RPIs) boarding at random, issuing no-deterrent £25 penalty fares or intent to prosecute generally runs at a loss although they do encourage sales to remain reasonably high, and are an essential part of the bigger picture. A guaranteed, rostered on board RPA mops up the remaining 10-15% of lost revenue.

 

[Class 170101]

Interesting that WMR went for new through corridor DMU and EMU stock. Sensible move that other operators might regret not making with RMT disputes like this one breaking out across the land.

I seem to recall that when the 350s were introduced on the WCML they had various restrictions relating to off side signals where because of the gangway the signals could not be seen and thus the Class 350s could not use certain platforms / stations etc so gangways do produce their own operational problems

Isn’t there some sort of agreement with ASLEF on no further extension of DOO on the network & hence why no further routes have been added (as far as I am aware) for many moons.

Don't know how solid that is given that NLL, WLL and GOB were converted to DOO in the last few years or so. Mind you with passenger numbers, especially commuter numbers, uncertain it won't just be guards at risk from efficencies.

 

[Bald Rick]

Don't know how solid that is given that NLL, WLL and GOB were converted to DOO in the last few years or so. Mind you with passenger numbers, especially commuter numbers, uncertain it won't just be guards at risk from efficencies.

It’s been extended on southeastern too IIRC.

 

[dk1]

I seem to recall that when the 350s were introduced on the WCML they had various restrictions relating to off side signals where because of the gangway the signals could not be seen and thus the Class 350s could not use certain platforms / stations etc so gangways do produce their own operational problems


Don't know how solid that is given that NLL, WLL and GOB were converted to DOO in the last few years or so. Mind you with passenger numbers, especially commuter numbers, uncertain it won't just be guards at risk from efficencies.

There will be no easy way out as far as drivers are concerned unless there are substantial financial rewards. Why would there be?

 

[Class 170101]

There will be no easy way out as far as drivers are concerned unless there are substantial financial rewards. Why would there be?

P45s and new contracts like British Gas?

 

[dk1]

P45s and new contracts like British Gas?

Different working world. Doesn’t work like that on the railway.

 

[Class 170101]

Different working world. Doesn’t work like that on the railway.

I hope you are right but I wouldn't trust Grant Shapps and the rest of them tbh.

 

[STINT47]

When GBR comes in new contracts can be offered. Ultimately people will then have the option of leaving their jobs or being rehired on new contacts.

Reagan and the air traffic controllers comes to mind. People said that if they were sacked air traffic would be stopped for months whilst new people were trained it didn't work out like that and I doubt the railways would stop for long either.

Although not identical as the aur traffic controllers were legally not allowed to strike fire and rehire is a thing and has been used recently I do not want to see this happen but the unions need to also be reasonable. The way things are going it will soon be quicker to list the companies that the RMT are NOT in dispute with and I can see no one winning from that scenario.

Hopefully calm heads can find a sensible way forward that involves some compromises and gains for both sides.

 

[dk1]

I hope you are right but I wouldn't trust Grant Shapps and the rest of them tbh.

Neither would I but they are like other politicians, just a passing phase haha.

 

[Sleepy]

Platform staff & ticket office are top of the list I think, new trains with drivers using on board cameras to dispatch and TVM's on EVERY station at some TOC aren't there as "nice to have things"
Change is coming, not always for the better - many stations with single shift ticket offices will be history in 5 years time I believe.

 

[PupCuff]

I'm unsure of the parallel with Voyagers as I'm unsure of the technical distinctions between them and Meridians.

However, on XC at least, you need one TM per set. If you don't have that then the unstaffed set must be locked out of use.

That isn't exactly correct - XC Voyagers do require multiple staff, but they require one non-driving staff member in each set at least one of whom on the train will need to be a Train Manager.

Although generally a Train Manager will be provided in both sets for customer service and revenue reasons it isn't a requirement and it is acceptable to run with one TM plus one catering staff member, this happens fairly frequently.

My understanding was EMR 222s also operate with such an arrangement too.

 

[the sniper]

I hope you are right but I wouldn't trust Grant Shapps and the rest of them tbh.

I can see the likes of Shapps thinking it's a great idea, without realising how many spanners ASLEF have that they can freely throw into the works, without much consequence.

TOCs are far more willing to engage in disputes with the RMT than ASLEF for good reason.

 

[43066]

Good. There is no need for that either. One is fine, the driver is in the other one.

Thing is, it’s exactly this kind of overly combative “our way or the highway” approach that causes disputes to spin out of control in the first place (and I accept the unions can be guilty of that too). Collaborative industrial relations relies on longstanding agreements being kept to by both sides as @the sniper alluded to, with alterations correctly consulted on and agreed. Particularly so in an industry as reliant as the railway on the general goodwill of staff, working overtime, generally cooperating etc. As always this arrangement generally works pretty well across the board, with the vast majority of disagreements being resolved without turning into full disputes. It’s only when it goes wrong that we hear about it.

As an aside the two TMs on multiple meridians isn’t at all daft. Only a small % of the busiest services are doubled, which may travel for an hour non stop from London, with a lot of churn at the few intermediate stops. Lots of tickets per unit to be checked if full and standing and, if no second TM was present, the call for aid or passcom in the driver’s unit would cause the train to need to be stopped out of course, causing significant delays to potentially dozens of other services.

The length of the vehicles (a 10 car meridian is near as dammit a 12 car 360) also makes dispatch tricky at the MML’s notoriously curvy platforms.

"Well, if you won't do what guards did and do on lots of other routes, then we'll go DOO" - quite compelling. 319s on the WCML operate 12 car formations with only one guard.

DOO is a complete red herring, and was clearly only mentioned upthread to goad and cause further argument. EMR currently has no rolling stock capable of it without platform equipment (and none coming until 2023), there is no platform equipment, and (most importantly) it isn’t in the drivers’ contracts.

It simply isn’t on the table in this dispute, anyway, so perhaps best to avoid too much more discussion of it on this thread!

Why would they not assume they could work the same way as many other South East operations, though?

As railway management are all too aware saying: “it’s done like that on the southern” is about as relevant as pointing out what happens on the railway of another country. That might seem odd from the outside but, as noted upthread, that’s simply the nature of the industry after nearly thirty years of privatisation.

 

[Meerkat]

I can see the likes of Shapps thinking it's a great idea, without realising how many spanners ASLEF have that they can freely throw into the works, without much consequence.

TOCs are far more willing to engage in disputes with the RMT than ASLEF for good reason.

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??

 

[the sniper]

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??

Staffless as in Driverless too? The subject was Drivers being subject to fire and rehire.

 

[Horizon22]

Why would they not assume they could work the same way as many other South East operations, though? This is no different an operation than LNR's Northamptons, and Class 319s run in 12-car formation with one driver and one guard on those. The guard if I recall tends to occupy the front cab of the rear unit, the driver is in the front unit (obviously) and the middle one is unstaffed.

A revenue protection bod in the other unit would not likely make much money in this context as there are far fewer non-barriered stations in the South East than up north.

Although this is the GWR method for 10-cars, so you can make valid comparisons both ways.

 

[westcoaster]

One of the issues with Class 222 Meridians as I remember, was that a 'panic button' was provided in the buffet in case a Custoner Host was being attacked or robbed etc. This was basically a variation on the 'call for aid' in disabled areas/toilets.
Call for aids only sounded in the saloon, for the Train Manager to deal with, not the Driver's cab (which I believe happened on Voyagers - MML Driver's reps objected to 'call for aids' sounding in cabs as being a distraction, so only a passcomm would sound in a cab).

This could lead to the scenario of a Customer Host in the leading set being attacked and pressing the 'panic button', the Train Manger in the rear set responding, but then being unable to contact the driver until the panic button was reset (which wouldn't be a priority of the Customer Host being attacked). The train would in the meantime be continuing on it's merry way...

So a second Train Manager was argued for, for the front set.

If that's right, what I remember being told at the time, then the design and specification of the units was the underlying issue, and also explains a little why Voyagers weren't subject to the same industrial relations problems and resolutions.


In the future, RMT members will quite possibly be going to be subjected to redundancies when Hitachi trains arrive (if their communications handsets are set up differently), as the company can argue a second Train Manager isn't needed.
A completely unstaffed unit on EMR doesn't currently happen, but if it came in on 12 car 360s, then the company can play the 'precedent has been set' card, and RMT member's jobs will be definitely under threat.

The RMT are trying to protect their jobs, sometimes people win when that happens by the employer making concessions, sometimes (like Gatemen on the tube when sliding doors came along, and then the second, front Guard, on the tube, when the 'louaphone' communication with the Driver came along) it doesn't.

Been on quite a few 8 car 360's with EMR, where the driver and TM and both in the front unit. And no staff in the rear one.

 

[43066]

Been on quite a few 8 car 360's with EMR, where the driver and TM and both in the front unit. And no staff in the rear one.

TMs tend to base themselves in the lead cab of the rear unit, but can move between as necessary at intermediate stations.

 

[Qwerty133]

Platform staff & ticket office are top of the list I think, new trains with drivers using on board cameras to dispatch and TVM's on EVERY station at some TOC aren't there as "nice to have things"
Change is coming, not always for the better - many stations with single shift ticket offices will be history in 5 years time I believe.

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.

 

[Robertj21a]

Different working world. Doesn’t work like that on the railway.

I admire your confidence that life will just go on as usual on the railways, regardless of the real world moving on.

 

[Taunton]

It's just as well that this approach didn't arise in the days of non-corridor loco-hauled stock. Would have needed a guard in every compartment.

 

[dk1]

I admire your confidence that life will just go on as usual on the railways, regardless of the real world moving on.

Oh not that real world again. Haven't had that mentioned for months

 

[Robertj21a]

Oh not that real world again. Haven't had that mentioned for months

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.