|
Title: Potential industrial action over IEP introduction Post by: ChrisB on April 08, 2015, 17:48:47 Smartly back on topic.... :D
Hmmm.....This (https://exiledmackem.wordpress.com/2015/04/07/i-e-p-trains-letter-to-fgw-staff-d-o-o-is-coming-prepare-yourselves-for-a-massive-battle-to-save-jobs/) makes for interesting (but not unexpected) reading..... I won't quote it here until a Mod tells me I can - or edits my post, which in this case, I'm happy for that to happen. You'll understand I think when you read what appears to be a RMT member's blog which contains a scanned copy of a FGW letter to staff. Title: Potential industrial action over IEP introduction Post by: JayMac on April 08, 2015, 18:41:55 From the BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-32217431):
Quote Dispute over jobs and catering on new Hitachi high-speed trains The RMT union has declared a dispute over First Great Western's plans to axe guards and buffet cars on the new Hitachi Inter City Express trains. The union said it was taking action to retain a guard on every train, "not a diluted customer service role" and full buffet car facilities. First Great Western denied claims that jobs would be lost. The train company said having drivers operating the doors using in-cab CCTV was safer and quicker. The first Hitachi trains will run on the Great Western main line from 2017 and the East Coast main line from 2018. The new trains are being introduced under the Intercity Express Programme (IEP) on routes between London Paddington and Oxford, Bristol and South Wales. RMT General Secretary Mick Cash said: "They [First Great Western] are pressing ahead with proposals that will allow for driver only operation with the sacking and reducing of the safety critical operational role of train guards/conductors." The train firm said drivers would be in sole charge of doors on the new trains. It said research showed in-cab CCTV allowed close monitoring of the platform by the driver and would cut journey times. About 2,500 rail workers, including drivers, guards and station staff, will vote on whether to launch a campaign of action, the union said. Buffet cars could also be replaced with just a trolley service under the plans. The RMT said it was seeking an urgent meeting with the company. Title: Re: Potential industrial action over IEP introduction Post by: ChrisB on April 08, 2015, 18:55:13 No sacking whatsoever.
Title: Re: Potential industrial action over IEP introduction Post by: JayMac on April 08, 2015, 19:16:42 The RMT's position in full:
http://www.rmt.org.uk/news/rmt-declares-dispute-and-prepares-to-ballot-on-fgw/ Quote 8 April 2015 RMT Press Office RAIL UNION RMT confirmed today that it has declared a dispute and is preparing an industrial action ballot on Great Western services after First Group confirmed in a letter to the union that it is laying out the the ground to axe guards and catering services on the new Inter City Express trains being supplied by Hitachi. The letter, which confirms everything that RMT has been warning of since the union first saw the plans for the new trains, makes it clear that FGW are seeking to impose the following conditions for the operation of Super Express Trains (SETs): ^ The Driver will be solely responsible for the operation of the doors on SET trains. ^ Although not the normal method of operation, SET services could be operated with the Driver as the only member of staff on board when a Train Manager is not immediately available. In respect of catering facilities the correspondence confirms that whilst a full kitchen will be provided on all SET trains the intention is to introduce an at seat trolley service in standard class ^ the ^Upstairs/Downstairs^ service that the union has been warning of from the outset. The response from the company wholly fails to address in any way the assurances required by the union and RMT has now made it clear that it will take all necessary measures to defend the interests of its members from the implications of these proposals and fight tooth and nail for both safety and job security. RMT will now: ^ Write to FGW advising them that a dispute situation now exists between our respective organisations. ^ Seek an urgent meeting with the company regarding their proposals ^ Finalise the preparations of an industrial action ballot RMT^s demands in respect of the introduction of the new Inter City trains remain the same: ^ To keep a safety competent guard on every train ^not a diluted customer service role ^ To keep full buffet car facilities and catering services ^ Maintaining station staffing levels including safety critical station dispatch staff ^ No job losses or dilution of current roles or creation of new job roles with inferior terms and conditions ^ To bring depot, turn-around and on-board cleaning in-house. ^ To maintain the job security of our members working in the current fleet engineering depots where TUPE and the principles of job security apply RMT General Secretary Mick Cash said; ^RMT has been campaigning for months to fight plans that could lead to the axing of buffet cars, on-board staff and maintenance workers on First Great Western when the new trains arrive, with a series of events in response to the moves which the union has blasted as ^ushering in an ^Upstairs-Downstairs^ service on Inter-City services while British passengers pay the highest fares in Europe.^ Over 50 MP^s have now signed the Early Day Motion backing RMT^s position. ^ The company have now made it clear that they are ignoring RMT and are pressing ahead with proposals that will allow for driver only operation and the removal of buffet cars and their replacement by a trolley service only catering facility along with the sacking and reducing of the safety critical operational role of train guards /conductors. That places us straight into a dispute and triggers the preparations for an industrial action ballot.^ ^First Group are working hand in glove with this Government of the rich, for the rich and by the rich in introducing an ^Upstairs-Downstairs^ service on Britain^s long haul rail services which would condemn the vast majority to pay through the nose to travel in rammed-out carriages where the catering trolley is jammed at one end while the elite glide through the country like extras from Downton Abbey . First were recently handed a cash-laden, taxpayer-sponsored contract extension on FGW without any competition and clearly see that as a green light to smash up jobs, safety and working conditions as they milk the deal for all its worth. ^RMT is throwing it^s full resources and industrial and political clout behind the fight to stop this attack on jobs, services and safety arising from the introduction of the Inter-City fleet. The union remains available for talks.^ ENDS Title: Re: Potential industrial action over IEP introduction Post by: ellendune on April 08, 2015, 19:20:14 Are there 50 MP's to sign an early day motion? I thought Parliament had ben dissolved. In which case there are no MP's.
Title: Re: Potential industrial action over IEP introduction Post by: Rhydgaled on April 08, 2015, 19:26:30 Quote RMT^s demands in respect of the introduction of the new Inter City trains remain the same: Of those demands, the only one not being met is retention of buffet cars isn't it? I suppose not having control of the doors could constitute "dilution of current roles" but isn't the 'Train Manager' post, which is being kept, still "a safety competent guard"? Shame they don't have "keep at least the same number of seats on every service" on their list of demands...^ To keep a safety competent guard on every train ^not a diluted customer service role ^ To keep full buffet car facilities and catering services ^ Maintaining station staffing levels including safety critical station dispatch staff ^ No job losses or dilution of current roles or creation of new job roles with inferior terms and conditions ^ To bring depot, turn-around and on-board cleaning in-house. ^ To maintain the job security of our members working in the current fleet engineering depots where TUPE and the principles of job security apply Title: Re: Potential industrial action over IEP introduction Post by: didcotdean on April 08, 2015, 19:49:40 Are there 50 MP's to sign an early day motion? I thought Parliament had ben dissolved. In which case there are no MP's. The EDM (http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2014-15/584) referred to has been around since 1 December and also covers the EC Main Line. There is a separate one specific to FGW (http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2014-15/798), but the RMT possibly doesn't refer to it as this one appears to have been promoted by TSSA.Title: Re: Potential industrial action over IEP introduction Post by: broadgage on April 08, 2015, 20:02:19 I can not agree with the RMT regarding door control. Given effective CCTV, viewable by the driver, I consider it preferable for the driver to operate the doors. Apart from anything else, driver operation of the doors should be slightly quicker.
I see no need for a guard or train manager on ECS moves. On passenger services I agree that a guard/train manager is required in case of accident, emergency or breakdown. Since such events should be rare, I see no reason why they cant perform other duties such as ticket checks as well. As regards the removal of buffets, I agree entirely with the RMT, though my concern is from the customers point of view, rather than protecting members jobs, which is of course the unions concern. For some years I have expressed an opinion, and more recently I have stated as a fact that "the new trains wont have buffets" Apologists for the new shorter trains have stated (some years ago) that they will have buffets, more recently that they "will have buffets but only for first class" More recently still as internal layout drawings emerged, without buffets, the story changed to "the internal fit out is flexible, if the TOC want a buffet, it can be fitted" Now the trains are being built, without buffets, well what a surprise ! Apologists for the new trains can no longer claim that that they will/might/could have buffets and are therefore saying instead that this is fine because no wants buffets anymore and prefers a trolley. I presume that FGW and the department for transport will blame each other. Title: Re: Potential industrial action over IEP introduction Post by: ellendune on April 08, 2015, 20:13:43 I see no need for a guard or train manager on ECS moves. I thought they did not need one as I have seen the crew joining the 06:40 Swindon to Cheltenham at Swindon when the ECS has come in from St Phillips Marsh. Title: Re: Potential industrial action over IEP introduction Post by: Tim on April 09, 2015, 15:47:07 I support the RMT re buffet cars. The removal surprises me because FGW has proven itself to be responsive to customer feedback on this matter previously. Didn't they install the mini-buffets as a result of passenger complaints?
Title: Re: Potential industrial action over IEP introduction Post by: SandTEngineer on April 09, 2015, 17:55:54 There are lots of daily HST DOO empty stock moves all over the FGW network. Most of the depot to start station and vice-versa moves are like that and inter-depot movements as well.
Title: Re: Potential industrial action over IEP introduction Post by: 4064ReadingAbbey on April 09, 2015, 21:11:21 I have a feeling of d^ja-vu...
The initial testing and introduction of the High Speed Train (then the High Speed Diesel Train) was held up for about a year in the 1970s because ASLEF would not agree to single manning and insisted that a The HST's cab, and that of the later models of the APT, was redesigned to incorporate a second seat with a forward view. Over 40 years later similar arguments are still being brought forward, this time about an extension of Driver Only Operation - a system of operation which has been used for years and has not been proven to be any less safe than operation with guard. Plus ^a change, plus ^a reste la m^me chose... Title: Re: Potential industrial action over IEP introduction Post by: Network SouthEast on April 09, 2015, 21:19:15 As a driver (and in my career I've worked both DOO and non DOO services), I'm afraid it is a total myth that drivers controlling door operation is in any way quicker than a guard. It certainly isn't any safer.
Look at London Overground. They recently went from conventionally crewed trains to DOO. Did it improve PPM? No. Has time been saved from the timetable? No. So why doesn't driver control of doors save any time? Say you are controlling the doors on a train by CCTV. You need the camereas to have good lighting, be clean and no sun glares (also the monitor). You have to check 5, 9 or 10 small squares of image at once, not as easy as just looking along a platform. What about platform mirrors? No room for error when stopping. They are exposed to the elements. They get vandalised. They're not even safe from Network Rail putting fences in the way (as happened at two stations). They offer a poor view the further away from the cab. What about platform CCTV? The worst of both of the above plus add monitors that are hard to read from an angle. As a driver with the above challenges, you can't rush the doors. In fact, you can't rush releasing the doors because you need to make sure the train is fully platformed and the doors on the correct side are to be released. No time saved there by the driver doing the doors. So I strongly disagree with anyone that argues drivers controlling door operation will some how speed it up. On DOO routes you then have "irregular door releases" where due to the repetitive nature of driving you get a train stop and the driver releases the doors even though the train isn't at a station. Sure these events are rare, but it is a risk that doesn't exist when the guard does the doors. There's also the customer service side of things. As a driver doing the doors, you're doing so from the driving cab. You have a narrow field of vision. You might not be able to see who might need help on the platform. Any time you have to leave the cab you are supposed to tell the signaller first, which slows things down. People get left behind or over carried. So please excuse me if I am less than thrilled at the thought of guards losing control of train door operation. Title: Re: Potential industrial action over IEP introduction Post by: bobm on April 09, 2015, 21:46:20 Thank you for a very informative post - I have never thought of some of those issues, despite travelling on many DOO trains over time.
Then there is also the question of making PA announcements - are you supposed to do them while on the move? Title: Re: Potential industrial action over IEP introduction Post by: JayMac on April 09, 2015, 22:26:52 Guards releasing doors can be unsafe as well. As I witnessed this evening. Won't say where to protect the guilty, but what I saw could have seen passengers stepping off halfway down a ramp.
I happened to be in the right place to shout a warning. Title: Re: Potential industrial action over IEP introduction Post by: Network SouthEast on April 10, 2015, 09:31:04 Then there is also the question of making PA announcements - are you supposed to do them while on the move? Yes and no. FGW's policy for announcements made by the driver is summarised No if: * You are braking for a station stop * You are running on cautionary signals * You are between Kensal Green and Paddington Yes if: * None of the above apply and you feel it is safe to do so Sometimes there might be an enthusiastic driver or a guard travelling in the back cab who might make an announcement(s) on behalf of the driver. You can't use the cab to cab or make/answer a call to the signaller (unless an emergency) if you are running on cautionary signals or stopping for a station either. These rules, whilst protecting drivers from distractions, make it difficult for drivers to pass on service disruption information to passengers. Title: Re: Potential industrial action over IEP introduction Post by: Network SouthEast on April 10, 2015, 09:33:49 I happened to be in the right place to shout a warning. At least you had an opportunity to shout a warning. You wouldn't have had the same luck if a driver was in their cab with the window shut, would you? Title: Re: Potential industrial action over IEP introduction Post by: chrisr_75 on April 10, 2015, 09:54:30 I happened to be in the right place to shout a warning. At least you had an opportunity to shout a warning. You wouldn't have had the same luck if a driver was in their cab with the window shut, would you? Why can't they just have a door enabling system as per LUL? It requires stopping exactly on the mark, but most Tube drivers seem to manage this 99% of the time and when not, it involves just a small nudge forwards and all doors are in exactly the right place at every platform and reduces the likelihood of wrong side doors being unlocked or opened, any that are unable to be opened due to short platforms remain closed/locked. I don't see why this sort of system wouldn't be able to be used on the national rail network, given suitably equipped rolling stock of course (IEP would seem an ideal opportunity). Title: Re: Potential industrial action over IEP introduction Post by: Tim on April 10, 2015, 09:56:51 I find it odd that we are arguing over small theoretical differences (der Narzi^mus der kleinen Differenzen) in safety between DOO and conventional operation when both systems are extremely safe. There is a certain inconsistency in arguing that DOO is unsafe and catching a bus to the station where the bus driver is driving, operating the doors and taking the fares.
If DOO can save costs (or protect revenue) then do not forget that that in itself will result in lives saved. A cheaper railway means more passengers and fewer people killed on the roads. A railway that requires less taxpayer's money means more money to spend elsewhere such as the NHS where increased spending will save a huge number of lives. Title: Re: Potential industrial action over IEP introduction Post by: Network SouthEast on April 10, 2015, 10:08:22 Why can't they just have a door enabling system as per LUL? It requires stopping exactly on the mark, but most Tube drivers seem to manage this 99% of the time and when not, it involves just a small nudge forwards and all doors are in exactly the right place at every platform and reduces the likelihood of wrong side doors being unlocked or opened, any that are unable to be opened due to short platforms remain closed/locked. I don't see why this sort of system wouldn't be able to be used on the national rail network, given suitably equipped rolling stock of course (IEP would seem an ideal opportunity). It just requires the additional hardware and expense to do so. The SDO system employed on Electrostars doesn't prevent doors being opened out of course. I know SWT have installed balaises on the track for their Desiro fleet which are supposed to prevent any unplatformed doors from opening but trials have not gone well and the system is not used yet. Title: Re: Potential industrial action over IEP introduction Post by: stuving on April 10, 2015, 10:11:36 The IEP specification calls for an all-singing and tap-dancing SDO system capable of automatic operation. I'll quote it at length, as I did wonder whether the RMT really had to wait until now to say they known what's coming.
Quote 4.13 Selective Door Operation TS296 IEP Trains must be fitted with an SDO system to allow for longer IEP Trains operating in single or Multiple Working formation to stop at short platforms. N032 The SDO system shall include the facility to enable each power operated door along the length of an IEP Train to be separately included/excluded from the door release pattern at each station. N033 An SDO system able to use SDO data provided by the ETCS system must be fitted to the IEP Train. If the ETCS system provides data which allows the IEP Train to determine on which side of the IEP Train the platform is located, the SDO system must prevent release of the doors on the side of the IEP Train where there is no platform. N058 An SDO system able to use SDO data provided by Eurobalises using Packet 44 must be fitted to the IEP Train. If the Eurobalise provides data which allows the IEP Train to determine on which side of the IEP Train the platform is located, the SDO system must prevent release of the doors on the side of the train where there is no platform. N059 The IEP Train must be fitted with a GPS based SDO system. The system shall use data relating to the position and length of the platform (stored in a database on the IEP Train), data related to the agreed stopping position of the IEP Train (stored in a database on the IEP Train) and data on the position of the IEP Train (from a GPS system together with other sources of data including odometry) to determine which doors may be safely released. N060 It must be possible to configure the SDO system to make use of data from the following sources: 1. the ETCS system; 2. Eurobalises providing SDO data in Packet 44; and 3. the GPS based SDO system. It must be possible to configure which data source should take precedence in the event that data is available from more than one source. N061 The SDO system must be able to accommodate the following operating requirements: ^ the provision of different stopping positions in relation to a station platform for IEP Trains formed of differing numbers of IEP Vehicles. This shall allow the system to cope with circumstances where either the rear of the IEP Train, the front of the IEP Train or some point in the middle of the IEP Train is required to align with a specific point on the platform; and ^ the provision of different stopping positions in relation to a station platform for IEP Trains of the same length (in the event that, for example a signal is positioned at an intermediate point along a platform). N035 Staff involvement in releasing the doors must be limited to the following (except in the case of failure of the IEP Train or infrastructure equipment or in certain scenarios in the case of GPS based SDO (please refer to N036)): ^ the driver shall be responsible for stopping the IEP Train in the correct position, to within an agreed tolerance; ^ the driver shall be responsible for viewing an indication from the SDO system which will identify the IEP Train^s location and the proposed pattern of door release. This indication shall appear automatically, as the train reaches a stand. Note that the driver will spend a short period of time (less than two seconds) on this activity, commensurate with the desire to optimise dwell times, and this should not be relied on to detect any but the most obvious of defects in the SDO system; and ^ the driver shall be responsible for pressing the door release buttons for the correct side so as to release the doors or in the event of DGO-G operation allow the guard to release the doors. The SDO system should require no additional traincrew involvement other than that defined above. N036 In the case where GPS based SDO is in use and it can be demonstrated that insufficient information is available to the SDO system to allow it to determine the location of the IEP Train to a sufficient level of accuracy to determine the correct door release pattern then staff involvement in releasing the doors shall be limited to the following: ^ the driver shall be responsible for stopping the IEP Train in the correct position, to within an agreed tolerance; ^ the SDO system will automatically, as the train comes to a stand, invite the driver to confirm, if necessary, the station at which he has stopped and/or, if necessary the specific platform at which he has stopped; ^ the driver will briefly review the information that the SDO system displays to him and confirm his location to the SDO system. This process shall take no longer than 3 seconds; ^ the driver shall be responsible for viewing an indication from the SDO system which will identify the IEP Train^s location and the proposed pattern of door release. Note that the driver will spend a short period of time (less than two seconds) on this activity, commensurate with the desire to optimise dwell times, and this should not be relied on to detect any but the most obvious of defects in the SDO system; and ^ the driver shall be responsible for pressing the door release buttons for the correct side so as to release the doors or, in the event of DGO-G operation allow the guard to release the doors. The SDO system should require no additional traincrew involvement other than that defined above. N034 The SDO system and PIS must operate together so as to give passengers information regarding the operation of the SDO system. In particular the system must, as a minimum, identify to passengers whether SDO will operate and which doors will open, subject to this information being available to the systems on the train at the time the announcement is made. If the necessary information is not available at the time an announcement is made then the system shall be designed so that a less detailed announcement can be made at that time with a second announcement made once the information becomes available. N037 The SDO system must provide a means for the driver to manually select a door release pattern so as to allow the doors to be released at platforms where operation of the IEP Trains has not been anticipated or to accommodate failures in the system used to determine the IEP Train^s position. Sorry the format is a bit hard to read. It's not very logically explained, either - evidently it is calling for an on-board system to deliver precise train position data, from a variety of sources. That may not be inside the SDO system, but a separate functional box in practice. The last item does cover the case where this system cannot supply the position, though designing a real system should come up with something better than that says. Title: Re: Potential industrial action over IEP introduction Post by: Network SouthEast on April 10, 2015, 10:26:21 I find it odd that we are arguing over small theoretical differences (der Narzi^mus der kleinen Differenzen) in safety between DOO and conventional operation when both systems are extremely safe. There is a certain inconsistency in arguing that DOO is unsafe and catching a bus to the station where the bus driver is driving, operating the doors and taking the fares. If you read my posts carefully, you'll note I said drivers operating train doors isn't safer.Comparing train door operation with bus door operation is laughable. A bus usually has one door (perhaps sometimes two or even three at most). The door is right next to the driver on a bus. The rear door(s) are very close to a bus driver. On modern buses the rear door has a camera showing ONE image on one screen. The consequences of tripping on entering or exiting a bus door are less severe than on a train door. The bus driver can see inside their bus to know if there is anyone taking a longer time to get off. The bus driver has a wider field of vision outside the bus to see who is approaching. The bus might have 90 passengers at a push, the train could have ten times this number. No, I don't think it is a fair comparison really. Quote If DOO can save costs (or protect revenue) then do not forget that that in itself will result in lives saved. A cheaper railway means more passengers and fewer people killed on the roads. A railway that requires less taxpayer's money means more money to spend elsewhere such as the NHS where increased spending will save a huge number of lives. If only this were true.Has any DOO project ever resulted in any of the above? I wish I could think of a scheme where it has. But it hasn't. I really do dispare to read of comments from people who seem to be perfectly comfortable with the thought of travelling at 125mph with hundreds of others with just ONE safety critical person responsible for their safety. And further more, this safety crtical person has to sit in the most venerable position in the train. Bravo. Title: Re: Potential industrial action over IEP introduction Post by: ChrisB on April 10, 2015, 10:34:29 Is it a fair comparison to compare DOO on TV 165/166s with crewed HSTs for safety purposes & incidents?
I agree with NSE's comments above that neither is safer than the other. Therefore one needs to realise that the RMT's case over safety is rather oblique & they're simply trying to protect jobs/grading of jobs. Title: Re: Potential industrial action over IEP introduction Post by: chrisr_75 on April 10, 2015, 12:04:12 I really do dispare to read of comments from people who seem to be perfectly comfortable with the thought of travelling at 125mph with hundreds of others with just ONE safety critical person responsible for their safety. And further more, this safety crtical person has to sit in the most venerable position in the train. Bravo. I'm also perfectly happy travelling at around 450mph ground speed, at an altitude at which humans cannot survive, in an aluminium & carbon fibre tube with wings (which is vastly more complex in operation than a train) with only 2 people directly responsible for my safety who occupy a similarly vulnerable position in said cigar shaped flying device because I know adequate systems and training are in place to prevent everyday occurrences & problems causing accidents. You would think that air travel brings a higher risk than travel by train, but it does not. My point is that it's mainly about ensuring adequate training, procedures & equipment are in place to prevent mishaps. Title: Re: Potential industrial action over IEP introduction Post by: Network SouthEast on April 10, 2015, 12:18:43 That's funny. Last time I flew by plane there was a pilot, co-pilot and six cabin crew. I make that 8 people resonsible for mine and a much smaller number of passenger's safety.
Title: Re: Potential industrial action over IEP introduction Post by: TaplowGreen on April 10, 2015, 12:36:15 ...........here's a question for those in the know......what is there to stop a train being operated by an "auto pilot" system in the same way as planes?
Title: Re: Potential industrial action over IEP introduction Post by: grahame on April 10, 2015, 13:05:04 ...........here's a question for those in the know......what is there to stop a train being operated by an "auto pilot" system in the same way as planes? The Victoria line was opened in 1968 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_line Quote The line has always been operated using automatic train operation, but all trains carry drivers. The DLR opened from 1987 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docklands_Light_Railway Quote The Docklands Light Railway (DLR) is an automated light metro system ... The system uses minimal staffing on trains Title: Re: Potential industrial action over IEP introduction Post by: broadgage on April 10, 2015, 13:07:15 ...........here's a question for those in the know......what is there to stop a train being operated by an "auto pilot" system in the same way as planes? Nothing, given a suitably protected right of way and a purpose designed system. It works reasonably well on the docklands light railway. More challenging on the national network though due to the many different types of rolling stock and infrastructure. What about fallen trees, track workers, and trespassers for example. And the last minute alteration of stopping patterns due to earlier disruption. I suspect that it be quicker and simpler to tell a driver "run fast to Taunton, and then as booked" than it would be to "tell" a safety critical computer system to do the same. Title: Re: Potential industrial action over IEP introduction Post by: PhilWakely on April 10, 2015, 13:24:52 That's funny. Last time I flew by plane there was a pilot, co-pilot and six cabin crew. I make that 8 people resonsible for mine and a much smaller number of passenger's safety. Apologies for introducing a little levity into this serious discussion..... The last (but one) time I flew, the airline was obviously using the POO system ('Pilot Only Operation') and, yes, he did appear to be flying by the seat of his pants given the amount of severe turbulence over the Grand Canyon! :D Title: Re: Potential industrial action over IEP introduction Post by: ChrisB on April 10, 2015, 13:26:53 What about fallen trees, track workers, and trespassers for example. The DLR has all those.... Title: Re: Potential industrial action over IEP introduction Post by: IndustryInsider on April 10, 2015, 14:01:43 What about fallen trees, track workers, and trespassers for example. The DLR has all those.... And much lower speeds. Title: Re: Potential industrial action over IEP introduction Post by: TaplowGreen on April 10, 2015, 14:32:44 That's funny. Last time I flew by plane there was a pilot, co-pilot and six cabin crew. I make that 8 people resonsible for mine and a much smaller number of passenger's safety. Apologies for introducing a little levity into this serious discussion..... The last (but one) time I flew, the airline was obviously using the POO system ('Pilot Only Operation') and, yes, he did appear to be flying by the seat of his pants given the amount of severe turbulence over the Grand Canyon! :D I've done that trip too! Over Lake Mead and then down to the Grand Canyon in a 6 seater - the pilot was a Vietnam veteran although the way the turbulence was taking us up,down and around brought a Battle of Britain dogfight to mind!!! Title: Re: Potential industrial action over IEP introduction Post by: 4064ReadingAbbey on April 10, 2015, 21:19:21 What about fallen trees, track workers, and trespassers for example. The DLR has all those.... And much lower speeds. Yes, but...at high speeds and because of the braking distances the train driver is essentially helpless in the face of demolished bridge parapets, vehicles on level crossings, fallen signals and trees, track workers and trespassers. It is arguable that the number of deaths and injuries would be reduced if the driver wasn't in the line of fire. Title: Re: Potential industrial action over IEP introduction Post by: broadgage on April 10, 2015, 23:12:26 Even at relatively high speeds such as 100/125 mph, the train driver is not "essentially helpless", a driver sighting an obstruction would brake hard, and although probably unable to stop the train before impact, would at least significantly reduce the speed.
Striking a tree at half line speed is by no means trivial, and could result in loss of life, but the consequences are less serious than at full speed. If persons be on the line, then the sounding of the horn by the driver gives them vital seconds to get clear. Title: Re: Potential industrial action over IEP introduction Post by: 4064ReadingAbbey on April 11, 2015, 12:11:04 How does all that work at night, or in fog or in falling snow...?
(It's not that I want to see or travel in driverless trains, but I am not sure that the arguments commonly used for retaining the driver really stand up to analysis). Title: Re: Potential industrial action over IEP introduction Post by: TonyK on April 29, 2015, 17:21:00 That's funny. Last time I flew by plane there was a pilot, co-pilot and six cabin crew. I make that 8 people responsible for mine and a much smaller number of passenger's safety. A train with engine problems will coast gracefully to a halt, unlike an aircraft, where if "it all goes quiet" the skills of the crew in navigation and energy management will be greatly tested. Of course, some train problems in the past put passengers at risk of harm in deciding to get of the train by themselves without appreciating the risks of doing so on an active railway - rare events, but justifying, IMHO, the presence of a second highly trained staff member. I came home Friday with two pilots and four cabin crew. One pilot alone can easily fly in an emergency, but even in modern aircraft, there can be a high workload at times. You are right to include the cabin crew, who are there for safety primarily, with the service of indifferent coffee at premium rates a secondary activity to be done only when there is no emergency. I also have experience of being in an aircraft containing a single pilot/passenger combination (me) which is fun, if not quite as safe, although I was well trained before being let go alone. Title: Re: Potential industrial action over IEP introduction Post by: didcotdean on June 30, 2015, 17:41:19 Now confirmed industrial action.
According to the BBC Breaking News twitter 48 hour strike from 18:30 BST on 8 July. Additional: RMT site. (https://www.rmt.org.uk/news/rmt-confirms-strike-action-on-first-great-western/) Title: Re: Potential industrial action over IEP introduction Post by: ChrisB on June 30, 2015, 18:36:04 That nicely dovetails with the tube strike!
Title: Re: Potential industrial action over IEP introduction Post by: bobm on June 30, 2015, 18:46:14 ...and the one on the Underground. ;D
Seriously though anyone placing bets on whether it gets suspended/called off at the last minute as per the recent RMT/NR dispute? Title: Re: Potential industrial action over IEP introduction Post by: ChrisB on June 30, 2015, 18:47:39 Not this time, unless FGW settle
Title: Re: Potential industrial action over IEP introduction Post by: didcotdean on June 30, 2015, 18:48:00 My thoughts were it was not necessarily a coincidence that there is a Test Match in Cardiff on the Wednesday.
At least some of the things look beyond the responsibility of FGW. Title: Re: Potential industrial action over IEP introduction Post by: ChrisB on June 30, 2015, 18:49:43 Right through until Sunday. Obertime ban from the end of the strike until start of Sunday
Title: Re: Potential industrial action over IEP introduction Post by: TaplowGreen on June 30, 2015, 18:52:02 What's the reason for this week's strike threat exactly?
Title: Re: Potential industrial action over IEP introduction Post by: Timmer on June 30, 2015, 18:53:41 What's the reason for this week's strike threat exactly? Who opens and closes the new IEP train doors.Title: Re: Potential industrial action over IEP introduction Post by: bobm on June 30, 2015, 18:54:59 From the RMT website
Quote At the end of May the union confirmed that it had entered into dispute with First Great Western over the introduction of Super Express Trains on their franchise. We made it clear that RMT were seeking the following assurances from management to resolve this matter:- ^ To keep a safety competent Guard on every train. ^ To keep safety critical station Despatch staff. ^ To keep buffet car facilities on every train. ^ To ensure that the maintenance of new rolling stock remains in-house. ^ No job losses. Title: Re: Potential industrial action over IEP introduction Post by: ChrisB on June 30, 2015, 18:59:47 To keep money flowing into the RMT coffers basically at the current rate.
No compulsory job losses already on the table Title: Re: Potential industrial action over IEP introduction Post by: Timmer on June 30, 2015, 19:05:27 And once again it's the long suffering passengers who will pay the price if this strike goes ahead to add to the growing list of what so far has been an awful year for the railways of overrunning engineering works, infustructure failure, threat of national strikes and news that Network Rail are running late and way over budget with the GW electrification.
On the plus side NR have done a great job of Reading station, something easily overlooked when the above is taken into consideration. Title: Re: Potential industrial action over IEP introduction Post by: paul7575 on June 30, 2015, 19:43:54 From the RMT website Quote ^ To keep safety critical station Despatch staff. ^ No job losses. All of them? It's perfectly obvious that places like Reading would have far too many dispatch staff on the main line platforms if there were no HSTs calling... Title: Re: Potential industrial action over IEP introduction Post by: grahame on June 30, 2015, 20:02:14 Slightly (!) selfish question. I bought a Freedom of the South West / 8 out of 15, valid until 12th July which I hope to use significantly on 9th and 11th (and 12th too). I'm also headed out of area on 6th (using ticket to the border of the area and coming back on 9th, but may have to drive / fly on 6th if I need to get back on 9th and can't rely on the trains. If industrial action takes place from 18:30 on 8th for 48 / 72 hours, where do I stand on my ticket and plans?
Title: Re: Potential industrial action over IEP introduction Post by: broadgage on June 30, 2015, 20:19:40 What's the reason for this week's strike threat exactly? Who opens and closes the new IEP train doors.It is not JUST over who controls the doors, but that seems to be a significant part of the RMT case. I do not care whom controls the doors and I am happy for railway management to decide on this. I have more sympathy with the RMT over the downgrading of catering to only a trolley for steerage. For years I stated as an opinion, and then stated as a fact that the "new trains don't have buffets" These views were widely condemned as being unduly negative, and FGW put out a number of vaguely reassuring statements that did not actually give a clear answer as to whether or not the new trains would have buffets. They don't have buffets. So much for "purpose designed inter city trains" and for "FGW having input into the design" As for keeping maintenance in house, I don't care ! The new trains will clearly need maintenance staff, and these staff are presumably free to join the trades union of their choice. I do not care if said staff are employed by FGW or by the train builders, or by some third party. Any anyway it is now said to be a done deal. Title: Re: Potential industrial action over IEP introduction Post by: sprinterguard on June 30, 2015, 20:58:58 But do you care if there is an onboard presence from a trained member of staff other than the driver? In most circumstances every IEP will have a "train manager" (be it competent current form guard or a non-competent so called onboard manager ) rostered but in times of disruption (arguably one of the best times to have a TM, especially a decent one) are you happy to travel on a train with upwards of 500 people hurtling through rural countryside without a TM?
What happens if the train hits someone? What happens if the train hits a bridge parapet? breaks down for hours on end in the middle of nowhere? Gets stranded in flood water? All these things have happened recently. DOO works on the tube and on suburban railways etc, don't get me wrong. DOO would not be the usual method of working for the IEPs... but when does "it's okay we're picking up a TM at Reading" become "we're picking up a TM at Taunton" ??? Title: Re: Potential industrial action over IEP introduction Post by: bobm on June 30, 2015, 21:00:02 Slightly (!) selfish question. I bought a Freedom of the South West / 8 out of 15, valid until 12th July which I hope to use significantly on 9th and 11th (and 12th too). I'm also headed out of area on 6th (using ticket to the border of the area and coming back on 9th, but may have to drive / fly on 6th if I need to get back on 9th and can't rely on the trains. If industrial action takes place from 18:30 on 8th for 48 / 72 hours, where do I stand on my ticket and plans? Not all the selfish. I have the same ticket starting on the 8th July! Title: Re: Potential industrial action over IEP introduction Post by: rogerw on June 30, 2015, 22:16:26 And I have an all line rover starting 5th July, planning to return home on evenings of 8th and 9th
Title: Re: Potential industrial action over IEP introduction Post by: bobm on June 30, 2015, 22:20:53 I feel your pain. I had an ALR valid during the planned NR strikes earlier this month. Spent a while working out alternatives - hopefully, fingers crossed, it will be called off as mine where.
Title: Re: Potential industrial action over IEP introduction Post by: Western Pathfinder on June 30, 2015, 22:35:36 Can anyone tell me what the legal position is with Reguards to having a guard or not ?
I for one would wish to see train staff that know how to do the job as we have at this time. Title: Re: Potential industrial action over IEP introduction Post by: dog box on July 01, 2015, 07:13:16 not sure there are any legal regulations. one of the factors of this dispute centres around safety of the platform train interface, in the present proposal the Driver will have full control of opening and closing the doors and ensuring the train is safely clear of the platform by the use of in cab cctv, whilst also ensuring that he or she concentrates on the actual task of train driving.
At present safety of the platform train interface is under the auspices of the guard and station staff at manned stations and guard at un manned stations. The present proposal states that a guard will be provided for and in customer service role, with some of the recent sad accidents of people being pulled under trains departing stations is this new proposal the safest option Title: Re: Potential industrial action over IEP introduction Post by: JayMac on July 01, 2015, 07:31:38 The present proposal states that a guard will be provided for and in customer service role, with some of the recent sad accidents of people being pulled under trains departing stations is this new proposal the safest option Many of those sad accidents of people being pulled under trains or along platforms were on trains with staff present, either a guard or a despatcher. In fact I'm struggling to recall a recent such incident on DOO. Just one from 2006 that may not have happened with a guard or despatcher present. The official report made no recommendations that DOO was less safe. At present safety of the platform train interface is under the auspices of the guard and station staff at manned stations and guard at un manned stations. Or just the driver at unstaffed platforms in DOO areas. Title: Re: Potential industrial action over IEP introduction Post by: JayMac on July 01, 2015, 07:52:38 As to the strike itself and the reasons. From what FGW have said, there are to be no redundancies, in fact extra staff are to be hired, and there are no changes to terms and conditions for existing staff.
How trains are despatched varies widely across the network and the proposals for IEP do not, to me, seem any less safe than other methods used. Maintenance of rolling stock by its manufacturer seems eminently sensible to me. And as the contract with Agility Trains/Hitachi has been signed off I can see no point in industrial action there. Catering is one I'm a little concerned about, but while I'll miss the buffets I'm sure I'll get to used to them not being there. Yet again we see a minority of those balloted holding sway. Why, if these issues are so important to the staff, was there only a 50% turnout? All told I'm sadly not on the staff's side for this dispute. Title: Re: Potential industrial action over IEP introduction Post by: JayMac on July 02, 2015, 12:49:53 I'm not really on FGW's side either. With less than a week to go before the start of the strike there hasn't been a peep from FGW about contingency, what will and won't be running, ticket acceptance with other operators on different routes, and so on.
I'm wanting to travel next Wednesday and Thursday. I'd kinda like to know whether that will be possible. ::) Title: Re: Potential industrial action over IEP introduction Post by: ChrisB on July 02, 2015, 14:12:09 They'll still be working on the contingencies. They'll need to know how many staff will be turning in to start with, then they can work things further. Give 'em a break....
Title: Re: Potential industrial action over IEP introduction Post by: didcotdean on July 02, 2015, 14:48:51 They have announced that the twitter account will still be active ...
Title: Re: Potential industrial action over IEP introduction Post by: ChrisB on July 02, 2015, 14:50:25 It's only the train staff that are striking, I thought?
Title: Re: Potential industrial action over IEP introduction Post by: JayMac on July 02, 2015, 15:09:00 All RMT staff at FGW were balloted. There are many RMT members who don't work on trains.
Title: Re: Potential industrial action over IEP introduction Post by: ChrisB on July 02, 2015, 15:34:58 You've answered your own gripe then....it'll be a massive job to work out who might work & roster them accordingly. And you want to know what's what a week out? Right....
Title: Re: Potential industrial action over IEP introduction Post by: JayMac on July 02, 2015, 15:54:17 Yes I do. So I can plan my travel.
Title: Re: Potential industrial action over IEP introduction Post by: Tim on July 02, 2015, 16:03:33 All RMT staff at FGW were balloted. There are many RMT members who don't work on trains. With the caveat that I may be completely wrong here..... Doesn't the fact that the RMT has balloted staff not involved in the dispute invalidate the ballot and make FGW likely to win any legal challenge to the strike? Title: Re: Potential industrial action over IEP introduction Post by: JayMac on July 02, 2015, 16:14:44 The reasons for the ballot are wide ranging enough to encompass all RMT members employed by FGW.
Title: Re: Potential industrial action over IEP introduction Post by: ChrisB on July 02, 2015, 16:26:07 Yes I do. So I can plan my travel. Go take it up with the RMT then. They called the action. Title: Re: Potential industrial action over IEP introduction Post by: JayMac on July 02, 2015, 16:27:53 Their FGW staff members voted for action.
Now get off my back. >:( >:( >:( Title: Re: Potential industrial action over IEP introduction Post by: Ollie on July 02, 2015, 18:22:26 Should have some information released tomorrow.
Title: Re: Potential industrial action over IEP introduction Post by: Western Pathfinder on July 02, 2015, 18:42:08 Should have some information released tomorrow. Thankyou Ollie :) Title: Re: Potential industrial action over IEP introduction Post by: JayMac on July 02, 2015, 18:51:19 Yes, thanks Ollie. :)
Title: Re: Potential industrial action over IEP introduction Post by: Ollie on July 02, 2015, 19:34:07 You're welcome :)
Title: Re: Potential industrial action over IEP introduction Post by: grahame on July 03, 2015, 09:01:45 Not sure if it *should* have been a separate thread, but I've posted details of what's likely to run if the strike goes ahead at http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=15901.0 - in Across the West. Idea being we discuss specifics of travel plans there, and background here, but we'll see how it goes.
Title: Re: Potential industrial action over IEP introduction Post by: stuving on March 29, 2017, 20:52:36 A new dispatch from RMT's front line facing GWR (http://www.rmt.org.uk/news/intercity-express-programme-iep/):
Quote 29 March 2017 Dear Colleague INTERCITY EXPRESS PROGRAMME (IEP) Further to my previous correspondence with regards to the above matter and where I informed you of the meeting with your GWR Divisional Council Representatives, Lead Officer and Senior Assistant General Secretary and Branch Officials of affected Branches, which took place at Unity House to discuss the following principle guarantees made by Great Western Railway (GWR): • No extension of DOO. • Confirmation of current and planned establishment numbers. • No compulsory redundancies and PT&R arrangements for all grades affected. • Method statements for new and cascaded trains to be agreed. I can now advise you that the matter has again been subject to recent consideration by the union’s Executive Committee who recognises the above principle guarantees represent considerable progress in resolving the core issues within this dispute. However, the Executive Committee remains concerned regarding the company proposals in some areas. Therefore I am seeking the following commitments from GWR which the union believes, along with the above principle guarantees, would resolve this dispute: • 165/166 units cascading West to be re-engineered with the same door controls and method of operation as the 15 x units. • That the proposed method of train operation for IEP trains applies to all IEP trains in service irrespective of route. • That a place of safety is provided for on board catering grades. Once I have received a response from Great Western Railway I will provide a further update on the situation. Best wishes. Mick Cash General Secretary Is it my imagination, of has the list of demands changed quite a bit? And while it's not strictly IEP, how is the fitting of extra door controls to 155/6s likely to be seen by GWR? (I presume to add guard's controls at some of the doors.) Title: Re: Potential industrial action over IEP introduction Post by: JayMac on March 29, 2017, 23:47:07 Rather typical RMT.
Get what they want then ask for more. ::) Title: Re: Potential industrial action over IEP introduction Post by: paul7575 on March 30, 2017, 00:14:12 A place of safety for catering grades?
He must be off his trolley - or maybe hiding under it... ;D Paul Title: Re: Potential industrial action over IEP introduction Post by: ChrisB on March 30, 2017, 12:22:45 Is it my imagination, of has the list of demands changed quite a bit? And while it's not strictly IEP, how is the fitting of extra door controls to 155/6s likely to be seen by GWR? (I presume to add guard's controls at some of the doors.) I assume a typo means 165/6s? Te biggest sticking point, I suspect... Title: Re: Potential industrial action over IEP introduction Post by: IndustryInsider on March 30, 2017, 13:10:31 I'm pretty sure guards controls are being added to Turbo's heading west anyway, so no big sticking point. The other option would be to make no modifications and run them as LTV does when not under DOO operation (driver operates doors under guards instruction), but that would prevent them stopping at stations with short platforms. The location of panels might need to be discussed with the unions - for example at each set of doors/just from the rear cab or at one set of doors per coach.
This page is printed from the "Coffee Shop" forum at http://gwr.passenger.chat which is provided by a customer of Great Western Railway. Views expressed are those of the individual posters concerned. Visit www.gwr.com for the official Great Western Railway website. Please contact the administrators of this site if you feel that content provided contravenes our posting rules ( see http://railcustomer.info/1761 ). The forum is hosted by Well House Consultants - http://www.wellho.net |