First Great Western - industrial action in 2015 - merged topic

[whole diary]

[JayMac]

From the BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page):

First Great Western and RMT^▸ (National Union of Rail, Maritime & Transport Workers) union back in discussions following strike

A train operator and transport workers union are back around the negotiating table following a 48-hour strike.

High-speed services between London, the West of England and Wales were affected last week, after Rail, Maritime and Transport (RMT) members walked out.

They fear guards and buffet cars will be disposed of on the new fleet of Hitachi Inter City Express trains for First Great Western (FGW^▸ (First Great Western)).

Both RMT and FGW confirmed to the BBC that discussions were ongoing.

"There are talks and we'll leave it at that for now," an RMT spokesman added.

According to the union, about 2,000 members of staff went on strike across the FGW network.

FGW said, despite a revised timetable and warnings of much busier trains, more than 60% of services operated as normal on Thursday.

In his latest open letter to customers, managing director Mark Hopwood said there could be further strikes.

He wrote: "We have made very clear our commitments on job security and the customer experience. There remains, however, the possibility that we will face more strikes and we are training more of our people in more tasks so that we can run as comprehensive a service as possible."

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^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.)) on routes between London Paddington and Oxford, Bristol and South Wales.

That latest open letter from Mark Hopwood in full:

Dear Customer

Thank you for bearing with us during the industrial action last week, your patience and good humour was appreciated by everyone who helped to keep things moving.

We were pleased that we were able to run over half of our normal trains and Thames Valley services were largely unaffected.

We are trying to meet the RMT this week and hope that there will be a positive outcome to any talks. We have made very clear our commitments on job security and the customer experience.

There remains, however, the possibility that we will face more strikes and we are training more of our people in more tasks so that we can run as comprehensive a service as possible.

Yours sincerely

Mark Hopwood

Managing Director, First Great Western

[bobm]

From the Swindon Advertiser

'Substantially revised' offer made by First Great Western to RMT^▸ (National Union of Rail, Maritime & Transport Workers)

FIRST Great Western has confirmed that talks held yesterday aimed at resolving the current dispute with the RMT about the introduction of Super Express Trains have ended with a substantially revised offer being made to the RMT.

Last week members of the National Union of Rail, Maritime And Transport union went on strike for 48 hours, although FGW^▸ (First Great Western) said that 60 per cent of it services did run.

Today a First Great Western spokesman said: "We have moved significantly in every area, making sure we can run these trains in the best possible way for customers, while giving the RMT clear assurances on job security and safety.

"We are hoping the RMT will recognise our proposal, which seeks to bridge the gap in views, will be enough to settle this dispute.

"We don't believe there are any fundamental differences of opinion between us and the RMT on issues relating to engineering, station and dispatch staff - and have even paved the way to ensure a fully qualified guard to be on every SET^▸ (Super Express Train (now IET)) in passenger service, and for buffet cars to remain in service on some routes.

"The key issue that remains is that we want the driver to close the doors - which is key to our ability to run the faster, more frequent services, customers should expect from a 21st century railway.

"We also believe the driver, with CCTV^▸ (Closed Circuit Tele Vision) screens will have a far better view of the train than anyone else to ensure safe dispatch from each station.

"To think that over 2,000 staff could be asked to take more strike action and further inconvenience our customers when all but one of the issues has been dealt with just doesn't make sense."

Commenting on speculation that the RMT is preparing to ask its members to take a further five days of strike action over the issue a First Great Western spokesman said: "These are nothing more than rumours.

"Given 60% of RMT members have not endorsed any strike action, and that we have provided clear assurances over job security and safety, we think such an action would be a significant overreaction.

"We have moved our position and compromised, while still making sure we can run these trains in the best possible way for customers. Its time for the RMT to do the same and settle this matter, having achieved a very substantial degree of protection for their members about future jobs and working practices."

[IndustryInsider]

'Buffet cars to remain in service on some routes'

I wonder what that means?  Perhaps the new AT300s for the Devon/Cornwall services from London will be built with a buffet?  After all, Mark Hopwood has gone on record saying it's too late to modify the SET^▸ (Super Express Train (now IET)) 800/801s.

[Ollie]

'Buffet cars to remain in service on some routes'

I wonder what that means?  Perhaps the new AT300s for the Devon/Cornwall services from London will be built with a buffet?  After all, Mark Hopwood has gone on record saying it's too late to modify the SET^▸ (Super Express Train (now IET)) 800/801s.

It's referring to the AT300s, this new commitment would require approval from DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) and Hitachi though, but it's something FGW^▸ (First Great Western) would look to get as soon as possible.

[JayMac]

Or perhaps the AT300 deal isn't going ahead and buffets will remain in HST^▸ (High Speed Train) sets used for far west services.

[broadgage]

Presumably this will soon be clarified ? I doubt that FGW^▸ (First Great Western) much care what I would like, but I expect that the RMT^▸ (National Union of Rail, Maritime & Transport Workers) will want clarity along the lines of how many buffets are to be retained on which routes and for how long.
The options would seem to be

1) Add buffets to a token few of the SETs^▸ (Super Express Train (now IET)), probably not much more than a static trolley.
2) Retain HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) with buffets for the far west.
3) Promise that the proposed AT300s for the far west will have buffets.

I doubt that any of the above will satisfy the RMT, or me !

1) Wont work unless proper buffets are fitted to a significant proportion , which seems unlikely
2) Wont satisfy the RMT as the dispute is about the new SETs and not about the possible retention of some HSTs.
3) Wont satisfy the RMT for the same as in 2, and also after dropping buffets from the SETs, no one will believe any promises about what might be on the AT300s.

I suppose that it MIGHT mean that doubts already exist about the capacity of the SETs, and that extra vehicles are to be built, perhaps lengthening the 9 car units to 10 car by building buffets. Not very hopeful though.

[IndustryInsider]

I doubt that any of the above will satisfy the RMT^▸ (National Union of Rail, Maritime & Transport Workers), or me !

The RMT won't ever be satisfied, but they will eventually have to settle for some sort of compromise.  This proposal (assuming it is as we think) is an interesting one, and with the length of journey on the Cornish routes being quite significant, the case for a buffet is much stronger.  Personally I'd like to see them on all the Swansea services as well, but that now looks to be impossible.  However, I was assuming that Cornish services would be losing their buffets too, either when the AT300s arrive or the HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) are rebuilt, so that at least is good news in my opinion.

[old original]

What I find strange is that with their members, the drivers, having to do extra duties, i.e. push a button to close the doors, ASLEF^» (Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen - about) haven't yet declared their hand in claiming extra money for this task!!

[Rhydgaled]

From the Swindon Advertiser

"We don't believe there are any fundamental differences of opinion between us and the RMT^▸ (National Union of Rail, Maritime & Transport Workers) on issues relating to engineering, station and dispatch staff - and have even paved the way to ensure a fully qualified guard to be on every SET^▸ (Super Express Train (now IET)) in passenger service, and for buffet cars to remain in service on some routes.

'Paved the way' sounds slightly ambiguous. Is it now guaranteed that a guard will be present or is this still 'a guard will be diagramed but may be left behind'?

[Ollie]

'Paved the way' sounds slightly ambiguous. Is it now guaranteed that a guard will be present or is this still 'a guard will be diagramed but may be left behind'?

The proposal is that trains wouldn't be able to run DOO^▸ (Driver-Only Operation (that is, trains which operate without carrying a guard)) unless it's an area that already has DOO, and even then it would only be if a train manager really couldn't be found.. e.g. disruption.

So, say disruption has caused displacement, so train manager is at Reading, but the train and driver are at Paddington. Current process would be cancel from Paddington, run empty to Reading and resume train, proposal would allow passengers to be on board to Reading where train manager could be collected.

[IndustryInsider]

Though as I understand it, the driver would still be fully responsible for dispatch duties regardless.

[Worcester_Passenger]

The proposal is that trains wouldn't be able to run DOO^▸ (Driver-Only Operation (that is, trains which operate without carrying a guard)) unless it's an area that already has DOO, and even then it would only be if a train manager really couldn't be found.. e.g. disruption.

So, say disruption has caused displacement, so train manager is at Reading, but the train and driver are at Paddington. Current process would be cancel from Paddington, run empty to Reading and resume train, proposal would allow passengers to be on board to Reading where train manager could be collected.

That sounds good if I'm a passenger at Paddington. What happens if the emergency alarm goes off in the disabled toilet on the way to Reading?

[TaplowGreen]

The proposal is that trains wouldn't be able to run DOO^▸ (Driver-Only Operation (that is, trains which operate without carrying a guard)) unless it's an area that already has DOO, and even then it would only be if a train manager really couldn't be found.. e.g. disruption.

So, say disruption has caused displacement, so train manager is at Reading, but the train and driver are at Paddington. Current process would be cancel from Paddington, run empty to Reading and resume train, proposal would allow passengers to be on board to Reading where train manager could be collected.

That sounds good if I'm a passenger at Paddington. What happens if the emergency alarm goes off in the disabled toilet on the way to Reading?

How often has that happened in the last year? (for the sake of example)

[ChrisB]

And what can be done while stuck between stations?

If it's for a medical reason, assistance can more easily be given while at a station, if it's because they've locked themselves in, well....

[broadgage]

And what can be done while stuck between stations?

If it's for a medical reason, assistance can more easily be given while at a station, if it's because they've locked themselves in, well....

Agree, in most cases all that can be done between stations is to telephone for an ambulance to meet the train at the next station. With the general availability of cellphones another passenger could do that. Or presumably the driver can use the cab secure radio system to have the train met by a first aid team.