The RMT has rejected plans by Chiltern Railways to operate train services on the new East West Rail line between Oxford and Milton Keynes as a Driver-Only Operation (DOO).
The RMT has reiterated its long-standing opposition to DOO unless there is a second safety-critical member of staff on the train. This is despite Driver Only Operation being used safely and effectively on other railways in the UK.
The union is demanding clear guarantees from Chiltern that its East West Rail services will include a mandatory requirement that there will be a second safety-critical member of staff on board, and the trains will not run as a Driver Only Operation.
Eddie Dempsey, General Secretary, RMT
“A guaranteed safety-critical second person on board trains was essential for carrying out a wide range of duties and responding properly to dangerous and fast-moving situations. We need a clear commitment from Chiltern that East West Rail services will not be Driver Only Operation and that a second safety-critical member of staff will be guaranteed. Passengers value the reassurance of having staff onboard, and RMT remains totally opposed to DOO and will use all of the political and industrial strength available to defend safety on the railway.”
Responses
Seems the RMT are 43 years to late in this argument .. DOO commenced in 1983 on what was then the Midland Electrics. I am not disputing a 2nd person is not actually needed on trains, yes they are needed: To undertake continual revenue protection checks and where necessary issue Penalty Fares.
What the RMT NEVER mentions is that in Greater London statistics prove that the higher the level of automation, the fewer passenger safety incidents occur. On routes where the RMT were allowed to keep a staff member sitting in the cab to “monitor” the automated system, I soon lost count of how many times I saw trains arrive at or depart from stations where the “safety monitor” was reading a newspaper.
The comment ‘ Passengers value the reassurance of having staff onboard’ is a little weak in my opinion. Although I am not a commuter, I travel fairly frequently by train where there is a guard, or second member of staff on board, but they are not seen by the passengers on the train because they remain in the rear cab or similar. How can you be reassured by someone you can’t see?
Based on experience with all of other DOO services in this country how can the RMT claim this service is any different?
In my opinion this is another demonstration of the unions strangling transport in this country, not a case of promoting safety.
This shambolic situation has gone on long enough now. Either decisive action is needed or withdraw the operation completely. The drivers have been trained and are therefore being paid for a service that isn’t operating. How many tens of thousands of pounds is being spent every month for nothing to show for it? What a waste of money!!
Well said.
Chiltern could be forgiven for throwing in the towel at this point, as could the company promoting the line. Mothball what’s there, or use it as a freight-only route, and abandon any extension towards Cambridge until the union’s thinking gets out of the 19th century.
Exactly.
Its about time the RMT and ASLEF woke up to the face its the 21st Century snd not the 1970s. All that money spent on infrastructure for nothing.
Normally I would agree that RMT and ASLEF are living in the past.
But I do think they have a case when arguing for conductors on rural rail services. At each station, conductors get off the train and observe its whole length and check that passengers (some not all that able, or carrying luggage or bicycles) get on or off the train safely, before closing the doors and giving the right away to the driver.
It’s not feasible for the driver to carry out this operation because he must not leave his cab without shutting down the engines.
In city areas it is a bit different – cameras can be arranged to allow the driver to see the whole train from his cab, and passengers are not nearly as likely to be struggling with heavy luggage , bicycles etc.
I thought that each carriage in such circumstances is fitted with cameras to allow the driver to see the complete length of the train without leaving their seat. However, on rural routes, there is another powerful argument for conductors, which is that of revenue protection. I doubt that such routes can be fitted with gates operated throughout the day, needing a conductor on the train. Presumably that person would satisfy the public’s preference for visible staff but would not need to have door closing duties, if those on train cameras are present