Keep Merseyrail Guards

The first and obvious question issimply, why even think ofremoving guards?• In a report produced for Merseytravel byPassenger Focus in April 2014, ‘Future MerseyrailRolling Stock – what passengers want’ the factorwhich emerged as by far the most important toimprove from the passenger perspectivewas personal security on thetrain, which reached anindex of 180 (comparedto 100 which signifiesthe average relativeimportance).

• It alsoshowedpassengersatisfactionwith personalsecurity whilston the train washigh (86 per cent)and the report said“this aspect is astrength upon which itis important to maintainfocus and development”. Itwent on to state “As passengerperception of personal security is currently astrength, this indicates that there is no need fordrastic change, just careful consideration tomaintain and develop this in the future, since theimportance of this measure to passengers suggeststhat if satisfaction with personal security were todecrease in future, this would likely have a severenegative effect on overall satisfaction with theservice as a whole”

• An RMT-commissioned survey fromindependent polling company Opinium ResearchLtd, published in January 2016, showed that 78per cent of regular passengers opposed theremoval of guards.

• Among women passengers, 84 per cent inthe same survey said they would feel less safewithout a guard, and

• Among over-55s, 85 per cent said theywould feel less safe without guards.

• RMT has been working with disabledgroups and individuals throughout the campaignagainst DOO. They have, above all others,expressed the gravest reservations about theproposal to remove the guard. While they andRMT welcome some of the design improvementscontained in the new trains, disabled passengersrely heavily both upon the reassuring presence ofa second member of staff on all services and the

practical assistance afforded by the guardwhen there are no station staff

available for whatever reason.

SafetyThe safety role of guards isfar more than just givingpassengers a perceptionof security, importantthough that is:

• There are currently35 safety competenciesinvolved in the guard’sjob, ranging from routine

despatch to dealing withemergencies such as fires,

accidents and train evacuations.

• On Merseyrail, following a collisionbetween a train and a road vehicle at Crescent

Road level crossing in Southport on August 25,2016, the guard placed isolating equipment on thetrack, isolated the electric rail and evacuatedpassengers to safety, while the driver remained inhis cab leading the communications with thesignallers. This team work highlighted the vitalimportance of having two people on the train.

• In the Watford landslide derailment onSeptember 16, 2016, the driver was effectivelytrapped in his cab and it was the guard whoplayed the crucial role in dealing with theemergency, including evacuating passengers.

• On December 6, 2016 a MerseyrailNorthern Line guard faced down a sex attackerwho had just assaulted a female passenger andattempted to rob her. The guard remained betweenthe attacker and the victim despite severe threats.He liaised with other rail staff and then escortedher to the ticket office where the station staff tookover who ensured that the victim was able to gethome safely.

78%Of regular

customers areopposed to theremoval of the

guard

• On January 6, 2017 a guard on a Trans-Pennine Express service from Manchester Airportassisted a passenger who had been assaulted,helping her report the incident to police, wholaunched a criminal investigation into a serioussexual assault. The victim praised the guard’s“unbelievably kind and compassionate manner”and said she did not know what would havehappened had there not been a guard on the train

• The introduction of DOO elsewhere on thenational railway network and on LondonUnderground has resulted in a significant increasein the number in incidents involving passengersbeing caught in doors or falling under trains.

• This is also true of London Underground,even though LU is classed as a ‘light rail’ systemwhile Merseyrail is a ‘heavy rail’ system whichalso, for example, has a large number of levelcrossings and other structures that are not presenton LU.

• All three rail unionsoppose DOO. Aslef andRMT have signed a jointdeclaration opposingany form of operationthat removes thesafety role of theguard, and callingfor existing DOO tobe scrapped.

• Theheightened state ofalert surrounding thethreat of terrorist attacksis another factor whichunderlines the short-sightedness of further moves toDOO.

Under the Merseytravel/Merseyrail plan,emergencies such as those above would be dealtwith by controllers up to 20 miles away speakingto passengers via intercom. It cannot conceivablybe argued that this is safer.

Merseyrail has said that its DOO plans are tocomply with recommendation No 1 of the officialreport on the fatal accident at James Streetstation.

This is breathtakingly dangerous nonsense, whichwould mean that on the new trains the driverwould be required to monitor a set of CCTVscreens in the cab until the train has left thestation.

That is completely at odds with basic railwaysafety, which requires the driver to look aheadthrough the windscreen, watching the signals andscanning the track ‘uninterrupted’ for obstacles,trespassers or workers.

Nowhere in the RAIB report into the fatal accidentat James Street, least of all in therecommendations arising from RAIB’sconsideration into this tragic fatality, is there anydiscussion which supports or proposes a change toDOO.

In any case, at the short-lived talks held betweenRMT and Merseyrail on March 20, the company

admitted that its proposals for the driverto monitor CCTV screens while

also proceeding from a stationhad yet to be safetyvalidated.

FinanceDespite the clearsafety case,Merseytravel hasnonethelessacknowledgedpublicly that thedecision to scrap

guards is primarilyabout money, and that the

guards are being sacrificedto help finance the new rolling

stock

The new trains, along with the £390 million indebt that goes with the scheme, will be owned byMerseytravel.

Merseyrail is the most profitable UK train-operating company; and will continue to extract£16 million a year in profits – more that threetimes the annual cost of retaining guards – butwill make no capital contribution to the newrolling stock: see table on next page.

84%Of women

passengers wouldfeel less safe

without a guard

The business case for the rolling stock shows thatthe ‘benefit share arrangement’ that Merseytravelhas with Merseyrail “has grown significantly inrecent years and currently contributes £5 millionper year to Merseytravel” – the cost quoted byMerseytravel of keeping the guards.

The financial projections in the business caseshow that the authority expects this dividendbenefit to increase significantly as growth andrevenue increase from the introduction of newrolling stock and the continued increase indemand.

It is clear that the CRCA can accommodate thecost of retaining guards and that this isfinancially achievable within the risk andrecovery arrangements set out in Merseytravel’sbusiness case.

But it is also clear that Merseyrail could itselfmake a financial contribution to retaining guards.

In 2014 the revenue income of Merseyrail was £51million, and Merseyrail Electrics Ltd paid out adividend not far short of £14 million, that meansan obscene quarter of passengers’ fares ending upin the pockets of privateers Serco & Abellio.

Scotrail, which, like Merseyrail, is operated by

Abellio, has agreed with RMT that new rollingstock to be built for the Scotrail franchise will beconfigured to be operated by guards and thatthere will be a guard on every train.

The Greater Anglia franchise, also run by Abellio,has ordered new rolling stock from Stadler, thesame manufacturer building the new Merseyrailstock, which will also be configured for guardoperation.

The cost of a strikeFinally, Merseyrail has a ‘Force Majeure’ clause inits franchise agreement that indemnifies it fromlosses and additional costs arising from industrialaction.

This means that the CRCA will be wholly liablefor picking up the bill should a strike go ahead.In lost revenue alone this would be some£139,000 per day, plus the additional costs of anycontingency arrangements.

In other words the Merseyside council-taxpayerswill be footing the bill for every day of strikeaction. RMT would rather that money be spent onmaintaining the current safety standards andcustomer service we have with two safety trainedmembers of staff on board.

Year (Jan) Turnover Operating Profit Profit Dividends(millions)

2016 153,670 16,232 12,898 12,2672015 150,817 15,580 11,797 11,6872014 144,853 14,661 11,649 13,965

2010 124,453 10,540 7,264 6,8592011 126,264 10,585 7,613 7,2522012 131,649 12,246 8,917 8,7692013 135,224 13,824 10,770 13,037

Totals 966,930 93,668 70,908 73,836 (£millions) (10,584

average)

Merseyrail profits and dividends

ConclusionMerseyrail is operated at present with two traincrew on every train, and the Merseyside travellingpublic clearly wish to maintain that level of safeoperation.

Should a serious incident take place following theintroduction of driver-only operation, the focuswill immediately be upon the absence of theguard and what may or may not have happened ifa guard had been present.

THE PROMPT action of a train guard at Liverpool South Parkway station on March 7, 2017saved the life of a diabetic passenger who was slipping into a hypoglycaemic coma, theman’s mother claimed.

In a dramatic call to BBC Radio Merseyside’s Roger Philips show the following day, themother, who gave her name as Mary, said that without the guard’s actions she believed herson would have died, and called for guards to be kept on all trains.

As he made his way down the train the guard on the Northern Line service had foundthe man apparently asleep but sweating profusely.

Recognising the signs of a ‘hypo’, the guard managed to rouse the passengersufficiently to confirm that he was diabetic and immediately raised the alarm.

Station staff assisted in getting him off the train, contacted the emergency services,enlisted the help of an off-duty nurse, and informed the man’s family. The passenger wasdischarged later that night after treatment.

Merseyrail guard ‘saved my son’s life’, mother tells BBC

Merseyrail MythsMerseyrail has said much to the public about its driver-only plansthat does not stand up to scrutiny. While RMT will never stand inthe way of new and safer rolling stock being introduced – with theappropriate staffing levels – it is nonetheless important to pointout these inconsistencies.

Myth 1 – the new trains will be faster.They will not. Line speeds on all Merseyrail lines will remain thesame. Any time gained through faster acceleration anddeceleration will be absorbed as additional ‘recovery time’ atturnaround stations, so that service levels will remain the sameand there will be no additional services.

Myth 2 – the trains will be biggerThey will not. The trains will be more or less the same size as theexisting stock

Myth 3 – the new trains will have greatercapacityThe new trains will have the same number of seats as the existingtrains. All additional capacity will be additional standing roomonly.

Myth 4 – the absence of guards will be made upfor by the fact that passengers will never be morethan a few minutes from station staff at the nextstationThis is also untrue, as the majority of station staff are in ticketoffices or on barriers, meaning that station staff at most stationswill not be on the platform

www.rmt.org.uk