Southern DOO: ASLEF members vote 79.1% for revised deal

[Carlisle]

DBS Drivers would certainly come very close I'm sure, although there is at least a decent chance of further employment as a qualified Driver for a good number. These men are fortunate enough however not to have been publically smeared by their own lying, deceitful employer, which will be a major factor in how the poor fellows at GTR will likely be feeling.

What other TOCs did you have in mind?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
.

http://www.itv.com/news/central/2016-09-29/rail-union-to-ballot-cleaning-staff-on-west-coast-line/
http://www.infrastructure-intellige...-axe-130-signalling-engineers-work-fails-show

 

[FordFocus]

As to it being black and white. It is and it isn't. The risk is shades of grey, but there is a line where it becomes unsafe, the line is blurry and moves but if you want to class the two sides of the line as black and white I'm not going to disagree entirely.

The DOO safety case line is moving in an unsafe direction IMHO. The network has changed since the 80s when it was adopted on the Bedford to Pancras line. Platforms are now more overcrowded, more accidents happening with people falling in the platform gap or getting trapped in train doors. Not to the mention failing DOO equipment, increase risk of SPADs because of the network been at capacity causing more trains to be held at red signals with the driver too busy dealing with 12 grainy images on a screen.

Recently it was discovered in my local area that a platform CCTV DOO monitor had a camera misaligned and was missing two doors of an 8 car train. :roll:

 

[Goldfish62]

and the evidence suggests it is 'safe enough' as the legal position has not changed regardless of any of the potential incidients being cited ...

of course the safest option for passengersto embark and disembark involves paltform edged doors and doors preventing acess to the platform , neither of which will open before the train comes to a halt and the platform access doors / barriers closing to prevent lat ecomers acessing the platform and the train not being alowed to leave unti lthe platform is clear and all doors are closed ...

The safest option would be to not run the train at all because all forms of transport are inherently risky.

 

[OliverS]

The DOO safety case line is moving in an unsafe direction IMHO. The network has changed since the 80s when it was adopted on the Bedford to Pancras line. Platforms are now more overcrowded, more accidents happening with people falling in the platform gap or getting trapped in train doors. Not to the mention failing DOO equipment, increase risk of SPADs because of the network been at capacity causing more trains to be held at red signals with the driver too busy dealing with 12 grainy images on a screen.

Recently it was discovered in my local area that a platform CCTV DOO monitor had a camera misaligned and was missing two doors of an 8 car train. :roll:

So if you have an existing DOO service where platforms are getting busier. Does it lower the risk more to put an extra person on the crowded platform or one on each train?

 

[bengley]

So if you have an existing DOO service where platforms are getting busier. Does it lower the risk more to put an extra person on the crowded platform or one on each train?

The person on the platform has no quick way of stopping a train if a problem arises

 

[ComUtoR]

Recently it was discovered in my local area that a platform CCTV DOO monitor had a camera misaligned and was missing two doors of an 8 car train. :roll:

We have one station where you can't see the rear set of doors on a 12 Car. The ONLY reason why I know that is because I saw the photo from the Driver who took it. Suffice to say it was reported. Wanna know what the TOC did...

 

[infobleep]

I reiterate my earlier comment - if DOO is unsafe and proven/officially reported to be so, then the only logical course is to rescind it totally. The RMT, who have been the flag-bearer for the issue, have consistently failed to make the case properly in the public domain for banning further DOO extension on safety grounds, let alone for its removal nationally, which is surely the logical fate for an unsafe regime.

Their pronouncements touch on safety but seem always to fall back to the issue of jobs. They do not help their membership by continuing to fail to produce a concrete safety-based case against DOO, rather than the woolly and (as far as the public is concerned) tedious political ranting about basket case franchises, etc. Why did they not produce a strong, evidence-based case months ago to prove their point? As things are, the argument becomes more and more muddled. As the months/years go by, the public will have been absorbing the message from HMG/GTR that DOO is in use so widely as to be demonstrably safe (whether it is or not) and it becomes harder and harder to refute with time.

Until they do make such a case, the issue will stagnate and fester.

I believe their is a case for keeping the guards on but why don't the RMT want to make that strong case publicly? Do they know something I don't?

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

 

[OliverS]

The person on the platform has no quick way of stopping a train if a problem arises

And with much modern stock the person on the train has no good view of the PTI so can't see the problem. I'm not quite sure what your point is.

I never said a person on the platform or a person on the train would make it safe. I was more wondering which reduced the risk more.

 

[Deepgreen]

I believe their is a case for keeping the guards on but why don't the RMT want to make that strong case publicly? Do they know something I don't?

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

I suspect that, because DOO has been in use so widely for so long, it is proving very hard to make a sound safety case indicating that it should cease because the risk is demonstrably at unacceptable levels. It, along with everything else in the known universe, carries some risk - the question is; how much? The ORR seems minded to view DOO as inherently safe enough to retain and extend.

As many have said, the absolute risk is somewhat blurred rather than being clear cut. On top of this, the RMT's publicity has been generally dire, which has not helped the issue.

It does rather look as though the issue will continue ad nauseum, perhaps only limited by the RMT's financial resilience. Assuming that full DOO is eventually achieved in the face of fierce opposition, the outcome will almost certainly leave a de-moralised and angry staff base, which will probably directly lead to a regime of minimal motivation on their part. For the OBS role, for example, this would mean NOT being the more visible staff presence that GTR have maintained is the point of the exercise, and so that element will also be a failure (thus giving GTR/successors a possible excuse to try to abolish that role).

A change of franchise will also probably fail to restore any form of motivation in the staff base, unless the majority of staff are replaced, which would be a mammoth and very time-consuming exercise, resulting in further months or years of disruption while training takes place. The legacy of the issue will last for decades I suspect.

 

[ComUtoR]

I never said a person on the platform or a person on the train would make it safe. I was more wondering which reduced the risk more.

Where I see Platform staff on my network I see better pti for both staff and passengers alike. They are directing passengers, stopping running for late trains, telling people to stay back behind the line etc and any vulnerable passengers are usually highlighted to the Driver or helped board/alight and as they are wearing big bright high vis then I see the passengers they are assisting much much better. Unofficially they also give a hand wave to the Driver and whilst frowned upon, it does make it safer and certainly gives me more confidence to depart. I've even been waved down by Platform staff to to prevent me departing.

 

[Robertj21a]

These OBS positions......

Everyone seems to assume (possibly correctly) that it's not much more than a staging post until the company gets rid of them. What if the company does no such thing and replaces any who leave ?

 

[Domeyhead]

One thing I have detected reading recent posts is that in addition to any concerns the on train staff have over DOO, there is the added threat of prosecution if anything goes wrong. Despite recent criticisms I am entirely on the side of the staff on this issue. It is intolerable to hang such a threat over a staff member especially if the staff member (or his /her union) has identified a specific risk at a specific location previously. My question then is, if the TOC, the BTP and the idiotic CPS stop these absurd threats of potential prosecutions would guards and drivers feel sufficiently protected to accept DOO and the modified on-train roles?

 

[Deepgreen]

These OBS positions......

Everyone seems to assume (possibly correctly) that it's not much more than a staging post until the company gets rid of them. What if the company does no such thing and replaces any who leave ?

Anything is possible of course. However, training new staff will almost never be a substitute for the experience that departs with those staff who do leave, and I suspect that there will be an increase in those that do, given that morale will have sunk out of sight before long.

I think that, if/when DOO is universal, the accrual of penalties for trains failing to run can surely only reduce if the requirement to run, rather than cancel, a train is one, rather than two, on-board staff. That principle logically leads to a situation where cost savings can be made by removing the now-optional second crew member, notwithstanding the lack of on-board passenger assistance and revenue collection that would ensue (my earlier point about the 'invisible guards' not helping their own cause applies here).

 

[Robertj21a]

Anything is possible of course. However, training new staff will almost never be a substitute for the experience that departs with those staff who do leave, and I suspect that there will be an increase in those that do, given that morale will have sunk out of sight before long.

I think that, if/when DOO is universal, the accrual of penalties for trains failing to run can surely only reduce if the requirement to run, rather than cancel, a train is one, rather than two, on-board staff. That principle logically leads to a situation where cost savings can be made by removing the now-optional second crew member, notwithstanding the lack of on-board passenger assistance and revenue collection that would ensue (my earlier point about the 'invisible guards' not helping their own cause applies here).

Quite, but my point was also directed at all those staff whose major (but not only) grievance is that the OBS positions are, effectively, only short-term. Would their view/morale improve if it turned out that the OBS role was genuinely permanent ?

 

[Deepgreen]

Quite, but my point was also directed at all those staff whose major (but not only) grievance is that the OBS positions are, effectively, only short-term. Would their view/morale improve if it turned out that the OBS role was genuinely permanent ?

It would probably help in many cases, but I suppose it depends on how 'permanent' can be defined here - GTR have said they will stay until at least the end of the franchise (however soon that may be), but I don't know what guarantees can be put in place to cover future operators.

 

[FordFocus]

And with much modern stock the person on the train has no good view of the PTI so can't see the problem. I'm not quite sure what your point is.

I never said a person on the platform or a person on the train would make it safe. I was more wondering which reduced the risk more.

During overcrowded trains, the guard can use a cab and drop down window to monitor the departure from the station. My guard a few weeks ago stopped a train after giving 2 on the buzzer as a late runner fell on the platform a landed very close next to the footstep of the train.

Platform staff cannot stop a train after departure (https://www.gov.uk/raib-reports/accident-at-charing-cross-station). If they are stood at the back of a 8/12 car train it's highly unlikely a driver will hear their whistles particularly at busy terminus stations with conflicting whistles from other platforms regularly.

The driver on DOO services are concentrating on the track and signalling ahead once the power is selected and the train moves inches ahead. The DOO monitors will switch off at a few mph on most trains so won't see the platform.

A guard even in the vestibule can still see parts of the platforms and has the capacity to stop the train in an emergency.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

These OBS positions......

Everyone seems to assume (possibly correctly) that it's not much more than a staging post until the company gets rid of them. What if the company does no such thing and replaces any who leave ?

Why else would GTR and Department for Wilkinson go ahead with these OBS plans, it will save them little money. No real changes to pay or conditions.

RSSB leaked document that cited the McNulty report a lot about having no other member of staff onboard unless it was operationally necessary.

Govia removal of guards on the 'premier' Gatwick Express services and replacements with OBS didn't last long.

No OBS training on par with guards. RPIs put on a 2 day crash course on how the units work.

Fixed term contracts of 12 months for some members of staff. I.e. we have no business case to keep you at the company, goodbye.

Govia possibly bailing out of the failing GTR franchise now the DfT is under pressure from the Transport Committee and certain MPs interest in how the DfT are going to handle their force majeure get of jail for free card because of this "unofficial action" or sickness that's caused them to exceed their revised performance targets.

 

[Robertj21a]

During overcrowded trains, the guard can use a cab and drop down window to monitor the departure from the station. My guard a few weeks ago stopped a train after giving 2 on the buzzer as a late runner fell on the platform a landed very close next to the footstep of the train.

Platform staff cannot stop a train after departure (https://www.gov.uk/raib-reports/accident-at-charing-cross-station). If they are stood at the back of a 8/12 car train it's highly unlikely a driver will hear their whistles particularly at busy terminus stations with conflicting whistles from other platforms regularly.

The driver on DOO services are concentrating on the track and signalling ahead once the power is selected and the train moves inches ahead. The DOO monitors will switch off at a few mph on most trains so won't see the platform.

A guard even in the vestibule can still see parts of the platforms and has the capacity to stop the train in an emergency.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Why else would GTR and Department for Wilkinson go ahead with these OBS plans, it will save them little money. No real changes to pay or conditions.

RSSB leaked document that cited the McNulty report a lot about having no other member of staff onboard unless it was operationally necessary.

Govia removal of guards on the 'premier' Gatwick Express services and replacements with OBS didn't last long.

No OBS training on par with guards. RPIs put on a 2 day crash course on how the units work.

Fixed term contracts of 12 months for some members of staff. I.e. we have no business case to keep you at the company, goodbye.

Govia possibly bailing out of the failing GTR franchise now the DfT is under pressure from the Transport Committee and certain MPs interest in how the DfT are going to handle their force majeure get of jail for free card because of this "unofficial action" or sickness that's caused them to exceed their revised performance targets.

Thank you, but I wasn't asking for yet another repeat of the same old assumptions (even though they may well prove to be true). I repeat - if the OBS positions were permanent would it make a difference ?

 

[FordFocus]

New press release from RMT with a GTR bulletin about the method of working with OBS.

OBS have to be present at the doors at every station to monitor any passengers that need assistance. Train cannot move whilst their local door key is inserted.

http://www.rmt.org.uk/news/rmt-demands-halt-to-southern-rails-axing-of-guards/

 

[Fincra5]

New press release from RMT with a GTR bulletin about the method of working with OBS.

OBS have to be present at the doors at every station to monitor any passengers that need assistance. Train cannot move whilst their local door key is inserted.

http://www.rmt.org.uk/news/rmt-demands-halt-to-southern-rails-axing-of-guards/

Now interfering in train dispatch... Same as a conductor would (though the OBS have no PTS or route knowledge etc) but without pressing the door close and the signal bell.

Its laughable. The whole process will be slower than with a conductor. As the OBS will have to notify the driver about leaving the train and then joining the train (after assistance has been given).

 

[Carlisle]

New press release from RMT with a GTR bulletin about the method of working with OBS.

OBS have to be present at the doors at every station to monitor any passengers that need assistance. Train cannot move whilst their local door key is inserted.

http://www.rmt.org.uk/news/rmt-demands-halt-to-southern-rails-axing-of-guards/

RMT are making a huge issue out of something that's not much different from platform or other staff operating crew doors to load passengers with cycles etc on mk 4 DVTs and Pendilinos for example

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

RMT are making a huge issue out of something that's not much different from platform or other staff operating crew doors to load passengers with cycles on mk 4 DVTs and Pendilinos for example

Except those trains are decidedly not DOO!

 

[Carlisle]

Except those trains are decidedly not DOO!

True but it's still a member of staff who's not a fully qualified guard participating in the dispatch process

 

[Goldfish62]

There are many active ASLEF and RMT members who vote UKIP. The unions themselves supported Brexit (for which there is obviously a strong left wing case, but many of their reasons for it were also those shared by UKIP and the right too). Bob Crow was just as concerned about free movement as Nigel Farage.

Well, since you have mentioned It on more than one occasion, if I was in either of those unions I'd have told them where to stick their Brexit policy and moved to another union, as indeed have a number of my friends in the industry. Luckily I'm in one of the majority of TUs that doesn't pursue political ideology at the expense of its members, but still kicks company ar*e to get a fair deal.

 

[AnonymousUser1]

The safest option would be to not run the train at all because all forms of transport are inherently risky.

but as money isn't an object in crank fantasy land and there is always a technical solution in the minds of the one handed typists on such topics ...

 

[ungreat]

True but it's still a member of staff who's not a fully qualified guard participating in the dispatch process

True...but the platform staff assisting aren't closing the doors,observing the interlock light and then giving the driver "the tip". They are simply assisting the train crew and indicating that station duties are complete.
As I'm sure you know...only the driver and guard know if they have interlock within the train. The BIL may well be externally extinguised but that does NOT always mean that interlock has taken place.
Now the OBS has door control...and as has been said,the majority of those are ex RPIs who have no route/traction/safety critical training,and are now required to take control of local doors.
That IS safety critical work.As a current DOO driver myself who has seen both sides of the coin I would much sooner have a guard.Yes DOO is safe...but two safety critical staff is safer.

 

[AnonymousUser1]

Anything is possible of course. However, training new staff will almost never be a substitute for the experience that departs with those staff who do leave, .

no no organisation should allow staff to retire, be promoted away from frontline duties or leave for other reasons ?

as that is the position that be being asserted by the above statement ...

 

[infobleep]

RMT are making a huge issue out of something that's not much different from platform or other staff operating crew doors to load passengers with cycles etc on mk 4 DVTs and Pendilinos for example

But are the timings on Southern's timetable written for mk4 DVTs and Pendilions or are they written for guard dispatch stock Southern use?

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

 

[dcsprior]

I have no knowledge of the railways, except from the perspective of a passenger. As a layman, I presume DOO is less safe, but I also expect it saves money - perhaps not to the current TOC, but in the long term. Presumably the reason the DfT are pushing for it is because as a result of the cost saving, the the subsidy cost to future governments will decrease.

Of course There are various areas where it costs money to prevent death, injuries or suffering - e.g. road improvements or expensive treatments on the NHS. I'd like to know how the expected saving per additional death for DOO compares to the cost per life saved for spending elsewhere. Whilst this sounds horrendously calculating, I think it'd be worse if the government was pushing for DOO without having done this analysis.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

RMT and its members are not the arbiters of safety on the railway. Others appointed to that role in the DFT / ORR with a more objective outlook are, and have already pronounced the technology and the operation as safe and that is good enough for me. There is this crazy sense in many industries (not just this one) that somehow nobody except median operational technical grades actually "Know what is really going on" and that they have some kind of perspective that gives them this unique insight. Well funnily enough, it isn't true on the railways any more than it is in my industry. Your piece above reeks of the same old whining passive aggressive sense of victimhood and retaliation that I last saw in the playground. The juxtaposition in the mouth of an adult is contemptible.

The fact is those whose educational achievements do not go beyond school leaving qualification levels are ignorant of the realities of a lot of things , 'common knowledge' and 'accepted truths' being proof positive of such things, plus the insistence that things evidenced and with a good theoretical basis are wrong vs the 'man in the street' explanation pulled out of someone's backside ...

Leaving aside for a second the fact that these sort of posts seem to be designed to wind up almost everyone who works on the railway or other skilled manual occupation, I'd point out that some successful companies have seen a big benefit from ordinary employees being involved in decision making, this can take many forms from a works council all the way to employee representation on the company board (something my employer has). Similarly, the US Army created the position of "Sergeant Major of the Army" to (from wikipedia) serve as a spokesman to address the issues of enlisted soldiers to all officers, from warrant officers and lieutenants to the Army's highest positions. So I think it's wrong to say that those dealing with day-to-day issues cannot bring useful insight that would otherwise be missing.

 

[ungreat]

no no organisation should allow staff to retire, be promoted away from frontline duties or leave for other reasons ?

as that is the position that be being asserted by the above statement ...

Hardly...what he states is true with new OBS in mind..they will be no substitute for an OBS who used to be a conductor.They will have residual knowledge of routes and emergency procedures

By the way...good evening Mr Horton

 

[Carlisle]

. funny how elswhwre in Europe where htrades unions are not associated with Entryism the relationship between employers and trades unions is much more productive

Maybe there's substance to that argument, as if there's not how come the likes of France and Germany for example both with a history of notoriously powerful trade unionis and far fewer anti strike laws have achieved quite substantial DOO operations on parts of their rail network without as far as I'm aware disputes as bitter, protracted and lengthy as Southerns has turned into