• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Southern DOO: ASLEF members vote 79.1% for revised deal

Status
Not open for further replies.

JamesTT

Member
Joined
4 Dec 2014
Messages
503
K

DOO dispatch is one of your problems but not the only one. I am a guard and I stand by my driver no matter what happens. I am the train's guard and I am your tail gunner. Our TOC has recently had a couple of horror stories happen and while I won't go into detail here in public I am happy to via PM if necessary. All I can see is that if you're happy to be injured or distressed in sole charge of a train load of passengers that is your choice.

Is standing by 'no matter what happens' a sensible attitude to have?
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

tsr

Established Member
Joined
15 Nov 2011
Messages
7,400
Location
Between the parallel lines
Haven't Thameslink already accepted a similar deal which includes DOO along coastway routes and arun valley driving trains that won't even have an OBS let alone a guard?

My understanding is that TL trains which directly replace existing Southern services may (note "may"!) need to have a second person rostered onboard to maintain standards of accessibility. This would apply whether they were peak-hours only, or not. Some stations where TL trains will call on the expanded routes are unstaffed throughout all or most of any given 24 hours. Ifield, Faygate, Littlehaven, Woldingham and Dormans all spring to mind. All of those could potentially be visited by wheelchair users or other people in need of assistance.

Some, if not all, Thameslink revenue staff became "Passenger Hosts" with ramp training last year, the longer-term aspirations were originally for them to be OBSs, and Southern must recruit and pay for 50 OBSs anyway, as part of its enforced "fine" contributions recently announced by the DfT et al.

Put these together, and there should easily be enough people to cover the 700s when they go walkies down to the coast or East Grinstead (etc.).

However, if it is indeed the case that TL drivers have accepted they will be the only person on the train, GTR and the DfT can be safe in the knowledge that if the OBS doesn't turn up, the train will still run regardless, because the drivers have no way to refuse it.

Obviously 50 OBSs may not be needed for those trains alone, so it's entirely possible some may end up deployed to less interesting places, like existing depots which are under-staffed.

I can't see a traditional guard's role for TL 700s, much as many would like it. There are strong rumours that the remaining Southern conductors (ie. those onboard staff with guard qualifications) at Barnham and Brighton will transfer to OBS roles quite soon, with Eastbourne and Selhurst to follow in the course of the next few years. Obviously the logistics of some of this will be hidden from view at the moment, especially with regards to diesel traction for the latter two depots, and I don't have all the information - at all. Given there is no appetite to provide a compulsory second person for emergency protection and other Rule Book duties, and a guard does not generally dispatch stock equipped with body-side cameras on the routes where TL are to expand, it is likely to be OBS-esque or nothing.
 
Last edited:

otomous

Member
Joined
5 Oct 2011
Messages
444
If the only change to terms and conditions attached to the pay deal related to DOO do you think it would have still been rejected?

Haven't Thameslink already accepted a similar deal which includes DOO along coastway routes and arun valley driving trains that won't even have an OBS let alone a guard?

Can't say. There were other T&C changes that had issues too, mostly related to their ambiguity.

Thameslink drivers were blighted from the start, because the route was DOO from the start in BR days, then became a DOO franchise on privatisation. What others do is not necessarily relevant. TL has been used to justify DOO coming to all Brighton main line trains. Could also say, guards should have introduced on TL, because Southern and Midland Main Line trains had them.
 

otomous

Member
Joined
5 Oct 2011
Messages
444
My understanding is that TL trains which directly replace existing Southern services may (note "may"!) need to have a second person rostered onboard to maintain standards of accessibility. This would apply whether they were peak-hours only, or not. Some stations where TL trains will call on the expanded routes are unstaffed throughout all or most of any given 24 hours. Ifield, Faygate, Littlehaven, Woldingham and Dormans all spring to mind. All of those could potentially be visited by wheelchair users or other people in need of assistance.

Some, if not all, Thameslink revenue staff became "Passenger Hosts" with ramp training last year, the longer-term aspirations were originally for them to be OBSs, and Southern must recruit and pay for 50 OBSs anyway, as part of its enforced "fine" contributions recently announced by the DfT et al.

Put these together, and there should easily be enough people to cover the 700s when they go walkies down to the coast or East Grinstead (etc.).

However, if it is indeed the case that TL drivers have accepted they will be the only person on the train, GTR and the DfT can be safe in the knowledge that if the OBS doesn't turn up, the train will still run regardless, because the drivers have no way to refuse it.

Obviously 50 OBSs may not be needed for those trains alone, so it's entirely possible some may end up deployed to less interesting places, like existing depots which are under-staffed.

I can't see a traditional guard's role for TL 700s, much as many would like it. There are strong rumours that the remaining Southern conductors (ie. those onboard staff with guard qualifications) at Barnham and Brighton will transfer to OBS roles quite soon, with Eastbourne and Selhurst to follow in the course of the next few years. Obviously the logistics of some of this will be hidden from view at the moment, especially with regards to diesel traction for the latter two depots, and I don't have all the information - at all. Given there is no appetite to provide a compulsory second person for emergency protection and other Rule Book duties, and a guard does not generally dispatch stock equipped with body-side cameras on the routes where TL are to expand, it is likely to be OBS-esque or nothing.

What are the alternatives to guarded dispatch on the Uckfield line pending electrification and the wrangling which will make this unlikely for years? Gibbs can say it should be done but finding the money for relatively empty off peak trains is another matter.
 

Bromley boy

Established Member
Joined
18 Jun 2015
Messages
4,611
As an aside, I've noticed that some drivers are very much in favour of putting their head out the window when using platform monitors, i.e. making it obvious on CCTV they're looking and completing their checks. Do you think this would reduce the odds of a successful prosecution in a dispatch incident? Also, could looking back down the train incriminate a driver if the monitors aren't great and something did happen?

Personally I think looking back improves your situational awareness and is therefore a good thing (my DM agrees with me). The trouble is looking back obviously only helps at locations where platform curvature allows.

Would it help in terms of reducing the risk of prosecution? Its impossible to say. The fact the CPS chose to prosecute in the Martin Zee case doesn't inspire any confidence they look sympathetically on railstaff involved in incidents whilst going about their jobs. As per your other post, you also need to make sure you leave sufficient time between gaining interlock and taking power.

DOO dispatch is particularly difficult at this time of year, as you're probably finding. Bright sunlight washes out the monitors and the light/shadow contrast makes it difficult to see anything clearly. Not to mention you only have one pair of eyes and when you're looking at the signal or checking the time (as you're required to do) you can't also be looking at the monitors.

If someone fell down the gap between the platform and the train while I was looking at the signal or checking I had interlock then I wouldn't see them. Someone *may* pull a passcom but by the time I've reacted and braked they'll already have had several wheelsets pass over them. That's something I think about every single shift.

I'm not sure there's anyway of really mitigating the risk other than jacking the job in or moving to a depot/TOC that still has guards.
 
Last edited:

kw12

Member
Joined
12 Jan 2017
Messages
180
Interesting.

In my opinion it's time to up the frequency of industrial action. The stalemate has gone on for too long - what's the maximum length a strike can last for?

Negotiations haven't worked. GTR have just ploughed through with the changes. Something's got to break this stalemate soon.

There is no maximum length for a strike. A strike could be indefinite, as with the current overtime ban, lasting until the unioin calls it off.
 

otomous

Member
Joined
5 Oct 2011
Messages
444
Personally I think looking back improves your situational awareness and is therefore a good thing (my DM agrees with me). The trouble is looking back obviously only helps at locations where platform curvature allows.

Would it help in terms of reducing the risk of prosecution? Its impossible to say. The fact the CPS chose to prosecute in the Martin Zee case doesn't inspire any confidence they look sympathetically on railstaff involved in incidents whilst going about their jobs. As per your other post, you also need to make sure you leave sufficient time between gaining interlock and taking power.

DOO dispatch is particularly difficult at this time of year, as you're probably finding. Bright sunlight washes out the monitors and the light/shadow contrast makes it difficult to see anything clearly. Not to mention you only have one pair of eyes and when you're looking at the signal or checking the time (as you're required to do) you can't also be looking at the monitors.

If someone fell down the gap between the platform and the train while I was looking at the signal or checking I had interlock then I wouldn't see them. Someone *may* pull a passcom but by the time I've reacted and braked they'll already have had several wheelsets pass over them. That's something I think about every single shift.

I'm not sure there's anyway of really mitigating the risk other than jacking the job in or moving to a depot/TOC that still has guards.

The looking back rule is one that encapsulates the problem we have nowadays. It says driver should look back if safe and possible. Neither safe nor possible are defined. Safe I take to refer to not taking your attention off the road ahead, or leaving your head out as a bridge parapet or overhanging tree approaches. Possible I take to mean if it is possible to do so as modern stock doesn't really allow this to occur physically. But even if this all holds true there are many locations where looking back allows you to see no more than the first set of doors. So it is not possible. And thus we are left to assume what it is the writer of the rule book wanted us to comply with. Assume being the one thing we should never do. All this seems pedantic - but it is exactly what the company/RAIB/CPS/prosecution will be doing - and if they can find fault with the driver that is where the trail ends. Driver was at fault, rules are fine. On we go.
 

Carlisle

Established Member
Joined
26 Aug 2012
Messages
4,122
What others do is not necessarily relevant. TL has been used to justify DOO coming to all Brighton main line trains. Could also say, guards should have introduced on TL, because Southern and Midland Main Line trains had them.
I think it's pretty certain that if BR (NSE) had still existed when new trains replaced the slammers, they'd have been DOO from the beginning, (or guard operated for a short while on the sections requiring upgraded infrastructure) as for the Midland Mainline, it's anyone's guess what stock Inter City would have ordered and be operating now.
 
Last edited:

Robertj21a

On Moderation
Joined
22 Sep 2013
Messages
7,518
Can't say. There were other T&C changes that had issues too, mostly related to their ambiguity.

Thameslink drivers were blighted from the start, because the route was DOO from the start in BR days, then became a DOO franchise on privatisation. What others do is not necessarily relevant. TL has been used to justify DOO coming to all Brighton main line trains. Could also say, guards should have introduced on TL, because Southern and Midland Main Line trains had them.

Puzzled by your wording - how were Thameslink drivers '.....blighted from the start' ?..

If it was DOO in BR days why would should it have ever changed ?
 

otomous

Member
Joined
5 Oct 2011
Messages
444
Puzzled by your wording - how were Thameslink drivers '.....blighted from the start' ?..

If it was DOO in BR days why would should it have ever changed ?

I mean because it was ALREADY DOO they had little chance of that altering. Other operators were a mixture of guard and DOO so the advantages of guarded trains were there to see.
 

otomous

Member
Joined
5 Oct 2011
Messages
444
I think it's pretty certain that if BR (NSE) had still existed when new trains replaced the slammers, they'd have been DOO from the beginning, (or guard operated for a short while on the sections requiring upgraded infrastructure) as for the Midland Mainline, it's anyone's guess what stock Inter City would have ordered and be operating now.

Which is irrelevant anyway. The climate under which DOO was introduced was entirely different to now. Drivers' money was poor and they knew they could offer enhanced payments to induce acceptance. The sheer number of people involved has shot up and the liabilities have changed - or certainly the perception and attitudes to them. Rationalise the rules so that drivers and passengers clearly know their responsibilities and they could probably have nationwide DOO tomorrow.
 

gavin

Member
Joined
25 Dec 2006
Messages
1,006
@PA

#Breaking Planned strikes by Southern Railway guards and drivers have been suspended to allow talks with Chris Grayling, say the union
 

Bishopstone

Established Member
Joined
24 Jun 2010
Messages
1,468
Location
Seaford
@PA

#Breaking Planned strikes by Southern Railway guards and drivers have been suspended to allow talks with Chris Grayling, say the union

Government crumbling, or drivers' holiday credit card bills popping onto the doormats?
 

infobleep

Veteran Member
Joined
27 Feb 2011
Messages
12,556
@PA

#Breaking Planned strikes by Southern Railway guards and drivers have been suspended to allow talks with Chris Grayling, say the union
I read last year a quote where Chris Grayling said it was not his place to get involved in this dispute as it was between a private company and it's staff.

Now which one of the follow is it:
* The paper misquoted him;
* The paper made it up;
* New government policy now allows government ministers to get into nagoiatations with unions;
* Mr Grayling misunderstood the policies surrounding nagoiatations;
* Mr Garyling was lying.
 
Last edited:

Robertj21a

On Moderation
Joined
22 Sep 2013
Messages
7,518
I read last year a quote where Chris Grayling said it was not his place to get involved in this dispute as it was between a private company and it's staff.

Now which one of the follow is it:
* The paper misquoted him;
* The paper made it up;
* New government policy now allows government ministers to get into nagoiatations with unions;
* Mr Grayling misunderstood he policies surrounding nagoiatations;
* Mr Garyling was lying.


* He's changed his mind ?
 

tsr

Established Member
Joined
15 Nov 2011
Messages
7,400
Location
Between the parallel lines
What are the alternatives to guarded dispatch on the Uckfield line pending electrification and the wrangling which will make this unlikely for years? Gibbs can say it should be done but finding the money for relatively empty off peak trains is another matter.

Gibb is wrong on so much about the Uckfield Line that I unfortunately haven't yet had a moment to completely précis it on this thread or elsewhere. One of the major points which he misrepresented is conductor door release, which is the main flaw with DOO door operation (aside from properly caring for customers in other ways) on 171s. He actually says that they do not have SDO, full stop, which limits flexibility. This, in turn, is used as a partial justification for new stock, so it can pick up passengers from the stations with short platforms between Oxted and East Croydon - and good luck doing that in the peaks anyway, because the trains happen to be full.

His public statement is completely wrong. 171s do have SDO, or rather its Door Deselect cousin, mostly controlled by conductors, and as a result that stock can stop anywhere from Doleham to New Cross Gate to London Bridge, and anywhere in between. On the Uckfield Line, owing to multiple coaches being selected, it has to be done by the conductor from the appropriate intermediate coach. A driver could push the blue button to close the doors and use new monitors to view them, but they couldn't open them in the Metro area, or certain other places, in the event of certain permanent diagrams or out of course stops. Without wiring the doors differently (won't happen!) the conductors must stay. Thus electric trains must be used instead. :roll: Now if only it was that transparent in the first place.

Let's now move onto your question. With appropriate equipment, I have no doubt attempts could be made to introduce DOO dispatch on diesels to Uckfield. Monitors in the cabs nicked from the 172s, or some platform mounted contraption (never mind the RSIs which drivers would get from craning their necks!). The trains still need conductors for other stuff - so mark my words, there'll be a hurry to get rid of trains which need them... unfortunately! And that's how I suspect a new rollout will happen, with new stock and extended DOO the moment a new management contract emerges in a few years, the contracts with the third parties having already been written.

The money will be found when the losses caused by 171 problems becomes conveniently too great to bear, the Southeastern Hastings Line sees a DOO dispute in their next franchise (so passengers transfer back), you name it. Perhaps if Grayling ends the dispute soon, and the passenger numbers bounce back, that'll make it more palatable. And lastly, it should be said that when Uckfield trains are empty going one way, they're full going the other.
 
Last edited:

Economist

Member
Joined
24 Feb 2013
Messages
508
I think the change in liabilities post James Street is one of the main things which has resulted in the strong anti-DOO approach taken by drivers these days. I think from the government one way of resolving their dispute with drivers would be to offer to introduce legislation restoring the pre James Street position. Of course, they would still be in dispute with guards.

Regarding rail staff and trade unions, whilst it is ultimately up to anyone to dcide for themselves what they spend their money on, I think it would be in the unions' interest to encourage their members to save as much as possible. Drivers with lots of money in the bank are in a much stronger position as a whole when it comes to union activities and I think that the unions could achieve such an aim without breaking the rather strict trade union laws which exist these days.
 

otomous

Member
Joined
5 Oct 2011
Messages
444
Gibb is wrong on so much about the Uckfield Line that I unfortunately haven't yet had a moment to completely précis it on this thread or elsewhere. One of the major points which he misrepresented is conductor door release, which is the main flaw with DOO door operation (aside from properly caring for customers in other ways) on 171s. He actually says that they do not have SDO, full stop, which limits flexibility. This, in turn, is used as a partial justification for new stock, so it can pick up passengers from the stations with short platforms between Oxted and East Croydon - and good luck doing that in the peaks anyway, because the trains happen to be full.

His public statement is completely wrong. 171s do have SDO, or rather its Door Deselect cousin, mostly controlled by conductors, and as a result that stock can stop anywhere from Doleham to New Cross Gate to London Bridge, and anywhere in between. On the Uckfield Line, owing to multiple coaches being selected, it has to be done by the conductor from the appropriate intermediate coach. A driver could push the blue button to close the doors and use new monitors to view them, but they couldn't open them in the Metro area, or certain other places, in the event of certain permanent diagrams or out of course stops. Without wiring the doors differently (won't happen!) the conductors must stay. Thus electric trains must be used instead. :roll: Now if only it was that transparent in the first place.

Let's now move onto your question. With appropriate equipment, I have no doubt attempts could be made to introduce DOO dispatch on diesels to Uckfield. Monitors in the cabs nicked from the 172s, or some platform mounted contraption (never mind the RSIs which drivers would get from craning their necks!). The trains still need conductors for other stuff - so mark my words, there'll be a hurry to get rid of trains which need them... unfortunately! And that's how I suspect a new rollout will happen, with new stock and extended DOO the moment a new management contract emerges in a few years, the contracts with the third parties having already been written.

The money will be found when the losses caused by 171 problems becomes conveniently too great to bear, the Southeastern Hastings Line sees a DOO dispute in their next franchise (so passengers transfer back), you name it. Perhaps if Grayling ends the dispute soon, and the passenger numbers bounce back, that'll make it more palatable. And lastly, it should be said that when Uckfield trains are empty going one way, they're full going the other.

Are the 172s the gangwayed Turbostars? Just can't see where they could put cab monitors in the 170/71 cabs.
 

kw12

Member
Joined
12 Jan 2017
Messages
180
Robert said:
Originally Posted by infobleep
I read last year a quote where Chris Grayling said it was not his place to get involved in this dispute as it was between a private company and it's staff.

Now which one of the follow is it:
* The paper misquoted him;
* The paper made it up;
* New government policy now allows government ministers to get into nagoiatations with unions;
* Mr Grayling misunderstood he policies surrounding nagoiatations;
* Mr Garyling was lying.
* He's changed his mind ?

Chris Grayling changed his mind in January, as widely reported at the time, for example in The Guardian at
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...il-rmt-agrees-to-direct-talks-with-government.

Southern rail: RMT agrees to direct talks with government
Union accepts offer of talks with transport secretary Chris Grayling in latest attempt to resolve long-running dispute

The union behind a series of strikes disrupting services on the Southern rail network has accepted an offer of direct talks with the government in an attempt to solve the long-running dispute.

The RMT, which represents the on-board supervisors, formerly conductors, on Southern trains, said its general secretary, Mick Cash, would meet the transport secretary, Chris Grayling, at his earliest convenience.

In a letter on Thursday, Grayling wrote: “I ask you again to call off the RMT strikes on Southern and come to the table to meet with me to reach a resolution to this long-running dispute.”

The news is unlikely to affect the disruption ahead for commuters this month, when two strikes called by Aslef, the train drivers’ union, will stop all Southern services for at least six days. Just 12 of the drivers are RMT members and intend to join the action.

In response to the same invitation from Grayling, the Aslef general secretary, Mick Whelan, said he was willing to meet again to explain drivers’ concerns, but warned that “your offer to meet does not provide a rationale for my union to call off next week’s strike”.

...

Grayling has been reluctant to get involved, telling MPs that such a move would escalate and further politicise the dispute. But the transport secretary is now seeking to involve the unions in drawing up a national framework for safely dispatching trains – a move that could head off further disputes in other franchises, or at least nullify rows over safety."

The direct talks proposed in January did not take place as at the time the unions declined to suspend their strikes to enable those talks to take place, unlike with their response to the fresh offer of direct talks with Chris Grayling.
 

Kite159

Veteran Member
Joined
27 Jan 2014
Messages
19,155
Location
West of Andover
Are the 172s the gangwayed Turbostars? Just can't see where they could put cab monitors in the 170/71 cabs.

172s come in both ungangwayed style (Used by London Overground & Chiltern) and gangwayed style (Used by London Midland).

----

Hopefully something productive will come from the talks with Mr Grayling
 

Domh245

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2013
Messages
8,426
Location
nowhere
Are the 172s the gangwayed Turbostars? Just can't see where they could put cab monitors in the 170/71 cabs.

In this case, I believe the reference is to the London Overground units which had DOO cameras and an in-cab monitor retrofitted - the DOO monitor being the one facing the driver on the front desk (instead of the wall).

172_0005.jpg

(Image from Train Simulator - I couldn't find a good one of a cab with the monitor fitted!)

Clearly then, there is space for a monitor to be fitted, but you'd be hard pressed to fit 2, which based on other *star products is necessary for trains over 8 cars in length - problematic if you're running 10 car trains.
 

Carlisle

Established Member
Joined
26 Aug 2012
Messages
4,122
Which is irrelevant anyway. The climate under which DOO was introduced was entirely different to now. Drivers' money was poor and they knew they could offer enhanced payments to induce acceptance. The sheer number of people involved has shot up and the liabilities have changed - or certainly the perception and attitudes to them. Rationalise the rules so that drivers and passengers clearly know their responsibilities and they could probably have nationwide DOO tomorrow.
I'm sure the level of professionalism expected from today's drivers (and some other grades) is probably much greater than in BR times, and can appreciate a reasonable chunk of the higher wages paid now are justified on the grounds that many incidents which previously resulted in a fairly minor slap on the wrist will now be career threatening / ending
 
Last edited:

tsr

Established Member
Joined
15 Nov 2011
Messages
7,400
Location
Between the parallel lines
In this case, I believe the reference is to the London Overground units which had DOO cameras and an in-cab monitor retrofitted - the DOO monitor being the one facing the driver on the front desk (instead of the wall).

Clearly then, there is space for a monitor to be fitted, but you'd be hard pressed to fit 2, which based on other *star products is necessary for trains over 8 cars in length - problematic if you're running 10 car trains.

I'm not actually saying that 171s will get DOO operation - largely due to the door release controls, which have been incorrectly left out of the report - what I'm saying is that misleading information (beyond what I've posted) may mean they end up being replaced sooner rather than later. My position is that the proposed upgrades in the Gibb report are hasty and not well thought through, and appear to solve a political vice passenger aim. The traction will not last on the line forever, but I'm 100% sure it can last beyond the end of this contract.

Anyway, from a technical point of view...

With the 171s, the /2 and /4 units (ex-Scotrail) have a custom mount on the right side of the desk for the DAS screen (Driver Advisory System*). Curiously, the DAS was not fitted to the left side of the speedo, as with the original /7 and /8 units. There are other cab layout differences but they are mostly smaller, such as the position of the small PIS controller or the engine buttons. But with such a large item being completely moved, such as a big screen now being placed on a separate mount, there has to have been a good reason. The simplest is that there would be different styles of cabs and desk mountings available for a demonstration of where you could put DOO dispatch screens. However, given the 171s are broadly unsuitable, it's unlikely it would actually happen.

* The 171 DAS is flawed and does not appear to have been used for some time...
 

Chrisgr31

Established Member
Joined
2 Aug 2011
Messages
1,675
Gibb is wrong on so much about the Uckfield Line that I unfortunately haven't yet had a moment to completely précis it on this thread or elsewhere. One of the major points which he misrepresented is conductor door release, which is the main flaw with DOO door operation (aside from properly caring for customers in other ways) on 171s. He actually says that they do not have SDO, full stop, which limits flexibility. This, in turn, is used as a partial justification for new stock, so it can pick up passengers from the stations with short platforms between Oxted and East Croydon - and good luck doing that in the peaks anyway, because the trains happen to be full.

His public statement is completely wrong. 171s do have SDO, or rather its Door Deselect cousin, mostly controlled by conductors, and as a result that stock can stop anywhere from Doleham to New Cross Gate to London Bridge, and anywhere in between. On the Uckfield Line, owing to multiple coaches being selected, it has to be done by the conductor from the appropriate intermediate coach. A driver could push the blue button to close the doors and use new monitors to view them, but they couldn't open them in the Metro area, or certain other places, in the event of certain permanent diagrams or out of course stops. Without wiring the doors differently (won't happen!) the conductors must stay. Thus electric trains must be used instead. :roll: Now if only it was that transparent in the first place.

Let's now move onto your question. With appropriate equipment, I have no doubt attempts could be made to introduce DOO dispatch on diesels to Uckfield. Monitors in the cabs nicked from the 172s, or some platform mounted contraption (never mind the RSIs which drivers would get from craning their necks!). The trains still need conductors for other stuff - so mark my words, there'll be a hurry to get rid of trains which need them... unfortunately! And that's how I suspect a new rollout will happen, with new stock and extended DOO the moment a new management contract emerges in a few years, the contracts with the third parties having already been written.

The money will be found when the losses caused by 171 problems becomes conveniently too great to bear, the Southeastern Hastings Line sees a DOO dispute in their next franchise (so passengers transfer back), you name it. Perhaps if Grayling ends the dispute soon, and the passenger numbers bounce back, that'll make it more palatable. And lastly, it should be said that when Uckfield trains are empty going one way, they're full going the other.

It is perhaps related that from next year the 171s will be all stops between Oxted and Uckfield, and only stop at East Croydon between Oxted and London Bridge.

Having been on a 10 car 171 that recently made intermediate stops between East Croydon and Oxted I can report that it caused total chaos with significant numbers of passengers over carried. The big issue being the lack of a gangway to enable passengers (or crew) to get between the units.

The new timetable also brings in additional evening peak trains from London Bridge at 17.3x and 18.3x, which seems to give additional opportunities for the units to break down!
 

otomous

Member
Joined
5 Oct 2011
Messages
444
It is perhaps related that from next year the 171s will be all stops between Oxted and Uckfield, and only stop at East Croydon between Oxted and London Bridge.

Having been on a 10 car 171 that recently made intermediate stops between East Croydon and Oxted I can report that it caused total chaos with significant numbers of passengers over carried. The big issue being the lack of a gangway to enable passengers (or crew) to get between the units.

The new timetable also brings in additional evening peak trains from London Bridge at 17.3x and 18.3x, which seems to give additional opportunities for the units to break down!

December 2018? The provisional timetable I've looked at shows the extra peak services all being run to and from London Bridge rather than Oxted and running fast between East Croydon to Oxted. This means the current shunts at Oxted can't hold up the Grinsteads and presumably strengthens the peak service London Bridge-East Croydon-Oxted.
 

tsr

Established Member
Joined
15 Nov 2011
Messages
7,400
Location
Between the parallel lines
The proposed 2018 timetable is much simplified (and it is amusing that it wouldn't meet a number of Gibb's aspirations, nor his plans to reduce stock movements by stabling trains at Crowborough in future).

Aside from bashing that report, though, I think we should look to the positives. The 2018 timetable for the Uckfield Line has much better consistency in terms of stopping patterns, clockface times and so on, and although the first train of the day from Uckfield is slightly later, everything else should result in better service for the stations south of Oxted.

Work does need to be done to ensure capacity for Sanderstead and Upper Warlingham is retained in the evenings, and there are also some well-used stops at Norwood Junction which might be best re-inserted (even though they account for a lot of the overcrowding, faredodging and antisocial behaviour problems on late-night Uckfield services).

Given the problems with making sure connecting trains are held, and given the huge variations in how many people use them, the current Oxted Shuttles in the evenings (all stations to Uckfield, starting from Oxted Platform 3) are probably best discarded if it somehow turns out that there's space for more trains leaving London Bridge. I thought that was one of the major problems with running more evening peak trains from LBG towards the Oxted area, and I can't see how adding more services will help the smooth running of Thameslink from New Cross Gate to Windmill Bridge, but we shall have to see what happens.
 

radamfi

Established Member
Joined
29 Oct 2009
Messages
9,267
When 377s are used on long standing DOO routes, such as the Brighton line or metro services, does the driver use the on board cameras or the platform monitors/mirrors?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top