Southern DOO: ASLEF members vote 79.1% for revised deal

[pompeyfan]

It was two years ago and the Brighton mainline was flooded. I was sat on a Southern Railway service stuck in Victoria for over an hour. The Guard made one grunt that Gatwick passengers could use the Gatwick Express. Not one apology or any other travel information was given.

Very different to the East Midlands Trains train manager who had advised us on delays, apologised etc. an hour earlier on the MML.

There are no need for guards on Southern Railway.

You can't judge all Southern guards and all EMT guards just by one experience with each TOC. I've received a fair amount of documented good feedback from customers and management for my use of the PA, however it only takes a quick look through twitter to see some colleagues aren't passing on info. Sadly it would appear these colleagues are more London based, and these ones will end up doing the entire metro grade out of a job eventually.

 

[RichardKing]

It was two years ago and the Brighton mainline was flooded. I was sat on a Southern Railway service stuck in Victoria for over an hour. The Guard made one grunt that Gatwick passengers could use the Gatwick Express. Not one apology or any other travel information was given.

Very different to the East Midlands Trains train manager who had advised us on delays, apologised etc. an hour earlier on the MML.

There are no need for guards on Southern Railway.

That's your argument for getting rid of Guards? Wow - I thought Horton's arguments were weak!

 

[Moonshot]

That's your argument for getting rid of Guards? Wow - I thought Horton's arguments were weak!

it is a bit weak, but nonetheless there is a significant issue with some guards and their communication skills. A few weeks ago I happened to be out and about on my own TOCs trains on a day off in Yorkshire.....it was a bit embarrassing to say the least. Some of my colleagues are doing us no favours whatsoever with their attitude.

 

[otomous]

It was two years ago and the Brighton mainline was flooded. I was sat on a Southern Railway service stuck in Victoria for over an hour. The Guard made one grunt that Gatwick passengers could use the Gatwick Express. Not one apology or any other travel information was given.

Very different to the East Midlands Trains train manager who had advised us on delays, apologised etc. an hour earlier on the MML.

There are no need for guards on Southern Railway.

However those trains caught in the flood area might well have benefited from the guard keeping an eye on the passengers while the driver had to talk with the signaller, monitor the flood levels, carry out instructions without having to stop every three seconds to tell passengers there's been no change in the situation since he made an announcement, or waste time talking to them when he could be making a wrong direction movement to get them out of trouble, proceed to rescue passengers from another train etc.

 

[RichardKing]

it is a bit weak, but nonetheless there is a significant issue with some guards and their communication skills. A few weeks ago I happened to be out and about on my own TOCs trains on a day off in Yorkshire.....it was a bit embarrassing to say the least. Some of my colleagues are doing us no favours whatsoever with their attitude.

Appreciated, but you find this in all professions; sadly, some people do let their colleagues down (although, in this case, the OP probably doesn't categorically know that the Guard wasn't dealing with something else at the time, which is highly likely considering the circumstances). The Guard has to get their information from somewhere and, as many who work for/travel with Southern will know, communication between control and staff isn't always good.

 

[Carlisle]

however it only takes a quick look through twitter to see some colleagues aren't passing on info. Sadly it would appear these colleagues are more London based, and these ones will end up doing the entire metro grade out of a job eventually.

its got very little to do with a few rather lazy colleagues, as other posters say unfortunately that exists in many other industries too, its mostly down to new technology and if/when the industry ever has the desire to implement it

 

[pompeyfan]

its got very little to do with a few rather lazy colleagues, as other posters say unfortunately that exists in many other industries too, its mostly down to new technology and if/when the industry ever has the desire to implement it

Okay I take your point on that, but what I'm saying is come colleagues don't help the cause.

 

[otomous]

its got very little to do with a few rather lazy colleagues, as other posters say unfortunately that exists in many other industries too, its mostly down to new technology and if/when the industry ever has the desire to implement it

New tech not much use when you still need a second pair of eyes or a second pair of boots on the ground. There are some things you can't replace easily or entirely successfully.

 

[kw12]

http://www.worthingherald.co.uk/news...pute-1-8080525

Fresh talks called to solve Southern rail dispute

Southern bosses and rail union leaders are due to meet in the next week in an attempt to end a long-running dispute over driver-only trains.

Representatives from both ASLEF and the RMT called off strike action planned for this week to take up an offer of talks made by Transport Secretary Chris Grayling.

Rail operator Govia Thameslink Railway has been embroiled in a protracted dispute with staff over changes across the Southern network which make drivers responsible for opening and closing train doors.

Train drivers’ union ASLEF met GTR bosses last Tuesday (July 25) and are due to reconvene talks tomorrow (Tuesday August 1), while the RMT has a meeting scheduled for next Monday (August 7).

 

[Bromley boy]

When I was on railway overtime I regarded overtime as "live to work,so we could live well in the future". In other words use it for better holidays,a better car.

On the main issue, I am told ASLEF will get their way & trains on the expanded Southern DOO routes will not run with passengers beyond the old DOO routes if they do not have a second member of staff aboard in any circumstance. Not agreed yet, but backed by Grayling.

Many regard this as illogical & a backward step as we must increase traincrew productivity through safe DOO to justify the very high cost of drivers, about £3 for every mile they drive in the south.

Where do you get that figure from, please.

You may have striven for every penny by working every hour God sends, but not everyone wishes to take the same approach - and why should they?! There's more to life than work, especially on these shift patterns. If only the TOCs didn't rely on overtime to meet their service obligations the problem would never arise in the first place.

 

[otomous]

When I was on railway overtime I regarded overtime as "live to work,so we could live well in the future". In other words use it for better holidays,a better car.

On the main issue, I am told ASLEF will get their way & trains on the expanded Southern DOO routes will not run with passengers beyond the old DOO routes if they do not have a second member of staff aboard in any circumstance. Not agreed yet, but backed by Grayling.

Many regard this as illogical & a backward step as we must increase traincrew productivity through safe DOO to justify the very high cost of drivers, about £3 for every mile they drive in the south.

Drivers ARE far more productive than they used to be. Flexible shifts, breaks anywhere there is a PNB point and within limits, at any time of the day, there are plenty of fully DOO trains in the metro areas, far more trains than there used to be, with shorter turnrounds, more time in the chair. However, they cannot be in two places at once, and there is no way they can provide assistance to passengers in any meaningful or satisfactory sense. Particularly to people with reduced mobility. We just about get away with it in the metro area with more visible staff on the platforms but it gets less viable the further from London you get. Someone needs assistance at Berwick? Send someone from Lewes? Or just have a second person on the train anyway? Then that person KNOWS they'll get help. No need to book. And the driver will still be doing dispatch - which in my experience is far more fraught, if for no other reason that it WILL occur far more times a day, unlike some of the extreme events such as fires. So if what you say is true, the DfT has actually got what it wanted - drivers operating doors and a second person providing customer assistance. After all, was that not their stated aim all along - to modernise the railway, freeing the guard to help passengers?

 

[BestWestern]

So if what you say is true, the DfT has actually got what it wanted - drivers operating doors and a second person providing customer assistance. After all, was that not their stated aim all along - to modernise the railway, freeing the guard to help passengers?

The DfT's stated aim was rather different to its actual intended goal though, which was to make the Guard grade irrelevant ready for the DOO push. They don't want a second person, however it would seem if indeed this is true that they might have admitted defeat. Legislation was looking increasingly likely to make the whole unstaffed railway model unworkable anyway, so perhaps the government have finally realised they'd actually have been far better off keeping their mouths shut and hoping nobody pointed out the massive accessibility failings of existing DOO, rather than opening the can of worms by trying to force through even more of it.

 

[Carlisle]

Drivers ARE far more productive than they used to be.

I wouldn't have thought driver productivity has gone up that significantly since the final BR days apart from routes now converted to DOO e.g. C2C or routes formerly requiring 2 drivers over 110 mph e.g. FGW or East Coast. etc.

 

[cjmillsnun]

I wouldn't have thought driver productivity has gone up that significantly since the final BR days apart from routes now converted to DOO e.g. C2C or routes formerly requiring 2 drivers over 110 mph e.g. FGW or East Coast. etc.

More frequent services probably means busier diagrams. Would that not be increased productivity?

 

[Carlisle]

More frequent services probably means busier diagrams. Would that not be increased productivity?

Yes agreed and I'm sure most if not all are more productive in a fair number of ways, but other than changes like the examples I gave I'm fairly certain most of these gains are probably pretty marginal at best in comparison with the significant increase in the cost of employing a driver nowadays, hence the push for things like DOO etc

 

[DT611]

More frequent services probably means busier diagrams. Would that not be increased productivity?

It would be yes.

 

[kw12]

I wouldn't have thought driver productivity has gone up that significantly since the final BR days apart from routes now converted to DOO e.g. C2C or routes formerly requiring 2 drivers over 110 mph e.g. FGW or East Coast. etc.

I wouldn't have thought that a conversion to DOO would, by itself, have any impact on driver productivity. In particular, there would be no difference in terms of the number of miles (booked to be) worked per driver. If a particular number of drivers were needed to operate a specific timetable pre-DOO then precisely the same number of drivers would be needed to operate this timetable with DOO.

 

[Chrisgr31]

If the driver costs £3 a mile what are the other costs per mile and what's the revenue per mile?

 

[tsr]

If you have to increase the workload of the driver, some might argue they are more likely to make errors, be fatigued and/or be less motivated to be proactive, and therefore be less productive at delivering a safe railway. There will also be the same projected number of drivers driving the same number of trains under DOO, bar the now-expected two year dispute when you can expect the passengers to turn up and watch nothing happen, during some of which time the drivers will be paid anyway.

It could be argued that overall staff productivity is rather less under DOO. It is rapidly being found by GTR that people need, expect and will demand assistance on trains on all routes which used to have a guaranteed member of onboard staff - and they are having to now do more and more things to accommodate this perfectly reasonable need, none of which would have been needed if there was still a guard/conductor required to work each train, as there was at the beginning of last year. At the same time, GTR are not only having to employ people on the exact same trains to provide that assistance, but those people are much less productive because they are competent to do a lot less besides that (some of which is required of them on a day-to-day basis, such as dealing with dispatch when the cameras fail - there is, as I type, one of the last trains of the day running 22 minutes late, putting connections at Three Bridges in jeopardy, because the cameras failed at Barnham and the train waited until it was sorted). They are also less productive because morale has fallen through the floor, and those people are effectively standing around doing nothing until they notice a wheelchair on a platform, rather than being empowered to help out.

 

[otomous]

If you have to increase the workload of the driver, some might argue they are more likely to make errors, be fatigued and/or be less motivated to be proactive, and therefore be less productive at delivering a safe railway. There will also be the same projected number of drivers driving the same number of trains under DOO, bar the now-expected two year dispute when you can expect the passengers to turn up and watch nothing happen, during some of which time the drivers will be paid anyway.

It could be argued that overall staff productivity is rather less under DOO. It is rapidly being found by GTR that people need, expect and will demand assistance on trains on all routes which used to have a guaranteed member of onboard staff - and they are having to now do more and more things to accommodate this perfectly reasonable need, none of which would have been needed if there was still a guard/conductor required to work each train, as there was at the beginning of last year. At the same time, GTR are not only having to employ people on the exact same trains to provide that assistance, but those people are much less productive because they are competent to do a lot less besides that (some of which is required of them on a day-to-day basis, such as dealing with dispatch when the cameras fail - there is, as I type, one of the last trains of the day running 22 minutes late, putting connections at Three Bridges in jeopardy, because the cameras failed at Barnham and the train waited until it was sorted). They are also less productive because morale has fallen through the floor, and those people are effectively standing around doing nothing until they notice a wheelchair on a platform, rather than being empowered to help out.

I can confirm that dispatch takes longer during the peaks than it did with a guard also. Aside from the differences in the driver's view and the guard's, who could reposition to obtain a better view of the platform, drivers are now more nervous than they used to be about liability for incidents involving passengers, so often wait until the platform is empty as possible before moving off. Progress.

 

[pompeyfan]

If you have to increase the workload of the driver, some might argue they are more likely to make errors, be fatigued and/or be less motivated to be proactive, and therefore be less productive at delivering a safe railway. There will also be the same projected number of drivers driving the same number of trains under DOO, bar the now-expected two year dispute when you can expect the passengers to turn up and watch nothing happen, during some of which time the drivers will be paid anyway.

It could be argued that overall staff productivity is rather less under DOO. It is rapidly being found by GTR that people need, expect and will demand assistance on trains on all routes which used to have a guaranteed member of onboard staff - and they are having to now do more and more things to accommodate this perfectly reasonable need, none of which would have been needed if there was still a guard/conductor required to work each train, as there was at the beginning of last year. At the same time, GTR are not only having to employ people on the exact same trains to provide that assistance, but those people are much less productive because they are competent to do a lot less besides that (some of which is required of them on a day-to-day basis, such as dealing with dispatch when the cameras fail - there is, as I type, one of the last trains of the day running 22 minutes late, putting connections at Three Bridges in jeopardy, because the cameras failed at Barnham and the train waited until it was sorted). They are also less productive because morale has fallen through the floor, and those people are effectively standing around doing nothing until they notice a wheelchair on a platform, rather than being empowered to help out.

I can confirm that dispatch takes longer during the peaks than it did with a guard also. Aside from the differences in the driver's view and the guard's, who could reposition to obtain a better view of the platform, drivers are now more nervous than they used to be about liability for incidents involving passengers, so often wait until the platform is empty as possible before moving off. Progress.

Please tell us more how great DOO is, and how much more modern and futuristic DOO is. I suppose the argument is you could use £8 an hour agency staff to assist passengers if the safety critical stuff isn't there.

 

[Carlisle]

I suppose the argument is you could use £8 an hour agency staff to assist passengers if the safety critical stuff isn't there.

That's a tad disrespectful to many thousands of workers providing essential services daily in many areas of life , who are either unable or unwilling to simply bring substantial parts of the UKs infrastructure to a near standstill

 

[pompeyfan]

That's a tad disrespectful to many thousands of workers providing essential services daily in many areas of life , who are either unable or unwilling to simply bring substantial parts of the UKs infrastructure to a near standstill

With respect I fail to see how it's disrespectful, if you remove the safety critical aspect, you have a wider range of successful applicants as the screening is not as rigid, which means you can pay less. That could potentially be the attitude of the DfT or any TOC.

I am grateful for my job and realise how lucky I am, however I've made it happen, I've worked for it and it's not been gifted to me in any shape or form.

 

[Carlisle]

With respect I fail to see how it's disrespectful, if you remove the safety critical aspect, you have a wider range of successful applicants as the screening is not as rigid,

In my time on the railway I've seen at least the same number or probably more of the academically gifted recruits become disillusioned/ go long term sick and never return etc etc when compared with the folk that joined off the street with almost no qualifications whatsoever or got promoted from the likes of cleaner etc, but it may be completely different where you work

 

[BestWestern]

That's a tad disrespectful to many thousands of workers providing essential services daily in many areas of life , who are either unable or unwilling to simply bring substantial parts of the UKs infrastructure to a near standstill

Ah yes, those many thousands of agency workers on appalling terms and conditions, with no job security, no chance of securing a mortgage or decent credit, and in many cases taking home pittance. The Tory model for the ideal society. Support it yourself, do you?

 

[pompeyfan]

In my time on the railway I've seen at least the same number or probably more of the academically gifted recruits become disillusioned/ go long term sick and never return etc etc when compared with the folk that joined off the street with almost no qualifications whatsoever or got promoted from the likes of cleaner etc, but it may be completely different where you work

Where I work the turnover at my depot is non existent, apart from natural wastage or progression to driver.

I agree that the role isn't after academic people, it's far from it, but there needs to be a basic competency and attitude which means the job commands the money and restrictions it does. By the way I'm not saying other jobs don't deserve more money, my old industry was massively over worked and under paid, but apparently there's not enough money in the industry to sustain it.

 

[the sniper]

I wouldn't have thought that a conversion to DOO would, by itself, have any impact on driver productivity. In particular, there would be no difference in terms of the number of miles (booked to be) worked per driver. If a particular number of drivers were needed to operate a specific timetable pre-DOO then precisely the same number of drivers would be needed to operate this timetable with DOO.

If anything there'll be a definite reduction in 'productivity' if measured by the number of miles driven in a shift. Since even the end of BR times Driver diagrams where I am have been massively tightened up over the years. Now if DOO is introduced the Driver would have to become responsible for disposing of stock for ECS. A Guard can be given up to 8 minutes on a diagram to dispose and lock up longer trains, while the Driver is free on arrival. A number of Driver diagrams I know of are tight enough that they couldn't accommodate this extra time allowance, so something would have to give. It's not a big thing, but it wouldn't help the cause of driving productivity on diagrams.

A more significant factor would probably be though that if DOO were introduced where I am, I can't see it being done without the company surrendering to ALSEF more significant changes that would reduce Driver productivity overall. For example, a reduction in turn lengths, a reduction in the hours worked in the week, greater restrictions on maximum driving hours, greater limitations on hours spent on certain more intensive routes, increased PNB duration, ect.

 

[otomous]

That's a tad disrespectful to many thousands of workers providing essential services daily in many areas of life , who are either unable or unwilling to simply bring substantial parts of the UKs infrastructure to a near standstill

Ignoring your inevitable anti traincrew barb, that is the labour market reality. Agency staff without PTS, route knowledge, rule book knowledge who are quickly trained won't attract high renmeration. It's not disrespectful.

 

[otomous]

If anything there'll be a definite reduction in 'productivity' if measured by the number of miles driven in a shift. Since even the end of BR times Driver diagrams where I am have been massively tightened up over the years. Now if DOO is introduced the Driver would have to become responsible for disposing of stock for ECS. A Guard can be given up to 8 minutes on a diagram to dispose and lock up longer trains, while the Driver is free on arrival. A number of Driver diagrams I know of are tight enough that they couldn't accommodate this extra time allowance, so something would have to give. It's not a big thing, but it wouldn't help the cause of driving productivity on diagrams.

A more significant factor would probably be though that if DOO were introduced where I am, I can't see it being done without the company surrendering to ALSEF more significant changes that would reduce Driver productivity overall. For example, a reduction in turn lengths, a reduction in the hours worked in the week, greater restrictions on maximum driving hours, greater limitations on hours spent on certain more intensive routes, increased PNB duration, ect.

Sadly as we've seen the DFT will force it through if they get it into their head regardless of the unintended consequences that they don't seem to understand. Southern drivers already do some ECS stock disposal and even the inevitable assaults and drunks appear to make no difference.

 

[Carlisle]

I wouldn't have thought that a conversion to DOO would, by itself, have any impact on driver productivity. In particular, there would be no difference in terms of the number of miles (booked to be) worked per driver. If a particular number of drivers were needed to operate a specific timetable pre-DOO then precisely the same number of drivers would be needed to operate this timetable with DOO.

Very true on all those points but I assume they'd say a DOO driver is more productive than one that can only operate trains in passenger service with a minimum of a 2 person crew