backontrack
Established Member
ASLEF seems OK with drivers closing doors and deciding when to start ...
ASLEF is a driver's union, whereas guards are members of RMT.
ASLEF seems OK with drivers closing doors and deciding when to start ...
ASLEF is a driver's union, whereas guards are members of RMT.
Ironically, this being the case is quite possibly going to motivate ATW to go for more DOO, not less. Once you roll it out throughout the network as a "big bang", the guards can strike all they like, but the trains will still run.
That's essentially what happened on Southern. The guards have lost. It's only a matter of time before they give up, and then the OBSs will quietly go away, probably by way of natural wastage, and nobody will notice.
Logically, to me, on ATW, the Valley Lines should be DOO with "tram conductors" (who are responsible only for passenger care and ticket sales/checking, not operational matters - so a bit like OBS), or even "full DOO" with TVMs and PFs, and the rest of it probably not, though the "tram conductor" idea but safety trained could well speed operations up. (The sluggishness of UK regional rail operation compared with the speediness of Swiss operation using the new FLIRTs is very noticeable).
I believe that is the case on HS1, which is driver only operated but I believe there must be a second person (an OBM in this case) for safety reasons. This is all covered in previous threads (a Google search will probably find it)
Indeed I believe this is to do with evacuation of passengers onto HS1.
This is unusual in that, although the OBM is non-safety critical (at least in normal circumstances), they must be present for the service to run.
Clearly this is a totally different kettle of fish to the usual DOO situation, and the concerns that DOO + optional OBS is the thin end of the wedge leading to complete removal of the second person. This cannot happen on HS1.
Posters on here previously have explained the HS1 rule book stated a second staff imember is only mandatory on the rear portion when of a double set but as a compromise with the RMT Southeastern agreed on introduction not to run any Javelins single manned .
I can see why the RMT want to make hay while the sun shines. Once the next operator has been chosen and the franchise agreement has been signed, it's way too late to stop DOO.
It's very well possible that the next operator of the Wales and Borders franchise decides to replace the fleet with new trains. This would make it easier to introduce DOO.
The question is, do the people in Wales (esp. in Valley Lines area) care enough? Or would they be happy with a London Overground like model, with trains running DOO and the stations being staffed throughout the day?
Interesting.
I knew there was (and may still be) a similar requirement for Eurostars running through the channel tunnel itself. When transiting the tunnel a train manager would sit in the rear cab and was capable of driving the rear half of the train out of the tunnel wrong direction (the sets being effectively two separate trains coupled together that could be split in an emergency).
Not sure about domestic ops limited to HS1 but, as I say, I understood there was such a requirement due to evacuation requirements. This would make sense when linespeed is approx. 190mph!!!
I presume you've found a solution to the lack of space on the drivers side of Class 158's to fit cctv monitors?
Platform monitors.
That's never going to happen. All DfT documents now refer to DOO expansion as requiring no adjustments to station technical infrastructure with the exception of lighting, with all equipment to be carried on trains.
The 158 operated core routes are unlikely to ever become DOO in the true sense regardless of stock given their service styles and locations (long distance, next to no manned stations, lots of tourist traffic). There's plenty of routes of that ilk where the station based staffing is never going to return having been destroyed decades ago and with a suitably sparse service having a double manned train is far more efficent. The day somewhere like Tonfanau got DOO monitors I'd eat my hat. I think unfolding mirrors are actually more likely that sort of change and I don't think they're that likely either.
If you really wanted to go to town on DOO you'd just move the rolling stock around.
GTR said they didn't want to talk to both parties at the same time. So unless GTR changed their possible entrenched view on this point, it wouldn't have happened.RMT's intrasigent position has been their downfall in my opinion. They could have got round the table with GTR and ASLEF to discuss a way forward before this dispute even started.
Sorry but you can't guarantee a job for life in this day. Please don't say about joining the race to the bottom. A £30k a year job guaranteed till 2021/2022 is hardly racing to the bottom.
I perhaps should have expanded. I'd eat my hat too if such places got monitors, I was intending to suggest there is way around most 'obstacles'.
With specific regards to the Valley Line trains - how many carriages are they? Two or four? Some stations with straight platforms or inward an curve would be suitable for a 'look back' out the drivers window, others could utilise an inexpensive mirror.
But, given as you say most of these stations are unstaffed, I'd wager a second person on board remaining for quite some time.
So apparently to 'improve safety at the platform train interface' - after reducing safety at the PTI by imposing DOO - glow in the dark platform edge lighting has been introduced on Platforms 1/2 at East Croydon.
It's an imported idea from metro systems worldwide, apparently; doubtless much back-slapping and self-congratulation will ensue from whichever middle managers thought this up.
So apparently to 'improve safety at the platform train interface' - after reducing safety at the PTI by imposing DOO - glow in the dark platform edge lighting has been introduced on Platforms 1/2 at East Croydon.
It's an imported idea from metro systems worldwide, apparently; doubtless much back-slapping and self-congratulation will ensue from whichever middle managers thought this up.
Sounds like a sensible idea anyway. It seems a bit odd to be critical of a new safety feature.
It seems a bit odd to get rid of one safety feature have nothing in its place and then eventually replace the first safety feature with another but inferior safety feature.
So apparently to 'improve safety at the platform train interface' - after reducing safety at the PTI by imposing DOO - glow in the dark platform edge lighting has been introduced on Platforms 1/2 at East Croydon.
It's an imported idea from metro systems worldwide, apparently; doubtless much back-slapping and self-congratulation will ensue from whichever middle managers thought this up.
It was a system installed at certain stations on the original south central and south west DOO schemes instead of mirrors, or monitors when they were set up during the late 80s, obviously the SW never begun operation, and technology had progressed to CD/RA on BRs later DOO schemes such as networkers etc .Why do some stations have ra indicators but no cd indicator requiring a hybrid method of dispatch?
Reports ASLEF have made a concession in negotiations with GTR and so a deal is close to being finalised, course any deal could end up being rejected by members again.