Southern DOO: ASLEF members vote 79.1% for revised deal

[HowardGWR]

So we have ASLEF telling their Thamelink drivers of 12 car DDO trains to work normally, and those Southern drivers on the same lines to refuse and strike .... you can not believe it ... sounds more like something from a sitcom than real life .... but ASLEF your actions are not part of a comedy ... they are affecting very real lives.

Id DDO a typo (again)?

Otherwise, if you meant DOO, the QED of this dispute.

 

[Fincra5]

I don't have to imagine, with practical experience with DOO across quite a wide area of the network. and no vested interests as I've now left.


Why it's safe:

• It already happens: GWT, C2C, Chiltern, Southern, Scotrail and so on. The Underground has a form of it. Billions of people have been carried since it was first used in the early 80s, we have actual data. This is why RSBB and the ORR can conclude it's safe and prove it. It happens in other countries too.
  
• We have one of the safest railways in Europe
  
• The chances of anything happening is remote on passenger/train interface, very remote, not far off one in a BILLION. Even so, that has to be offset against risks splitting dispatch: Reaction times and so-called ding ding and away and you still get trap and drag. Anti-DOO people neatly side-step the death involving guard operation in Merseyside.
  
• GSMR/CSR is still better than the alternatives: SPTs, flags and dets. TCB (a prerequisite) is better than Absolute block.
  
• My experience tells me so: I've worked at many locations using it across a wide area of this country, never was there any concern again, nor were there's mishaps. In fact, I stopped two major mishaps using the system because the trains involved had radio.
  
• Money is better put into other things that pose more of a hazard on the railway: Level crossings are one example, securing earthworks is another. Off the railway there's countless better ways to save lives.

But its not AS safe as guard operation. The stats alone of Trap and Drag (those reported) speak for themselves given the majority have been DOO.

There are also cases of drivers awaiting trails for some incidents relating to trap and drag incidents.

This whole thing was for DOO on TLK services - those including the peak out of Littlehampton and Horsham but SN seem to have wanted to take it further. Why is that?

The big issues are the cameras on 377's are outdated. They aren't live, they are stills that are around 2 seconds delayed. They turn off as soon as power is taken (thats often confused by the media and they say they stay on). The safety standards for DOO on the extention routes hasn't been met but its being pushed through by GTR regardless.

People saying about booking 24hrs in advance for assistance. They shouldn't have to! There should be a member of staff on every train or a member for station staff at every station (like LOROL) to assist passengers who require it. Its very backwards to think accessibility rights were fought for and now they're being forgotten about.

 

[Barn]

Southern aren't getting any class 700s and most newer Electrostars already operate mostly on the long established entirely DOO metro routes anyway, maybe an agreement could be reached to upgrade the class 377 cctv system

Nope but will there be transfers of staff between Southern and Thameslink come the 2018 timetable?

Upgrade of the CCTV system would be a sensible compromise.

 

[highdyke]

As I said anti-DOO like Fincra5 neatly side-step the issues in Merseyside and don't include risks involving ding-ding and away (That is starting against a red signal) which can also land you with a record or cause a death. As for booking in advance if you are disabled, they are advised to now on all TOCs, guard or no guard.

 

[Fincra5]

So we have ASLEF telling their Thamelink drivers of 12 car DDO trains to work normally, and those Southern drivers on the same lines to refuse and strike .... you can not believe it ... sounds more like something from a sitcom than real life .... but ASLEF your actions are not part of a comedy ... they are affecting very real lives.

Thameslink DOO was exploited from an initial agreement on Great Northern side to run 1 service as 12car calling at manned stations. SO you can see why staff are sceptical about DOO extension and TOC promises around it.

Also GTR (on behalf of the DFT) want to roll out DOO on routes that haven't ever operated DOO(P). I'm excluding the mainline as 10 car DOO was already agreed.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

As I said anti-DOO neatly side-step the issues in Merseyside and don't include risks involving ding-ding and away (That is starting against a red signal).

Well aware of that incident. But its still occurs less than DOO PTI issues.

 

[Barn]

People saying about booking 24hrs in advance for assistance. They shouldn't have to! There should be a member of staff on every train or a member for station staff at every station (like LOROL) to assist passengers who require it. Its very backwards to think accessibility rights were fought for and now they're being forgotten about.

I don't really get this argument.

At the moment, with guards:

- if the guard is present, a disabled person can receive assistance boarding the train.
- if the guard is not present, the train does not operate and the disabled person is left on the platform waiting.

With the new OBS role:

- if the OBS is present, a disabled person can receive assistance boarding the train.
- if the OBS is not present, the disabled person may be left on the platform waiting. Whilst this is clearly unacceptable, this does not actually appear to be a worse position in absolute terms than the position with guards, where a staff absence would have caused the disabled person to have to wait anyway.

The disabled person assistance argument would be very valid if/when a proposal is made to scrap the OBS role, but that has not been announced (indeed there is a five year guarantee in place).

Lots of people appear to have conflated the move to DOO as involving single-manning. That is not the proposal at all.

 

[highdyke]

Well aware of that incident. But its still occurs less than DOO PTI issues.

YES but you have to NORMALISE that data against other risks! Do you understand what that means?

 

[Barn]

But its still occurs less than DOO PTI issues.

You need to measure this by looking at incidents per use of passenger doors, not per train. The "incidents happen more often on DOO trains" argument ignores the fact that DOO trains disproportionately operate on very busy metro networks. You may be right, but come back when you have a meaningful statistic to cite.

 

[Fincra5]

I don't really get this argument.

At the moment, with guards:

- if the guard is present, a disabled person can receive assistance boarding the train.
- if the guard is not present, the train does not operate and the disabled person is left on the platform waiting.

With the new OBS role:

- if the OBS is present, a disabled person can receive assistance boarding the train.
- if the OBS is not present, the disabled person may be left on the platform waiting. Whilst this is clearly unacceptable, this does not actually appear to be a worse position in absolute terms than the position with guards, where a staff absence would have caused the disabled person to have to wait anyway.

The disabled person assistance argument would be very valid if/when a proposal is made to scrap the OBS role, but that has not been announced (indeed there is a five year guarantee in place).

Lots of people appear to have conflated the move to DOO as involving single-manning. That is not the proposal at all.

The issue is the longevity of the roll. A lot of OBS contracts have been given "reviews" throughout the year (after introduction) and some are only being taken on for a 12 month contract.

So i'm sure you can appreciate why staff might be sceptical about the roll.

I've said before that a lot of crew issues could be sorted/ lessened if diagramming was sorted out. There are far too many cases of trains changing several crews throughout a journey. Crews working at one end of the network only to try and get to the other end later on.
SN also have dire turn around times at terminal stations. This does not allow any real service recovery.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

You need to measure this by looking at incidents per use of passenger doors, not per train. The "incidents happen more often on DOO trains" argument ignores the fact that DOO trains disproportionately operate on very busy metro networks. You may be right, but come back when you have a meaningful statistic to cite.

Thank you for your input. Why don't you prove that this isn't an issue compared to Non-DOO(P) trains of that is your reply?

 

[87015]

Quick question on the on-board cameras, are they really viewed as worse than mirrors / cameras - or even 'look-back' dispatch that I think still applies (to 455s) at some SN Metro locations? If so, how/has has the agreement for 387 on c2c been reached in recent months - do they use the mirrors / cameras?

 

[chris11256]

Quick question on the on-board cameras, are they really viewed as worse than mirrors / cameras - or even 'look-back' dispatch that I think still applies (to 455s) at some SN Metro locations? If so, how has the agreement for 387 on c2c been reached in recent months - do they use the mirrors / cameras?

AFAIK the c2c 387s are currently run with Guards. As c2c's 12 carriage DOO still hasn't happened yet.

 

[Fincra5]

AFAIK the c2c 387s are currently run with Guards. As c2c's 12 carriage DOO still hasn't happened yet.

Not only that 387 cameras are far updated from the cameras/ tech on 377s (Which dates from the early 2000s).

Hence why you see the Gatwick Express 387 cameras being shown by the media.

But they also turn off as soon as you take power (etc)

 

[ANorthernGuard]

https://medium.com/@xciv/southern-r...y-misleads-passengers-1371dd775ab0#.wk03qqym8

A very interesting read

 

[wfrank]

https://medium.com/@xciv/southern-r...y-misleads-passengers-1371dd775ab0#.wk03qqym8

A very interesting read

The document you attach is so detailed that it can only have been written by a guard or the union. What ordinary member of the public,which the anonymous auther says he is,would know a guard training time for example. Read it & you will spot many other things that no ordinary commuter would know. Then you can judge where it come from & why it has been posted.

 

[Tetchytyke]

The document you attach is so detailed that it can only have been written by a guard or the union.

Or an IT professional in London who goes by the name Paul?

 

[AlterEgo]

BBC News 24 carrying a scrolling banner at the bottom of the screen saying the dispute is about who gets to close the doors!

When will unions play the PR game?

 

[a_c_skinner]

But is it incorrect?

Tangentially we are told DOO is 30% of the network, but what % of journeys, what % of persons boarding is it?

Andrew

 

[dgl]

With the disabled passenger boarding issue, with trains where guards HAVE to be on to run the train then a disabled passenger can go to the station knowing that they will be able to board ANY train that comes along at ANY time of the day.

With the OBS role there is always the risk that an OBS may not be present and therefore they would have to plan the journey much longer in advance to make sure there will be a member of staff to get them on and off the train. This could severely affect the working life of a disabled commuter and could mean that on days where there is disruption and there are not extra members of staff to get them on/off trains they may not be able to travel. This simply should not be able to happen in this day and age.

And again it is not about who closes the doors. it is who is there to make sure the train is safely dispatched, to allow the driver to be able to drive without other distractions/worries and for there to be a trained member of staff so if the train does hot something on the track (like a tractor, shopping trolley, hanging concrete block etc.) and the driver is injured there is someone who knows what to do, can evacuate the train if necessary and who can contact the relevent authorities which the layman can't do.

 

[a_c_skinner]

But is it incorrect?

Tangentially we are told DOO is 30% of the network, but what % of journeys, what % of persons boarding is it?

Andrew

 

[Tetchytyke]

I read a report the other day that 99% of Southern Guards have signed the new OBS contract?

Is it really the case that they don't believe in their stance that much, they are not prepared to stand by their cause, and acted in self-interest to make sure they protect their employment status whilst ruining that of their passengers. Hypocrites if this is the case.

They signed the contracts under duress because, under employment legislation, they didn't really have much choice. Yes, they were "protecting their employment status", as they would very easily have been deemed to have dismissed themselves if they did not do so. Of course they would take this choice.

I'm unsure why this makes them "hypocrites"?

Lots of people appear to have conflated the move to DOO as involving single-manning. That is not the proposal at all

It boils down to whether you take these "guarantees" at face value or not. The RMT don't think they're worth the paper they're written on. ASLEF- who had written guarantees about DOO(P) at Gatwick Express shown undeniably to be worthless by the High Court in the summer- know for certain they're not worth the paper they're written on.

If there are any OBS staff left in five years, I'll eat my hat. As I've said all the way through, the business case for the change only works if there are significant staff reductions. Keeping the guards as OBS on the same trains on the same wages changes nada, other than the pocket money of spare cover.

I don't agree with DOO(P) because I don't think it is safe. Ironically, I think driverless automated trains with manual door control are safer than DOO(P). I don't think the safety cuts are justified by the cost savings. YMMV.

The "Reagan solution" will work with the guards. It already has worked with the guards. But it's less likely to work with drivers. No driver, no train. Which is why the ad-hominem attacks on the RMT have now switched to ASLEF; the RMT are beaten so now ASLEF are the "luddites" who are "standing in the way of modernisation and progress" with their "1970s trade unionism".

 

[Barn]

The "Reagan solution" will work with the guards. It already has worked with the guards. But it's less likely to work with drivers. No driver, no train.

I actually have some fear that the plan to end the strike action (if it goes on too much longer) may be to withdraw the OBS role and sack those workers. Then what would drivers be striking for? They couldn't expect a second crew member any time soon because there simply wouldn't be any on the books. If they planned to strike until guards were re-hired they could be striking for a very long time and lose significant amounts of pay.

 

[tsr]

The document you attach is so detailed that it can only have been written by a guard or the union. What ordinary member of the public,which the anonymous auther says he is,would know a guard training time for example. Read it & you will spot many other things that no ordinary commuter would know. Then you can judge where it come from & why it has been posted.

Not necessarily so. In fact I can immediately spot a couple of errors which, to be honest, the types of train crew who would write an article reasoned in this way would not make. For the content which is factual (from what I can see, the overwhelming majority) I can see nothing in that article which cannot already be read online or found by speaking to crew on a casual basis, say (for example) out of curiosity.

That said, they are minor errors when it comes to the flow of the argument. I suggest it is generally constructed well, and shows just how much information passengers can glean about the dispute and its origins, thus basically refuting any attempts at opaque communications by GTR, the DfT or the unions.

 

[Fincra5]

I actually have some fear that the plan to end the strike action (if it goes on too much longer) may be to withdraw the OBS role and sack those workers. Then what would drivers be striking for? They couldn't expect a second crew member any time soon because there simply wouldn't be any on the books. If they planned to strike until guards were re-hired they could be striking for a very long time and lose significant amounts of pay.

But then the GTR argument that, there will be someone on every train that currently has a guard will have someone "safety" trained on-board, will be voided and then it looks as if they're shafting people who require assistance completely. So i very much doubt that.

The DOO services required, from the ITT, are those on TLK that operate through the core. Not SN services.. so why have GTR decided to try and force in DOO on SN services (operated by older 377s not 700s). SO there is a fairly simple solution to the issues.

 

[Barn]

With the disabled passenger boarding issue, with trains where guards HAVE to be on to run the train then a disabled passenger can go to the station knowing that they will be able to board ANY train that comes along at ANY time of the day.

With the OBS role there is always the risk that an OBS may not be present and therefore they would have to plan the journey much longer in advance to make sure there will be a member of staff to get them on and off the train.

But an OBS should only be absent in the circumstances where a guard would also be absent (and if the RMT were engaging properly they could get these circumstances set out clearly in a written agreement). If a guard were absent, the train wouldn't be there at all. So the position of the disabled passenger in absolute terms would be no worse.

Admittedly, one difference is that the no-guard service should be described as "Cancelled" on the planners so perhaps the disabled person could see this further in advance if they were travelling from an intermediate station. One solution could be to make sure all journey planners indicate whether or not an OBS is on-board. Realtimetrains seems to have this functionality already, although I'm not sure exactly how or when this data is uploaded.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

But then the GTR argument that, there will be someone on every train that currently has a guard will have someone "safety" trained on-board, will be voided

If they had offered that then perhaps we wouldn't have a dispute right now. I think they have always said that one of the main reasons for the change is to avoid cancellations for unplanned absence of the second crew member.

 

[Fincra5]

But an OBS should only be absent in the circumstances where a guard would also be absent (and if the RMT were engaging properly they could get these circumstances set out clearly in a written agreement). If a guard were absent, the train wouldn't be there at all. So the position of the disabled passenger in absolute terms would be no worse.

Admittedly, one difference is that the no-guard service should be described as "Cancelled" on the planners so perhaps the disabled person could see this further in advance if they were travelling from an intermediate station. One solution could be to make sure all journey planners indicate whether or not an OBS is on-board. Realtimetrains seems to have this functionality already, although I'm not sure exactly how or when this data is uploaded.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


If they had offered that then perhaps we wouldn't have a dispute right now. I think they have always said that one of the main reasons for the change is to avoid cancellations for unplanned absence of the second crew member.

That is what it is.. but they're seeking to impose it, against the safety agreements in place and without agreement.

As i've said.. a better planning department creating better diagrams (rather than a computer) would solve a lot of issues.

 

[highdyke]

The "Reagan solution" will work with the guards. It already has worked with the guards. But it's less likely to work with drivers. No driver, no train. .

And where else are these drivers going to get jobs? BTW I don't want them to sack them and re-employ them, I think they should come to a sensible agreement...but if push comes to shove, their needs have to be balanced against other people's needs and rights.

 

[Tetchytyke]

But an OBS should only be absent in the circumstances where a guard would also be absent (and if the RMT were engaging properly they could get these circumstances set out clearly in a written agreement).

The RMT have been negotiating- repeatedly- for this. This was the agreement they reached with the Ticket Examiners in Strathclyde to resolve the issues at Scotrail.

GTR have said no at every stage. I wonder why that might be?

You are making the mistake that lots of other people are making on this thread: that GTR are willing to negotiate and the RMT are being intransigent. The truth is the exact opposite.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

And where else are these drivers going to get jobs? BTW I don't want them to sack them and re-employ them, I think they should come to a sensible agreement

Reagan's solution to the air traffic dispute worked because he had ex-military air traffic controllers who were happy to scab. Murdoch's solution to Wapping worked because he had a docile puppet trade union who were happy to scab.

The question isn't whether these drivers can find another job (the answer will be yes), the question is whether GTR can find new drivers to replace them. Sacking all the drivers is only an option if you have scab labour ready and willing to replace them.

 

[Deepgreen]

But then the GTR argument that, there will be someone on every train that currently has a guard will have someone "safety" trained on-board, will be voided and then it looks as if they're shafting people who require assistance completely. So i very much doubt that.

The DOO services required, from the ITT, are those on TLK that operate through the core. Not SN services.. so why have GTR decided to try and force in DOO on SN services (operated by older 377s not 700s). SO there is a fairly simple solution to the issues.

That is not what they have said - they state that "where possible" trains will carry an OBS, but in "some cases" trains may have to run without them. This is so vague as to invite derision as it sets no concrete safety standard at all.

 

[Tetchytyke]

That is not what they have said - they state that "where possible" trains will carry an OBS, but in "some cases" trains may have to run without them. This is so vague as to invite derision as it sets no concrete safety standard at all.

The wording is almost identical, in fact, to the assurances that ASLEF had about only running DOO on GatEx with 10-car and above in extremis. As we know, the High Court were unequivocal in the summer in stating that these assurances were totally worthless.

 

[Fincra5]

That is not what they have said - they state that "where possible" trains will carry an OBS, but in "some cases" trains may have to run without them. This is so vague as to invite derision as it sets no concrete safety standard at all.

Thats the worry. The circumstances aren't set in stone. Open to abuse...