Southern DOO: ASLEF members vote 79.1% for revised deal

[highdyke]

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.

Where? They are only worth that cash at another TOC...All drivers will not move house or have the opportunity to go elsewhere. The Guards are the same, which is why most of them signed up to OBS.

 

[Class377/5]

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.

Because the TSGN franchise requires DOO to work Croydon to Horsham plus via Redhill and Preston Park to Littlehampton via Hove to be extended along with Arun Valley for diverted Littlehampton TL services (so offers up alternatives like today).

Worth noting the Unions have agree to 12 car TL working on BML from Victoria (in disprution its the Brighton service alternative location and night services often run via Clapham Junction), Blackfriars and London Bridge to Brighton including via Lewes.

For passengers point of view why can't this be applied to Southern services? Failure of Unions to address this point in a meaningful way is damaging the Unions case with passengers as Unions think its fine for one set of drivers!

 

[Tetchytyke]

Where? They are only worth that cash at another TOC.

Drivers are a scarce resource at most TOCs and FOCs.

I notice you evade the actual point though, in that a TOC that sacks all its drivers won't be able to run any trains, which prevents them pulling a Reagan or a Murdoch.

 

[dgl]

The problem is if a disabled person is waiting then they should be able to board (unless the space is already taken up by other disabled people) any train that arrives, they should not have to be made to wit until a train comes along that has a member if staff available to allow them to board. For a disabled person a train that runs anyway but has no member of staff on board is a much use as a train that doesn't run. If trains do not need an extra member of staff then during disruption will they rush to get an extra member of staff on board or just no bother. This is the real problem.

 

[Tetchytyke]

The problem is if a disabled person is waiting then they should be able to board (unless the space is already taken up by other disabled people) any train that arrives, they should not have to be made to wit until a train comes along that has a member if staff available to allow them to board.

The disability issue is overstated, as a few Harrington humps and/or rebuilt platforms will solve most of the issues. The Tyne and Wear Metro has level boarding on to the trains, so disabled people don't need a ramp or a member of staff. And, let's be honest, that would be the gold standard for assistance, being able to do it yourself.

 

[AlterEgo]

The problem is if a disabled person is waiting then they should be able to board (unless the space is already taken up by other disabled people) any train that arrives

That does not seem to be a requirement under law, as disabled passengers are advised to book assistance 24 hours ahead.

Also, the train will never arrive anyway if the guard is sick. Then what?

 

[Fincra5]

Because the TSGN franchise requires DOO to work Croydon to Horsham plus via Redhill and Preston Park to Littlehampton via Hove to be extended along with Arun Valley for diverted Littlehampton TL services (so offers up alternatives like today).

Worth noting the Unions have agree to 12 car TL working on BML from Victoria (in disprution its the Brighton service alternative location and night services often run via Clapham Junction), Blackfriars and London Bridge to Brighton including via Lewes.

For passengers point of view why can't this be applied to Southern services? Failure of Unions to address this point in a meaningful way is damaging the Unions case with passengers as Unions think its fine for one set of drivers!

But why offer it on SN when GTR must have known there would be an uprising against such implementation. Especially when its only TLK trains via the Core than the dft required to be DOO.

I feel its be badly handled by GTR who from the outset seem not to have been transparent with staff and tried to bully its position.

 

[ainsworth74]

That does not seem to be a requirement under law, as disabled passengers are advised to book assistance 24 hours ahead.

Isn't it? I don't think anyone has tested it in court yet have they? That would seem to be the moment we'll find out for sure. I do have my suspicions that requiring people to book assistance 24 hours ahead may not be seen to be a 'reasonable' adjustment. But I'm not a lawyer!

For passengers point of view why can't this be applied to Southern services? Failure of Unions to address this point in a meaningful way is damaging the Unions case with passengers as Unions think its fine for one set of drivers!

The ASLEF rep on BBC Breakfast did address this point this morning but not in a very strong manner. He made the point that ASLEF wanted DOO rolled back and as far as they were concerned it wasn't appropriate anywhere hence why they were fighting to prevent it being extended. But the point was not forcefully put and was lost in the middle of the discussion with the interviewer.

 

[DarloRich]

That does not seem to be a requirement under law, as disabled passengers are advised to book assistance 24 hours ahead.

That is a railway company requirement.

I doubt it would be acceptable if Tesco insisted each disabled shopper gave 24 hours notice to visit their store. It hasn't been tested in court yet but I am sure someone will in due course.

 

[Barn]

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.

No, the RMT have been pressing for a situation in which the absence of the second crew member would have meant cancellation. A compromise position would have been to allow trains to run but regulate the circumstances in which this could happen.

 

[KTHV]

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.

Haven't they already thought of this? Remember seeing somewhere they'd have totally new drivers out there on 3 weeks worth of training...

 

[Deepgreen]

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.

The devil is in the detail - the issue here, rightly or wrongly, is that GTR want to be able to run trains without the second crew member where 'necessary'. 'Necessary' could mean almost any circumstances, and is clearly not binding enough to be able to conclude any sort of negotations.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

No, the RMT have been pressing for a situation in which the absence of the second crew member would have meant cancellation. A compromise position would have been to allow trains to run but regulate the circumstances in which this could happen.

In the eyes of the union(s) this would mean agreeing to what they state is a not-safe-enough working regime and would undermine their case completely. What sort of circumstances would be feasible here? Passengers being carried on single-crewed trains where this does not currently occur (i.e. DOO extension) is exactly what we are told is the issue.

 

[Barn]

The devil is in the detail - the issue here, rightly or wrongly, is that GTR want to be able to run trains without the second crew member where 'necessary'. 'Necessary' could mean almost any circumstances, and is clearly not binding enough to be able to conclude any sort of negotations.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


In the eyes of the union(s) this would mean agreeing to what they state is a not-safe-enough working regime and would undermine their case completely. What sort of circumstances would be feasible here? Passengers being carried on single-crewed trains where this does not currently occur (i.e. DOO extension) is exactly what we are told is the issue.

Indeed - hence the dispute. If I were the RMT I would want to see a commitment to maintain (or increase) the number of OBSs so that the 'necessary' argument cannot be used because staffing levels have been decreased. Perhaps they could also have tried to insist that every train must be rostered with a named OBS a certain number of days in advance so that it is only if that named staff member is absent that the train can run DOO, not because it hasn't proved possible to roster somebody.

 

[AlterEgo]

That is a railway company requirement.

I doubt it would be acceptable if Tesco insisted each disabled shopper gave 24 hours notice to visit their store. It hasn't been tested in court yet but I am sure someone will in due course.

I have been waiting for the test case about this which seemed inevitable in its coming, yet no such joy yet.

I am sure it will be tested soon though. There might be fireworks.

 

[DriverXYD]

I would think that the Disabilities act would void any companies claim for advance notice & quite rightly so.

 

[DT611]

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 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 are countless better ways to save lives.

It happening and supposibly no major incidint happening yet isn't proof that it's safe. It's only proof they have been able to get away with using this old method from a railway believed to be in decline and which had to penny pinch where possible. However, for a modern growing railway, it's no longer sustainible. Like i said before, this is no doubt about trying to bring down union membership and nothing more. We have all ready established that if DFT-GTR are telling the truth (unlikely) and that the jobs aren't going then they're will be nothing saved dispite the government throwing money at the problem. We have all ready established that the jobs will in fact go. We have all ready established the majority of incidents dealt with involve doo trains. And they're is more where that came from.

 

[wingsoveryorks]

If you ask the drivers why they don't want DOO, you find pretty unanimously that they are worried about the blame culture should anything happen. When DOO was born we didn't have that culture, now we do, and it is worrying.

 

[Robertj21a]

Indeed - hence the dispute. If I were the RMT I would want to see a commitment to maintain (or increase) the number of OBSs so that the 'necessary' argument cannot be used because staffing levels have been decreased. Perhaps they could also have tried to insist that every train must be rostered with a named OBS a certain number of days in advance so that it is only if that named staff member is absent that the train can run DOO, not because it hasn't proved possible to roster somebody.

I assume the number of OBS positions is now actually increasing as they have taken on some new people from outside the industry. It may well be that, at present, they are only replacing guards who have now decided to leave, but at least they can evidence that recruitment is under way.

 

[DT611]

Haven't they already thought of this? Remember seeing somewhere they'd have totally new drivers out there on 3 weeks worth of training...

Indeed. That's what you get when you have people who know nothing about what they are in charge of.

 

[ungreat]

If you ask the drivers why they don't want DOO, you find pretty unanimously that they are worried about the blame culture should anything happen. When DOO was born we didn't have that culture, now we do, and it is worrying.

Indeed it is...and as you rightly say,now we have the blame culture,more likely to be an issue.

 

[AlterEgo]

I would think that the Disabilities act would void any companies claim for advance notice & quite rightly so.

Why?

What's the "Disabilities Act"? Do you mean the Equality Act 2010?

That's been around over six years and yet nobody has brought a case against it yet. I don't make any judgement on whether 24 hours is legal but it is wrong to claim 24 hours is "illegal".

I visited this point about six months ago in this thread and nobody was able to show any case had been brought. I'm interested to know why this might be, and I don't automatically conclude "it's legal" as a result of the lack of challenge.

 

[Bookd]

The Union line as mentioned in the radio interview this morning seems to be that the company refuse to have meaningful negotiations. This overlooks that negotiations need two to tango; as the unions have made it clear that they have no intention of giving any movement on DOO talks would be a waste of time. This will drag on until someone gives in (and the government has the deepest pockets).

 

[OneOffDave]

I suspect the reason it's not been challenged in the courts is the individual would have to fund the case themselves as legal aid isn't available for this type of case.

 

[Bellbell]

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:

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.

I'm anti-DOO and happy (if you know what I mean) to say that that guard made a mistake. A fatal mistake. The existence of one guard not doing their job properly doesn't prove anything unless you're happy for West Wickham to prove that DOO isn't safe either. The problem with James St was that the guard had learned to expect people to move away from the train, or made a one off assumption of such. Either way, what's to stop a driver doing the same? It's not the form of despatch that was the issue there.

Conversely, the current Merseyrail case very very neatly illustrates why drivers who face DOO operation (and guards across the network) fear the blame culture of today, with the added issue for the drivers that the equipment they have available to them doesn't seem to be up to scratch.

 

[AlterEgo]

I suspect the reason it's not been challenged in the courts is the individual would have to fund the case themselves as legal aid isn't available for this type of case.

You'd think one of the major charities would be interested though.

 

[NSEFAN]

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.

A train that requires a guard cannot run without it, therefore there is onus on the TOC to sort out their diagramming to make sure there are sufficient numbers of staff. A train that requires OBS can run without OBS, so there's a reduced onus on the TOC to sort out diagramming and staff numbers. Without the staff needing to be there, and with pressure from above to cut costs, I believe we will see Southern reducing the number of OBS as time goes by, which will be detrimental to those who need assistance.

On the other hand, diagramming enough staff already seems to be Too Hard™ for Southern, given how many trains to Southampton get turned around at Fareham or Chichester (which has long been a problem, long before the DOO dispute)...

 

[sarahj]

A train that requires a guard cannot run without it, therefore there is onus on the TOC to sort out their diagramming to make sure there are sufficient numbers of staff. A train that requires OBS can run without OBS, so there's a reduced onus on the TOC to sort out diagramming and staff numbers. Without the staff needing to be there, and with pressure from above to cut costs, I believe we will see Southern reducing the number of OBS as time goes by, which will be detrimental to those who need assistance.

On the other hand, diagramming enough staff already seems to be Too Hard™ for Southern, given how many trains to Southampton get turned around at Fareham or Chichester (which has long been a problem, long before the DOO dispute)...

The only thing I will say (and can say), the issue of turning round the southamptons at Fareham mainly comes round to one thing. Not enough turn around time. The Vic's to Sou's is a 2hr 40 min trip with a 10 min turnaround at Sou and about 15-17 at Vic. There gets a point where to hit Havant too late to get to Sou and get back on time. So they turn you around at Fareham and get back on track. There used to be decent time at Sou and you often went into Sou, out to the sidings and then back. Now it's all off, all on, the cleaner does a quick sweep through (if they have time) and then back out for another 2.40 run. A punter once moaned to me about the mess and lack of toilets. 'the train has just started' she said. I said, 'I'm sorry, but after going for 2.40, we had 5 mins today to turn around for the 2.40 trip back, no time to clean, or do anything'.
These short turn arounds are then made worse by the lack of staff, waiting for drivers at Three Bridges, staff at Barnham or Horsham. But the short turnarounds means you cannot get any delay caused by, lack of staff, congestion at East Croydon/Victoria/Gatwick, naff track, iffy signals, poor capacity of the line from Fareham to St Denny's, smoothed out. So we turn around early at Fareham.

 

[AnonymousUser1]

I have been lurking on this forum for a while, and have seen this thread rehashing the same old issues.

But one thing I have only seen mentioned in passing is how much guards reduce fare-dodging. <snip>

not if they are hiding in the back cab or refuse to move through thewhole length of the train becasue they will only operate the doors from a particualr set of controls

 

[sarahj]

I take (or used to take) about or above my wage is ticket sales each month (and I'm, not known as a muncher). I've thrown the odd person off as well. Last one was hiding in the toilet.

Yes, some folks do hide and not do their job, even if it's just to walk down their train and make their faces known. But every job has those folks. We know who they are and things do get said.

 

[Kevin_Brum12]

Given the way the sitution has now developed into the "crisis" it is, one would have wondered why Go Ahead Group and its partners have not considered the obvious way out from their perspective and that of their shareholders.

Hand back the keys. Not just for Southern, but for London Midland, GTR and South Eastern. In the case of Southern, it is a management contract, so why damage your good name by doing the DfT's dirty work for them.

This would put the ball rather nicely back into the hands of Failing Grayling and DaFT and as there is no longer a British Railways Board to act as a firewall all of a sudden a few overpaid bureaucrats led by Peter Wilkinson (how on earth is he worth £250,000) and Grayling will have to deal with the mess they've created.

Go-Ahead can then go back to running buses. The other partners can put investment into other areas. The franchises will have to be re-tendered, but it would be very amusing if not one single bidder showed any interest.