-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both 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
- Thread starter hornbyfan99
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Most of the Japanese wanman trains are maximum 4 car length (as with the Nagahori Tsurumi-ryokuchi Line) on metro services, with the Flower Nagai Line - which is an inter-town suburban route being wholly one unit trains (much like the Stourbridge Connector)
And I'd love to see them trying to do this with DOO: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rr7q-v7NIRQ
Last edited:
Monty
Established Member
- Joined
- 12 Jun 2012
- Messages
- 2,368
Yet many high speed lines and heavily used suburban services do still employ a guard and as far as I can tell there has been no major push to change this. That said Japanese working practices at large are probably not the best example to use when trying win an arguement over safety considering they were largely responsible for the Amagasaki rail crash in 2005.
Tetchytyke
Veteran Member
Huh?
XDM said:
The whole of the Dubai metro is already fully automated, with level access at all stations. It's not new.
Of course, every time the job stops due to a technical failure the passengers are left to evacuate themselves by walking along the track, but that's just a minor issue.
And from reading friends comments on Japanese rail - would this idea be worth looking at for the UK?
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2012/01/17/reference/platform-doors/#.WFO4RrKLSUk
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2012/01/17/reference/platform-doors/#.WFO4RrKLSUk
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
LU already did.
The answer is yes, but it only works where one type of stock works a given line, so there are very limited applications for the national network - probably only things like Merseyrail (and I think they will at some point, possibly when all services are operated using the new stock).
There are hybrid ideas that might work, though. I can see it being useful to put a line of fencing with gaps roughly where the yellow line now goes (but a bit further back to allow wheelchair manoeuvring space), with dispatch only permitted when everyone is behind that fence, thus meaning the driver/guard can have a clear view along the train unimpeded by waiting passengers.
Deepgreen
Established Member
The days of any meaningful ticket checking/first class control have long gone. Well done, Southern - a splendid own goal.
Rather odd interview with Andy Macdonald the labour shadow transport minister on the Today programme earlier today. He (obviously) parroted the Aslef/RMT line throughout,however when the presenter mentioned that it was planned that 50% of Northern services would be DOO by 2020 he seemed to think that wasnt a problem because Northern trains "only have a few carriages". The problem on Southern was all due to the 12 car trains.
I seem to recall from earlier posts that proposed DOO on Northern was a massive issue,probably even more contentious than Southern?
I seem to recall from earlier posts that proposed DOO on Northern was a massive issue,probably even more contentious than Southern?
It is. Given the amount of time it can take to get a MOM/BTP/S&T or Pway out to anything in the north and how remote many of the lines are, the idea of setting a train off DOO single manned across the S&C or through Totley Tunnel is a fairly contentious one.
As ever people won't shut up about the bloody doors which is only one element of what not wanting single manned trains is about. Having a switched on, trained second crew member is useful in so many other ways.
As ever people won't shut up about the bloody doors which is only one element of what not wanting single manned trains is about. Having a switched on, trained second crew member is useful in so many other ways.
Of course it's a huge issue, unfortunately it appears the plan is simply cause as much disruption as possible on Southern so the northern scheme gets quietly dropped , postponed or downgraded to a drivers release/ guard closes door operation
Last edited:
Well there we are, today is the ideal day to send the trains out on their own, as there are no drivers. Ohhh we cant as it needs billions of investment to do so. Instead of which we are clocking up 10s of millions of costs on a strike which is uneccessary as the Southern franchise is profitable and covers all costs of operation.
So in this time of austerity the government has wasted £50 m and counting.
Incidentially who's we? And who paid for the trip to Melbourne?
Why not. The line to Kings Lynn passes through some fairly remote areas and has been DOO for many years. It is all about the doors. Thats all you need a guard to do.
Tetchytyke
Veteran Member
And this is why the Government are so determined to paint it as a "dispute about who closes the doors", because they know they'll lose public opinion if they're honest about the actual implications.
I noticed the BBC radio news this morning now referring to it as a "dispute about who closes the doors", which along with the supposed "fact check" article that made a conclusion not supported by any evidence goes to show just how impartial that particular organisation is these days.
Tetchytyke
Veteran Member
Fenland may be remote, but it isn't anywhere near as remote as Blea Moor, Low Row or Summit Tunnel.
So when you have two train leaving from London to Oxford from the same station one without a guard and one with a guard. The inescapable conclusion is that the only reason you have a guard on the second train is to close the doors.
Really it couldn't be any simpler that that. The battle to have a second member of staff was lost in 1982.
Here are my suggestions for how Southern could compromise without doing a U-turn:
Any more?
- Southern to commit to investigating how the Class 377 camera system can be improved (are the newer /6 units better than the older ones? If so, older units could be retrofitted within an agreed period of time)
- Routes on which guards are still to operate after 1 January 2017 should remain guard operated until trains have CCTV system equivalent to the Class 700 system.
- Southern to commit to recruitment plan and minimum numbers of OBS staff for the remainder of the contract period.
- All new OBS recruits to be on the same terms as existing staff.
- All trains to be rostered with a named OBS a certain number of days in advance. That named OBS should be able to staff the train (i.e. they should be on a realistic diagram which should be achievable). A train may only run without an OBS if (1) that named person is unavailable and (2) there are no other cover staff available. If a train has not been rostered with any named OBS, it cannot run.
- OBS staff to be fully trained in PTI risks and receive PTS and evacuation training to a level equivalent to that required by a safety-critical role.
- Platform staffing at busy stations at peak times (and at times with low-lying sunlight) to be increased.
- Driver recruitment to continue with the aim of reducing overtime.
- Taxi fare compensation for disabled persons who are unable to travel due to lack of OBS to mitigate loss of guard and to incentivise full staffing.
Any more?
Last edited:
The regular collisions with tractors and lorries in harvest season do as much damage to the 365s as the 15xs and 170s. One day they'll be unlucky and there will be a train load of passengers on their own with a seriously injured or dead driver. I know of one user worked crossing just to give an example near Harling Road which until very recently didn't even have phones. The farmer had to stand in the middle of the line and watch for any trains then run back to his tractor and thrash it over as quickly as possible. One day I was waiting at the signal protecting the crossing and saw this charade ongoing and the tractor trailer got stuck. They got it free before I got connected to the signaller on the GSMR but in the process dropped a large pig sty off the back which bounced off the crossing gate, back towards the line then happily rolled over off the ballast shoulder into the cess. Shortly afterwards a Network Rail man appeared out of the bushes and an ESR was imposed, then the crossing fitted with phones.
You will never change my opinion, borne out through experience, that the purely qualitative situations I've experienced show that a properly trained second person on the train is a fallacy to remove. Our own safety and ops standards team look horrified at the prospect and there's so many near misses I've mitigated that I'm happy that I'm worth my wages.
Whether it's providing care for someone having a nervous breakdown in the Hope Valley where there's no phone signal, to stopping an express with a structural defect strike lineside equipment, to dealing immediately with someone with severe bleeding, or a ruptured spleen or a hip joint that failed and trapped them in their seat, or a suitcase that fell out of the rack on to someone's head, to caring for my driver who was in a state of extreme distress having nearly killed a group of children trespassing on a river bridge (they ended up jumping off it to get clear) to separating people from a fight on a full and standing train and ordering an extra stop at an appropriate station to get the doors open, to talking down a suicidal 50 something teaching assistant, to standing in a car park booking taxis for stranded passengers, and finally dealing with a man with a brain aneurysm who had absconded from hospital and could have died with any stress or provocation (I had his wife on one phone and the police on the other to get assistance at an appropriate point), or when I was closing my local door at Mansfield on the late night drunk train (a DOO train would have been shut up and moving) stopping the process when at the last second a lad carrying his mate on his shoulder lurched out from the ramp to the bus station, caught his foot, went over and dropped and rolled - the guy being carried bounced off the carriage stepboard. That could easily have been James Street two. But it didn't develop into a full incident so it doesn't matter from a purely statistical point of view, does it.
Some of those require route knowledge, some require rules training, all require common sense and most importantly THE SECOND PERSON MUST BE THERE. Any one of those days I could have tipped up 5 minutes late because of traffic and found my train had left DOO as a result. Maybe the driver would have coped, maybe not, but you will never know, will you.
There's nothing wrong with the ScotRail deal. It covers the important points for me.
Either way you will never convince me that single manned trains anywhere other than in metro areas with properly manned stations an easy walking distance from trains are sensible.
Some of your points I fully support, the first 2 especially, but ....
I understand where you are coming from, but should the public be inconvenienced and delayed by a train cancellation when there is no valid reason.
Can see the headlines now ... Southern leave angry passengers stranded as DOO service cancelled as no Guard/OBS available ... really as a passenger you would NOT be impressed!!! So you need to ask, are the Railways here to meet the needs of the passengers, or for political point scoring?
If implemented in full ... the OBS would be exactly the same as the guard .. but not compulsory ... if OBS have a longer term role there will need to be some reform ... otherwise can see nothing but extinction of the role come franchise renewal.
How do you define a busy station ... as very few seem to be lacking platform staff from what I have seen
Last edited:
Deepgreen
Established Member
There's a direct contradiction here - 'DOO' means 'Driver Only Operation' which, by definition, means a single member of staff operating the train. An OBS would be a second member of staff operating the train, even if not necessarily contributing to its control.
This may seem pedantic, but the issue of definitions is one of the keys to this dispute. The concept of running trains without second crew members when certain staff availability conditions are satisfied is so open to obfuscation and abuse (from both 'sides') that it would be impractical to operate and enforce.
Last edited:
Strathclyde electric services have been running that way with the vast majority always having 2 crewmembers since 1986, and I'd say its acknowledged by most in the industry as successful,
Last edited:
I think what passengers would be more impressed by is a properly staff railway. Southern agreed to a guards recruitment program in 2014 to improve reliability and ensure they were not relying on overtime. That never came to fruition.
Now we see the damage it does to the network when drivers don't work overtime. :roll:
My previous posting about OBS on the Horsham line that's going over Thameslink hasn't been really answered. I asked if the OBS would be transferring to Thameslink, a grade that's not recognised by them. So I guess the answer would be 'no'. So much for Horton's promise of onboard staff on every train that currently has a guard.
I agree there is some contradiction there so put it another way. How can you justify to a passenger their service which has been cleared for DOO has been cancelled due to a lack of an OBS?
But agree with your 2nd paragraph, any agreement is open to abuse from both sides ... so why have all this hastle seeking an agreement which is acknowledged to be unenforceable.
Staffing issues and disputes are off little interest to the general public.
Passengers want the train to run to an agreed timetable.
Ask any passenger if their train was to be run in DOO mode or cancelled ... what would their answer be?
You may come back with another question ... but can not at the moment think of one that would take priority in the passengers mind. So let's hear it.
It runs both ways, I can give you examples of incidents I've had on trains where I've only been able to stop trains if they have been DOO with CSR radio. Luckily these days all have GSM-R. But previously the trains would have just crashed because it would have been too late to stop them using any other method.
I agree with him however that in many rural areas it would be useful if there was a second member of staff. The debate then is really the best methods of communication with the control centre, how much automation and how the job will be affected by smart cards and the ability to pre-book 15 min before departure.
Just had a thought ... no idea how practical it could be ... but could trains be fitted with help points like you see on platforms ... that would solve disabled issues as well.
If trains are regularly delayed by driver having to help disabled passenger disembark the train ... sure the company would make damn sure there was platform staff to assist the disabled person
Last edited:
Deepgreen
Established Member
Obviously they would, but that's not a question that should be put to them. The option shouldn't reach the passengers for their choice - it is the railway's responsibility to take account of the wider picture based on safety, rostering and industrial relations to plan a regime where the choice doesn't arise. Having a train able to run with only one crew member if conditions a) to z) (whatever they might be) are met is open to so much interpretation and abuse that it is not a robust basis for operation. In my opinion, having a well-resourced and trained staff pool is a proper way to run a reliable and safe railway. It won't be as cheap as a skeleton version, but it will be more reliable, which is what we have lacked for years on GTR.
I think the trains ought to be fitted with an alarm that goes throughs to driver AND control centre. The control centre can already make PA announcements on DOO trains
I also happen to think the railway would be more energy efficient, have more capacity and be safer if the trains were ATO with multi skilled staff able to deal with emergencies and supervise it. But maybe that's a whole other debate.
I think the point is these jobs are changing and will change, it's how best to deal with the human issues.
The passengers I've spoken to and the consistent reporting column about "availability of onboard staff" on passengerfocus surveys suggest to me they would prefer a second person onboard the train. As a Driver I've had more issues on DOO trains than trains with a guard mostly with anti social behaviour through pass comms. ASLEF recently ran a survey and suggested around 77% of people wanted a second person onboard.
I'm also happy you've now called it 'DOO' and not 'DCO'. Taken many pages but as the old pun goes, there is light at the end of the tunnel.
The previously advertised OBS contract was 12 months for new entrants with a yearly review from managers. If your face fits.......
- Status