Southern DOO: ASLEF members vote 79.1% for revised deal

[Barn]

Are you ignoring or unaware of the Merseyrail case awaiting court where the TOC support the Guard?

None of us really know what has driven the CPS's decision to prosecute so it'd be speculation for any of us to analyse it.

The CPS must have concluded that there is evidence for a reasonable prospect of conviction and that there is a public interest in the prosecution. The CPS isn't a perfect organisation but it has been a high profile charging decision so I'm sure the decision will have been informally reviewed by senior regional prosecutors there. Let's see what happens.

 

[Domeyhead]

" Ignorance is bliss " would be my comment on this post, ( and by God there's some ignorance on this thread ) have you ever driven said train ? No ? then you have no idea of how many times the driver has sucked up the seat cushion with his sphincter do you ? Safe enough now / There is an ex driver in court.

Please don't bandy words like "ignorance" around - it's innappropriate and innacurate. If you can't answer a point informatively don't answer it at all. Leave it to others with greater vocabulary. I asked a reasonable question and yet you repeat the fallacy that the passengers are uncomprehending cattle. They aren't. It may suit your ego to imagine that driving a train requires some superhuman levels of intelligence and responsibility but it doesn't. It's a job. For all you know Those cattle in the coaches behind the driver - will include many people - perhaps including this poster - who in their own fields have equivalent challenges and responsibilities with a few more dimensions thrown in that a driver would never have to worry about so leave out the patronising put downs. Unless this driver to whom you refer is taken to court specifically for the "crime" of driving DOO trains according to the rule book then what is your point, except to suppress discussion? If you can't contribute to this thread without insulting the poster and by inference imply that anyone who isn't a train driver is somehow not qualified to contribute then for the sake of everyone else please just shut up and leave the thread to those with a bit more civility.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

We've been through this all before. I know I've posted about it more than one.

O L Leigh

SO what is your view Mr L? I don't read every post on this thread so I must have missed the ones to which you refer. If you can cut & paste a copy I'd appreciate it thanks.

 

[Domh245]

All very well, but none of us have heard the evidence yet.

In the James St incident the guard was found to be negligent partly because (repeatedly) he failed to follow Merseyrail's dispatch procedure. Had he followed the proper procedure we do not know what would have happened.

If I were you I would be cautious about suggesting a TOC which supports DOO is some sort of authority on dispatch safety!

I think the concerning feature of the latest case is that the guard is being prosecuted despite the backing of Merseyrail. The evidence would suggest that he did everything by the book, otherwise he probably wouldn't have the support of his employer.

James St, as you say, was down to negligence on behalf of the guard so isn't really relevant - a negligent DOO driver could equally kill a person.

 

[Astradyne]

We've been through this all before. I know I've posted about it more than one.

O L Leigh

And how manye times have you been told your arguments hold no water. The posted you quoted has not been dispeoven just but the simple fact of stating the driver just drivers the train.

The ASLEF RMT safety argument has not satisfied any of the people that can not see a safety issue with DOO.

How about actually answering his statements, rather than repeating the broken union record?

 

[Barn]

It may suit your ego to imagine that driving a train requires some superhuman levels of intelligence and responsibility but it doesn't.

There's no doubt that being a train driver is a very responsible job.

 

[DT611]

And how manye times have you been told your arguments hold no water.

Ah but they clearly do hold water. Just because you keep saying otherwise and want it to be the opposite doesn't make it so.

The ASLEF RMT safety argument has not satisfied any of the people that can not see a safety issue with DOO.

People who in some cases it can be argued aren't as independant as they should be. So, just because the argument supposibly doesn't "satisfy" them, that doesn't mean the unions argument isn't correct. It is correct.

How about actually answering his statements, rather than repeating the broken union record?

How about you take your own advice?

 

[O L Leigh]

SO what is your view Mr L? I don't read every post on this thread so I must have missed the ones to which you refer. If you can cut & paste a copy I'd appreciate it thanks.

Happily.

Anyone believing that this dispute is political, no matter what the President of the RMT may or may not have said, is deluding themselves. This dispute is primarily about safety, and even Southern's attempts at manipulating public opinion by taking out full-page press advertisements in order to try and reduce the dispute to prosaic levels does not disguise this fact.

But keeping to the thrust of this topic...

You cannot really compare the agreements of the past with the issues of today. Yes ASLEF did eventually cave in and allow DOO when BR waved a big enough carrot under it's nose, but at that time DOO was being sold on the basis of the safeguards provided by the door interlock circuit. The thinking back in the early 1980s, a time where there were few if any 12 car trains, was that if you got door interlock you were safe to depart, therefore you didn't really need to worry too much about checking back along the train.

But times have moved on. Since those times the safety culture on the railway has burgeoned and emphasis has been placed more and more on operational incidents and how to reduce them. From the 1990s onwards this was all focused on SPADs leading to the introduction of TPWS and OTMR, amongst other mitigations. In more recent times the focus has shifted to the "Platform/Train Interface". Several incidents have highlighted the weakness of BR's original confidence in the traction interlock circuit. More scrutiny has been placed on safe despatch and watching trains clear of the platform to ensure no-one is at risk from injury or death.

And this is where all the arguments in favour of DOO fall down. Where is it you expect a driver to be looking? While CCTV DOO despatch might be the best option from the many alternatives available, the fact of the matter remains that a driver cannot (and should not) be expected to have to juggle so many different tasks at the same time. While the Electrostar fleet switch off the CCTV system at speeds about 10mph(?), I have it on good authority that the system used on the Hitachi IEP fleet will remain live until the train has cleared the platform end. At complex locations such as London termini and other major stations such as Bristol Temple Meads a driver will have his/her hands full with controlling the train speed and observing the signalling. Watching the monitors to ensure that no-one has fallen under the train as it pulls out (it has happened on several occasions) at the same time is simply asking for trouble. Any driver unlucky enough to be caught speeding, committing a SPAD in the station throat or suffering a "one under" while pulling out is going to be in for an uncomfortable time. Therefore drivers are obviously and justifiably concerned about the introduction of DOO. This isn't just a reductive hankering after archaic and outmoded working practices. This is an attempt to bring DOO into a very different set of circumstances to those in existence 30 years ago when it was first introduced; circumstances that do not really bare comparison. I should perhaps also note at this point that there have been no other attempts at comparable large-scale introductions of DOO in the last 3 decades.

But to answer your point directly, as an ASLEF member I can categorically tell you that no amount of money would secure my agreement to any extension of DOO operation. Safety is not something that the industry should be able to buy, and that's a message I'm taking to all the other ASLEF members I meet. I've worked DOO in the past and I can tell you that I'm glad I don't do it any more. Looking back I can identify times when I could very easily have suffered a career-ending incident and only failed to do so because of luck.

As for what else I think about DOO, well my thoughts are already a matter of record. You can go back through the search facility and read what I think if you so wish.

There have been quite a few incidents now referred to as "trap and drag" that have resulted in injuries. Others have fallen down the gap and railstaff have been powerless to prevent an accident from happening (the incident of the lady who fell between the train and platform at Charing Cross after the RA had been given illustrates this nicely).

What happens at the PTI is now of increasing concern to the railways and ensuring passenger safety at this crucial location is becoming a real priority.

Q: Are their effectively two sets of rules for train despatch?
A: In essence, yes.

Where a guard is provided they must remain at the local door and check the PTI until the train is clear of the platform end. The same applies to despatchers. For DOO drivers there is no such requirement because, at present, there is no system adequate to permit a driver to carry out these checks. However, there are moves afoot to provide such technological systems so that drivers will be able to check the PTI as the train departs.

However, this leads to the not unjustifiable question that I raised before, which is precisely where do you want the driver to be looking. Believe me, because this is coming. The safety culture on the railway now demands it. We've had SPADs and TPWS Reset and Go, but now the PTI is the hot safety topic.

Q: Why didn't the Unions cry foul 30 years ago when DOO was first introduced?
A: Because the safety culture that we have now had not developed and the PTI had not become the hot topic it now is.

While people were still routinely falling out of slam door stock, the occasional "trap and drag" involving an EMU with power doors was hardly seen as important. Remember, DOO had been sold to the railways on the basis that the door interlock circuit would provide all the safeguards required. However, it's only in recent years since the safety culture has really taken off that the reliability of the door interlock circuit as a means of proving that nothing has become trapped in a door has come under scrutiny.

It's not so much that the risks of DOO despatch have changed, as they have always been there. It's more that the demands of safe train despatch have become more and more rigorous and now DOO despatch is looking less and less fit for purpose, even with the promised (but so far unspecified) technological advancements.

But then I'm fairly sure I've said all this at least once before.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

And how manye times have you been told your arguments hold no water. The posted you quoted has not been dispeoven just but the simple fact of stating the driver just drivers the train.

Many times. But simply saying it doesn't disprove it, and that's all you've done so far in this thread. You ask me questions, I answer them and you tell me that you don't believe me. That is not proof.

O L Leigh

 

[Astradyne]

Ah but they clearly do hold water. Just because you keep saying otherwise and want it to be the opposite doesn't make it so.



People who in some cases it can be argued aren't as independant as they should be. So, just because the argument supposibly doesn't "satisfy" them, that doesn't mean the unions argument isn't correct. It is correct.



How about you take your own advice?

OK ... My advice ... Nothing in the above warrants an answer, heard it before, nothing new to change my mind .... Trying to avoid unnecessary conflict.

Many times. But simply saying it doesn't disprove it, and that's all you've done so far in this thread. You ask me questions, I answer them and you tell me that you don't believe me. That is not proof.

O L Leigh

You may answer my questions ... But how much validity to them I can make, only leaves doubt. If I can not believe the arguments you make, how can I take it as fact .... I have questioned this many times, all you say is I am wrong ... without what I can accept as a valid answer. You accuse me of no proof ... but offer little to counteract.

 

[O L Leigh]

You may answer my questions ... But how much validity to them I can make, only leaves doubt. If I can not believe the arguments you make, how can I take it as fact .... I have questioned this many times, all you say is I am wrong ... without what I can accept as a valid answer. You accuse me of no proof ... but offer little to counteract.

You do not seem to know how to differentiate between fact and opinion. Even when I give you factual information you dismiss it out of hand without taking any time to try and understand what I'm attempting to tell you.

I'm really tired of trying to inform you so that you can reach a more balanced opinion. I've offered you proof, talked you through the issues and the history of DOO, highlighted where the evidence and arguments in favour of DOO are flawed and given you the benefit of my professional experience. If you've added anything to this debate I fail to see it. My discussions with you are now at an end.

O L Leigh

 

[infobleep]

All very well, but none of us have heard the evidence yet.

In the James St incident the guard was found to be negligent partly because (repeatedly) he failed to follow Merseyrail's dispatch procedure. Had he followed the proper procedure we do not know what would have happened.

If I were you I would be cautious about suggesting a TOC which supports DOO is some sort of authority on dispatch safety!

Are you intending to go to court to hear all the evidence then? It certainly won't all be broadcast online as it's not a Supreme Court case.

Sent from my SM-T810 using Tapatalk

 

[the sniper]

Even when I give you factual information you dismiss it out of hand without taking any time to try and understand what I'm attempting to tell you.

The guy has denied and argued against things in this thread that aren't even related to the railway but are indisputably true. I don't know why you bother with him...

 

[pompeyfan]

So what do the pro DOO people want to happen? Guards and drivers roll over and accept it and get shafted? 'Yes sir, we'll do as we're told right now, we bow down to you!' - this whole situation is political, but it's the government trying to crush the unions, not the other way round!

With the levelest of heads I believe If the circumstances could be fixed to run without an OBS (and a heavy punishment/penalty/court action for any excursion from this) and OBSs maintained route knowledge and emergency protection, the RMT would probably have come to an agreement, but GTR/DfT can't be trusted, as they've previously shown.

The above said however, i truely believe it is safer for a guard to do the dispatching of the train than it is the driver...

I was told the other day by a colleague (so it may be played up slightly) that Charlie Horton was offered negotiations with the RMT during the live debate 4 times but kept wriggling out of it, the BBC host even offered the use of a meeting room out back but he declined? Is this true?

Finally, it came to our attention that managment were using mobile phones to communicate with the driver of a DOO test train (on a strike day!) in a fully set up cab.... the train was stationary but thought it may be of interest....

 

[Astradyne]

So what do the pro DOO people want to happen? Guards and drivers roll over and accept it and get shafted? 'Yes sir, we'll do as we're told right now, we bow down to you!' - this whole situation is political, but it's the government trying to crush the unions, not the other way round!

With the levelest of heads I believe If the circumstances could be fixed to run without an OBS (and a heavy punishment/penalty/court action for any excursion from this) and OBSs maintained route knowledge and emergency protection, the RMT would probably have come to an agreement, but GTR/DfT can't be trusted, as they've previously shown.

The above said however, i truely believe it is safer for a guard to do the dispatching of the train than it is the driver...

I was told the other day by a colleague (so it may be played up slightly) that Charlie Horton was offered negotiations with the RMT during the live debate 4 times but kept wriggling out of it, the BBC host even offered the use of a meeting room out back but he declined? Is this true?

Finally, it came to our attention that managment were using mobile phones to communicate with the driver of a DOO test train (on a strike day!) in a fully set up cab.... the train was stationary but thought it may be of interest....

Drivers are not getting shafted, just being asked to do what 30+% of other drivers do. Guards are having their role made easier, so not sure how that is being shafted, no redundancy or wage cuts ... unless you are talking about by their union.

He was offered negotiations to accept the RMT offer ... Which is hardly any negotiations ... So understandably declined ... He was basically being offered the same deal that had been rejected previously ... The 'negotiations' were a RMT play on words. Basically accept everything the guard currently does remains unchanged.

Finally that last bit can't be true as we know the Southern networks is blighted by huge mobile dead spots that make them so unreliable.

 

[Domeyhead]

Happily.

O L Leigh

THanks Mr. L. - my opinion is influenced by your posts btw.
What concerns me - and I say this with respect - is imagine a hypothetical situation many years ago when health and safety culture was not as rigorous as today. When automatic train doors were first introduced it could easily have been assumed then that all the trains' moving systems should rightly be under the control of the driver as only the driver is aware of the environment beyond the train etc. I could imagine ASLEF insisting on "the integrity of the driver's cab" as being a point of principle. Then, imagine some years later a railway safety board recommending that door closing responsibility should be taken away from the driver and given to the guard, I could equally imagine both ASLEF and the NUR(sic) finding reasons to object to the new arrangement. ("Splitting train safety across two people is never going to work") etc. The point is there are no absolutes, and while I understand and agree with your points and illustrations, the current solution does still allow negligent passengers to fall between train and platform, and people will always do stupid things. I've seen some shocking CCTV footage of passenger negligence, children falling while mothers were distracted etc. but in all cases one guard alone - and even station staff too - could not have stopped the incident from occurring at all. Moreover in all cases the passenger (or guardian) is at best partly and often entirely to blame.
I think (I hope) everyone accepts that trains cannot be 100% safe, and also that drivers - even with all the safety apparatus available - cannot guarantee safety and therefore should not be held accountable if any investigations shows that they were not wilfully negligent - yes even if mistakes were made due to circumstance. As a passenger I am just as concerned about safety as is ASLEF and when it comes to my personal safety far moreso - but I have to take risks to live a normal life, and riding in a train is fortunately not highest on my worry list.
So while I agree that safety is a kind of grail to which we all aspire, we have to move beyond the current impasse because the only alternative is no railway. Is this really about giving drivers assurances that provided they do their job to the best of their ability, their consciences can remain clear and they will not be persecuted and hounded by ambulance chasing lawyers in the event of an accident? If anyone is to be hounded then executives in the DfT, ORR, and the RSSB, and even Government ministers should be the ones in the dock.

 

[Robertj21a]

THanks Mr. L. - my opinion is influenced by your posts btw.
What concerns me - and I say this with respect - is imagine a hypothetical situation many years ago when health and safety culture was not as rigorous as today. When automatic train doors were first introduced it could easily have been assumed then that all the trains' moving systems should rightly be under the control of the driver as only the driver is aware of the environment beyond the train etc. I could imagine ASLEF insisting on "the integrity of the driver's cab" as being a point of principle. Then, imagine some years later a railway safety board recommending that door closing responsibility should be taken away from the driver and given to the guard, I could equally imagine both ASLEF and the NUR(sic) finding reasons to object to the new arrangement. ("Splitting train safety across two people is never going to work") etc. The point is there are no absolutes, and while I understand and agree with your points and illustrations, the current solution does still allow negligent passengers to fall between train and platform, and people will always do stupid things. I've seen some shocking CCTV footage of passenger negligence, children falling while mothers were distracted etc. but in all cases one guard alone - and even station staff too - could not have stopped the incident from occurring at all. Moreover in all cases the passenger (or guardian) is at best partly and often entirely to blame.
I think (I hope) everyone accepts that trains cannot be 100% safe, and also that drivers - even with all the safety apparatus available - cannot guarantee safety and therefore should not be held accountable if any investigations shows that they were not wilfully negligent - yes even if mistakes were made due to circumstance. As a passenger I am just as concerned about safety as is ASLEF and when it comes to my personal safety far moreso - but I have to take risks to live a normal life, and riding in a train is fortunately not highest on my worry list.
So while I agree that safety is a kind of grail to which we all aspire, we have to move beyond the current impasse because the only alternative is no railway. Is this really about giving drivers assurances that provided they do their job to the best of their ability, their consciences can remain clear and they will not be persecuted and hounded by ambulance chasing lawyers in the event of an accident? If anyone is to be hounded then executives in the DfT, ORR, and the RSSB, and even Government ministers should be the ones in the dock.

Nice to read some sensible posts on here - both the above and the one from O L Leigh that it refers to.
.

 

[O L Leigh]

THanks Mr. L. - my opinion is influenced by your posts btw.

You're most welcome.

What concerns me - and I say this with respect - is imagine a hypothetical situation many years ago when health and safety culture was not as rigorous as today. When automatic train doors were first introduced it could easily have been assumed then that all the trains' moving systems should rightly be under the control of the driver as only the driver is aware of the environment beyond the train etc. I could imagine ASLEF insisting on "the integrity of the driver's cab" as being a point of principle. Then, imagine some years later a railway safety board recommending that door closing responsibility should be taken away from the driver and given to the guard, I could equally imagine both ASLEF and the NUR(sic) finding reasons to object to the new arrangement. ("Splitting train safety across two people is never going to work") etc.

It's not impossible, but the problem with that is that this is not the situation in which we find ourselves.

The point is there are no absolutes, and while I understand and agree with your points and illustrations, the current solution does still allow negligent passengers to fall between train and platform, and people will always do stupid things. I've seen some shocking CCTV footage of passenger negligence, children falling while mothers were distracted etc. but in all cases one guard alone - and even station staff too - could not have stopped the incident from occurring at all. Moreover in all cases the passenger (or guardian) is at best partly and often entirely to blame.
I think (I hope) everyone accepts that trains cannot be 100% safe, and also that drivers - even with all the safety apparatus available - cannot guarantee safety and therefore should not be held accountable if any investigations shows that they were not wilfully negligent - yes even if mistakes were made due to circumstance. As a passenger I am just as concerned about safety as is ASLEF and when it comes to my personal safety far moreso - but I have to take risks to live a normal life, and riding in a train is fortunately not highest on my worry list.

I don't think that there is any suggestion that having guards will eradicate all PTI incidents completely. However, there has to be an admission that not having someone watching the PTI as the train departs is less safe than having a guard keeping an eye out and being able to stop the train in the event that something untoward happens.

While all activities in life carry risks and train travel is a very low risk activity, the drive for safety is something that adds pressure on all operational grades. But this drive for improvements in safety doesn't come from the unions but from within the industry itself. So how do you square the circle? How do you deliver these improvements in passenger safety while introducing a method of working that is less safe than what we had before? As I've said before, I'm not against progress or new technology, but it really should add something.

So while I agree that safety is a kind of grail to which we all aspire, we have to move beyond the current impasse because the only alternative is no railway. Is this really about giving drivers assurances that provided they do their job to the best of their ability, their consciences can remain clear and they will not be persecuted and hounded by ambulance chasing lawyers in the event of an accident? If anyone is to be hounded then executives in the DfT, ORR, and the RSSB, and even Government ministers should be the ones in the dock.

No I don't think that drivers are necessarily concerned about prosecution. If you've broken some law or other then it's right that there should be a consequence. But I will say that if I still drove DOO I would now do so very differently than I did before in the light of recent developments, and hang the delays.

O L Leigh

 

[AlterEgo]

Are you intending to go to court to hear all the evidence then? It certainly won't all be broadcast online as it's not a Supreme Court case.

Sent from my SM-T810 using Tapatalk

No, I'll settle with reading about the case in the news along with the associated RAIB report.

Certainly I'm interested in what he's supposed to have done that reaches a criminal threshold, because it's not clear to anyone, least of all me.

However, seeing that none of us know any of the facts about that incident, it doesn't make sense to bring it into this debate.

 

[Bromley boy]

No, I'll settle with reading about the case in the news along with the associated RAIB report.

Certainly I'm interested in what he's supposed to have done that reaches a criminal threshold, because it's not clear to anyone, least of all me.

However, seeing that none of us know any of the facts about that incident, it doesn't make sense to bring it into this debate.

From I've read about that case, irrespective of the facts, the guard was cleared by an internal company investigation and yet the CPS has still decided to prosecute.

Therefore the implication is that railstaff can be prosecuted even when following mandated company procedures. Very worrying indeed.

 

[theageofthetra]

No, I'll settle with reading about the case in the news along with the associated RAIB report.

Certainly I'm interested in what he's supposed to have done that reaches a criminal threshold, because it's not clear to anyone, least of all me.

However, seeing that none of us know any of the facts about that incident, it doesn't make sense to bring it into this debate.

I presume you are referring to the ongoing case of the Hayes & Harlington 'trap & drag'. The outcome of this case will have a massive impact accross the DOO network.

 

[pompeyfan]

Drivers are not getting shafted, just being asked to do what 30+% of other drivers do. Guards are having their role made easier, so not sure how that is being shafted, no redundancy or wage cuts ... unless you are talking about by their union.

But you didn't answer my question, what do you want the unions and train crews to do? Just accept what they're being told and go and work to the new set up without any compromise from GTR/Southern? If GTR want to push forward with these 'promises' they need to have it black and white, no grey, no middle ground. 30% of people have used their phone while driving a car, doesn't mean the other 70% of drivers should start doing it, and you say the guards role is becoming easier? Why do you perceive it as being easier? Until guarantees can be put in place this will continue to be dragged out.

He was offered negotiations to accept the RMT offer ... Which is hardly any negotiations ... So understandably declined ... He was basically being offered the same deal that had been rejected previously ... The 'negotiations' were a RMT play on words. Basically accept everything the guard currently does remains unchanged.

Thank you for clearing this up for me, I didn't get to watch it.

Finally that last bit can't be true as we know the Southern networks is blighted by huge mobile dead spots that make them so unreliable.

What is the need for this comment, there is lots of coverage blackspots between population areas, you expect mobile signal in towns and cities, you expect to lose it when you go out in the country?

 

[Carlisle]

Drivers are not getting shafted, just being asked to do what 30+% of other drivers do. Guards are having their role made easier, so not sure how that is being shafted, no redundancy or wage cuts ... unless you are talking about by their union.
.

Exactly, clearly some on here seem to just want to buy into the unions propaganda campaign and have no ide what the realities on what the realities of a serious pay cut/ job loss or actual redundancy really mean

 

[pompeyfan]

Exactly, clearly some on here seem to just be buying into the unions propaganda campaign and have no idea what the realities of a serious pay cut/ job loss or actual redundancy really mean

It may well be propaganda, but do you genuinely believe it is safer for the driver to shut the doors on equipment that is sometimes not fit for purpose compared to a guard shutting the doors?

Also, do you believe that the grade will be here in 10 years time? do you believe the promises that they won't be wound down and will not eventually be run with no second member of staff?

 

[O L Leigh]

Exactly, clearly some on here seem to just want to buy into the unions propaganda campaign without any thought on what the realities of a serious pay cut/,unfair dismissal or actual redundancy situation really mean

Drivers are mercifully not under this threat, so the comment is baseless.

O L Leigh

 

[bahnause]

DOO is used all around the world including France that bastion of industrial strife. There does not seem to be a shortage of people wanting to be drivers and take on the responsibility. If you don't want that responsibility then don't be a driver.

I work as a driver in Switzerland. We are used to DOO trains since 1990 or so, but it was never the case, that a driver was responisble to such an extent as it seems to be in GB. It was agreed over here, that the only solution for a DOO train is a technical one. It was clear from the beginning, that checking 24 doors on tiny screens from inside a cab isn't a practical or a safe system. So we rely on the door system. I press the "close doors" button after 50 secs and wait for the red light to extinguish and off we go. I'm only obliged to supervise the train "as far as possible".

So do the drivers in france and in other places of the world have the same responsibilities when driving DOO trains? Is it a fair comparison?

 

[Astradyne]

It may well be propaganda, but do you genuinely believe it is safer for the driver to shut the doors on equipment that is sometimes not fit for purpose compared to a guard shutting the doors?

Also, do you believe that the grade will be here in 10 years time? do you believe the promises that they won't be wound down and will not eventually be run with no second member of staff?

Whether or not it is safer is irrelevant. What does matter is DOO has been declared safe, and has a 30 year track record to back up that statement.

 

[Matt Taylor]

It may well be propaganda, but do you genuinely believe it is safer for the driver to shut the doors on equipment that is sometimes not fit for purpose compared to a guard shutting the doors?

Body mounted cameras with their narrow field of vision are in no way comparable to a guard on a platform with a clear view of not just the doors but also the entire platform environment specifically including platform entrances from where late runners will inevitably arrive after the door closing sequence may have already started. The Hayes & Harlington situation may well have had a very different outcome had a guard been provided who could have seen the late running passenger dashing down the stairs.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

Whether or not it is safer is irrelevant. What does matter is DOO has been declared safe, and has a 30 year track record to back up that statement.

Can you provide evidence and sources for your statement?

DOO may have been declared "safe" in the early 1980s when there were shorter trains and less people travelling. It has been mentioned before (probably on here) that the new Bedpan units sat idle for a year during a DOO row with ASLEF

 

[XDM]

DOO may have been declared "safe" in the early 1980s when there were shorter trains and less people travelling. It has been mentioned before (probably on here) that the new Bedpan units sat idle for a year during a DOO row with ASLEF

They were mostly 8 coach on the Bedpan line at the start of DOO despite Whelan telling the Select committee they were 3 car max. The Moorgate peak trains were 6 coach. And veterans tell me the loadings per coach were even greater than now, as there were fewer trains. This excuse of shorter quieter trains then, for no longer running DOO is yet more tosh.

 

[GusB]

Most of us wish your postings would be at an end altogether. They are repetitive & based on the spurious authority that you sit in a cab & respond to buzzers & bells. If you were a rail manager,having been a driver, with wider experience you might be listened to. Several of us actually wonder if you even drive trains. You post morning noon & night & very frequently. Do you have time to work??
DOO is world wide & has been with us for years. Get out in the real world & see.

This sort of managerial attitude is not restricted to the railways. I've worked in retail and other service sector roles, and it always amazes me how quickly certain managers become disconnected from the job that they used to do. The gap tends to widen the further up the chain they are promoted.

Thankfully most, in my experience anyhow, keep themselves grounded. They're the ones who remember what it's like to be on the front-line, are more likely to be on the front-line mucking in when things get a bit tricky from time-to-time and generally the same people are likely to retain the respect of their former colleagues.

Perhaps it's time to get back to the real world and see?

 

[Islineclear3_1]

This sort of managerial attitude is not restricted to the railways. I've worked in retail and other service sector roles, and it always amazes me how quickly certain managers become disconnected from the job that they used to do. The gap tends to widen the further up the chain they are promoted.

Thankfully most, in my experience anyhow, keep themselves grounded. They're the ones who remember what it's like to be on the front-line, are more likely to be on the front-line mucking in when things get a bit tricky from time-to-time and generally the same people are likely to retain the respect of their former colleagues.

Perhaps it's time to get back to the real world and see?

Where's the "like" button? In my industry, managers are so far removed and disconnected from the workforce and are themselves puppets of a higher hierachy where they are told to/and implement/regurgitate "policy" without a thought for how workable it is on the ground.