Southern DOO: ASLEF members vote 79.1% for revised deal

[physics34]

Dorking to Horsham the other day...no OBS (as they say there would be)........ up to 4 miles between stations...... what would happen if the train fails which affects the GSMR radio and i come to a stand in a place with no mobile phone signal?!

The previous instruction is for me to walk to the nearest phone (maybe 3 miles away)...but now id have to leave the train with passengers on it unattended with no guard or OBS for what would be over an hour whilst walking along the track to find a phone.......

This is clearly not on.

 

[a_c_skinner]

walk to the nearest phone (maybe 3 miles away)

This is a genuine question and very OT. I've always assumed that someone would detect any such train had failed to arrive at its next timing point and an operation to look for it would start fairly quickly.

 

[HowardGWR]

deleted - double posting

 

[Tomnick]

Well done. yYou have come up with a long answer that completely fails to address the point originally raised.

You asked what a Guard could do to manage passengers, specifically 800 of them, in an emergency situation. I answered that question.

Let's be honest most lines are simple double tracks so most of the rest is unlikely to occur. If you are unsure what is behind you walk to the front of the train so you have a big heavy piece of metal protecting you. So how am I now going to perish.

So, on that basis, would you support restrictions on extending DOO into any area with multiple running lines?

 

[Astradyne]

Dorking to Horsham the other day...no OBS (as they say there would be)........ up to 4 miles between stations...... what would happen if the train fails which affects the GSMR radio and i come to a stand in a place with no mobile phone signal?!

The previous instruction is for me to walk to the nearest phone (maybe 3 miles away)...but now id have to leave the train with passengers on it unattended with no guard or OBS for what would be over an hour whilst walking along the track to find a phone.......

This is clearly not on.

So the infallible phone fails again ... it never does when others suggest using mobiles. This is what makes it so laughable, you lot continually change the criteria to suit your cause... and if this 4 miles between stations, why would you consider a phone 3 miles away when the nearest station can be a maximum of 2.

 

[physics34]

This is a genuine question and very OT. I've always assumed that someone would detect any such train had failed to arrive at its next timing point and an operation to look for it would start fairly quickly.

yep, but there has been no instructions as to whether we leave the train or not......nothing on paper, nothing from the safety people nothing at all.

 

[Wookiee]

So, today we've learned that it is perfectly safe for Joe Public to wander up and down operational railway lines. Personally, I think that this is fantastic news. Hopefully we can look forward to all lines doubling up as public footpaths in the near future, as this would make some of my journeys on Shanks's Pony considerably quicker.

 

[physics34]

So the infallible phone fails again ... it never does when others suggest using mobiles. This is what makes it so laughable, you lot continually change the criteria to suit your cause... and if this 4 miles between stations, why would you consider a phone 3 miles away when the nearest station can be a maximum of 2.

ok, i may have exaggerated the numbers......but...

a) you havent commented on the fact that there was no OBS on board when tney said their would be...

b) Are you ok with the driver leaving the train unattended for an extended period of time (a 2 mile walk along ballast is not easy!) in minus 5 conditions with the juice on???

c) Phones that dont fail??? The GSMR has failed and does fail... and out in the sticks the whole world knows there are big areas with no mobile phone signals.

 

[Tomnick]

So the infallible phone fails again ... it never does when others suggest using mobiles. This is what makes it so laughable, you lot continually change the criteria to suit your cause... and if this 4 miles between stations, why would you consider a phone 3 miles away when the nearest station can be a maximum of 2.

The only claims regarding infallible phones that I recall were those made by those (including yourself) insisting that passengers with mobile phones are an acceptable substitute for railway staff summoning help in an emergency.

The assumption that the nearest station will have a phone shows exactly why uninformed members of the public shouldn't be relied upon to make the right choices in situations such as these.

 

[6Gman]

I was on a FGW train that caught fire and was evacuated. It was actually the pax who initiated it - having spotted the fire. And really straightforward. Out the back, not crossing the track and to the side until emergency services arrived. Not rocket science despite what some railway staff would have you believe.

And if you're on the Down Fast between Norton Bridge and Crewe where there's track on both sides?

 

[FordFocus]

The only claims regarding infallible phones that I recall were those made by those (including yourself) insisting that passengers with mobile phones are an acceptable substitute for railway staff summoning help in an emergency.

The assumption that the nearest station will have a phone shows exactly why uninformed members of the public shouldn't be relied upon to make the right choices in situations such as these.

Passenger: "I'm on a train that's on fire, I'm near erm... errr...."

Where as properly trained traincrew can ring the signaller and tell them they are [headcode] at x and requires the Up Main, Down Relief, Up Relief blocking and an emergency switch off for the third rail and can convey he message in less than 60 seconds.

I'm sorry but there is no contest here.

 

[Darandio]

Passenger: "I'm on a train that's on fire, I'm near erm... errr...."

Where as properly trained traincrew can ring the signaller and tell them they are [headcode] at x and requires the Up Main, Down Relief, Up Relief blocking and an emergency switch off for the third rail and can convey he message in less than 60 seconds.

Astradyne would know this. He knows his local line, all with zero training.

Apparently.......

 

[Tomnick]

Passenger: "I'm on a train that's on fire, I'm near erm... errr...."

Where as properly trained traincrew can ring the signaller and tell them they are [headcode] at x and requires the Up Main, Down Relief, Up Relief blocking and an emergency switch off for the third rail and can convey he message in less than 60 seconds.

I'm sorry but there is no contest here.

Exactly.

Meanwhile, Astradyne (or the other chap) and his adoring fellow passengers will be pouring off the train onto the Down Main (they'd be much safer on the other side, because that line's just a siding, but maybe his detailed knowledge isn't so detailed after all) with a train approaching because the signalman hasn't been able to provide protection in time. He knows what he's doing though.

 

[68000]

Two interesting incidents on Northern land today:

On the Hull - Doncaster line there was a SPAD (see thread here) and due to the extremely poor visibility the guard left the train to lay protection to ensure that any other trains that might pass the signal protecting the train would be left in no doubt as to the need to stop and the drive was not able to do so as they were not fit after the SPAD to go walking the track.

A GSM-R emergency call would have been quicker, easier and a safer method to protect the train

Meanwhile over on the Calder Valley a 158 suffered a fire due to a oil leak igniting on the hot engine which saw the guard evacuating the passengers and escorting them to safety at a nearby station. Meanwhile the driver was dealing with the emergency and coordinating with Control and trying to extinguish the fire before it spread.

Guards showing their worth on twice on the same TOC on the same day I'd have said. Particularly the second incident...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I have yet to see DOO on a diesel service and not sure they are proposed?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I have yet to see DOO on a diesel service and not sure they are proposed?

GWR Thames Valley was actually the first DOO service and is all diesel for now. Chiltern is DOO and diesel too.

 

[68000]

GWR Thames Valley was actually the first DOO service and is all diesel for now. Chiltern is DOO and diesel too.

Fair enough, my experience of DOO services is in Scotland where they are only on electric services

 

[BestWestern]

9

Yes without a guards hand to hold the public are incapable of walking along the tracks. Let's hope there was no more than a dozen passengers on that train! Any more and people will do their own thing anyhow.

Does that include where there is a juice rail?

Have a day off chap.

 

[TEW]

A GSM-R emergency call would have been quicker, easier and a safer method to protect the train

This wasn't emergency protection though, it was assistance protection.

 

[tsr]

Guard also had to lay detonator protection on the Hull line to allow their train to be rescued as the driver was not in a fit state to do so following a SPAD in the fog.

Two interesting incidents on Northern land today:

On the Hull - Doncaster line there was a SPAD (see thread here) and due to the extremely poor visibility the guard left the train to lay protection to ensure that any other trains that might pass the signal protecting the train would be left in no doubt as to the need to stop and the drive was not able to do so as they were not fit after the SPAD to go walking the track.

LowLevel is rather clearer on what happened - only one train needed to pass the protecting signal (the assisting one, to clear the failure), which would have been specifically authorised to do so, and would have stopped when assistance protection was reached (which, as it happens, is particularly crucial protection in fog, as even a bright red LED handsignal may not be visible immediately at the specified point 300 yards from the failed train).

A GSM-R emergency call would have been quicker, easier and a safer method to protect the train

No, it wouldn't - at the point that protection was needed, it was not an emergency and GSM-R would in all likelihood have just slowed things down and stopped random selections of trains in the area.

The train involved in the incident was in need of "assistance protection", which is a method of ensuring that there is a physical warning to the driver of an assisting train that there is another train in section. It was not "emergency protection" insofar as there had been an accident and other lines needed to be manually blocked by means of alerting the signaller and other trains, by means of track circuit clips, detonators, handsignals and emergency calls. A SPAD on its own does not fall under the definition of an "accident" in the rulebook and would not generally require emergency protection unless there is no other way to prevent a collision or derailment.

This is not to say that assistance protection wasn't needed. It's absolutely critical in those sorts of situations, and as this one shows, it can be very hard to do without a conductor/guard, at times. In thick fog with a train declared a failure, you are working with very heavy machines being asked to get very close to each other with almost zero visibility, and protection against disorientation (which could have been what had already caused the SPAD, in theory) is crucial.

 

[74A]

This wasn't emergency protection though, it was assistance protection.

No it wasn't. According to the OP it was put down in case the train behind went past its red signal. Not sure why it would though?!?

 

[tsr]

No it wasn't. According to the OP it was put down in case the train behind went past its red signal. Not sure why it would though?!?

ainsworth74 said that, which from what I've been told (which should be correct!) doesn't sound like it's quite right. I can't see that the OP of this or the fog incident thread have said that.

 

[74A]

ainsworth74 said that, which from what I've been told (which should be correct!) doesn't sound like it's quite right. I can't see that the OP of this or the fog incident thread have said that.

True. I think I misunderstood one of the earlier posts

 

[68000]

No, it wouldn't - at the point that protection was needed, it was not an emergency and GSM-R would in all likelihood have just slowed things down and stopped random selections of trains in the area.

Yes it would - quicker, easier and safer. The post I responded to stated the train needed protection from another train SPADing the same signal. Clearly in that situation, it is quicker, easier and safer to use GSM-R than trundle on ballast laying dets!

 

[tsr]

Yes it would - quicker, easier and safer. The post I responded to stated the train needed protection from another train SPADing the same signal. Clearly in that situation, it is quicker, easier and safer to use GSM-R than trundle on ballast laying dets!

Still: no.

The esteemed members who have mentioned that have misunderstood the situation earlier today. There was no need for an emergency call as this is not required for assistance protection, which was what the guard was actually doing. The risk was not from a train behind having a SPAD (well, any more than it normally would be in the conditions), but rather from the driver of the train behind not knowing where the "failed" train had stopped, and therefore potentially needing guidance from the dets and a competent member of the failed train's crew.

Believe me, pushing the GSM-R red button to protect the line in case the assisting train has a SPAD will not do anybody any favours. As I say, it will just bring everything to a grinding halt and distract everyone from the appropriate tasks in hand.

 

[Astradyne]

Astradyne would know this. He knows his local line, all with zero training.

Apparently.......

Southern has deemed you are not needed .... so no point dragging this up .... you HAVE LOST - GAME OVER.

I can not see why you continue this pointless argument.

Oh and yes, on my regularly used lines ... I reckon I could work out my location to within a mile ... while some drivers/guards walking to a phone 3 miles away when I have made it to a station 2 miles away.

Southern is now 73% DOO .... that is the majority ... so now the minority does not have to res0ect the majority .... which was half your initial argument. As previously said, you change the rules as you go along.

GAME OVER on Southern
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Still: no.

The esteemed members who have mentioned that have misunderstood the situation earlier today. There was no need for an emergency call as this is not required for assistance protection, which was what the guard was actually doing. The risk was not from a train behind having a SPAD (well, any more than it normally would be in the conditions), but rather from the driver of the train behind not knowing where the "failed" train had stopped, and therefore potentially needing guidance from the dets and a competent member of the failed train's crew.

Believe me, pushing the GSM-R red button to protect the line in case the assisting train has a SPAD will not do anybody any favours. As I say, it will just bring everything to a grinding halt and distract everyone from the appropriate tasks in hand.

Why would the driver of the train behind not have stopped at a red signal having seen the yellow and double yellows before it. I am struggling to understand why he needs to know where the failed train has stopped when he should not be on the same section of track ... honest question ... I must be missing something.

 

[ComUtoR]

Why would the driver of the train behind not have stopped at a red signal having seen the Amber and double Ambers before it.

Tut tut.

 

[AlterEgo]

Still: no.

The esteemed members who have mentioned that have misunderstood the situation earlier today. There was no need for an emergency call as this is not required for assistance protection, which was what the guard was actually doing. The risk was not from a train behind having a SPAD (well, any more than it normally would be in the conditions), but rather from the driver of the train behind not knowing where the "failed" train had stopped, and therefore potentially needing guidance from the dets and a competent member of the failed train's crew.

Believe me, pushing the GSM-R red button to protect the line in case the assisting train has a SPAD will not do anybody any favours. As I say, it will just bring everything to a grinding halt and distract everyone from the appropriate tasks in hand.

It's still concerning that some people are implying (indirectly by omission) the driver was literally unable to perform this (non-time critical) task, and by doing so justify the presence of the guard in this argument.

The driver was no doubt unable to take the train forward; this is commonplace. Nobody wants a shaken driver navigating the rest of their route. But are we really implying that the driver was so unfit he was completely unable to perform the complete task of clipping detonators to the track?

I am sure the guard did so either because 1) it is his duty and not the driver's, and 2) because it is the mark of a good colleague to take on that task if the driver was upset/anxious/etc.

What would have happened had the guard not been there? Best guess is the driver would have laid the dets, which would have been his duty.

I am sure however in this particular incident some upset and time was saved by the guard's presence.

 

[TheEdge]

Why would the driver of the train behind not have stopped at a red signal having seen the Amber and double Ambers before it. I am struggling to understand why he needs to know where the failed train has stopped when he should not be on the same section of track ... honest question ... I must be missing something.

You are missing something, as you have done for hundreds of posts. As people have said they misunderstood the situation, the guard was laying something called assistance protection, not emergency protection. I could explain what it is, why its done and why a passenger with a mobile is not a replacement for it but I can only presume making another explanation post to you based on professional knowledge would be pointless.

 

[Astradyne]

You are missing something, as you have done for hundreds of posts. As people have said they misunderstood the situation, the guard was laying something called assistance protection, not emergency protection. I could explain what it is, why its done and why a passenger with a mobile is not a replacement for it but I can only presume making another explanation post to you based on professional knowledge would be pointless.

In that case if you are on the same section of track as a disabled train and visibility is as bad as you have made out, surely you proceed at snails pace? Safety first!

 

[TheEdge]

The driver was no doubt unable to take the train forward; this is commonplace. Nobody wants a shaken driver navigating the rest of their route. But are we really implying that the driver was so unfit he was completely unable to perform the complete task of clipping detonators to the track?

You don't know, if that was the driver's third SPAD they probably lost their job today. You never know how that driver may have reacted. Especially if they were then expected to walk the 300m on a potentially live line in what was presumably thick fog.

I am sure the guard did so either because 1) it is his duty and not the driver's, and 2) because it is the mark of a good colleague to take on that task if the driver was upset/anxious/etc.

Point 1, no, laying of assistance protection is primarily the job of the driver, not automatically the job of a guard. Bear with me here on point 2, there is a contradiction coming. Protection is not automatically the job of the guard, but it can become so. In the Rulebook (if you want to check online, Module M1, Section 2.2) under "Guard's Actions";

You must carry out the instructions shown for the driver in this module if you:
- cannot contact the driver
- find the driver is unavailable

So its not the mark of a good colleague, its following the rulebook but it is not in the day to day duties of a guard, it falls under that cover all quote in there. And that quote is pretty much the crux of the safety arguement, in safety matters guards are expected to be able to perform all the duties of a driver.

What would have happened had the guard not been there? Best guess is the driver would have laid the dets, which would have been his duty.

I am sure however in this particular incident some upset and time was saved by the guard's presence.

Possibly pilotman working to recover the failed train if the driver genuinely wasn't able to lay protection.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

In that case if you are on the same section of track as a disabled train and visibility is as bad as you have made out, surely you proceed at snails pace? Safety first!

No, there is a full process to it, assistance protection, a predefined manner of safely approaching a failed train regardless of conditions. That is the protection that was laid by the guard in this incident.