Southern DOO: ASLEF members vote 79.1% for revised deal

[455driver]

But it isn't.

Wasn't the figure for DOO operation only 30% of the railway ? I seem to recall that figure from back when this debate first started. It is far from the standard mode of operation.

When all this is done and sorted and all the Guards are gone. Your ticket price will be a lot higher than before and your train will still be late or cancelled.

The train is more likely to be late as the Guards have the option to move to the best location for dispatch, the driver doesnt and has to rely on a very shallow view from the on board cameras.

 

[Barn]

But it isn't.

Wasn't the figure for DOO operation only 30% of the railway ? I seem to recall that figure from back when this debate first started. It is far from the standard mode of operation.

30% of trains. But those trains are really busy, frequent metro services and so I wouldn't be at all surprised if the majority of passenger journeys are DOO. Especially so if you include the Tube.

The 30% figure will of course increase post-Southern.

 

[Chrisgr31]

I just dont know how it can be safe to only have 1 member of staff on board. Yes an incident might be unlikely but that applies everywhere one has staff in case an evacuation is required.

The second member of staff ca help in multiple other ways if they are there and if they remained trained to do doors that would be ideal as less delays for camera faults!

It may be under certain conditions be possible to operate without them but we all know that unless those conditions are set out clearly the TOC will just drive a coach and horse through them.

The Gibb report was of course accurate to blame industrial dispute for much of the issues on Southern but how about actually talking to the drivers to see how concerned they are. After all its the actual drivers who have refused two settlements by the ASLEF board.

I believe they have genuine concerns but can see no end to this dispute.

 

[Bletchleyite]

So what would you like to see then?

On SN? DOO on inner suburban (just like Merseyrail), driver release and guard close on regional.

 

[313103]

It's the standard mode of operation, without industrial disputes or major incidents, in the UK and widely in Europe.
There is 30 years of Thameslink operation and 20 years on some other routes.

I'm not getting into semantics, I just believe the RMT/ASLEF need to make a workable agreement with the TOCs and move on to better things like expanding the railway.
"No change" is not an option as technology advances and operational costs increase, just as in other industries.
By the way, my job was "rationalised" in a much newer industry (IT).
It happens, and nowadays more frequently.

Seems you wasnt around when DOO first arrived, the introduction of class 317s onto the Bedpan line was delayed by nearly a year and not because the system wasn't ready either.

What you mean when you say that the RMT and to a lesser degree ASLE&F need to make a workable agreement it is to accept that thousands of jobs across the country are surplus to requirements.

I think you and many others should note that there is no such thing as No change, the railways have been changing since it first started running. But i think i understand where you are coming from.

The railways are forever being rationalised so its nothing new to me or anyone else in that matter

However that still doesnt explain the oxymoron saying of Perfectly Satisfactorily.

 

[infobleep]

But of course, he is only the fountain head. It will be others who will produce any required report. I know that most see the truth to this, but some cannot resist political point scoring.

Sir Humphrey would have explained matters in his usual inimitable style.

Chris Grayling likes political point scoring. TfL not having control of metro services as it's a Labour mayor in power springs to mind.

One can argue whether TfL should have the Mero services but it shouldn't revolve around which party the mayor is part of.

 

[HowardGWR]

Chris Garyling likes political point scoring. TfL not having control of metro services as it's a Labour mayor in power springs to mind.

One can argue whether TfL should have the Mero services but it shouldn't revolve around which party the mayor is part of.

I don't usually have great empathy with your remarks (or spelling ), but in this case you are spot on with that one.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Chris Garyling likes political point scoring.

Who is this Chris Garyling to whom you allude?

 

[infobleep]

Who is this Chris Garyling to whom you allude?

Chris Grayling is the one. Sometimes I misspell his name. Still I'd rather have spelling lapses than be Chris Grayling, as I think he isn't doing a good job and that's more important than getting ones spelling perfect. Not that I'm saying spelling doesn't matter. It does but less so than getting the job of Transport Secretary right.

 

[HowardGWR]

Chris Grayling is the one. Sometimes I misspell his name. Still I'd rather have spelling lapses than be Chris Grayling, as I think he isn't doing a good job and that's more important than getting ones spelling perfect. Not that I'm saying spelling doesn't matter. It does but less so than getting the job of Transport Secretary right.

It does if you wish to be of influence.

 

[pompeyfan]

On SN? DOO on inner suburban (just like Merseyrail), driver release and guard close on regional.

So where would you draw a line then, what is metro, what is regional and how do you define the difference. Why do you think Merseyrail should be DOO and what happens to all the guards?

I didn't realise until the other day that 313s were driver release, I thought it was guard release on them.

 

[al78]

It does if you wish to be of influence.

It shouldn't do. The spelling error looks more like accidentally pressing two keys on the keyboard in the wrong order, a mistake that is easy to make. That sort of mistake has no bearing on the point he was making so it is a fallacy to claim it has any relevance to the validity of his point.

 

[Bletchleyite]

So where would you draw a line then, what is metro, what is regional and how do you define the difference. Why do you think Merseyrail should be DOO and what happens to all the guards?

There is a dedicated thread for that, but as a whole the railway is not a job creation scheme and if guards are surplus to the business's requirements they need to be redeployed or made redundant. What to do about the societal impact of that is a matter for the Government, not individual businesses. My personal view is that a frequency increase would be a good balance allowing some to be taken on as drivers and others to take early retirement, or become RPIs etc.

Metro vs long distance is a bit blurred on Southern, but think services that would be S Bahn in Germany. Basically most of what was DOO already on SN.

 

[ComUtoR]

On SN? DOO on inner suburban (just like Merseyrail), driver release and guard close on regional.

Why DOO on metro and not regional ? Can you explain the reasons behind your choice please.

From my perspective that's the worse way around. Metro is much more intensive and has more station stops and I suspect many more passengers. With DOO on metro you are giving the Driver more duties and there is a higher risk of incident with the number of passenger exits and entrances. Shouldn't this be where a Guard is needed most ?

If DOO is safe for metro then there why specifically shouldn't it be applied to mainline working ? I don't see why passengers on regional services need a Guard more than passengers on metro. If one deserves it then why not both ?

Accepting DOO means that every train, everywhere gets DOO.

 

[313103]

There is a dedicated thread for that, but as a whole the railway is not a job creation scheme and if guards are surplus to the business's requirements they need to be redeployed or made redundant. What to do about the societal impact of that is a matter for the Government, not individual businesses. My personal view is that a frequency increase would be a good balance allowing some to be taken on as drivers and others to take early retirement, or become RPIs etc.

Metro vs long distance is a bit blurred on Southern, but think services that would be S Bahn in Germany. Basically most of what was DOO already on SN.

You have got to love the saying 'The railways are not a job creation scheme' Who actually says it is a job creation scheme? I dont recall anyone on here saying that and i most certainly did not.

But it is used by those who advocate DOO to soften the blow on what the realities are. But at least you have admitted that they should be made redundant, you are the first to advocate that in a direct way and for that i thank you for your honesty. Just a pity you are not a head of one of the numerous TOC's who spin the line about DOO being more customer friendly, why not just say without spinning a yarn 'You are no longer needed in the business and then say Goodbye and best of luck finding a job'. At least there is transparency in that.

As for redeployment that is indeed a fallacy because for one the whole idea of DOO is reduce the headcount, on Southern they are not just looking at Guards to be rid of, the ticket offices are being reduced and closed so that is another load of staff rid of.

A certain prime minister once said 'there is no such thing as society'. So as we don't have a society anymore, how can the Government pick up the pieces of those left without a job? Whilst we are discussing society issues that same prime minister also said 'A man who, beyond the age of 26, who finds himself on a bus can count himself a failure', is the actual real world we live in. I am a man of 53 who does not drive so i am deemed a failure in life. This current prime minister and her government does not care about those at the bottom, just look at the contempt they showed when they refused and amendment to keep the freeze on public sector workers, that's the society that exists.

Your personal view does not count when money is involved, service levels at London Overground have not increased since i left in 2013, and getting rid of the Guards was all done to improve the customer experience, the only change that has occurred is the trains were extended to five cars after we went, but paid for and on order before we left.

Taking some on as drivers does not work as all of them could fail so we are then back to square one. Same could be said for making them RPI's. Taking early retirement only works if you can find another job. No railway worker is going to be able to retire at say 50 and live on his/her pension until they die, they will have to find work to supplement the pension at retirement age.

 

[Carlisle]

Taking some on as drivers does not work as all of them could fail so we are then back to square one. .

If so the companies need to review their recruitment/ promotion strategies as whilst I can appreciate some may fail it certainly shouldn't be all of them, I get the impression London Underground did an lot better in assisting many of their guards to becomre drivers when DOO came in than the mainline TOCs have done since

 

[313103]

If so the companies need to review their recruitment/ promotion strategies as whilst I can appreciate some may fail it certainly shouldn't be all of them, I get the impression London Underground did an lot better in assisting many of their guards to becomre drivers when DOO came in than the mainline TOCs have done since

Of the 138 Guards employed by London Overground at the time DOO was announced less then 20 actually made the grade to driver. Some failed the group bourdon tests, some failed due to medical issues, some realised they were not upto the job of being driver so pulled out, some failed at the end of the course.

 

[ComUtoR]

If so the companies need to review their recruitment/ promotion strategies

To what end ? So that the entrance requirements are reduced or overlooked to allow a more to the driving grade as a line of promotion ? The assessment standards are a national standard, set externally and not by the TOCs. They could allow for a 'standard' pass rather than an 'enhanced' but that would be an unfair recruitment practice.

 

[ComUtoR]

I can appreciate some may fail it certainly shouldn't be all of them

I think you may need to look at the insanely high level of failure for the driving grade assessment.

Not forgetting their may be a portion of the Guards who have failed previously. Or simply don't want a driving job.

 

[Carlisle]

I think you may need to look at the insanely high level of failure for the driving grade assessment.

Not forgetting their may be a portion of the Guards who have failed previously. Or simply don't want a driving job.

Ok, I've not had personal experience of taking the required tests, I've only worked with ex underground employees who've said quite a high proportion of their ex guards became drivers, possibly their tests were less stringent a while back, not sure.

 

[ComUtoR]

Ok, I've not had personal experience of taking the required tests, I've only worked with ex underground employees who've said quite a high proportion of their ex guards became drivers, possibly their tests were less stringent a while back, not sure.

I couldn't say which is better as I only experience Driver side. The failure rate is very very high. My point mostly is that the TOC doesn't set the standard. Their recruitment into the driving grade is very restrictive. They could give everyone a go as part of a severance package and that would be within their remit. Costly not doubt. Not many opportunities for the driving grade come up and providing the opportunity to apply is something I believe they can do and should do. I think they could also forgoe the application stage (initial sift) as that is much more subjective and in control of the TOC. Step them directly into the assessment stage I'd agree with and I don't think it would be unfair on externals either

TOC's have been very lax in active recruitment. Just look at the sheer number of trains that are being cancelled due to not working overtime. The railway runs on overtime and that needs to be addressed. It's been discussed before that running a surplus establishment means you will get more Drivers sitting spare/cover/as required but it also means that you don't rely on overtime and that leave and operational requirements can be covered easier. Sadly they will always see any Driver sitting around doing nothing as a cost to be removed. Staffing levels are the quickest way to reduce costs. Not forgetting this is nothing more than a cost cutting exercise.

There needs to be an admission by Southern and all TOCs that they have a staffing issue. I come from a retail background and there is never any staffing issues because we have such a big pool of staff. Running a railway on overtime is ludicrus and the passengers are swallowing the cut in service and letting Southern blame that on Drivers/Guards. I doubt this 'report' that's been asked for will ignore running such a high number of services on overtime. I watched the Select Committee meeting. Their answer was laughable.

I 100% agree that staffing levels need to be looked at.

 

[XDM]

Of the 138 Guards employed by London Overground at the time DOO was announced less then 20 actually made the grade to driver. Some failed the group bourdon tests, some failed due to medical issues, some realised they were not upto the job of being driver so pulled out, some failed at the end of the course.

This is true. But you neglect the fact that the failures were allowed after a fixed period to retest & those who failed the course were also allowed another go. I do not have the figures but I was told that many more than 20,probably 40 became drivers.

 

[Bromley boy]

I couldn't say which is better as I only experience Driver side. The failure rate is very very high. My point mostly is that the TOC doesn't set the standard. Their recruitment into the driving grade is very restrictive. They could give everyone a go as part of a severance package and that would be within their remit. Costly not doubt. Not many opportunities for the driving grade come up and providing the opportunity to apply is something I believe they can do and should do. I think they could also forgoe the application stage (initial sift) as that is much more subjective and in control of the TOC. Step them directly into the assessment stage I'd agree with and I don't think it would be unfair on externals either

TOC's have been very lax in active recruitment. Just look at the sheer number of trains that are being cancelled due to not working overtime. The railway runs on overtime and that needs to be addressed. It's been discussed before that running a surplus establishment means you will get more Drivers sitting spare/cover/as required but it also means that you don't rely on overtime and that leave and operational requirements can be covered easier. Sadly they will always see any Driver sitting around doing nothing as a cost to be removed. Staffing levels are the quickest way to reduce costs. Not forgetting this is nothing more than a cost cutting exercise.

There needs to be an admission by Southern and all TOCs that they have a staffing issue. I come from a retail background and there is never any staffing issues because we have such a big pool of staff. Running a railway on overtime is ludicrus and the passengers are swallowing the cut in service and letting Southern blame that on Drivers/Guards. I doubt this 'report' that's been asked for will ignore running such a high number of services on overtime. I watched the Select Committee meeting. Their answer was laughable.

I 100% agree that staffing levels need to be looked at.

Re. giving them an internal leg up - agreed - don't they already let them bypass the initial sift? I believe that's the case at my TOC. There were a couple of guards on my assessment day (not for GTR).

Re. the staffing issues, if it's cheaper for them to pare staff numbers to the bone and survive on overtime, they will always do so. After all, it kills two birds with one stone: it saves money; it also makes it easier to blame cancellations on "a train crew member being unavailable"!

 

[infobleep]

It does if you wish to be of influence.

I'm sure I once saw a letter from someone higher up in South West Trains, that had grammar and / or spelling errors on it. They got high up.

 

[WatcherZero]

RMT are apparently about to offer a compromise, a trial six month DOO as long as there is an 'accessibility guarantee' of an onboard supervisor to assist vulnerable passengers.

 

[infobleep]

RMT are apparently about to offer a compromise, a trial six month DOO as long as there is an 'accessibility guarantee' of an onboard supervisor to assist vulnerable passengers.

Interesting. I wonder why they have decided to try this now?

Is this a guarantee during the trail or a guarantee full stop.

What about during disruption? If that is not included then surely it would be just like it should be now. Train runs with OBS except during disruption.

 

[HH]

Re. the staffing issues, if it's cheaper for them to pare staff numbers to the bone and survive on overtime, they will always do so. After all, it kills two birds with one stone: it saves money; it also makes it easier to blame cancellations on "a train crew member being unavailable"!

Cancellations are costly - you lose revenue (both short and long term), you pay compensation to NR via Sch8 and there are also Franchise Agreement benchmarks, which can result in breach and default and in some cases direct financial penalties. Anyone that deliberately allows trains to be cancelled to save money would need their head examined.

While some use of rest day working is efficient, over reliance on RDW is never a smart idea. Why does it still happen? In my experience I'm afraid it's poor Operations Management rather than any deliberate ploy to save money.

Here's a typical scenario: something changes, like a increase in walking time, or a small change in stabling arrangements. Rather than re-cast all the diagrams (which takes a deal of effort) they use a "quick fix" which adds a diagram. For every diagram you need 2 extra drivers (rule of thumb), but no-one asks for an increase in establishment, or if they do, it get's refused, because they cannot justify the increase. So now they are 2 drivers short and need an extra rest day worked every day. I've seen this sort of 'diagram creep' where over four years 5 extra diagrams were created on a pretty much unchanged timetable.

This is not the only reason, obviously, but it serves as an illustration that it's more cock-up than conspiracy.

 

[Barn]

Apparently overtime is based on the goodwill of staff.

Does that mean that staff have been awash with goodwill for their employer during the (relatively good) last couple of months since the last official action?

 

[87015]

Cancellations are costly - you lose revenue (both short and long term), you pay compensation to NR via Sch8 and there are also Franchise Agreement benchmarks, which can result in breach and default and in some cases direct financial penalties. Anyone that deliberately allows trains to be cancelled to save money would need their head examined.

Depends on how the cancellations are done as well. PG Cancelling the night before can save a small fortune in penalties as they effectively don't count in most cases - see Virgin at the weekend just gone...

 

[Carlisle]

What about during disruption? If that is not included then surely it would be just like it should be now. Train runs with OBS except during disruption.

Is this offer identical to the conditions ASLEF requested in order to suspend their overtime ban for a fortnight a few weeks ago or have compromises been offered for periods of disruption/ late notice staff unavailability etc?