RMT raises serious SWR safety breaches

[AdamL]

This is my personal favourite...

“We have a report of the PUG leaving the Guards Operating Panel prior to departure and therefore failed to properly observe the platform in direct contravention of the rule book. I am awaiting further details on the time and service running number.”

Is the RMT seriously claiming their members never do this?!?!!! I strongly believe the RMT need to be very careful with their statements before they dig themselves a rather large hole.

 

[Moonshot]

I'm DOO. How do I insist on a Guard ? How do I insist on platform staff where there is none ? How do I refuse to stop at a station when I don't know the DOO monitors are not functioning or plain useless ? Why are trains allowed to stop at stations where there are known issues where parts of the unit is not visible in the monitors ? Why are we allowed to stop at stations where there is insufficient light to dispatch due to the station lights failing or in one situation, where they were timed to go out before the last service ?

Why, after numerous reports of poor lighting, poor CCTV, Broken DOO monitors, are issues still not addressed ?

Stuff does not magically get addressed instantly. Quite often they are left in an unfit state or we are simply not told and find out upon discovery. You can literally have a set of DOO monitors out all day and no one told about them being broken but still get moaned at by the Signaller because its been reported numerous times.

Ok it may help if you put some numbers in this......what % of CCTV cameras on any given day are not fit for purpose on that day ?

 

[ComUtoR]

Ok it may help if you put some numbers in this......what % of CCTV cameras on any given day are not fit for purpose on that day ?

It isn't something I can put a figure on. How can I when that isn't something I would even have access to. It's very specific information that will require someone with very very specific knowledge for that.

What I can say is that on routes that I drive, where I discover a broken DOO monitor, I report it straight away, without fail. Where I am metro based I can often run the same trip up and down all day. I will, on many many occasions come back to the same set of DOO monitors only to find they are still defective. Sometimes the next day too. I have no expectation they will be fixed within the hour and generally most are fixed within a day. However; the same set can be out for most of the day and I can count the number of times on one hand where I have been told, in advance, about dispatch issues.

Consider the metro area and how many services will stop at that set of monitors. We simply do not get told in advance and find it after you stop. Allowing services to stop at broken dispatch monitors without prior warning should not happen, or be allowed to happen, however; it does.

I can tell you for a fact, although hard to prove, that a set of DOO monitors was not aligned to see the entire length of the platform and when we moved to 12 cars part of the unit was not visible. Yet, even after it was reported, services were allowed to stop there. It took ASLEF/RMT intervention to get that rectified. The TOC did not tell Drivers and allowed services to stop there.

There are a few stations on my TOC where dispatch has been a regular issue and yet nothing is ever done; until there is an incident.

About 2 weeks ago I reported an issue with 700 DOO Cab monitors. Guess what ? Siemens blamed GTR and nothing has been done. Reported, no action currently taken.

Someone attempted to dispatch me WITHOUT a dispatch license. I reported it. NOTHING WAS DONE !!! It also continued to happen to other Drivers and it again took ASLEF/RMT intervention before the TOC done anything about it.

 

[Monty]

This is my personal favourite...

“We have a report of the PUG leaving the Guards Operating Panel prior to departure and therefore failed to properly observe the platform in direct contravention of the rule book. I am awaiting further details on the time and service running number.”

Is the RMT seriously claiming their members never do this?!?!!! I strongly believe the RMT need to be very careful with their statements before they dig themselves a rather large hole.

I know of least one guard who was observed doing this and as a result he was suspended for a period of time and put on a support plan. the RMT are not making any claims that guards would never have an incident, the argument is that a PUG/Contingency Guard are not being adequately trained and is far more likely to have an incident than a fully qualified guard. The other impression i am getting is that these individuals are not being treated the same was a normal guards when it comes to operation incidents.

The crux of the issue is that this debate is actually entirely separate from that of DOO. The question that should be asked is: Is it safe, is it responsible to train a person some of whom have little to no front line/operational experience on the railway in a couple of days to be in charge of a 12 coach train with hundreds of people on board when normally it takes 3 months to fully train a guard?

The other question is that when a guard does make a mistake (be it an error or a violation) there is a very robust process for dealing with incidents, are PUGs being held to that same standard in practice?

If there is any truth to the RMT's allegations I would say there is a case to answer for. The number of incidents listed for a single day is very high. I have seen 3-6 month periods before with less operating incidents.

 

[Moonshot]

It isn't something I can put a figure on. How can I when that isn't something I would even have access to. It's very specific information that will require someone with very very specific knowledge for that.

What I can say is that on routes that I drive, where I discover a broken DOO monitor, I report it straight away, without fail. Where I am metro based I can often run the same trip up and down all day. I will, on many many occasions come back to the same set of DOO monitors only to find they are still defective. Sometimes the next day too. I have no expectation they will be fixed within the hour and generally most are fixed within a day. However; the same set can be out for most of the day and I can count the number of times on one hand where I have been told, in advance, about dispatch issues.

Consider the metro area and how many services will stop at that set of monitors. We simply do not get told in advance and find it after you stop. Allowing services to stop at broken dispatch monitors without prior warning should not happen, or be allowed to happen, however; it does.

I can tell you for a fact, although hard to prove, that a set of DOO monitors was not aligned to see the entire length of the platform and when we moved to 12 cars part of the unit was not visible. Yet, even after it was reported, services were allowed to stop there. It took ASLEF/RMT intervention to get that rectified. The TOC did not tell Drivers and allowed services to stop there.

There are a few stations on my TOC where dispatch has been a regular issue and yet nothing is ever done; until there is an incident.

About 2 weeks ago I reported an issue with 700 DOO Cab monitors. Guess what ? Siemens blamed GTR and nothing has been done. Reported, no action currently taken.

Someone attempted to dispatch me WITHOUT a dispatch license. I reported it. NOTHING WAS DONE !!! It also continued to happen to other Drivers and it again took ASLEF/RMT intervention before the TOC done anything about it.

Ok some good detail in that.....at least you are realistic enough to realise that defective equipment cannot be fixed instantly. Assuming someone somewhere is actually measuring the amount of defective monitors at anyone time, there clearly will be a figure available. I cant put a figure on it myself , but if we said 0.5% of monitors were faulty at anyone time, clearly that would mean 99.5% are in fact doing exactly what they should be. Would that be a fair statement assuming those figurea were correct? If so, anyone from the outside making general comments that CCTV is poor would actually be wrong.....is that correct? Because if it wasnt, and CCTV was generally poor, then the RMT would have a perfectly valid case in their safety argument.

 

[Moonshot]

I know of least one guard who was observed doing this and as a result he was suspended for a period of time and put on a support plan. the RMT are not making any claims that guards would never have an incident, the argument is that a PUG/Contingency Guard are not being adequately trained and is far more likely to have an incident than a fully qualified guard. The other impression i am getting is that these individuals are not being treated the same was a normal guards when it comes to operation incidents.

The crux of the issue is that this debate is actually entirely separate from that of DOO. The question that should be asked is: Is it safe, is it responsible to train a person some of whom have little to no front line/operational experience on the railway in a couple of days to be in charge of a 12 coach train with hundreds of people on board when normally it takes 3 months to fully train a guard?

The other question is that when a guard does make a mistake (be it an error or a violation) there is a very robust process for dealing with incidents, are PUGs being held to that same standard in practice?

If there is any truth to the RMT's allegations I would say there is a case to answer for. The number of incidents listed for a single day is very high. I have seen 3-6 month periods before with less operating incidents.

Always assuming that incidents on a normal strike free day are reported, and you and I both know that isnt always the case....

 

[Monty]

Always assuming that incidents on a normal strike free day are reported, and you and I both know that isnt always the case....

You are quite correct, however we both know if you are caught attempting to cover something/no report it up the punishment is likely to be far more severe. What I am more interest to know, side by side are incidents by Guards and those by PUGs treated the same in practice.

 

[Moonshot]

You are quite correct, however we both know if you are caught attempting to cover something/no report it up the punishment is likely to be far more severe. What I am more interest to know, side by side are incidents by Guards and those by PUGs treated the same in practice.

Correct......and up here in Northern land a temp guard was took off trains and service cancellled when there was a RTS against a red incident.....I believe he was actually a CTM

 

[ComUtoR]

That is an interesting debate for sure.

I couldn't comment on the figures and it would be unfair to make a guess. I drive a small corner of the network and we have £$%£loads of DOO monitors. NR do a good job in getting them repaired and my issue isn't the speed of the repair. If there is no impact to the service in terms of delay minutes then what happens is that they become low priority and stay broken. That is money and performance being placed ahead of safety standards. I also have an issue where nobody is told and you are allowed to stop. Everyone shouts safety but compromises are made daily.

CCTV quality varies hugely and it would be hard to see what the RMT are actually getting at because of such a poor sweeping generalisation of poor quality. There is a thread floating about where the sunlight issue at Lewisham was debated. This happens every single year and yet nothing is done. Lewisham is not the only set that is affected and there is a general quality and lighting issue with DOO equipment. 700 in-cab monitors also have various issues, which have been reported. I believe on Southern that in cab CCTV quality has also been reported but they still run units around with 'poor' quality CCTV. IIRC there has been an agreement regarding making improvements. Until then, lets run them anyway ?

What is happening, is that, Group standards are dictating quality. As long as it meets the required standard then its allowed. The problem is that the standards are no longer sufficient. I read the RAIB reports and standard are often raised and there are various reports where there is recommendations for standards to be improved. Again, nothing is really done until an incident happens. Even then, the RAIB make recommendation not change the standards.

With the RMT statement; I think its unfair from both sides. They made a sweeping generalisation and that comment is clearly out of context. Its not 'wrong' per se. They do have a valid point but they are making it badly. The Unions anger me a lot of the time. Their approach is combative and often I find they are taking the wrong approach. Surely if the CCTV quality is poor than rather than attack the TOCs they need to highlight specific cases and push the RSSB to improve the required standards and push for better recording of reports, minimal requirements when remedial work is required, stringent protocols when reporting has taken place, etc etc.

Both Unions love forming 'working parties' to discuss issues, rather than addressing them directly. They are just as guilty, in my opinion, as the TOC as safety issues can be dragged out before they are addressed.

 

[Moonshot]

That is an interesting debate for sure.

I couldn't comment on the figures and it would be unfair to make a guess. I drive a small corner of the network and we have £$%£loads of DOO monitors. NR do a good job in getting them repaired and my issue isn't the speed of the repair. If there is no impact to the service in terms of delay minutes then what happens is that they become low priority and stay broken. That is money and performance being placed ahead of safety standards. I also have an issue where nobody is told and you are allowed to stop. Everyone shouts safety but compromises are made daily.

CCTV quality varies hugely and it would be hard to see what the RMT are actually getting at because of such a poor sweeping generalisation of poor quality. There is a thread floating about where the sunlight issue at Lewisham was debated. This happens every single year and yet nothing is done. Lewisham is not the only set that is affected and there is a general quality and lighting issue with DOO equipment. 700 in-cab monitors also have various issues, which have been reported. I believe on Southern that in cab CCTV quality has also been reported but they still run units around with 'poor' quality CCTV. IIRC there has been an agreement regarding making improvements. Until then, lets run them anyway ?

What is happening, is that, Group standards are dictating quality. As long as it meets the required standard then its allowed. The problem is that the standards are no longer sufficient. I read the RAIB reports and standard are often raised and there are various reports where there is recommendations for standards to be improved. Again, nothing is really done until an incident happens. Even then, the RAIB make recommendation not change the standards.

With the RMT statement; I think its unfair from both sides. They made a sweeping generalisation and that comment is clearly out of context. Its not 'wrong' per se. They do have a valid point but they are making it badly. The Unions anger me a lot of the time. Their approach is combative and often I find they are taking the wrong approach. Surely if the CCTV quality is poor then rather than attack the TOCs they need to highlight specific cases and push the RSSB to improve the required standards and push for better recording of reports, minimal requirements when remedial work is required, stringent protocols when reporting has taken place, etc etc.

Both Unions love forming 'working parties' to discuss issues, rather than addressing them directly. They are just as guilty, in my opinion, as the TOC as safety issues can be dragged out before they are addressed.

Everyone shouts safety but compromises are made

Now thats an interesting point .....not sure I agree with it because as far as I am concerned safety is never compromised. However there are numerous work around solutions for day to day faults when they occur.....of course you will well know when you yourself are required to pass a signal at danger as an example.

 

[Essan]

Surely all these alleged breaches of safety were a direct consequence of the strike? So who was really responsible And I suspect most of the public - who unlike Unionistas need to get to work every day by train - would rather a slightly less safe train than none at all (and the consequential loss of income)

 

[Robertj21a]

That is an interesting debate for sure.

I couldn't comment on the figures and it would be unfair to make a guess. I drive a small corner of the network and we have £$%£loads of DOO monitors. NR do a good job in getting them repaired and my issue isn't the speed of the repair. If there is no impact to the service in terms of delay minutes then what happens is that they become low priority and stay broken. That is money and performance being placed ahead of safety standards. I also have an issue where nobody is told and you are allowed to stop. Everyone shouts safety but compromises are made daily.

CCTV quality varies hugely and it would be hard to see what the RMT are actually getting at because of such a poor sweeping generalisation of poor quality. There is a thread floating about where the sunlight issue at Lewisham was debated. This happens every single year and yet nothing is done. Lewisham is not the only set that is affected and there is a general quality and lighting issue with DOO equipment. 700 in-cab monitors also have various issues, which have been reported. I believe on Southern that in cab CCTV quality has also been reported but they still run units around with 'poor' quality CCTV. IIRC there has been an agreement regarding making improvements. Until then, lets run them anyway ?

What is happening, is that, Group standards are dictating quality. As long as it meets the required standard then its allowed. The problem is that the standards are no longer sufficient. I read the RAIB reports and standard are often raised and there are various reports where there is recommendations for standards to be improved. Again, nothing is really done until an incident happens. Even then, the RAIB make recommendation not change the standards.

With the RMT statement; I think its unfair from both sides. They made a sweeping generalisation and that comment is clearly out of context. Its not 'wrong' per se. They do have a valid point but they are making it badly. The Unions anger me a lot of the time. Their approach is combative and often I find they are taking the wrong approach. Surely if the CCTV quality is poor than rather than attack the TOCs they need to highlight specific cases and push the RSSB to improve the required standards and push for better recording of reports, minimal requirements when remedial work is required, stringent protocols when reporting has taken place, etc etc.

Both Unions love forming 'working parties' to discuss issues, rather than addressing them directly. They are just as guilty, in my opinion, as the TOC as safety issues can be dragged out before they are addressed.

Sounds like you could make a good Union rep.......

 

[ComUtoR]

It's because I see where there is a compromise being made. 'work around solutions' are compromises. Our procedure for when DOO monitors are defective allows a unit to pull out the station without a clear 'train safety check' because the procedure is a 'compromise'

A few years ago, I learned a new word. "derogation'

When a service is allowed to stop at a platform without lighting, it is a compromise. It should not be allowed and dispatch does not meet the minimum group standards. Yet, it happens.

I think we all know deep down inside that if safety was a hard line in the sand, the service would fall apart. If a failed DOO monitor meant that services could not stop at that station then it may have no services for most of the day. It's easier to not tell the Drivers not to stop there and let them stop at a broken DOO monitor than close the station, provide dispatch staff, or stop and caution each service.

As you mentioned SPADs consider this. When a Driver passes a signal at danger, they will often ask the Driver to continue to destination. Then take them off duty, then med screen them. What then if the Driver fails the med screen ? Even though there would be underlying issues with the Driver, they are allowed to remain in service. It's a compromise. I asked about this once, I didn't like the response.

 

[Moonshot]

It's because I see where there is a compromise being made. 'work around solutions' are compromises. Our procedure for when DOO monitors are defective allows a unit to pull out the station without a clear 'train safety check' because the procedure is a 'compromise'

A few years ago, I learned a new word. "derogation'

Where a service is allowed to stop at a platform without lighting is a compromise. It should not be allowed and dispatch does not meet the minimum group standards. Yet, it happens.

I think we all know deep down inside that if safety was a hard line in the sand, the service would fall apart. If a failed DOO monitor meant that services could not stop at that station then it may have no services for most of the day. It's easier to not tell the Drivers not to stop there and let them stop at a broken DOO monitor than close the station, provide dispatch staff, or stop and caution each service.

As you mentioned SPADs consider this. When a Driver passes a signal at danger, they will often ask the Driver to continue to destination. Then take them off duty, then med screen them. What then if the Driver fails the med screen ? Even though there would be underlying issues with the Driver, they are allowed to remain in service. It's a compromise. I asked about this once, I didn't like the response.

I can see what you are getting at, but what is the chance of a driver failing a D and A test when we all know the rules. If I said that 99.5% of all drivers that have passed reds were in compliance with D and A rules , then just what do you do to legislate for the 0.5 % that are not. Safety rules are designed to lower risk as per ALARP principles...that is as low as is reasonably practical. But there isnt an absolute guarentee of anything ....

 

[Bookd]

Surely all these alleged breaches of safety were a direct consequence of the strike? So who was really responsible And I suspect most of the public - who unlike Unionistas need to get to work every day by train - would rather a slightly less safe train than none at all (and the consequential loss of income)

I am sure that the companies would prefer to run with fully trained staff, but it is a matter of keeping things moving in an emergency as best they can.
At least those working have some training unlike in times past when outright amateurs would be utilised.

 

[Moonshot]

I am sure that the companies would prefer to run with fully trained staff, but it is a matter of keeping things moving in an emergency as best they can.
At least those working have some training unlike in times past when outright amateurs would be utilised.

When have been outright amateurs used as temp guards?

 

[ComUtoR]

Not many fail the D&A test but we lost one this year because of it. (not a spad)

The context is that clearly there is a compromise made. Even if it isn't D&A (yes it was an extreme and deliberately provocative example) there is still an underlying cause. The TOC takes the risk to allow a Driver/Guard to continue in service knowing that an incident has taken place and knowing that there may be a serious reason for it. Even when 'violations' have been made the compromise has already happened. Legislating for that 0.5% of people is where the compromises take place. It is also where incidents occur.

There will never be an absolute hard line and I agree with what you say. What I find difficult to justify is that we already make a compromise and allow for the 0.5%. We already have derogations and procedures to allow for mitigation etc but even when we state that procedure X must be followed, it is still then compromised further.

It's hard for me to admit that happens.

In context to the OP. The incidents are because various compromises take place. Training slips and people are passed out by tick box and a blind eye is turned towards incident. Failure to report at my TOC is one of the most serious incidents for obvious reasons. If the RMT pushes for a hard line on this, I fear the impact on their members will be detrimental. None of us want an unsafe worker still being employed and I don't always agree with the Union fighting for a bad employee but mistakes happen and again, it would be better to push for clear and concise disciplinary action, retraining and staff support than assault the TOC :/

 

[Moonshot]

Not many fail the D&A test but we lost one this year because of it. (not a spad)

The context is that clearly there is a compromise made. Even if it isn't D&A (yes it was an extreme and deliberately provocative example) there is still an underlying cause. The TOC takes the risk to allow a Driver/Guard to continue in service knowing that an incident has taken place and knowing that there may be a serious reason for it. Even when 'violations' have been made the compromise has already happened. Legislating for that 0.5% of people is where the compromises take place. It is also where incidents occur.

There will never be an absolute hard line and I agree with what you say. What I find difficult to justify is that we already make a compromise and allow for the 0.5%. We already have derogations and procedures to allow for mitigation etc but even when we state that procedure X must be followed, it is still then compromised further.

It's hard for me to admit that happens.

In context to the OP. The incidents are because various compromises take place. Training slips and people are passed out by tick box and a blind eye is turned towards incident. Failure to report at my TOC is one of the most serious incidents for obvious reasons. If the RMT pushes for a hard line on this, I fear the impact on their members will be detrimental. None of us want an unsafe worker still being employed and I don't always agree with the Union fighting for a bad employee but mistakes happen and again, it would be better to push for clear and concise disciplinary action, retraining and staff support than assault the TOC :/

The only sure way of guarenteeing 100% compliance with the D and A policy 100% of the time is for all safety critical staff to undertake a D and A test every time they book on duty.....clearly not practical.

what happens when a SPAD occurs and the signaller during conversation with the driver suspects the driver is under the influence of drugs or alcohol ?

 

[Bookd]

When have been outright amateurs used as temp guards?

I am going back to ancient history, but I believe that in the General Strike trains were run using students, clergymen and enthusiasts to keep some services moving (and at high risk). That would certainly not be allowed now.

 

[Llanigraham]

what happens when a SPAD occurs and the signaller during conversation with the driver suspects the driver is under the influence of drugs or alcohol ?

The signaller reports his concerns to his control on the phone and on the form he has to send in and then awaits instruction.

 

[Moonshot]

The signaller reports his concerns to his control on the phone and on the form he has to send in and then awaits instruction.

ok.....so i guess the rationale would be to suspend the service at the point of the spad no matter where it is and wait for a relief driver ?

 

[BestWestern]

Surely all these alleged breaches of safety were a direct consequence of the strike? So who was really responsible And I suspect most of the public - who unlike Unionistas need to get to work every day by train - would rather a slightly less safe train than none at all (and the consequential loss of income)

Comedy post of the day.

 

[bahnause]

ok.....so i guess the rationale would be to suspend the service at the point of the spad no matter where it is and wait for a relief driver ?

In my Company (outside the UK), this is actually the process to follow.

 

[bramling]

ok.....so i guess the rationale would be to suspend the service at the point of the spad no matter where it is and wait for a relief driver ?

It’s an awkward one. Generally the policy is that the driver will be taken off at the next crew relief point. What happens if no one is available to take over at that point can, however, be open to some liberal, more liberal and less liberal interpretation.

If there are concerns about the circumstances of the incident it gets even more complicated. Should the train be taken out of service and stabled immediately? Should the train be told not to move any further and a relief driver be sent out to the location there and then, with the job stopped for the duration?

These sorts of decisions are thankless. Make the right decision 99 times out of 100 and no one notices or bats an eyelid. Get it wrong and there will likely be a queue of people lining up to say they would have made a different choice...

 

[Llanigraham]

ok.....so i guess the rationale would be to suspend the service at the point of the spad no matter where it is and wait for a relief driver ?

As Bramling says above.

 

[Essan]

Clearly the answer is for the RMT to run all trains .....

 

[Suraggu]

It seems the RMT missed more incidents in this letter that were reported on strike days.

 

[infobleep]

It isn't something I can put a figure on. How can I when that isn't something I would even have access to. It's very specific information that will require someone with very very specific knowledge for that.

What I can say is that on routes that I drive, where I discover a broken DOO monitor, I report it straight away, without fail. Where I am metro based I can often run the same trip up and down all day. I will, on many many occasions come back to the same set of DOO monitors only to find they are still defective. Sometimes the next day too. I have no expectation they will be fixed within the hour and generally most are fixed within a day. However; the same set can be out for most of the day and I can count the number of times on one hand where I have been told, in advance, about dispatch issues.

Consider the metro area and how many services will stop at that set of monitors. We simply do not get told in advance and find it after you stop. Allowing services to stop at broken dispatch monitors without prior warning should not happen, or be allowed to happen, however; it does.

I can tell you for a fact, although hard to prove, that a set of DOO monitors was not aligned to see the entire length of the platform and when we moved to 12 cars part of the unit was not visible. Yet, even after it was reported, services were allowed to stop there. It took ASLEF/RMT intervention to get that rectified. The TOC did not tell Drivers and allowed services to stop there.

There are a few stations on my TOC where dispatch has been a regular issue and yet nothing is ever done; until there is an incident.

About 2 weeks ago I reported an issue with 700 DOO Cab monitors. Guess what ? Siemens blamed GTR and nothing has been done. Reported, no action currently taken.

Someone attempted to dispatch me WITHOUT a dispatch license. I reported it. NOTHING WAS DONE !!! It also continued to happen to other Drivers and it again took ASLEF/RMT intervention before the TOC done anything about it.

Would you be breeching your contract of employment if you refused to take the train further in passenger use on safety grounds? Maybe it every driver kep doing that something woild get done.

It would need to be on safety grounds, assuming that was not a breech of contract.

 

[infobleep]

Surely all these alleged breaches of safety were a direct consequence of the strike? So who was really responsible And I suspect most of the public - who unlike Unionistas need to get to work every day by train - would rather a slightly less safe train than none at all (and the consequential loss of income)

I want fairness in the system and I don't work for the railways.

 

[infobleep]

It seems the RMT missed more incidents in this letter that were reported on strike days.

What were those? Were there many?