I believe it is on DMUs at Chiltern as well?And it is already the case on VTWC, XC, and was on Southern prior to the DOO move.
I believe it is on DMUs at Chiltern as well?And it is already the case on VTWC, XC, and was on Southern prior to the DOO move.
I believe it is on DMUs at Chiltern as well?
Quite. We are talking a matter of a few short months now though until new rolling stock is going to be required in passenger service.
Unlikely that the company will want to have that on the same terms that current stock works on, isn't it? So for a relatively lengthy period, both old and new methods of working would be planned. Thus, crunch time for somebody.
Yes, it does. I'm aware of three - via the RAIB - in the last decade or so though, against maybe four or five times that involving DOO trains. You're right about risk though, and I'll admit that you probably couldn't make a case for retaining guards on the PTI risk alone. Add in the other benefits, emergency situations etc., and it must come close to justifying the additional cost of a safety-critical second member of staff over a 'customer service' OBS. The depths of the Hope Valley or the top of Dent Dale are very different places to anywhere on London Underground's network too - the driver might be alone with a trainload of passengers on the latter, but help is never all that far away. You could quite reasonably be looking at an hour or more for any sort of assistance to arrive at the former.If I recall correctly that also happens on trains with guards.
...
An excellent post. Yes, there's a risk that the last train will be cancelled if there's no guard (although that should very rarely happen on a properly staffed railway with adequate spare cover!). If there's no absolute requirement for a guard, it will run without a guard on far more occasions that it would otherwise have been cancelled on - it's inevitable, especially given Northern's (yes, I know that the train in your specific example isn't Northern's) chronic short-staffing. Why would they, as a business with a duty to their shareholders, pay overtime to cover work that they can get away without covering?However, a train that has been rostered to carry a guard, conductor or OBS who for any reason isn't available currently won't run? If it's the last train of the day and that member of crew is missing the train may have to run ECS to wherever it needs to be at the end of the day?
Seems silly to operate an empty train, leaving perhaps only 5 or 6 passengers at various points along the route? OK lets let them travel, this once. So the thin edge is inserted. Within 12 months that service would be operated driver only 2 or 3 times a week - and before long it's accepted as full DOO. Probably no accidents, if all goes well. Probably?
I'm afraid there aren't easy half measures because most of us with any length of work experience know what happens next. If you're in management you want to push it as far as you can. That lightly loaded last train may be OK once in a while. The rammed full train at 17.30 may not be. Yet it's been done elsewhere for decades!
Now bringing in a specific example, the last train from Manchester to Sheffield due to stop at Hathersage and Grindleford. It's usually lightly loaded. It's often late due to a variety of problems built up during the day. It runs through a lot of cuttings in open country and two long tunnels. It's running with only a driver, stopping all stations. No, it doesn't hit an alien or Dr Who but a fallen tree in the same place and the driver is just as incapacitated. There is no mobile signal in the cutting and on the embankments in and around the woods between Hathersage and Grindleford. Passengers are on their own to find their way along the tracks to one of the unmanned stations. Some may know which way is best. The woods are a bad option, even in daylight for those who've ever walked or worked in there! (It's where Network Rail was going to build a loop for the Hope Valley Capacity Scheme until they found how difficult it would be for both construction and access.)
It's thousands of special situations such as this across the north that are at the heart of this dispute. The RMT waves the shroud of a possible Grenfell scale disaster. In 50 years we all hope it won't happen, but it's the nature of accidents that they do happen, somewhere, and with unpredictable results. Even when one does happen it's by no means certain that a fully trained guard would cope better than an OBS - or even members of the public left to use their initiative! But clearly they should.
Management of risk is not, and never can be, a totally precise science! Accounting for the most obvious and the most unlikely risks will never be totally agreed, so this dispute may indeed go on for ever. Encouraging thought, isn't it? We'll just have to use our cars - vehicles that are a lot less safe than taking a train.
If there was a such a penalty, then the "exceptional circumstances" clause might be more convincing!It doesn't need to be how you portray it. That 'thin edge' is quite an understandable concern but if the 'exceptional circumstance' results in, say, a £5,000 fine on the TOC it might stop them trying to use it too often.
Southern have already learned that the on-board person has to run off every few minutes anyway, not to open and close the doors but merely to observe the platform - because otherwise any wheelchair users wishing to board will probably be left on the platform. If they're having to go off and do that, there's no benefit really to them not closing the doors and dispatching the train themselves, even if the driver releases the doors.Secondly if there is one thing that TOCs love it is money and they know that the best way to extract as much money as possible from passengers is to make sure that you have the on-board person who is completely centered on doing that side of the role instead of running off every few minutes to open and close the doors.
Its also because people dont believe its for 'our safety'. Why would the guards lose money and inconvenience passengers for their safety?They absolutely do. If they go onto the Northern website there is no evidence that it's about anything else. It's silent completely on the cause of the industrial dispute.
The storm is the RMT not wanting to lose their membership base. They know that although jobs will be guaranteed ie no loses Northern won't recruit as much. That's why they are using the 'our safety' argument. They forget to mention the tube is DOO.If I recall correctly that also happens on trains with guards.
All life is a risk. The question is whether the level of risk is acceptable to the population at large.
In the view of the 1.37 billion people who use the London Underground each year which is purely DOO, the level of risk is clearly acceptable. Compared to most of the surface railway the perceived levels of risk are much higher with its narrow platforms, sometimes the very dense numbers of people and the restricted access and egress. Half of it is in tunnels which is not a natural environment - yet people still use it.
Some 1.7 billion passenger journeys are made by people using National Rail every year. Of these roughly 600 million are already made on DOO trains.
I fail to understand why is there such a storm in a teacup about extension of DOO to some of the Northern network.
I've thought of something. Have a guard and an OBS. The guard can do the doors and check tickets and the OBS can sell tickets and assist passengers. On a coupled train without end gangways, the guard can be in one unit and the OBS in another.
Cross train them.Wouldn't solve anything. If the guard is unavailable the RMT would still want the service cancelled, even if an OBS is available.
I have thought of an even better idea. Let's have an OBS assigned to each passenger as he enters the station. The OBS can carry his bag, fetch him coffee, even read out his newspaper for him.I've thought of something. Have a guard and an OBS. The guard can do the doors and check tickets and the OBS can sell tickets and assist passengers. On a coupled train without end gangways, the guard can be in one unit and the OBS in another.
I'm at the stage now where any idea to resolve this dispute is a good one.I have thought of an even better idea. Let's have an OBS assigned to each passenger as he enters the station. The OBS can carry his bag, fetch him coffee, even read out his newspaper for him.
Solve any unemployment problem overnight but I don't hold out much chance of the rail network surviving a fortnight.
Your safety is largely the responsibility of the memebr(s) of staff in charge of the train. Increasing the driver’s workload substantially not only puts your safety at risk, but also puts the driver at risk of criminal action, maybe as far as a manslaughter charge, if he makes a mistake or misjudgment under the increased pressure.Its also because people dont believe its for 'our safety'. Why would the guards lose money and inconvenience passengers for their safety?
Other than maybe on busy trains (where it’s not unknown to have a revenue person or a second guard booked to assist) or two units coupled with no gangway, what’s the point when the guard can adequately do all of the above?I've thought of something. Have a guard and an OBS. The guard can do the doors and check tickets and the OBS can sell tickets and assist passengers. On a coupled train without end gangways, the guard can be in one unit and the OBS in another.
When do the RMT have to legally declare by if they wish to strike on Saturday 27th (I seem to recall they must give a certain notice period)?
Well heres an idea then to stop more strikes. Since we've had 30 over "our safety" already and the rail companies have ignored it why not let DOO run its course. When there is the accident that the RMT are predicting will happen the RMT can say "Well we told you so didnt we and you didnt pay any attention." The public will be so horrified that the RMT were right and loss of life. The company would then rush to reintroduce guards with immediate effect.Your safety is largely the responsibility of the memebr(s) of staff in charge of the train. Increasing the driver’s workload substantially not only puts your safety at risk, but also puts the driver at risk of criminal action, maybe as far as a manslaughter charge, if he makes a mistake or misjudgment under the increased pressure.
Other than maybe on busy trains (where it’s not unknown to have a revenue person or a second guard booked to assist) or two units coupled with no gangway, what’s the point when the guard can adequately do all of the above?
Southern have already learned that the on-board person has to run off every few minutes anyway, not to open and close the doors but merely to observe the platform - because otherwise any wheelchair users wishing to board will probably be left on the platform. If they're having to go off and do that, there's no benefit really to them not closing the doors and dispatching the train themselves, even if the driver releases the doors.
Southern does cancel trains when an OBS is not available and it is not an exceptional circumstance. They occasionally have to explain it on their social media to angry customers.
I wonder how long before Northern Management bring the issue to a head by proactively cancelling all Sunday services thus depriving the striking guards of thier ability to make up lost wages by working OT on the Sundays?
Strike action confirmed for another 3 Saturday's up to 10th November now.
Strike action confirmed for another 3 Saturday's up to 10th November now.
I wonder how long before Northern Management bring the issue to a head by proactively cancelling all Sunday services thus depriving the striking guards of thier ability to make up lost wages by working OT on the Sundays?
Isn't that already in place at Northern on some services in the form of "Assistant Ticket Examiner" roles?I've thought of something. Have a guard and an OBS. The guard can do the doors and check tickets and the OBS can sell tickets and assist passengers. On a coupled train without end gangways, the guard can be in one unit and the OBS in another.
Strike action confirmed for another 3 Saturday's up to 10th November now.
This is very true, but one thing I will point out is that there will be no strikes in November. This is so that guards can earn a full salary prior to xmas
He made a schoolboy error. Same mistake I made. Failed to consider they would move to Saturday strikes so the can recoup losses by working Sundays. There by continuing strikes indefinitely without loss of earnings.But our friend 'in the know' said this just wouldn't happen.
Where did he go anyway?
Industrial action shouldn't make any difference as units can always be moved empty stock. There are plenty of drivers sat around on Saturday nights and obtaining paths shouldn't be a problem.Note that not providing services during industrial action is allowable but not providing services on Sunday when there's no industrial action or other factors outside of the control of the TOC isn't and is a breach of the franchise agreement. Unless Northern could somehow prove that trains not operating on Saturday meant trains were left out of position meaning Sunday cancellations were unavoidable.
INB4 they strike during the Christmas Markets and torpedo public opinion.Three more Saturdays
27/10
03/11
10/11
ASLEF agreed a list of circumstances under which it's acceptable to operate a train with just a driver on board.