Southern DOO: ASLEF members vote 79.1% for revised deal

Arctic Troll said:

I don't think there is deliberate bias, far from it, the issue is cluelessness about the real world. But there is an unfortunate tendency to be pedantic when it's someone wanting to strike, or when it's to do with bank overdraft charges, but nowhere near so pedantic when it is an employer riding roughshod over employment rights.

In this case, the judge is being extremely pedantic about the ballot, but taking an extraordinarily liberal view of what DOO duties were actually agreed to. Just fancy that.

Click to expand...

The position of the judge is not to have a view or experience of the real world, but to decide whether the law has been complied with. In this case he has decided that there is a case to be argued and, as far as I can tell, has not decided who has won that argument but set a date when the argument can take place. In the meantime he has decided that strike action cannot take place until its legality has been tested. I see nothing that says he has a "view of what DOO duties were actually agreed to."

Arctic Troll said:

I also don't think it helps ASLEF that Supperstone is a member of the Garrick Club and Charles Horton is a fellow of the Royal Society of Arts, but there we go.

Click to expand...

If you are really trying to make something of this, perhaps you should also look into the backgrounds of the barristers involved on both sides, which are not likely to be significantly different. However, membership of unrelated organisations is fairly meaningless.

D1009 said:

The June Modern Railways, which has just come out has what in my view is a very balanced editorial on the dispute.

Click to expand...

Yes I thought it a very balanced article too, but I'd be really surprised if the solution they hinted at ie some form of working group consisting of the Industry, Unions , Safety authorities etc agreeing a joint way forward for the UK wide network on these DOO related issues happens anytime soon, ideas on all sides have been too entrenched for too long, to the benefit of differeng sides depending on where in the UK we are discussing

Carlisle said:

Yes I thought it was very balanced too, but I'd be really surprised if the solution they hinted at ie some form of working group consisting of the Industry, Unions , Safety authorities etc agreeing a joint way forward for the UK wide network on these DOO related issues happens anytime soon, ideas on all sides have been too entrenched for too long, to the benefit of differeng sides depending on where in the UK we are discussing

Click to expand...

A big part of the problem, from the staff side, is the insecurity of the Guards' roles post-DOO. There is an opportunity here, whilst this is a national debate and all parties including the authorities are interested, to offer a guarantee of the sort which just might allow the desired compromise. Seeing as the DfT are ultimately in charge and have carte blanche to put whatever caveats they desire into every franchise ITT, why not present some form of binding assurance that no current Guard staffing will be lost as a result of the move to DOO? It's really quite simple, and it could be proposed by the DfT as a national standard across all franchised TOCs. Hell, perhaps we could even have a common grade and, shock, a single job title so everybody actually knows who does what! It would need a simple line in each ITT, and an accoutable assurance from government that it will stand. It would immediately disprove all theories that DOO is a shift towards eventual job cuts, and go quite some way to answering some of the Union concerns.

Of course, there is a good reason why such a thing won't happen....

While the article doesn't exactly fit with the tenor of this thread, or my own beliefs, I thought it might be of interest.

http://www.londonreconnections.com/2016/last-stand-old-guard/

The role of the railway guard has been in the news recently due to various industrial disputes in London and beyond. With debate set to continue over the role in the coming months, this seems an appropriate time to look at the role of the railway guard and its relevance today.

Click to expand...

The second half is probably of most interest:

The Modern Railway’s article is probably the only conciliatory viewpoint that has been expressed. They have managed to put a far more rational case for looking into various issues of concern than the unions have and on the safety issue they suggest that the Rail Accident Investigation Board, the Railway Standards and Safety Board and the Office of Road and Rail should take a lead in declaring the safety benefits of having, or not having, the guards close the door and a second person being present. Whether these organisations wish to get involved in this is another matter.

Click to expand...

I have a lot of respect for the intelligence of the London Reconnections folk, and it's an interesting wider view of how the dispute is seen. The comments, as with all LR articles, are also worth a read.

ajb690 said:

I have a lot of respect for the intelligence of the London Reconnections folk, and it's an interesting wider view of how the dispute is seen. The comments, as with all LR articles, are also worth a read.

Click to expand...

Who are these folk? Let's face it, you might be one of them for all we know.

That said, it's actually quite easy to spot that there could be a sensible solution here. The question is whether anybody is interested in one.

Speaking on behalf of myself, who won't do stupid things on/around trains (and looks at where they're going when they get on/off, rather than their smartphone screen) and thereby needlessly endanger my own life, I have to ask whether I want to pay a higher fare to have a second man on board my commuter trains (long distance trains is another matter). TBH the answer is probably no. However if it was the case of 0.00001p in the pound on my tax bill I'd probably say yes, even if I never used another train. What's the real cost to the country of these jobs? Given the tax/NI paid, and the "dole" payments saved, it's very small beer indeed - but as a passenger I don't get those benefits.

I wonder, therefore, whether the decision to make the passenger pay a larger % of the cost of their ticket didn't hide an ulterior motive. It's just the sort of low cunning that would typify a politician.

Just been reading the comments to that piece, and this was one:

I can’t speak for any other than LU, but for this operator, which has more experience of DOO than any other, I can say that the accident rate for accidents at the platform/train interface improved following the elimination of guards.

Click to expand...

Sounds like he knows what he's talking about, especially as he includes the caveat.

Just read a comment on a Facebook commuters group for the Redhill area. I can't add any personal input as I wasn't there, but this is what was said:

I want to place on written record what happened this evening. At London Bridge the driver of the delayed 17:32 said "we will travel fast to Redhill WHERE A CONDUCTOR WILL JOIN US". At east Croydon a big bruiser of a union official shows up, starts harassing the driver, who then announced the train will be cancelled. When I went to question the driver he said, clearly under duress, "I made a mistake I didn't know there was not a conductor aboard". The union is out of control and is clearly intimidating drivers who don't comply with their unofficial industrial action.

Click to expand...

MikeWh said:

Just read a comment on a Facebook commuters group for the Redhill area. I can't add any personal input as I wasn't there, but this is what was said:

Click to expand...

nothing like quoting a decent bit of hearsay is there...............

( you could equally post 12 items praising the guards for good service - they show nothing)

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

HH said:

Who are these folk? Let's face it, you might be one of them for all we know.

That said, it's actually quite easy to spot that there could be a sensible solution here. The question is whether anybody is interested in one.

Speaking on behalf of myself, who won't do stupid things on/around trains (and looks at where they're going when they get on/off, rather than their smartphone screen) and thereby needlessly endanger my own life, I have to ask whether I want to pay a higher fare to have a second man on board my commuter trains (long distance trains is another matter). TBH the answer is probably no. However if it was the case of 0.00001p in the pound on my tax bill I'd probably say yes, even if I never used another train. What's the real cost to the country of these jobs? Given the tax/NI paid, and the "dole" payments saved, it's very small beer indeed - but as a passenger I don't get those benefits.

Click to expand...

You wont have a penny knocked off your ticket price by removing every guard and driver and signal man.............

DarloRich said:

You wont have a penny knocked off your ticket price by removing every guard and driver and signal man.............

Click to expand...

Are you really that simple?

HH said:

Are you really that simple?

Click to expand...

Yes, pretty much, but luckily you are a terribly clever man and can help me out. Could you explain the point of your post. Simply.

The decision to make passengers pay a higher level of the true cost for running the railway is to reduce the burden on the exchequer. You have indicated you are already willing to pay a price that generates profit for the company after paying for all the staff by buying your current ticket. By removing one of the members of staff the TOC knows you will carry on paying that price but, terribly conveniently, you will help increase their profits that little bit more.

The burden on the tax bill would be negligible (as measurable in an individual tax burden) considering the small numbers of people involved so i really don't see what you are getting at. You also don't indicate what your solution would be, although you say it is obvious.

87015 said:

There isn't a reason submitted. The stops are shown as taking place, yet more complete fudging of PPM (this train that should be a failure is recorded as a success). Why anyone thinks they are worth the paper they are written on is beyond me.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't be quite so quick to judge until after at least Day 8, and even then how would one know for sure it was deliberate and not just simply missed? There is no incident created in CCIL for this fail to stop, so were control even aware of it?

Since you speak with so much apparent authority, I am interested to learn how one can fudge PPM statistics as opposed to processing them according to set rules.

ajb690 said:

The comments, as with all LR articles, are also worth a read.

Click to expand...

Here is one of the comments from someone called "TL driver". A driver posting something like this on here would have to be very brave because of the inevitable posts that would follow.

http://www.londonreconnections.com/2016/last-stand-old-guard/#comment-272173

I’ve only known DOO but when a rostering error between TL and Southern resulted in me being allocated a guard on my train I did explain i’d still be opening/closing the doors (in all honesty it would have seemed very odd to have someone else getting involved).

I can understand the points of the unions, but as someone who has come to the railway from an outside industry I find the place archaic in some ways. This is one. DOO has been operating just fine on Thameslink for 30 odd years. I can’t for the life of me understand why Southern have the convoluted set up with guards closing doors, working only some routes etc etc. Just seems unnecessarily complicated to staff.

I do agree with the point that once the Class 700s come in that I may be responsible for the safety of up to 1700 but then I guess it can be up to 1200 now with a 12-car train anyway. I don’t feel it’s any less safe.

What I would say is that the Class 377/2 & /5 that i regularly drive have pretty poor quality cameras and certainly not a patch on platform monitors. This is mainly due to the fact that they have a very shallow platform angle and so you can only see a very thin selection of the platform – basically right by the edge. You always miss the passengers running across the platform for the train. However, the Class 387 monitors (the same as those shown in the video) are much improved and the best of all options in my opinion.

Also the point about Gatwick Express is interesting. We currently operate some of the new 387/2 as 12 car units on TL on this route. I found it odd that Gatwick Express drivers won’t do what we will but again I think this comes down more to the unions than anything else…

Click to expand...

MikeWh said:

Just read a comment on a Facebook commuters group for the Redhill area. I can't add any personal input as I wasn't there, but this is what was said:

Click to expand...

Quite a few things wrong with that, if it went fast to Redhill how did a big burly union official approach the driver at East Croydon for instance ?

tony6499 said:

Quite a few things wrong with that, if it went fast to Redhill how did a big burly union official approach the driver at East Croydon for instance ?

Click to expand...

And how did the know they was a 'big burly union official'? Did they have the logos emblazoned on their backs? But suspicious that post tbh...

tony6499 said:

Quite a few things wrong with that, if it went fast to Redhill how did a big burly union official approach the driver at East Croydon for instance ?

Click to expand...

It was expected to stop at East Croydon anyway.

Although it is legal for drivers to work to rule, I don't think it is legal for the union to encourage or recommend it without a ballot, action short of a strike would cover it, maybe someone who knows more about the law could confirm this.

I drive for LUL, I started a a guard, These are my feelings on the safest way to dispatch trains in order of safety.

1) Guard monitoring platform with platform based CCTV and monitors on train, as train departs, with access to an emergency brake.

2) Driver monitoring CCTV as train leaves the platform, (as happens on some stocks on LUL), There are issues here for drivers which are more serious than on LUL. Mainly the much stricter SPAD policy for Network rail drivers. Start up againsts did increase on LUL and this is a much more serious issue for a driver if three spads mean goodbye career. There is also a greater risk of staff being on the track on network rail, obviously in tunnels there should never be anyone on or around the track. There is also the advantage of being able to leave a platform slowly and knowing if someone is doing something stupid as you depart.

3) Guard dispatching as currently happens, not particularly safe as anything can happen once the doors are closed and nobody is watching, even platform staff, if present, do not have the ability to stop the train in case of indecent.

4) DOO with train based monitors which switch off as train departs, this has all the disadvantages of both 2 and 3

5) DOO with platform based monitors/mirrors, images tend to be worse than with train mounted equipment and more prone to being affected by sunlight, again all the disadvantages of points 2 and three

On LUL instructions are that if, as a driver, you are unhappy with visibility you must get assistance and if no one is immediately available then you wait. In any case you do not ever "Self Dispatch" from a curved platform where not all doors are visible from the cab.

One thing I am sure ASLEF will be doing (and will have been doing before this dispute was even thought of), is to advising all drivers not to depart without following correct procedures and I strongly advise all drivers to follow these instructions both because of the current dispute and because of legal cases we all know about.

Please note that this post is purely about train dispatch, there are many other guards duties which imo are far more important than dispatch.

radamfi said:

Here is one of the comments from someone called "TL driver". A driver posting something like this on here would have to be very brave because of the inevitable posts that would follow.

http://www.londonreconnections.com/2016/last-stand-old-guard/#comment-272173

Click to expand...

Because drive there, having not worked elsewhere, hasn't seen what we have seen. I've seen the photos of one of our (now DMs) drivers being stretchered out of the remains of his cab following a collision with a bridge .

Just for the avoidance of doubt, here he is:



GSMR wouldn't have made a jot of difference. We've all had to sit on trains in rural areas where waiting for a Mobile Operations Manager or BTP to attend an urgent job stopper has taken not far off an hour. This could be you, having crashed into a tractor or having had a breezeblock chucked through your windscreen, or a corpse come through the corridor connection. The DOO proposed isn't just for a station every two minutes in urban areas, it's for rural locations as well. There is no commitment to a second person on any train.

After all that I do wonder why some individuals on this board took offence at my wishing the management at GTR and DfT ill - just for your comfort I'll reiterate I have a little wish everyday for the worst possible fortune to befall them.

Our rulebook is written in the blood of the passengers and fellow railwaymen and women who have been failed by the railway in the past and I genuinely wish those who make it their business to slowly dismantle every safeguard the very worst in the world.

My maths is probably totally wrong but here is a novel way to look at things.
My guess is that each guard costs the company about £45k per annum in total pay, benefits, pension, employers, NI etc (yes I know some of the benefits have been taken). mutiply that by 470 (the number of guards) equals
Just over £21 Million.

Now according to Southern's own website they make 620000 passenger journeys a day on average and 60% of those have a conductor so that is 372000 passenger journeys a day or a total of nearly 136 million journeys a year involving a train with a guard

By my dubious calculations I reckon the guard costs the passenger on average the grand sum of just over 15p a journey, so even if it was double that is still on 60p

What about the revenue the Guard generates in tickets and savings with delays ?

It's not all cost.

ComUtoR said:

What about the revenue the Guard generates in tickets and savings with delays ?

It's not all cost.

Click to expand...

Very true so if they made back 50% of their wages on average it costs about 7.5p per journey I was trying to illustrate what excellent value they are

JamesTT said:

I was trying to illustrate what excellent value they are

Click to expand...

If I had an incident and had a Guard on board; they are worth their weight in gold.

ComUtoR said:

If I had an incident and had a Guard on board; they are worth their weight in gold.

Click to expand...

Oh absolutely and I am sure if you asked passengers would you like the train with no guard or would you like to pay the grand sum of an extra 7.5p to have a guard 99% would pay that extra money.

But also 21 Million is a spit in the ocean compared to the subsidy so if they did remove guards completely it is hardly going to be the magic formula to save the taxpayer money

LowLevel said:

After all that I do wonder why some individuals on this board took offence at my wishing the management at GTR and DfT ill - just for your comfort I'll reiterate I have a little wish everyday for the worst possible fortune to befall them.

Our rulebook is written in the blood of the passengers and fellow railwaymen and women who have been failed by the railway in the past and I genuinely wish those who make it their business to slowly dismantle every safeguard the very worst in the world.

Click to expand...

I'm not supportive of DOO, but is it really right to wish bad things upon the relevant individuals? This also depends on what you define as an "ill".

LowLevel said:

After all that I do wonder why some individuals on this board took offence at my wishing the management at GTR and DfT ill - just for your comfort I'll reiterate I have a little wish everyday for the worst possible fortune to befall them.

Our rulebook is written in the blood of the passengers and fellow railwaymen and women who have been failed by the railway in the past and I genuinely wish those who make it their business to slowly dismantle every safeguard the very worst in the world.

Click to expand...

It's a shame that you have to resort to silly comments like these. You had appeared to be making a valid contribution until then.

DarloRich said:

Yes, pretty much, but luckily you are a terribly clever man and can help me out. Could you explain the point of your post. Simply.

The decision to make passengers pay a higher level of the true cost for running the railway is to reduce the burden on the exchequer. You have indicated you are already willing to pay a price that generates profit for the company after paying for all the staff by buying your current ticket. By removing one of the members of staff the TOC knows you will carry on paying that price but, terribly conveniently, you will help increase their profits that little bit more.

The burden on the tax bill would be negligible (as measurable in an individual tax burden) considering the small numbers of people involved so i really don't see what you are getting at. You also don't indicate what your solution would be, although you say it is obvious.

Click to expand...

Yes, it is lucky for you that I'm around to help.

The TOC doesn't get the benefit of this on TSGN. It has been told to go DOO by the DfT and has bid on that basis. It is therefore the Exchequer that is gaining from reducing the staff. As DfT bears the revenue risk for this franchise, the cost of my ticket would also go to the Exchequer.

The burden on the tax bill would indeed be negligible, which I pointed out. Indeed my exact point was that by shifting the cost to the passenger, the passenger has a more direct interest in reducing cost.

Of course the increase in ticket prices is set by the government to a formula of RPI +x. However the value of x is not constant and it can be either positive or negative. If the cost of the railways comes down then theoretically so should the value of x. Whether it actually does is another matter, but your average passenger is likely to imagine a direct relationship, because that's how it works in most businesses.

JamesTT said:

Oh absolutely and I am sure if you asked passengers would you like the train with no guard or would you like to pay the grand sum of an extra 7.5p to have a guard 99% would pay that extra money.

But also 21 Million is a spit in the ocean compared to the subsidy so if they did remove guards completely it is hardly going to be the magic formula to save the taxpayer money

Click to expand...

But these same passengers would be thinking differently the next time their train is cancelled because no guard is available and they watch it hurtle through the station empty:cry:

Antman said:

But these same passengers would be thinking differently the next time their train is cancelled because no guard is available and they watch it hurtle through the station empty:cry:

Click to expand...

And how often does that happen? Most of the time a train is cancelled because there is no Guard is not down to the Guard not being there, it is often down to either rostering errors, delays where the Guard is in a different location,very few of these are actually down to Guard not being on duty.

Perhaps the same could be said when a train is cancelled because there is no driver, yet i dont see anyone wanting rid of them (yet anyway), and see the train sitting there in the platform with the Guard!

313103 said:

And how often does that happen? Most of the time a train is cancelled because there is no Guard is not down to the Guard not being there, it is often down to either rostering errors, delays where the Guard is in a different location,very few of these are actually down to Guard not being on duty.

Click to expand...

But in all of these situations the train could still run if a guard was not necessary. This is what I personally think will happen - we will still have guards rostered to run on every train because of how much revenue they make, but if there is a rostering error/guard ill/guard delayed on a different train then it will run anyway.

313103 said:

Perhaps the same could be said when a train is cancelled because there is no driver, yet i dont see anyone wanting rid of them (yet anyway), and see the train sitting there in the platform with the Guard!

Click to expand...

**Or even having a train cancelled due to no Driver but seeing the Driver sitting in the cab fully set up awaiting the signal to clear....

*Oh and trains get cancelled because there are a problem with the doors but I don't want to see them removed to save costs :/






*facetious but makes the point that trains are cancelled for a plethora of reasons.

**Tru story bro

Robertj21a said:

It's a shame that you have to resort to silly comments like these. You had appeared to be making a valid contribution until then.

Click to expand...

That's the difficult thing when you're involved isn't it - it's rather hard to express just how upset and angry it makes you feel. I can't accurately put in any other terms the feeling I get when I see DOO bandied about every day of my life because 1) it means my work is effectively without purpose and irrelevant and 2) it means I could lose everything I've worked hard for, entirely down to the machinations of individuals like these. I can't go a single day without hearing something about these plans whether I'm working or away because it's constantly in the news. I'm having to hear how destroyed my colleagues are and how little their management care for them as individual human beings.

With the tactics in play and the conscious decisions they've made I'm hardly going to wish them well in all their endeavours, am I? They choose to act this way.

The last time I was so upset by something on an ongoing basis was when I last lost a close relative.

I would absolutely love the moral high ground, really I would, but given I seem to have no power to do anything about it what else can I do but strike out?

absolutelymilk said:

But in all of these situations the train could still run if a guard was not necessary. This is what I personally think will happen - we will still have guards rostered to run on every train because of how much revenue they make, but if there is a rostering error/guard ill/guard delayed on a different train then it will run anyway.

Click to expand...

You know and i know that (and dont kid yourself otherwise) this is all about the same reasons that Network South East brought in DOO >>>> to reduce the amount of staff required in order to save money, not to go back to the public purse but to line shareholders pockets on this particular era.

We are going back and Sarah put it quite eloquently to the times of the Taff Vale where railway workers will be under servitude to the bosses (if any are left after the cull of Guards).

Once a person is deemed as non essential that person will be out of employment, having been trough this twice and now working as a lowly dispatcher (a job that wont last post GWML electrifcation) but everyone is fine with that because the trains will still run. The fact you wont see a member of staff is irrelevant, as the trains will still run.

I really wish i was ten years older then i am, i would of got out of this god forsaken industry in 2013 a industry i once loved, however despite getting a decent settlement from london overground (something my colleagues anywhere else if govia win this particular battle, wont get) i still have bills to pay and because of the much lower salary i am on i now have spend a lot of my living hours at work doing vast amounts of overtime.