Southern DOO: ASLEF members vote 79.1% for revised deal

Chrisgr31 · 4 Jun 2016

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

Can you explain how it is safe for one person to carry be responsible for the safety of over 1,000 people on a train that travels at speed, whilst that number of people in a hall, cinema, theatre etc would need significantly more despite not moving.

It is not just a door issue, it is if anything else goes wrong that a safety trained member of staff becomes essential. The chances of that incident happening might be minimal but so is it in other locations that require more staff to look after that number of people.

That driver best hope he is never involved in an incident with doors!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

absolutelymilk said:
I'm not arguing for stripping away several layers of staffing, I'm saying that if DOO means that guards can concentrate on revenue collection and also reduce delays caused by lack of a guard, then I am for it as a passenger. GTR don't seem to have dealt with its introduction very well, but that's a separate issue.

Except they will not be concentrating on the revenue collection that passengers want them to concentrate on. They will be generating revenue from those that always had every intention of buying a ticket, and will be charging them a full single fare, those putting them off travelling by rail. They will not be tackling the abusive, threatening fare dodgers that have no intention of buying a ticket.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

sarahj said:
I'm going to standing back from this thread for a bit. All sorts of rumors flying around at the mo. I will still be watching.

I have heard rumours that social media is being looked at by Southern.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

BestWestern said:
The GTR propaganda machine has managed a few direct hits then; anybody would think there was some sort of national pandemic of train cancellations due to daily catastrophic lack of Guards! Shock - this is a fairy story, much like most of the manure that is coming GTR, Hooray Horton and his witch.

Has it? I suspect lots of passengers believe the lack of guards is done to Southerns standard incompetence!

RailUK Forums

HLE · 4 Jun 2016

Chrisgr31 said:
Can you explain how it is safe for one person to carry be responsible for the safety of over 1,000 people on a train that travels at speed, whilst that number of people in a hall, cinema, theatre etc would need significantly more despite not moving.

It is not just a door issue, it is if anything else goes wrong that a safety trained member of staff becomes essential. The chances of that incident happening might be minimal but so is it in other locations that require more staff to look after that number of people.

That driver best hope he is never involved in an incident with doors!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Except they will not be concentrating on the revenue collection that passengers want them to concentrate on. They will be generating revenue from those that always had every intention of buying a ticket, and will be charging them a full single fare, those putting them off travelling by rail. They will not be tackling the abusive, threatening fare dodgers that have no intention of buying a ticket.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I have heard rumours that social media is being looked at by Southern.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Excellent post.

Social media now being looked into? They really will stop at nothing.
It's literally an attitude of do as you are told, do not question and do not moan or the door is there.

I'm fully aware we all have social media policies that need to be followed but everyone has a right to an opinion. I should think everyone who has read this thread has made up their minds about southern one way or the other.

ComUtoR · 4 Jun 2016

Chrisgr31 said:
Can you explain how it is safe for one person to carry be responsible for the safety of over 1,000 people on a train that travels at speed, whilst that number of people in a hall, cinema, theatre etc would need significantly more despite not moving.

Would you mind if I took this ?

Firstly I'd address the cinema/train analogy.. Well that bull"£*$"(*£$ and you well know it.

Secondly, one person is not specifically in charge of 1,000 people. They are protected by Rules, Policy, Procedure etc all learned from previous incidents. If anyone should die, get maimed, lose a limb, child, or wallet then lessons will be learned. Its kinda awesome, other people need to die or get seriously hurt before procedures are changed but lets assume that everything in DOO land is "safe". The 1k passengers are generally protected, in theory and on paper.

I'm pretty well trained and in the event of an incident I can start to mitigate against any problems. I can trip the juice with a short circuit bar and I can stop trains with GSMR, Hazards and old school dets, flags and TCOC's. Immediate risk to passengers is mitigated pretty quickly.

Trains are a relatively sealed environment and on board you are generally safe. We have been taught that the only things that generally burn is people and paper. Materials are flame retardant to various standards and no smoking has reduced the risk to on board fires. Other than faults and deliberate fires there is minimal risk. Faults will happen but again that is mitigated by good maintenance and fail safe systems. Those 1k passengers are being protected by the standards in place to mitigate any risk to the passenger.

Specific incidents need to be taken in isolation. Can I prevent passengers directly harming themselves ? No, but I do and will mitigate against it. eg. Passcom in the platform is an immediate stop. Will a passenger lose a limb ? Most likely, but as long as I mitigate the risk then it is considered "safe" Can a "trap and drag" incident occur ? Most likely, but as long as the risk is mitigated against then it is considered to be "safe" There are a long list of incidents you cannot prevent and only mitigate against.

Passenger behaviour is also a large factor when looking at their relative safety. You are unlikely to egress a door at 100mph as you are self aware of the risk involved and if you did then safety procedure and standards will mitigate against you falling out the unit at speed. Incidents with passengers tend to occur at the PTI and are not always dispatch related. Onboard risk to passengers tends to occur from their behaviour towards each other. Generally we have a good safety culture in this country and that our standards help mitigate risk.

Its not just me up the pointy end protecting the 1k passengers on board. It is every person involved on the operation of the railways. Including the Guard, who is well trained.

313103 · 4 Jun 2016

absolutelymilk said:
I'm not arguing for stripping away several layers of staffing, I'm saying that if DOO means that guards can concentrate on revenue collection and also reduce delays caused by lack of a guard, then I am for it as a passenger. GTR don't seem to have dealt with its introduction very well, but that's a separate issue.

You seem to be happy if a train was to run with or without any member of staff 'As long as it runs'!

As i have said before and i will say it again (heaven knows why i have to keep repeating this) There is only one reason to want rid of guards and that is to reduce staff costs.

SPADTrap · 4 Jun 2016

ComUtoR said:
Would you mind if I took this ?

Firstly I'd address the cinema/train analogy.. Well that bull"£*$"(*£$ and you well know it.

Secondly, one person is not specifically in charge of 1,000 people. They are protected by Rules, Policy, Procedure etc all learned from previous incidents. If anyone should die, get maimed, lose a limb, child, or wallet then lessons will be learned. Its kinda awesome, other people need to die or get seriously hurt before procedures are changed but lets assume that everything in DOO land is "safe". The 1k passengers are generally protected, in theory and on paper.

I'm pretty well trained and in the event of an incident I can start to mitigate against any problems. I can trip the juice with a short circuit bar and I can stop trains with GSMR, Hazards and old school dets, flags and TCOC's. Immediate risk to passengers is mitigated pretty quickly.

Trains are a relatively sealed environment and on board you are generally safe. We have been taught that the only things that generally burn is people and paper. Materials are flame retardant to various standards and no smoking has reduced the risk to on board fires. Other than faults and deliberate fires there is minimal risk. Faults will happen but again that is mitigated by good maintenance and fail safe systems. Those 1k passengers are being protected by the standards in place to mitigate any risk to the passenger.

Specific incidents need to be taken in isolation. Can I prevent passengers directly harming themselves ? No, but I do and will mitigate against it. eg. Passcom in the platform is an immediate stop. Will a passenger lose a limb ? Most likely, but as long as I mitigate the risk then it is considered "safe" Can a "trap and drag" incident occur ? Most likely, but as long as the risk is mitigated against then it is considered to be "safe" There are a long list of incidents you cannot prevent and only mitigate against.

Passenger behaviour is also a large factor when looking at their relative safety. You are unlikely to egress a door at 100mph as you are self aware of the risk involved and if you did then safety procedure and standards will mitigate against you falling out the unit at speed. Incidents with passengers tend to occur at the PTI and are not always dispatch related. Onboard risk to passengers tends to occur from their behaviour towards each other. Generally we have a good safety culture in this country and that our standards help mitigate risk.

Its not just me up the pointy end protecting the 1k passengers on board. It is every person involved on the operation of the railways. Including the Guard, who is well trained.

What if your GSM-R fails? We know it isn't impact tested..

absolutelymilk · 4 Jun 2016

313103 said:
You seem to be happy if a train was to run with or without any member of staff 'As long as it runs'!

Yes, ideally the train would run with a guard (and should be rostered as such) but if the guard is stuck on a delayed train then the train shouldn't have to wait for them.

313103 · 4 Jun 2016

absolutelymilk said:
Maybe this is the problem with discussion of such an emotive subject. You think that anyone who disagrees with you is so clearly wrong that they must be kidding themselves. I am very sorry that people may get a decrease in pay, but if it allows trains to not be delayed when guards are not available for whatever reason (and therefore allows more trains to run, more people getting to work, less cars on the road etc.) then I think it is a sensible step.

As others have posted before, TGSN is not a normal franchise, so doesn't get money saved. In any case, as I said above and many other anti-DOO posters have argued, guards often take in more revenue than their cost, not to mention the added reassurance/helpfulness to passengers, so it makes little sense to remove them.

See my comment above and read the rest of the thread, in my 35 years of railway employment i have seen the removal of Guards, to be deployed as whatever the company want them to be, to be removed completely as a NON essential member of staff.

I disagree with your stance because your comments always allude to a Guard not being available, therefore the impression im getting from you is that your happy with the role and grade being withdrawn, leaving many people on the dole. What is your position on a driver not being availiable do accept that happens? and what about the lack of rolling stock?

It is not what you and i may think a railway should be run, if a company has won a franchise on the basis of reducing its overheads (or as i would call it the lowest cost bid) the results are often clear to see, London Forest Bus Company tendered for routes by making wholesale cuts in wages, this lead to the longest dispute in London Buses history and the demise the said bus company. This has history repeating itself, because who would want to work for a organisation like GTR?

Captain Chaos · 4 Jun 2016

absolutelymilk said:
Yes, ideally the train would run with a guard (and should be rostered as such) but if the guard is stuck on a delayed train then the train shouldn't have to wait for them.

Why? So, because we can't run trains on time some passengers will have to receive a below standard level of service? That's not about 'customer sevice'. That's about avoiding delay minutes and fines. Customer service is not about the product of running a train. It's about the care, assistance, help, reassurance and effort put it in that goes above and beyond the base product to make the customer feel wanted, appreciated and wanting to come back for more. Simply giving the product over and saying 'there you go' isn't it IMO.

ComUtoR · 5 Jun 2016

SPADTrap said:
What if your GSM-R fails? We know it isn't impact tested..

Quiet Newbie !

Errr. That too is mitigated against. Belt and braces

and now *Mobile Phones.

Mitigation, mitigation, mitigation.

As I say. It really is a relative term and that DOO is perfectly "safe" I'm more than happy for a passenger to become a statistic and contribute their limbs towards future mitigation steps. Unless the moo moo really hits the fan then I'm confident me and my kids can travel safely and that we won't be another statistic.

The problem with mitigation is that we are waiting for another incident to happen and accept that they can and will. Us insiders do no want mitigation, we want prevention, and will fight tooth and nail against any reduction in the relative safety of the railway. Fork the door situation. I want Guards and well trained staff on board to help passengers, assist in safety duties, reduce delays, provide customer service, help prevent incidents escalate and god knows what else they provide other than the forking doors.

SPAD, on a personal and more serious note. Do you get Right Track ?

*SPT's and other phones are also available.

JamesTT · 5 Jun 2016

I know some of my previous comments like suggesting the unions should have negotiated regards to the extension of DOO and the OBS roles terms and conditions instead of them having a blanket NO WAY NO NOT EVER NEVER stance, has been seen as as an offensive stance.

But I really do think my post regards to the conductor costing pence per journey per passenger was a very poignant point and is something that the unions should look into in more detail (If I do say so myself)

philthetube · 5 Jun 2016

ComUtoR said:
Would you mind if I took this ?

Firstly I'd address the cinema/train analogy.. Well that bull"£*$"(*£$ and you well know it.

Secondly, one person is not specifically in charge of 1,000 people. They are protected by Rules, Policy, Procedure etc all learned from previous incidents. If anyone should die, get maimed, lose a limb, child, or wallet then lessons will be learned. Its kinda awesome, other people need to die or get seriously hurt before procedures are changed but lets assume that everything in DOO land is "safe". The 1k passengers are generally protected, in theory and on paper.

I'm pretty well trained and in the event of an incident I can start to mitigate against any problems. I can trip the juice with a short circuit bar and I can stop trains with GSMR, Hazards and old school dets, flags and TCOC's. Immediate risk to passengers is mitigated pretty quickly.

Trains are a relatively sealed environment and on board you are generally safe. We have been taught that the only things that generally burn is people and paper. Materials are flame retardant to various standards and no smoking has reduced the risk to on board fires. Other than faults and deliberate fires there is minimal risk. Faults will happen but again that is mitigated by good maintenance and fail safe systems. Those 1k passengers are being protected by the standards in place to mitigate any risk to the passenger.

Specific incidents need to be taken in isolation. Can I prevent passengers directly harming themselves ? No, but I do and will mitigate against it. eg. Passcom in the platform is an immediate stop. Will a passenger lose a limb ? Most likely, but as long as I mitigate the risk then it is considered "safe" Can a "trap and drag" incident occur ? Most likely, but as long as the risk is mitigated against then it is considered to be "safe" There are a long list of incidents you cannot prevent and only mitigate against.

Passenger behaviour is also a large factor when looking at their relative safety. You are unlikely to egress a door at 100mph as you are self aware of the risk involved and if you did then safety procedure and standards will mitigate against you falling out the unit at speed. Incidents with passengers tend to occur at the PTI and are not always dispatch related. Onboard risk to passengers tends to occur from their behaviour towards each other. Generally we have a good safety culture in this country and that our standards help mitigate risk.

Its not just me up the pointy end protecting the 1k passengers on board. It is every person involved on the operation of the railways. Including the Guard, who is well trained.

Put barriers on cinema doors and everything else you say can be made to fit cinemas, except that there is less potential for people to do stupid things and kill themselves in a cinema

Skimble19 · 5 Jun 2016

speedy_sticks said:
Why do we allow Blacks on the train without them giving 24 hour notice?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The disabled on the unstaffed platform be dammed?

Are you being serious?! There is an obvious difference (and I don't agree with your terminology by the way!)... Wheelchair users and other disabled passengers etc, as much as we ideally need to try and reduce barriers to them travelling quite simply can't get around as easily due to infrastructure limitations, and without a gigantic pool of money that doesn't exist to change that it can't change any time soon - it's not anybody actively creating discrimination, it's the reality of a system that was built in a time where such things weren't an issue.

More stations than ever are staffed 24 hours a day on GTR, those that aren't tend to be inaccessible to wheelchair users anyway, and if they book in advance then staff will be made available to meet them at stations they can board at. It may be a bit inconvenient, but it works for the customer, the company and the staff. There isn't the money to pay for every station and train to be staffed "just in case" somebody who needs assistance turns up..

Without wishing to be blunt, from personal experience, 99% of passengers with disabilities (be it wheelchair users, blind / visually impaired passengers, or even the elderly requiring boarding assistance) are more than happy and really appreciative of the Assisted Travel service. It only seems to be the other 1% who appear to have a chip on their shoulder that they can't travel as easily as an "able bodied" passenger, despite there clearly being massive limitations that prevent that that complain about it..

Xenophon PCDGS · 5 Jun 2016

speedy_sticks said:
Why do we allow Blacks on the train without them giving 24 hour notice.

You may well be using a technical term in the part of your posting that I have emboldened, but at first glance in reading that part of your posting, not knowing what you actually meant to say, I was absolutely horrified.

speedy_sticks · 5 Jun 2016

Paul Sidorczuk said:
You may well be using a technical term in the part of your posting that I have emboldened, but at first glance in reading that part of your posting, not knowing what you actually meant to say, I was absolutely horrified.

I had the desired effect then!

Yes, I mean folks off black colour.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Wrong Sir.

This will be the first time in my 20 years of INDEPENDENT travel that I may have to book up to 24 hours in advance for MOST trips.

At least the guard could always get me on or off a station when I traveled SPONTANEOUSLY. But now even the unstaffed ACCESSIBLE stations will be made INACCESSIBLE.

Folks of black ethnicity had too tight long and hard in some areas for equal opportunities. Disability is the same. We had a way off making it accessible for 20+ years, now we are very regrettably setting accessibility backs DECADES. Why?

Why should life be getting better for folks who thought black folks rights like Martin Luther King and not folks like LADY Tanni Grey-Thompson (Remember she sits in the house of Lords ) who still has to sometimes has to CRAWL off and on a train through lack of assistance?

This is a MORAL issue more than a financial one.

What's use of a station with lifts if you have to book 24 hours in advance to use them.

Skimble19 said:
Are you being serious?! There is an obvious difference (and I don't agree with your terminology by the way!)... Wheelchair users and other disabled passengers etc, as much as we ideally need to try and reduce barriers to them travelling quite simply can't get around as easily due to infrastructure limitations, and without a gigantic pool of money that doesn't exist to change that it can't change any time soon - it's not anybody actively creating discrimination, it's the reality of a system that was built in a time where such things weren't an issue.

More stations than ever are staffed 24 hours a day on GTR, those that aren't tend to be inaccessible to wheelchair users anyway, and if they book in advance then staff will be made available to meet them at stations they can board at. It may be a bit inconvenient, but it works for the customer, the company and the staff. There isn't the money to pay for every station and train to be staffed "just in case" somebody who needs assistance turns up..

Without wishing to be blunt, from personal experience, 99% of passengers with disabilities (be it wheelchair users, blind / visually impaired passengers, or even the elderly requiring boarding assistance) are more than happy and really appreciative of the Assisted Travel service. It only seems to be the other 1% who appear to have a chip on their shoulder that they can't travel as easily as an "able bodied" passenger, despite there clearly being massive limitations that prevent that that complain about it..

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

Skimble19 said:
Are you being serious?! There is an obvious difference (and I don't agree with your terminology by the way!)... Wheelchair users and other disabled passengers etc, as much as we ideally need to try and reduce barriers to them travelling quite simply can't get around as easily due to infrastructure limitations, and without a gigantic pool of money that doesn't exist to change that it can't change any time soon - it's not anybody actively creating discrimination, it's the reality of a system that was built in a time where such things weren't an issue.

More stations than ever are staffed 24 hours a day on GTR, those that aren't tend to be inaccessible to wheelchair users anyway, and if they book in advance then staff will be made available to meet them at stations they can board at. It may be a bit inconvenient, but it works for the customer, the company and the staff. There isn't the money to pay for every station and train to be staffed "just in case" somebody who needs assistance turns up..

Without wishing to be blunt, from personal experience, 99% of passengers with disabilities (be it wheelchair users, blind / visually impaired passengers, or even the elderly requiring boarding assistance) are more than happy and really appreciative of the Assisted Travel service. It only seems to be the other 1% who appear to have a chip on their shoulder that they can't travel as easily as an "able bodied" passenger, despite there clearly being massive limitations that prevent that that complain about it..

As I said because there WAS a way of doing things, now accessibility is being made worse for the first time in 20+ years. Expect more complaints.

This isn't a time for keyboard experts, try living with a disability first before commenting.

BRblue · 5 Jun 2016

speedy_sticks said:
I had the desired effect then!

Yes, I mean folks off black colour.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Wrong Sir.

This will be the first time in my 20 years of INDEPENDENT travel that I may have to book up to 24 hours in advance for MOST trips.

At least the guard could always get me on or off a station when I traveled SPONTANEOUSLY. But now even the unstaffed ACCESSIBLE stations will be made INACCESSIBLE.

Folks of black ethnicity had too tight long and hard in some areas for equal opportunities. Disability is the same. We had a way off making it accessible for 20+ years, now we are very regrettably setting accessibility backs DECADES. Why?

Why should life be getting better for folks who thought black folks rights like Martin Luther King and not folks like LADY Tanni Grey-Thompson (Remember she sits in the house of Lords ) who still has to sometimes has to CRAWL off and on a train through lack of assistance?

This is a MORAL issue more than a financial one.

What's use of a station with lifts if you have to book 24 hours in advance to use them.

QUOTE=Skimble19;2586041]Are you being serious?! There is an obvious difference (and I don't agree with your terminology by the way!)... Wheelchair users and other disabled passengers etc, as much as we ideally need to try and reduce barriers to them travelling quite simply can't get around as easily due to infrastructure limitations, and without a gigantic pool of money that doesn't exist to change that it can't change any time soon - it's not anybody actively creating discrimination, it's the reality of a system that was built in a time where such things weren't an issue.

More stations than ever are staffed 24 hours a day on GTR, those that aren't tend to be inaccessible to wheelchair users anyway, and if they book in advance then staff will be made available to meet them at stations they can board at. It may be a bit inconvenient, but it works for the customer, the company and the staff. There isn't the money to pay for every station and train to be staffed "just in case" somebody who needs assistance turns up..

Without wishing to be blunt, from personal experience, 99% of passengers with disabilities (be it wheelchair users, blind / visually impaired passengers, or even the elderly requiring boarding assistance) are more than happy and really appreciative of the Assisted Travel service. It only seems to be the other 1% who appear to have a chip on their shoulder that they can't travel as easily as an "able bodied" passenger, despite there clearly being massive limitations that prevent that that complain about it..

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

As I said because there WAS a way of doing things?, now accessibilityis being made worse for the first time in 20+ years expect more complaints.

This isn't a time for keyboard experts, try living with a disability first before commenting.[/QUOTE]

Speedy... a lot of us not all but a lot sympathise with your position and as I have said before I do have some experience when it comes to those less able than myself.
But your last couple of posts have come across as very offensive and I politely ask you to edit them as you are doing yourself and your argument more harm than good.

HLE · 5 Jun 2016

Paul Sidorczuk said:
You may well be using a technical term in the part of your posting that I have emboldened, but at first glance in reading that part of your posting, not knowing what you actually meant to say, I was absolutely horrified.

These plans will put speedy and other disabled passengers at a serious disadvantage when it comes to rail travel. It's an emotive subject for all and possibly for him too because he stands to lose out big time. No longer will the guard be able to get the ramp and allow him on, he will have to either 'hope' that an OBS is on board, or that the station has dispatch staff.

I cannot believe that in the 21st century we are having issues like this.
Whilst I don't advocate and didn't agree with Speedy's first sentence of that post, if plans were thought up that would directly impact ethnic minorities like these plans impact the disabled, there would be an absolute uproar. Can't think of any 'plans' that would (thankfully) but racism, just like ageism, sexism, disability discrimination, are all types of discrimination. None are any more serious than the other in their own right.

Speedy, I really would think about editing that post. I see your frustrations as do the majority on here, and can see what you were trying to get across with it, but it might be best to edit it a little.

You really did approach it incorrectly.

speedy_sticks · 5 Jun 2016

HLE said:
These plans will put speedy and other disabled passengers at a serious disadvantage when it comes to rail travel. It's an emotive subject for all and possibly for him too because he stands to lose out big time. No longer will the guard be able to get the ramp and allow him on, he will have to either 'hope' that an OBS is on board, or that the station has dispatch staff.

I cannot believe that in the 21st century we are having issues like this.
Whilst I don't advocate and didn't agree with Speedy's first sentence of that post, if plans were thought up that would directly impact ethnic minorities like these plans impact the disabled, there would be an absolute uproar. Can't think of any 'plans' that would (thankfully) but racism, just like ageism, sexism, disability discrimination, are all types of discrimination. None are any more serious than the other in their own right.

Speedy, I really would think about editing that post. I see your frustrations as do the majority on here, and can see what you were trying to get across with it, but it might be best to edit it a little.

You really did approach it incorrectly.

I have changed the wording, but not the context. We are in danger of rolling back years of human rights here, although controversial and hard to read, I don't feel I need to apologies for telling the truth.

Driverless vehicle tech will be along within a decade, then we will have more of a choice , but using a chainsaw to break the nut ASAP isn't the way to do it.

Also please note that I wrote those posts about 2am! I am taking a flight to Glasgow for a transport conference next week , which I will bring this issue up as my role of a disability consultant. fancy that, being disabled and being able to work! Due to my part time job, I need to travel spontaneously for meetings and such, I may get to tired on the day and need to travel back earlier........

spangles · 5 Jun 2016

Captain Chaos said:
Why? So, because we can't run trains on time some passengers will have to receive a below standard level of service? That's not about 'customer sevice'. That's about avoiding delay minutes and fines. Customer service is not about the product of running a train. It's about the care, assistance, help, reassurance and effort put it in that goes above and beyond the base product to make the customer feel wanted, appreciated and wanting to come back for more. Simply giving the product over and saying 'there you go' isn't it IMO.

I think for the customer, the most important thing to them is that the train runs on time above all else.

Hence they might feel shortchanged without a guard and the service that brings (but most will likely not give two thoughts). However if the train is delayed or cancelled, they will be downright angry as it impacts their plans and they expect their trains to be on time. I don't believe the presence of a guard or OBS will offset to them the anger or inconvenience of a delayed or cancelled train.

There is a hierarchy of customer demands on a journey and I would say 'running on time' is at the top of that hierarchy.

speedy_sticks · 5 Jun 2016

Also the initial wording was mostly right in so much as if a disabled person had the nerve to stay out longer with friends and maybe missed their booked train the staff at their station might have already gone home by the time they got to their station.

Would you really risk putting slightly drunk disabled and vulnerable folks in a taxi from their nearest manned station at the dead of night for what could be a very long journey?

The above could happen during the day if staff didn't turn up for work.

The above already happens sometimes on the London Underground if their isn't trained staff who know how to use the wheelchair ramp athe a station.

OBS will be a disastrous policy for the disabled and vulnerable folks.

Good luck finding a wheelchair accessible taxi in the first place.

absolutelymilk · 5 Jun 2016

313103 said:
What is your position on a driver not being availiable do accept that happens? and what about the lack of rolling stock?

Yes, obviously it happens that sometimes a driver is not available but running without a driver is more difficult than running without a guard!

Lack of rolling stock is obviously an issue, but finally it seems something is being done to remedy that, with most places having no room for more orders and the East Anglia franchise likely to include new stock as well.

Captain Chaos said:
Why? So, because we can't run trains on time some passengers will have to receive a below standard level of service? That's not about 'customer sevice'. That's about avoiding delay minutes and fines. Customer service is not about the product of running a train. It's about the care, assistance, help, reassurance and effort put it in that goes above and beyond the base product to make the customer feel wanted, appreciated and wanting to come back for more. Simply giving the product over and saying 'there you go' isn't it IMO.

Ask those passengers who want to get home or to work whether the train should depart or wait until a guard arrives, and I doubt many of them will want to wait for the guard....

BestWestern · 5 Jun 2016

spangles said:
I think for the customer, the most important thing to them is that the train runs on time above all else.

Hence they might feel shortchanged without a guard and the service that brings (but most will likely not give two thoughts). However if the train is delayed or cancelled, they will be downright angry as it impacts their plans and they expect their trains to be on time. I don't believe the presence of a guard or OBS will offset to them the anger or inconvenience of a delayed or cancelled train.

There is a hierarchy of customer demands on a journey and I would say 'running on time' is at the top of that hierarchy.

If you are disabed I would suggest the hierarchy might be topped by 'being able to board and alight from the train'...

DarloRich · 5 Jun 2016

Skimble19 said:
Are you being serious?! There is an obvious difference (and I don't agree with your terminology by the way!)... Wheelchair users and other disabled passengers etc, as much as we ideally need to try and reduce barriers to them travelling quite simply can't get around as easily due to infrastructure limitations, and without a gigantic pool of money that doesn't exist to change that it can't change any time soon - it's not anybody actively creating discrimination, it's the reality of a system that was built in a time where such things weren't an issue.

More stations than ever are staffed 24 hours a day on GTR, those that aren't tend to be inaccessible to wheelchair users anyway, and if they book in advance then staff will be made available to meet them at stations they can board at. It may be a bit inconvenient, but it works for the customer, the company and the staff. There isn't the money to pay for every station and train to be staffed "just in case" somebody who needs assistance turns up..

Without wishing to be blunt, from personal experience, 99% of passengers with disabilities (be it wheelchair users, blind / visually impaired passengers, or even the elderly requiring boarding assistance) are more than happy and really appreciative of the Assisted Travel service. It only seems to be the other 1% who appear to have a chip on their shoulder that they can't travel as easily as an "able bodied" passenger, despite there clearly being massive limitations that prevent that that complain about it..

But that doesn't wash I am afraid. The Equality Act is quite clear - it is, prima facie, discriminatory to expect one section of your customer base to have to book 24 hours in advance to be able to use your service. You are treating them differently to your other customers. Which of the other members of the protected characteristics groups do you treat like this?

I am sure there are compelling reasons why this 24 hour booking rule is required in many cases, however the intention of the act is to make these compelling reasons not the norm. I wonder if anyone has tested the 24 hour rule in court?

It is a shame that the the public sector equality duty does not apply to private companies. The disability impact assessment into these changes would make for interesting reading!

HH said:
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.

Whomever benefits from the extra cash sloshing around after the guards are sacked it wont be you or I. The directors will, no doubt, enjoy increased remuneration and emoluments and the government will get back some more money. I also doubt there would be much of a competition for the franchise if there was nothing in it for the owning companies!

You or I wont get any of the benefit of these cost reductions. The cost of the railways as passed on to us never comes down and to think it will is naive in the extreme! We will pay more for less and get a reduced service for our money. We have but one lever to pull and that is not to travel. The TOC knows we need them to get us to work so that we can live our lives. It is not like a normal business relationship where we can take our custom elsewhere.

tony6499 · 5 Jun 2016

speedy_sticks said:
Also the initial wording was mostly right in so much as if a disabled person had the nerve to stay out longer with friends and maybe missed their booked train the staff at their station might have already gone home by the time they got to their station.

Would you really risk putting slightly drunk disabled and vulnerable folks in a taxi from their nearest manned station at the dead of night for what could be a very long journey?

The above could happen during the day if staff didn't turn up for work.

The above already happens sometimes on the London Underground if their isn't trained staff who know how to use the wheelchair ramp athe a station.

OBS will be a disastrous policy for the disabled and vulnerable folks.

Good luck finding a wheelchair accessible taxi in the first place.

Being disabled myself I completely understand how you're feeling and your passions towards this, why should a portion of society become disenfranchised purely because GTR/DfT wish to save money ?

If the OBS is the way forward then it should be legally required for one to be on every train or it doesn't run.

infobleep · 5 Jun 2016

Skimble19 said:
Are you being serious?! There is an obvious difference (and I don't agree with your terminology by the way!)... Wheelchair users and other disabled passengers etc, as much as we ideally need to try and reduce barriers to them travelling quite simply can't get around as easily due to infrastructure limitations, and without a gigantic pool of money that doesn't exist to change that it can't change any time soon - it's not anybody actively creating discrimination, it's the reality of a system that was built in a time where such things weren't an issue.

More stations than ever are staffed 24 hours a day on GTR, those that aren't tend to be inaccessible to wheelchair users anyway, and if they book in advance then staff will be made available to meet them at stations they can board at. It may be a bit inconvenient, but it works for the customer, the company and the staff. There isn't the money to pay for every station and train to be staffed "just in case" somebody who needs assistance turns up..

Without wishing to be blunt, from personal experience, 99% of passengers with disabilities (be it wheelchair users, blind / visually impaired passengers, or even the elderly requiring boarding assistance) are more than happy and really appreciative of the Assisted Travel service. It only seems to be the other 1% who appear to have a chip on their shoulder that they can't travel as easily as an "able bodied" passenger, despite there clearly being massive limitations that prevent that that complain about it..

I'd just like to point out that disabled people existed when the railways were first built. They are not a new phenomenon.

You use the word tend. Why tend? That suggests some aren't? How about using all? Oh I believe you can't.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

Agent_c · 5 Jun 2016

Skimble19 said:
More stations than ever are staffed 24 hours a day on GTR, those that aren't tend to be inaccessible to wheelchair users anyway, and if they book in advance then staff will be made available to meet them at stations they can board at. It may be a bit inconvenient, but it works for the customer, the company and the staff. There isn't the money to pay for every station and train to be staffed "just in case" somebody who needs assistance turns up..

Except there is enough money. Just put a guard on the freaking train. He pays for himself.

HH · 5 Jun 2016

DarloRich said:
But that doesn't wash I am afraid. The Equality Act is quite clear - it is, prima facie, discriminatory to expect one section of your customer base to have to book 24 hours in advance to be able to use your service. You are treating them differently to your other customers. Which of the other members of the protected characteristics groups do you treat like this?

I am sure there are compelling reasons why this 24 hour booking rule is required in many cases, however the intention of the act is to make these compelling reasons not the norm. I wonder if anyone has tested the 24 hour rule in court?

Is there a requirement to book 24 hours in advance? As I understand it, the companies are saying book 24 hours in advance if you want to guarantee staff assistance, which is not the same thing.

I'm no expert on the Act, but I trust that if the actions were deemed discriminatory then previous DOO schemes would have been challenged. Looking at the causes for discrimination what might apply:

direct discrimination - treating someone with a protected characteristic less favourably than others

No. Those with mobility problems are being offered an additional service, if they ring 24 hours beforehand.

indirect discrimination - putting rules or arrangements in place that apply to everyone, but that put someone with a protected characteristic at an unfair disadvantage

Clearly there is a disadvantage, but as I understand it, the duty is to make reasonable adjustments for disabled people. As you know "All rail vehicles must comply with accessibility standards, or have an appropriate exemption in place, by no later than 1 January 2020." If there were other requirements I believe they would have been stated in the Act.

DarloRich said:
Whomever benefits from the extra cash sloshing around after the guards are sacked it wont be you or I. The directors will, no doubt, enjoy increased remuneration and emoluments and the government will get back some more money. I also doubt there would be much of a competition for the franchise if there was nothing in it for the owning companies!

You or I wont get any of the benefit of these cost reductions. The cost of the railways as passed on to us never comes down and to think it will is naive in the extreme! We will pay more for less and get a reduced service for our money. We have but one lever to pull and that is not to travel. The TOC knows we need them to get us to work so that we can live our lives. It is not like a normal business relationship where we can take our custom elsewhere.

The government getting more money means that the government needs to tax less or spend the money elsewhere. One could argue about who's getting the most benefit from that, but that's a different argument.

DarloRich · 5 Jun 2016

However the overarching aim of the act is not to have to guarantee assistance or to require additional services. The principle is that the service offered should be equally accessible to all at all times. Any derogation from that act has to be justifiable and based upon the concept of providing reasonable adjustments. The argument is always about what is reasonable!

The DIA ( if it were required) would not stop DDO changes however it would require meaningful consultation with impacted groups, assessment of the impact of these changes upon those groups and show how their concerns are mitigated. It is interesting how NR will asses the impact on their stations.

infobleep · 5 Jun 2016

HH said:
Is there a requirement to book 24 hours in advance? As I understand it, the companies are saying book 24 hours in advance if you want to guarantee staff assistance, which is not the same thing.

I'm no expert on the Act, but I trust that if the actions were deemed discriminatory then previous DOO schemes would have been challenged. Looking at the causes for discrimination what might apply:

No. Those with mobility problems are being offered an additional service, if they ring 24 hours beforehand.

Clearly there is a disadvantage, but as I understand it, the duty is to make reasonable adjustments for disabled people. As you know "All rail vehicles must comply with accessibility standards, or have an appropriate exemption in place, by no later than 1 January 2020." If there were other requirements I believe they would have been stated in the Act.

The government getting more money means that the government needs to tax less or spend the money elsewhere. One could argue about who's getting the most benefit from that, but that's a different argument.

I understand about reasonably adjustments but if someone allowed to take something away that already exists? We are not taking about adding new things here but taking away?

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

BestWestern · 5 Jun 2016

This 'reasonable adjustments' is a fudge to avoid the real issue though, isn't it!? Whilst the 24hr prebooking facility is useful, the argument surely only begins when a disabled person has need to travel at short notice and cannot use that facility, as they may very well need to do for thousands of reasons. They arrive at the station, in rolls a DOO service with no staff available, the Driver is in the cab where he is supposed to be and can only offer the advice that there's nothing he can do. It is only at that point that the person is now being discriminated against, watching everybody else board whilst they remain on the platform. Prebooking is totally irrelevant in that situation. Bearing in mind that we want DOO not just on commuter lines with a train every 10 minutes, but also on services which might be far, far less frequent. The person unable to board by themselves is now being directly discriminated against, I can't really see how anybody could avoid that? 'Use the help point and we'll send you a taxi' might very well have to be the way forwards, but even that is a difficult 'solution' in some cases.

Dave1987 · 5 Jun 2016

absolutelymilk said:
Yes, obviously it happens that sometimes a driver is not available but running without a driver is more difficult than running without a guard!

Lack of rolling stock is obviously an issue, but finally it seems something is being done to remedy that, with most places having no room for more orders and the East Anglia franchise likely to include new stock as well.

Ask those passengers who want to get home or to work whether the train should depart or wait until a guard arrives, and I doubt many of them will want to wait for the guard....

What is more important PPM or safety?

Southern DOO: ASLEF members vote 79.1% for revised deal

Established Member

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

On Moderation

Member

Established Member

On Moderation

Member

On Moderation

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

On Moderation