DfT: South Western Railway NOT Financially Sustainable

SlimJim1694 · 24 Jan 2020

Bletchleyite said:
By 2050 I'd expect to see guard only operation, i.e. fully automated driving, on many routes. This would of course (DLR style) give them the dispatch back.

Judging by the complete balls up being made of just about every major railway project in this country, I wouldn't be getting worried about driverless trains on existing railway infrastructure any time soon.

RailUK Forums

Economist · 24 Jan 2020

The DLR was fairly straightforward to introduce as driver because it was a bespoke system built from the ground up. I would say it's much more difficult to implement changes to systems which are already running, in many places, at capacity.

One example is the introduction of Track Circuit Block signalling on the Wherry Lines, replacing the Absolute Block semaphores. Both AB and TCB are mature technologies, the latter being the more recent, being first introduced (I think) in the 1950's. The Wherry Lines upgrade has been significantly delayed and it's generally been a load of hassle. It's an upgrade on a couple of single lines in a fairly quiet part of the railway and it's still not been delivered on schedule and within budget.

I wonder what would happen if they decided to implement ATO on the approaches to London Bridge, for example?

If the railway is still around in 2050 and we aren't being teleported or living in a post-apocalyptic wasteland, then TCB will be in place too.

Bletchleyite · 24 Jan 2020

SlimJim1694 said:
Judging by the complete balls up being made of just about every major railway project in this country, I wouldn't be getting worried about driverless trains on existing railway infrastructure any time soon.

I'm not worried about it - I'm not a driver and it is safer than having an unnecessary human in the system to make mistakes, particularly once e.g. obstacle detection is up to scratch. 30 years is a long time in tech, and automated railways are a much, much simpler problem than automated road vehicles.

The best thing to do with people is to have them working with people - revenue guards - not having them being worse automatons than a machine can be. (That isn't true now but in 30 years I'm confident it will be).

sikejsudjek · 24 Jan 2020

As a passenger I do not want to see guards removed. Too many idiots on trains and not safe without them. First group keep putting in stupid bids and should be held to account. If they can't operate it profitably they shouldn't have taken it on in the first place. Its not as if this hasn't happened before.

Meerkat · 24 Jan 2020

sikejsudjek said:
As a passenger I do not want to see guards removed. Too many idiots on trains and not safe without them. First group keep putting in stupid bids and should be held to account. If they can't operate it profitably they shouldn't have taken it on in the first place. Its not as if this hasn't happened before.

Do the guards deal with the idiots who make the train unsafe? Can’t hurt to have a presence (IF they aren’t in a cab) but they aren’t supposed to confront are they? Those trains need security people.

Robertj21a · 24 Jan 2020

sikejsudjek said:
As a passenger I do not want to see guards removed. Too many idiots on trains and not safe without them. First group keep putting in stupid bids and should be held to account. If they can't operate it profitably they shouldn't have taken it on in the first place. Its not as if this hasn't happened before.

The thing that always amuses me is that many passengers have no idea at all whether their train has a guard on, or not.

The Ham · 24 Jan 2020

jayah said:
This rotation sounds like a load of nonsense. Either a train needs a Guard or it doesn't. It seems to be creating an unsustainable and indefensible position.

While in public a lot of noise is made about safety, in practice anything that removes the ability of a certain union to close down the railway at its choosing will be opposed.

Legally children are supposed to be with a car seat whilst traveling in a car for their safety, however there is provision that they can be carried without being in a car seat in certain circumstances. As long as those circumstances are limited then few are going to ask for them to be removed because every child should be carried in a car seat.

It is to do with the measurable risk of doing something. What is the measurable risk of some trains traveling without a guard compared to every train carrying a guard?

If there was a change (so that there was more circumstances where children could be carried without a car seat or more trains were being proposed to run without a guard) then that's the time to have that fight is it not?

NoMorePacers · 24 Jan 2020

I found it somewhat ironic last week that the 14:01 Waterloo - Kingston had a guard but no driver. Funny that was.

3141 · 24 Jan 2020

sikejsudjek said:
As a passenger I do not want to see guards removed. Too many idiots on trains and not safe without them. First group keep putting in stupid bids and should be held to account. If they can't operate it profitably they shouldn't have taken it on in the first place. Its not as if this hasn't happened before.

I only know about the bids that First have won. In the past ten years they are:-
ICWC in 2012 - but the DfT made a mess of the bid evaluation and the award was cancelled;
TPE in 2016, where they have problems;
South Western in 2017, where they have problems. The problems include the discrepancy between the Central London Employment used by the DfT and actual ridership, the unrealistic timetabling requirements set by the DfT in the Invitation to Tender, the late delivery of new trains, and strikes. These were not known at the time the bid was being compiled.
ICWC + HS2, where it's too soon to make any judgement.

Perhaps you know more about this and can explain what was stupid about these bids. I'm particularly interested to know what it is that has happened before, that you refer to.

Scottychoo · 24 Jan 2020

Meerkat said:
Firstly....the guards jobs aren’t threatened just the role with the doors
In the real world people are losing their jobs all over the place, because the jobs aren’t needed any more - they get paid off and they move on. To be two pay days away from being on the street is poor planning, very poor if you earn guards money plus the likely decent redundancy.
Your position is nonsensical- we would still have second men sitting in EMU cabs doing nothing. We would have no internet shopping or banking, no self service tills or petrol pumps, and we would be running out of food because we can’t have those machines doing farmhands jobs.
It isn’t an “attack on guards jobs”. The role has gone.
If the RMT had any sense they would be taking advantage of the public feeling to try to get OBS on all trains that are currently DOO rather than fighting the tide.

Hear hear. When will SWR guards wake up and realise your union are banging their heads against the wall and couldn't give a damn about your future. Oh and your subs are going up to pay the interest on the loan from Unite to pay your wages in December while you were all down the pub

RealTrains07 · 24 Jan 2020

dgl said:
I wonder how many people who are against the strikes would be happy to go into work only to be told after years of faithful service that they were no longer required and there was nothing they could do about it?, not only that but being constantly berated for not only actually giving a damn about safety but for wanting to have a job.

The government are trying to break unions as they see them as a barrier for reduced workers rights and that's the only reason why they want the guards gone, breaking one union shows to other unions that they have no power against the government and to basically sit down and shut up.

Despite claims to the contrary, and the lies in certain newspapers, the only people who for safety isn't the reason for getting rid of the guards is the government and it's lackies, and you only need to look to the reason why the roll out of ATP was canned to confirm that.

Thats funny considering tory governments usually hate unions :lol:

Plus considering SWR has not been that open to the union unlike WMT... iam not surprised of the recent escalation

RealTrains07 · 24 Jan 2020

We should remember that all workers Railway or not. SWR or not have the right to try and protect their jobs. Whether its a strike or not.

Blaming RMT does not help. Your just creating more issues by being hateful about it.

The situation SWR are in was caused by mixed responsibly. Like I said before. Network rail, SWR themselves and RMT are all to blame. Its not fair to put it only at one door

Cymroglan · 24 Jan 2020

sikejsudjek said:
As a passenger I do not want to see guards removed. Too many idiots on trains and not safe without them.

only quoting first part of post.
in theory I agree with you, but the reality is that guards go missing when there’s any sign of trouble eg when fights break out (usually late at night) or when aggressive, drunken football fans with no respect for other passengers board trains at Southampton Central or Boscombe after a game and head for First Class bragging about not having the right tickets. I’m told that guards lock themselves in a driving cab but haven’t checked, I’m too busy making sure I’m low profile and safe.

Matt Taylor · 25 Jan 2020

"I'm told" By who? Unless it's from a reputable qualified source I would respectfully suggest that your comment has no greater value than mess room gossip. I frequently work trains with sports fans on (not just football, rugby too and also horse racing types) and I still patrol the trains, I only specifically put myself in a position of safety as a last resort. If things are rowdy we have advice we should follow although it can be open to interpretation. If things get out of hand do you really want the guard in the middle of it getting assaulted? The guard has a duty of care to their passengers but how can they discharge that duty if they not prioritise their own safety? Some forum members seem to have a fascination with the idea that we're all militant unionists who hide away at the first sign of trouble. It's not a coincidence that the guards who are getting assaulted are generally the ones for there's black, white and no inbetween.

In respect of the main thrust of the thread, in my opinion we'll see a relet of the franchise (to First) for about two years under new financial and penalty targets prior to a full refranchise in 2022/2023 by which time new legislation will keep the RMT in their box and perhaps the whole franchising system will have been reviewed and changed for the better.

Robertj21a · 25 Jan 2020

Ironic that there's probably no need to keep RMT 'in their box' - or indeed probably any need for further legislation.
All that most people expect, in 2020, is for a Trade Union to both represent their members while also recognising the needs of passengers and management. All the time that the RMT lives in a world akin to the 1970s there will be little improvement in industrial relations.

Wolfie · 25 Jan 2020

Robertj21a said:
Ironic that there's probably no need to keep RMT 'in their box' - or indeed probably any need for further legislation.
All that most people expect, in 2020, is for a Trade Union to both represent their members while also recognising the needs of passengers and management. All the time that the RMT lives in a world akin to the 1970s there will be little improvement in industrial relations.

It is emphatically NOT the role of a trade union to "recognise the needs of passengers and management".
Indeed l am glad to say that my TU actively pointed out that management were breaking both policy and the law when they tried pursuing their 'needs' to my serious detriment. Had l wished an employment tribunal could have resulted. Instead there are a series of hopefully career-killing (for the culprits) grievances underway.

Robertj21a · 25 Jan 2020

Wolfie said:
It is emphatically NOT the role of a trade union to "recognise the needs of passengers and management".
Indeed l am glad to say that my TU actively pointed out that management were breaking both policy and the law when they tried pursuing their 'needs' to my serious detriment. Had l wished an employment tribunal could have resulted. Instead there are a series of hopefully career-killing (for the culprits) grievances underway.

Thanks for the 1970s confirmation.

If a Trade Union can't even see the needs of the passengers and management then it's not at all surprising that management and passengers won't be bothered to see the needs of Trade Unions.
Even so, I accept that we're veering off topic.

bb21 · 25 Jan 2020

Since we are going down the same old arguments and the original topic is clearly lost, as I stated in the other thread, the thread is closed and maybe reopened for discussion in the event further details come to light regarding the original topic.

It is quite clear no one is going to persuade each other in this discussion so everyone take a step back and look away.

DfT: South Western Railway NOT Financially Sustainable

SlimJim1694

Member

RailUK Forums

Economist

Member

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member

sikejsudjek

Member

Meerkat

Established Member

Robertj21a

On Moderation

The Ham

Established Member

NoMorePacers

Established Member

3141

Established Member

Scottychoo

Member

RealTrains07

Established Member

RealTrains07

Established Member

Cymroglan

Member

Matt Taylor

Established Member

Robertj21a

On Moderation

Wolfie

Established Member

Robertj21a

On Moderation

bb21

Emeritus Moderator