Southern DOO: ASLEF members vote 79.1% for revised deal

Domeyhead said:

You're using hyperbole to defect discussion, which has been an unfortunate trait running between some very good posts by rail professionals. But to take your bait I did happen to fly exactly the same route to Basel weekly for three years and I can tell you that you get to know every small detail of the journey and you detect any deviation from basic routine in a second. But the crew were happy to discuss the flight in detail, especially the abnormal ones - in fact they enjoyed the chance to discuss the complexities or idiosyncracies of a particular flight if anyone took an interest. Compare and contrast with the sneers and sarcasm of some staff on here whose contempt for their passengers is as unhelpful as it is unnecessary. Most commuters can grasp the issues for and against DOO. I know that the real skill up front comes in handling all the non optimal situations and this thread has been a valuable source of information and insight. Nobody is denying the difficulties of the role, least of all me, but so it is with any job. The constant need of some on here to portray train driving as some kind of arcane process so complex that even discussing it insults the driver is wasting time. After 700 pages haven't we moved past this yet?

Click to expand...

We're so fortunate to have members like yourself, sans ego, using hyperbole to deflect alleged hyperbole.

After 700 pages one thing has become apparent - professionals, trained and experienced know what they're talking about. Others don't.

Feel free to move on.

Neil Williams said:

To me the solution is to keep the DOO monitors on with train-mounted cameras until the driver elects to switch it off, which would be after the rear coach leaves the platform. But drivers on here have said it would be an unacceptable safety overhead to do this (which I'm not quite sure about myself given that in the days of non-CDL LHCS drivers would often apparently look back along the train a couple of times during departure to check, for example, that no prat opened the door and attempted to board - but I'm not a driver of course).

Click to expand...

I think the drivers are probably right about this, particularly as there are often level crossings, signals and junctions just outside stations.

To be honest I think the way we need to go is a big PR exercise (posters, announcements, etc) reminding customers that the PTI is a dangerous place and that train drivers cannot see you once the train starts moving, and therefore to keep back behind the yellow line. Ideally trains could even have an illuminated "KEEP BACK" sign on them near the doors when the doors have been locked and power is about to be taken.

This should be coupled with an understanding throughout the management, regulatory bodies and prosecutors that a driver is responsible for the PTI before taking power but (subject to this) is not responsible for the PTI after power is correctly taken.

As others have said, this issue is a wider one that applies to many implementations of guard dispatch too. Something that could be done with technology, though, is to give platform dispatchers at busy stations some way of stopping the train in an emergency. That can't be beyond the wit of man.

O L Leigh said:

Thanks for the insight. It sounds very much like the same solution that British Rail came up with early in the 1980s. Do you at least check the platform before closing the doors or do you just count 50 seconds and then press "door close"?

Click to expand...

We check the platform as far as possible. Sometimes we can oversee the whole train (in this case we are allowed to close the doors before 50 seconds), but in many cases it is not possible.

The doors have two or three (depending on the train type) door safety features. A light barrier and the motor current control (or air pressure control on air driven doors), sometimes a weight sensor on the footstep. The door tries to close automaticly after five seconds when none of these safety features are triggered. The door still can be opened by the passenger pressing the door button though. It's not unusual in off peak hours, that all doors are closed automatically before departure time, the 50 seconds rule doesn't apply in this case.

We are allowed to close/lock the doors when:

• the doors are already closed (light in cab extinct).
• the doors are open, we can oversee the whole lenght of the train and no one is boarding the train.
• after 50 seconds in all other cases.

Closing the door from the cab ("forced closure") switches off the light barrier and the weight sensor and turns on an accoustic and an optical warning. Only the motor current control stays active to detect obstacles in the door. So it is possible for thin objects to get trapped in doors without the system noticing it.

But the main problem is the distraction of the driver from the signals. There was a significant rise in SPADs (and accidents) after the introduction of DOO due to dispatch duties being carried out by the driver instead of checking the signal aspect. New safety systems and new procedures had to be introduced. It became quite clear, that the driver can't be responsible to check every door of the train by camaras due to the poor quality of the pictures.

I don't wish to be alarmist, but part of the problem with this DOO dispute is that here in the UK we are discovering the shortcoming in this approach. Do you have many incidents of people being caught in closing doors, even by items of their clothing, bag straps etc, and still get an indication in the cab that all doors are closed?

Click to expand...

Such incidents happened indeed.

Neil Williams said:

CH guarded (pseudo DOO) dispatch procedure:
1. Guard blows whistle

Click to expand...

It's not DOO if there is a guard. In this case the guard closes the door using the UIC-switch in the door.

Barn said:

This should be coupled with an understanding throughout the management, regulatory bodies and prosecutors that a driver is responsible for the PTI before taking power but (subject to this) is not responsible for the PTI after power is correctly taken.

Click to expand...

I thoroughly agree with this in principle.

However the CPS will never be a party to an industrial dispute - nor should they ever be, as a prosecutor.

It really is a difficult bump in the road to negotiate.

AlterEgo said:

I thoroughly agree with this in principle.

However the CPS will never be a party to an industrial dispute - nor should they ever be, as a prosecutor.

It really is a difficult bump in the road to negotiate.

Click to expand...

Yes, you'd certainly never get the CPS binding itself or signing an agreement.

They could perhaps prepare guidance for local prosecutors though and publish this on their website.

Legzr1 said:

We're so fortunate to have members like yourself, sans ego, using hyperbole to deflect alleged hyperbole.

After 700 pages one thing has become apparent - professionals, trained and experienced know what they're talking about. Others don't.

Feel free to move on.

Click to expand...

Your sarcasm suggests you even see this forum as some kind of confrontation or threat, with cynical put downs over explanation or reasoned disagreement. So be it, but you are revealing more about yourself than you would like or intend. I'm not sure why you think I don't know what I'm talking about because you won't say, but maybe that's just a modus operandum that you find easier to deploy.

bahnause said:

It's not DOO if there is a guard. In this case the guard closes the door using the UIC-switch in the door.

Click to expand...

For clarity, I have referred to it as pseudo-DOO, because the guard doesn't give a signal to the driver indicating that it is absolutely safe to depart - the driver has to make some level of that judgement himself by use of his wing mirror.

It strikes me as a really unsafe way to operate (having most of the disadvantages of DOO and guarded operation but almost none of the advantages) - it'd be easy to switch to DB's guarded dispatch procedure which is much safer, i.e. guard blows whistle, guard closes all but local door, guard checks nobody is trapped, guard gives signal to driver, driver departs, guard watches train out of platform from open local door, then closes local door on leaving platform.

Domeyhead said:

Your sarcasm suggests you even see this forum as some kind of confrontation or threat, with cynical put downs over explanation or reasoned disagreement. So be it, but you are revealing more about yourself than you would like or intend. I'm not sure why you think I don't know what I'm talking about because you won't say, but maybe that's just a modus operandum that you find easier to deploy.

Click to expand...

Again, a member without experience adding more white noise.

Those with any sense will see that 5 minutes spent reading the views of experienced staff is worth a weeks worth of the some of the other drivel posted by experts, sitting in carriages/advising pilots as and when.

I'm aware of which opinion holds more weight.

My sarcasm isn't aimed at the forum in general - I've already said some actually know what they're talking about and it wouldn't be fair to them.


Have the last word (I'm guessing it's important to you) and move on.

AlterEgo said:

I thoroughly agree with this in principle.

However the CPS will never be a party to an industrial dispute - nor should they ever be, as a prosecutor.

It really is a difficult bump in the road to negotiate.

Click to expand...

I oppose DOO, which probably comes as no surprise seeing as I'm a guard but I do think this is a significant factor in the dispute. Of the drivers I know most prefer to have a second person for a number of reasons, not limited to responsibility over despatch but it is undeniably the part of the job most likely to see an incident for which a member of train crew would be held responsible. I suspect a proportion of drivers, to which I can't ascribe a percentage, would be OK with the idea of DOO were it not for the blame and prosecution culture. As someone else has said, the fact that there is an ongoing prosecution in which the guard has been internally cleared suggests we (train crew) have no protection merely by adhering to company procedures.

Unfortunately, I suspect that there will be an incident on DOO, fatal or life changing, which will be ascribed to the driver and all hell will break loose. It might not be any time soon, it probably won't, but I think it will happen in the end.

Neil Williams said:

For clarity, I have referred to it as pseudo-DOO, because the guard doesn't give a signal to the driver indicating that it is absolutely safe to depart

Click to expand...

This is exactly what the RA is for. The signal for the departure as soon as the indicator in the cab shows that all doors are closed. The door where the UIC-switch is used stays open anyway and the guard has to close this door seperatly. This gives him time to check the rest of the train again during/after closing the train doors.

the driver has to make some level of that judgement himself by use of his wing mirror.

Click to expand...

No, he hasn't. He can, but his primary concern is the route ahead.

And with removing the guard from the dispatch duty, you remove a safety feature of the chain. The swiss RA for example is dependent of the signal aspect and can only be lit, when the signal ahead shows a proceed aspect. There is a real danger in transfering the dispatch duty to the driver.

AlterEgo said:

O L Leigh - no, dispatch does not finish when power is taken. It finishes when the last carriage train leaves the platform. All of the linked incidents occurred during dispatch.

Click to expand...

Dispatch is over, then power is taken. If your in power then your driving the train.

Once I select power I never have to look at the platform DOO monitors ever again. If anything happens then, tough.

bahnause said:

This is exactly what the RA is for. The signal for the departure as soon as the indicator in the cab shows that all doors are closed.

Click to expand...

Do locomotive-hauled EW IV coaches have this indicator? Must admit I'm surprised.

Dave1987 said:

Indeed I know a lot about flying commercial jets, but I'm not a commercial pilot and do not hold an ATPL therefore I am in no way in a position to go on a pilot forum and impart my knowledge on them.

Click to expand...

Indeed.

There does seem to be something about the rail industry and the driving grade in particular which means everyone has an opinion on how easy the job is etc. Even with no experience of actually doing said job.

I doubt anyone would make the same comments about firefighters/nurses/doctors/pilots or indeed any other type of job. People would also probably accept what experienced fireman/nurses/pilots/whoever had to say about the responsibilities and difficulties involved with doing their jobs. Why is this not the case with train drivers?

Maybe it's because people use trains so frequently that they become blase about their operation.

ComUtoR said:

Dispatch is over, then power is taken. If your in power then your driving the train.

Once I select power I never have to look at the platform DOO monitors ever again. If anything happens then, tough.

Click to expand...

Same here.

I check the signal, then the time, then the PTI. If it's clear, I press doors close, wait for interlock, check PTI again (each coach individually, not all at once), check signal again, then take power and forget about the doors until I arrive at the next station.

Rinse, repeat. (Over 100 times per day.)

wfrank said:

And your knowledge comes from responding to AWS buzzers & bells, & from what you call a Mensa type IQ. But have you ever managed anything or anyone else? Driving a train gives you a seat at the debate but no more. Do we leave road design & rules to lorry drivers? No. The same should apply to trains drivers. Drive the trains well & leave system management to others. The DOO debate is over,DOO trains are running on 75% of Southern. Much wiser & more qualified people than either of us have decided and found it perfectly safe. And as other posters have said, DOO is widely used throughout the world & for many years. The DOO debate here is being prolonged by people who would rather sit in a stationary cab at a station & do nothing. Whereas the silent vast majority of train drivers enjoy looking at the monitors & making decisions, when they would otherwise be twiddling their thumbs or in your case sitting relishing you have a Mensa type IQ.

Click to expand...

Answering as an ex-signalman.
That whole statement is truly offensive!

Bromley boy said:

Since you know everything, I'm still waiting for you to produce figures backing up your previous assertion that UK drivers are "overpaid" compared to equivalent roles in other first world economies.

None will be forthcoming of course. That was that just another baseless, pig-ignorant comment, which you and a certain other poster on this thread seem to specialise in.

Click to expand...

There's been various links posted on here comparing drivers wages to places like Germany etc , if you've evidence that those figures supplied were largely incorrect and UK drivers don't really earn significantly more than much of Europe, I'll happily withdraw the criticism

Bromley boy said:

Indeed.

There does seem to be something about the rail industry and the driving grade in particular which means everyone has an opinion on how easy the job is etc. Even with no experience of actually doing said job.

I doubt anyone would make the same comments about firefighters/nurses/doctors/pilots or indeed any other type of job. People would also probably accept what experienced fireman/nurses/pilots/whoever had to say about the responsibilities and difficulties involved with doing their jobs. Why is this not the case with train drivers?

Maybe it's because people use trains so frequently that they become blase about their operation.

Click to expand...

I don't think it is just the rail industry, it is something to do with human cognition that makes people formulate an uninformed opinion, then that is warped into a fact in their mind, once that happens they only absorb information that confirms their opinion and ignore anything that contradicts it.

Teachers that have gone on strike have received similar uninformed nonsense about how easy their jobs are. Scientists often receive vitriol if their published research doesn't align with someones agenda (some climate scientists have received death threats, I would be surprised if that has happened to anyone on here).

al78 said:

I don't think it is just the rail industry, it is something to do with human cognition that makes people formulate an uninformed opinion, then that is warped into a fact in their mind, once that happens they only absorb information that confirms their opinion and ignore anything that contradicts it.

Teachers that have gone on strike have received similar uninformed nonsense about how easy their jobs are. Scientists often receive vitriol if their published research doesn't align with someones agenda (some climate scientists have received death threats, I would be surprised if that has happened to anyone on here).

Click to expand...

Cognitive dissonance.

Well researched, known about for years and denied by the very people suffering from it.
Reference this thread where ignorance is called out as such and read the replies.

As far as I am aware RMT’s guards strike called for next Monday (23rd) involves:
(1) On Board Supervisors, a role that did not exist a year ago and most of whom were conductors this time last year
(2) Conductors, i.e. those guards still on the same terms and conditions they were a year ago.

Please can someone explain why strike action by conductors is not deemed as secondary action (and thus unlawful) given that:
(1) Southern Rail has completed its DOO roll-out (with around 70% of its services now booked to be DOO operated), thus the terms and conditions for those staff who are still conductors will remain unchanged for the rest of the franchise
(2) At the time the ballot was conducted last year it may not have been 100% clear which of the then conductors would be affected, but now that the process is complete it is known who was affected (i.e. those conductors who are now on board supervisors (or have left)) and who was not (and will not) be affected (i.e. those conductors who are still conductors).
(3) Employees can take lawful industrial action only for a trade dispute, i.e. something that affects their job, contract or terms and conditions. For this particular dispute, this would appear to apply to on board supervisors and drivers, but not to those staff who are still (and thus will remain) conductors.
(4) All secondary action, such as 'sympathy' strikes, (i.e. action which does not immediately relate to the terms, conditions or continued employment of strikers themselves) is unlawful, even if this involves employees of the same employer who are not involved in the primary dispute. Unless I’ve missed something, this would appear to apply to those staff who are still conductors.

the sniper said:

While it's nice highlighting and labelling all those incidents you did with the bold Guard tag, to make a statement, it's a fairly shallow point for anyone paying attention. Most of those incidents weren't the fault of the Guard, I know you know this but for the casual observer, that might not be obvious. The point you're trying to make is that having a Guard couldn't stop those incident, so DOO is justified.

I'll say this though, as far as I can see that report makes no mention of incidents where a Guard acted to prevent a fatality or injury. It isn't mentioned. For example, someone falling between the platform and the train after the ready to start has been given, but seen before/while the train moves while the Guard is observing the train out of the platform, with the Guard then putting in the brake. Some of the incidents you labelled as injuries on Guard worked services could have theoretically occurred under these circumstances, where a Guard prevented a fatality, yet you'd have used those incidents to support a pro-DOO argument. With such a lack of detail how can you say this isn't the case? Equally any preventive action taken by a Guard that avoids at least an injury in a PTI incident would mean said incident falls outside of the scope of that report. It doesn't count in those statistics.

Basically, statistics can tell us everything and nothing at the same time without looking at the detail behind them.

Click to expand...

Perhaps it's time they did record such stats. Can anyone give me a good reason why such stats should not be recorded?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Bellbell said:

I oppose DOO, which probably comes as no surprise seeing as I'm a guard [emoji38] but I do think this is a significant factor in the dispute. Of the drivers I know most prefer to have a second person for a number of reasons, not limited to responsibility over despatch but it is undeniably the part of the job most likely to see an incident for which a member of train crew would be held responsible. I suspect a proportion of drivers, to which I can't ascribe a percentage, would be OK with the idea of DOO were it not for the blame and prosecution culture. As someone else has said, the fact that there is an ongoing prosecution in which the guard has been internally cleared suggests we (train crew) have no protection merely by adhering to company procedures.

Unfortunately, I suspect that there will be an incident on DOO, fatal or life changing, which will be ascribed to the driver and all hell will break loose. It might not be any time soon, it probably won't, but I think it will happen in the end.

Click to expand...

Maybe the driver will end up in prison. The Government can then say it went through the courts so was legal and fair!

Legzr1 said:

We're so fortunate to have members like yourself, sans ego, using hyperbole to deflect alleged hyperbole.

After 700 pages one thing has become apparent - professionals, trained and experienced know what they're talking about. Others don't.

Feel free to move on.

Click to expand...

No they don't. But when they sit isolated and stewing in a pool of resentment and sullen self pity, they start to think that they do. "Professional is as professional does", by the way.

I have to wonder, being the dreadful old cynic that I am, if the plan isn't to wait until the public outcry gets loud enough, so it allows the government to get away with introducing a strike ban for public transport workers.

AlterEgo said:

These aren't injuries but fatalities.

The whole point is that a guard cannot often stop a fatal incident from occurring. That is not the *fault* of the guard concerned and at no point have I claimed that to be the case.

Granted, the report doesn't explain situations where a guard acted to prevent a serious event from occurring. However, it also doesn't include situations where a DOO driver acted similarly either.

Click to expand...

The point I was making is that the report you linked to provides nothing to support your statement in bold, particularly how "often" a Guard avoids a fatal incident. An incident where someone fell down the gap between the ready to start being given and the train moving, with train movement then being prevented by intervention of the Guard putting in the brake, avoiding a likely fatality or severe injury, would mean that said incident wouldn't feature in that report. I appreciate you go on to acknowledge this, but your statement in bold can not be made on that basis. Seeing a list of incidents where a Guard has not or couldn't intervene absolutely does not mean or intend to indicate this is the case in all or even anywhere near the majority of incidents that occur. That is misuse or a misunderstanding of the data. It's like having a list of fatal car crashes where seatbelts and air bags were used/deployed and determining that seatbelts and air bags 'cannot often' prevent a fatality...

So we know post 'ready to start' incidents are occurring, this is what the statistics and data show us, the ones with injury or death anyway. The list in the RAIB report gives us examples with circumstance where a fatality occurred:

63 The following are examples of similar accidents and incidents that were not investigated by the RAIB:

b. 22 March 2003 at Wivelsfield. A man ran alongside the train he had just left until he fell through the platform edge gap and was killed. The train driver, who was responsible for dispatch, did not see the man approach and then run alongside the train as it had moved a short distance beyond the platform mirrors/monitors and he was unable to see back along his train.

c. 11 June 2003 at Gunnersbury. A man walked alongside the train he had just left, banging on its side until he fell through the platform edge gap. A bystander tried to pull the man up but was unable to do so and as the train moved the man was struck and suffered serious injuries. The Court of Appeal upheld the ruling that both the injured man and the train operator were liable for the accident: the injured man because of his behaviour while under the influence of alcohol; the train operator because their guard did not act on the passenger’s behaviour but instead boarded the train and dispatched it while the man was out of his line of sight.

d. 2 May 2004 at Ainsdale. A man was pushed into the train he had just left, fell through the platform edge gap and was killed. The guard did not see this happen; he had followed Merseyrail’s dispatch procedure and was behind his closed door with the man out of his line of sight when he sent the ‘ready to start’ code. He became aware of the incident soon after the train moved off because the man struck and activated a door release valve as he fell, which automatically braked the train to a stop. This incident is not included in railway industry statistics as it was judged the consequence of a criminal act.

e. 11 January 2005 at Clapham Junction. A man approached a train and pressed a pushbutton to open the passenger doors but the doors did not open because they were closed and locked. The man turned away from the train but then fell back through the platform edge gap and was killed.

f. 11 January 2007 at Gidea Park. A man ran alongside a train until he fell through the platform edge gap. He was found on the track almost an hour later and subsequently died from his injuries. The railway employee that dispatched the train from the platform did not see the man approach and run alongside the train because he had returned to his cabin almost a minute before the train left the station.

g. 1 December 2007 at Alresford on the Mid Hants heritage railway. A man ran to board a train as it pulled out of the station as the guard and people on the platform shouted for him to stand clear. He operated the door handle and was able to open the door because central door locking is not required of heritage trains that operate at low speed. He then fell through the platform edge gap and was killed.

h. 25 February 2008 at Hilsea. A man ran alongside a train, banging on its side until he fell through the platform edge gap and was killed. The guard had seen the man banging on the side of the train while it was stationary.

i. 21 November 2009 at Angmering. A sixteen year-old person ran alongside the train she had just left, banging on its side until she fell through the platform edge gap and was killed. The young person was found to have a blood alcohol concentration that was approximately three times the UK legal drink drive limit and she was wearing high heeled shoes at the time of the accident. The guard had seen the young person banging on the side of the train while it was stationary and thought that once the train started to move she would move away, which she did before running alongside it.

j. 3 August 2011 at Clapham Junction. A man fell into the side of a train as it arrived at the station, fell through the platform edge gap and was killed.

Click to expand...

So these incident are occurring. For every incident where someone failed or was unable to act to stop a train resulting in a fatality, there could theoretically be at least an equal number or more where a Guard has intervened to stop a train and avoid what could result in a fatality or even injury. I know at least one incident off the top of my head where a Guard has had to put the brake in after someone ended up down the gap after the ready to start was given. I've personally put the brake in when some kid jumped onto one of the door steps as the train moved away and offered 'words of advice', seeing him off the station. Who's to say these incidents wouldn't have resulted in injury or death without our intervention? But because they didn't end in injury or death, they're statistically invisible to you versus the negatively biased use of data only intended to highlight incidents which result in death or injury. I don't know anybody who's had a post ready to start incident that ended in a fatality...

EDIT:

infobleep said:

Perhaps it's time they did record such stats. Can anyone give me a good reason why such stats should not be recorded?

Click to expand...

Many/most of these incidents are recorded now. You're supposed to report any PTI incident nowadays. That data just needs collating and analysis. It may well prove me wrong, I just haven't seen that information presented yet.

infobleep said:

Perhaps it's time they did record such stats. Can anyone give me a good reason why such stats should not be recorded?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Maybe the driver will end up in prison. The Government can then say it went through the courts so was legal and fair!

Click to expand...

If that happens I can't see any other outcome than strike action, or a work to rule such that the entire DOO network effectively shuts down. Or both.

Carlisle said:

There's been various links posted on here comparing drivers wages to places like Germany etc , if you've evidence that those figures supplied were largely incorrect and UK drivers don't really earn significantly more than much of Europe, I'll happily withdraw the criticism

Click to expand...

Well the article you yourself linked to made the point that German drivers' pay lags behind other European countries (no mention of the UK). This suggests German drivers are underpaid relative to the norm, which doesn't add anything to your argument.

We've recently had a thread discussing pay for New York subway drivers which was the same or slightly more than UK drivers as I recall.

A quick google search reveals that drivers in Canada and USA can earn very substantial sums indeed (looks to be heading towards six figures in £!).

So I'll ask you ahain, where are you getting your figures from? You're the one stating that UK train drivers are "overpaid" so surely you have evidence to back up your assertion?

Out of interest, what do you do and how much are you paid? I wonder if they would go some way towards explaining the chip on your shoulder...

Bellbell said:

If that happens I can't see any other outcome than strike action, or a work to rule such that the entire DOO network effectively shuts down. Or both.

Click to expand...

So, do you mean a strike or work to rule because you don't agree with a decision of the court ?

the sniper said:

Many/most of these incidents are recorded now. You're supposed to report any PTI incident nowadays. That data just needs collating and analysis. It may well prove me wrong, I just haven't seen that information presented yet.

Click to expand...

Well of that is the case, it should be collated and analysed, along with the other stats to give a fuller picture. In the mean time I still want the guards to remain and trains not to go DOO.

Domeyhead said:

No they don't. But when they sit isolated and stewing in a pool of resentment and sullen self pity, they start to think that they do. "Professional is as professional does", by the way.

Click to expand...

And there we have it.

Professional, trained and experienced staff don't know what they're talking about but you do.

I don't resent you but I kindly suggest you stick to taking pictures of trains whilst those trained and experienced in their operation carry on blissfully unaware of you and your like.

Bye bye
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Robertj21a said:

So, do you mean a strike or work to rule because you don't agree with a decision of the court ?

Click to expand...

Here's a hypothetical scenario for you.

DOO operated train, passenger ignores regulation, rules and common sense and decides their journey is worth more than their life, driver follows company protocol, regulation and rules, passenger is seriously injured or killed and CPS decide to prosecute the driver anyway.

Following a small trail the driver is found guilty and imprissoned.

As a driver, what would you do after receiving this news?
What would you expect your Union to do after this news?

Legzr1 said:

And there we have it.

Professional, trained and experienced staff don't know what they're talking about but you do.

I don't resent you but I kindly suggest you stick to taking pictures of trains whilst those trained and experienced in their operation carry on blissfully unaware of you and your like.

Bye bye
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Here's a hypothetical scenario for you.

DOO operated train, passenger ignores regulation, rules and common sense and decides their journey is worth more than their life, driver follows company protocol, regulation and rules, passenger is seriously injured or killed and CPS decide to prosecute the driver anyway.

Following a small trail the driver is found guilty and imprissoned.

As a driver, what would you do after receiving this news?
What would you expect your Union to do after this news?

Click to expand...

I've no idea, I was seeking clarification.

Robertj21a said:

So, do you mean a strike or work to rule because you don't agree with a decision of the court ?

Click to expand...

I'm not a driver, as I said just a few posts ago. I mean a strike or work to rule in a situation where someone has been prosecuted despite/because of following company procedures or because of the use of company/NR equipment.