Gatwick Express Industrial Relations

[Southern Dvr]

Is this mass extension of DOO (as opposed to just fast Gatwick/Brighton services) noted anywhere? It certainly makes it a much difference story.

Not sure if its in public domain or not yet. The fact is that once its happened on GatEx they'll just say 'well we do it on GatEx so we can and will do it here'

Fact is, its coming and GTR will be the start of something much bigger with on train cuts. The whole country should be watching this, an awful lot more jobs than just those at GTR are at stake here.

 

[highdyke]

Is there any scientific evidence though why DOO is less safe and spending lots of money on guards to prevent accidents is more cost effective than spending it elsewhere?

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Is there any scientific evidence though why DOO is less safe and spending lots of money on guards to prevent accidents is more cost effective than spending it elsewhere?

There but for the grace of god go thee.

That evidence will only exist if there's a simply horrific accident. DOO-P makes such an accident more likely, and I'm afraid (in both senses) that it will happen.

We've all been exceptionally lucky so far. Godmersham should be a wake up call, GSM-R radio tripping out in the leading cab, train deflecting off a bridge abutment, that could have been a train down an embankment and a driver trapped, incapacitated or worse in the leading cab, even if he's just trapped, he's stuck in a cab with no working GSM-R set. That's brilliant, that is.

No guard to lay protection, contact signaller by any means, evacuate passengers to a position of safety and to fetch the emergency services to the correct location could so easily result in a second train hitting the first train or ploughing into passengers standing on an adjacent line who have evacuated themselves

And frankly, how many experienced railwaymen (who aren't guards, and who don't stand to lose from the abolition of guards) do you need to tell you it's unsafe ?

 

[Tetchytyke]

Overground run to Watford Junction

Only on the DC lines, which Southern don't use.

 

[highdyke]

There but for the grace of god go thee.

That evidence will only exist if there's a simply horrific accident. DOO-P makes such an accident more likely, and I'm afraid (in both senses) that it will happen.

With respect, this could apply to anything in life. There is not unlimited money to prevent every eventuality. By your token we should build a separate road for HGVs, because of the potential destruction with a car, pedestrian or cyclist and subsequent loss of life.

Let me re-phrase the question. Is it worth spending millions of pounds per year on guards, instead of new signalling, crash-worthy stock, new railways - which also saves lives and creates jobs? Does spending this cash offer good value for money?

 

[Bishopstone]

Yes. Proposals are for all GTR RPIs and many conductors (not all, but I'd rather not go into too much detail) to become OBS. This includes current revenue employees on Thameslink routes. Some former Southern conductors would become specific GX route OBS.

Thanks. It sounds as though, were these proposals implemented, the staffing presence on GatEx and Thameslink would increase, compared to the limited sweeps by a small pool of RPIs we see today.

On the other hand, with the ex-Guard resource spread more widely, you would encounter on-train staff less regularly on Southern branded services.

But I share the concern that after an initial revenue blitz, which gets some of the chancers into the habit of paying for travel, it would be decided the on-board role was an unnecessary overhead in quantity. At best, retirees and leavers would not be replaced - ie natural wastage - and at worst, a redundancy round would follow.

The net result, in three or four years, would be a pool of RPIs only slightly larger than the position today, plus - probably - some GatEx hosts to justify the 'premium' tag and enforce (good luck!) the contested pricing structure that's been the subject of much debate here. I suspect even the GatEx hosts would become a 06.00-19.00 presence, at most.

There would be a burst of impetus to cascade/build stock to replace the 313s on Coastway, that we had thought were going to hang-around until 2030-ish.

 

[Antman]

There but for the grace of god go thee.

That evidence will only exist if there's a simply horrific accident. DOO-P makes such an accident more likely, and I'm afraid (in both senses) that it will happen.

We've all been exceptionally lucky so far. Godmersham should be a wake up call, GSM-R radio tripping out in the leading cab, train deflecting off a bridge abutment, that could have been a train down an embankment and a driver trapped, incapacitated or worse in the leading cab, even if he's just trapped, he's stuck in a cab with no working GSM-R set. That's brilliant, that is.

No guard to lay protection, contact signaller by any means, evacuate passengers to a position of safety and to fetch the emergency services to the correct location could so easily result in a second train hitting the first train or ploughing into passengers standing on an adjacent line who have evacuated themselves

And frankly, how many experienced railwaymen (who aren't guards, and who don't stand to lose from the abolition of guards) do you need to tell you it's unsafe ?

And what about the experienced railwaymen that say otherwise?

 

[Philip Phlopp]

With respect, this could apply to anything in life. There is not unlimited money to prevent every eventuality. By your token we should build a separate road for HGVs, because of the potential destruction with a car, pedestrian or cyclist and subsequent loss of life.

If there was a situation where HGVs would take a mile or longer to brake from speeds up 100mph or more, and there was no way of warning them to slow down or stop, then yes, a separate road for HGVs would be needed.

The distances, safety risks (including 750V DC or 25kV AC electric) and energy (trains being 160-180 tonnes for an average 100mph EMU, upwards for longer and faster stock) need different safety precautions.

Let me re-phrase the question. Is it worth spending millions of pounds per year on guards, instead of new signalling, crash-worthy stock, new railways - which also saves lives and creates jobs? Does spending this cash offer good value for money?

Signalling, crash worthy stock and new railways will not mitigate against incidents where the driver is incapacitated or a series of events happen which require two trained members of staff to deal with.

Your suggestions might well stop some incidents from happening, but there will always be accidents on the railway, when they happen, you need trained personnel on site to deal with the incident in the best way possible. The extra eyes, ears and sixth sense guards have will stop incidents too. They know, they can hear and just sense when something is wrong.

ERTMS/ETCS Level 2 signalling won't stop a derailment, ETCS Level 2 provides a little higher level of safety in a handful of scenarios, it matches current safety across the board and in a couple of scenarios, it's a little more dangerous (on risk scoring metrics).

Brand new crash worthy stock can't mitigate against a driver being trapped in the cab of a train, unable to deal with an emergency. You could have a brilliant train with the best cab, but if it derails and ends up in a situation where the driver can't get out, it's still a major problem. The emergency could be unrelated to a crash, it could be the driver being shocked by a live electric wire or rail, it could be an electrical or mechanical failure under the train causing a fire or other problem.

New railways won't stop a derailment, of cows getting onto the line, of a rail breaking, of a cement mixer falling from a bridge or damage to third rail or OLE. There's a million possible scenarios none of which are helped by infrastructure investment.

Guards are an excellent investment in the safety of a train, they go hand in glove with better signalling, safer stock and new infrastructure. They complement each other in making the railway safer.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

And what about the experienced railwaymen that say otherwise?

They're wrong.

 

[highdyke]

You are missing the point Philip.

Show me the evidence, that overall DOO-P is less safe overall and that spending the money on Guards is better at saving lives than spending it on say ERTMS, that may prevent SPADs or help with signal sighting or getting rid of level crossings - considering there was a crash the other day.

You cite the accident in Kent, but this can be countered with the recent incidents in Merseyside.

Guards play a very minor role in safety these days compared to what they used to and a more important one in customer services, do you accept that?

 

[notadriver]

You are missing the point Philip.

Show me the evidence, that overall DOO-P is less safe overall and that spending the money on Guards is better at saving lives than spending it on say ERTMS, that may prevent SPADs or help with signal sighting or getting rid of level crossings - considering there was a crash the other day.

You cite the accident in Kent, but this can be countered with the recent incidents in Merseyside.

Guards play a very minor role in safety these days compared to what they used to and a more important one in customer services, do you accept that?

He's not missing the point. YOU are.

 

[highdyke]

He's not missing the point. YOU are.

I disagree, I understand safety in the overall context.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Guards play a very minor role in safety these days compared to what they used to and a more important one in customer services, do you accept that?

Evidence please.

You are missing the point, btw.

 

[scotsman]

Almost all DOO. DRS' nuclear trains carry a guard.

Well, a Trainman.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

You are missing the point Philip.

Show me the evidence, that overall DOO-P is less safe overall and that spending the money on Guards is better at saving lives than spending it on say ERTMS, that may prevent SPADs or help with signal sighting or getting rid of level crossings - considering there was a crash the other day.

You cite the accident in Kent, but this can be countered with the recent incidents in Merseyside.

Guards play a very minor role in safety these days compared to what they used to and a more important one in customer services, do you accept that?

It's not guards OR ERTMS, guards OR level crossing closures, guards OR signal sighting. These things are all things we're dealing with at the same time as retaining guards.

There's no firm evidence ETCS Level 2 will improve safety, the proof we have as an industry is the risk scoring metrics, they do also say we will eventually have a series of accidents on routes signalled using ETCS Level 2, just that these accidents should be less frequent than if TPWS/AWS was the signalling technology used.

The outcome of those accidents will depend on how they're handled by on-train staff.

The same applies to better trains and new railways - they will eventually have accidents, the number of injuries or fatalities will eventually be determined by the presence or absence of a guard. It could happen tomorrow, it could be 20 years away, but there will be an accident where the guard will make all the difference.

I don't care if they're mainly retail staff, just as long as they remain PTS certified and have route training.

 

[highdyke]

He's not missing the point. YOU are.

Guards used to provide safety for unbraked stock. By and large almost all stock is now braked.

Guards used to provide dispatch when doors were not power operated. By and large most stock now have power operated doors or has central door locking.

Guards used to provide further protection when signalling wasn't so advanced, and there was a possibility signalmen would forget a train in section. Continuous track circuiting ( a requirement of DOO for passenger trains) has countered this.

Guards used to be important with communicating to signalboxes by placing detonators. Today we have mobile radio phones. Most passengers carry mobile phones are are capable of dialing 999.

Fires on trains and hot axles boxes were more of a problem than they are today, with advances in fire resistant material and elimination of the old style axle boxes, as well as less steam locomotives.

Guards safety role is mostly safe dispatch (where drivers are not fully operating doors) and protection of the line where the controlling box cannot be contacted by any means, which is exceptionally rare. Guards signalling training is mostly related to rule book section C, they do not have signalling training other than that. Most are unaware of the other procedures and systems in place to ensure safety.

Because more stations are unmanned and ticket offices have closed, the guards role has switched more toward customer service.

There's my evidence, how about yours?

 

[Carlisle]

But I share the concern that after an initial revenue blitz, which gets some of the chancers into the habit of paying for travel, it would be decided the on-board role was an unnecessary overhead in quantity.

Not necessarily,for example small stations on the west coastway like Aldrington, Fishersgate, Southwick Fishbourne Bosham, Warblington etc are unlikly to ever justify having barriers and associated staffing , so it'll be in the company's interest to have someone on the train to collect revenue

 

[Mojo]

Folks, I'm concerned this thread is going exactly the same way as the past threads on this topic are. There have already been threads talking about safety and customer service implications of onboard staff. Please keep this threads for updates relating to the industrial relations situation at GTR. Any further replies not related to this topic will be deleted.

 

[craigybagel]

Folks, I'm concerned this thread is going exactly the same way as the past threads on this topic are. There have already been threads talking about safety and customer service implications of onboard staff. Please keep this threads for updates relating to the industrial relations situation at GTR. Any further replies not related to this topic will be deleted.

Thank you

 

[tony6499]

Did the 12 car run today DOO or was the schedule changed ?

 

[Greenback]

Folks, I'm concerned this thread is going exactly the same way as the past threads on this topic are. There have already been threads talking about safety and customer service implications of onboard staff. Please keep this threads for updates relating to the industrial relations situation at GTR. Any further replies not related to this topic will be deleted.

This is why I've removed some of the posts since Mojo's earlier warning. (My own emphasis)
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
The off topic arguing must cease. Now.

 

[FordFocus]

There was an era on this forum where rail staff were regularly crucified. However, now there are more rail staff on this forum it's only evens things out.

What annoys me is when people post their opinions or perceptions of things as facts, in this case, a members views on guards jobs roles with little understanding of how the job role works especially with route knowledge and emergency situations.

The only update I've heard on this dispute so far is that the union lawyers are now looking into the issue, especially in light of GTRs threatening letter for sending people home with no pay despite following their terms and conditions of their contracts.

 

[Mike395]

Just to reiterate the warnings made immediately above - any off topic discussion will be deleted. A couple of the deleted posts were also making personal remarks regarding other members and not partaking in civilised discussion - I will not hesitate to take further action if this continues, as it's not acceptable.

 

[Greenback]

As has now been said twice, please keep this thread for updates relating to the industrial relations situation at GTR.

Other subject areas are strictly off topic.

 

[tsr]

As has now been said twice, please keep this thread for updates relating to the industrial relations situation at GTR.

Other subject areas are strictly off topic.

With due respect, I fear the moderating team are not aware of the full seriousness of the industrial relations issue at GTR. It does not simply revolve around the provision of a guard on 12 coach GX trains. There is a huge amount more to it than that.

I feel unable to comment absolutely fully but what I and others have posted in defence of the role of the guard (or conductor as it is for GTR Southern services) is crucial to understand the implications of what will become known more publicly as time progresses.

There is, as has been amply hinted, a major programme of change being proposed and this extends far more widely to an extension of the length of GTR Gatwick Express trains. Indeed there are press releases stressing that GTR wish to bring in change to onboard crew.

The necessity of the role of the conductor/guard is something which needs to be debated so that when more of the currently-internal detail becomes known, there is material on such a widely read public forum which provides a core commentary without having to revisit all areas. Whilst the pros and cons of DOO operation have been discussed many times on here by many members, perhaps you will find some of what are now deleted posts have important relevance to the situation specifically at GTR. For example, my comments about passenger/staff ratios and specific risks highlighted by current conductor training for relevant areas of the UK...

 

[Mike395]

I'm closing this temporarily pending a discussion amongst the forum staff on the best way forward.

 

[ainsworth74]

As there is now pending legal action we have decided to leave this thread locked for the time being. Once there is a resolution to the legal case or other update please feel free to report this post and we will look into reopening it for further discussion.

Govia Thameslink takes Aslef union to court over longer trains dispute

The operator of the Gatwick Express train service is taking the Aslef union to the high court after its drivers refused to carry passengers on new longer trains.

Govia Thameslink Railway has launched legal action over what it described as the “baffling” refusal of drivers to run the 12-carriage trains without guards.

Aslef says GTR has breached an agreement concerning driver-only trains, which it accepts on trains of up to 10 carriages. Aslef and the RMT have raised concerns over the safe operation of longer trains without guards.

Gatwick Express services had previously operated with either five or 10 carriages, but this will rise to eight or 12 across the fleet in coming months.

The dispute threatens to overshadow the introduction of the new trains, which GTR says should increase capacity as well as providing wider doors, Wi-Fi, greater reliability and comfort.

Half the services are planned to be running with 12 cars by June, but drivers refused to operate the first two planned 12-car trains without a guard. On the first occasion, the driver went to Gatwick and returned to Victoria with an empty train, although Aslef said the decision was taken by management and that the driver had offered to carry passengers if four cars were decoupled.

A GTR spokesman said: “We launch legal action very reluctantly, but we have been left with no choice because of the position adopted by the Aslef union.

“Drivers have safely operated the doors on Gatwick Express services for many years, so passengers will find their refusal to drive the new trains baffling.

“We will take any reasonable steps we can to defend the interests of our customers and maintain the Gatwick Express service with the new 12-car trains, which will increase capacity and reliability, and give a more comfortable travelling environment for passengers.”

The operator’s application for an injunction is expected to be considered at a hearing in London later this week.

An Aslef spokesman said the union believed that it had a strong case to defend, alleging that GTR was breaching agreements on train staffing. “The agreements are in place to only have 10-car coaches as driver-only, and to stop any extension of driver-only operation,” the spokesman said.

“Longer trains without guards are not safe for passengers, especially with the rise in sexual assaults, and not safe for drivers. This is purely greed and a cost-cutting measure risking safety – no member of the public has ever demanded a train without guards.”

The action is unusual for a train company, but a more confrontational attitude has been apparent in recent months after Peter Wilkinson, a senior official at the Department for Transport, told a public meeting that “we’re going to be having punch-ups” with drivers.

Source