RMT demands answers from Scotrail on safe train operation after appalling incident

[380101]

Ah, I thought it was a Scotrail incident.

No scotrail strike last month, phew!

Not yet anyway. RMT currently balloting for industrial action in ScotRail over proposed extention of DOO.

 

[ComUtoR]

A guard is not a catch-all safety implement, although in my view they are an essential part of the system. I was merely trying to clear up some sweeping statements as above.

I understand.

Local policy is also an important factor when dispatching the train. Which is what your getting at.

When the doors have been closed (and on trains fitted with central door locking, the central door locking has been locked) you must carry out the train safety check by making sure that :

• the train doors are properly closed
• nobody is trapped in the doors, for example by clothing
• it is safe to start the train

Under Guard it states "You must carry out the train safety check if there are no platform staff" Under Driver it additionally states "monitors or mirrors"

If someone is leaning against the train then you break the final point. Ergo you cannot give an RA/Ding Ding etc.

Guard When you receive the 'train safety check complete signal you must then :

• close the local door
• where appropriate, check the interlock light is illuminated
• give the ready to start to the Driver, or if the signal is to be relayed to the driver, give the ready to start signal to the PIC of the platform
• stay at the door controls until the train has passed clear of the platform

I'm not sure how you see it as a sweeping statement. The rule book is quite clear that if it is not safe to start the train then you should not proceed. Doors are closed, interlock check if available, and then the train safety check must be carried out. Its very black and white. Part of the reason why Christopher McGee was jailed was because he dispatched the train whilst the girl was still leaning against it.

I fully understand that local TOC policy dictates how the procedure is carried out and I'm fully aware that it is not perfect and that once that train safety check has been carried out and the unit dispatched it is in the hands of the Gods. Part of the contributing factor in the Christopher McGee case was that TOC policy was not being followed.

I was reading up on the FWI statistics the other day and it makes a distinction between PTI incidents where passengers are boarding and alighting or incidents at the platform edge. We suffered with an incident at Charing Cross and a woman fell between the train whilst it was in motion. There was no way to save her as the dispatch process had completed and the train had set off. It doesn't count as a dispatch incident.

I would 100% agree that it will take everyone involved to prevent incidents but the first step is to ensure the Train safety check takes place once the doors are closed and before any indication to the Driver is given. Suffice to say that after West Wickham we have been hammered with PTI instructions and new policy has been introduced. Our major beating has come from this "train safety check" that MUST be carried out.

Close doors, train safety check, RA to the Driver.

 

[XC90]

Not yet anyway. RMT currently balloting for industrial action in ScotRail over proposed extention of DOO.

That is a shame.

 

[Carlisle]

Not yet anyway. RMT currently balloting for industrial action in ScotRail over proposed extention of DOO.

So in reality we're going to have to go through a complete re run of the recent Airdrie to Bathgate dispute with all the same arguments.

 

[XC90]

So we're going to have to go through a total re run of the recent Airdrie to Bathgate dispute with all the same arguments.

........and the usual suspects!

 

[kieron]

The reason there are no statistics, is no-one is asking the question.

When there is an issue on a DOO train, it's either the driver fault or the passengers. No-one goes, if that had a conductor, would the issue have happened.

I don't think there is any prospect of DOO ever being reduced in scope until someone tries to answer that question.

The RMT could try to persuade the government to provide enough information to let them do it (and to improve how these things are detected and reported if the government does not collect the information needed), or to appoint someone to look at railway safely in a broad enough way to assess DOO, someone who the union can have confidence in to carry it out fairly.

The cost of abolishing DOO will not be known until and unless someone does it, but it's likely to be high given the number of extra staff which would be needed. The likely effect on safety is unknown. Against this background, I'm afraid I think "no change" is the best the union can get out of this dispute.

 

[XC90]

I think "no change" is the very best they will get and are indeed hoping for!

I noticed in the press release by the RMT that Mick Cash is so concerned about the incident in Dumbarton, he couldn't get the name of the station correct - pedantic I know.

 

[spangles]

Further statement issued by RMT here:
http://www.rmt.org.uk/news/rmt-slams-continuing-scotrail-management-dirty-tricks/

RMT slams continuing management dirty tricks as ballot opens on Scotrail over Driver Only Operation.

RAIL UNION RMT today slammed continued management dirty tricks as a ballot of guards across Scotrail for industrial action over the extension of Driver Only Operation and Driver Controlled operation gets underway.

The ballot opens today - Tuesday 24th May 2016 - with a closing date of Tuesday 7th June 2016.

In the run up to the ballot Abellio/Scotrail – a Dutch company whose UK operations are based in London – has stepped up their barrage of lies and dirty tricks targeted directly at the 560 guards through direct mail and social media:

• Claiming the company door remains open when in fact Abellio/Scotrail are refusing to talk and are conducting all their communications through social media and junk mail.

• Claiming that the over-riding priority is “running Scotland’s trains” when in fact services out of Fort William were cancelled on Saturday due to blatant mismanagement of staffing requirements –a problem that persists on Scotrail routes.

• Claiming that a misleading letter to staff that misrepresented the RMT had been rescinded when in fact it hasn’t.

• Claiming that all existing agreements will be honoured when its crystal clear in fact that they won’t.


RMT’s policy is for no extension of DOO on any route or service and for the guard to be in full operational control of the power operated doors. Furthermore, RMT has made it clear that the union is totally opposed to any proposals for extending DOO, reducing or abolishing the safety role of the Conductor and reducing or abolishing the role of the Conductor in operation of the doors.

Scotrail were informed of RMT’s position and they claimed that they accepted the importance of these issues. Additionally, the company were written to in order to seek the necessary assurance that no extension of DOO or DCO would be put in place during the lifetime of the Abellio Scotrail franchise. Those assurances have not been forthcoming and it is that refusal that has provoked this dispute.

RMT General Secretary Mick Cash said;

“As the Abellio/Scotrail ballot gets underway the Dutch owned company, with orders issued from the London HQ, have resorted to a campaign of provocation, lies and dirty tricks that are a mirror of the strategy being followed by the French-operators of the Southern franchise who are also attacking their guards. It stinks, and RMT refuses to believe that there isn’t collusion and the union is crystal clear that this co-ordinated assault on the guards grade is being directed by the Government through the DFT.

‎"Any extension of DOO or DCO is a clear attack on our members hard earned terms and conditions. RMT members should not have to face the risk of their role and responsibilities being reduced and undermined.

"There is also a very real threat to passengers of watering down and wiping out the safety critical role of the guard on these Scotrail services. ‎That is a lethal gamble with basic rail safety.

"The recent shocking incident at East Dumbarton, which resulted in a seriously injured passenger falling onto the tracks, is just the latest in a catalogue of shocking episodes that expose the dangers of DOO.

"RMT is in no doubt that our members will stand together and demonstrate the strength of feeling across the Scotrail network during this dispute. The union remains available for further talks."

✔️ Mention foreign owners (the Dutch)
✔️ Try and blame foreign owners of other TOCs (the French)
✔️ blame the DFT, despite the fact that rail is a devolved issue in Scotland and nothing to do with DFT

Does Mick Cash even read the documents that are put in front of him to sign off. I find it incredible that he would be unaware the DFT don't cover Scotland's rail network.

 

[XC90]

No, you're right. The second pair of mk1 eyeballs would have made a difference.

Here you go Pro-DOO'ers, this is the reason why no one wants DOO

Perth doesn't have DOO trains, yet an incident almost identical happened there!

 

[HLE]

No, you're right. The second pair of mk1 eyeballs would have made a difference.

Here you go Pro-DOO'ers, this is the reason why no one wants DOO

Perth doesn't have DOO trains, yet an incident almost identical happened there!

Having a guard doesn't mean an incident won't happen. It's a lot less likely though than a DOO operated service.

 

[Altnabreac]

Further statement issued by RMT here:
http://www.rmt.org.uk/news/rmt-slams-continuing-scotrail-management-dirty-tricks/





✔️ Mention foreign owners (the Dutch)
✔️ Try and blame foreign owners of other TOCs (the French)
✔️ blame the DFT, despite the fact that rail is a devolved issue in Scotland and nothing to do with DFT

Does Mick Cash even read the documents that are put in front of him to sign off. I find it incredible that he would be unaware the DFT don't cover Scotland's rail network.

It really isn't a great piece of PR by the RMT.

I presume the tone is intended to be mainly aimed at shoring up support witin the grade for a ballot.

Ultimately however to win the war and not the battle they need to get public opinion on side and there is very little here that will attract the sympathy of the general public.

At this stage it will be difficult to do that as effectively they are striking against something that may happen in future so the public reaction will be to tell them to wait until it does happen. But they really should be trying to coherently get their message across about why the public should care about DCO.

In Scotland at least it is hard to claim the customer service argument as DCO is proposed to keep a 2nd staff member on board. So all their PR needs to explain to the public why a second safety trained staff member is a benefit to the public. At present they really aren't getting that message across.

 

[kylemore]

I can only approach this from the viewpoint of a passenger.

I frequently use both DOO and non DOO Scotrail trains and I feel perfectly safe in both because I behave as I am supposed to behave.

People have been encouraged to think of themselves as "Customers" with "Rights", and to think this gives them a right to act aggressively towards service providers including transport operators.

There should be a massive, and I mean massive "in your face" media campaign highlighting the dangers and setting out your OBLIGATIONS as a PASSENGER (not customer). It should go so far as to say that if you are unhappy with this then take your custom elsewhere in no uncertain terms.

Some might say this would dampen passenger growth, however I think it would reassure many more that strict and correct passenger behaviour was expected and encouraged with consequences for those who were not prepared to conform thus providing a more secure travelling environment all round. Safeguards would of course have to be in place to ensure this did not lead to arrogant behaviour by staff.

This is a general comment and not intended to pre judge the circumstances of the incident in Dumbarton where passenger behaviour may or may not have played a part.

 

[gimmea50anyday]

Oh, I agree with you completely!

For far too long people have had "my rights" drilled onto them, especially the stereotyped hoddie brigade. And its these rights that are often thrown about "in your face" when people want their own way. As I have often said on here It's the responsibilities that go with those rights that seem to have been forgotten.

 

[The Ham]

Having a guard doesn't mean an incident won't happen. It's a lot less likely though than a DOO operated service.

...and yet when LO was bringing in DOO they were able to state the following

http://www.echo-news.co.uk/news/105...vows_to_fight_driver_only_trains_plan/?ref=rc

On the East London Line, which uses driver only operation, the rate of door incidents is one for every 7 million passengers.

This compares to the section of the network which currently uses conductors, where the rate of door incidents is one for every 4 million passengers.

I have asked in the past for any statistical information that any forum member has which shows that DOO is safer (not just their opinion or what their union says) and yet to date none has been forth coming.

Now I will admit that the above only covers door incidents and not all incidents and is only on two sections of the national railway. I will (and have done in the past) admit that there is likely to be an element of under reporting on the DOO routes (although to get to just above that of those run with guards there would have to be 1 unreported incident for every reported incident on DOO services, assuming no under reporting on guard operated trains).

However, both methods are (on the above statistics) are relatively safe. To demonstrate how safe if the same rate of incidents were reported at somewhere like Waterloo (circa 100 million passengers) there would be between 16 and 25 a year. Of which not all will result in harm coming to those involved.

The problem is that because the rate of incidents are so low that just a few more or a few less can change the results. For instance in 2010 looking at the last five ears of passengers killed on the railways it would have shown that the class 390's was the worst type of train to travel on in terms of likelihood to die on a train - yet in reality as the number of passengers killed whilst travelling on trains totaled just 1 there isn't really sufficient data to go on and any incidents are the exception to the norm.

Personally I think that guards should be retained but when you say services are safer with guards you need to back that up with evidence, otherwise the "facts" appear to be on the side of DOO.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Oh, I agree with you completely!

For far too long people have had "my rights" drilled onto them, especially the stereotyped hoddie brigade. And its these rights that are often thrown about "in your face" when people want their own way. As I have often said on here It's the responsibilities that go with those rights that seem to have been forgotten.

On that vein, someone once compiled a list of everything that you are owed, I'll reproduce here for your information:










.

 

[HH]

Having a guard doesn't mean an incident won't happen. It's a lot less likely though than a DOO operated service.

Actually this is a gross simplification. I really don't want to keep going over old ground, but certain types of incident will be cut, e.g. where 'two pairs of eyes are better than one', while others will be increased, e.g. you can't get miscommunication where only one person is involved. How this all works out depends on a lot of other factors, but it is NOT as simple as 'two people are always better than one'.

 

[Flying_Turtle]

The problem with DOO is the amount of passenger misbehaving being passed on to the train crews responsability

 

[HH]

A lot of railwaymen think that passengers are the only thing that's wrong with the railway...

 

[Flying_Turtle]

A lot of railwaymen think that passengers are the only thing that's wrong with the railway...

Well, in almost two decades on the railway never saw freight complaining

 

[Anvil1984]

A lot of railwaymen think that passengers are the only thing that's wrong with the railway...

That's not true.. See also managers, directors

 

[deltic08]

And yet it didn't here? Can we decisively say that a second pair of Mk1 eyeballs would have made a difference? Do we not need to wait for more detail to emerge before we can say something like that?

Three times the legal alcohol drink drive limit. Why do people expect to be protected from their own stupidity? It's natural selection.

 

[Carlisle]

Three times the legal alcohol drink drive limit. Why do people expect to be protected from their own stupidity? It's natural selection.

It's difficult to understand why some on here expect things like even the smallest motoring or other indiscretion to have the book thrown at the offender but railway related events such as mentioned above be almost completely overlooked

 

[al78]

Three times the legal alcohol drink drive limit. Why do people expect to be protected from their own stupidity? It's natural selection.

It is a part of living in a civilised society that, where possible, we avoid inflicting the death penalty on someone who makes an error, no matter how careless. Exactly what gives you the right to determine who deserves to die? :roll:

Natural selection applies to wild animals, not a supposedly intelligent modern human civilisation who are supposed to have the ability to use that intelligence to override basic primative instinct where appropriate. It is called evolution and advancement.

 

[XC90]

Having a guard doesn't mean an incident won't happen. It's a lot less likely though than a DOO operated service.

Is there any evidence or is this just a sweeping generalisation?

 

[BestWestern]

Is there any evidence or is this just a sweeping generalisation?

A 'trap & drag' type of incident is certainly less likely where a Guard is responsible for dispatch. Other incidents, accidents etc are probably equally likely with or without, but it's having a Guard who can deal with these things aftwards which makes the difference.

 

[HH]

Is there any evidence or is this just a sweeping generalisation?

You know the answer to this.

Platform edge doors would be safer than anything else in preventing door incidents, but I don't hear anyone calling for them.

 

[absolutelymilk]

You know the answer to this.

Platform edge doors would be safer than anything else in preventing door incidents, but I don't hear anyone calling for them.

Aren't these impossible to implement with stock that has doors in different places?

 

[HH]

Aren't these impossible to implement with stock that has doors in different places?

Yes, but if you had a bottomless pit of money (i.e. safety was your only concern) then you could make that go away.

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

A 'trap & drag' type of incident is certainly less likely where a Guard is responsible for dispatch. Other incidents, accidents etc are probably equally likely with or without, but it's having a Guard who can deal with these things aftwards which makes the difference.

Some incidents are more likely. The interface between guard and driver is a source of incidents that are not there on DOO.

 

[absolutelymilk]

Yes, but if you had a bottomless pit of money (i.e. safety was your only concern) then you could make that go away.

I suppose you could (given enough money) come up with a system where all of the barrier is able to move, and thus can reconfigure itself to any door position/size. I suppose the worry would be that if the system got confused about which train was present, then the doors would open at the wrong place, but this shouldn't be a massive worry as the worst that would happen is people would be stuck on the train for a short time while they were corrected.

 

[XC90]

A 'trap & drag' type of incident is certainly less likely where a Guard is responsible for dispatch. Other incidents, accidents etc are probably equally likely with or without, but it's having a Guard who can deal with these things aftwards which makes the difference.

So no evidence then. I agree on paper it seems it would be less likely for a particular incident to occur (not the type at Dumbarton the RMT are shouting about) but in reality there doesn't appear to be evidence to support the claim.

Makes the difference to who? Anybody on a train can pull the emergency cord and most of the time the guard is already in the carriage carrying out commercial operations.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It is called evolution and advancement.

In actual fact, some would argue that evolution (as it was) has ceased *because* people are protected from their faults.

I make no comment on the merits of this - it is a complex issue - but I can see where this comes from.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

You know the answer to this.

Platform edge doors would be safer than anything else in preventing door incidents, but I don't hear anyone calling for them.

I can certainly see a case for a hybrid solution of fences with gaps a couple of feet back from the platform edge, and the procedure being that unless everyone is fully behind the fences the train neither enters the platform nor is dispatched.