Southern DOO: ASLEF members vote 79.1% for revised deal

[Bookd]

It appears that a mistake was made, which would not have happened if the regular staff were on duty. It was spotted, nothing happened, and the individual would no doubt be very careful thereafter. The driver would also be alert to any other errors.
Why cancel the train and put even more people to inconvenience?

 

[BestWestern]

Humans are fallible, the more humans that are involved in any process the more chance of error. (This is the reason we have signalling systems)

2 humans in a process doubles the chance of error one could argue.

Difficult to argue by unions if this same debate played out in the press as is being suggested, the science of human factors risk management is complicated and the point I'm making is that I don't think this is an area that the unions would want to shout about.

Your argument is rubbish.

In the dispatching of a train, each person concerned is required to perform their own check, independently of anybody else. The procedures make it quite clear that receiving a 'tip' is nothing more than that individual informing you that they have undertaken their check and deem it safe for the next stage of the process to happen. A Guard giving the Driver two on the buzzer does not mean "GO", it means 'station duties complete'. Two or even three independant checks is two or three times more failsafe than one.

You also completely fail to take into account the interim period. A Driver of a train operated properly, with a Guard, stops in the platform and then has 'downtime' in which to take a break from their workload and refocus on the next task ahead. If this involves reading a signal, they will have done begun to do so well in advance of the dispatch commencing. By contrast, a DOO Driver has no break whatsoever in their workload, and their attention is split between numerous tasks. Hence their concentration is compromised and a SASSPAD is a far greater risk.

Of course, the DfT etc prefer a rather different spin.

 

[cjmillsnun]

It appears that a mistake was made, which would not have happened if the regular staff were on duty. It was spotted, nothing happened, and the individual would no doubt be very careful thereafter. The driver would also be alert to any other errors.
Why cancel the train and put even more people to inconvenience?

Because standard procedure was followed. The "guard" (in this case a manager with inadequate training) was removed following a safety incident that would require investigation. The train was cancelled because there was no alternative member of staff who could act as a guard.

Had it been one of the regular conductors, the exact same thing would've happened, although there is a greater chance of another conductor being able to take the train on.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

A SASSPAD is a Safety Of the Line incident (SOL). It is standard protocol for any member of staff involved in a SOL to be stood down from safety critical work immediately. Even in the normal course of events this often leads to trains being cancelled. If the "temporary guard" had not been stood down it is quite likely ASLEF would have refused to drive any trains staffed by a "temporary guard" as it would demonstrate that Southern was not taking its safety responsibilities seriously. GTR may appear to be happy to have a confrontation with the unions but I'm sure even they would prefer to "deal" with ASLEF and RMT separately.

 

[the sniper]

It appears that a mistake was made, which would not have happened if the regular staff were on duty. It was spotted, nothing happened, and the individual would no doubt be very careful thereafter. The driver would also be alert to any other errors.
Why cancel the train and put even more people to inconvenience?

Where do you draw the line? This station SASSPAD, next stop open the doors off the platform... When someone falls out there, the question would be asked, why weren't they taken off after their first incident? They'd proven themselves to be unfit for the duty they were carrying out.

 

[ainsworth74]

Again. Could people please stop evading the swear filter by using stars. None of the arguments being made are strengthened by swearing.

 

[Agent_c]

By that logic we should remove co-pilots. The idea of two sets of eye making something less safe is ridiculous.

Triggered a memory here. I remember an event at my club where there was a training course going on. Prior to the course the two instructors that were operating the course flew together to get used to how each other does things, testing each other, playing the games that only instructors are allowed to get away with :P .

On the landing approach, one of them (the Pilot currently flying) suddenly went limp and non responsive. The other instructor figured that his collegue was playing games and just simply landed the aircraft as normal.

Its only after landing it was discovered he'd had a stroke.

I suppose if we follow the analysis suggested here, having a person have a stroke in a vehicle is more likely to happen if there are two people, rather than 1 in the vehicle. I'll conceed that.

But you're more likely to survive if there's a second body inside who can land the thing.

I know which I'd rather.

 

[spangles]

No.

It's a serious matter, it's not a whoopsie we all get to laugh about afterwards.

Goes to show that managers running trains IS dangerous.

Agreed that it's not a laughing matter. For context:

• There were 299 SPADs in 2014/15 compared with 287 in 2013/14

http://www.rssb.co.uk/Library/risk-...porting/2015-07-aspr-key-findings-2014-15.pdf

So on average there is usually 0.8 spads a day

 

[PakRail]

Managers conducting trains is clearly dangerous. What is 3 days of training compared with 4.5 months of learning route knowledge and safety critical training.

Drivers should have refused to work alongside these Managers. It is akin to someone learning the basics of driving a train and thinking it is then safe to go out onto the route without the appropriate knowledge.

 

[cjmillsnun]

Triggered a memory here. I remember an event at my club where there was a training course going on. Prior to the course the two instructors that were operating the course flew together to get used to how each other does things, testing each other, playing the games that only instructors are allowed to get away with :P .

On the landing approach, one of them (the Pilot currently flying) suddenly went limp and non responsive. The other instructor figured that his collegue was playing games and just simply landed the aircraft as normal.

Its only after landing it was discovered he'd had a stroke.

I suppose if we follow the analysis suggested here, having a stroke on a vehicle is more likely to happen if there are two people, rather than 1 in the vehicle. I'll conceed that.

But you're more likely to survive if there's a second body inside who can land the thing.

I know which I'd rather.

Agreed.

 

[tony6499]

Managers conducting trains is clearly dangerous. What is 3 days of training compared with 4.5 months of learning route knowledge and safety critical training.

Drivers should have refused to work alongside these Managers. It is akin to someone learning the basics of driving a train and thinking it is then safe to go out onto the route without the appropriate knowledge.

Very much so, there is a reason why a guards training take 4+ months so a manager after a day or 2s training is obviously not fully competent to do the job.

 

[Agent_c]

Managers conducting trains is clearly dangerous. What is 3 days of training compared with 4.5 months of learning route knowledge and safety critical training.

Drivers should have refused to work alongside these Managers. It is akin to someone learning the basics of driving a train and thinking it is then safe to go out onto the route without the appropriate knowledge.

Perhaps one outcome of this is an ironclad argument to allow them to refuse.

 

[tony6499]

Perhaps one outcome of this is an ironclad argument to allow them to refuse.

Might be why GTR are now willing to go to negotiations again

 

[sarahj]

This is how they have gone so far

Company "keen" to hold talks on the evolution of guards job.
My prophecy is.....

GTR : No0w about the new OBS role we intend introducing in July...

RMT : We aren't here to discuss that.

GTR : We were thinking July 23 is a good start date for us.

RMT : Errmm, we aren't

GTR : So that's decided then.

RMT : ?

GTR : We'll let you know later how many we will need and what we are going to pay them. Oh and Sunday is now in the working week so they will only drop a few thousand a year each.

RMT : ???

GMT : Thanks for coming you may go now.

 

[PHILIPE]

Might be why GTR are now willing to go to negotiations again

I don't think so as this incident was not directly due to DOO but due to a Manager substituting for a Guard. It might make GTR review the practice though.

 

[cjmillsnun]

This is how they have gone so far

Company "keen" to hold talks on the evolution of guards job.
My prophecy is.....

GTR : No0w about the new OBS role we intend introducing in July...

RMT : We aren't here to discuss that.

GTR : We were thinking July 23 is a good start date for us.

RMT : Errmm, we aren't

GTR : So that's decided then.

RMT : ?

GTR : We'll let you know later how many we will need and what we are going to pay them. Oh and Sunday is now in the working week so they will only drop a few thousand a year each.

RMT : ???

GMT : Thanks for coming you may go now.

Sadly I agree with you.

 

[carriageline]

It appears that a mistake was made, which would not have happened if the regular staff were on duty. It was spotted, nothing happened, and the individual would no doubt be very careful thereafter. The driver would also be alert to any other errors.

Why cancel the train and put even more people to inconvenience?

It's like anything else safety critical related (may be the same for guards, I don't know) if there is a possible safety of the line incident they can be pulled off. The thinking behind it is they may now be concerned/worried about what they did, and make another, possibly worse mistake. So it's better for staff welfare, as well as litigation against further incidents. I think they like to have the manager have a chat with them ASAP too.

 

[spangles]

I don't think so as this incident was not directly due to DOO but due to a Manager substituting for a Guard. It might make GTR review the practice though.

Really? where did you see this?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Really? where did you see this?

Ignore! I've seen on BBC that talks are happening tomorrow. Have GTR given indication they will bend? I thought they were always open to talks in the first place?

 

[Agent_c]

I don't think so as this incident was not directly due to DOO but due to a Manager substituting for a Guard. It might make GTR review the practice though.

It doesn't relate directly to the DOO issue (except as a reminder that two sets of eyes are better than one), but it does raise a question for drivers as to whether or not they're happy for the other safety-essential person to be so inadequately trained.

 

[PHILIPE]

Really? where did you see this?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Ignore! I've seen on BBC that talks are happening tomorrow. Have GTR given indication they will bend? I thought they were always open to talks in the first place?

I didn't say they wouldn't talk. It was my opinion and not a fact.

 

[sarahj]

Really? where did you see this?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Ignore! I've seen on BBC that talks are happening tomorrow. Have GTR given indication they will bend? I thought they were always open to talks in the first place?

See above for almost how the talks have been. GTR want to talk about the OBS role, RMT want to to talk about keeping guards.

 

[68000]

Not every signal is fitted with TPWS, and ideally it should never be needed.

Not all signals are protected by TPWS anyway.

TPWS will be fitted to every signal where there is a conflict (ie potential side or facing collision). TPWS is not normally fitted to signals on plain line (ie potential rear end collision) unless there is a specific safety driver for it.

 

[ComUtoR]

TPWS is also more mitigation rather than prevention.

 

[Robertj21a]

Sadly I agree with you.

A great shame that Bob Crow never got round to training others........

 

[Antman]

Are you REALLY trying to normalise an incident like that?

Human error, none of us are infallible

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

This is how they have gone so far

Company "keen" to hold talks on the evolution of guards job.
My prophecy is.....

GTR : No0w about the new OBS role we intend introducing in July...

RMT : We aren't here to discuss that.

GTR : We were thinking July 23 is a good start date for us.

RMT : Errmm, we aren't

GTR : So that's decided then.

RMT : ?

GTR : We'll let you know later how many we will need and what we are going to pay them. Oh and Sunday is now in the working week so they will only drop a few thousand a year each.

RMT : ???

GMT : Thanks for coming you may go now.

I am sure, that in the long and proud tradition of rail union management responses, there would have been attention drawn to other non-related matters and of "the aspirations of their members", carefully phrased in the now-famous "rail union speak mode" that Bob Crow (God rest his soul) was a Zen Master of.

I always looked forward to reading some of his statements in the past, as you could guarantee you would see a good number of those phrases used.

 

[JamesTT]

It would appear that the passengers are split over the value of conductors. In respects of the dispatch procedure most think they are perfectley capable of getting on and off a train themselves. The real benefit is having that member of staff that is there to assist for various reasons that have been listed. If the conductors win this fight, instead of having the attitude of we are all powerful. They should think ok we need to prove our worth. Embrace some of the aspects of the OBS role, conductors should always be visible. A conductor working from a cab because the train is too busy, should say 'I am working from the back cab because it is busy so therefore 1st class is declassiffied' I agree with commission being based on volume of tickets rather than £ taken, because this prevents taking enough money to hit their monetary target then putting their feet up. It might mean job losses but sorry the diagrams need to be more efficient, no more: book on, pass here, wait work a stop, wait, work 3 stops, pass there, wait, work 4 stops, TEB, work 1 stop, wait, work 3 stops, pass back to depot. I know I have gone over the top but I bet if being honest many conductors will admit to having diagrams where most of their work is waiting and passing.

 

[Sprinter153]

It might mean job losses but sorry the diagrams need to be more efficient, no more: book on, pass here, wait work a stop, wait, work 3 stops, pass there, wait, work 4 stops, TEB, work 1 stop, wait, work 3 stops, pass back to depot. I know I have gone over the top but I bet if being honest many conductors will admit to having diagrams where most of their work is waiting and passing.

Then you'd be complaining that there's no resilience, not enough turnaround time. The resources departments can't win on that. There are some turns at any depot which exist to fill holes in other diagrams. There are also some long turns with bare minimum breaks. It averages out.

A conductor working from a cab because the train is too busy, should say 'I am working from the back cab because it is busy so therefore 1st class is declassiffied' I agree with commission being based on volume of tickets rather than £ taken, because this prevents taking enough money to hit their monetary target then putting their feet up.

So that's most of the morning and evening peak declassified then. Great for the passengers that pay a premium! And the myth again that all guards spend the working day doing the Times crossword with their feet up. Yes, some do, but we don't all need nannying to do our jobs well, contrary to popular belief. FWIW, I am for a review of commission, because it encourages sloppy practices like selling Anytime tickets when restricted tickets are valid, and issuing an additional ticket instead of a simple excess.

 

[LowLevel]

You have work that involves waiting and passing to make sure that if you have something like a track circuit failure that causes 10 mins delay it means every train isn't late for the rest of the day due to overly tight diagramming.

We also have breaks for a reason - namely in my case for example I can be booked 6 hours straight work on a train with no drinking water, no facilities for making food and a toilet that will only flush on to the track, which may not be in a great condition. Same as our drivers.

 

[Pumbaa]

Managers conducting trains is clearly dangerous. What is 3 days of training compared with 4.5 months of learning route knowledge and safety critical training.

Drivers should have refused to work alongside these Managers. It is akin to someone learning the basics of driving a train and thinking it is then safe to go out onto the route without the appropriate knowledge.

If individuals have been trained to meet the Rule Book requirements of the Guard, there is diddly the Driver could do. In the eyes of the safety governance that goes across the whole railway, the individual is competent.

As for route learning/traction learning, there'll be a risk assessment and the company will be satisfied.

The idea that managers are being put out there with next to no training is laughable.

Fwiw I'm not defending any errors made by the individuals, just trying to exemplify that the process to get them productive isn't as blasé as some would like to think.