AlterEgo
Veteran Member
That's not correct at all.
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Southern DOO: ASLEF members vote 79.1% for revised deal
- Thread starter hornbyfan99
- Start date
- Status
That's not correct at all.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Utter tosh.
Its a popular myth though. I was told many times that people in fixed term contracts couldn't get a mortgage, often as part of a narrative of how the job market was still terrible etc etc. When I was ready to buy my first home last year I found out that Halifax, Natwest, TSB and Nationwide all provided mortgages as long as you have 6 months on your contract.
AlterEgo
Veteran Member
Many credit providers will also provide credit to self-employed people who have literally no job security at all.
Goldfish62
Established Member
- Joined
- 14 Feb 2010
- Messages
- 10,136
Not clear at all I'm afraid. Gross exaggeration does more harm than good to a legitimate argument. To suggest that Met line trains are operating DOO on a wing and a prayer is plainly absurd.
Completely untrue. My son had no difficulty getting a mortgage whilst employed on a 1 year contract. Also, how do you know the statement in your last sentence to be true?
The February issue of Modern Railways has an article about the new trains being built for Merseyrail, for DCO. The article says that "at the centre of the procurement process was feedback from the Rail Accident Investigation Branch (RAIB) following" the passenger death that occurred in the 2011 James Street PTI incident that has been mentioned several times in this thread.
One of the RAIB recommendations was "for the rail industry to be provided with guidance on reducing risk at the platform/train interface" ... including guidance on "adaptation of trains and infrastructure to reduce the size of the platform edge gap when this is possible and appropriate, for example in connection with investment in new trains and infrastructure". Merseyrail's new trains will address this by having a profile strip on the lower bodyside of the train to "fill the gap between the train and platform", to in effect create a vertical barrier to reduce the likelihood of falls between the platform edge and the train.
Do any of the other recently ordered trains feature a similar profile? If not, what (if anything) have the TOCs ordering those train done in response to this specific RAIB recommendation (which was published in 2012)?
Merseyrail's new fleet will also be more accessible, with the aim that passengers with wheelchairs, pushchairs and bikes will be able to board unassisted (without the need for any deployment of ramps). The trains will have an 'intelligent sliding step' at every doorway, sliding out before the doors open and, using an ultrasonic sensor, stopping 35mm from the platform edge, so will work on curved (as well as straight) platforms. In addition, Network Rail is to deliver a £20 million programme to ensure that all platform heights on the Merseyrail network are in line with the standard of 915mm.
One of the RAIB recommendations was "for the rail industry to be provided with guidance on reducing risk at the platform/train interface" ... including guidance on "adaptation of trains and infrastructure to reduce the size of the platform edge gap when this is possible and appropriate, for example in connection with investment in new trains and infrastructure". Merseyrail's new trains will address this by having a profile strip on the lower bodyside of the train to "fill the gap between the train and platform", to in effect create a vertical barrier to reduce the likelihood of falls between the platform edge and the train.
Do any of the other recently ordered trains feature a similar profile? If not, what (if anything) have the TOCs ordering those train done in response to this specific RAIB recommendation (which was published in 2012)?
Merseyrail's new fleet will also be more accessible, with the aim that passengers with wheelchairs, pushchairs and bikes will be able to board unassisted (without the need for any deployment of ramps). The trains will have an 'intelligent sliding step' at every doorway, sliding out before the doors open and, using an ultrasonic sensor, stopping 35mm from the platform edge, so will work on curved (as well as straight) platforms. In addition, Network Rail is to deliver a £20 million programme to ensure that all platform heights on the Merseyrail network are in line with the standard of 915mm.
O L Leigh
Established Member
I think we're conflating two different issues here. There is a difference between permanent employment (as opposed to temporary, fixed term, contract or casual work) and a "job for life". The former is what we're talking about here, not the latter. Any promise that there will be no job losses does not equate to a promise of a job for life. Even in permanent employment there is no protection against your job changing or even disappearing altogether.
Indeed it is the case that people can still get credit when not in permanent employment, but it is a factor that any lender may take into account when processing an application and may affect how much credit can be secured and what interest rates, securities and terms may be applied.
Profile strips are an interesting development. Clearly closing the gap will help to secure the PTI. I was impressed on my first trip on LU S-Stock with how close the step was to the platform edge. However, on a separate network like LU where all the stock is the same, follows the same stopping patterns and the rails are not shared with other types of traffic, it is very possible to do this. I would imagine that the Merseyrail network is similar to LU in this respect and therefore suitable for this type of approach. But I suspect that to get the best out of it would presumably require upgrade work to the platform edges and rails to ensure that the gaps and levels are consistent.
Whether this works elsewhere is a more difficult question to answer. Where routes are shared with many different types of traction, different service patterns and even freight traffic, closing the gap might be much more problematic.
The problem with following recommendations is that existing stock or stock made to an existing design are considered to be legacy products and therefore generally excluded from such recommendations if they cannot be upgraded to meet new standards. This is part of the problem with DOO CCTV despatch on the Electrostar fleet, as I explained further up the thread. Given that these fleets, like the Desiros, is going to be with us for at least a couple more decades so are the problems of the PTI. The other issue here is that a recommendation from the RAIB does not necessarily equate to a new railway standard.
O L Leigh
Indeed it is the case that people can still get credit when not in permanent employment, but it is a factor that any lender may take into account when processing an application and may affect how much credit can be secured and what interest rates, securities and terms may be applied.
Profile strips are an interesting development. Clearly closing the gap will help to secure the PTI. I was impressed on my first trip on LU S-Stock with how close the step was to the platform edge. However, on a separate network like LU where all the stock is the same, follows the same stopping patterns and the rails are not shared with other types of traffic, it is very possible to do this. I would imagine that the Merseyrail network is similar to LU in this respect and therefore suitable for this type of approach. But I suspect that to get the best out of it would presumably require upgrade work to the platform edges and rails to ensure that the gaps and levels are consistent.
Whether this works elsewhere is a more difficult question to answer. Where routes are shared with many different types of traction, different service patterns and even freight traffic, closing the gap might be much more problematic.
The problem with following recommendations is that existing stock or stock made to an existing design are considered to be legacy products and therefore generally excluded from such recommendations if they cannot be upgraded to meet new standards. This is part of the problem with DOO CCTV despatch on the Electrostar fleet, as I explained further up the thread. Given that these fleets, like the Desiros, is going to be with us for at least a couple more decades so are the problems of the PTI. The other issue here is that a recommendation from the RAIB does not necessarily equate to a new railway standard.
O L Leigh
Last edited:
Absolutely correct. Ergo all you need is proof of a "permanent" rather than temporary, job. Permanent here simply means not temporary, not that it's guaranteed for life.
Far from it. These kinds of questions are a reaction to regulations introduced a couple of years ago, which oblige lenders to make further enquiries of the "sustainability" of an applicant's income.
If they have regularly had fixed term work for instance and there is no reason to think they would not get such work again then that is no good reason not to agree a facility. The usual purpose of such a question is to require underwriting approval.
What announcement ?
As to them being 'safety critical' This was never going to be the case. Even when Charles Horton was on the BBC he was challenged to clarify. GTR have always stated they will be 'safety trained' and the RMT has always wanted them to be 'safety critical' The whole point of the OBS role is to remove the 'critical' part of their roles and have the ability to run trains without them.
I assume that any announcement changes nothing.
http://www.juicebrighton.com/news/brighton-news/southern-guards-stripped-of-safety-credentials/
In a letter to Chief Executive Charles Horton, RMT General Secretary Mick Cash, says:
Last edited:
Probably needed to word it more clearly.
This announcement sent out by RMT today says to me that the axing of the guard won't be reversed as a result of the current talks which some were hoping.
If that's the case then this practice will spread countrywide to other TOCs.
This announcement sent out by RMT today says to me that the axing of the guard won't be reversed as a result of the current talks which some were hoping.
If that's the case then this practice will spread countrywide to other TOCs.
True it was certainly very widely reported across the media at the time that you'd need to produce things including a fair number of previous verifiable payslips etc to stand a chance of qualifying
Last edited:
I think it was fairly clear that the changes won't be reversed. There will be quite significant savings in staff training time, assessment and route learning which OBS will not need to have. I should imagine there has also been a reduction in the staff necessary to carry out this assessing.
Robertj21a
On Moderation
- Joined
- 22 Sep 2013
- Messages
- 7,525
I doubt that many people could have possibly still believed that the axing of the guards would get reversed. Have the RMT still been suggesting that it would be ?
Which was very wide of the mark!
Having held a lendng approval authority running into hundreds of thousands of pounds with a mainstream lender, I can assure you that the number of secured lending cases requiring more than 3 months worth of payslips was very small, and the number of cases requiring anything more than a letter from the employer was vanishingly small.
In unsecured lending, the number of cases requiring any documentation to be submitted whatsoever were vanishingly small.
AlterEgo
Veteran Member
This was certainly my experience when applying for both of my mortgages - and I had a poor credit history at the time. Three months' payslips, contract of employment, and 3 months' bank statements that showed responsible spending and no onerous monthly commitments.
tsr
Established Member
I would point out that Southern conductors (presumably the role you refer to with the word "guards") are not being stripped of their licences. If that was the case, it would basically cause them to be made redundant on the spot, as those who are currently conductors (retained from 1 January) wouldn't have a guaranteed OBS or other onboard role to go to.
Only ex-conductor OBSs are involved in this issue, and I'm surprised this action wasn't undertaken as soon as they started working under their new contracts last month, as there never seemed to be any intention of continuing their competencies as conductors. Indeed it is something of a liability to allow them to go around with a piece of plastic that lets them work a train as a conductor, presumably without a job description which actually permits them to do it. If they ended up using that competency and something went wrong while they did so, I have no idea how that would stand up to scrutiny, but I suspect the answer is "not very well"!
BestWestern
Established Member
- Joined
- 6 Feb 2011
- Messages
- 6,736
Wow, what an outfit this lot are. There are two potential explanations here, presumably. Either GTR were, once again, too incompetent to correctly carry out and follow through their intended actions; or GTR have, once again, deliberately set out to cause offence and insult to their own staff and their union. Why were the cards not recalled as a matter of course when Conductors ceased to be Conductors?
Is there a prize, perhaps at the National Rail Awards, for 'TOC held in greatest contempt by it's staff, passengers, the unions and just about everybody who has anything whatsoever to do with them or the railway in general'...? I can't really think of what else Hooray Horton and his band of merry incompetents might be hoping to achieve, or is widespread ridicule his thing?!
Last edited:
Xenophon PCDGS
Veteran Member
An interesting observation on these hypothetical prizes to which you allude, could well also be a prize for "The most poorly worded trades union press release issued in 2016". I wonder if anyone can think of any trades union who would be well in the running to win that prize?
BestWestern
Established Member
- Joined
- 6 Feb 2011
- Messages
- 6,736
Could one reason for the withdrawal of the licenses be that it would make it more difficult for a rival TOC to poach the employee and place them quickly into a traditional guard role?
I'd have thought a proven record of good customer service, attendance and ticket selling skills etc would probably be higher on the list of a rival TOCs recruitment criteria, as the initial safety training course is well established and can be completed in a raeasonably short period of time for most new recruits
Last edited:
Jonfun
Established Member
The reason for the withdrawal of the "licences" (Safety Crictical Work ID cards?) is because the staff are no longer conducting safety critical work. I can't help think the union are being ridiculous about this one. You don't need to issue catering staff, RPIs, ticket office staff with SCWID cards for the same reason - because they don't conduct safety critical work. Not because of trying to prevent them from escaping to another TOC or for any other reason.
Well - apart from trains running on Absolute Block lines - the traditional role of the Guard has all but disappeared.
Has it really? Must have been a ghost giving me two on the bell today.
BestWestern
Established Member
- Joined
- 6 Feb 2011
- Messages
- 6,736
A Guard ('Conductor' is a job title, the proper operational term is Guard) is a fully trained, 'safety critical' member of traincrew. As well as taking responsibility for the safe dispatch of the train from stations (and safely releasing the doors on arrival in most cases), the Guard is also fully competent to carry out the required emergency procedures in the event of an accident or incident. They are also trained to have knowledge of their rolling stock and will be able to deal with certain faults and failures.
An OBS is a Mickey Mouse job roll, created by GTR principally to avoid the bad publicity of making Guards immediately redundant. Instead, the intention is to wait until the storm has passed and then dispense with the OBS grade at a later stage. These are essentially just customer service staff, they have no Rulebook safety training or ability to do anything worthwhile in an emergency. GTR have, through deeply shady means which are unfathomable to most, managed to get OBS grade staff to operate train doors to an extent, despite not actually being qualified operational staff. This is because GTR are doing the DfT's dirty work and so, basically, anything goes. Because OBS are not safety critical and not essential, there is nothing that they can do to prevent being obliterated when the time comes. Any industrial action would be fruitless, since they don't need to be there anyway. This point has already been borne out by the vast number of trains operating without an OBS, despite GTR having given assurances that services would be covered (they tell lies, lots and lots of lies). This is the intended future, the great unstaffed railway.
Last edited:
- Status