Southern DOO: ASLEF members vote 79.1% for revised deal

[highdyke]

Funny that they're still in the rule book then and show absolutely no sign of being removed...

Not while there are people pulling flappy boards on wires no. Fact is DOO has been working not less safely overall since 1982. What amazes me is some people find it so controversial, all the issues brought up are solvable, technology is just going to get better. It would just be easier if people would grasp the nettle. Nobody is going on the scrapheap.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Therefore existing not such good tech will be used and people just hope nothing bad happens.

It is more likely something bad will happen crossing the road, far more. It is so remote it's hardly worth even considering. Getting killed or injured on a DOO train is not something normal people should be worrying about. There are no compulsory redundancies and there probably never will be.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

On what basis would you say the current equipment is better than the mark 1 eyeball?

The mark one eyeball is extremely fallible. People perceive colours differently, one colour among many literally changes colour, your brain processes out most of what you see, just for starters. The door operating should be taken out of both the hands of the driver and guard IMHO. Th Mk1 eyeball argument is dumb.

 

[ComUtoR]

Look I can see the Chiltern line, on my mobile phone, anywhere in the world.

This does not make the railway "digital" That is your phone accessing information digitally.

There is new tech for doors,

New tech for doors. :roll: its old tech just getting better and being used because of the number of incidents.

I agree the railways is moving forward but it is still operated in a rated antiquated fashion. That wheelchair user still needs to make their journey (which you ignored btw) and we still need humans to operate all those new techy bits of kit. If anything the railways is just updating old systems rather than innovating new technology and new methods of operation. The GSMR CAN stop all trains so why do we still use detonators ? That manual system is there because the tech is not reliable and still requires the human up the front.

We still need onboard staff because passengers do want them and still need someone to sell them a ticket. Not every station has a TVM or ticket office and even those are so poor that they break frequently. What happens when a passenger boards the train without a ticket then gets to their destination and the revenue are waiting ?

The problem with the railways is that the tech is typically out of date and not suitable and that it usually generates new problems. Staff wise it can, and does, create new roles but you end up reshuffling staff around for little to no reason.

We took Guards away but they get replaced by REO and RPI Staff. The new onboard staff are rarely around when you need them and response times are horrendus to non existent. They tech has destroyed one role, created new ones and created more problems.

I'll support tech all day long but it must be implemented well, suitable and robust. That is something the railway FAILS at.

 

[highdyke]

I'm not wasting any more time with this frankly, it's getting boring now.

 

[JamesTT]

Does the equalities act allow one to make a service for disabled peoole worse?

I'm not talking about whether doing so benefits more non disabled people, just whether the law allows it to happen?

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

Please explain how the introduction of OBS makes it worse for those needing assistance.

Today: Train pulls into station no relief conductor train gets cancelled everyone is told to get off and wait for the next train including those needing assistance.

After OBS: Train pulls into station no relief OBS train can still run. Some needing assistance may need to wait for the next train/travel an alternative route, but this is the same situation as before and not worse.

 

[Muttley]

Please explain how the introduction of OBS makes it worse for those needing assistance.

Today: Train pulls into station no relief conductor train gets cancelled everyone is told to get off and wait for the next train including those needing assistance.

After OBS: Train pulls into station no relief OBS train can still run. Some needing assistance may need to wait for the next train/travel an alternative route, but this is the same situation as before and not worse.

Ah...I'm alright, Jack.

 

[JamesTT]

Ah...I'm alright, Jack.

Not at all, so you are saying unless everyone benefits from a change the change should not take place?

 

[DarloRich]

A very unfair accusation. The digital railway is coming, the digital transport revolution has started, there's nothing anyone can do about it, the tech is out of the bag. For reasons of cost, capacity, performance, energy it's all change, embrace it. By all means make yourself heard elsewhere, there's nothing anyone can do here for all your protestations.

It's like the internet, they'll be winners and losers, time waits for no man. The world is as it is, not as you would like it to be. A harsh lesson, but it's something we all have to cope with, the very best of luck to all.

Sorry but that is rubbish and goes against several pieces of legislation including that pesky little problem known as the Equality Act.

If you are in a decision making position in any industry I would hope you would understand the nature, consequence and effect of this act. It is not about tough cheese, leaving people behind or winners and losers but about making it unlawful to discriminate against people in respect of their disabilities in relation to employment, the provision of goods and services, education and transport via providing reasonable adjustments to help the disabled access your services.

As I have said previously it is a shame that GTR are not subject to the Public Sector Equality Duty so that thier reasonable adjustments were open to scrutiny via an impact assessment which is a public document. The provision of facilities at an NR station will be subject to those provisions.

 

[LowLevel]

I'm not wasting any more time with this frankly, it's getting boring now.

To be fair, I keep saying the same but still find myself popping back, I'm getting to the point of giving myself an unofficial forum holiday!

 

[Muttley]

Not at all, so you are saying unless everyone benefits from a change the change should not take place?

I'd suggest that making a change so only the able bodied benefit, is the reason that the DDA legislation had to be brought in in the first place.

 

[Haig paxton]

Please explain how the introduction of OBS makes it worse for those needing assistance.

Today: Train pulls into station no relief conductor train gets cancelled everyone is told to get off and wait for the next train including those needing assistance.

After OBS: Train pulls into station no relief OBS train can still run. Some needing assistance may need to wait for the next train/travel an alternative route, but this is the same situation as before and not worse.

Today: Train pulls into station, everyone gets on and off, guard closes doors and train leaves safely.

After OBS: train pulls into station, passengers get on and off, driver gets vulnerable passenger stuck in doors, after dealing with this, sets off worried about being disciplined, spads at next signal, no longer a driver.

What you are all failing to acknowledge is that drivers don't want any more DOO.

 

[JamesTT]

Today: Train pulls into station, everyone gets on and off, guard closes doors and train leaves safely.

After OBS: train pulls into station, passengers get on and off, driver gets vulnerable passenger stuck in doors, after dealing with this, sets off worried about being disciplined, spads at next signal, no longer a driver.

What you are all failing to acknowledge is that drivers don't want any more DOO.

Is this a regular occurrence on all the trains that are currently DOO then?

 

[infobleep]

Please explain how the introduction of OBS makes it worse for those needing assistance.

Today: Train pulls into station no relief conductor train gets cancelled everyone is told to get off and wait for the next train including those needing assistance.

After OBS: Train pulls into station no relief OBS train can still run. Some needing assistance may need to wait for the next train/travel an alternative route, but this is the same situation as before and not worse.

I thinking of a time when the OBS role is gone so I am thinking beyond this franchise, just as people voting to leave the EU had to think beyond the two year exit time once article 50 was triggered.

Think of GTR as being the period before article 50 is trigger, were this about the referendum.

I am of course assuming their won't be OBS people once the current franchise ends but I admit others may take the view they will remain and they would never get the chop.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

 

[BRblue]

I'm not wasting any more time with this frankly, it's getting boring now.

Because your argument is full of holes?...:roll:

 

[Antman]

Because your argument is full of holes?...:roll:

You mean you don't agree with him? Not quite the same thing is it?:roll:

 

[cjmillsnun]

How long would you be willing to wait for it?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


What percentage of London black cabs are wheelchair accessible?

IIRC it is a requirement in the PCO regs that ALL black cabs are wheelchair accessible.

 

[AlterEgo]

IIRC it is a requirement in the PCO regs that ALL black cabs are wheelchair accessible.

Correct:

https://www.gov.uk/transport-disabled/taxis-and-minicabs

"In London, all black cabs are wheelchair accessible.

Some of the newer ‘black cabs’ are also fitted with induction loops and intercoms for hearing aid users."

 

[Tomnick]

Please explain how the introduction of OBS makes it worse for those needing assistance.

Today: Train pulls into station no relief conductor train gets cancelled everyone is told to get off and wait for the next train including those needing assistance.

After OBS: Train pulls into station no relief OBS train can still run. Some needing assistance may need to wait for the next train/travel an alternative route, but this is the same situation as before and not worse.

Today: Train pulls into station, TOC has ensured that staffing levels are maintained so that all turns can be covered, including adequate spare and standby cover (yes, ok, clearly not the case at Southern, but that's nothing to do with DOO), so it's unlikely that there'll be no guard to take it forward in all but the most severe disruption.

After OBS: Staffing levels decline, spare turns are either not covered or dispensed with altogether, even running turns go uncovered because there's no incentive to fill vacancies to ensure that they can be covered. Doesn't stop the train running, but it's far more likely than in today's situation that your chap needing assistance will be left behind.

 

[highdyke]

Because your argument is full of holes?...:roll:

Nope, because it's not in my gift and I have other things to do. I can see people have valid points all round, but in the end there has to be a workable solution.

If it was up to me:

1. It'd get written agreements about train manning, I support two people on the train most of the time. There should be some exceptions for operational requirements (ECS, emergency workings, heavily used parts of the network where there is manning on platforms and metro ops).

2. Trade off stuff like traditional route learning and detonator protection for guards, for flexibility, go anywhere status, and enhance the passenger experience to the full extent, fully meeting the equity act. Traditional route knowledge should be replaced by a type of google maps for rail, powered by a continuous data stream (tied into wifi and other signalling data, DSD activation), with emergency calls built in, so the control centre can pinpoint the exact position. Passengers should be able to call the Guard/Driver/Control centre at all times. Announcements can be from Guard/Driver/Control centre.

3. Get rid of station barriers (except metro areas) and most ticket offices (except very busy stations) and make the guard (or other name like OBS) the centre of customer service, give him/her the authority to make judgements on things customer service wise rather than sticking rigidly to procedure. Fully safety trained with first aid, dealing with emergencies.

4. Have no compulsory redundancies.

5. Take the safety of door operation from both the driver and guard, recognising technology may offer a better solution.

6. Move some of the training away from the TOCs and NR, to college based BTEC type qualifications and third party training. BTECs in rail ops, would include understand all the operation roles on the railway, not just one role. The training for the majority of most ops roles can be done with classroom training and simulators. They should be fully certificated and be recognised outside/inside the industry.

7. Introduce professional railway management qualifications at colleges and universities.

8. Make use of technology where it is sensible to introduce enhancements in operations, energy consumption, safety, and efficiency.

9. Unions should move from political organisations to trade organisations.

10. I'd have had full consultation with all concerned, thus in order to take on their points of view, do full risk assessments. Explain how all roles on the railway work together via presentations.

That's my position on these matters.

 

[Domh245]

1. It'd get written agreements about train manning, I support two people on the train most of the time. There should be some exceptions for operational requirements (ECS, emergency workings, heavily used parts of the network where there is manning on platforms).

Agreed

2. Trade off stuff like traditional route learning and detonator protection for guards, for flexibility, go anywhere status, and enhance the passenger experience to the full extent, fully meeting the equity act.

I'm less sure about this. I think that there is merit to the guards having route knowledge as it helps with dispatch (eg knowing were people may rush in from or where platforms are too short) and in emergency situations (quoting locations if GPS and other systems are unavailable)

3. Get rid of station barriers and most ticket offices and make the guard (or other name like obs) the centre of customer service.

Again, I'm not as convinced. Do you want completely unmanned stations, or just staff out and about with the crowd (as per London Underground now). I can see the benefit of having ticket offices for a number of transactions that would otherwise be rather difficult on TVMs, so retaining them would be a sensible option, even if largely unused for a large portion of the year. Certainly having completely unmanned stations is a stupid idea.

4. Have no compulsory redundancies.

Agree. Ideally, they would actually increase the number of people going into the new role to provide it on services that are otherwise DOO already if it represents this forward leap in passenger service.

5. Take the safety of door operation from both the driver and guard, recognising technology may offer a better solution.

What sort of systems do you think would be best? I don't think that at the moment there are any sufficiently advanced (and cheap) obstacle detection systems that make technology more viable than a human eye.

6. Move some of the training away from the TOCs and NR, to college based BTEC type qualifications and third party training. BTECs in rail ops, would include understand all the operation roles on the railway, not just one role.

A central "Rail College" might be a good idea actually, covering Infrastructure and Operations, although I think that experience is key.

7. Introduce professional railway management qualifications at colleges and universities.

I'm not sure that there would be nearly enough applicants countrywide to make it a viable course for most universities. Perhaps at a specific rail training academy, but again, I don't think that all the training in the world would make up for experience from the bottom.

8. Make use of technology where it is sensible to introduce enhancements in operations, energy consumption, safety, and efficiency.

It's all well and good making statements like this, or "improve capacity on the WCML instead of HS2" but how exactly would you do this? Operationally, ERTMS is in the pipeline (I think), energy consumption wise, the 700s are being introduced which should be more energy efficient, but you can't just go and then scrap otherwise perfectly serviceable trains. Safety and Efficiency both look set to improve under ERTMS again.

9. Unions should move from political organisations to trade organisations.

Agreed.

10. I'd have had full consultation with all concerned, thus in order to take on their points of view, do full risk assessments. Explain how all roles on the railway work together via presentations.

That should happen anyway! Either way, unfortunately Southern looks set to go about this whole thing in the most heavy handed and incompetent way imaginable. What you describe sounds like a happy compromise, but we are stuck dealing with what Southern are doing, which seems to be almost an antithesis of your plan.

 

[Phil.]

Funny that they're still in the rule book then and show absolutely no sign of being removed...

So the same train protection applies on an A.B. line as a T.C. one? I don't think so. It was changed with the 1972 rule book re-issue. D.O.O. is only allowed on T.C. lines so...........let's get digital man.

 

[Dave1987]

Nope, because it's not in my gift and I have other things to do. I can see people have valid points all round, but in the end there has to be a workable solution.

If it was up to me:

1. It'd get written agreements about train manning, I support two people on the train most of the time. There should be some exceptions for operational requirements (ECS, emergency workings, heavily used parts of the network where there is manning on platforms and metro ops).

2. Trade off stuff like traditional route learning and detonator protection for guards, for flexibility, go anywhere status, and enhance the passenger experience to the full extent, fully meeting the equity act. Traditional route knowledge should be replaced by a type of google maps for rail, powered by a continuous data stream (tied into wifi and other signalling data, DSD activation), with emergency calls built in, so the control centre can pinpoint the exact position. Passengers should be able to call the Guard/Driver/Control centre at all times. Announcements can be from Guard/Driver/Control centre.

3. Get rid of station barriers (except metro areas) and most ticket offices (except very busy stations) and make the guard (or other name like OBS) the centre of customer service, give him/her the authority to make judgements on things customer service wise rather than sticking rigidly to procedure. Fully safety trained with first aid, dealing with emergencies.

4. Have no compulsory redundancies.

5. Take the safety of door operation from both the driver and guard, recognising technology may offer a better solution.

6. Move some of the training away from the TOCs and NR, to college based BTEC type qualifications and third party training. BTECs in rail ops, would include understand all the operation roles on the railway, not just one role. The training for the majority of most ops roles can be done with classroom training and simulators. They should be fully certificated and be recognised outside/inside the industry.

7. Introduce professional railway management qualifications at colleges and universities.

8. Make use of technology where it is sensible to introduce enhancements in operations, energy consumption, safety, and efficiency.

9. Unions should move from political organisations to trade organisations.

10. I'd have had full consultation with all concerned, thus in order to take on their points of view, do full risk assessments. Explain how all roles on the railway work together via presentations.

That's my position on these matters.

Wow, I'm speechless. Comments like "Take the safety of door operation from both the driver and guard, recognising technology may offer a better solution" just sounds like you want technology for the sake of technology! More and more I believe you want all this just to vindicate you decision to leave the industry. I can't really believe you think that technology is better than the mk1 eyeball! Wow just wow.

 

[Haig paxton]

Nope, because it's not in my gift and I have other things to do. I can see people have valid points all round, but in the end there has to be a workable solution.

If it was up to me:

1. It'd get written agreements about train manning, I support two people on the train most of the time. There should be some exceptions for operational requirements (ECS, emergency workings, heavily used parts of the network where there is manning on platforms and metro ops).

2. Trade off stuff like traditional route learning and detonator protection for guards, for flexibility, go anywhere status, and enhance the passenger experience to the full extent, fully meeting the equity act. Traditional route knowledge should be replaced by a type of google maps for rail, powered by a continuous data stream (tied into wifi and other signalling data, DSD activation), with emergency calls built in, so the control centre can pinpoint the exact position. Passengers should be able to call the Guard/Driver/Control centre at all times. Announcements can be from Guard/Driver/Control centre.

3. Get rid of station barriers (except metro areas) and most ticket offices (except very busy stations) and make the guard (or other name like OBS) the centre of customer service, give him/her the authority to make judgements on things customer service wise rather than sticking rigidly to procedure. Fully safety trained with first aid, dealing with emergencies.

4. Have no compulsory redundancies.

5. Take the safety of door operation from both the driver and guard, recognising technology may offer a better solution.

6. Move some of the training away from the TOCs and NR, to college based BTEC type qualifications and third party training. BTECs in rail ops, would include understand all the operation roles on the railway, not just one role. The training for the majority of most ops roles can be done with classroom training and simulators. They should be fully certificated and be recognised outside/inside the industry.

7. Introduce professional railway management qualifications at colleges and universities.

8. Make use of technology where it is sensible to introduce enhancements in operations, energy consumption, safety, and efficiency.

9. Unions should move from political organisations to trade organisations.

10. I'd have had full consultation with all concerned, thus in order to take on their points of view, do full risk assessments. Explain how all roles on the railway work together via presentations.

That's my position on these matters.

For once I agree with HIGHDYKE re railway managers. In my experience in dealing with them over the years I have found that the majority of proper railwaymen who worked their way up often lack the intelligence to articulate themselves effectively; particularly during disruption. Although they can often make good decisions, they rarely climb higher than an operations manager. There are the odd exceptions to this, for example Steve Montgomery who had no formal qualifications from any higher educational or indeed further educational establishment but managed to reach the top. He was always an embarrassment on tv news owing to his use of slang in a thick west of Scotland accent.

Those managers who have entered the rail industry from some red-brick former polytechnic institution may have the A4 degree certificate in something or other but lack the knowledge required to work in the rail industry.

So I agree that the railway should engage more with proper universities (like my alma mater) in the Russell Group to establish a useful degree.

 

[highdyke]

Wow, I'm speechless. Comments like "Take the safety of door operation from both the driver and guard, recognising technology may offer a better solution" just sounds like you want technology for the sake of technology! More and more I believe you want all this just to vindicate you decision to leave the industry. I can't really believe you think that technology is better than the mk1 eyeball! Wow just wow.

Do some study on optical illusions and what the brain edits out of what you are seeing, then we'll have that discussion. Study how it process your experiences based on expected outcomes.

On colleges, yes experience is always the key. When you get passed in any job, it means "You are good enough, but you will learn more as you go along".

To be honest I'd introduce performance related pay too.

 

[Tomnick]

I think "supporting the driver's/guard's role (preferably the latter!) in ensuring the safety of door operation" with technology, rather than taking off them altogether, would be more sensible. Progress happens, technology develops, and we've already seen that in powered doors, traction interlock, sensitive edges etc. which help them in their role, but I think we're a long way from being in a position where no-one on the train has any responsibility at all for the doors.

How would performance related pay work?

 

[highdyke]

Well there's delay attribution now, so if you don't get any black marks against you for a month, share the profits.

On the doors, tech is getting better now detecting objects. We trust machines to operate level crossings, and have done since the 1960s. What I am saying, is ideally we should be looking to get technology to detect whether that door is clear and warn people when the train is about to depart. Once a green light comes up in the cab, the driver can then depart (maybe that could be interlocked against the starting signal in future too!).

I get the argument on not wanting the liability and why drivers might not want it, doesn't seem fair to put that on someone else.

 

[Haig paxton]

Well there's delay attribution now, so if you don't get any black marks against you for a month, share the profits.

Encouraging staff to cut corners to stick to the timetable? A recipe for disaster.

 

[highdyke]

With a railway where everything is already recorded, I disagree. Right now, if you get too much delay against your name, you'll get dragged up in front of your line manager. There's not many *positive* incentives on the railway right now, no wonder people feel put on.

 

[Haig paxton]

With a railway where everything is already recorded, I disagree. Right now, if you get too much delay against your name, you'll get dragged up in front of your line manager. There's not many *positive* incentives on the railway right now, no wonder people feel put on.

You should know better. You cannot compromise safety in any way simply to cut delays, especially by offering a financial incentive that we know will motivate a lot of greedy people.

 

[highdyke]

So how you would motivate the people that don't give a damn and go running to the union every time someone threatens to remove them?

I mean a crap signalman/guard/tech or driver gets paid the same as a good one. Where's the incentive to be any good?

Safety should never be compromised, as I said everything is recorded and things added to records. Hanging onto your job is a pretty good incentive!

 

[Haig paxton]

So how you would motivate the people that don't give a damn and go running to the union every time someone threatens to remove them?

I mean a crap signalman/guard/tech or driver gets paid the same as a good one. Where's the incentive to be any good?

There should be no incentive to cut corners.