Southern DOO: ASLEF members vote 79.1% for revised deal

[Shaw S Hunter]

Driver dispatch with platform screens like the Jubilee line would probably be safer still but of course is impossible to justify on cost grounds

Unfortunately Carlisle you make the same mistake as McNulty in assuming that what is appropriate on LU is automatically appropriate on the national network. Remember McNulty stated that all trains should be DOO by default regardless of location or service type. He also stated that platform dispatchers are a complete waste of money even though LU cannot avoid using them at many of its busier stations.

LU is a special case in that its tracks are very effectively segregated from the wider environment meaning it does not need to concern itself with many of the risks which exist on the national network. The suggestion that mainline drivers could have LU-style platform monitors working in the cab until the train has cleared the platform would be completely unacceptable. For one thing there are far too many level-crossongs in close proximity to stations which require the driver's attention; level-crossings are, after all, the second highest risk factor to passengers after the PTI.

As for the arguments over the affordability of safety enhancements, or the savings to made by doing without them, I wonder how quickly people's views would change if the person maimed in something like a trap and drag incident was a well-known and admired person, like an entertainer or athlete.

I am not opposed to DOO on the basis of some principle or other. But it is over 30 years since it was first introduced and the risk factors surrounding it are getting worse due to the very much more crowded nature of the network, especially station platforms. Not to mention an increasing proportion of the population willing to take avoidable risks just until they get caught out when it suddenly becomes someone else's fault. There really ought to be a complete review of DOO operations with a clear set of guidelines as to where, in general terms, it is acceptable but also where it is not. I have no doubt that such a review would "clear" certain routes where there is currently no DOO operation but equally it would deem it unacceptable in some places where it currently exists. It's a shame that nobody so far in this thread has thought it worthwhile to have such a discussion.

 

[HH]

The McNulty Report shouldn't be treated as a Bible; perhaps that's the mistake Wilko is making...

 

[Barn]

If I recall when I looked at the RAIB reports since 2010 there were 11 reports on trap and drag involving onboard dispatch of those 9 were DOO and 2 guards although a number of the DOO involved the tube. ...

It seems there are significantly less incidents involving guards,

As I say above, I suspect having a guard is safer than not having one. But we need to be careful with statistics. DOO trains tend to be found on busy metro services with many people joining and alighting at many stations, and therefore more opportunity for PTI problems. The best statistic would therefore measure something like incidents per use of train door.

 

[Goldfish62]

But then again a Central line driver is not actually driving, a computer is.

Not always. Coded manual is used in certain circumstances. And of course all the lines using in cab CCTV except the Victoria have been fully manually driven at some point.

 

[NSEFAN]

So, it seems that statistics to actually determine if DOO is safe or not are not gathered. This is either because nobody on charge has thought to do this, or instead there's a "don't ask, don't tell" mindset (possibly because any hard facts would risk fueling a political fire over the subject). I suppose we will have to wait for a high-profile incident to occur for anything to do be done about his, as is sadly always the way when it comes to changing attitudes and industrial habits.

 

[Barn]

So, it seems that statistics to actually determine if DOO is safe or not are not gathered. This is either because nobody on charge has thought to do this, or instead there's a "don't ask, don't tell" mindset (possibly because any hard facts would risk fueling a political fire over the subject).

Hopefully it's because serious incidents are mercifully so rare that we can learn more from individual investigations by RAIB than we would from statistics, especially given the "apple vs orange" problem of two very different types of train service.

 

[gtr driver]

Hopefully it's because serious incidents are mercifully so rare that we can learn more from individual investigations by RAIB than we would from statistics, especially given the "apple vs orange" problem of two very different types of train service.

It's akin to what I heard about why the law requires stairways to have a handrail - generally no one slips but for the one in a million times that they do, the handrail is there to stop them falling. With universal DOO we are taking away the handrail when the stairs may be greasy.

Sadly I've not been impressed with RAIB reports; they seem to start from the position that the current method of working must be safe, then look for reasons why it went wrong this time; but the reasons that it usually goes wrong are inherent weaknesses in the method of working. Nothing will change until there is a possibility of those making the decisions being made to take the consequences personally.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

What and where is the start date of the next new franchise that will have DOO mentioned in the tender bids that does not apply at the present time?

 

[gtr driver]

So, it seems that statistics to actually determine if DOO is safe or not are not gathered. This is either because nobody on charge has thought to do this, or instead there's a "don't ask, don't tell" mindset (possibly because any hard facts would risk fueling a political fire over the subject). I suppose we will have to wait for a high-profile incident to occur for anything to do be done about his, as is sadly always the way when it comes to changing attitudes and industrial habits.

The stats seem to be based on what happens and is known; to my mind there is not enough attention being given to the unknowns. And I think you are right, if anyone doubts DOO now, the whole staff reducing strategy collapses. There also seems to have been a general tendancy of hiding behind the front line - it's always a case of making the driver decide if something's safe, knowing that he will take the rap if he's misjudged the situation - even though he has been put in a fairly impossible position to start with.

 

[NSEFAN]

Hopefully it's because serious incidents are mercifully so rare that we can learn more from individual investigations by RAIB than we would from statistics, especially given the "apple vs orange" problem of two very different types of train service.

Indeed. Rail is an extremely safe method of transport. My concern is that the DfT sees safety as an investment, which it would like to cash in on in order to save immediate operating costs. That said, never attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence.

The stats seem to be based on what happens and is known; to my mind there is not enough attention being given to the unknowns. And I think you are right, if anyone doubts DOO now, the whole staff reducing strategy collapses. There also seems to have been a general tendancy of hiding behind the front line - it's always a case of making the driver decide if something's safe, knowing that he will take the rap if he's misjudged the situation - even though he has been put in a fairly impossible position to start with.

Front line staff should absolutely not be made to take the blame for systematic safety problems. The railway should not be operating on a level where a single front-line member of staff making a small error results in someone becoming seriously injured or killed, and the staff member then prosecuted for following agreed operating practices. The British railway is safe because we moved away from that attitude. We should not be risking going back to that mentality, in my opinion.

 

[Deepgreen]

At the risk of horribly over-simplifying the situation now, I see it as follows:

1. DOO is used on a very significant part of the railway network, and has been for decades. It has been introduced in phases around the country, often in the face of opposition from various bodies. However, those bodies' opposition has never been strong enough to prevent it where it is now used. Unless a case can be made and accepted by independent review that it is demonstrably unsafe, it is a) not going to be removed where already in use, and b) going to be extended to other/all parts of the railway in due course.

2. If unions or other staff and passenger representation bodies cannot muster a robust safety-based case against DOO (bearing in mind its, now long, history on the railway) which might involve a formal judicial review, then strikes will lead nowhere. Even supposing that this particular round of industrial action is successful and DOO is delayed on those parts of Southern that currently don't use it, at some not-too-distant point in the future it will be brought in, either by the existing franchisee or the next one.

If the core issue really is safety, then the watertight case either needs to be made urgently, or it needs to be recognised that the opportunity to make the case has long since passed, whether we like it or not. If it is actually more about, say, long-term job security, that is another issue and needs to be tackled on that basis.

I write this as someone who would prefer to see the guards role retained, but my view here is based on gut feeling rather than any formal safety case, which is for others to pursue.

 

[Antman]

Indeed. Rail is an extremely safe method of transport. My concern is that the DfT sees safety as an investment, which it would like to cash in on in order to save immediate operating costs. That said, never attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence.


Front line staff should absolutely not be made to take the blame for systematic safety problems. The railway should not be operating on a level where a single front-line member of staff making a small error results in someone becoming seriously injured or killed, and the staff member then prosecuted for following agreed operating practices. The British railway is safe because we moved away from that attitude. We should not be risking going back to that mentality, in my opinion.

But isn't that precisely what happens on the roads?

 

[al78]

But isn't that precisely what happens on the roads?

What happens on the roads is 1,730 killed, 22,144 seriously injured and 186,189 casualties of all severities in 2015. I don't think road transport is a useful guideline as to what should happen on the (much safer) railway.

 

[Antman]

What happens on the roads is 1,730 killed, 22,144 seriously injured and 186,189 casualties of all severities in 2015. I don't think road transport is a useful guideline as to what should happen on the (much safer) railway.

You've rather missed the point, if a driver makes a "small error" that results in an accident the buck stops with that driver.

 

[NSEFAN]

Antman, that is indeed what happens on the roads. Why should the railways lower themselves to such standards, where poor training, fatigue, speeding, drunk-driving and distractions are the cause of many deaths per year?

The railway is a highly controlled environment. Therefore it is much easier and expectable to maintain high safety standards compared the roads, which are a free-for-all. Ideally we would do away with road vehicle drivers altogether, which will happen with driverless cars.

 

[Antman]

Antman, that is indeed what happens on the roads. Why should the railways lower themselves to such standards, where poor training, speeding, drunk-driving and distractions are the cause of many deaths per year?

So what's your alternative?

 

[Harbon 1]

You've rather missed the point, if a driver makes a "small error" that results in an accident the buck stops with that driver.

Yes on the road the individual who has made the mistake is at fault. So in that case you believe that a train driver can be at fault if the accident happens after the screens have gone off and are a result of someone running for the train after power has been taken? After he is satisfied that the platform is clear and the doors are closed and no one is trapped?

 

[Antman]

Yes on the road the individual who has made the mistake is at fault. So in that case you believe that a train driver can be at fault if the accident happens after the screens have gone off and are a result of someone running for the train after power has been taken? After he is satisfied that the platform is clear and the doors are closed and no one is trapped?

Not in those circumstances but the same accident could occur with a guard if the train has no drop down window.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

Yes on the road the individual who has made the mistake is at fault. So in that case you believe that a train driver can be at fault if the accident happens after the screens have gone off and are a result of someone running for the train after power has been taken? After he is satisfied that the platform is clear and the doors are closed and no one is trapped?

From much of all the posts on this forum, it appears that the "higer management" want to apportion blame onto the driver (on a DOO train) in trap and drag incidents

 

[BestWestern]

From much of all the posts on this forum, it appears that the "higer management" want to apportion blame onto the driver (on a DOO train) in trap and drag incidents

Yes, of course they do. And that is because the only alternative is to admit that the method of operation is inherently dangerous. And that will never, ever be considered acceptable by those in charge. So, staff it is. Hence train drivers across the nation will be coming out on strike against it in the coming years.

 

[gtr driver]

But isn't that precisely what happens on the roads?

What if it does? The railway is inherently more controllable than the roads and to reduce that control by making a dispatch incident more likely is a backward step.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

So what's your alternative?

A guard on every train; who dispatches the train at times and places when there is a higher risk of an incident (eg long trains, peak times, curved platforms) and if the driver feels that he needs help to dispatch; and that at less dangerous times (off peak, short trains) the guard concentrates on revenue and customer service while the driver can take advantage of the conditions to dispatch the train himself. Those times and places to be indentified by proper survey on the ground and consultation.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Not in those circumstances but the same accident could occur with a guard if the train has no drop down window.

That is NOT the guard's fault. It is those who decided to remove that facility from the guard that are at fault.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

It's akin to what I heard about why the law requires stairways to have a handrail - generally no one slips but for the one in a million times that they do, the handrail is there to stop them falling.

The wording that you used which I have emboldened is not strictly true. The handrail is there for a person to hold on to in the case of a fall, but the handrail in itself does not stop a person falling.

I am not being facetious as I have personal experience of this as in July 2012, when I suffered a stroke whilst making my way down a staircase in North Manchester General Hospital, the last thing that I remember, when it felt like my head had exploded, was making a grab for the handrail. What I was told later by a junior doctor who was walking behind me down the staircase, was that my attempt to grab the handrail failed and my face came heavily in contact with the handrail.

 

[NSEFAN]

So what's your alternative?

What do you mean by an alternative? There is already a safe method of working where the entire dispatch process is monitored, such that the train can be stopped if a PTI incident occurs. What is the point of removing staff from this safety-critical role, especially if nobody seems to have any hard statistics to show that safety will not be compromised as a result?

 

[Carlisle]

At the risk of horribly over-simplifying the situation now, I see it as follows:

1. DOO is used on a very significant part of the railway network, and has been for decades. It has been introduced in phases around the country, often in the face of opposition from various bodies. However, those bodies' opposition has never been strong enough to prevent it where it is now used. Unless a case can be made and accepted by independent review that it is demonstrably unsafe, it is a) not going to be removed where already in use, and b) going to be extended to other/all parts of the railway in due course.

2. If unions or other staff and passenger representation bodies cannot muster a robust safety-based case against DOO (bearing in mind its, now long, history on the railway) which might involve a formal judicial review, then strikes will lead nowhere. Even supposing that this particular round of industrial action is successful and DOO is delayed on those parts of Southern that currently don't use it, at some not-too-distant point in the future it will be brought in, either by the existing franchisee or the next one.

If the core issue really is safety, then the watertight case either needs to be made urgently, or it needs to be recognised that the opportunity to make the case has long since passed, whether we like it or not. If it is actually more about, say, long-term job security, that is another issue and needs to be tackled on that basis.

I write this as someone who would prefer to see the guards role retained, but my view here is based on gut feeling rather than any formal safety case, which is for others to pursue.

I think by striking now the unions are banking on the fact that whilst those at the helm of the DFT take the long term view you suggest , the TOCs will be far more open to short term fixes like the Scotrail deal , to protect their revenue , and brand image, preformance ratings etc

 

[Tetchytyke]

ASLEF thought they had an agreement to only run DOO(P) in certain circumstances at GTR, and it turned out that the agreement wasn't worth the paper it was written on. This weakens both their position and the position of the RMT. ASLEF drivers cannot refuse to drive DOO(P)- GTR took out an injunction specifically to prevent this- and therefore the trains will be drive. So ASLEF can't challenge DOO(P). And because ASLEF can't refuse to drive the trains, this means the trains will run regardless of what the RMT do or do not do.

ASLEF don't want an extension of DOO(P), but where they have historically agreed to it it is now impossible to turn the clock back. We saw this at London Overground.

The issues at Scotrail were more complicated, as the drivers agreed DOO(P) on certain lines in Strathclyde, but this did not include the new Airdrie-Bathgate line, even though it was an extension of a line they'd agreed DOO(P) to. Hence a compromise was possible.

If the drivers are on board with DOO(P) then there isn't much the guards can do to stop it. But the drivers are not on board with it. This is why the dispute at GWR has gone quiet- I assume GWR originally thought they could get DOO(P) in through the Thames Turbo drivers, in a similar way to GTR have managed it- and why the dispute at VTEC is about VTEC trying to make guards also take on the role of the catering crew leader (pushing them out of the job instead).

 

[Dave1987]

This thread is bordering on the absolute ridiculous now. It does seem like people who have never driven a train in their lives are trying to make out they know far far better than those who do the job day in day out.

 

[bramling]

But then again a Central line driver is not actually driving, a computer is.

Can't rely on that. There are plenty of reasons on the Central Line where the driver may have to be physically driving the train whilst departing a platform.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

LU is a special case in that its tracks are very effectively segregated from the wider environment meaning it does not need to concern itself with many of the risks which exist on the national network.

Indeed. I've heard it suggested that the LU system is considered acceptable simply because it has "grandfather rights", and that if being designed in today's climate then it's quite possibly wouldn't be deemed acceptable for the driver to have a monitor distraction whilst on the move. It's also worth adding that every signal on LU has some form of protection device (be it ATP or an old-fashioned trainstop) *and* an overlap where the train should have braking distance to safely come to a stand.

A hell of a lot of SPADs on LU have been wholly or partially attributed to the driver being distracted by observing the monitors. It's not an ideal situation, but it's tolerated because there's an unwritten acceptance that the risks arising from a SPAD when protected by the measures I described above are probably less than the risk of a dragging. Nonetheless, it's still a grey area just how much the driver is supposed to observe the monitors when departing a platform. Some say the main focus should be on the road ahead with occasional glances down to the monitors, others say it should be 50/50, whilst some say the monitors should be closely viewed until they extinguish. Don't forget there's still the risk that you could be looking at the monitors and fail to observe/sound the whistle for a trackworker, etc.

I am not opposed to DOO on the basis of some principle or other. But it is over 30 years since it was first introduced and the risk factors surrounding it are getting worse due to the very much more crowded nature of the network, especially station platforms. Not to mention an increasing proportion of the population willing to take avoidable risks just until they get caught out when it suddenly becomes someone else's fault. There really ought to be a complete review of DOO operations with a clear set of guidelines as to where, in general terms, it is acceptable but also where it is not. I have no doubt that such a review would "clear" certain routes where there is currently no DOO operation but equally it would deem it unacceptable in some places where it currently exists. It's a shame that nobody so far in this thread has thought it worthwhile to have such a discussion.

I agree with this. I'm not in principle opposed to DOO, although as an "old hand" traditional railwayman I recognise and value the role of the guard. From an economic point of view guards certainly do bring in revenue particularly on more rural routes.

 

[Carlisle]

This thread is bordering on the absolute ridiculous now. It does seem like people who have never driven a train in their lives are trying to make out they know far far better than those who do the job day in day out.

Ok but I highly suspect if the pilots union decided unilaterally to deem a task they'd been preforming for 30+years unsafe disrupting hoards of flights regularly then many of us would become avaitaion experts overnight

 

[BestWestern]

Ok but I highly suspect if the pilots union decided unilaterally to deem a task they'd been preforming for 30+years unsafe disrupting hoards of flights regularly then many of us would become avaitaion experts overnight

If the aviation industry was bankrolled by the state, we just might very well have found ourselves in that position at some point! Being as it's all private safety remains the first priority, because someone else is paying for it.

 

[alastair]

This thread is bordering on the absolute ridiculous now. It does seem like people who have never driven a train in their lives are trying to make out they know far far better than those who do the job day in day out.

I think the problem is that when people repeatedly maintain that something which is happening thousands of times a day and has done for 30 plus years is "inherently unsafe" then surely any rational non-traindriving person is going to think that something does not make sense...?

The only logical solution if the "inherently unsafe" argument is correct would be to immediately recruit 1000,s of new guards and make a guard mandatory on every train without exception. Somehow I don't think this is going to happen. Do you?