The scenario described earlier was a failed train with the driver off doing assistance protection or being driven by the MOM to get an assistance train. i.e. driver not present.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both 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
The scenario described earlier was a failed train with the driver off doing assistance protection or being driven by the MOM to get an assistance train. i.e. driver not present.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
How long do you think that would take?
In third rail land especially, passengers are at risk immediately that door gets forced open.
You can "Jesus wept" all you like, but the current and persistent obsession with railway staff and the RMT in arguing the safety line is why you're losing this battle with the government.
ungreat
Member
- Joined
- 11 Nov 2006
- Messages
- 965
Its "would have " not "would of" ......
Passengers generally are sensible creatures but some do decide they know better and do silly things,like open doors on failed trains and go walk about...a second person on a train can maybe help manage this if it happens....
PS..you've had all morning to hit back and all you can do is resort to childish retorts.
They might not see them as authority, but some people are willing to listen to advice/instructions and be deterred from following the pack of sheep.
If a fire breaks outs obviously people are either going to move coach immediately or, if the train is stopped, try to self-evacuate. That's rather obvious. The scenario previously discussed was about a failed train, but then you moved the goalposts again.
ungreat
Member
- Joined
- 11 Nov 2006
- Messages
- 965
Just one question....what is a "member of training crew".....
If we're talking about a failed train and the driver is off elsewhere and, assuming other lines are still open, then red-buttoning the GSM-R by the guard could potentially stop other trains in the vicinity pretty sharpish.
Instructions that could be provided by a PA announcement or OBS? Again this is the problem with the RMTs position, maybe there is an argument for two people on some trans, it's less clear that should be some with with a piece of card that take's half a days training and route knowledge that could be put on an app...And as long as you can alert the emergency services/signaller, and they know where you are, does it even matter if you have route knowledge?
Last edited:
I'm sure that they're far less likely to become sufficiently impatient to start evacuating themselves if there's someone there to look after them, try to pass on information or at least reassure them. Yes, I'm sure uncontrolled evacuations still happen on trains with guards, but it'll take a much longer delay to get to that stage.
If fire breaks out or there's some other emergency, the Guard can at least take control of the situation as far as passengers are concerned, lead an emergency evacuation to a position of safety rather than leaving them to make an uncontrolled evacuation, or encourage them to take the safer option of moving to an adjacent vehicle if appropriate. The Driver's going to be busy arranging emergency protection, and passengers are far safer under the Guard's control than they are helping themselves to adjacent lines which might still be open to traffic (a recent 'Red' video refers, showing what really can happen in an emergency where the Driver is busy carrying out his immediate actions and there's no-one to take charge of the passengers).
A better question would be "if your argument is watertight, why are you picking up on people's typos and grammar errors?"
Incidentally your question requires a question mark.
Maybe, maybe not. Having worked with DOO trains in rural and urban areas, I'm not aware this was ever an issue.
That's not what happened at Maidenhead. Despite being a Guarded train someone jumped straight out in front of an HST with the power car on fire.
I thought GSM-R didn't work, according to prevailing wisdom from traincrew?
The risk of passenger egress is not just from passing trains, as you know.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Passenger egress occurs on guarded trains, whether you like it or not. SWT had a spate a few years ago. There were threads on it at the time.
Edit: here is one incident: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-13723005
There were at least three incidents around that time which have all been cited a long way upthread.
Last edited:
But surely a guard could do that and if the OBS is paid the same as a guard, just keep the guard.
If the idea is the train can run without the OBS then the issues outlined will occur without a second member of staff.
Sent from my SM-T810 using Tapatalk
RichardKing
Member
- Joined
- 25 Jul 2015
- Messages
- 565
*COUGH* Kentish Town *COUGH*. If there was a Conductor in this instance, they could have dealt with the passengers (bearing in mind the PA and A/C systems both stopped working as a result of the failure), whilst the driver would have been left to deal with the fault and communications between the train and signaller to organise the rescue. Because no one was communicating with them/providing any sort of ventilation (two things that a Conductor could've done), passengers took it upon themselves to evacuate onto the track, endangering themselves and delaying the rescue process considerably.
Last edited:
Southern are interested in the flexibility: less time to train. An OBS can go anywhere, unlike a guard. You don't need to cancel a train, if there is no OBS. There's also a few seconds less dwell time, important on a heavily trafficked route.
The RMT hate it, because less power to hold us all to ransom. And ASLEF are not keen after the Liverpool guard case, they'd rather let someone on 20k less take all the flak.
A good compromise would be dual door controls, with a Scotail agreement driver opens, OBS closes. OBS on all trains except where operationally necessary, then the driver would take full control. They could have kept old staff on their current rate, and paid new ones £20k double manning countrywide except metro areas, and got them to flog drinks and snacks and clean up at the end.
But they're all such a bunch of kids, bunkered in their own sense of power and self-worth using their customers as cannon fodder, lord knows whether that will happen. The government will probably turn into a busway before we're done.
What a pathetic industry the rail industry is at times.
Last edited:
RichardKing
Member
- Joined
- 25 Jul 2015
- Messages
- 565
It looks like another one - or possibly the same one - has failed at Bishopstone! Not a good weekend for the 313s.
Driver-opens-guard-closes is already the current method of operation. Train dispatch is a safety-critical task, so Southern would never agree to let OBS participate in dispatch since a main reason for the change to OBS is to get rid of the safety management system. "Safety trained" has no definition under the rules, so they are free to manage "safety trained" staff however they want.
In fact, that's one of the reasons there has been no agreement yet. ASLEF asked for information and assurances regarding training and assessment standards for OBS; Southern initially agreed but then refused to provide it. So far, my understanding from speaking with "fully-qualified" OBS is that the extent of their safety training can be paraphrased as "If anything happens, call the driver, he'll know what to do. If the driver is unavailable, call Control for instructions." Good luck getting through to Control during a major incident, if you even have mobile signal.
ASLEF asked for information and assurances regarding the protocol for clearing the new routes for DOO. Despite initial agreement, SN ignored it and pushed ahead anyway.
Also, ASLEF asked what the "exceptional circumstances" would be that the train would run without an OBS (since SN are keen to say that all former-guard services would have one except in exceptional circumstances) and SN haven't engaged on that. Is normal staff sickness considered "exceptional"? Is intentional understaffing and rest day working "exceptional"? No one knows. They can roster an OBS to every train, but experience has shown that rosters at SN are rarely fully-covered.
So to say that ASLEF (at least at a local level) has been completely unwilling to negotiate is nonsense. ASLEF has been negotiating since the start of the franchise, but when SN's position is that they're going to move ahead with or without you so you'd better shut up and accept their terms, then that's not good faith. When you actually come to agreements that suddenly become "operationally unworkable" once the company consults the DfT, that's not good faith.
Last edited:
You've ignore my point where I said the train might not have had an OBS, whereas it wouldn't run without a guard. I'm purely talking about the train that failed here. Not any others.
Also its Govia and / or the Government who don't want a Scotrail agreement on Southern, is it not?
Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk
Last edited:
Well later that same evening (last night), someone decided that the failed 313 needed to be moved from platform 8 into Lovers Walk depot ASAP. So off it went, and then failed again right across the station throat, blocking all main line and east coast services for about 30-50 mins and causing further delays all night.
Gaffer tape. Not a good fix does it make.
How would this new OBS have time to sell drinks and clean the train etc ? Under your proposal the same amount of time will need to be devoted to dispatch duties as the present Southern conductors role
Last edited:
Incorrect. If they are losing the battle with the government, it's not because they give the facts, but it's because they are union members and the government want to eradicate the rail unions members as much as is possible.
PS
Astradyne doesn't seem to be willing to listen to facts and reason from those of you with experience of working on the railway, so i think he's best ignored.
Under Southern's latest method of working for OBSs, just as much time is taken up with door duties as in the present conductors' role, because that's the only way to ensure that passengers who need assistance aren't left on the platform.
ASLEF are being petulant because despite 30 years of operation they just decided to throw their toys out the pram, despite only a couple of trap and drags a year on a network that carries over 1.7 billion passengers. Even though new door technology is now available to detect much smaller things in doors. Yes, we accept there is problems the mirrors and CCTV, but the tech is getting better all the time.
RMT will ballot at the very thought of doing something a little bit more productive, even if it to save jobs. They must accept the world moves on, smart cards are now coming and TCB/CSR/Radio and lots of other things has unfortunately made the guards role in its current form harder to justify.
Southern I probably blame the least, they inherited a bunch of problems, but some of the handling hasn't been text book and I think they have admitted that.
As I said, I was talking about a compromise at least for now, until maybe concerns can be addressed. The OBS would pick up litter at the end of a journey and there is opportunity to sell things while they are checking tickets.
Last edited:
Of course it matters. Shouldn't that not be obvious?
they're isn't a few seconds less dwell time, this has been proven countless times in this thread. Also, as southern seem to have an issue with employing enough staff to run the service, canceling trains are going to continue anyway. They can have flexibility by employing enough drivers and guards. Which would give fare payers value for their money.
No such power exists. No such thing as holding people to ransom.
Yes, they want no more driver only, as the driver has enough responsibility all ready. They have other jobs to do without having to deal with passengers on top of their critical duties.
You forgot the full training like the guard. Removing that training is ridiculous. Nothing stopping the current guards from being put in customer service rolls, as long as their training is kept as is meaning they are able to help the driver if requested. I don't know if it would work, but them being removed certainly won't.
Nope, just trying to insure 2 safety critical and highly trained people are aboard the train.
Nope, it's great to see rail staff standing up for the railway, and fight against changes that make it less safe, and make things difficult for disabled and others.
Last edited:
The DFTs view is the railways adapt or die.
As for safety, where's the evidence? The judge concluded the other day based on evidence DOO was safe.
A couple of trap and drags a year, for which the data has to be normalised against guard operation, with all the risks of ding-ding and away, not having the hand on the brake is something does go wrong is not a major safety risk.
You think it's great, to everyone else it's a national joke and it proves just how archaic the unions actually are.
As for safety, where's the evidence? The judge concluded the other day based on evidence DOO was safe.
A couple of trap and drags a year, for which the data has to be normalised against guard operation, with all the risks of ding-ding and away, not having the hand on the brake is something does go wrong is not a major safety risk.
You think it's great, to everyone else it's a national joke and it proves just how archaic the unions actually are.
It gives the operator added flexibility to use platform staff etc instead for that purpose where appropriate similar to the likes of London Overground
Last edited:
No the view of the dft is to remove union membership. The railways can adapt with a second highly trained person aboard the train.
Link please. I should think he didn't conclude anything of the sort as the case the other day was about trying to stop the strike by aslef and not aobut DOO.
It's known most of the incidents dealth with by the relevant safety authorities involve DOO trains, so i'd suggest they're is a very real risk, a lot more then with guard operation.
Well, a guard operated one is safer, and it seems those working on the railway mostly agree, so i will take their word on the matter.
It is of course rumoured that Southern and the RMT had agreed a deal months ago shortly after the strikes started. However it is believed that Southern reported it to the DfT who said no. So its not a surprise that the RMT are on strike they want the deal they have already been offered.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
That is of course Southern reporting what the judge said, it would be better to have the full judgement to read t ensure it has not been paraphrased.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Down in Southern land our Tory MPs are very good at telling us that the strikes and disruption are all down to unions, and jobs and pay is guaranteed long term.
Needless to say they have not responded to any questions as to what happens beyond 2021 nor explained why £50 m (£15m compensation plus £35 m costs and revenue loss) has been spent on this dispute when it appears the cause of it saves no money.
Last edited:
- Status