Just like the Gatwick Express on train staff who were promised their jobs were safe by Govia? :roll:
-
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
Just like the Gatwick Express on train staff who were promised their jobs were safe by Govia? :roll:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
You didn't answer my question, so I will ask again, do you think DOO in its current state with current equipment is less safe than a guard doing dispatch? And also, since when was safety irrelevant?
I know this and you know this, but apparently a Government body says we are wrong!
Perhaps they got lucky and were able to get on contact in a spot that wasn't a black spot.
As bad as mobile coverage can be on trains at times, there are at least some areas that are not black spots.
Speak for yourself. Who are 'us'? Funnily enough train crew keep funny hours. I can absolutely vouch for the fact that the poster in question is a driver with experience of DOO and crew working. Funnily enough it's a topic that is quite important to those of us the issue affects or potentially affects and it seems odd that people who it substantially doesn't (except of course as the unfortunates caught in the middle of the mess) somehow expect unemotional debate.
Put it this way, if it all comes to pass and in the event that it turns out the Government do have an ulterior motive and I end up in the Job Centre as the end result, in favour of some minimum wage care bears, I can't say that I'll be up for any kind of reasoned debate with anyone over the matter. That's why I largely stay away from this thread now.
Previous actions by the DfT and various TOCs do not lend themselves to being trusting in their intentions, London Midland's revenue protection department, lots of managers and clerical staff, and plenty of grades from the Gatwick Express hosts to legions of on train caterers who have been done away with provide perfect testament to that.
TOCs have also been censured for falsifying (not necessarily maliciously, some are down to individual incompetence) risk assessments in the past so you'll forgive me for not trusting them there either.
The point remains that with a guard or other safety critical or mandatory crew member there is guaranteed to be someone there to do all the things a guard does, doors or not (see SE 395s), and that's regardless of length of train. With the new system, there might not be, and it's pot luck as to whether there's a problem they could deal with as to whether they are provided or they aren't. It seems illogical that during disruption when they are likely to be of most use (I spend most of my time in the train reassuring people, replanning journeys, issuing water etc) is the most likely time for them not to be there.
At an end? Promises,promises! DOO is world wide,across every continent,& has been safely carrying googols of passengers for over 30 years. Get out more please. Sitting at the front end with AWS buzzers & bells gives you authority,but you must agree that people who have done that, & are now rail managers or managers in general, may have more world knowledge & experience. Give their opinions a chance.
G136GREYHOUND
Member
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2014
- Messages
- 239
You miss my point entirely . How as a passenger do you , or any other passenger , sitting in a coach , on phone or reading paper , know how many buttock clenching PTI moments a DOO driver has had ? About as many as I realise the aircrew of any plane I fly on has, unless there is a Big Crunch and flames . As for the personal literary insults , I have a Mensa IQ and an English degree . I just don't believe in superfluous waffle to try to make myself look clever.
As for the the crack about you don't have to be superhuman to drive a train , do you know, I think you have to be these days . You're personally , criminally liable for god knows how many lives, in the same bracket as only large aircraft pilots and ferry and cruise captains are, and utter 100 percent perfect performance is demanded of you no matter what .
Last edited:
bramling
Veteran Member
The reality is there's no absolutely right or wrong answer. DOO is "safe" in that there isn't a massive public outpouring of hostility towards it, but equally I think it's fair to say guard dispatch is probably safer due to the limitations of dispatching through a monitor. Personally I'd say guard dispatch is probably marginally better for performance as the guard can try to hurry people up, whereas the driver is pretty powerless in the cab.
AlterEgo
Veteran Member
Ultimately the only way we will know is through drivers telling us. Drivers are not an impartial source of information in a thread which discusses fundamental changes to their job, increased responsibility and culpability.
Until then we can choose to look at RAIB-investigated PTI incidents, which might well run at a 3:1 ratio. But you also have to remember that the RAIB has criteria for investigating incidents, which align with its remit and objectives. They are:
- investigating the causes of railway accidents and incidents where we believe our investigation will bring safety learning to the industry
- identifying the factors that may lead to a similar accident or make the consequences worse
- highlighting gaps in the railway industry’s safety defences that are revealed during our investigations
- making recommendations to prevent the same thing happening again
increasing awareness of how railway accidents happen
- co-operating with other investigation organisations nationally and internationally to share and encourage good practice.
Given the railway is heading inexorably towards a DOO standard, it seems pretty obvious that the RAIB - an organisation with a limited budget - would be keen to investigate incidents on DOO services so any lessons coming from that incident might be learned and shared widely.
Even if you don't accept that the RAIB might wish to learn more about DOO incidents than non-DOO, the last four fatalities at the PTI all occurred on services which had a guard.
Until then we can choose to look at RAIB-investigated PTI incidents, which might well run at a 3:1 ratio. But you also have to remember that the RAIB has criteria for investigating incidents, which align with its remit and objectives. They are:
- investigating the causes of railway accidents and incidents where we believe our investigation will bring safety learning to the industry
- identifying the factors that may lead to a similar accident or make the consequences worse
- highlighting gaps in the railway industry’s safety defences that are revealed during our investigations
- making recommendations to prevent the same thing happening again
increasing awareness of how railway accidents happen
- co-operating with other investigation organisations nationally and internationally to share and encourage good practice.
Given the railway is heading inexorably towards a DOO standard, it seems pretty obvious that the RAIB - an organisation with a limited budget - would be keen to investigate incidents on DOO services so any lessons coming from that incident might be learned and shared widely.
Even if you don't accept that the RAIB might wish to learn more about DOO incidents than non-DOO, the last four fatalities at the PTI all occurred on services which had a guard.
The most likely reason being that your point came across as "You are not a driver. Your opinions are worthless and should never have been aired".
Of course nobody knows how many buttock-clenching moments a DOO driver has experienced as a result of occurrences at the PTI. How many of those buttock-clenching moments have been logged/recorded and investigated to see how they can be prevented?
If it isn't written down, it never happened. That's why it can be stated - based on statistics and available evidence - that DOO is just as safe as non-DOO.
Oh, and you can't just write off statistics because they don't give the answer you want, or that "89.7% of them are made up on the spot" because the statistics WILL be used to justify decisions, and will be what a non-interested party will use to base their opinion/position on.
Note: I want guards on services, as, in addition to all the other benefits of having a guard on a service, it should make the dispatch process safer.
O L Leigh
Established Member
I'm still waiting to hear what those last four fatal incidents are. I've asked twice already. Please can you enlighten us.
As for the RAIB's role, I fear you are inferring a little too much into their role. Any bias towards one method of working or another only means one of two things. Either a) there are more incidents, or b) there is clearly some concern over the safe implementation of DOO despatch.
O L Leigh
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Does Astradyne have these operational and management experiences? He's been asked several times and dodged the question. Come to think of it, do you have them?
I'm not trying to be obtuse, but you're not actually arguing for anything. If you want a reasoned discussion let's have one, but if you're just trying to rattle the cage solely to provoke a reaction then I'm afraid you're not giving anyone's opinions a chance.
As it happens, I get out plenty and see probably more than you realise. I think I have a pretty good handle on the situation and understand both sides of the argument. With respect, you don't actually know me or my background.
O L Leigh
G136GREYHOUND
Member
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2014
- Messages
- 239
There are many managers on the railway who have never worked in a role other than being a manager
AlterEgo
Veteran Member
From the James St RAIB report:
Platform/train interface accidents represent the most significant fatality risk for passengers on the main line (see gure 13). RSSB records show that in the ve years between April 2007 and March 2012, accidents at the platform/train interface were responsible for 14 fatalities (excluding four cases of electrocution) and over 6000 injuries. The RAIB carried out a review of this accident data to identify which of the accidents involved persons falling through the platform edge gap and found that this type of accident resulted in:
a. Four fatalities (Hilsea in 2008, Angmering in 2009, Clapham in 2011 and Liverpool James Street in 2011)
All four of those trains had guards.
The other 10 incidents not referred to by name in that report occurred when not boarding or alighting a train, and when a train was not in the platform when the fall occurred (so the dispatch process was not a factor).
Whilst trying to read up on some of the incidents you mention, I came across this: https://www.rssb.co.uk/Library/risk...port-risk-at-the-platform-train-interface.pdf
Which has an appendix which lists every PTI death (including plenty of stuff related to the third rail for those who argue that it is just as safe as OLE - but that's massively Off Topic) related to the Platform Train Interface from 2003 to 2013. I'll leave it for someone else to chew through all of those figures.
Last edited:
AlterEgo
Veteran Member
A more recent summary:
- On 19 July 2011, a male member of the public was struck by a moving train whilst standing too close to the platform edge at Hayes and Harlington station - DOO
- On 3 August 2011, a male passenger was struck by a moving train at Clapham Junction station; he was standing too close to the platform edge under the influence of alcohol. - Guard
- On 30 of September 2011, a male passenger was struck by a moving train at Urmston station, Manchester. He was standing too close to the platform edge and under the influence of alcohol. - Guard
- On 22 October 2011, a 16 year old female passenger was struck by a train when standing too close to the platform edge at Liverpool James street station, whilst under the influence of alcohol. - Guard
- On 1 February 2013, a female member of the public fell from the platform at Barnsley Interchange station and was struck by a train. - Guard
- On 15 February 2013, a male passenger was stuck by a moving train at Kennett station whilst standing too close to the platform edge and under the influence of alcohol. - Guard
- On 19 July 2011, a male member of the public was struck by a moving train whilst standing too close to the platform edge at Hayes and Harlington station - DOO
- On 3 August 2011, a male passenger was struck by a moving train at Clapham Junction station; he was standing too close to the platform edge under the influence of alcohol. - Guard
- On 30 of September 2011, a male passenger was struck by a moving train at Urmston station, Manchester. He was standing too close to the platform edge and under the influence of alcohol. - Guard
- On 22 October 2011, a 16 year old female passenger was struck by a train when standing too close to the platform edge at Liverpool James street station, whilst under the influence of alcohol. - Guard
- On 1 February 2013, a female member of the public fell from the platform at Barnsley Interchange station and was struck by a train. - Guard
- On 15 February 2013, a male passenger was stuck by a moving train at Kennett station whilst standing too close to the platform edge and under the influence of alcohol. - Guard
plymothian
Member
Well that's conclusive proof that guards aren't fit for purpose.
End of topic.
End of topic.
313103
Established Member
- Joined
- 13 May 2006
- Messages
- 1,595
Quite true.
Thats why they got rid of me despite not having a safety related incident in my 33 years employment.
Yeah, but I and plenty others aside could post one off incidents (near misses so sadly not real statistics and not all of them probably get reported as such as it's dealt with as routine) and much depends on if you're lucky to have a droplight to hand.
For example -
Inebriated male attempted to leave train while it was pulling out of the station via droplight window. Platform staff gave emergency stop signal to the guard who brought the train to a stand until he was removed by BTP. HST.
Inebriated males, one on piggy back, lurch on to otherwise clear platform just as the guard is about to close their local door (156 unit with no droplight) after the second train safety check (DOO service would be rolling), they fall over and collide with the train foot step. The guard abandoned dispatch to attend to the issue.
A group of passengers who have missed their train owing to running late start running alongside it banging on the saloon windows as it's leaving a self dispatch platform (guard operated 158, no droplight) at a slow speed. The guard sees them run past his window and hears a commotion start and brings the train to a halt using the passcom. He remonstrates with them and orders them off the platform.
If I can come up with 3 in 30 seconds you have to wonder what goes on elsewhere.
The second example I gave could easily have been a double James Street and the third a Charing Cross if they had been DOO services. An element of luck may have been involved but nonetheless sometimes that is what you need.
For example -
Inebriated male attempted to leave train while it was pulling out of the station via droplight window. Platform staff gave emergency stop signal to the guard who brought the train to a stand until he was removed by BTP. HST.
Inebriated males, one on piggy back, lurch on to otherwise clear platform just as the guard is about to close their local door (156 unit with no droplight) after the second train safety check (DOO service would be rolling), they fall over and collide with the train foot step. The guard abandoned dispatch to attend to the issue.
A group of passengers who have missed their train owing to running late start running alongside it banging on the saloon windows as it's leaving a self dispatch platform (guard operated 158, no droplight) at a slow speed. The guard sees them run past his window and hears a commotion start and brings the train to a halt using the passcom. He remonstrates with them and orders them off the platform.
If I can come up with 3 in 30 seconds you have to wonder what goes on elsewhere.
The second example I gave could easily have been a double James Street and the third a Charing Cross if they had been DOO services. An element of luck may have been involved but nonetheless sometimes that is what you need.
I found your unintended line about not trying to look clever immediately after telling us about your IQ and your degree very funny - so much so that I have lost the will to pursue this. You have however told me all I need to know, even if not quite in the way you intended. I hope your qualification brings you great comfort, if not respect.
Last edited:
Have you got some more on those, I can't find an RAIB report for any of those?
Apart from James Street (which we all know) the rest sound like ****ed up types being swiped by passing trains rather than PTI incidents regardless of dispatch type.
The RSSB report I linked to made specific mention of whether alcohol (or other substances) were likely to have been a factor.
AlterEgo
Veteran Member
Well guess what, the RAIB don't report on every fatality. Don't tell O L Leigh though, because he likes to use the number of RAIB reports as his safety standard.
Lots of incidents don't get reports. The four I listed in Post 10365: http://www.railforums.co.uk/showpost.php?p=2846810&postcount=10365 were all during dispatch which is the sole reason why they were deemed relevant. All were with guards. Try finding RAIB reports for any of them except James St.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I think his point was that those incidents may have happened with passing trains, not ones stopped and undergoing the dispatch process.
Last edited:
Ah, I see. It's probably a fair comment as the report also notes that there have been 4 dispatch fatalities since 2008, which only accounted for 25% of fatal incidents involving the PTI.
AlterEgo
Veteran Member
Indeed. I am far from convinced that dispatch PTI is the menace some powers make it out to be.
Unrelated to that, GTR are recruiting drivers, BBC report:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-38629210
A strike-hit rail operator will restart a recruitment campaign to hire trainee drivers to try to reduce disruption.
Govia Thameslink (GTR) is seeking new drivers for the Southern network, which has seen months of strikes in a dispute with the RMT and Aslef unions.
GTR said the company wanted to reduce its reliance on rest-day working.
Ongoing action by Aslef includes an overtime ban, which Southern says causes daily disruption. Aslef said the firm had never employed enough drivers.
Both the RMT and Aslef are opposing changes to guards' roles on trains.
A Department for Transport source told the Press Association the government would work with GTR to help with the recruitment drive, including targeting people who may want to work part time as drivers.
The source said having more flexible working in the role could open up careers to people "from all parts of society".
I wonder why the government feels it appropriate/necessary to "help" a private company with a recruitment drive?
Very useful in 2 years time when they can actually start taking trains out by themselves. Also, interesting to see the government pushing a part time idea, I suppose you might as well have all your fights with the unions at once.
Also, wasn't the Stafford SPAD and many WCRC incidents a result of part time work?
AlterEgo
Veteran Member
Part time work coupled with poor management yes.
Not really convinced about the wisdom of part time drivers myself. More concerned about that development than dispatch PTI.
Last edited:
Islineclear3_1
Established Member
Oh gawd, I seriously hope that the future is not part-time drivers on zero hours contracts working on an "as required" basis and upon taking charge of their train realise that their route knowledge isn't up to date
- Status