Southern DOO: ASLEF members vote 79.1% for revised deal

[87015]

It would appear the ASLEF agreement was not quite as water tight as many would have hoped.

I’m sure many situations similar have occurred but would appear that 2 trains last night had to run with no OBS for part of the journey due to poor diagraming. An OBS was apparently given insufficient time on their schedule card to get from one train to the next and the decision was taken to run the service without an OBS.

How does that not breech the ‘exceptional circumstances’?

I know many won’t be surprised to read this sadly.

Final question, I’m sure it’s been asked before but not sure if process has changed, how does the driver know when they do or don’t have 2nd crew?

More info needed before you can draw anything really. Was it sub-legal diagramming, or did the OBS not make good time, late inbound or what?

 

[pompeyfan]

I have a screenshot of the control log, it mentions that the inbound train was 5 minutes late inbound, and the OBS was only allocated 5 minutes between planned arrival and planned departure. It was noted down as poor diagramming.

 

[87015]

But it isn’t poor diagramming if it’s legal and five minutes is the agreed train to train time, it’s late running despite what control decide to note down. Late running inward is one of the agreed circumstances isn’t it?

If that’s the level of making mountains out of molehills then sadly it would suggest Southern are playing better than expected.

 

[pompeyfan]

It mentioned service disruption but I wouldn’t class 5L as service disruption. Be interesting to see if @tsr has has an opinion on this though.

 

[XDM]

The train could have ran 2 minutes late with an OBS providing customer service and disabled assistance.

It would have been much more than 2 minutes late & would have delayed other services & many other passengers too.
Far more sensible to do what was done & no passengers suffered.

No seriously disabled affected either, because, if the train had been cancelled for no OBS, any wheelchair passenger(& there were in fact none, I am told) would still have had to wait for the next service. A wise & justifiable move.

 

[pompeyfan]

It would have been much more than 2 minutes late & would have delayed other services & many other passengers too.
Far more sensible to do what was done & no passengers suffered.

No seriously disabled affected either, because, if the train had been cancelled for no OBS, any wheelchair passenger(& there were in fact none, I am told) would still have had to wait for the next service. A wise & justifiable move.

I don’t know Three bridges well, but I know that it wouldn’t have taken long to jump from one train to another. I’m also certain it’s possible to work around at Three bridges.

I’m glad you’re over the moon in the fact trains are running around single manned as a result of poor diagramming. I however am disappointed.

 

[Chrisgr31]

It would have been much more than 2 minutes late & would have delayed other services & many other passengers too.
Far more sensible to do what was done & no passengers suffered.

However there are a huge number of people who believe that there should be a second person on baord, and of course if there is an incident on route that 2nd person can be extremely helpful.

Bearing in mind that only 0.6% of trains were cancelled (apparently) due to a lack of a guard prior to the dispute it would seem that passengers should rarely suffer delay. Its a shame so much attention is given to the other causes of delays.

 

[WatcherZero]

Meanwhile Driverless Freight train trial in Netherlands by Alstom gets permission to commence this year running over 60 miles with the driver just in charge of route computer.

 

[Chester1]

Meanwhile Driverless Freight train trial in Netherlands by Alstom gets permission to commence this year running over 60 miles with the driver just in charge of route computer.

I am generally in favour of automation and I don't think it increases unemployment in the long term. However, what you have just described requires a driver therefore it is not driverless!

 

[Domh245]

what you have just described requires a driver therefore it is not driverless!

... At the moment. If the trial is a success, you can almost guarantee that amongst the next steps will be fully autonomous operations (alongside expanding the area of which it operates) - especially as there is no customer facing role that the freight driver does.

 

[Bromley boy]

Meanwhile Driverless Freight train trial in Netherlands by Alstom gets permission to commence this year running over 60 miles with the driver just in charge of route computer.

Not exactly driverless then, is it?!

Given the archaic state of the U.K. rail network I suspect the role of train driving will outlast the jobs of many posters on here, including those technologists who are baying for their replacement by automation...

 

[WatcherZero]

All the driver is doing in the trial is ensuring the train is following the correct route and setting target section timings. No different to the automated route computers on modern trains which advise the driver on the speed they should be going to maintain the timetable, or the computers remote controlling DLR trains.

 

[Malcolmffc]

It would have been much more than 2 minutes late & would have delayed other services & many other passengers too.
Far more sensible to do what was done & no passengers suffered.

No seriously disabled affected either, because, if the train had been cancelled for no OBS, any wheelchair passenger(& there were in fact none, I am told) would still have had to wait for the next service. A wise & justifiable move.

Indeed - astonishing that so many argue that cancelling a train when a driver is willing and able to drive it is somehow in passengers’ interests

 

[Chrisgr31]

Indeed - astonishing that so many argue that cancelling a train when a driver is willing and able to drive it is somehow in passengers’ interests

Its no different to cancelling a flight because a member of cabin crew is missing. You might have 2 pilots and most of the crew but the flight will still be cancelled, just we hear about it less often. Partly because airlines have plenty of crew on standby and can call them in at a moments notice.

 

[Clip]

Its no different to cancelling a flight because a member of cabin crew is missing. You might have 2 pilots and most of the crew but the flight will still be cancelled, just we hear about it less often. Partly because airlines have plenty of crew on standby and can call them in at a moments notice.

Isnt it a legal requirement for an aircraft to have a minimum amount of cabin crew on board before it can fly? If so then it is quite different because from memory there is no law that states a train must have 2 or more people on it before it can move

 

[XDM]

Not exactly driverless then, is it?!

Given the archaic state of the U.K. rail network I suspect the role of train driving will outlast the jobs of many posters on here, including those technologists who are baying for their replacement by automation...

The same report, either in the international railway journal or railway gazette, also stated that tests are starting on driverless PASSENGER trains on the Dutch main line & a branch line.

 

[XDM]

It was from the IRJ. Lines similar to Southern branches.
ATO trials are to start on the Betuweroute freight line this year.Quintus Vosman

DUTCH infrastructure manager ProRail and rail freight operator Rotterdam Rail Feeding (RRF) have signed an agreement with Alstom to start testing automatic train operation (ATO) on a section of the Betuweroute freight line this year.


The tests will be carried out at Grade of Automation (GoA) Level 2 whereby the locomotive driver will supervise train operation but will not start or drive the train.



The objective of the Betuweroute ATO tests is to demonstrate the operation of a locomotive under ATO on a 100km section of the line between the port of Rotterdam and Valburg CUP yard where automatic shunting will also be tested.

This section of the Betuweroute is already equipped by ETCS levels 1 and 2 which Alstom installed about 10 years ago.

ProRail also plans trials with the driverless operation of passenger trains in the north of the Netherlands on non-electrified regional lines operated by Arriva Nederland, and negotiations are already underway between ProRail, the Province of Groningen, which is the public transport authority, and Arriva. This will be the first test of ATO in passenger traffic on conventional lines which include level crossings.

 

[Domh245]

"ProRail also plans trials with the driverless operation of passenger trains" - so they're in the pipeline, not starting. Worth pointing out however that "Driverless*" Heavy Rail trains will start running across central London in a few months time

*Not quite the same level as those described in the article as I understand that the driver has to press an "ATO start" button to get the train to go.

 

[AlterEgo]

It was from the IRJ. Lines similar to Southern branches.

In what way are they similar?

 

[Bromley boy]

Isnt it a legal requirement for an aircraft to have a minimum amount of cabin crew on board before it can fly? If so then it is quite different because from memory there is no law that states a train must have 2 or more people on it before it can move

Yes, the minimum numbers required is based on either the number of seats or passenger numbers. Having passed the ATPL operational procedures exam (twice and will be doing it again as the exams have timed out ) I really should know!!

 

[XDM]

In what way are they similar?

4ft 8 1/2 inches apart. 130 kph top speed, level crossings. Not dissimilar to Oxted Uckfield, ore to Ashford,although the Southern lines are even simpler & slightly lower speed.

 

[infobleep]

Because the fleets that aren’t getting replaced during the franchise are not being modified and are not suitable for driver control of doors. The new class 710 trains are for the metro area. SWR want a guard on every one of those trains except when one isn’t available in an unplanned situation from what they are saying. They have a legacy RMT agreement from SWT not to bring in DOO so have to tread carefully. Presumably non DOO except in extraordinary circumstances is considered still true to non DOO as the normal method of operation?

If they are so keen for DOO, why not modify the existing fleets then? Or so they simply want DOO when it suits them?

 

[physics34]

I am generally in favour of automation and I don't think it increases unemployment in the long term. However, what you have just described requires a driver therefore it is not driverless!

not sure there should be this race to "driverless" trains..just to save cash and increase "company profits". Of course more automation should and will come on board..and a drivers job may become less important over the next few decades but the idea to have "nobody" in the front of a train should be put shoved away for many a year.

 

[infobleep]

Don't worry the train ran completely safely last night & a thousand men,women & children did not have to wait in the freezing cold for the next train.

The majority of people living in Grenfell Tower sleept perfectly soundly for many nights, without any major safety problems. Then one night it caught fire....

Just because the people on the train were safe that evening and the train didn't wait, doesn't mean it will always be safe every evening! It's a calculated risk perhaps. There have been other calculated risks in the past in life I'm sure and perhaps some of these have come back to haunt people.

Anyway who said the train had to be cancelled? Do you have evidence that it would have been? I don't expect a reply, as unlike some other people on here, who might hold an opposing view, you don't seem engage in the discussion. You seem to prefer statements instead. That is a shame. I respect your right to have a different view but don't agree with your lack of willingness to debate on a discussion forum.

So does anyone else know if the train would have had to be canclled rather than wait? How long would the wait have been? I assume the passengers could have waited on the train. Is that right?

Did the legal agreement actually allow it to run or did someone cause this agreement to be broken? Do we have evidence the agreement wasn't broken vers human error or someone deliberately breaking it. Perhaps someone wasn't trained effectively enough in the new agreement. I mean we hear enough about staff not being trained well enough in ticketing matters. Why should this be any different? It all training or possibly lack of.

 

[Bookd]

If they are so keen for DOO, why not modify the existing fleets then? Or so they simply want DOO when it suits them?

SWR have said time and again that they have no plans for DOO but the RMT choose not to believe them as it suits their strike agenda.

 

[Sprinter153]

SWR have said time and again that they have no plans for DOO but the RMT choose not to believe them as it suits their strike agenda.

This quote from Andy Mellors' most recent letter to passengers sounds like they're planning to introduce DOO to me...

...with proposals that we should work together to agree arrangements to ensure passengers can still get home on the rare occasions that a Guard be unavailable at short notice and a replacement cannot be found.

 

[Domh245]

SWR have said time and again that they have no plans for DOO but the RMT choose not to believe them as it suits their strike agenda.

But they've certainly implied it. I can't see how a train can't "Run under exceptional circumstances without a second member of staff" unless it is DOO* by default (unless the driver only operates it DOO in the event of a missing guard but that seems incredibly unlikely as there would surely be questions over competency in much the same way that if a driver doesn't drive a certain route for a length of time they loose competency over it). And don't forget, once staff become unnecessary for the operation of the railway, they become a nice-to-have, and the first things to go when costs need cutting are the nice-to-haves.

*going by the definition of DOO of the driver being solely responsible for the operations of the train, not the misleading "only member of staff" view that some put forward. Tangentially, I suspect that Mr Mellors is using guard in the sense of "second person on a train" than "safety critical guard" in the letter that @Sprinter153 quotes.

 

[387star]

With regard above postings on driverless technologies (mods should move this to another thread) it seems apt to quote this from the BBC:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-42782287
Complete autonomy unlikely
Although automation is considered to be the future of transport, it is unlikely that driverless trains will ever be completely autonomous.

"I can't ever see it where there is no-one sitting at the front of the train at all," rail journalist Tony Miles told the BBC.

"We prefer to have someone there to press an override button - for example, if rogue vehicles crash on to the train tracks, or people jump in front of trains.

"The driver gets a feeling and can tell long before a computer can.

"Computers will need to become much more intelligent to sense this."

Practical concerns

Driverless train technology already exists - the Docklands Light Railway (DLR) is fully automated - but Mr Miles predicts that it will still take between 30-50 years for the technology to be realised in Europe, because getting an automatic signalling system to work over a long distance is difficult to achieve.

There is also the issue that while it might be easy to design an automated railway line from scratch, upgrading existing lines is more complicated.

"When you try to redesign the big Victorian railways built 150 years ago, it's a lot harder as they were never designed to be automated," Mr Miles said.

"You'd also have to plan a long time ahead about which lines to switch off and when. And in the UK we've got the busiest railway in Europe, so that wouldn't be easy."

 

[XDM]

With regard above postings on driverless technologies (mods should move this to another thread) it seems apt to quote this from the BBC:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-42782287
Complete autonomy unlikely
Although automation is considered to be the future of transport, it is unlikely that driverless trains will ever be completely autonomous.

"I can't ever see it where there is no-one sitting at the front of the train at all," rail journalist Tony Miles told the BBC.

"We prefer to have someone there to press an override button - for example, if rogue vehicles crash on to the train tracks, or people jump in front of trains.

"The driver gets a feeling and can tell long before a computer can.

"Computers will need to become much more intelligent to sense this."

Practical concerns

Driverless train technology already exists - the Docklands Light Railway (DLR) is fully automated - but Mr Miles predicts that it will still take between 30-50 years for the technology to be realised in Europe, because getting an automatic signalling system to work over a long distance is difficult to achieve.

There is also the issue that while it might be easy to design an automated railway line from scratch, upgrading existing lines is more complicated.

"When you try to redesign the big Victorian railways built 150 years ago, it's a lot harder as they were never designed to be automated," Mr Miles said.

"You'd also have to plan a long time ahead about which lines to switch off and when. And in the UK we've got the busiest railway in Europe, so that wouldn't be easy."

Since when have journalists been experts.
The push for no person operation trains is coming from the Far East & the technology salesmen. Engineers I know say it will happen faster than most people think. I wouldn't take a hack journalist's views very seriously.
No person trains are running on very many metros now, & they are barely different from well fenced passenger branch & main lines.

 

[XDM]

Having driven a train or two, I am uneasy about trains with no drivers. But they are all over the place now & expanding. I am worried that, if drivers on Southern & elsewhere resist change, full automation will be brought, despite what the journalist I mentioned above claims. (And by calling him a 'hack' I meant no insult, the few journalists I have met were proud to be called hack, and it even applies to writers paid by the word)
There is little difference between branch lines like Caterham, Epsom Downs,East Grinstead & Uckfield, & lines all over the world that operate with nobody.
My other concern is that by Aslef's pressing for OBS everywhere, they are responsible for recruiting a huge cadre of train attendants who will make it easy to replace drivers when full automation comes in.
If you ran a train company & you did need not a driver on your train who would you keep aboard? - the OBS,insisted upon by ASLEF, of course. Goodbye the drivers.