Gatwick Express Industrial Relations

[TheEdge]

Everyone is going on about the "what if the driver was incapacitated?" question. Even if the driver is not incapacitated in a full on incident the more trained staff available.

I've traveled over that crossing in Norfolk hundreds of times in the last three years, on Sunday I hit a tractor. By the grace of above neither me nor my driver were incapacitated but with two of us there to deal with it the immediate safety and injury duties were covered within 5-10 minutes. With just a driver he would have needed to secure the train, find the injuries and make everything safe alone, all at the time shaken and injured. Trains are safer with two staff, regardless of what happens.

What about all the "non" incidents stopped by guards? How many services would have been cancelled because the driver was shaken by a near miss or change of aspect and refused to work the train if not accompanied by their guard? Inspecting the line? Clearing those people from the doors?

I hope GTR face all hell and support all hell raising by ASLEF and RMT over this.

 

[Agent_c]

I don't mean this in any way as a slight against any driver, who I am sure are all confident, capable drivers...

But lets presume there was an accident, something like a train hitting another vehicle.

Its certainly within the realm of possibility that even if the driver was physically unharmed, the driver may not be in a fit psychological state to conduct an evacuation of the train, or perform whatever other safety duties may required.

This doesn't require any sort of incapacitation, it just requires a horrific event that he gets a front seat, and you can't necessarily predict how someone is going to react until it happens.

Having a second person there, who doesn't get the front seat view, who can do what it takes to ensure that 12 cars full of people are as safe as they can be in that situation. Just seems like good common sense when we're talking about the numbers of people that we are.

 

[IKB]

Everyone is going on about the "what if the driver was incapacitated?" question. Even if the driver is not incapacitated in a full on incident the more trained staff available.

I've traveled over that crossing in Norfolk hundreds of times in the last three years, on Sunday I hit a tractor. By the grace of above neither me nor my driver were incapacitated but with two of us there to deal with it the immediate safety and injury duties were covered within 5-10 minutes. With just a driver he would have needed to secure the train, find the injuries and make everything safe alone, all at the time shaken and injured. Trains are safer with two staff, regardless of what happens.

What about all the "non" incidents stopped by guards? How many services would have been cancelled because the driver was shaken by a near miss or change of aspect and refused to work the train if not accompanied by their guard? Inspecting the line? Clearing those people from the doors?

I hope GTR face all hell and support all hell raising by ASLEF and RMT over this.

Fully agree.

The 'fully incapacitated' question was posed so was answered.

But equally applicable to other emergency incidents as you have demonstrated.

 

[Agent_c]

It is nonsense to say that because drivers are not incapacitated very often, ergo it means trains do not require other members of safety critical staff onboard.

Safety contingencies should be built in for emergencies/times of need, whether they happen once a month, once a year or once a decade etc.

The need for such contingencies should be risk assessed on the potential consequences of an incident, not on the frequency with which they occur.

Look at cost Vs frequency of use in other walks of life:

- Aeroplanes have inflatable safety slides, oxygen masks and other safety kit. Seldom (if ever) used.
- The Fire Brigade at Heathrow airport don't respond to that many plane fires.
- Cars come with kitted with a spare wheel, used once in a blue moon.
- The Queen has a personal police protection team, but hasn't been shot at since the early 1980s.
- The Met discharged firearms on only a couple of occasions last year, yet employ 2K firearms officers.

I'm sure others can come up with a much better list than me.

Would anyone seriously suggest those things should be dispensed with because the need for their use happens only infrequently?

There's a lot short sightedness on this thread that harks back to people's recollection of their own incident free commute, rather than what COULD go wrong.

Emergency evacuation of a 12 car DOO train anyone...?

IIRC Airline Stewards are also safety trained.

 

[ainsworth74]

Out of curiosity, what has changed that now causes this resistance? By which I mean DOO is not a new concept it has been in place now for what? 30 years in some places? Why was BR able to get DOO in place, not necessarily easily but in place, on entirely new routes whilst we're now at a point on the modern railway where even expanding from 10-car to 12-car DOO operation is considered unacceptable and would appear to be settling in for a long and intractable dispute?

Or am I showing my age and it's always been like this when DOO is being rolled out (though I don't recall much other than a few strike days when LO went fully DOO whilst this has the feeling of being likely to be much more contentious)?

 

[The Ham]

But i bet most drivers would prefer there was one

Probably not for most of the time where they have bigger boots, however when they do need it they will do. (Although given the number of people who don't/can't change a wheel and just call out the breakdown company it's probably not as many as it once was).

 

[Carlisle]

I'm not sure what they wish to achieve here, no company can be successful with so much industrial strife going on.

No I agree,of course they can't ,but what else is a company supposed to do if they want to make some changes their union doesn't like and won't negotiate properly about, just roll over and agree to all the unions demands , no successful company is ever run in that way either

 

[TheEdge]

No I agree,of course they can't ,but what else is a company supposed to do if they want to make some changes the union doesn't like and won't negotiate properly about, just roll over and agree to all the unions demands , no successful company is ever run that way either

But there is changes and there is this. Its not like ASLEF or RMT are demanding a rescinding of existing DOO, just no extensions. GTR seem to want to bulldoze everything, one letter out about disciplinary action against drivers and one about a mass "re-employing" of guards.

 

[Daz28]

Wow, are you really are seriously basing safety on the laws of probability?

No form of transport can be guaranteed to be safe under all circumstances. So by definition safety is all about probability. You take the probability of an event occurring, the impact if it does occur, and the cost of preventing it happening and reach a conclusion. Standard risk management practice and probability is a key metric.

We've come a long way from when a man walked in front carrying a red flag and our attitudes to risk have changed as technology has improved and expectations have evolved.

 

[GatwickDepress]

Govia really seem to be determined to lose the goodwill of their entire workforce. My thoughts to anyone with TSGN...

 

[Dave1987]

No form of transport can be guaranteed to be safe under all circumstances. So by definition safety is all about probability. You take the probability of an event occurring, the impact if it does occur, and the cost of preventing it happening and reach a conclusion. Standard risk management practice and probability is a key metric.

We've come a long way from when a man walked in front carrying a red flag and our attitudes to risk have changed as technology has improved and expectations have evolved.

There are certain stations which are known to be 'accidents waiting to happen' but basing things on the laws of probability because there hasn't been an incident yet that would suggest you should wait until someone is injured or nearly injured before doing anything about it!

 

[D1009]

Out of curiosity, what has changed that now causes this resistance? By which I mean DOO is not a new concept it has been in place now for what? 30 years in some places? Why was BR able to get DOO in place, not necessarily easily but in place, on entirely new routes whilst we're now at a point on the modern railway where even expanding from 10-car to 12-car DOO operation is considered unacceptable and would appear to be settling in for a long and intractable dispute?

Or am I showing my age and it's always been like this when DOO is being rolled out (though I don't recall much other than a few strike days when LO went fully DOO whilst this has the feeling of being likely to be much more contentious)?

I think the difference was that when DOO was being rolled out there was a fear for the future of the size of the network, full stop. Now it's gone the other way round, and the union side realises the railway industry is in a privileged position compared to others. If it does come to full blown strike action across the GTR network, I honestly think the union side will have difficulty in getting the support of the general public. Is it the case that 12 car trains run by the same franchise already operate DOO at all of the stations involved in the changes to the GatEx part of it?

 

[Dave1987]

No I agree,of course they can't ,but what else is a company supposed to do if they want to make some changes their union doesn't like and won't negotiate properly about, just roll over and agree to all the unions demands , no successful company is ever run in that way either

You seem to be trying to imply that the unions object to every single change that a TOC tries to bring in which simply isn't true.

 

[ainsworth74]

I think the difference was that when DOO was being rolled out there was a fear for the future of the size of the network, full stop. Now it's gone the other way round, and the union side realises the railway industry is in a privileged position compared to others. If it does come to full blown strike action across the GTR network, I honestly think the union side will have difficulty in getting the support of the general public. Is it the case that 12 car trains run by the same franchise already operate DOO at all of the stations involved in the changes to the GatEx part of it?

Hmm that's very true thinking about it. We are, on just about every metric, in a very much stronger position from passenger numbers to spending on the railway. No longer a railway of managed decline and obsolescence and instead very much a key part of the economy.

 

[HLE]

I think the difference was that when DOO was being rolled out there was a fear for the future of the size of the network, full stop. Now it's gone the other way round, and the union side realises the railway industry is in a privileged position compared to others. If it does come to full blown strike action across the GTR network, I honestly think the union side will have difficulty in getting the support of the general public. Is it the case that 12 car trains run by the same franchise already operate DOO at all of the stations involved in the changes to the GatEx part of it?

I'd imagine it's more the way they've tried to 'force' it through.

And that letter basically says ignore the union. Yeah because most drivers are stupid enough to do that!

 

[Chrisgr31]

Its certainly within the realm of possibility that even if the driver was physically unharmed, the driver may not be in a fit psychological state to conduct an evacuation of the train, or perform whatever other safety duties may required.

This doesn't require any sort of incapacitation, it just requires a horrific event that he gets a front seat, and you can't necessarily predict how someone is going to react until it happens.

Having a second person there, who doesn't get the front seat view, who can do what it takes to ensure that 12 cars full of people are as safe as they can be in that situation. Just seems like good common sense when we're talking about the numbers of people that we are.

Wasnt this refered to in the recent RAIB report on the South Eastern derailment after hitting a herd of cows? Albeit the report doesnt tell us what the Guard did in that incident.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Or am I showing my age and it's always been like this when DOO is being rolled out (though I don't recall much other than a few strike days when LO went fully DOO whilst this has the feeling of being likely to be much more contentious)?

I suspect for those of that are in the know as passengers or staff we are aware of several incidents where staff have been subject to legal action for train dispatch.

We are in society where legal action is more likely so this concerns us.

I also think there is an element of being fed up with staff being cut left right and centre and realising that these rarely result in a better cheaper service.

 

[Antman]

Wow, are you really are seriously basing safety on the laws of probability?
What was the probability of a 170 smashing into a tractor at speed before it happened, considering how many of those crossings happen perfectly safely day in day out?

Well what else would you base it on?

You can't legislate for every possible outcome!

 

[Dave1987]

Well what else would you base it on?

You can't legislate for every possible outcome!

No but you can make sensible decisions and not try and save money because you think the probability of something happening is so small you believe you can get away with it.

 

[TheEdge]

No but you can make sensible decisions and not try and save money because you think the probability of something happening is so small you believe you can get away with it.

This. A million times this. Pilots, at great cost, are taught to land on water. In modern commercial aviation it has only successfully been achieved once, but that once is enough.

Why wait for an accident if it can be prevented?

 

[the sniper]

Hmm that's very true thinking about it. We are, on just about every metric, in a very much stronger position from passenger numbers to spending on the railway. No longer a railway of managed decline and obsolescence and instead very much a key part of the economy.

From what I've read and heard, the NUR response to the threat and implementation of DOO was abysmal for many years. While there was strong local opposition in affected areas, almost on a line by line basis, there was relatively little organisation or proper defence of the grade on a wider scale. ASLEF seem to have put up more of a fight to DOO than the NUR.

I may well be wrong and be doing the folk from back then a disservice, as I wasn't around back then, but from what I've read and heard this is how it seems. It was a different time for the railway back then though so you have to cut them some slack for that at least.

 

[Dent]

No but you can make sensible decisions and not try and save money because you think the probability of something happening is so small you believe you can get away with it.

For that "sensible decision" to actually be sensible, it must be based on consideration of how great the risk is. To do this requires statistics.

 

[HarleyDavidson]

Out of curiosity, what has changed that now causes this resistance? By which I mean DOO is not a new concept it has been in place now for what? 30 years in some places? Why was BR able to get DOO in place, not necessarily easily but in place, on entirely new routes whilst we're now at a point on the modern railway where even expanding from 10-car to 12-car DOO operation is considered unacceptable and would appear to be settling in for a long and intractable dispute?

Or am I showing my age and it's always been like this when DOO is being rolled out (though I don't recall much other than a few strike days when LO went fully DOO whilst this has the feeling of being likely to be much more contentious)?

Because of money. Under BR a driver was paid extra for a shift, I think it was about £9.50 a turn, which in those days was quite a chunk of money, then there was mileage payments as well so if you did a DOO and mileage turn, you could rake in another £6-10 on top of that too, so you can see that in BR days with the wages being what they were, it was quite a lot of money to be made by selling the guards down the river and BR weren't going to say no as it saved them a guards wages.

 

[387star]

I understand C2C are implementing full DOO on 12 cars?

 

[74A]

If British Rail was still existed there would be a lot more DOO by now. One of the reason DOO stopped was each franchise only lasted a few years. It wasn't worth the hassle and expense of putting in DOO as with short franchises you would not get enough savings to make it pay. Now however the new franchises are being let with the commitment to bring in DOO (or DCO its the same thing)

So these companies have to implement DOO or ask the government to change its mind. We know what the government thinks about drivers so I doubt they are worried about upsetting a few guards. There will probably be strikes but I can't see the government backing down.

 

[Dave1987]

For that "sensible decision" to actually be sensible, it must be based on consideration of how great the risk is. To do this requires statistics.

Statistics don't tell the full story though! If decisions on safety purely on statistics then half the safety systems and procedures that exist around the country and around the world would not exist because they are rarely if ever used. So the statistics would say those safety systems and procedures are not needed as what they are there to prevent virtually never happens. That is until someone is injured or killed and people question why the systems and procedures weren't in place. Statistics would make Stratford in East London out to be a fairly safe station, even though it's down as being one of the most likely places to have a dangerous incident happen.

 

[Agent_c]

The idea behind a good safety culture is you prevent the accident from happening the first time, not go "la la la, nobody died yet, we'll wait for a casualty" and then wonder why your business collapses when you do have an incident.

 

[Dent]

Statistics don't tell the full story though! If decisions on safety purely on statistics then half the safety systems and procedures that exist around the country and around the world would not exist because they are rarely if ever used. So the statistics would say those safety systems and procedures are not needed as what they are there to prevent virtually never happens.

Statistics give you the best possible objective understanding, which is necessary in making sensible decisions.

How do you propose to allocating resources to risks without any regard to how great any of those risks are?

Statistics would make Stratford in East London out to be a fairly safe station, even though it's down as being one of the most likely places to have a dangerous incident happen.

What does that sentence even mean?

What does being "down as being one of the most likely places to have a dangerous incident happen" mean if not an equivalent statement to "statistics indicate that is one of the most likely places to have a dangerous incident happen", and hence a complete contradiction of the first part of the same sentence?

 

[Agent_c]

Statistics give you the best possible objective understanding, which is necessary in making sensible decisions.

How do you propose to allocating resources to risks without any regard to how great any of those risks are?

Historical data is just one statistic that is used. You can also look at other information too from destructive testing for instance.

A safety issue adequately identified in destructive testing, and resolved, would show no historical casualties.

 

[Dave1987]

Statistics give you the best possible objective understanding, which is necessary in making sensible decisions.

How do you propose to allocating resources to risks without any regard to how great any of those risks are?

Because you look at what the actual risks are and put procedures in place to mitigate those risks. So you prevent an incident occurring before people become a statistic by getting injured or killed!

What does that sentence even mean?

What does being "down as being one of the most likely places to have a dangerous incident happen" mean if not an equivalent statement to "statistics indicate that is one of the most likely places to have a dangerous incident happen", and hence a complete contradiction of the first part of the same sentence?

It means that the "statistics" would say that Stratford isn't as dangerous as everyone knows it is. It's down as one of ASLEF's top 10 high risk stations due to the volume of people using the station and the narrow island platforms. But because there hasn't been a serious incident there yet, your "statistics" would say it isn't as dangerous. That is until some is injured or killed!

 

[Bletchleyite]

If British Rail was still existed there would be a lot more DOO by now.

I would imagine so. Regional DOO is the norm in many European countries and becoming even more so - often with less safe systems than the UK, e.g. the common German approach relying entirely on door interlock.

The system apparently used by Meridian in southern Germany is intriguing - trains run from Muenchen to Rosenheim where they split - between Muenchen and Rosenheim there are two drivers, so one drives and one guards, then the train splits and reverts to DOO with one driver per train.